A user need study and system plan for an Arizona natural resources information system

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A USER NEED STUDY AND
SYSTEM PLAN
FOR AN
ARIZONA NATURAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION SYSTEM
PREPARED BY STAFF OF THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE
LEGISLATURES AND THE
COUNCIL OF STATE PLANNING
AGENCIES, NATIONAL
GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
OCTOBER 1980
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 80- 1.2
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
November 17, 1980
The Honorable Bruce E i h b i t t
Members of t h e Arizon, ~ e g i s l a t u r e
Arizona S t a t e Land Department
Arizona Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Data P r o c e s s i n g D i v i s i o n
Department of Water Resources
U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona, O f f i c e of Arid Lands S t u d i e s
Transmitted herewith is A User Need Study and System Plan f o r an Arizona
Natural Resources I n f o r m a t i o n System. The r e p o r t is i n response t o a J u l y
14, 1980, r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Budget Committee.
The blue pages r e p r e s e n t a summary of t h e r e p o r t ; responses from t h r e e
S t a t e a g e n c i e s and t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Ar'zona a r e found on t h e yellow pages
preceding t n e appendices. I n accordance with t h e J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Budget
Committee's r u l z s and procedures, t h e Arizona Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
( AilOT) was provided a d r a f t copy f o r review and comment on September 29,
1980, and a r e v i s e d copy on October 10, 1980. A s of' IJove~ nber 17, 1980,
AOOT. had n o t e x e r c i s e d its r i g h t t o submit a w r i t t e n response f o r
i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s r e p o r t .
The r e p o r t was prepared under t h e l e a d e r s h i p of M r . Paul T e s s a r and
M s . Loyola Caron from t h e National Conference of S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e s and
M s . Peggy Harwood from t h e Council of S t a t e Planning Agencies, National
Governors' A s s o c i a t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l s t a f f r e s o u r c e s i n c l u d e d :
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WING SUITE 200 STATE CAPITOL PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 255- 4385
Mr. Nickolas L. S a u s t , Georgia I n s t i t u t e of Technology
M r . rirriothy H. Hays, C a l i f o r n i a Environmental Data C e n t e r ,
O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g and desearch
Mr. ' Thomas R. Loveland, Technicolor Graphic S e r v i c e s , I n c . ,
EROS Data C e n t e r , U. S. Geological Survey
r . David P e t e r s o n , N a t i o n a l Aeronautics and Space
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
Mr. d i l l i a m J. Todd, Technicolor Graphic S e r v i c e s , Inc . ,
N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( I
Mr. John Wilson, Texas N a t u r a l Resources Inforr, lation System
Nr. Donald P. Yaeger, ~ Vlinnesota Land Management Information
Center
( I
These i n d i v i d u a l s , my s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o d i s c u s s o r c l a r i f y
items i n t h e r e p o r t .
R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted,
~ o ' u ~ l gR. s Norton
A u d i t o r G e n e r a l
S t a f f : Gerald A. S i l v a
Coni Good
Enclosure
I're\ ident
IZicliard \. flodc\
speaker Pro Irn? portb, 1,~ lorirfa
Ilou\ e of Hel~ rr\ t. ntati\ e\
October 8, 1980
Mr. Doug Norton, Auditor General
Room 200
State Capi to1
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Mr. Norton:
Pursuant to our " Agreement for Technical Assistance Services,"
I hereby transmit to you the original copy of A User Need Study
and System Plan for an Arizona Natural Resources Information
System.
The completion of this report represents the culmination of a
major effort on the part of NCSL and Council of State Planning
Agencies staff over the past three months. I trust you will find
the background work on technical considerations, institutional
settings and user needs to be thorough, and the conclusions and
recommendations to be well thought out and defensible.
If we can be of any assistance to your office in the future,
please feel free to call upon us.
Earl S. Mackey
Executive Director 0
A USER NEED STUDY AND
SYSTEM PLAN
FOR AN
ARIZONA NATURAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION SYSTEM
Prepared by Staff of the
National Conference of State
Legislatures and the
Council of State Planning
Agencies, National
Governors'Association
October 1980
A Report t c the
Arizona State Legislature
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No .
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I Background and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1 1.2 Request for Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 2 1.3 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 5
II . Preliminary Survey of User Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11- 1
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.21 Development of a Su, vey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . .
2.22 Implementation of tEcCSu rvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Arizona Entities Selected for User Survey . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Arizona Entities Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Organizations That Should Be Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.61 Characteristics of Data Sources/ Products . . . . . . . .
2.62 Data Needs by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air Quality
Animals
Cultural Data ( Historical/ Archaeological )
Geologic Framework
Land Use
Land Ownership
Social and Economic Data
Soi 1 s
Vegetation
Water \
2.63 Uses of Natural Resource ~ a< a. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Observations/ Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I11 . Systems and Software Task Force Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 1
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 1 3.2 Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 1 3.21 ADOTHardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 1 3.22 DOAHardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 3 3.23 DWR Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 4 3.24 SLDHardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 4 3.25 UofAHardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 5 3.3 Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 6
3.4 Arizona Data Processing Staff Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 7 3.41 ADOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 7 3.42 DOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 8 3.43 DWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 9 3.44 SLD/ ARIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 10 3.45 U of A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 11
3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111- 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( Continued)
IV. Existing Institutional Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1V- 1
4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.21 Interviews of Candidate Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.22 Additional Evaulation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.23 Recommendation of an Institutional Arrangement . . . .
4.3 Criteria for a State Natural Resource Information System. . .
4.31 Additional Observations of Existing State
Information Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.32 Institutional Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Survey of Candidate Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.41 Ranking of Candidates to be the Host Agency
for a State Natural Resource Information System. . . .
4.5 Evaluation of IRD/ ARIS in Relation to Institutional Criteria.
4.6 Observations Regarding the State Data Coordination
Network and Mapping Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . .
