United States Office of EPA 100-R-98-002

 Environmental Protection The Administrator January, 1998

 Agency (1601F)

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 MANAGING INFORMATION 

 AS A STRATEGIC 

 RESOURCE:

Final Report And

Recommendations Of The 

Information Impacts Committee

The National Advisory Council For

Environmental Policy and 

Technology (NACEPT)
 United States Office of EPA 100-R-98-002

 Environmental Protection The Administrator January, 1998

 Agency (1601F)

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE

This report and set of recommendations have been written as part of the activities of the

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), a public

advisory committee providing extramural policy information and advice to the Environmental

Protection Agency’s Administrator and other officials of the EPA. The Council is structured to

provide balanced, expert assessment of policy matters related to the effectiveness of the

environmental programs of the United States. This report has not been reviewed for approval by

the EPA and, hence, the contents of this report, and its recommendations, do not necessarily

represent the views and policies of the EPA, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the

federal government, nor does mention of trade names, companies, or commercial products

constitute a recommendation or endorsement for use.
ABSTRACT

The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is a public

advisory committee originally chartered on July 7, 1988. The Council provides recommendations

and advice to the Administrator and other EPA officials on specific topics identified by the

Administrator and Deputy Administrator. NACEPT membership includes senior-level

representatives of a wide range of EPA’s constituents, including: business and industry; academia;

Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal representatives; environmental groups, and

non-profit entities. 

In March, 1996, the EPA Administrator requested that a committee of NACEPT be convened to

provide advice and develop recommendations on the Agency’s current, and proposed, process for

managing its information resources. This request resulted in the formation of the Information

Impacts Committee (IIC) of NACEPT, which was specifically charged with the following:

Review current information requirements and processes, and provide recommendations on how to

effectively position EPA’s information resources to support Community-Based Environmental

Protection (CBEP), as well as many of its new long-term initiatives, including the Common Sense

Initiative (CSI); Performance Partnerships; One-Stop Reporting; and Project XL. The Committee

was specifically asked to address the following:

C How should EPA’s information resources be focused to effectively address

Agency, State, local, and Tribal information requirements as CBEP and the new

Initiatives evolve?

C How should current data collections and systems be enhanced to accomplish the

goals of CBEP and the new Initiatives?

C How can information resources make stronger environmental protection

partnerships?

The committee met several times between April 1996 and September 1997, and the results of

their deliberations can be summarized as follows: If EPA is to succeed in going beyond its

current pollution control-oriented approach to environmental protection, to place-based,

cooperative approaches with its stakeholders, the Agency must:

C Formalize the Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool

C Establish Information Policy Leadership and Coordination on an Agency-wide

Basis

C Integrate Information Across Current Media and Program Divisions

C Provide Broader, More Effective, Public Access to Information

C Assure Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement in Information Policy and

Management
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................. E-1

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1

II. APPROACH ............................................................. 2

III. OVERALL FINDINGS .................................................... 4

A. THE CHALLENGE ................................................. 4

B. INDICATORS OF SUCCESS ......................................... 5

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 8

Recommendation 1: Formalize the Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool .... 9

Findings ....................................................... 9

Recommendations ............................................... 9

Implementation Strategies ........................................ 10

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe ..................... 11

Consequences of Failure to Act .................................... 12

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations ........................ 13

Recommendation 2: Establish Information Policy Leadership and Coordination on an

Agency-wide Basis .............................................. 14

Findings ...................................................... 14

Recommendations .............................................. 15

Implementation Strategies ........................................ 15

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe ..................... 17

Consequences of Failure to Act .................................... 17

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations ........................ 18

Recommendation 3: Integrate Information Across Current Media and Program 

Divisions ..................................................... 19

Findings ...................................................... 19

Recommendations .............................................. 21

Implementation Strategies ........................................ 21
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe ..................... 23

Consequences of Failure to Act .................................... 23

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations ........................ 23

Recommendation 4: Provide Broader, More Flexible, Public Access to Information ... 24

Findings ...................................................... 24

Recommendations .............................................. 25

Implementation Strategies ........................................ 26

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe ..................... 27

Consequences of Failure to Act .................................... 27

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations ........................ 27

Recommendation 5: Assure Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement in Information Policy 

and Management ..................................................... 29

Findings ...................................................... 29

Recommendations .............................................. 29

Implementation Strategies ........................................ 30

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe ..................... 31

Consequences of Failure to Act .................................... 31

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations ........................ 31

ATTACHMENT A — LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ........................ A-1

ATTACHMENT B — SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS .................. B-1

ATTACHMENT C — SPEAKERS, PRESENTERS & PANELISTS .................. C-1
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator E-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March, 1996, the EPA Administrator requested that a committee of the National Advisory

Council for Environmental Policy & Technology (NACEPT) be convened to review current

information requirements and processes, and provide recommendations on how to effectively

position EPA’s information resources to support Community-Based Environmental Protection

(CBEP), as well as many of its new long-term initiatives, including the Common Sense Initiative

(CSI); Performance Partnerships; One-Stop Reporting; and Project XL. The Committee was

specifically asked to address the following:

C How should EPA’s information resources be focused to effectively address

Agency, State, local, and Tribal information requirements as CBEP and the new

Initiatives evolve?

C How should current data collections and systems be enhanced to accomplish the

goals of CBEP and the new Initiatives?

C How can information resources make stronger environmental protection

partnerships?

Between April 1996 and September, 1997, the Information Impacts Committee of NACEPT met

to discuss those issues, and to develop a set of recommendations that would best respond to the

questions posed. As a result of those deliberations, the Committee offered the following findings: 

C The Agency is indeed moving toward defining the information needed to support

its new strategic approaches to environmental protection. It can’t develop the

required information resources, however, unless: 

< EPA successfully establishes information as a strategic mission tool, 

< The public has information to monitor performance, 

< Industry has information to develop prevention options, and 

< All stakeholders have the information required for decision-making.

C Although Current systems have, for the most part, satisfied regulatory

requirements for collecting environmental information and managing the single

media, statute specific programs of the Agency, they were not designed to support

place-based, multi-media, and cross-media approaches to environmental protection

or to fully utilize information as a strategic tool. Current information systems do

not provide sufficient, appropriate, or accurate information on a multi-media basis

to:
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator E-2

< Inform decision-making, 

< Ensure accountability, or 

< Document results and achievements.

Finally, the committee developed five broad recommendations that they firmly believe need to be

implemented if EPA is to succeed in going beyond its current pollution control-oriented approach

to environmental protection, to place-based, cooperative approaches with its stakeholders. Those

recommendations are:

C Formalize the Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool

C Establish Information Policy Leadership and Coordination on an Agency-wide Basis

C Integrate Information Across Current Media and Program Divisions

C Provide Broader, More Effective, Public Access to Information

C Assure Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement in Information Policy and Management

The Committee firmly believes that by accepting and implementing these five recommendations

for establishing IRM as a strategic tool, EPA will succeed in implementing its new mission

approaches.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

1National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, Recommendations for

Comprehensive Information Resources Management, (EPA 270-K-94-002), August 1994

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 1

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology’s (NACEPT’s) August

1994 report to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that “If EPA does not change

its approach to managing information resources, the Agency will fail to implement its new guiding

principles.”1 Since then, the Agency has begun to take significant and important steps to

strategically manage its information resources, such as creating the position of Chief Information

Officer (CIO), initiating the Key Identifiers and One Stop projects, and establishing the Center for

Environmental Information. There remains, however, much to be done to realize the full potential

of information as a strategic tool in accomplishing the Agency’s mission--protecting human health

and the environment. 

