<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<doc callnum="GF503 .U55 1974">
<metadata>
	<titleStmt>
		<mainTitle nfc="0"><title>Federal environmental data systems</title>:<titleExt>report to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives</titleExt>/<respStmt>by the Comptroller General of the United States.</respStmt></mainTitle>
	</titleStmt>
	<authorStmt>
		<corpAuthor mainEntry="y"><name type="jurisdiction">United States.</name><subName>General Accounting Office.</subName></corpAuthor>
		<corpAuthor><name type="jurisdiction">United States.</name><subName>Congress.</subName><subName>House.</subName><subName>Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.</subName><subName>Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment.</subName></corpAuthor>
	</authorStmt>
	<imprint>[<pubPlace>Washington</pubPlace>:<pubName>U.S. General Accounting Office</pubName>,<pubDate>1974</pubDate>]</imprint>
	<classStmt>
		<locClass>
			<subject cat="top">Human ecology</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">United States</subject>
			<subject cat="form">Directories.</subject>
		</locClass>
		<locClass>
			<subject cat="top">Information storage and retrieval systems</subject>
			<subject cat="gen">Human ecology.</subject>
		</locClass>
	</classStmt>
</metadata>

<text xml:space="preserve">
<pb n="1" />

       coastal zone
        information            Cogslftl JOKE
          Center                INFORIARTIc%, CENTER                 JAN 24 1976
             D ST12@,,   REPORT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE
        0                ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
                         CONSERVATION AND THE
           '10'cou'KO    ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON
                         MERCHANT MARINE ANDFISHERIES
                                       OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Federal Environmental
                         Data Systems 3-,772.2

                         BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
                         OF THE UNITED STATES
          GF
          503
          X55
          1974

     Z&gt;                                                          KIOV,22,1 9 7Z-'
<pb n="2" />

                                                                         C.

                             COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNiTEO STATES

                                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 2050

             Urn

             B-177222
                                        U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                        COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
         Property of CSC Library        2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                        CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

             The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman
             Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
               Conservation and the Environment
             Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
             House of Representatives

             Dear Mr. Chairman:

                  In response to your March 8, 1973, request, this is our
             report on our review of environmental data collection and
             storage activities in the Federal Government.

                  We do not plan to distribute this report further unless
             you agree or publicly announce its contents.

                                            Sincerely yours,

                                            Comptroller General
                                            of the United States

     4-

        L8
     @,5
<pb n="3" />

                                         Content-s
                                                                         Page

              DIGEST                                                        i

              CHAPTER

                        INTRODUCTION                                        1
                            Scope of review                                 1

                  2     MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES COLLECT AND  STORE
                          ENVIRONMENTAL DATA                                2
                            Agencies collecting and storing
                              environmental data                            2
                            Data exchange between Federal agencies          4
                            Problems in exchanging data                     7
                            Directory of environmental data systems        11

                  3     LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A NETWORK
                          OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SYSTEMS                    15
                            Legislation                                    15
                                House bill 56                              15
                                House bill 36                              16
                            Costs and problems of establishing
                              an environmental data network                18

                  4     CONCLUSIONS AND MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
                          BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE                              21
                            Conclusions                                    21
                            Matters for consideration by the
                              Subcommittee                                 22
              APPENDIX
                        Letter dated March 8, 1973, to the
                          Comptroller General from the Chairman,
                          Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
                          Conservation and the Environment,
                          House Committee on Merchant Marine and
                          Fisheries                                        23

                  II    Summary of responses to GAO questionnaire
                          on Federal environmental data systems            25
<pb n="4" />

                                          ABBREVIATIONS

               CSC      Civil Service Commission

               EDS      Environmental Data Service

               ENDEX    Environmental Data Index

               EPA      Environmental Protection Agency

               FDA      Food and Drug Administration

               GAO      General Accounting Office

               NAWDEX   National Water Data Exchange

               NIH      National Institutes of Health

               NOAA     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

               OMB      Office of Management and Budget

               RIAL     Resource and Land information

               R&amp;D      research and development

               SEQUIP   Study of Environmental Quality Information Programs

               USGS     United States Geological Survey
<pb n="5" />

              COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT                  FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SYSTEMS
              TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES              B-177222
              AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND
              THE ENVIRONMENT
              COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE
              AND FISHERIES
              House of Representatives

              D I G'E S T

            'WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE                        FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

                                                            Agencies collecting and
              The Subcommittee Chairman ex-                 storing environmental data
              pressed concern that the Federal
              Government was not making maximum             GAO distributed a questionnaire    to
              use of environmental data collected           managers of Federal systems which
              by diverse Federalorganizations.              collect, store, and.disseminate
                                                            environmental data. (See p. 1.)
              He also indicated that,there was no           It received responses from managers
              directory of environmental informa-           of 320 separate data systems in 8
              tion and that there may be little             major departments and-10 independent
              coordination among such organiza-             agencies collecting and storing
              tions in collecting and exchanging            environmental data, many on a
              data.                                         nati,onwide basis.

                                                            Many of these systems were collect-
              In line with the Chairman's request,          ing and storing data in the same
              GAO examined into the                         functional areas. For example, 120
                                                            systems werecollecting and storing
              --kinds of environmental data col-            air data. Most systems were storing
                lected and scope of data collec-            data on some type of computer media,
                tion programs;                              such as punched cards and magnetic
                                                            tapes. (See p. 2.)
              --methods of information storage;
                                                            Previous studies have found that
              --availability of information to              environmental data systems were
                private and public sectors,                 developed to satisfy needs perceived
                including other government agen-            by individual organizations without
                cies; and                                   overall coordination between
                                                            a:gencies or systems.

              --methods  of coordinating data col-          For,e,xample, a 1971 study by the
                lection  and transfer among agen-           Committee to Study Environmental
                cies.   (See p. 1.)                         Quality Information Programs for the

              Tear @heet. Upon removal, the report
              cove 1 31
                 r date should be noted hereon.
<pb n="6" />

President's Office of Science and
technology noted that dispersed,
uncoordinated and often overlapping
information programs resulted from the
fact that their primary taks are to
support the agencies missions.
Deliberate interaction with other
information programs is often outside
the scope of a given program. (SEE
p. 3. )
Data exchange between
Federal agencies
Although the Federal Government has no
central focal point for exchanging or
collectiong environmental data, amny
systems are sharing data with other
Federal agencies. Of the 320 systems,
167 were providing environmental data
and information to other agencies and
94 were recieving data from systems in
other agencies. (See p. 4.)
Managers of 98 systems indicated that
they were participating in various
networks which had as their purpose
either the exchange of data or the
coodination of collection activi-
ties.
In talking to some respondents, GAO
found only one system transferring
data automatically between computers.
Other methods included
--exchange of computer media, such as
magnetic tapes;
--use of remote terminals; and
--exchange of hard copy or written
material
some formal interagency committees
promote data exchange. For example,
the Federal Working Group on Pest
Management under the Coucil on
Environmental Quality is concerned

with coordinating various pesticide
data collection activities of nine
agencies. (See p. 5. )
Improvement in data exchange is
being made through establishment of
referral centers. the Departmetn
of the Interior is designing a
National Water Data Exchange whcih
is to maintain a computerized
master index of water data sources
to facilitate exchange of water
data. (See p. 6.)
Various agency officials told GAO
that, in the absence of a formal
organization for coordinating data
collection and exchange, some
coordination was attained through
informal professional contacts
between personnedl in various
agencies. (See p. 6.)
Problems in exchanging data
Systems managers identified the
following problems in acquiring and
using data from other systems.
--Data elements and codes used in
one system were not sompatible
with those used by another sys-
tem.
--Responses to requests for data
were often delayed.
--Accuracy and reliablility of data
collected by other systems was
difficult to assess.
--Equipment and languages used in
one system were not compatible
with those used in another
system.
--Recoding or converting data was
expensinve. (See p. 7.)
  ii
<pb n="7" />

            Directory of environmental                      natural resources.information
            data systems                                    sources--and