V. Institutional Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1
5.1 Recommended Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1
5.2 Recommended Host Agency, and Information System
Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 3
5.3 Recommended Membership of the Interagency Guidance
Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 4
VI. Data Processing Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 1
6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 1
6.2 EDP Objectives. . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 2
6.3 Strategies and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 6
6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 9
6.5 Project Descriptions and Plan Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 9
Written Responses to User Need S t u d y and S y s t e m Plan a - d
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( Continued)
Appendices
Appendix I- A:
Appendix I- B:
Appendix 11- A:
Appendix 11- B:
Appendix 11- C:
Appendix IV- A:
Appendix IV- B:
Appendix V- A:
Page No.
Technical Analysis of the Current and
PSryosptoesme d( AARrISi) z. o na. R. es. ou. rc. e . In. fo. rm. at. io. n . . . . . . . . . I- A- 1
Agreement for Technical Assistance Services . . . . . I- B- 1
User Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11- A- 1
Complete Survey Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11- B- 1
Summaries of Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11- C- 1
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
Office of Economic Planning and Development
Game and Fish Department
Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology
Maricopa Association of Governments
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
State Parks Board
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
Department of Revenue
Department of Transportation - Environmental
Planning Services
Summaries of Interviews with Candidate Agencies ( Institutional Set2tings) . . . . . . . . . . IV- A- 1
Department of Water Resources
Department of Transportation
The University of Arizona -- Office of Arid
Lands Studies -- Applied Remote Sensing Program
State Lands Department
Goals for an Information System . . . . . . . . . . . IU- B- 1
Draft Job Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- A- 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
In response to a request for technical assistance services by the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee of the State of Arizona, the National Conference
of State Legislatures ( NCSL) and the Council of State Planning Agencies ( CSPA)
formed a Resource Team to evaluate the need for a statewide natural resource
information system. The Resource Team formed by NCSL and CSPA was asked to
evaluate current needs in Arizona for natural resource anC 2lated data,
existing manual and/ or automated natural resource informat ion system( s) to
meet those data needs, and institutional settings that might host such a
system. Further, the Team was asked to make recommendations for an
information system and appropriate institutional arrangements to house the
system, should the needs of Arizona state entities justify development of the
capability.
The Resource Team consisted of ten members having expertise in state
information systems. In addition to NCSL and CSPA, it included individuals
currently or previously affiliated with state governments ( California,
Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas), a university, the
U. S. Geological Survey, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. The Team was divided into task forces addressing three
specific areas:
e User Needs;
e Systems and Software; and
8 Institutional Arrangements.
The total time spent by these ten individuals during July, August, September
and October, 1980, represents over six person months of effort.
The findings reported in this document indicate that Arizona State
agencies do indeed have a need for natural resource data coordination and for
a mechanism to access and analyze the data, such as could be provided by an
information center with an automated capability. Given current capabilities
and conditions in Arizona, the Resource Team unanimously recommends that such
a mechanism be established in the Department of Transportation. The
capability is referred to in this report as the Arizona - In formation - Ne twork
- Fo r - Op erational - Re source - Ma nagement-- the INFORM System.
11. PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF USER NEEDS
To understand the needs for natural resource and related data in Arizona,
the User Needs Task Force designed a survey instrument to be administered to
state entities participating in the study. The purpose of the survey was to
acquire specific details characterizing the types of data used or produced,
and to summarize those needs for all participating agencies. The intent was
to derive the capabilities a natural resource information system would need in
order to accommodate the range of products desired. The instrument included
the following variables:
r Major programs, ongoing or planned, identified in the organization
r Authority ( Mandates/ Responsibi 1 it ies) for each programmatic area
r Standard Products ( Del iverables)
0 Project ( Work Element) Descriptions
Task Descriptions
Data Characteristics - Data Item
- Source Format
- Scale or Resolution
- Geographic Reference System
- Required Currency of Data Item
- Geographical Coverage ( Acres, Miles) - Current or Anticipated Sources
- Collection Procedure, If Applicable
- Access Restrictions ( Avai labi 1 ity)
- Storage Medium and Approximate Volume
- Precision
9 Product Characteristics - Data Product
- Product Format
- Scale or Resolution
- Geographic Reference System
- Updating Frequency
- Geographical Coverage ( Acres, Mi 1 es)
- Time Constraints
- Anticipated Users
- Analysis Performed
- Access Restrictions ( Availability)
- Storage Medium
e Costs for Data Accumulation
Fifteen state entities were surveyed during a two- week period in August
and September. Although several other agencies and local government units
remain to be surveyed ( perhaps by systems staff in the future), the
preliminary results based on the fifteen agencies support the substantial need
for coordination of natural resource data in the state, and for a central
access point to obtain and process these data.
Some observations which strengthened thejconclusion that Arizona State
entities have a need for natural resources data and a system to handle that
data should be noted:
1) The concept of planning is still in its infancy. Most entities
operate by reacting to areas of need as they arise.
2) The concept of a statewide natural resource information system was
enthusiastically supported by agencies who participated in the user needs
survey. However, they shared the concern that the system might be " buried" in
an agency that would not be able to respond adequately to their needs.
3) Program efforts are restricted basically to activities that " must" be
done. Other areas are addressed as resources are available.
4) State agency employees rely heavily on personal contacts to obtain
secondary source data. Should an employee leave the agency, his/ her knowledge
about how and where to obtain data may leave with that person.
5) The consciousness- level of how an information system might help
employees carry out their tasks is somewhat limited. Upon proper promotion of a
a system, however, it is probable that the agencies would soon realize and
take advantage of the benefits provided through such a mechanism.
6) Agencies need to talk more to each other about what data needs they
have in common. This would greatly assist systems starf in further defining
data priorities and capabilities required.
