:report to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives/by the Comptroller General of the United States. United States.General Accounting Office. United States.Congress.House.Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment. [Washington:U.S. General Accounting Office,1974] Human ecology United States Directories. Information storage and retrieval systems Human ecology. 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> KIOV,22,1 9 7Z-' 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 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 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&D research and development SEQUIP Study of Environmental Quality Information Programs USGS United States Geological Survey 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. 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 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 -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 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.' 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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&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&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&D efforts. We noted that-several major Federal systems were@, disseminating R&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 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 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 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 '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 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 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&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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1110111111101111 3 6668 00001 7170 .