                                                          --its National Water Data Exchange.
            Both the 1971 report by the Com..;.             (See p. 13.)
            mittee to Study Environmental Quality
            Information Progr  'ams and a report on       The Nat'ional Referral Center of the
            the 1972 National Environmental In-           Library of Congress maintains
            formation Symposium sponsored by' the         numerous@references to environmental
            Environmental Protection Agency noted         data sources. ..However, the Cente'r
            that a basic problem of data exchange         has not issued a directory of all
            was the lack of awareness of what             its-environmental,data sources and
            data had been collected and by whom.          has no plans to do so. (See    p. @14.)
            It appears the problem still exists,
            because managers of 151   systems ex-         Creating,a directory,of environ@
            pressed the need for an overall               mental d6ta systems is one possible
            directory of environmental    data sys-       solution to the lack of awareness of
            .tems.                                        what data has been collected   and by
                                                         'whom.
            .They indicated a directory   could
                                                          Network of  environmental,
            --eliminate duplication in    data            data systems
               collection,
                                                          Bills have  been introduced  in the
            --reduce search   time@and the number         Congress to establish a central
               of referrals,   and                        organization to''coordinate,collec-
                                                          tion and exchange.ofenviropmental
            --identify existing    information            data. One.bill-House bill 56-'-was
               sources and what  data is available.       passed by both Houses of the 92d
               (See p. 11.)                               Congress but was vetoed by the
                                                          President. He said it would estab-
          .,GAO found that  ' some agencies had           lish a central-computer system which
            prepared directories of their data            could be unnecessarily costly,
            systems. Some directories of                  because it would lead to duplication
            environmental data sources beyond     a       of information or would produce
            single agency had been published..            results unrelated to real needs.

            However, GAO is unaware of any                Another bill introduced, but not
            Federal agency maintaining a complete         acted upon, in the 93d Congress--
           -directory of all environmental data           House bill 36@-would-provid  Ie
            systems. (See p. 13.)                         specifically for a network of.new
                                                          and existing data processing facili-
            Interior is planning to develop               ties.whi'ch, through a system of
            directories that will list certain            interconnections, would be in com-
            environmental data sources in                 muni'cation-with A central'.facility.

            --its Resource and Land: Information          The Subcommittee Chairman   asked GAO
               (RALI) program--land use   and             to look-'into costs,ahd@problems of

            Tear Shee
<pb n="8" />

                -e stablishing an environmental data          As developed in a contractor's
                network.   (See p. 15.)                       report, the concept for the
                                                              network--referred'to as the RALI
                in commenting on House   bill 36, GAO         program--is similar to the concept in
                sa id the bill could fulfill the need         House bill 36.
                for a nationalenvironmental data
                system to coordinate independent              The RALI network would have made
                systems of many Federal agencies              maximum use of existing information
                conducting research and development           sources by providing
                programs. In another review, GAO
                found a lack of coordination among            --references to data maintained by
                agencies collecting and disseminating           other organizations and
                water pollution research and
                development information and recom-            --an  information base for modeling
                mended designation of a focal point to          and analysis from'data gathered
                coordinate such information.     (See           and maintained by other organiza-
                P. 17.)                                         tions.

                The Subcommittee Chairman asked GAO to        A national information facility would
                develop costs for an existing computer        have been established to supply
                network and to relate such costs to           analyzed and summarized data to the
                the cost of establishing a network of         Federal establishment.     (See p. 18.)
                environmental data systems.
                                                              The contractor's report    suggested
                According to one large Go  .vernment-         that development of the    RALI program
                owned computer network, however, costs        be based on a0survey of    users' needs
                of an existing network cannot be              and data sources which could be
                readily related to costs of establish-        incorporated into the RALI program.
                ing a new network.
                                                              The Director of the RALI program told
                Costs of a new network are dependent          GAO that the contractor's approach
                upon specific purposes of the network,        could not be implemented because it
                desi.gn of the network, and the               was data oriented rather than problem
                hardware and software needed to ac-           oriented.
                complish the network's objectives.
                (See p. 18.)                                  He explained.that most data was
                                                              useful for the specific purpose it
                There are less costly methods    of           was coliected and might have only
                exchanging computerized data--such as         marginal utility beyond its original
                exchange of magnetic tapes--than              use. Introducing data into an
                direct interconnection of computers.          information system without regard to
                                                              its utility can be costly in the
                GAO also looked into the problems of          collection and maintenance of that
                setting up such a netwo*rk. The De-           data.
                partment of the Interior's Geological
                Survey considered establishing a data         He added  that networks should be
                network to support land use and               designed  around problems to be solved
                resource planning at the Federal,             and not around miscellaneous, unre-
                State, and local levels.                      lated, and limited-use data collected

                                                          iv
<pb n="9" />

                by various data users.     (See p.  19.)     problems be  determined. Once
                                                             problems and analysis tools are
                MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE             identified, data needs for the net-
                SUBCOMMITTEE                                 work and the best methods for storing
                                                             and exchanging such data can be,
                GAO suggests  that the Subcommittee,         determined.
                when considering House bill 36,
                specify that, before a nationwide            GAO.also suggests that the central
                network of interconnected environ-           organization'to be established, if
                mental data systems is established,          the bill 'were enacted, be responsible
                the environmental problems to be             for establishing -and maintaining an
                solved. be defined and the analysis          environmental dat  Ia directory to in-
                tools needed to assist in solving the        crease awareness of available data.'
<pb n="10" />

                                             CHAPTER 1

                                           INTRODUCTION

                     In a letter of March 8      1973 (see app.'I), the Chair-
               man, Subcommittee on.Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
               the Environment, House Committee on Merchant Marine and
               Fisheries, said that environmental data and information were
               being aol-lected by a number of diverse Federal organi-@
               zation:§'and that this data was a national resource repre-
               seii-ting an investment of several million dollars. The
               Chairman e  Ixpressed concern that (1) the Federal Government
               was not making maximum use of this valuable resource, (2)
               there wAs'no systematic directory of the environmental:
               information collected and stored by the Federal Government,
               and 0) there may be little coordination-among agencies in
               the collection and exchange of data.

                     In line with.the-areas of interest expressed-in         the
               Chairman's letter, we examined into the.

                     --kinds of environmental data collected and scope
                       of.the 'data colle-otion programs,

                    .--methods of-information storage,

                     --availability'of information to      the private  an-d  pu blic
                       sectors, including other Government agencies, and

                     --methods of coordinating environmental data.collpcti.on,
                       and transfer among Government agencies.

               SCOPE QF@   EVIEW

                     -We distributed  a questionnaire on the above     four  areas
               to the,'ma;,h,agers of Federal systems involved in collecting,
               storingj'  and'd1sseminating environmental information'and.'
               data. We talked to a number of respondents to our question-
               naire to discuss or clarify the information furnished. In
               addition, at the Chairman's request, we obtained information
               on (1) the costs involved in establishing a computer network
               to faci'litate the exchange of environmental data,and (2) the
               problems of establishing such a network.
<pb n="11" />

                                      CHAPTER 2

                            MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES COLLECT

                            AND STORE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

                Many Federal departments and independent agencies
           collect and store environmental data. In many instances.,
           the information is collected in the same functional areas,
           such as air and water, and is stoned primarily on some type
           of computer media, such as punched cards and magnetic tape.

                The environmental.data systems appear to have been
           developed independently of each other to meet the specific
           missions of the various organizations. Although the Federal
           Government has no central focal point for coordinating the
           establishment of environmental data systems or for exchang-
           ing or collecting environmental data, many managers of,
           environmental data systems told us that they did exchange
           data with other Federal agencies and, in some cases,
           coordinated the exchange and/or collection of data through
           some type of network. These managers said, however,,that a
           number of problems hindered the exchange of data. These
           problems included a lack of uniformity in the way data is
           coded in the various computer systems and a lack of awareness
           of what data has been collected and,by whom.

           AGENCIES COLLECTING AND STORING
           ENVIRONMENTAL-DATA

                We identified 8 major departments and 10   independent
           agencies that collect and store environmental   data and
           information. We received responses to our questionnaire
           from officials who manage 320 separate environmental, data
           systems. (See app. II for a summary of these responses.)
           Following are the significant departments and   agencies in
           term_s   numbers of systems.

                    Department or agency             Number of systems.

               Environmental Protection Agency               87
               Interior                                      61
               Commerce                                      39
               Agriculture

                   Total                                   220

                                            2
<pb n="12" />

0

                         We found many of these systems. in a. number of
                   different agencies were collecting and storing data in the
                   same functional areas. For example. 1,20 systems in
                                                                                                     14 dif
                   ferent agencies were collecting     and storing air          data. Also
                   175 systems in 17           agencies were         collecting water data and
                   105 systems in 15 agencies,were                 collecting land use            data.
                   (See p. 25 of app.           II.
                           Many of  t he   systems were,      collecting environmental data
                   on a    nationwide basis.              Water   data and air data are  col-
                   lected throughout the              United     States     by  58   and 30:
                   systems, respectively.