The state agencies were ranked as primary or secondary users of natural
resources data. Needs were based on each agency's perceived needs, the
consistency of these needs, team judgments about the extent of geographic
coverage involved, and the variety of data types required by the entity.
a Primary Users
- State Land Department ] : qua1 Ranking
- Department of Water Resources J
- Department of Transportation
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
- Game and Fish Department
- Department of Health Services
- State Parks Board
- Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology
a Secondary Users ( No ranking within category)
- Legislative Bodies
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
- Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
- Local government
- Councils of Governments
- Other state agencies, many of which were not interviewed during this
survey because of lack of time.
r Other Users
- Public
- Federal Agencies
- Universities/ Educational Institutions
- Industry
A summary of the major data types required by the eight primary users is
1,
included in the table on page 6.
111. SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE TASK FORCE REPORT
@
The Systems and Software Task Force evaluated five technical data
processing and user- support entities:
6
a Department of Transportat ion - Inf ormat ion Systems Group ( ADOT) ,
a Department of Administration ( DOA Data Center),
o Department of Water Resources ( DWR),
m e State Land Department - Informat ion Resources Division ( SLD/ IRD) , and
r University of Arizona - Office of Arid Lands Studies, Applied Remote
Sensing Program ( U of A).
D Information was gathered through interviews, written materials provided,
tours of facilities and demonstrations of capabilities.
Hardware
* ADOT - The ADOT Electronic Data Processing ( EDP) Center was eliminated as
a potential host for INFORM due to current heavy utilization.
DATA NEEDS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
?: Anticipate use of this data type i n the future.
X : Data type currently used.
- DOA - The DOA Data Center could potentially supp0r. t INFORM. INFORM'S neea
for specialized hardware, however, makes the use of a minicomputer necessary.
- DWR - DWR currently utilizes the ADOT and DOA data centers for its
processing needs.
- SLD - The IRD of SLD has a fairly sophisticated minicomputer and excellent
graphics peripheral devices.
U. of A. - The Office of Arid Lands Studies has access to several
sophisticated computer systems for research and development work.
Software
There has been little Geographic Information System ( GIs) or Landsat
processing software implemented by any of the five entities evaluated.
However, both SLD and DWR have plans to implement Landsat image- processing
capabilities. SLD has been attempting implementation the last two years, but
has only one simple routine ( of at least 15- 20 required) operational to date.
The U of A has a wide variety of software available from various sources,
most of which is operational on one of its three computers. These packages,
however, are used mostly for demonstration oy pilot studies, and are not
currently linked into a coherent geographic information system.
Staff
See Chapter 111 in the body of the report for a discussion of the current
staff capabilities of the five entities.
IV. EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS
The Institutional Arrangements Task Force interviewed four entities
identified as candidates or potential hosts for a natural resource information
system in Arizona: The State Land Department, the Department of Water
Resources, the Department of Transportation, and the University of Arizona -
Office of Arid Lands Studies. In an attempt to get an understanding of each
candidate agency's present capabilities, and any future role they might play
in structuring an information system, the task force asked questions of senior
staff in each agency relative to how that agency: 1) handled their
information needs, 2) provided information services, and 3) perceived existing
efforts at information coordination in Arizona.
Because natural resource information systems in other states are perhaps
the best models for evaluating the institutional arrangement most likely to be
( I
successful in Arizona, the task force developed a list of criteria common to
these state systems. These criteria were used to examine the progress of the
State of Arizona in developing a statewide information system, and for
determining what additional institutional changes, if any, might be needed to
improve performance. They are:
a Perceived need/ Documented need
0 Clear purpose and mandate
0 We1 1 - defined scope ( Users, Data Types, Information Services)
a Functioning mechanism for user invojvement
a Institutional home
a Implementation plan ( Staffing requirements, Equipment/ Software, User
Education/ Outreach, and Schedule)
Institutional Options
The institutional options facing Arizona are as follows:
e Not Develop an Interagency System - The State may decide that the
current level of user needs for natural resource and related data
does not justify the cost of developing an information system.
a Add a Service Function to an Existing Agency Program - Though fairly
easy to initiate, this approach may discourage wide use because the
service function tends to be limited by the scope of the agency's
mission, would likely give priority to its funding agency, and woula
tend not to develop new capabilities for other agencies unless of
benefit internally.
o Establish an Information Service Center in a Host Agency with an
Interagency Guidance Committee - A special mandate, usually
established with legislation, is required to create a separate
information function different from the original mission of the host
agency. Many states find this approach to be the most effective
option for establishing a state system that will be responsive to the
different needs of state agencies.
o Create an Independent Information Agency - This could well be the
most costly option, as it would require establishing a new
administrative structure to support the service function.
Survey of Candidate Agencies
The University of Arizona did not feel it was an appropriate role for them
to provide ongoing operational services to state, local and federal agencies,
and they did not wish to be considered as a permanent host agency. Rather,
university staff felt their preferred role was to provide technical
assistance, training and research capacities. Therefore, the U of A was
eliminated as a candidate host agency. The three remaining agencies were
further evaluated to determine their institutional and technical suitability
to host a state natural resource information system.
Evaluation of IRD/ ARIS in Relation to
Institutional Criteria
IRD/ ARIS could potentially meet two of the three criteria for an
institutional home. They are supportive of the multiagency information system
concept, and IRD has some expertise in data collection, storage and
manipulation. The current expertise in automated spatial data processing,
however, is inadequate to implement an interagency system. Further, IRD has
yet to produce an acceptable implementation plan. They do not have an
advisory group, and the current IRD mapdate and program are too narrow to meet
interagency needs.
Ranking of Agencies
In consultation with other members of the Resource Team, the Institutional
Arrangements Task Force evaluated the State Land Department, Department of
Transportation and the Department of Water Resources. The agencies were
ranked in order of current ability, as perceived by the Resource Team, to
' support a state natural resource information system. This ranking is not
intended to be a reflection of the overall performance of the candidate
agency, because an interagency information system is a separate activity over
and above the agency's mission.
1. Arizona Department of Transportation. The Resource Team concurred
that ADOT appeared to be the strongest candidate because:
- ADOT has extensive technical capabilities and staff expertise in
areas such as remote sensing, environmental assessment, and computer
processing which are related to operation of an information system.