In April of 1996, EPA’s Deputy Administrator charged NACEPT’s Information Impacts

Committee (IIC) with reviewing EPA’s strategic information management direction and providing

recommendations to ensure that EPA’s Information Resources Management (IRM) direction

supports the Agency’s evolving approaches to environmental protection.

In January of 1997, the IIC presented its Interim Report to EPA. That report provided

preliminary findings and recommendations encompassing three broad IRM areas: leadership,

organization, and information integration and dissemination. The Deputy Administrator

responded in a letter dated April 14, 1997, requesting that the IIC expand on its preliminary

findings and recommendations, by further:

C Describing the advantages the Agency will derive by implementing the recommendations,

C Providing a vision of success (i.e., how will the Agency know it has succeeded in

implementing the recommendations), 

C Suggesting strategies the Agency might adopt, and 

C Specifying a timeframe for implementation.

This report provides the Agency with the committee’s final recommendations to further the

Agency’s use of information resources as a strategic tool.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

2

Information Impacts Committee of NACEPT Interim Report of Recommendations dated January 24,

1997

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 2

 Why Reform EPA’s Information?

To fully make use of information as a strategic tool, EPA must

ensure that all stakeholders have sufficient information to: 

II. APPROACH

The IIC conducted public meetings, received briefings from EPA staff and discussed information

needs with a wide variety of individuals representing EPA’s stakeholders. Additionally, the

Committee conducted several working meetings which resulted in an interim report2 and this final

report.

The IIC identified three evolving approaches to environmental protection that it would use as a

basis for developing its recommendations on EPA’s IRM strategic direction:

These approaches are intended to go

beyond compliance with pollution

control regulations and achieve real

pollution prevention and source

reduction. It is the opinion of the

Committee that many of these

initiatives will fail unless industry,

government, and the public have

sufficient information to inform

decision-making, document results, and

ensure accountability.

The Committee focused initially but not

exclusively on reviewing the strategic

direction of IRM and its ability to

support place-based approaches. In

preparing its final report, the

Committee also considered the ability

of EPA’s information resources

management to support regulatory

flexibility and cross-media approaches.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 3

The committee also addressed the questions posed to it by the Deputy Administrator in his memo

responding to the Interim Report. These were:

C What advantages will EPA realize by implementing the recommendations?

C How will EPA know it has successfully implemented them (what is the “vision of

success”)?

C What kinds of strategies could EPA adopt?

C Are current EPA initiatives on target?

C What timeframe does the committee envision?

Section III, following, discusses the challenges that confront EPA and the Administration as they

attempt to supplement efforts to protect the environment that are based on the current system of

disjointed single-media statutes, with a more cooperative, community-based, active and forwardlooking approach. We also summarize the indicators of success. 

The last section of the Committee’s report provides its final recommendations. These are based on

the five major recommendations presented in the Interim Report, but they have been developed

further as requested by the Assistant Administrator.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 4

Using Comprehensive Approach Designations

To ensure a comprehensive and inclusive review of the

Agency’s evolving approaches to environmental

protection, the Information Impacts Committee used the

most generic and fundamental designations for the

approaches they are reviewing. Listed below are some of

the specific EPA projects and initiatives implementing

these approaches.

Place-Based Approaches

Community-Based Environmental 

Protection

Ecosystem Protection

Regulatory Flexibility

Project XL

Performance Partnerships

Common Sense Initiative

Environmental Leadership Program

Cross-Media Approaches

Pollution Prevention

Environmental Justice

Environmental Accountability

One-Stop Reporting

Facility-Identifier

III. OVERALL FINDINGS

The Committee finds that the Agency is moving toward defining the information needed to

support its new strategic approaches to environmental protection. However, the Agency cannot

develop the required information resources unless: 

C EPA successfully establishes information as a strategic mission tool, 

C The public has information to monitor performance, 

C Industry has information to develop prevention options, and 

C All stakeholders have the information required for decision-making.

A. THE CHALLENGE

The Committee finds that EPA’s

major programmatic information

systems were designed in an era when

EPA was implementing mediaspecific statutes. They were designed

to support pollution control oriented

program-specific data collection and

reporting requirements. As reporting

requirements evolved thru passage of

various statutes, EPA developed 

individual “stovepipe” systems each

of which supported specific program

objectives. The current systems

have, for the most part, satisfied

regulatory requirements for

collecting environmental

information and managing the

single media, statute specific

programs of the Agency.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 5

EPA’s current systems were not designed, however, to support place-based, multi-media, and

cross-media approaches to environmental protection or to fully utilize information as a strategic

tool. Current information systems do not provide sufficient, appropriate, or accurate information

on a multi-media basis to:

C Inform decision-making, 

C Ensure accountability, or 

C Document results and achievements.

If EPA is to succeed in going beyond its current pollution control-oriented approach to

environmental protection, to place-based, cooperative approaches with its stakeholders, the

Agency must:

C Formalize the Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool

C Establish Information Policy Leadership and Coordination on an Agency-wide Basis

C Integrate Information Across Current Media and Program Divisions

C Provide Broader, More Effective, Public Access to Information

C Assure Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement in Information Policy and Management

The Committee firmly believes that by accepting and implementing these five recommendations

for establishing IRM as a strategic tool, EPA will succeed in implementing its new mission

approaches.

B. INDICATORS OF SUCCESS

The Committee offers the following as indicators/measures of success. EPA will have succeeded

in implementing our recommendations in spirit, as well as fact, if the following indicators/

measures are substantially achieved.

Information Policy Leadership

C The Agency should appoint a permanent, full-time CIO, separating the current

administrative functions, immediately. This position should be comparable to the

Agency’s other senior decision and policy making positions. This recommendation should

be fully implemented in 6 to 12 months.

C The Agency should designate one official to have the authority, responsibility, and mission

to use information as a strategic resource. (This includes having sufficient authority to

integrate data and information through a centralized structure or process.) This

recommendation should be fully implemented in 6 to 12 months.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 6

C The Agency should make permanent selections for all senior IRM positions currently in an

acting capacity. Protracted acting positions send a message of indecision and an

organization in flux. Permanent selections send the message that the authority for making

decisions is there. This recommendation should be fully implemented in 6 to 12 months. 

C The Agency should increase the effectiveness of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC)

for IRM, by:

- Clarifying its role and responsibilities, especially to make policy

- Increasing its authority 

- Ensuring ongoing involvement of its principal members, and 

- Keeping senior executives informed.