                           For 229 systems the data               is   stored totally     or in part
                   on some type of computer media, such   as  magnetic    tape,
                   punched cards, magnetic disc,                  and   drum storage.        Other
                   methods of storage included reports,                    publications, and other
                   hard-copy forms; micro-films and charts.

                           Environmental  data systems collect   and store data
                   primarily to support functions in a specific agency. Respondents indicated that the primary purposes of the
                   Federal systems' data'collection efforts were to    support

                           --management        and planning;

                           --research and         development;

                           --surveillance         and monitoring;           and

                           --legal, legislative,  or  regulatory functions.

                           Previous      studies have    found    that   data systems     generally
                   have    evolved on the basis of needs perceived by individual
                   organizations without overall                   coordination        between agencies
                   or systems.

                           In   a 1971  study made       by   the   Committee       to   Study-
                   Environmental.         Quality Information Programs          (SEQUIP) for the
                   President's    0ffice of    Science     and   Technology, it was   noted,
                   that    dispersed, uncoordinated, and often overlapping
                   programs

                                      result of the fact that,in     most  cases, the
                          primary task of most information centers is to su

                           port the mission of their       parent agencies. Deliberte
                                    interaction with other information program
                           is often outside          the scopeof       a   givenn program,

                                                                     3
<pb n="13" />

           The SEQUIP Committee noted further that,the formation of the
           Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National.,
           Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
           Commerce, should alleviate some of the overlap in data
           collection and storage activit,iesl.and should improve
           communications between environmental data systems having
           similar functions but in different agencies. However, in a
           February 1974 report to EPA on an Analysis of EPAs
           scientific and technical  'information activities to serve as
           a basis for developing an information network, the Battelle
           Memorial Institute noted that:,
                  'There are a large number of heterogenous
                 Information/data activities dispersed irreg-
                 ularly throughout EPA today very much as
                 activities were at the formation of EPA in
                 December 1970.  Many of these activities are
                 not-guided by national or:agency environmental
                 goals except to the extent that while satisfy-
                 ing -the needs of their immediate funder, they
                  lso contribute to the achievement of national
                 a                                         1
                 goals. Such systems are very vulnerable to
                 p,arochial initiation and termination."
                 The report further noted that:

                 "The present EPA scientific and technical information
                 network generally is a@free unorganized network.
                 Such a network permits individual systems to develop
               ,whenever and wherever they are needed.. To the
                 extent that interaction or cooperation between the
                 diverse systems is'required, the operators of each
                 of the individual systems must establish and main-
                 tain such channels of interaction as they see fit."
                                                             7
                 The report.suggests the establishment of an office
           within EPA "to plan, coordinate and encourage improved ac-
           cessibility, handling*and usage of environmental information
           and data within a coordinated. network."   This office would
           perform an information coordination function in EPA by
           providing referrals to sources of scientific and technical
           information.

           DATA EXCHANGE BETWEEN FEDERAL  AGENCIES

                 Federal agencies are sharing some environmental data
           Of 320 systems, 1:67,were provi'ding data and information to
          ,other departments or agencies and 94 were receiving environ-
           mental data from systems in other departments'or agencies.
           For example, theCorps of Engineers has a cooperative agree-
           ment with NOAA's National Ocean Survey to provide water

                                          4
<pb n="14" />

             data. After the Corps' computer analyzes the data, it is
             given to the National  'Ocean Survey for use in the
             development and publication of charts for marine navigation.

                  EPA'receives data on water quality and other measure-
             ments collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
             Measurements are received from USGS on magnetic tapes.
             These measurements are another source of water quality data
             for EPA which receives similar data from various Federal and
             State organizations.

                 IManagers of 98 systems indicated that they were parti-
             cipating in various networks which had as their purpose
             either the exchange of data or the coordination of colle-c-
             tion activities.
                  We talked to a  number of respondents who appeared to be
             exchanging data in a formal computerized network. However,
             we foundonly one network transferring data automatically
             between computers of different systems. The National Weather
             Serv_i.ce,___a member of the World Meteorological Organization,
             participated in a network which-transferred  -weather data
             between countries.
                  We did find a number of other methods used to exchange
             data. These methods included (1) the exchange of data in a
             computer media, such as punched cards, paper tapes, magnetic
             tapes, and discs, (2) the transfer of data over communi-
             cation lines by use of a remote terminal, and (3) hard-
             copy exchange, such as reports and other written mate-
             rial. We do not know how often or how much environmental
             data is exchanged using each method. In fiscal year 1971,
             the General Services Administration completed a survey of
             14 civil departments and agencies to measure existing and
             potential needs for data exchange as a basis for designing
             nationwide communications networks and syst.ems. The Gen-
             eral Services Administration found that the majority of
             reports--52,200 of 54,000, or 97 percent--were exchanged in
             hard-copy form and the balance were sent in a computer me-
             dia.

                  Although there is no central focal point for collecting
             and transferring environmental data, there are some formal
             interagency committees which consider, among other things,
             various problems of data exchange.

                  For example, the National Pesticide Monitoring Program
             is a network of data collection systems established to moni-
             tor changes in the levels of pesticide residues in various
             environmental components, such as soil, air; water, and
             estuaries. The program was established in 1964 by the

                                               5
<pb n="15" />

              Federal Committee on Pest Control which was chartered by the
              Secretaries of four Federal depar.tments. This interagency
              committee has been,pxpanded to include eight departments and
              one agency and is now called the Federal Working Group,on
              Pest Management. Under the Council on Environmental Qual-
              ity, this Working Group and its various panels handle co-
              ordination problems@between the.departments. The Monitoring
              Panel advises the Working Group on interagency coordination
              matters related to the monitoring.systems.

                    Agency officials told us that, where formal organiza-
              tions did not exist for coordinating data collection and
              exchange between systems collecting environmental data,
              many-informal professional contacts did exist between per-
              .sonnel in agencies.

                    The SEQUIP study noted, however, that "interaction
              among similar, or logically related, programs are rare
              and are usually not due to deliberate network planning."
              It was found:

                       *.*,during   the SEQUIP Workshop that often infor-
                    mation program managers working in very similar
                    subject areas, but in different mission agencies,
                    do not kno w of   eac h oth er's activities. Thus, the
                    discussions of   the radiation panel,(which covered
                    only ten information programs,.) showed that the
                    program representatives present at the      session were
                    not.aware of the existence of one-third of the other
                    pro-g rams

                  .,-Improvements in the area   of data exchange are-being made
              through t1he-establishment of a referral center or a central
              point to facilitate the location and di,ssemination of data.
              The Department of Interior is designing a National Water Data
              Exchange (NAWDEX) to improve the use of collected water
              data.   The NAWDEX c  oncept pro-vide-s- fo-r a- 11-System-s Central"
              which will compile and -maintain a computerized master index
              of 'water dat-ca-andwater-data s  Iources.  NAWDEX Is main func-
              tion is to-  fa@cilitateI tIhe tra.nsfer.- of water data from those
              who have it to those who need it. This will be accomplished
              through the   u,se of the master index   and the establishment of
              standards and   formats for   rec,ordi.ng and disseminating data.

                    Another agency is   developing   a,cen.tral index to improve
              access to, and-exchange of, environmental data. NOAA
              operates a   number of environmental data and information
              centers under one of its major.components, the Environmen-
              tal Data Service (EDS). EDS',major data centers are the
              National Cli,ma,t,,icIC.enter, the National Oceanographic Data

                                                6
<pb n="16" />

             Center, the National Geophysical and Solar -Terre st rial Data
             Center, and the Environmental Science Information Center.

                  According to an EDS study, each data cen ter has
             developed separately from other centers and, until recently,
             these centers have appeared to be entirely separate entities
             with only a common administrative thread linking them to an
             environmental service organization. To provide users and
             data contributors access to data on a one-stop basis, EDS is
             developing a central index which is to identify the various
             types of environmental data available in the EDS centers and
             NOAA-type data available in other Federal agencies. The
             Environmental Data-Index (ENDEX) is to contain detailed in-
             dexes to the data files of the EDS centers and should allow
             users timely access to data.