- Senior staff has demonstrated experience in managing sophisticated
technology and applications.
- The Agency has s t a b i l i t y , w i t h w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d programs and proven
performance i n mission areas.
- As t h e t h i r d l a r g e s t user, they are less l i k e l y t o overload t h e
system w i t h t h e i r own agency p r i o r i t i e s , and are, perhaps, i n t h e
best p o s i t i o n t o see t h a t t h e data needs o f a l l major users are met.
2. Department o f Water Resources. The Resource Team concurred t h a t DWR
was a l s o a s t r o n g candidate, b u t would be ranked below ADOT as a p o t e n t i a l
host f o r t h e s t a t e system because:
- DWR i s c u r r e n t l y responding t o a major r e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i r planning
and management a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i v e t o new groundwater l e g i s l a t i o n .
- DWR i s not now experienced i n s u p e r v i s i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s s i m i l a r t o
those o f an interagency i n f o r m a t i o n system.
3. State Land Department. The Resource Team concurred t h a t SLD would be
ranked below ADOT and DWR a t t h i s time because:
- It w i l l be some t i m e b e f o r e SLD w i l l have developed c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t
would support i t s own needs, much l e s s an i n t e r a g e n c y system.
- The senior s t a f f expressed a lack qf experience i n managing
s o p h i s t i c a t e d technology and a p p l i c a t i o n s .
- SLD i s perceived t o be i n t r a n s i t i o n . The agency i s r e d e f i n i n g i t s
r o l e as t r u s t e e o f p u b l i c lands.
- Some disappointments w i t h and bad impressions o f t h e performance of
t h e ARIS f u n c t i o n a r e a l s o associated w i t h SLD. A new host agency
might speed acceptance and use o f a s t a t e i n f o r m a t i o n system.
- SLD's major focus - is on resource management o f s t a t e t r u s t lands
( about 17% o f t h e S t a t e a r e a ) . They do, however, have some statewide
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
- It is perceived that the level of Information Resources Division
staff experience is insufficient to carry out the types of functions
required for an interagency system.
Several positive factors of SLD should also be noted, including strong
support of senior management, an appreciation of INFORM- type capabilities by
SLD resource managers, and close contact with potential federal users ( U. S.
Forest Service and BLM) .
V. RECOMMENDED INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The recommended framework for an Arizona - In formation - Ne twork - Fo r
- Op erational - Re source - Ma nagement-- the INFORM System-- is as follows:
e Implementation of a " linked network" approach. The linked network
concept defines certain agencies as members of the system, and
includes individual agency data and capabilities within the scope of
the system.
8 Interagency involvement in INFORM should be ensured through
establishment of an interagency poljicy board or guidance committee
composed of representatives from key agencies which are primary users
of natural resources information. These agencies would be the INFORM
member agencies. Certain additional entities would be included as
either voting or ex- officio participants, as appropriate.
e INFORM should be designed primarily to serve its member agencies.
Other users should be served by the system to the extent possible
within available resources.
a INFORM staff to support development and operation of the system
should be established and housed in the host agency ( Department of
Transportation).
The manager of the INFORM staff should be hired with the " advice" of the
policy board or guidance committee which is established to direct the system.
Additional staff should be hired by the manager.
The Resource Team concurs that, given existing conditions, the Department
of Transportation is the most viable candidate for hosting the core staff and
capabilities for the state natural resource information system. Recommended
functions for the system to be established in ADOT are:
- maintain index of available data and referral services, including
participation in federal information systems;
- develop a geographic information system ( data base, computer software
and applications) and provide consultation and technical assistance
services to users;
- provide outreach and training opportunities for state agencies;
- publish a newsletter for system users; and
- provide staff support to the Guidance Committee.
Membership of the Interagency Guidance Committee should be initially
composed of the eight primary users identified in the User Needs Survey ( see
Page 4).
In addition, ex- officio representation from the Governor's Office, from
appropriate state universities, and from managing agencies of federal lands in
Arizona -- Bureau of Land Management and U. S. Forest Service -- would be
desirable. Other state, regional and local agencies could be added on the
basis of need, as appropriate. The Arizona Department of Transportation would
chair the committee and provide staff support through the INFORM system.
This Guidance Conimittee should be established as soon as possible to
review this report and the recommended system plan. The Committee should also
develop mechanisms to see that all potential users are kept appraised of
system plans and status, and that these users have the opportunity to provide
input to systems development plans.
VI. TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS - DATA PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This section recommends a course of action leading to an operational
natural resource data coordination and analysis network for the State of
Arizona. The name proposed for this service bureau is the Arizona INFORM
System. It is recommended that the Arizona Department of Transportation
implement this system in consultation with the interagency Guidance Conmittee.
The plan document consists of a statement of Electronic Data Processing
( EDP) objectives, a brief discussion of strategies and priorities, an outline
of projects and tasks, and summaries of the resource requirements of the
plan. The plan was prepared in accordance with DOA's EDP long- range planning
guide1 ines.
As host agency to an Arizona data reference service and geographic
infornation system data processing capability, ADOT will serve a wide array of
state agencies in the area of natural resources management. Currently, ADOT
has extensive EDP capabilities for performing traditional departmental tasks,
but more manpower and hardwarelsoftware must be acquired to fulfill the
expanded area of responsibility. Specific objectives include:
1. Establish and participate in an interagency policy group.
2. Provide map, aerial photo- related, and other data reference services.
3. Organize an office, including staff and computer facilities.
4. Maintain a user services and geographic data processing staff, of
highest technical competence, responsive to the needs of user
agencies .
5. Acquire new hardware, upgrade existing hardware and install software
necessary to perform analysis of geo- referenced data.
The plan organizes a phased, three- year effort to develop automated
resource analysis capabilities for the State of Arizona. Major tasks and
equipment acquisitions are outlined in the balance of this plan.