The Agency should ensure that the ESC has sufficient time for in-depth, substantial

deliberation. This recommendation should be fully implemented in 6 to 12 months.

Data Integration:

C The Agency should develop an implementation plan within 6 months to:

- Develop an initial basic capability to link its databases, by completing the Key

Identifiers initiative (i.e., Facility ID). A goal of this effort should be: One stop

access for the user.

- Integrate all of the Agency’s databases. The Agency’s ultimate goal should be:

One integrated database, reducing duplication of data while maintaining program

ownership of data.

- Resolve Federal-State barriers to integrating information systems.

Data Accuracy:

C The Agency should develop an implementation plan within 12 months:

- To improve the processes that record data when it is initially submitted by states,

industry, the public, and other stakeholders.

- To ensure corrections to records submitted to the Agency are processed accurately

and in a reasonable timeframe (days versus weeks or longer).

- That has the Agency commit immediately to an ultimate goal of achieving an

integrated information system architecture which ensures that data corrected once

is propagated to all affected data stores.

- To establish ways to submit and ensure accountability for data corrections.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 7

Public Access:

C The Agency should commit immediately to the following actions:

- Reviewing and Selecting Appropriate Public Access Tools 

- Establishing a Public Access Program

- Improving WWW Home Page

- Implementing an “800" Number

- Establishing an Information Ombudsman

- Providing access to information at alternative locations

Stakeholder Involvement:

C The Agency should commit immediately to the following actions:

- Establishing an Environmental Information Users Group (EIUG)

- Developing an Effective Means of EIUG Participation in EPA IRM Planning

- Developing Approach/Mechanism for Receiving and Responding to Suggestions

- Developing a Process for Agency Response to All Recommendations of the EIUG
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 8

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee presents its five major recommendations below, each including an overview of 

findings and a recommended general course of action that EPA should take. These were initially

presented in our Interim Report. In response to the EPA Deputy Administrator’s request, we

have further expanded on the recommendations. In addition to the findings and recommendations,

we discuss:

C Implementation Strategies which EPA may employ to meet the intent as well as the letter

of the recommendations,

C Recommended Timeframes for implementation (where short-term means 90 days to 1 year

and long-term means up to 3 years), 

C Consequences of Failure to Act

C Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations, and

C Indicators of Success, or measures, that will indicate that EPA has implemented the

recommendations.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 9

Recommendation 1: 

Formalize the Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool

Findings 

EPA’s evolving new approaches to environmental protection will require effective use of

information as a strategic resource. This new approach to the Agency’s mission requires

integrated information from across all of the Agency’s programs. EPA's current information

holdings must be used effectively, and plans to require additional reporting or share information

among government agencies must be carefully planned to inform decision-making, achieve results,

and ensure accountability.

Traditionally, information management has been viewed as a “back room” support function, not

as an integral, equally important part of an organization’s resources, nor as a strategic tool for

achieving goals. The Committee finds that this traditional information management model is still

in existence at EPA. EPA has designed systems to support media-specific, “stovepipe” regulatory

programs (i.e. Air, Water, Pesticides, etc.), each with its own back room IRM support function. 

While this model may have been sufficient to support a pollution control approach, it does not

readily lend itself to properly supporting the Agency’s evolving new approaches to environmental

protection. Nor is this model sufficient to support the Agency’s broader multi-media goals. 

EPA has great difficulty in identifying and inventorying its information resources. There is no one

inventory of data, nor is their one clear data architecture. EPA does not readily know what data

and information it has. Similarly, access to that information is fragmented, without a clear path

identified for users to easily achieve access. 

EPA does have some clear examples of how information can be used strategically to support its

emerging approaches. These examples include the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), EnviroFacts,

and Surf Your Watershed, where information is being provided to all the Agency’s constituents to

assist in making informed decisions as they protect their local environment. 

Recommendations

EPA must recognize the need to change its current IRM practices if it is to implement the

Committee’s recommendations and achieve its own stated goals. 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 10

The Committee recommends that the Agency move to formally establish IRM as a strategic

mission tool. Only then will EPA be able to meet the goals of place-based, cross-media, and

regulatory flexibility to inform decision-making, assure accountability, and achieve results. To be

a strategic mission tool, information management must be officially recognized as a valued

program in the Agency. Further, strategic use of information must become an integral part of the

Agency’s normal way of doing business, not merely a support function or a series of separate

initiatives. The Committee believes that an organization needs to be established for the sole

purpose of advancing information as a strategic mission tool. Information is the tool that can

help paint a holistic picture of the environmental health of a place, community, or ecosystem; and

it can empower all stakeholders to make more informed environmental decisions. A critical

element of this effort must include EPA assuring more accurate information, at all levels

(including locational information) for use in analytical, access and dissemination tools.

Implementation Strategies

The Committee offers the following strategies for EPA consideration. While there are many

potential alternative approaches, the following strategies offer a feasible, straight-forward

approach consistent with the intent, as well as the letter, of our recommendations.

Recognize Need To Institutionalize Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool

EPA should issue an immediate statement recognizing the need to change its overall approach to

managing information resources. This policy-level statement should clearly express the Agency’s

new vision and direct the efforts of all EPA staff towards achieving it. Information systems

should inform decision-making, ensure accountability, and document achievements as well as

results.

Reallocate Resources

EPA must commit staff, assign responsibilities, and reallocate resources to this effort. The initial

announcement should be immediately followed by revised delegations of authority to

organizational components, designation of responsible officials, and the necessary budget

documents to reallocate current fiscal year funds, update spending plans, and request funding for

future years.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 11

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe

Action Timeframe

1.0 Recognize Need to Institutionalize Use of Information

as a Strategic Mission Tool.

Immediate

2.0 Commit Staff, Assign Responsibilities, and Reallocate

Resources.

Short-Term

3.0 Commit to Changes

3.1 Inventory/Architecture for EPA Data Long Term

3.2 IRM Program with Senior Executives having

 Responsibility & Authority to Change Practices

Short Term

3.3 Senior Line Managers take Formal Responsibility

 For Their Portion of IRM Program & Commit to

 Agency’s IRM Program 

3.31 AA’s Institutionalize Agency IRM Issues Short Term

3.32 AA’s Accountable for Meeting Agency’s IRM 

 Secondary Use Goals

Short Term

3.33 Make Part of AA’s Performance Agreements Short Term

4.0 Communities/Public have Integrated & Useful Access

to EPA’s information, including:

 o Facility Basics

 o Compliance/Permit Information

 o Emissions Data

 o Decision processes that affect the public (panels, 

 studies, permits, project start dates, etc.)

 o Sufficient documentation to verify reported 

 information

 o CBEP Tools and Case Studies

 o EPA Grantmaking Opportunities

 o EPA Information Indexes and Directories

Long Term
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 12

Consequences of Failure to Act

Loss of Leadership Role

EPA has traditionally been viewed as a key leader, policy-maker, and innovator in the

environmental community. Although that is a role EPA believes should be shared with states,

communities and environmental organizations, EPA is in danger of losing the role altogether. 