             PROBLEMS IN EXCHANGING DATA

                  We asked managers to identify problems their systems
             experienced in acquiring data or converting and integrating
             data received from other systems, both intraagency and
             interagency data. About 43 percent of the managers re-
             sponded to this question and cited the following problems.

                                                             FrequeCcy
                                                                 of
                            Problems                         responses

                  Noncompatibility of data                       67
                  No timely response                             34
                  Data unreliable                                31
                  Noncompatibility of equipment                  29
                  Costs prohibitive                              18
                  Other                                          29

            'Noncompatibility of data

                  Discussions with various systems' managers revealed
             that the manner in which environmental data is coded in the
             various systems hampers or prevents its exchange. Data    is
             collected for a single purpose in one type of coding
             arrangement, and it is difficult to use that data when it is
             transferred to other systems having different codes. To
             overcome this problem, some managers have indicated that
             they must recode the data received from other sources ac-
             cording to their own individual system's configuration
             before the data can be used.

                                             7
<pb n="17" />

                 This problem has been noted in many studies of infor-
            mation and data programs. For example, the SEQUIP
            Committee noted that:

                 "It is obvious that standards will have to be estab-
                 lished so that systems and data originating in one
                 agency can be linked to similar systems in other
                 agencies and eventually into a network of systems.11

            Through the use of standards, the Committee noted that:

                 11*    information programs will be able to@use com-
                 patible information and data files created by other
                 organi zations, thus reducing the overall data col-
                 lection needs and concomitantly the total internal.
                 resources required."

                 In our May 16, 1974, report to the Congress entitled
            "Emphasis Needed on Government's Efforts to Standardize Data
            Elements and Codes for Computer Systems," (B-115369) we
            noted that:

                 I'Communication barriers resulting from different agen-
                 cies codes make it difficult and often impossible to
                 consol idate data from different information systems.
                 For example, the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
                 found that agencies could not economically and ac-
                 curately comply with its seemingly simple request
                 for the total number of Government employees of
                 each sex.

                 "Agencies were asked to code males '1' and females
                  2o and to provide the data on magnetic tape.
                 That data was readily available, but the agencies
                 defined and coded the data differently. For example,
                 agency A combined sex data with education data,
                 agency B combined sex data with marital status data.
                 Agency C simply recorded Mr., Miss, Mrs., and Dr.
                 It arrived at sex statistics by assuming that all
                 or most doctors were male.

                 11CSC could not obtain the data it needed without going
                 through a costly manual operation to convert the
                 nonstandard data. As a result, CSC initiated a
                 program to standardize data in the Federal personnel
                 systems."

                                            8
<pb n="18" />

                Also in our May 16, 1974, report we assessed the
           progress being made under the Federal program to standardize
           data elements and codes used in computer operations. We
           found that, since the program began in 1965, Federal efforts
           have been slow and not very successful due to the program's
           low priority and limited resources.

           No timely response

                According to the systems' managers, unavoidable delays
           occur in preparing the raw data and converting it into some
           type of usable format. Once a system has the raw data, it
           may take time to assemble, collate, and summarize it for
           distribution.

                The SEQUIP study noted another problem causing delays
           in getting access to data. The study stated:

                        that information and data programs whose pri-
                mary task is the support of their parent agencies
                are often reluctant to advertise their services and
                products outside their own agencies          because
                they fear being swamped with requests for these
                services without having resources to comply with such
                requests on a regular basis."

                An official at the National Referral Center of the
           Library of Congress noted one problem limiting access to
           existing data. He explained that the priority,placed on
           filling data requests from external sources is lower than
           other activities, because the primary missions of mo'st
           Federal agencies are other than supplying information. As a
           result, agencies tend to cut funds from information activ-
           ities first.

           Data unreliable

                Some managers indicated that the accuracy and reli-
           ability of data generated by other systems constitutes
           a problem. One system manager commented that no uniform
           standardization or degree of accuracy for data exists--
           nationally or internationally. He made the further obser-
           vation that once data is received from other systems, one
           must have an indication as to how often the equipment col-
           lecting the data is checked for accuracy.

                one manager noted that his system received data from
           75,000 point sources. To check the accuracy of these
           sources would be a considerable task. Another manager
           indicated that the data can be unreliable because funds are

                                            9
<pb n="19" />

              not always availabl6 for the proper maintenance and
              calibration of equipment.

              Noncompatibility of equipment

                   In.discussions with various managers, we found that the
              problem of noncompatibility of equipment included both hard-
              ware and software.

                   Hardware

                   There is a variety of manufacturers of computers and
              associated equipment. Although the concepts used to store
              data and programs on this equipment are similar, the actual
              methods used are sufficiently different to preclude direct
              interchange. For example, some managers said that the
              format in'which data is stored on magnetic tape can vary and
              prevents direct exchange of tapes between systems. Another
              manager said that his IBM System 7 computer has both disc
              and magnetic tape drives which are incompatible with other
              computers and therefore prevents direct exchange of tapes or
              discs.

                   Software

                   Because there are many different computer program
              languages, there are differences both in the manner in which
              programs are written and in the manner in which data is
              processed and stored. Consequently, data recorded by a
              computer using one language may or may not be directly
              usable to a program written in another language.1 For
              example,, a manager using a.UNIVAC 1108 indicated that his
              system u,ses certain levels of the FORTRAN language .and that
              his system could use data directly from another system only
              if it used the same FORTRAN version.

                   The Federal Government has been attempting to.increase
              the compatibility and interchangeability among computer sys-
              tems. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized by law to make

              1Data could be recorded in two systems using the same data
               codes, that is, "All might represent "male" in both systems.
               However, the method of recording the letter "All might be
               different. Data is recorded in most computer systems using
               a series of on or off magnetic pulses and the arrangement
               of these pulses can differ. For example, "All might be
               stored as magnetic pulses 0001 in one system and as mag-
               netic pulses 1001 in another system.

                                              10
<pb n="20" />

             recommendations to the President to establish uniform
             standards, referred to as Federal Information Processing
             Standards. An objective of the standards is to facilitate
             the interchange of data and programs.

                  In this regard, in March 1968, the President approved
             the Secretary's recommendation to establish a standard Code
             for Information Interchange. This standard requires that
             Federai computers be able to use a specific code and
             character set in storing data to improve their ability to
             exchange data.

                  Although the problem of noncompatibility of equipment
             is complex, techniques are available to solve these problems
             and facilitate program and data exchange.

                  These techniques involve the use of software conversion
             programs which will convert data from one format to another.
             The computer industry has developed software programs and
             small computers whose sole function is to perform this con-
             version process.

                  Although conversion of data is possible, these conver-
             sions could be very expensive, depending on the degree of
             incompatability, the volume of data, and how soon the data
             is needed.

             Costs prohibitive

                  System managers have indicated that cost is a problem
             associated with the noncompatibility of equipment and data.
             Some systems do not have the funds or must incur added
             expense to convert the data received from other systems into
             a format that can be readily used. For example, one system
             prefers to receive its data on magnetic tape in a prescribed
             format but, since 60 percent of theincoming data is in
             hard-copy form, it must incur the expense of transcribing
             the data onto magnetic tape.

             DIRECTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SYSTEMS

                  The 1971 SEQUIP Committee noted the difficulty in
             acquiring environmental information. According to the
             Committee, even managers of information and data centers in
             Federal agencies often did not know that similar systems and
             data banks exist in other agencies and sometimes in their
             own departments. The SEQUIP Committee Chairman told us that
             system managers were surprised to learn that data they were
<pb n="21" />

               collecting was also being collected by other organizations.
               The Committee further asked the rhetorical question "How
               much more difficult is it for an outsider--the Congressman,
               the municipal agency manager, the academic scientist--to
               know just where to obtain needed information.,,

                    As a result, the SEQUIP Committee recommended that the
               National Referral Center compile an environmental informa-
               tion resources directory. However, the Center,has not pub-
               lished a directory, primarily because of a.lack of funds.

                    During September 1972, EPA sponsored a National En-,
               vironmental Information Symposium in Cincinnati, Ohio.
               As noted in its summary report:

                    "The most common concern expressed by.Symposiu.m.par-
                    ticipants, regardless of attitudinal or professional
                    orientation, was the need for improved awareness of,
                    and access to, environmental information."