One of the first major tasks is the development of an interim Landsat
capability on the ADOT Amdahl computer. This capability is required to meet
immediate and ongoing needs of the Department of Water Resources and the State
Land Department.
Succeeding tasks in the plan call for the development of Geographic
Information Systems and modeling capabilities on a dedicated Data General
Eclipse Minicomputer. Such a dedicated system is required because of the
interactive nature of geographic information system processing, and the many
specialized peripheral devices required to support this capability.
The Information Resources Division of SLD currently has the basic computer
hardware configuration required for INFORM. However, it was the judgment of
the Resource Team that ADOT would be more caoable of implementing the system.
The team, therefore, recommends that the IRD computer be physically
transferred to ADOT at the beginning of the 1982 fiscal year.
The resources required to support this plan represent a 20% increase over
the FY 79 ARIS budget ( including a 10% annual inflation adjustment). The
redirection of efforts and enhanced staff capabilities proposed in this plan
will provide the State with significant, sophisticated capabilities for
analyzing land resource characteristics. As the system becomes operational,
some services may be charged to users through a revolving fund. This could
provide a source of income to help finance future system activities. The
capaoilities of tne system w i l l greatly increase the amount and quality of
resource data available to legislative and executive policymakers, offer
significant assistance to Scate and local resource managers, and provide
resource ~ l a n n e r sw i t h tne capability to model the impacts of alternative
resource devzloornent scenarios.
T h i s effort r2presents a significant undertaking and a substantial
commitment on the part of the State. In the judgment of the Team, tne
benefits accruing to future generations of Arizonans, however, more than
outweigh the costs.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR HECOMMENDAT1 ONS
The Arizona Legislature should take action to provide a broad mandate
to implement INFORM as a new program i n FY 82.
ADOT should implsment the INFORM program, as outlined i n t h i s docuinznt.
An Interagency Guidance Committee chaired by ADOT and composed of
representatives of the eight primary user agencies should be formed
immediately to oversee the INFi3Rt4 program.
The Idil program, w i t n the exception of the Survey and iviapping Section,
should be phased out.
The SLLI/ IKD computer should be transferred to ADOT.
The hardware and software of the system w i l l need to be upgraded over
f
time.
New personnel, with suitable qualifications to implement INFORM,
should be hired by ADOT to s t a f f the program.
Extensive recruitment for a systems rnansger should be anticipated.
A number of disciplinary teams should se formed to recommend to the
guidance committee the capabilities and services they need.
The INFOiiM program si~ oilid be i n i t i a l l y staffed with six FTEs
( full- time equivalent employees) and w i t n eight FTEs i n subsequent
yzars. L'ornqucer equipment and related exnenditures are estimated to
be $ 116,509 for f i s c a l year 1981- 82 ' vith $ 94,000 and $ 46,000 suggested
for the next two f i s c a l years. It w i l l De necessary for AD3T
mmagement and Sudget analysts to prep* are an actual oudget that
includes a l l operating expenses.
I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In January 1980, the Arizona Auditor General's Office initiated a
performance evaluation of the State Land Department's ( SLD) Arizona Resource
Information System ( ARIS). This capability is housed within SLD's Information
Resources Division. The audit was conducted in response to a July 19, 1979
resolution of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
In carrying out the evaluation of ARIS, the Senior Project Manager of the
National Conference of State Legislatures ' ( NCSL) Natural Resource Informaticn
Systems ( NRIS) Project provided technical assistance at the request of the
Auditor General's Office. His function was to describe the ARIS hardware,
software and data base, and evaluate its operational status. The report he
submitted following this evaluation is contajined in Appendix I- A.
The overall assessment of the ARIS computer system ( as of March 12, 1980)
was that:
" ARIS, through a variety of circumstances, has developed a fairly
sophisticated computer hardware configuration. System software, however,
is in a rudimentary, developmental stage. Current software can, for the
most part, be characterized as simple record- keeping routines.
Based on demonstrations observed, there currently appears to be little
software operational on the system ...."
Further, with respect to the five applications currently operational on
the system, the NRIS Senior Project Manager wrote:
" These applications do not justify the current sophisticated
configuration. They could be very easily supported on a time- share
administrative computer, although conversion to another computer system
might be expensive and time consuming ...."
The Senior Project Manager suggested that further technical assistance
could be provided to the State of Arizona, if desired. In cooperation with
the Council of State Planning Agencies, he proposed the formation of a
resource team of persons with backgrounds in state geographic information
systems to redesign and redirect ARIS, as requested, at no charge to the
State. A team of individuals would be selected based on affiliation with
various state governments, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
( NASA), the U. S. Geological Survey and universities.
1.2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Less than five months after the release of the Performance Audit of ARIS,
the Joint Legislative Budget Committee requested additional technical
assistance from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Specifically,
they asked that the Resource Team proposed in March be formed, and that this
Team assess needs, development of a system, jind consideration of institutional
factors for a natural resource information system for Arizona State government.
The " Agreement for Technical Assistance Services" is contained in Appendix
I- B. Two service providers and three Arizona State agencies were parties to
the agreement:
s Service providers: - National Conference of State Legislatures,
represented by staff of the Natural Resource
Inforrnation Systems Project; and
- Council of State Planning Agencies ( CSPA),
represented by staff of the Earth Resources
Data Project.
e Arizona State Agencies: - Office of the Auditor General;
- Arizona Department of Administration ( DOA) ,
Data Processing Division; and
- State Land Department.
The objectives of the technical assistance services were three- fold:
1. Develop and implement a survey instrument to identified potential users of
a natural resource information system. Analyze the needs of these
potential users and rank their needs in order of priority.
2. Specify and recommend manual and/ or automated natural resource information
system( s) to meet the data needs of natural resource agencies.
3. Analyze and recom~ end appropriate institutional ( State agency)
arrangements, if necessary, for implementation of the systems designed.