EPA still needs to lead at the national level. But it is being perceived as abrogating more and

more of that role, especially where information management is concerned. This is especially true

at the state level, where states are taking the initiative not because they want to, but because they

must fill the vacuum they perceive in information access, dissemination and management. An

example is the States of Colorado and Utah, who are bringing geographic information and

mapping capabilities to the public over the Internet. They are integrating health, science, media,

and exposure data in ways that are more meaningful to local communities. Yet, those tools are

not nationally available.

EPA also risks losing credibility with all of its stakeholders. Many of them, already frustrated by

what they believe to be redundant, duplicative, and costly reporting requirements, are skeptical of

efforts aimed at streamlining reporting requirements, especially since they perceive EPA’s IRM

processes as fragmented. Industry’s belief that no one Agency voice speaks to, and for, IRM

issues, makes it much more difficult for them to buy in to streamlining efforts.

Loss of Opportunity to Develop Effective Standards

Another major risk area is in the development of information standards. Although EPA has

worked hard to develop information standards, these standards have not been institutionalized. 

Efforts such as Key Identifiers, Data Registry, and others, have been in the “works” for years,

without formal and complete Agency commitment. If EPA does not provide strong leadership,

national standards may never become a reality and the end result may be one standard for each

state, with the Agency having to grapple with 50 different standards. Stakeholders such as the

states do not stand still and wait for long. They fill the void perceived and develop tools

internally. The Committee believes that individual, and conflicting, state standards may begin to

emerge very soon unless EPA acknowledges its responsibilities and becomes proactive in

implementing those standards. Development of the necessary standards should be done on an

agency-wide basis and in conjunction with any corresponding Federal Geographic Data

Committee (FGDC) activities.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 13

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations

Formalizing the use of information as a strategic mission tool will go a long way to providing the

Agency with the structure needed to support its vision of stakeholder empowerment, burden

reduction, streamlining, and “place-based” environmental protection. One IRM voice, speaking

for the Agency, will strengthen its credibility with stakeholders, and will better position the

Agency to succeed as it continues its efforts to:

C Streamline environmental reporting for facilities, 

C Better serve the information needs of secondary users, 

C Move beyond remediation to pollution prevention, and

C Engage all stakeholders in more effective environmental decision-making. 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 14

Recommendation 2: 

Establish Information Policy Leadership and Coordination on an Agency-wide Basis

Findings

The Committee finds that integrated information -- a key tool for the Agency’s placed-based,

cross-media, and regulatory flexibility approaches -- will not be possible unless one person in the

agency is charged with managing information resources as his/her sole responsibility. The

Committee commends EPA for establishing a CIO prior to enactment of the requirement in the

Information Technology Management Reform Act . The Agency’s CIO is charged, however,

with overseeing a vast range of other administrative responsibilities in addition to managing

information resources. 

Insufficient Senior Management Attention to Information

It is the opinion of the Committee that EPA senior management has paid insufficient attention to

the development and use of information as a strategic resource. Keeping the CIO in an “Acting”

capacity, as well as keeping administrative responsibilities as part of the function of that office,

has impeded the institutionalization of the CIO function within EPA. The CIO’s duties and

responsibilities currently share time, attention, and resources with the Agency’s administrative

functions. EPA, to this day, lacks a senior manager with the appropriate authority, and sole

responsibility for managing an effective agency-wide information resources program. There is still

no institutionalized, single point of contact for management of information. 

The CIO’s policy and authority base has not yet been authoritatively institutionalized in EPA. The

Committee believes that by implementing a strong IRM structure and permanent CIO position,

the Agency will send a message to its constituents, and the public, that it is truly committed to

managing its information and recognizing its importance in promoting effective environmental

protection. 

Headquarters Senior IRM Officials’ (SIRMOs) Responsibilities Should Be More Uniform,

Consistent, and Authoritative

The Committee finds that the headquarters SIRMOs lack clear, uniform job descriptions and

performance expectations. In too many cases, individuals assigned to that role are, in fact, not

senior managers, and are seldom viewed as the key IRM officials by their respective AA's. The

roles, responsibilities, and levels of authority vary from AA-ship to AA-ship. Very few SIRMOs

can speak, authoritatively, for their AA-ship, where information management is concerned. Each 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 15

Program Office needs to have a clear single point of authority and responsibility regarding their

IRM policies, plans and technology.

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that a new organization headed by a full-time, permanent CIO be

charged solely with ensuring the delivery and management of the information required to

accomplish the Agency’s mission. This is essential for ensuring that the Agency will be able to

move beyond stovepipe systems to provide integrated information for the Agency’s new

approaches. EPA must commit, organizationally, to establishing the appropriate leadership with

the authority and responsibility for positioning IRM to be the strategic mission tool it should be.

If the Agency is going to use information to serve a wider range of stakeholders and better

coordinate programmatic and policy direction, it must establish a focus for Agency leadership.

EPA must establish an organization lead by someone with the confidence of the Administrator,

who would carry out a core, Agency-wide mission. 

Implementation Strategies

The Committee offers the following strategies for EPA consideration. While there are alternative

approaches, these strategies offer a feasible, straight-forward approach consistent with the intent,

as well as the letter, of our recommendations.

Recognize Need to Change IRM Practices

EPA should develop and issue an immediate statement recognizing the need to change the overall

approach to managing information resources. This policy-level statement should clearly express

the new overall vision, direct the efforts of all EPA staff towards achieving the vision, and

reallocate assignments, responsibilities, and resources.

Demonstrate Commitment to Change

The Committee recommends that EPA’s Administrator and Senior Leadership:

C Develop an Inventory of Existing Data Resources - Prepare a comprehensive directory

of operational systems, including basic descriptive information (similar to the Information

Systems Inventory), contact person, and description of the data the systems contain. 

Provide specific information on how the data can be accessed.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 16

C Develop an Overall Information and Data Architecture - Develop a high-level

information Architecture that would identify the overall types of information which EPA

currently has, or should have, to meet its overall responsibilities. The Committee notes

that EPA's statutory mandates may not authorize it to collect and maintain all of the

information needed to support its evolving approaches to environmental protection. EPA

may eventually need to seek Congressional approval. In addition, EPA should develop a

Data Architecture in sufficient detail to serve as a guiding resource for systems planners,

engineers, and developers.

C Implement an IRM Program With Senior Executives Having the Responsibility and

Authority to Change Practices - EPA should design and implement an overall IRM

Program that includes effective senior executive involvement. In particular, the Executive

Steering Committee for IRM charter must be strengthened and expanded. The ESC

should expand its oversight beyond its own initiatives and projects to include planning and

oversight to all Agency systems development and enhancement efforts. The ESC should

be charged with review and approval of plans, oversight of budget, project oversight, and

overall coordination.

The membership of the ESC should also reflect its enhanced role. It should be chaired by

the CIO, and only Committee Principals should have voting and decision-making

authority. 

C Assign the CIO and SIRMOs the Responsibility and Authority to Coordinate IRM

and Related Initiatives - Under the oversight of the ESC, the CIO and SIRMOs must

have the responsibility, and authority, to coordinate agencywide IRM and information

systems efforts on a daily basis. This authority should include being able to require status,

schedule, and cost reporting by project managers. They should exercise oversight of

obligations and spending, review and approve requests for transfers of budgetary

authority, and regularly inform the ESC of status and progress.