                    It appears that the lack of awareness of what data has
               been collected and by whom is still a problem. Managers of
               151 systems responding to our questionnaire expressed the
               need for an overall directory of environmental data.systems.

                    In.addition, 56 other managers indicated    that a
               directory was not needed and some of these managers
               expressed the belief that'(1) their organizations could not
               use a directory, (2) they were the only ones collecting
               special types,of data, or (3) they were aware of perti   nent
               data systems.

                    Those managers who expressed a need for adirectory
               indicated that a directory of environmental data systems
               could

                    --eliminate duplLcatElion in the collection of data,

                    --reduce search time and the number of referrals, and

                    --identify existing information sources and what data
                      is available.

                    We asked system managers to indicate the types of
               information they would like in a directory of environmental
               data systems. Following is a summary of the items most
             .frequently mentioned.

                                                12
<pb n="22" />

                     1.   Name and description of system.

                     @2.  Method to gain access to the data (person and
                          agency to.contact).

                     3.   Scope and kinds of data available.

                     4.   Reliability and quality of'data.

                     5.   Methods of storing and  manipulating  the data,
                          such as computers and computer languages.

                Existing  directories

                     Some  agencies had prepared  directories of their data
                systems.   EPA has compiled and published a directory of its
                environmental information systems. Also, certain managers
                of data systems at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
                noted that FDA had published a directory entitled "Computer
                Systems in FDA.

                     There are organizations which have compiled direc-
                tories, listing sources of environmental information beyond
                the scope of a single agency or organization. However,
                no Federal agency is maintaining a directory that could be
                considered a complete directory of all environmental-data
                systems.

                     For  example, the Council on,Environmental Quality,
                issued a  Federal Environmental Monitoring Directory in May
                1973. This directory lists primarily Federal data systems
                that are involved in environmental monitoring--the
                systematic and continuing observation of environmental-@
                'Parameters--and that are collecting data nationwide. Other
                systems, such as systems monitoring'environmental research
                ,information, would not be listed in the Council's directory
                but are important sources of environmental information;.

                     According to a Council official, the Council has
                tentative plans to update this manual but not until, at
                least, 1976. The directory has not been computerized.
                Council o 'fficials noted that it would be difficult to update
                the directory, because rapid changes occurring in the envi-
                ronmental area will result in changes in the sources of en-
                vironmental data.

                Plans for developing directories

                     The Department of the Interior is planning to develop
                directories that will list references to certain

                                                13
<pb n="23" />

             environmental data sources. However, these data, directories
             will list data sources related to.a specific functional area
             but will not list all environmental data sources.

                . The Department of the Interior is developing a Resource
             and Land Information (RALI) program to improve Federal capa-
             bilities in land use and natural resource planning and to
             provide a continuing referral service to the information re-
             sources of the United States pertaining ro,.Lan,a use and
             resources development. The RALI program will develop and
             maintain catalogues, directories, and indexes.. Much of the
             data sources compiled in those catalogues and directories is
             to be environmental-type data.

                  As noted earlier, the Department of the Interior is
             also developing NAWDEX to facilitate, by use of a central
             index and referral system, the transfer of water data from
             those who have it to those who need it. A directory is to
             be published from NAWDEX's central index.

             National Referral Center

                  The National Referral Center maintains an extensive
             index of information resource.s. The Center publishes.
             directories of data sources which include professional
             societies, university research bureaus, Federal and State
             agencies, industrial laboratories, and individual experts as
             well as the more traditional sources of information, such. as
             technical libraries, information and documents centers, and
             abstracting and indexing services. Although present cata-.
             logues contain numerous references to environmental data
             sources, an environmental data catalogue has not been pub-
             lished. A National Referral Center official told us that
             the Center had considered reorganizing its present files to
             enable it to issue a directory. The official explained that
             the Center had no plans to do so, primarily due to limited
             funds. However, the official said t'hat the Center planned to
             issue a directory of water data sources and was considering
             directories in other environmental areas, such as air.

                  According to a National Referral Center official,
             sources of information listed in the Center's directories do
             not generally identify specific data files or systems and
             therefore users cannot determine the extensiveness of the
             data maintained by the organization, However, the Center is
             atttempting to identify the names Of specific data systems
             or files that are maintained by the various information
             sources and is to include this information in future
             revisions of its directories.

                                            14
<pb n="24" />

                                          CHAPTER 3

                            LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A

                           NETWORK OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SYSTEMS

                    A number of bills have been introduced"in the Congress
               to establish a central organization to coordinate the
               collection and'exchange of environmental data. One bill--
               House bill 56--was passed by both Houses 'of the 92d Congress
               but was vetoed by the President.. He said it-would estab-
               lish a central computer,system which would be unnecessarily
               costly because it would lead to duplication of information
               or produce results unrelated to real needs. Another bill
               introduced in the 93d Congress--House bill 36--would provide
               for a network of new and existing data processing facilities
               which through a system of interc-onnections would be in.
               communication with a central facility. As of Septembee
               19741 the Congress had not acted on House bill 36. The
               Subcommittee Chairman asked us to look into the costs and
               problems of establishing an environmental data network..

               LEGISLATION

               House bill 56

                    In 1972 'House bill 56 was passed by both Houses of
               Congress to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of
               1969 by establishing a'National Environmental Data System
               and creating State andregional environmental centers.
               Section 102(b) of the bill stated:

                    "The purpose of the Data System is to serve as
                    the central national coordinating facility for
                    the selection, storage, analysis, retrieval, and
                    dissemination of information, knowledge, and data
                    relating to the environment so as to provide
                    information needed to support environmental
                    decisions in a timely manner and in a usable form.
                    Such information, knowledge, and data as shall be
                    deemed appropriate'and useful for the achievement
                    of the purpose of the system shall be made avail-
                    able by all Federal agencies and shall be col-
                    lected and received, where available,, from all
                    Federal agencies, private institutions, univer-
                    sities, and colleges, State and local govern-
                    ments, individuals, and any other source of
                    reliable information, knowledge, and data."

                                              15
<pb n="25" />

                  House Report 92-203 issued by the Committee on Merchant
             Marine and Fisheries on May 13, 1971, and accompanied House
             bill 56 noted that:

                  "The term 'Data Sys'tem' shall be construed to
                  include an appropriate network of new and existing
                  information processing or computer facilities
                  throughout the United States. The Data System
                  would be developed and established and consist
                  of a central facility capable of interconnecting
                  and communicating with other systems and equip-
                  ment

                  In the President's  *October 21, 1972, Memorandum of
             Disapproval of House bill 56 he noted that the creation of
             the data system and the environmental centers would lead "to
             duplication of information or would produce results
             unrelated to real needs and wasteful of talent, resources,
             and the taxpayers I money." The President further stated:

                  III believe there are serious  drawbacks to such a
                  data system which would outweigh potential
                  benefits. The collection of data and statistics
                  on the supposition that some day they may be useful
                  is in itself a'highly dubious exercise.      Data, taken
                  out of the context.,of the questions they were
                  specifically designed to answer, can even contri-
                  bute to confusion or be misleading.

                  "With this in mind, I believe the centralized col-
                  lection of environmental data should be related to
                  specific policies and programs. H.R. 56 fails to
                  provide such a,relationship

             House bill 36

                  On January 3, 1973, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
             Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment,
             House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, introduced
             House bill 36 which was similar to House bill 56 in that it
             would establish a National Environmental Data System to
             serve as a central facility for the coordination of existing
             and proposed environmental data systems and programs.