The Resource Team of ten members having expertise in state information
systems was selected jointly by staff of NCSL and CSPA. In addition to the
service providers, it included individuals currently or previously affiliated
with state governments ( California, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, South
Dakota and Texas), a university, U. S. Geological Survey, and NASA. These
individuals were assigned to Task Forces as follows:
Q User Meeds Task Force
Coordinator: Loyola M. Caron - NCSL NRIS Project, Staff Associate
Timothy Hays - California Environmental Data Center
David Peterson - NASAIAmes Research Center
a Systenis and Software Task Force
Coordinator: Paul A. Tessar - NCSL NRIS Project, Senior Project
Manager
Nickolas L. Faust - Georgia Institute of Technology
Thomas R. Loveland - Technicolor Graphic Services,
Inc., EROS Data Center
William J. Todd - Technicolor Graphic Services,
Inc., NASAIAmes Research Center a
0 1n~ t'~ i: tional Arrangements Task Force
Coordinator: Peggy Harwood - Council of State Planning Agencies,
Associate Director for Resource In-formation
and Technology
John Wilson - Texas Natural Resources Information
System
Don Yaeger - Minnesota Land Management Information
Center
The time spent by these ten individuals during July, August, September and
October, 1980, represents over six person months of effort. During this time,
the Task Force members reviewed and evaluated the existing status of Arizona
needs, systems and software, and institutional settings, and evaluated and
recommended an appropriate framework for a natural resource information system
in light of their findings. These findings and recommendations are reported
in this document.
1.3 OVERVIEW
Chapter I1 contains a summary of user needs. This section documents data
needs of 14 Arizona state entities and one regional user, based on interviews
and surveys of staff during a two- week period. Although preliminary in
nature, the findings support the great need by Arizona State entities for data
coordination, central access and analytic capabilities for natural resource
data.
Five technical data processing and user- support entities are evaluated in
Chapter 111. Those agencies are the Department of Water Resources, dte Land
Department, Department of Transportation, University of Arizona, and
Department of Administration.
Chapter IV reviews criteria for a natural resource information system, and
summarizes the existing institutional settings of four candidate agencies
suggested as potential hosts for such a system. Agencies examined are:
Department of Water Resources, State Land Department, Department of
Transportation, and the University of Arizona.
Finally, Chapters V and VI recommend an ;~ ppropriate institutional
framework for an Arizona - In formation - Ne twork - Fo r - Op erational - Re source
- Ma nagement ( INFORM) System, and present a plan for implementing the System.
It is recommended that INFORM be housed in the Arizona Department of
Transportation.
PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF USER NEEDS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a two- week effort by the User Needs
Task Force of the Resource Team to assess natural resource and related data
needs by Arizona State agencies. The objectives of the user needs assessment
( from the Agreement for Technical Assistance Services dated August 7, 1980)
are to:
" Develop and implement a survey instrument to identified potential users
of a natural resource information system. Analyze the needs of these
pctential users and rank their needs in order of priority based on any
statutory mandate and frequency of demand for particular data products.
Included would be the needs for aerial photography and satellite images
and their interpretation, as well as manrial or automated geographically
based data systems . I1
The purpose of this survey was not to duplicate past efforts to quantify
data needs and products of individual organizations, such as the " State
Information Handbook: An Inventory of Users and Producers of Data and Maps in
Arizona;" " A General Annotated Bibliography of Arizona Land Use and Resource
Information;" and " Information References: Land and Natural Resource
Planning." Rather, the purpose of the survey was to acquire specific details
characterizing the types of data used or produced, and to summarize those
needs for all participating agencies. The intent is to derive the
capabilities a natural resource information system would need in order to
accommoaate the range of desired products. ( For example, is it necessary for
the system to handle map data? If so, should the system be designed to
convert one geographic reference system to another? Should the system have
map compositing capabilities?) One way to obtain this information is to
establish what the agencies have in common.
Because the survey was carried out by one individual during a two- week
time period, it must be stressed that any conclusions reported are preliminary
in nature. Not only was the time short, but the two- week window also happened a
to occur at the save time that many agencies were the midst of preparing
budgets for the following year. Although most agencies were very cooperative
in the user survey effort, many simply did not have the time to dedicate to
completing the forms in time to be useful for this report.
2.2 METHODOLOGY
The User Needs Task Force was composed of the following members:
Coordinator: Loyola M. Caron - National Conference of State Legislatures,
Natural Resource Information Systems
Project ,'
Timothy Hays - California Environmental Data Center
David Peterson - NASA/ Ames Research Center
2.21 Development of a Survey Instrument. Prior to the first meeting of this
Task Force in Phoenix ( August 18- 22, 1980), the coordinator reviewed existing
user- needs surveys used by state and federal agencies to determine if a survey
format was available that would meet the requirements of the Auditor General's
Office: " The user- need study will include at least all those areas to be
considered that were identified on page 21 of ' A Performance Audit of the
Arizona Resource Information System.' These variables included:
- Data collected and needed,
- Local and State uses of the data,
- Private sector uses of data,
- Data collection procedures,
- Coverage needed,
- Frequency updates needed,
- Scale needed,
- Statistical reports or other products,
Storage at the agency, and
- Personnel and funds devoted to data accumulation."
A survey developed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Western Energy
and Land Use Team appeared to fulfill the objectives, once minor modifications
were made.* The coordinator distributed copies of the revised survey to the
other task force members for review prior to their first meeting.
B
During the week of August 18- 22, the User Needs Task Force again revised
the survey instrument. A draft was then circulated to the State Land
Department and the Department of Administration ( participants in the Agreement
for Technical Assistance Services) for review and comment.
*" User Needs Assessment Forms for an Operational Geographic Information System
within the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region Six, Report 1.3," by Larry
Salmen, James Gropper, John Hamill, George Nez, and Carl Reed. Information
Systems Technical Laboratory, Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc.
FWS/ OBS- 77/ 002; March, 1977.