C Ensure Senior Level Decision Makers Take Formal Responsibility for Their Portion

of the IRM Program - Assistant Administrators must commit to achieving the Agency’s

IRM goals and objectives. Each AA must implement agency-wide IRM policy within their

own program. Each must be held accountable for meeting agency IRM goals. Each AA's

Performance Agreement should contain IRM goals and objectives. Finally, each AA

should actively participate in Agency IRM planning.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 17

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe

Action Timeframe

1.0 Recognize Need to Change IRM Practices Immediate

2.0 Demonstrate Commitment to Change

2.1 Develop an Inventory of Existing Data Resources Short Term

2.2 Develop an Overall Information and Data 

 Architecture

Long Term

2.3 Implement an IRM Program with Senior Level 

 Decision Makers Having the Responsibility and 

 Authority to Change Practices

Short-Term

2.4 Assign the CIO And SIRMOs the 

 Responsibility and Authority to Coordinate IRM and 

 Related Initiatives

Short-Term

2.5 Senior Line Managers Assigned Formal 

 Responsibility for Their Portion of the IRM Program

Short-Term

2.6 Form the EIUG and Involve at each Stage Ongoing

Consequences of Failure to Act

The Committee believes that several major consequences will follow a failure to act on the above

recommendations. Those consequences include: 

Failure to Develop an Effective Infrastructure

The Agency will fail to develop and effective IRM policy, planning, and management

infrastructure to support achievement of its goals. While the Agency may be able to pursue a

individual initiatives such as CBEP, Project XL, and Reinvention, it will remain unable to

effectively coordinate or mandate efforts across media and programs. This will result in a failure

to properly coordinate the planning, development, and execution of new systems and databases

across those media and programs, and a failure to effectively provide cross-media information to

the public.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 18

Poor Communication

EPA has publicly committed to implementing initiatives and efforts that will foster cross-media

and streamlining (CBEP, One-Stop Reporting, Reinvention, etc.) Without the proper

infrastructure, the Agency may be perceived as unwilling to focus efforts on the real problems of

information access, dissemination and management. This may, in turn, lead to loss of credibility

with the Agency’s constituents. EPA must be perceived as willing to “Walk the Talk” in building

a solid foundation for managing information strategically.

IRM Fragmented

Without a solid and empowered management infrastructure, the Agency will continue it’s

fragmented approach to managing its information. Stovepipe systems will continue to be viewed

as the Agency’s primary information base, and the inefficiencies and duplicative efforts currently

plaguing the Agency’s IRM process will continue. Reporting and management burdens to the

Agency, Industries, and the public, will also continue. And, perhaps most importantly, EPA's

culture will not change. Information will continue to be seen as a “back room” operation and

process.

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations

By implementing this recommendation, EPA will be taking a major step toward establishing an

effective infrastructure for managing its information resource. It will assist in establishing a solid

IRM foundation that can clear the way to:

C Institutionalize current and future initiatives into each of the Agency’s Program Offices;

C Delegate Implementation of initiatives effectively;

C Facilitate and increase public confidence in accessing and making use of the Agency’s

information;

C Reduce reporting and IRM support burdens; and,

C Reduce internal politics/turf protection regarding implementation of IRM efforts.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 19

Recommendation 3: 

Integrate Information Across Current Media and Program Divisions

Findings

Throughout the many dialogs between this Committee and EPA representatives, a clear message

emerged that EPA does not know the full inventory of data it currently has. Existing systems are

not clearly identified, and the Agency’s Information Systems Inventory is not very accurate, or

complete. Most systems listed are only briefly described, with no detailed description of the types

of information they contain. Currently, the Agency does not have one integrated, comprehensive

inventory of information that users can go to.

The Committee also found that most data collection efforts in EPA are program and/or media

specific, and most of EPA’s systems are maintained on a media-by-media or program-by-program

basis. Although historically the reasons for these systems’ separation by media are rooted in

legislation and other legitimate mandates, the current reality is that very few of these systems

currently lend themselves to integration. Yet EPA’s evolving place-based approaches require

integration. EPA has been candid in recognizing that most of its systems cannot easily (if at all)

integrate its information across various media, or by facility, locality, or chemical on an ongoing

operational basis without considerable expense or questionable quality. EnviroFacts is an example

of an initial step to integrate existing information and make it readily accessible to interested

parties, yet this example has required the development of a “front-end” system to bring data from

various systems together and does not truly integrate the data.

EPA's current information resources are not very well positioned to support the Agency's desire

to go beyond media specific efforts to the more holistic cross-media, community-based efforts. 

The Agency’s executives and program leadership have only limited knowledge of the overall data

holdings of the Agency. The Agency’s stakeholders have even less knowledge or access to that

information. The lack of meta data (information about data quality, sources, ownership, etc.) is a

pervasive general weakness of the agency's IRM program. This, coupled with the program

specific nature of EPA systems, makes it very difficult for any interested party to obtain the

information needed from EPA.

In its discussions with both EPA representatives and users at the state, local government, tribal,

industry, and community levels, the Committee also found that EPA currently has a very poorly

designed data collection process in place. Because the Agency’s systems are separated by media

and/or program, those charged with the burden of reporting and/or collecting the data are

increasingly faced with the following issues:
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 20

C Reporting and Collection Burdens Continue to Increase - Industries and Delegated States

both complain of increased burden in reporting and collection of data as requirements

change or increase. This translates to increased costs and hours in fulfilling reporting

requirements that could be drastically reduced by one means of reporting without reducing

necessary information for environmental protection.

C Correction of Errors, Across Individual Systems Requiring Like Data, is Virtually

Impossible - As data is reported, and collected, there exist any number of ways for data to

be erroneously submitted. Once an error is stored in one or more of the Agency’s

systems, making corrections to all those systems is an exercise in frustration and futility. 

There is no simple way to ensure corrections are made to all possible systems.

C Facility Identification, Across the Agency’s Systems, is Extremely Difficult - Each system

has its own way of identifying a facility, with no clear way of cross-referencing, or

uniquely identifying it. EPA’s efforts at implementing a Facility Id standard have been

extremely slow and, to-date, ineffective.

C Data Duplication - To the extent there is data duplication, the current fragmented systems

make it very difficult to identify duplicative data. It is a problem EPA needs to address

quickly.

C Data Processing Costs Continue to Increase on all Sides - Duplicative collection,

reporting, and processing of data results in increased costs for all parties. Many industries

complain of spending increasingly large sums of money and resources to meet all the

reporting requirements.

C A Complete Facility Picture is Difficult or Impossible to Construct - Because data is

maintained by individual programs in the Agency, crossing media to compile information

across system lines is a costly, time-consuming, and virtually impossible task. As

approaches such as CBEP evolve, and as both the Agency and its constituents continue to

develop more holistic needs such as watershed status, trends, etc., information

management efforts to support them can be increasingly more costly and ineffective.

