Ch. 7— Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data • 253 



oceanographic data from the collecting agencies 

 such as USGS, MMS, and the Department of De- 

 fense (DoD) to the two major NOAA national data 

 centers — the National Oceanographic Data Cen- 

 ter (NODC) in Washington, D.C.,'^ and the Na- 

 tional Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in Boul- 

 der, Colorado.^" 



Data collected by the academic community under 

 the auspices of the National Science Foundation 

 (NSF), Division of Ocean Sciences, should be ulti- 

 mately submitted to the national centers. The Di- 

 vision's Ocean Data policy specifies that lists of all 

 data collected under its sponsorship (primarily ma- 

 rine geology and geophysics data) "be submitted 

 to the appropriate NOAA/NESDIS [National Envi- 

 ronmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service] 

 national data center within 30 days of the comple- 

 tion of each cruise," that surface and mixed-layer 

 temperature and salinity data "be submitted in real 

 time" (i.e., within 48 hours of the observation), 

 and that longer term data be submitted within 2 

 years. This policy seeks to ensure an appropriate 

 balance between the needs of NSF researchers and 

 secondary users. Producers, managers, and second- 

 ary users of oceanographic data have responded 

 well to this policy; unfortunately, there is no mech- 

 anism for mandating transfer of the actual data at 

 the completion of a grant period. Incentives to sup- 

 pliers, such as reimbursement for the cost of copy- 

 ing data, formatting it in a standard way, and other 

 hardware/software expenses would gready facilitate 

 archiving of data. The details of the NSF require- 

 ments are now under review, and a revised data 

 policy is expected in early 1988. At the request of 

 U.S. academic research scientists,^' NSF agreed to 

 explore with other Federal agencies whether the 

 NSF ocean data policy could serve as the basis for 



"For example, an informal working agreement specifies that the 

 Bureau of Land Management require its contract researchers to pro- 

 vide all data for archival in NESDIS centers (1978) and that the Na- 

 tional Science Foundation require that appropriate data collected by 

 researchers working under NSF Ocean Sciences sponsorship be pro- 

 vided to NESDIS centers as part of contract fulfillment (1982). 



^°For example, Marine Geological and Geophysical Data Manage- 

 ment Agreement, NOAA and USGS, April 1985; and Geological and 

 Geophysical Data Dissemination Agreement, MMS and NOAA, May 

 1985. Other interagency understandings (with NSF, NOS, and DOD) 

 are rooted in policy, precedent, and unilateral instruction but are not 

 spelled out in formal interagency agreements. 



^'As part of planning for data management activities in support of 

 the Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Study (TOGA) and the World 

 Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE). 



development of a government wide ocean data pol- 

 icy. NSF has convened two meetings of agency ex- 

 perts to consider this question. This effort could 

 result in a draft ocean data policy presented to each 

 of the interested agencies for their review and adop- 

 tion by the beginning of the 1988 fiscal year.^^ 



Funding 



Since fiscal year 1980, the base funding for 

 NODC" and NGDC^* has diminished in real dol- 

 lars. At the same time, the workloads of both 

 centers have increased. Estimates indicate that the 

 digital data storage requirements for NODC will 

 triple in the next 5 years and wUl double for NGDC . 



Based on general operating budgets for some na- 

 tional data centers and funds spent for data collec- 

 tion operations by the Federal agencies, it is esti- 

 mated that funds for storage are less than 1 percent 

 of the funds spent on data collection. Some esti- 

 mate that this proportion should be in the range 

 of 5 to 10 percent. In contrast, the geophysical 

 prospecting data industry commonly invests 10 to 

 200 percent of the costs of collecting marine data 

 in processing and archival;^' the actual percentage 

 varies depending on the cost of data acquisition — 

 about 200 percent in the Gulf of Mexico where costs 

 are low and 10 percent in less accessible regions 

 such as the Beaufort Sea. As a result of chronically 

 low funding, national data centers have been able 

 to preserve only a small fraction of the collected 

 data, and many important data sets have been lost. 



Some fraction of this loss is likely due to the data 

 collector and primary user not planning for or con- 

 sidering secondary use. But funding agencies must 

 also bear some responsibility for ensuring that data 

 are properly preserved and maintained. An appro- 

 priate amount of data management money should 

 be included in grants — and not at the expense of 

 funding for the research that collects the data. 



^'L. Brown, National Science Foundation, pers. com. to Richard 

 Vetter, OTA contractor, Apr. 13, 1987. 



"NODC funding: Fiscal year 1982 ($4.5 million), Fiscal year 1983 

 ($4.6 million). Fiscal year 1984 ($4.1 million). Fiscal year 1985 ($4. 1 

 million). Fiscal year 1986 ($3.8 million). Fiscal year 1987 ($3.6 million. 



"NGDC funding: Fiscal year 1980 ($3.1 million). Fiscal year 1981 

 ($3.1 million), Fiscal year 1982 ($3.1 mUlion), Fiscal year 1983 ($3.0 

 million). Fiscal year 1984 ($2.8 million). Fiscal year 1985 ($2.7 mil- 

 lion). Fiscal year 1986 ($2.6 million). 



^*Carl Savit, Western Geophysical Company, pers. com. to Richard 

 Vetter, OTA contractor, Nov. 25, 1986. 