Finally the survey instrument wzs field tested on three programs:
a State Land Department - Forestry Division
o Department of Water Resources
Q Office of Economic Planning and Development - Planning Division
The field tests indicated that, in order for the survey to be successful,
a strategy for presenting the survey had to be developed. For example, the
interviewees must be given sufficient advance notice so that they can gather
appropriate materials necessary for the survey. Further, it was evident that
unless the participants were willing to set aside a block of ti, to devote to
the survey forms, the desired overall assessment of state agency needs could
not be accomplished.
Following the field tests, the survey forms were again revised to
eliminate problem areas, and a set of definitions was prepared to define terms
used in the forms. The final draft was sent to the State Land Department,
Department of Administration, and Auditor General's Office for review and
comment. All three entities accepted the survey as submitted. Copies of the
survey and definitions are contained in Appendix 11- A.
2.22 Implementation of the Survey. State agencies and other organizations to
be included in the survey had been selected some weeks in advance by the Task
Force Coordinator in consultation with the Auditor General's Office and the
coordinators of the Systems and Institutional Arrangements Task Forces.
( See Section 2.3, Arizona Entities Selected for User Survey.) Letters
informing heads of those organizations about the Agreement for Technical
Assistance Services and its purpose were sent by the Auditor General's
Office. Agencies were asked to identify a liaison who could convey that
entity's natural resources needs, and who would be available for participating
in the survey.
The survey of needs was carried out during the weeks of August 25 through
September 5 by the coordinator of the User Needs Task Force. Follow- up
letters were sent to each liaison, together with copies of the user survey
forms and definitions. This letter also offered suggestions for preparing
relevant materials for the upcoming interview.
Because there were some 25 state and federal agencies identified as users
and producers of natural resources data in Arizona, the strategy for
conducting the survey was to meet with as many liaisons as soon as possible
during . he first week, essentially to orient them to the survey procedure.
Each interview took anywhere from one to three hours, depending on the
complexity of their data needs and their understanding of information systems
development requirements. Additional agencies were contacted during the
second week, and follow- up meetings held as necessary.
2.3 ARIZONA ENTITIES SELECTED FOR USER SURVEY
Fourteen Arizona state agencies, six Councils of Governments, and four
federal agencies were selected to be surveyec for natural resource data
needs. These entities and the liaisons chosen to represent them are
identified in Table 11- 1.
Table 11- 1.
Arizona Entities Selected For User Survey
ENTITY LIAISON TITLE
Radiation Regulatory Polly Gallardo
Agency
Administrative
Services Officer
Office of Economic Plan- Patricia Bergthold Planner
ning and Development
Emergency Services L. E. Fitzgerald
Dick Lockwood ( A1 t . )
Game and Fish
Department
John Carr Planning Branch
Supervisor
Department of Health Dean Moss
Services
State Land Department Bob Lane Deputy Commissioner
Bureau of Geology and Dr. Larry D. Fellows State Geologist
Mineral Technology
( Univ. of Arizona)
Oil and Gas Conservation W. E. Allen Executive Secretary
Commission Don Mhittaker ( Alt.)
Outdoor Recreation Coor- Mary A1 ice Bivens
dinating Commission
State Parks Board Mike Pastika
Department of Revenue Jane Gresham
Harold Scott
Department of Trans-portation
Department of Water
Resources
Agriculture & Horti-culture
Commission
State Liaison
Officer
Chief, Administra-tive
Services
Research & Statis-tical
Analyst
Assistant Director-
Property & Special
Tax
Louis Schmitt Asst. Deputy Direc-tor
- Planning
Carl Winikka ( Alt .) Asst. State Engineer
Tom Carr
James R. Carter Director
Table 11- 1 ( Continued)
ENTITY LIAISON TITLE
Maricopa Association Tom Ford
of Govern~ ents
Mark Frank
Pima Association of Jesse B. Brown
Governments
Northern Arizona Council William T. Towler
of Governments
District IV Council Brian Babiars
of Gove - nments
Central Arizona Associ- Lester Snow
ation of Governments
Southeastern Arizona Asso- Richard Francaviglia
ciation of Governments
Bureau of Land
Management
Paul Lance
Agriculture Stabili- Deferred to Soil Conservation
zation and Conserva-tion
Service
Forest Service Evan L. " Butch" Summers
William C. Troxel
Richard G. Krebill
Soil Conservation Douglas S. Pease
U. S. Geological Survey Fred Boner
- Water Resources
Division
Division Manager,
Transportation
MAG 208 Coordinator
Physical Planning
Manager
Environmental Plan-n
er
Deputy Director
Regional Planning
Director
Information Systems
Manager for BLM-Arizona
Staff Dir., Computer
Systems
( A1 buquerque)
Staff Dir., Area
Planning & Develop.
Research Dir., Asst.
Dir., ASU
State Soil Scientist
Operations Officer,
Tucson, AZ
2.4 ARIZONA ENTITIES SURVEYED
Because of the limited time available to implenent the user needs
instrument, not all of the entities selected to participate in the study were
surveyed. Table 11- 2 lists the fifteen organizations that were actually
involved in the assessment of needs. Interviewees and dates of contact are
also included. Note that, in the interest of state needs, all state aaencies
with one exception were interviewed to some extent.
2.5 ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHOULD BE SURVEYED
Table 11- 3 lists Arizona State agencies, Councils of Governments and
federal agencies that should be surveyed in the future, perhaps by information
systems staff ( provided Arizona decides to support development of a statewide
system). In addition to those entities originally selected for participation
in the user needs survey but not contacted due to lack of time, this table
also includes other divisions of previously surveyed agencies that merit
" looking in to," and entities suggested by state employees as being important
data users and/ or producers.
2.6 DATA NEEDS
This section summarizes the results of the interviews and surveys
completed by participating organizations. Each factor relating to required
characteristics of data sources and prcducts is briefly reviewed.