C Industry’s Environmental Management and Understanding Can Be Fragmented -

Meeting the Agency’s reporting requirements has never been a simple task for industries. 

Individual reporting requirements force industries to review, separately, what they need to

report and to manage their reporting processes separately. The current reporting

requirements do not lend themselves to promoting a more holistic management process

that would have industries focusing more effort at prevention.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 21

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that EPA develop an Information Architecture that would address

information needs across media, and other boundaries, in a comprehensive fashion. The Key

Identifiers and One-Stop Reporting Initiatives are a start at making the appropriate connections,

but EPA senior management must act forcefully to move them forward. This will require

partnership with the states and other stakeholders to establish a national facility registry. EPA’s

information holdings must be restructured to permit true data integration and to enable the public

to gain access to it.

EPA should: 

C Link existing databases by location and other key identifiers, 

C Implement One-Stop reporting, 

C Integrate and reengineer the process of data collection, and

C Develop an integrated facility permitting process.

Implementation Strategies

The Committee offers the following suggestions regarding implementation of this alternative:

Establish a Data Architecture

EPA should establish a data architecture as the first critical step to implement this

recommendation. The architecture should focus on integration of data, reduction of duplication

and improved data quality. The architecture should also provide a mechanism to bring issues and

initiatives together.

Integrating information across media, programs, and organizational components will not be an

easy task, but major improvements are possible for relatively modest investments. The analysis

that will be required should be undertaken promptly, pursued vigorously, and properly provided

with needed resources and management support. EPA IRM staff must assess the current and

emerging information needs of the various stakeholders groups. This analysis must have the

support of the Agency’s highest levels, and must be driven down the Agency’s hierarchy as efforts

progress. The analysis must not be allowed to become bogged down in excessive detail, or

delayed by assertions of excessive “uniqueness” by programs or interest groups.

The architecture should be both a “logical” (depicting relationships within the model) and

“physical” (depicting database structure). The logical data model should identify the major
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 22

entities (persons, places, or things about which information is being gathered), such as facilities,

measures of environmental quality, or local jurisdiction, and how those entities relate to each

other. The physical model will address the location, structure, access methods and other

characteristics of the database(s). It should be noted that a logically integrated database, if

properly thought out, does not need to be physically resident on a single computer, be part of the

same system, or be managed by the same people.

The architecture should include a logical and physical data model in which the programs use data

stored in a core database, not their own isolated databases. For example, the IDEA and

EnviroFacts databases would be merged. The systems would not change ownership, nor would

the responsibility for basic data accuracy and integrity. What would change is that the data would

be standardized, catalogued, reconciled, cleaned up, collected more efficiently and have a more

standard, less onerous reporting cycle.

The Administrator should commit the Agency to this effort immediately and the CIO should take

an active, personal role in directing and managing this effort.

As a first step, the Agency must develop a comprehensive and realistic Transition Plan. The CIO

should personally manage the development of the plan, as well as its implementation. EPA should

also establish a permanent funding base controlled by the ESC, not the IRM staff. The Working

Capital Fund may provide a ready mechanism for doing this.

Establish Key Identifier Standards and Definitions

An essential first step is to come to closure on, and issue, the major Key ID standards: facilities,

organizations, chemicals, and location. The latter two (CAS Number and Latitude/Longitude)

have been determined, but effort and decision making is needed on the first two. EPA has been

developing a system that relates facilities to their various identifiers in current systems (the

Facilities Index System (FINDS)). Full implementation of the facility key identifier initiative

would result in a major reduction of duplicate facility information at EPA. More importantly,

users will be able to find out all that EPA knows about a particular facility.

Promulgate Data Standards

Once the key ID standards have been established, EPA should promptly disseminate the standards

to state environmental protection and health agencies, local government agencies, industry

groups, environmental activist groups, and other interested parties. The standards should be

published in the Federal Register, posted on EPA’s Worldwide Web site, and publicized in

newsletters, journals, and the press.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 23

Transition to New Architecture

The Agency must transition quickly to the newly defined target architecture. Immediate actions

should include:

C Development of accurate meta-data for existing stovepipe systems.

C Initiation of projects to develop the target databases,

C Development of interim capabilities to cross-reference or merge data from legacy systems,

pending completion of the development projects, and

C Data purification efforts, to ensure that the new systems do not inherit errors.

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe

Action Timeframe

1.0 Establish Data Architecture Long-Term

2.0 Establish Key Identifier Standards and Definitions Short-Term

3.0 Promulgate Data Standards Short-Term

4.0 Transition to New Architecture Long-Term

Consequences of Failure to Act

Failure to implement the recommendations will result in increasing difficulty in EPA achieving its

stated Agency goals and objectives, as well as its IRM vision.

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations

By implementing the recommendations, EPA will position itself and its stakeholder community to

make major progress towards the new environmental management paradigm.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 24

Recommendation 4:

Provide Broader, More Flexible, Public Access to Information

Findings

The Committee consistently received one message from EPA constituencies: They all need ready

access to information 

They all need ready access to information despite their varying degrees of technological

sophistication, abilities, and capabilities. With some citizens and concerned groups lacking

sophisticated computer skills, up-to-date equipment, and, in some cases, even reliable telephone

services, the Committee finds that there are serious access and equity issues inherent in the use of

today’s technology and that a range of information access options are needed.

By providing spatial data and analytical tools the Agency is strategically sharing information and

providing a much needed framework for users to analyze the complex relationships within their

communities. Information such as demographics, land use, wetlands, and watershed data support 

assessment of a variety of environmental issues including water quality, pollutant loadings and

emergency planning. Despite its initial efforts, the Agency does not yet have sufficiently accurate

information to support spatial analysis on a national basis, without extensive quality assurance and

quality control.

The Committee notes that EPA efforts to improve access to data, while plentiful, have often been

sporadic and incomplete. Initiatives vie with each other for attention and resources. Many of

EPA’s constituents believe EPA has a tendency to pursue the "initiative du jour" approach.

Access to data is often fragmented, convoluted, or both. Those seeking information must first

identify the program office which might be responsible for the data sought. Even then, once the

appropriate office has been identified, the user must track down whoever on the staff knows, in

detail, the system and how the data can be obtained. The Committee does recognize that EPA

has made major strides in improving access through systems like EnviroFacts and Surf Your

Watershed. But these examples also support our basic finding: the data made available is

collected and made available by individual Agency programs, and is piecemeal. Although efforts

such as these have been positive and useful, an EPA-wide assessment, plan, and action is needed

more. No single, one point of contact currently exists in the Agency to assist users as they try to

identify, and access data and information.

Vigorous and thorough implementation of the Government Information Locator System (GILS)
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 25

process is important. Users seeking access to EPA information should, in principle, have equal

access no matter how they choose, or are able, to communicate with the Agency. Individuals/

Organizations should have the option of receiving data electronically, via telephone, paper, by

mail, or over the counter. Just as EPA's data is fragmented, so also is public access. There is no

single point of contact regarding public access issues, needs, or initiatives. 