                  House bill 36 specifically states that the data system
             would be a

                                              16
<pb n="26" />

                        network of new and existing information
                 processing or computer facilities both private
                 and public       which, through a system of inter-'
                 connections., are in communication with a central
                 facility

                 'The bill would establish-a director of the data system
            who.would be qualified to analyze and interpret  environ-
            mental data of all kinds. @-The director,wbu.ld also be
            responsible for developing predictive ecological models.
            Environmental data and analysis of data would be   available
            to the Congress and Federal departments andagencies as well
            as interstate agencies, and.State and political subdivisions
            thereof.-

                 The Chairman of the Committee  on Merchant Marine and
            Fisheries asked us to comment on House bill 36. In our
            comments we:,expressed our belief that the bill would fulfill
            the.nee.d for a national environmental data system which
            would coordinate the independent data systems of the many
            Federal agencies conducting environmental research and
            development programs.' Our comments were based upon a review
            of the research and development (R&amp;D) programs related to-
            the prevention and control of water pollution.,

                 In that review we noted that a.number of Federal..
            agencies were collecting and disseminating water.pollution
            R&amp;D information and that.their data systems were not ,
            coordinated and were not as useful as they might have been
            to those interested in the results of water pollution R&amp;D
            efforts. We noted that-several major Federal systems were@,
            disseminating R&amp;D information related to water pollution;
            how'ever, none were complete or comprehensive in coverage a-nd
            there was a lack of effort by those.groups.responsible for .
            gathering information to identify the users of research data
            and their needs. In.our report to.the Congress entitled
            "Research and Demonstration Programs to Achieve.Water
            Quality Goals: What the Federal Government Needs to Do"
            (B-1665-06, Jan. 16,,1974), we recommended that the Office of
            Management and Budget (OMB) designate a Federal agency as a
            focal point to coordinateand promote the dissemination of
            water pollution research results. An OMB official on.
            September 20, 1974, said that OMB was considering the
            recommendation but had not taken any action on it.

                                           17
<pb n="27" />

0

              COSTS AND PROBLEMS OF ESTABLISHING
              AN ENVIRONMENTAL DATA,NETWORK

                    In January 1974     the Chairman   asked   that we develop (1)
              cost information for     an existing computer network for the
              purpose of relating it to the establishment of a computer
              network for coordination and exchange of environmental data
              and (2) information on the problems of,        establishing such a
              network.

                    The National Institutes of Health        (NIH)   Department of
              Health, Education, and Welfare, operates the computer Center
              which has four large central processing units in communica-
              tion with 71 remote terminal computers and          750 remote
              conversational typewriter terminals.

                    The  Director of the    Computer Center   told   us that the
              costs of   the NIH network    or any other network could not be
              readily related to the costs  of establishing a computer
              network   for environmental data.He said that to arrive at
              costs for a new network system one must first determine             I
              what the   specific purposes are and what is to be accom-
              plished.    On the basis of the various needs and require-
              ments, a   network design could be determined which would
              dictate the types of hardware and software needed and
              thereby reliable cost estimates could be developed. For
              example, the cost of hardware is linked to the storage and
              job-processing capacity which is related to the type of
              work. Also it would cost more to hold data "on line" for
              immediate access by a central computer facility than if the'
              data were stored, for instance     on magnetic tape in a tape
              library.; the greater the volume       of on line data the greater
              the cost of the    network.

                    As we have   found,there are     other less costly  methods
              of transferring    data between data systems than by direct
              interconnection of computers. For example,data stored on
              magnetic tape could be sent to another system through the
              mails. One situation where the interconnection of computers
              may desirable would be when data is valuable only if it
              is received within a short time frame.

                    We discussed with 'the Director of the RALI program in
              USGS the problems of developing a data network. A data
              network was being considered for the RALI program to sup-
              port land use and resources planning at the Federal, State,
              and local levels. The concept for the network has a number
              of similarities with House bill 36.

                                                   18
<pb n="28" />

                            The RALI program concept was submitted to USGS in a
                    October .1972.r,eport by its contractor. Under this concept,
                    -the..RALI program would have mademaximum use of existing
                    informatio.n sources by providing (1)references to data
                    maintained by other organizations and (2)a computerized
                    information base for modeling and analysis tasks consisting
                    of information summarized from data gathered and maintained
                    by other organizations.

                            As part of the RALI concept, a National Information
                                                         "to serve the analysis
                    Facility would have been established
                    and data needs of the Federal establishment primarily  on a
                    national level." The facility, Would, have s
                                                                upplied
                    summarized, data to Federal agencies, legislative and
                    judicial units, and other national-level planning groups to
                    allow these groups to make broad predictions of the probable
                    impact of national policy decisions on land use and national
                    resources.

                            According to the report, the RALI program would have
                    also established a number of regional, State, and local
                    information centers to provide referencing to and research-
                    ing of available data needed by users..

                            Most of the data available to users would not have been
                    an integral part of the program's data files but would have
                    been that data collected and maintained by,' the agencies,
                    governments, or organizations whose charter, objectives, or
                    capabilities place these acquisition and storage functions
                    most clearly within their domain.

                            One of the major benefits of the RALI program could
                    have been the elimination of duplication in collection of
                    data in that only one data gathering would be performed and
                    the data would. have then been available to all users.
                            The report suggested that, before full implementatiin,
                    the RALI Program be developed in four phases--the conceptual
                    phase, the definitive phase, the develoPment phase, and the
                    initial implementation phase. The definitive phase would
                    provide the major source of information needed to develop
                    RALI program design alternatives.  During this phase,which
                    would have taken about 1-1/2 years, users needs and data
                    sources which could have been incorporated into the RALI
                    program would have been identified as well as any modeling
                    and other analysis tools in operation or under deVelopment.

                            The Director of the RALI program told us, however, that
                    USGS could not implement the report's suggestions in the

                                                                      19
<pb n="29" />

             definitive phase. He explained that the report's approach
             was data oriented rather'than problem oriented.

                  He said that most available-data was useful primarily
             for the specific and limited purposes for which it was
             collected and might have only marginal utility beyond its
             original use. An example is digital slope data collected by
             the military for cross-country maneuvering purposes. Terrain
             is divided, by percentage of slope, into such categories as
             suitable for wheeled vehicles, suitable for tracked
             vehicles,-and impassible for any'vehicle. Other groups,
             such as foresters, land use planners, construction
             engineers, 'railroads, and highway' builders,   may collect
             slope data for the same geographic area,     but their slope
             categories will differ and will not be interchangeable with
             the military or with each other.

                  Slope is an example of de   'rived data. All groups begin
             with measurement of elevation--basic data--but each group
             then computes and aggregates it into different.
             based on percentage of slope. The basic data has.many uses
             but only after it has been processed'into another form. The
             derived data is directly usable but only to the group that
             compiled it. Because most data is collected for some
             specific purpose, the collections tend to be derivative in
             nature and have limited transferability. He said the
             problem was not so much one of sharing data but wa     s one of
             determining what data can be usefully shared.

                  He pointed out that collecting and maintaining data        is
             very costly and that data should not be introduced into an
             information system without regard'to its overall use. He
             added that an information network should not be,designed
             around miscellaneous, unrelated,,and limited-usle data as
             collected by various data users but should be designed
             around the problems to be solved. Once the problems are
             identified, the various data needed to so    lve the problems..
             can be determined.

                  The'Directbr of'the RALI program    noted that'no' decision
             had been made regarding the use of the technique of inter-,
             connecting or networking computers because it was not ap-
             propriate this early in the program's developmental      stage.
             He said that the interconnection of computers would      be
             decided at a later time on an individual case basis      when   the
             need for networking is justified. He noted that in       many
             cases other techniques of.'sharing data, such as exchange       of
             magnetic tapes, may be more economical.

                                               20
<pb n="30" />

                                          'CHAPTE
                                                 R_ 4

                                CONCLUSIONS,AND MATTERS FOR

                             CONSIDMTION     BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE'

            CONCLUSIONS

                  Many Federal.agencies,   collect  and  store   environmental
            data, in many instances i     nthe  same functional area, suc   h- as
            air and water.     These'@data systems  appear  to  have developed
            independently of each other to meet the specific missi6ns@'*of
            the various agencies. However, although there is no central
            focal point for coordinating:"th6*establishment,of--such sys-
            tems or for the    exchan r_     I llection of data         _. stems
                                     ge, or co                     ,many.sy
            share information with other Fe'deral'agencles. k-number of
            problems hindered the'exchailge     .. of data,I i.ncluding'a:lack'6f
            uniformity in the way data is coded and a lack of awareness
            of what data has been collected and by whom. One possible
            solution to the problem of a lack of awareness could be the
            creation of a directory of environmental data systems. Many
            systems managers agreed that such a directory was needed.

                  Legislation introduced in the Congress.would establish
            a central focal point for coordinating the collection and
            exchange of environmental data. The legislation would also
            provide for a computer network of new and existing data
            processing-facilities which through a system of interconnec-
            tion would be in communication with @L central facility.
            There are, however, other less costly methods of sharing
            data than through the interconnection of computers. Our
            review has shown that some data systems are'sharing data
            with other Federal agencies through the exchange of         some
            computer media, such as magnetic tape.