No one, single manager is in charge of public access processes or assistance. While the CIO may

have an important role, the systems and initiatives supporting access are often not under the CIO's

control; rather, many are program specific initiatives. For example, the data provided via

EnviroFacts is often limited to what programs offer.

Additionally, a structured data quality process does not exist, nor does it provide a suitable means

for correcting inaccurate/incorrect data. Therefore, EPA risks providing incorrect or outdated

information to its stakeholders.

Public access to information means more than just providing raw data. Recipients of the

information need to know the context of the data and may need assistance in its interpretation.

EPA should provide the information in ways that anticipate, to a degree, the questions which

users are asking.

EPA does not provide adequate meta-data for available data, to users. Meta-data (data about the

data) is needed so that interested parties can assess the usefulness, likely accuracy, time period,

source, and format of the data.

The Committee acknowledges that EPA 's recent establishment of a Center for Environmental

Information and Statistics (CEIS) could be a major step in the right direction. If properly

implemented, it could provide a needed focal point and could be used to support the development

of the necessary processes we have identified. The Committee cautions EPA, however, that it

must develop the needed support processes and infrastructure as soon as possible, preferably

before the CEIS opens its doors, if this Center is to be effective.

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that EPA explore all of the various ways in which information

products can be distributed, including the Worldwide Web, an ‘800 number’ system, libraries and

information centers, and partnerships with state and local government, interest groups, and others.

EPA must recognize the access and equity issues inherent in the use of today’s technology and

provide a range of information access options. When providing information, EPA must be able to

cross media boundaries, link data using key identifiers, clearly define and characterize the

information, and appropriately safeguard Privacy Act and proprietary information. 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 26

Because the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) process is cumbersome and expensive, and

because there are more effective alternatives available and emerging, it should be considered a last

resort for providing information.

Implementation Strategies

The committee provides the following recommendations for improving access to information:

C Review best available tools -- for searching or requesting information. EPA should

select and provide those that are simple, easy to use, and effective.

C Provide an electronic link — a link to key information resources can be incorporated in

EPA’s home page. That link should be visible and understandable, and it should be on

EPA’s home page, and placed such that it shows on the computer screen without having

to page or scroll down or to the right.

C Provide an ‘800 number’ — so that those seeking information have a highly visible,

publicized first stop. This link should also follow through with requests, and be considered

the primary, single point of contact for initial inquiries. 

C Provide access to information at alternative locations — such as state offices, other

federal offices with environmental responsibilities, libraries, schools, community groups,

or churches, for communities which may lack access to automation.

C Provide consistent access -- to information regardless of how the information is

requested (Internet, “800" number, library, community outreach, etc.)

C Integrate effective mapping and other visualization tools — including

software tools, library functions, and user training. 

C Publish data in the form of maps — by making use of emerging Internet

capabilities.

C Provide multi-lingual support — for Citizen Outreach and Environmental Equity

efforts.

C Improve data quality — by providing users with the opportunity to offer corrections to

data.

The committee also recommends the following strategies for making information more available

to the public:
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 27

C Provide information on Pollution Prevention alternative technologies -- including

zero-discharge options and clean-up technologies, organized by industry, chemical, type of

process, and other relevant categories.

C Provide saturation data -- the whole human and ecological framework -- from the

currently diverse data sources, for communities (including states and other agencies.)

C Provide grants information -- in a much more timely and flexible manner. Applicants

for grants should be allowed sufficient time to prepare careful and thoughtful responses.

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe

Action Timeframe

1.0 Review and Select Tools Short-Term

2.0 Establish Public Access Program

2.1 Improve WWW Home Page Short-Term

2.2 Implement “800" Number Short-Term

2.3 Provide access to information at alternative locations Long-Term

3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program and

Standards established with a feedback loop that works.

Long-Term

4.0 Manager of Public Access Established Long-Term

5.0 Get Feedback From Data Users Ongoing

Consequences of Failure to Act

If EPA does not implement this recommendation, it will fail to follow through on the Vision that

has been publicized in its IRM plan. As a second, but still highly important impact will be that

EPA will lose credibility...the public may ultimately perceive EPA as “Talking the Talk” but not

“Walking the Talk”.

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations

Public access to environmental and health information is needed as a major way to achieve the

Administration’s goals of reducing reliance on coercive, regulatory, and punitive approaches to

environmental protection, while expanding the role and capabilities of local communities to assess
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 28

and protect their “places”. Those who live and work in a local community, including business

owners, can not be expected to become effective participants in preventing environmental

problems if, in order to do that, they must become experts in EPA’s systems, invest huge amounts

of time and resources searching for information, or can not readily understand the data accessible

to them.

Similarly, the Agency needs to encourage the move towards prevention rather than remediation

by better informing decision-making. All stakeholders need information on the ecological,

economic, and health consequences of their own, and social, decisions. EPA and its partners must

work together to pool the information each has and make it available to all stakeholders to

promote a common understanding of the facts, support a democratic debate on the issues, and

influence environmental decision-making.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 29

Recommendation 5:

Assure Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement in Information Policy and

Management

Findings

The Committee finds that there are new and challenging information issues facing EPA, and the

Agency needs the help of its stakeholders in addressing them. EPA has a broad range of users of

its information tools, and it clearly impacts many stakeholders through its policies and

implementation. Involvement of stakeholders through NACEPT and other advisory vehicles, as

well as State representation on the Agency’s Executive Steering Committee, have proven useful. 

However, there is no formal, established, and recognized method for ongoing stakeholder

involvement, beyond the States. 

The Committee points out that there is no formal forum for stakeholder involvement in EPA

information management despite new mandates from the Government Performance & Results Act

(GPRA) to involve interested stakeholders. The Agency should develop such a forum, so that all

types of users are offered the opportunity to participate. This should be an ongoing body and

process. Such a body would encourage users to be frank, identify needed actions and

improvements, and candidly express their views.

EPA also does not have a feedback loop for public access. Those wishing to comment on how

data is provided, submit requests, or report problems have no way to provide that information to

the originators of the data.

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that EPA assure ongoing constructive engagement of all

stakeholders in the development, implementation, and evaluation of new information policies and

mechanisms. 

EPA should establish an on-going information user group, to include representation of major

stakeholders. This should be open to all current and potential users of EPA information (the

public, regulated industry, state and local governments, public health agencies, etc.) These

constituents must be involved on an ongoing basis. EPA should establish a broad-based

information “Users’ Group” to provide regular constructive advice, feedback from stakeholder

constituencies, and reactions to proposed actions and initiatives.
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 30

Implementation Strategies

The committee offers the following suggestions regarding the implementation of this

recommendation:

Establish a standing working group to form the initial core of the stakeholder Users Group. This

working group can be recruited from current active participants in programmatic systems user or

advisory groups, other advisory groups, and members of advisory bodies such as this Committee. 

Eventually, EPA can recruit from the stakeholder community, being careful to insure that this

Users Group includes representatives of all types of stakeholders.

The Users Group should be made an effective forum for participation and advice to EPA. The

Agency should consider various means of supporting them, including:

C Worldwide Web home page linked to EPA's, states', industry and other pages.