                  We believe that, if a network of environmental        data
            systems is " to be established, it should be designed'      around
            the environment problems that need solving. First,          it would
            be necessary to define the environmental problems that are
            to be addressed and to determine the analysis tools, such as
            predictive models which would assist in'their solution
            Defining the problems would involve considering their
            ecological, political, and social aspects. Once the
            problems and tools are identified, the data to be held in
            such a network can be identified and the best method of
            storing and exchanging such data can be determined.

                                                21
<pb n="31" />

              MATTERS FOR  CONSIDERATION BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

                   We suggest that the Subcommittee, when considering
              House bill 36, specify that, before a  nationwide network of
              interconnected environmental data systems is established,
              the environmental problems to be solved must be defined and
              the  analysis tools needed to assist in solving the problems
              be determined., Once the problems and analysis tools are
              identified, the dat a needs for the network and the best
              methods for storing and exchanging such data can be
              determined.

                   We also suggest that the central organization; which
              would be established if the bill were enacted, be made,
              responsible for establishing and maintaining an environ-
              mental data directory to increase awareness of what data is
              available.

                                              22
<pb n="32" />

                                                                                                                                                     APPENDIX I
                                       NINEW'*THI RD CONGRESS                                                                                                        CHIMP COUNSEL
                                                                                                                                                                         ERNEST J. CORRADO
                        LZONOR K. (MRS. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN. MO., CHAIRMAN                                                                                              COUNSEL
                     FRANK M. CLARK. PA.              JAMES R. GROVER, JR., N.Y.                                                                                         NED P. EVER'
                     TH MAS I. ASHLEY, OHIO           WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD CALIF*                                                                                        LEN SUTTER
                     J00                              CHARLES A. MOSHER,                      al
                     T HN 0. DINGELL, MICH.                                                       A yocuot ot at reant4fibeo                                             FRANCIS D. HEYWARD
                     HOMAS N. DOWNING, VA.            PHILIP E. RUPPE. MICH.                                                                                             MARY C. MC DONNELL
                     PAUL 0.  ROGERS.FLA.             GEORGE A. GOODLINO. Pg.
                     FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, KY.       PAUL N. MC CLOSKEY!_jR., CALIF.                               Committee oil
                     JOHN M. MURPHY, N.Y.             GENK SNYDER, KY.                                                                                               MINORITY COUNSEL
                     WALTER a. JONES. N.C.            ROI3E%T H. STEELE, CON".                       juerebant *aritte anb Poberieo
                     ROBERT L. LEGGETT, CALIF.        EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, N.J.                                                                                            RICHARD N. SHAROOD
                     MARIO BIAGGI, N.Y.               PIERRE S. (PETE) DUPONT, OF.L.            Mmtn 1334. 3LOU&amp;Crtb *009 Offift Nuffbing                                WILLIAM C6 ROUNTREE
                     GLENN M ANDERSON, CALIF.         WILLIAM 0. MILLS, MO.
                     E(KIKA) 6E LA GARZA. TEX.        WILLIAM S. COHEN, MAINE
                     PETER N- KYROS, MAINE            TR04T LOTT, MISS.                                Mosbinaton, D.C.                   10515
                     RALPH H. MEYCA-E. ILL.           DAVID C. TRUEN, LA.
                     JOHN B. BREAUX,  LA.             J091L PRITCHARD, WASH.
                     FRED B, ROONEY, PA.
                     BOB ECKHARDT'  TEX.
                     PAUL S. SARBANES. MO.                                                                   March 8, 1973
                     130 GINN, GA.
                     GERRY 9. STUDDS, MASS.
                     DAVID R. BOWEN, MISS.

                                       FRANCE$ STUJ6 CHIEF CUM

                                       Honorable Elmer B. Staats
                                       Comptroller,General.of the U.S.
                                 .General Accounting                              office
                                       Washington, D. C,.1

                                       Dear Mr. Staats:

                                                Environmental                     data and information                                arebeing                 collected
                                       by a     number of diverse Federal organizations. Virtually
                                       every      department and a dozen offices and councils                                                                   within
                                       the Executive Branch collect and store vast quantities of
                                       data. In addition., at least 24 independent agencies in-
                                       volved in environmental research or management collect
                                       similar amounts,of data. These data area national re-
                                       source upon which we must depend for information in guiding
                                       our efforts to protect the environment. This information
                                       represents an                     i nvestment of several million dollars and is
                                       an irreplaceable-7,asse't.

                                                I am concerned that we are not making maximum use of
                                       .this    valuableresource. There is no systematic directory
                                       of the environmental information collected and stored by
                                       the Federal Government, nor does there appear to be any
                                       degree of uniformity in the way it is stored and disseminated.
                                       Perhaps more importantly, I suspect that there is little co-
                                       ordination among the agencies with regard to the types of
                                       environmental data collected and the exchange of information
                                       among governmental entities.

                                                Thus I am requesting GAO to initiate an audit of the
                                       Federal agencies charged with the collection of environmental
                                       data, or which incidental to their missions collect environ-
                                       mental information, for the purpose of evaluating the follow-
                                       ing points:

                                                                                                       23
<pb n="33" />

                  APPENDIX I

                      * Kinds ofenvironmenta-l' data collected and scope
                         of the'.data,lc,ollection programs.

                             od
                      * Meth    o  stoking 'inf ormation.

                      * Availability  of information to private and public
                         sectors, including other government agencies.

                      * Methods of coordinating data collection and
                         transfer among other government agencies.

                      Please compile a report based-on the findings concerning
                 the points mentioned above and include any legislative pro-
                 posals you deem appropriate as aI result of your audit. I
                 suggest that your representative confer with the staff of my
                 Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
                 Environment and the staff of the Environmental Policy Divi-
                 sion., Congressional Research'Service,-Library of Congress.,
                 for further details regarding the study. If feasible, I
                 would like@to_ have the report availabIle by Novem ber 1, 1973.

                      Thank you for your he;P ' w-ith this matter. .-

                                                Sincere4-,

                                                John D. Dingell,  Chairman
                                                Subcommittee on Fieheries
                                                and Wildlife Conservation
                                                and-"the,". Environment

                                              24
<pb n="34" />

                                                               APPENDIX II*

                       SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO GAO QbESTIONNAIRE

                         ON FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SYSTEMS

                 We distributed a questionnaire to those Federal     agencies
            and departments that we identified as bei'ng involved   in the
            collection, storage, and/or dissemination of environmental
            data. We did rely, to a certain extent, on each agency to
            determine which systems or programs had environmental data.

                 WeIreceived 320 completed questionnaires from 18     depart-
            ments and agencies. The following section summarizes     the
            responses obtained for each of the four points raised    by the
            Chairman.

            KINDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA COLLECTED
            AND SCOPE OF THE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS

                 Many of the systems are collecting data in the same
            functional areas as shown by the following responses.

                     Functional area         Number of responses

                       Water                          175
                       Air                            120
                       Land use                       105
                       Pesticides.                     62
                       Noise                           27
                       Radiation                       49
                       Solid waste                     45
                       Other                           81,

                 Some responses indicated  that many  systems were collect-
            ing data in more than one functional area. For example; one
            system was collecting data on pesticides in water.

                -In the "other" category,  respondents indicated a variety
            of specialized areas, such as  plant and animal data.

                 We asked each respondent  to indicate the primary purpose
            of his system's data collection efforts. Some respondents
            indicated more than one primary purpose for their system, and
            their responses are summarized in.a separate column.

                                            25
<pb n="35" />

                       APPENDIX II

                                                                               Number       of    responses
                                                                              Primary            Two or more
                          Purpose        of   data collection purpose                               purposes

                     Legal, legislative,or reg-
                          ulatory                                                  33                     35
                       Surveillance and monitoring                                 40                     40
                       Research and development                                     53                3.5
                       Management  and" planning                                85                    52
                       Socioeconomic                                                 4                    14
                       Other                                                       25                        5

                                Many    respondents  indicating    "other"'purposes   indicated         a
                       special purpose which                   they believed did not fit into the above
                       categories.. A number                   of these respondents,noted that they
                       were depositories for                   data and        stored information for use of
                       other programs and organizations.