C Lotus Notes discussion database

C Supporting a Worldwide Web list server

C Publishing a periodic newsletter.

As previously stated, EPA should bear in mind that stakeholders may lack sophisticated

automation and even, at times, basic telephone service.

Finally, if this Users Group is to be helpful to EPA, the Agency must respond promptly to its

recommendations, suggestions, issues, or advice on systems modifications or new development.

As a supplementary recommendation, we observe that EPA should consider investing in, and

supporting, existing information dissemination efforts of other stakeholder groups. Taking

advantage of what already exists is a means of reducing duplication, ensuring inclusion of a

broader range of stakeholders, and becoming an equal partner rather than always being the leader. 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator 31

Measures of Success & Implementation Timeframe

Action Timeframe

1.0 Establish Stakeholder Environmental Information

Users Group (EIUG)

Immediate

2.0 Involve EIUG in IRM Policy and Planning Long Term

3.0 Respond to all EIUG Suggestions

3.1 Develop Approach/Mechanism for Receiving and

Responding to Suggestions

Immediate

3.2 Respond to all EIUG Suggestions Ongoing

Consequences of Failure to Act

If EPA does not implement this recommendation, its credibility with its stakeholders will continue

to suffer, and it will be losing the opportunity to improve efficiency, lower costs, and expand input

from them. 

Furthermore, failure to act on this recommendation will deprive EPA, and its stakeholders, the

benefits that would have accrued from an effective advisory body, including:

C Improved ability to meet stakeholder information needs,

C Improved stakeholder understanding of policies and decisions,

C Improved management of information as a resource, and

C More accurate data.

Benefits of Implementing the Recommendations

By implementing this recommendation, EPA can expect to benefit from the input stakeholders can

provide. Each perspective is unique. National concerns and perspectives vary from Local

concerns and perspectives, and from International concerns and perspectives. Each can provide

EPA with insight not readily available within the Agency. 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator A-1

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Chair: Thomas S. Davis

President & CEO

Thomas Davis & Associates

Murray Hill, New Jersey

Patricia Bauman

President & Co-Director 

The Bauman Foundation

Washington, DC

Gerard Bulanowski

Director

Environmental Assessment

Unit

 Colorado Dept. Of Public

Health & Env’t

Denver, Colorado

Patricia Cummens

GIS Manager

New Jersey DEP&E

Trenton, New Jersey

Jack Dangermond

President

Environmental Systems 

 Research Institute

Redlands, California

Co-Chair: Julie K. Norman

President

Headwaters Inc.

Ashland, Oregon

Suzanne M. Hess, AICP/PP

Supervising Planner

Hunterdon County Planning 

 Board

Flemington, New Jersey

Patricia K. Hill

Manager

Federal Regulatory Affairs

Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Washington, DC

David Hulse

Associate Professor of 

 Landscape Architecture

University of Oregon

Eugene, Oregon

Michael Moilanen

Multi-Media Environmental

Specialist

Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa

Onamia, Minnesota

Designated Federal Official:

Joseph A. Sierra

Office of Cooperative

 Environmental Management

U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency

Washington, DC

Cheryl Morton

Senior Manager, Government 

 Relations

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

 Manufacturers Association

Washington, DC

Paul Orum

Working Group on

Community Right-to-Know

Washington, DC
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator B-1

ATTACHMENT B

SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

DATES & LOCATION

 April 17-18, 1996 - Arlington, Virginia

 July 11-12, 1996 - Denver, Colorado

 September 10-11, 1996 - Washington, DC

 January 21-22, 1997 - Washington, DC

 April 15-16, 1997 - Washington, DC
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator C-1

ATTACHMENT C

SPEAKERS, PRESENTERS & PANELISTS

COMMUNITY: 

Beth Gallegos Chairperson, Citizens Against Contamination, Denver, CO

Lorraine Granado Director, Cross Community Coalition, Denver, CO

Mary Miera New West Side Economic Dev. Corp., Lincoln Park/La Alma, Denver, CO

LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

Dr. Ed Demos Denver Environmental Services, Denver, CO

Guillermo DeHerrera Commissioner, Adams County, Colorado

R. L. Jones Clear Creek Superfund Site TAG, CO

Dave Swanson Pollution Prevention Program Manager, Boulder County Health Department,

Boulder, CO

STATE:

Jim Christensen Environmental Scientist, Utah Division of Water Quality 

Deborah Myers Senior Environmental Analyst for Inspection and Compliance

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Dr. Florine Raitano Executive Director, Colorado Rural Development Council

TRIBAL:

Kim Clausen Environmental Specialist for Oglala Souix Tribe

Debbie MadisonEnvironmental Manager, Fort Peck Tribe, Montana

Wes Martel Wind River Associates, Wyoming

INDUSTRY: 

Frank Gorski Huntsman Polypropylene, Woodbury, NJ

Mark Greenwood Coalition for Effective Environmental Information (CEEI)

Rex Tingle Industrial Hygienist/Labor Representative, AFL-CIO

Bilinda Townsend Federal Environmental & Health Affairs, Boeing

Allen White The Tellus Institute
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

Information Impacts Committee January, 1998

Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:

 Recommendations to the Administrator C-2

ATTACHMENT C

SPEAKERS, PRESENTERS & PANELISTS

(continued)

EPA - REGIONAL:

Josie HernandezData Systems Leader, Pollution Prevention Office, Region VIII

Robert Laidlaw Director, Region VIII Environmental Service Center & Technical Library

Nathaniel “Nat” Miullo Community Environmental Protection Coordinator, Region VIII

Paul Reiderer Director, Data Systems Management, Region VIII

Lee Roberts Tribal Program Manager, Tribal Assistance Program, Region VIII

EPA - HEADQUARTERS:

Dr. Allan Abramson Director, Information Management Division, OPPT

Marian Cody Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, EPA

Dave Davis Deputy Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, OW

Mark A. Day Director, Information Resources Management Planning Division, OIRM

Elizabeth Fellows Chief, Monitoring Branch, AWPD, OWOW, OW

Patrick J. Garvey Team Leader, Information Warehouse, OIRM

Edward J. Hanley Director, One Stop Reporting

Clarence Hardy Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, OA

Jim Horne Office of Wastewater Management, OW

Antonio Jover Senior Information Resource Management Official, OSWER

Jacques Kapuscinski Project Leader, CBEP Page & Tool Kit

Jon Kessler Director, Emerging Sectors & Strategies Division, OPPE

Arthur Koines Deputy Director, Office of Strategic Planning & Environmental Data, OPPE

David Lyons Chief, Energy & Transportaion Branch, OECA

Emma McNamara Team Leader, Information Access Team, OIRM

Mike Mundell System Manager, Permit Compliance System

Alvin M. Pesachowitz Acting Assistant Administrator, OARM

Kathy A. Petruccelli Acting Deputy Director, OIRM

Michael Stahl Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA

Tom Tillman Chief, Communications & Outreach Branch, OPPTS

Paul A. Wohlleben Acting Director, OIRM