                                We asked each  respondent to indicate whether      his system
                       was primarily data oriented or  information  oriented.   Data-
                       oriented systems are concerned     with obtaining facts,
                       principally in digital forms; for example, systems involved in
                       surveillance and monitoring activities. Information-oriented
                       systems are concerned with data in narrative form, such as
                       reports, journals,"and specialized or technical literature.
                       Of 283 systems managers responding to this question, 158, or
                       56 percent, said their systems were primarily data oriented
                       and 125 were evenly distributed,between information oriented
                       and other. The remainder of the respondents indicated two
                       or more categories or did not answer the question., "Other"
                       included chiefly data collection techniques, such                                         as sampling,
                       questionnaires, canvassing, or onsite visits and evaluations.
                                We  asked each systems manager to describe the range and'
                       extent of his data collection activities We categorized the
                       scope by geographic area for 266 systems. The responses for
                       the other systems   could not       be-classified by geographic area.

                                                                         Number of  systems indicating data in
                                                    Number                       each  functional area
                                Scope of infor-       of                       Land                             Radia-    Solid
                                mation or data      systems    Air    Water   use     Pesticides      Noise      tion     waste

                              International
                                (note a)                 58     34     41      16         13           9       11        11
                              National (note b)        128      30     58      51         23           6       11      14
                              Regional (note C)        80       28     46      22        7             3
                                    Total              266      92    145      89         43          18       33      30

                              aSystems collecting and storing data    worldwide or from   selected areas outside and
                                in some cases inside the United States and its territories.

                              bSystems collecting and storing data    throughout the United States.
                              cSystems collecting and storing data    from selected areas of the United States, such as
                                the Southeastern States or a particular river basin.

                                                                              26
<pb n="36" />

                                                                   APPENDIX II

               STORAGE-OF INFORMATION

                     Environmental information is stored totally, or in
               part, in computer format by 229 systems. Some of these
               systems also maintain part of their data in written reports
               and publications or manual files. Only 90 systems managers
              ,indicated that they did not store any of their data.in
               computer media. Other methods of storage the respond"ents
               noted were microfilm, photography, maps, and charts.

                     We asked the managers using a computer media for
               sto'rage of all or part of their data to indicate the media.
               The following schedule shows the number of responses for
               each media.

                          Computer media           Number of   responses

                           Punched'cards                    104
                           Magnetic tape                    187
                           Magnetic disc                    115
                           Magnetic drum                      @7
                           Punched tape                       20

                    The responses to our questionnaire      revealed  that  these
               systems used a variety of computer models from many dif-
               ferent manufacturers to proces.s environmental data. The
              ;following schedule shows the makes and,number of different'
               models used.

                                               Number of      Number of systems
                          Make                   models               used

               IBM                                   24               160
               Control Data Corp.                     9                 42
               DATA 100                               2                  4
               U
                14IVAC
                                                      4                 18
               Digital Equipment   Corp.              2                  8
               Honeywell                              7                 11
               Burroughs                              2                  7
               Modular Computer Systems               1                  1
               Wang                                  .1                  1
               Xerox                                  4                  6
               Data General                           1                  4
               Varian                                 1                  2

                   Total                             58               264

                                                 27
<pb n="37" />

             APPENDIX II

                  The data systems used     a.variety of.comput'er languages.

                           Language               Number of responses

                      FORTRAN                                140
                      COBOL                                  89
                      RPG
                      BASIC                                  14
                      PL/I                                   46
                      Assembly (various)                     40
                      MARK'IV                                  9
                      IRS                                    10
                      Misc.                                  34@

                   Many systems use two    or more   languages.

             AVAILABILITY OF DATA

                   Respondents indicated that they provide their data to
             organizations in other agencies and departments in the
             Federal Government. The following schedule shows the number
             of respondents who indicated their systems provide data to
             organizations outside their own departments or agencies.

                                                     Number providing data
                                      Number of             to other
                      Agency         respondents departments and agencies

             Agriculture                   33                    17
             Commerce                      39                    31
             EPA                           `87                   22
             Interior                      61                    37
             Atomic Energy
               Commission                  23                    14
             Corps.of Engineers            10                     8
             Health, Education,
               and Walf are                18                     7.
             National Science
               Foundation                  10                     5
             Tennessee Valley
               Authority                   11                     9
             Others,                       28                    17

                 Total                                         _L6 7

                                                 28
<pb n="38" />

                                                                                APPENDIX II

                         The    system managers also indicated that they provide
                   data  to organizations outside the Federal Government which
                   also  constitutes a large  portion of users of environmental
                   information.  The following schedule indicates the major
                   non-Federal recipients of environmental information and the
                   number of systems which provide information.

                                                                Number of systems,
                                 Recipients..                providing information

                         State                                            163
                         Academic community                               137
                         Private sector                                   139
                         Business and industry                             49
                         Local governing bodies                            36
                         Foreign countries                                 13

                         Systems    managers    were   requested    to indicate how
                   intraagency     and interagency  Federal   users   and any other
                   users outside the Federal Government get data from their
                   systems. The following schedule    shows   the   number of
                   responses, in    each category.

                                    Computer terminal                          86
                                    Telephone                                 151
                                    Mailing list                              129
                                    Other                                     165

                         Respondents indicating "other" noted (1)various
                   methods of receiving requests,. such  as  direct personal
                   contacts and wrItten  correspondence, or (2) methods     of
                   transferring data, or information,such as general and annual
                   reports, computer printouts, publications, Journals, and
                   magnetic    tapes.

                        Most respondents indicated that their systems receive
                   50 or fewer requiests a month for information as shown by the
                   following schedule.

                            Number of request                    Number of
                             for information                     responses

                                  0  to  50                           209
                                 51  to  100                           35
                                101  to  500                           25
                                501  or  over                          27

                         We Asked each systems manager to indicate a normal
                   response time for requests for information from his system.

                                                            29
<pb n="39" />

                 APPENDIX II

                 Responses received from 250 managers are shown below.

                                  3 days      2 weeks,     1 month     2  months
                 Immediate      to less       to less     to lessss     to less
                  or 1 to          than         than          than       than        6 months
                   2 days       2 weeks       1 month      2 months     6 months     and over

                      85            92            41              19             6             7

                        Approximately 71 percent of the  respondenets indicated
                 that their normal response time was less than 2 weeks.

                        Most respondents (230) indicated that  they did    not
                 charge users for the services they provide. The primary
                 reasons given for not charging users were: (1) Iervices
                 were for intraagency use only, (2) information was given
                 free as a public service, (3) information was"given free
                 except when unusual processing was necessary.

                 METHODS OF COORDINATING DATA COLLECTION'               AND,
                 TRANSFER AMONG GOVERNMENT-AGENCIES

                        To determine the various method's`of'coordination                     in
                 data   collection and transfer among the,agencqies, we asked
                 each   respondent to indicate (1) if his sys          tem participated
                 in a   network which has as its purpose               either the exchange of
                 data   or the coordination of data collection activities and
                 (2)  if his system received environmental data from other
                 systems. The schedule below shows whose agencies indicating
                 the  largest number of networks.for exchange or coordination
                 of data.

                                                                            Number,.   indicating
                                                          -Number    of           involvement
                             Agency                     respondents            with a network

                 Agriculture
                 Commerce                                       36                      11
                 Atomic Energy Commission                       20                      10
                 Interior                                       58                      13
                 EPA                                            86                      21
               ,All others                                      70

                        Total                                  303                      98

                        We asked each systems manager who,indicaqted                   participa-
                 tion   in a network to describe the network. Most                    of the
                 explanations were very brief and, did not explain                     how data
                 was exchanged or coordinated.

                                                              30
<pb n="40" />

                                                              APPENDIX II

                 Of those responding, 141 indicated their systems
            received environmental data from other systems. The
            schedule below indicates those agencies having the largest
            number of systems which receive environmental data from
            other systems.

                              Number of systems receiving data from
             Department       Intra-                  Both intraagencies
              or agency     agencies Interagencies and interagencies

            Agriculture           4          5                 1
            Commerce            10           11                11
            EPA                 16           8                 3
            Interior              7          9                 4
            Atomic Energy
              Commission        -0           5                 9
            All others            2          22                6

                 Total          39                             34

                 Eight respondents did not  indicate the source of the
            data.

                                             31
<pb n="41" />

                                      1110111111101111
                                       3 6668 00001 7170 .
</text>
</doc>