Surveys were completed by the following agencies ( See Appendix 11- B):
- Department of Health Services
- State Land Department/ Information Resources
/ Urban and Commercial Development
/ Forestry
/ Natural Resources
m e
Tab'le 11- 2
Arizona Organizations Surveyed
August 25 - September 5, 1980
Agriculture and Horticulture
Commi ssion
ORGANIZATION
Off i ce of Economic Pl anni ng Planning Division
and Development *-- Policy Analysis
-- Research
--. Community Affairs
DIVISION
James R. Cartt,-
Patricia Bergthold
Eric Rasmussen
Jeff Fairnan
9/ 2/ 80
Game and Fish Department
&-- I
?-- I
INTERVIEWEE( S)
Wi 1 dl i fe Management
-- Planning and
Eva1 uation Branch
DATE ( s)
John Carr-- Pl anning
Branch Supervisor
Department of Health Services ~ nvironmental-~ eatlh
Services
Dean !. loss
State Land Department / Commissioner's Office 1 Bob Lane-- Deputy Commissioner 1 8/ 26/ 80
Urban and Commercial
Devel opment
-- Appraisal
- -
Information Resources
-- Cartography Information
-- Survey and Mapping
Ross Smith-- Director
W. Fish--
Marci Ziesel --
Mi ke Castro-- Di rector
Bob Hesse--
Don Stinard--
* Test case - interviewed t o t e s t user survey instrument.
** Surveys completed through di rection of R. Yount, Natural Resources Conservation Sec Lion.
Table 11- 2.
Department of Transportation Transportation Planning
( continued) -- Demography and Land
Use Section
ORGANIZATION
. -
* Department of Water Resources
I
, DIVISION
Maricopa Association of
Governments
( cont. )
Transportation
Water Qua1 i ty
Southeastern Arizona
Governments Organization
H
H
I
t--'
Bureau of Geology and
Mineral Technology--
University of Arizona
Louis Schmitt 8/ 27/ 80
8/ 27/ 80; 9/ 2/ 80
Geological Survey
Branch
Tom Carr / 8/ 21/ 80; 8/ 29/ 80
Tom Ford-- Di vi si on Manager
Mark Frank-- 206 Coordinator
* Test case - interviewed t o t e s t user survey instrument.
9/ 5/ 80
9/ 5/ 80
Roger Manning--
Ri chard Francavi gl i a--
Dr. Larry D. Fel lows-- State
Geol ogi s t
8/ 27/ 80
8/ 29/ 80
( Telephone)
8/ 25/ 80
Table 11- 3.
Organizations That Should Be Surveyed
State
A r i z o n a C o r p o r a t i o n Commission
Department o f Tourism
Department o f Real Estate/ Insurance
Arizona Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
- Environmental Planning Services *
- M a t e r i a l Services
Department o f Economic S e c u r i t y
- Planning Bureau
Game and Fish Department
- F i e l d Operations D i v i s i o n
- W i l d l i f e Management D i v i s i o n , Research Branch,
Game Branch and F i s h e r i e s Branch
Department o f Mineral Resources
State Land Department
- Contracts and Records
O f f i c e o f Economic Planning and Development*
- ( f o r work being done w i t h remote s u b d i v i s i o n s )
Department o f Revenue *
Regional
Pima A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governments ( PAG)
Northern Arizona Counci 1 o f Governments ( NACOG)
D i s t r i c t I V Council o f Governments
Central Arizona A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governments ( CAAG)
Federa 1 :
Bureau o f Land Management
U. S. Forest Service
S o i l Conservation
U. S. Geological Survey
- Water Resources D i v i s i o n ( Tucson)
U. S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service
* B r i e f l y i n t e r v i e w e d - need f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n .
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
- Department of Transportation
- Department of Water Resources
- Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization ( SEAGO)
Several other organizations participated in the study. However, staff
were unable to complete the survey fcrms for this report. Summaries of the
interviews with the liaisons for those organizations are included in Appendix
11- C.
2.61 Characteristics of Data Sources/ Products
The following is a brief summary of the characteristics of data sources
and products required by Arizona State entities, as determined from surveys and
interviews.
Q Source Format - The most common source formats are reports, maps,
tables/ charts, and field notes. Other formats used include
surveys, key- punched cards, tapes, disks, aerial photography and
Landsat. ( See Table 11- 4.)
€ 3 Product Format - The most common product formats are reports,
maps, tables and charts. Sever~ l agencies also rely heavily on
microfiche, tapes and disks. Models are used less frequently.
( See Table 11- 5.)
Q Scale or Resolution - Requirements call for virtually any
scale, from 1" = 200' to 1: 1,000,000, depending on the
appl icat ion.
Q Geographic Reference System - The Public Land Survey ( Township,
Range, Section) is the most. predominantly used reference system
in Arizona, followed by Latitude/ Longitude. Most agencies also
access and produce data by county name and point location name
( e. g. facility, well number, etc.). Names of regions, basins,
watersheds, streams and various types of management units or
districts are also commonly used. ( See Tables 11- 6 and 7.)
Q Currency of Data ( Source) - Needs vary from real- time ( e. 9. air
quality data) to 10 years or more ( e. 9. geology, soils).
t3 Updating Requirements ( Product) - Vary from daily to not at all.
Rost common update time period was one year ( for use in annual
managing and planning functions).
e Geographic Coverage - Ranges from site specific ( e. g. cultural
sites, wells, stream guages) to statewide.
Access Restrictions - A natural resource infcrmation system would
have to accommodate varying degrees of security requirements:
-- Restricted to in- house use only ( e. g. information
obtained from landowners, mining companies) ;
-- Partially restricted: available to state agencies,
and possibly others ( e. g. cultural site data, rare
and endangered species, cacti and reptiles);
-- Non- restricted: no security requirements for the
data.
0 Precision - Varies from one foot to within a quarter section.
Most stringent requirements are by the State Land Department's
Survey and Mapping Section ( for plats).
8 Time Constraints - Vary from daily ( e. g. emergency episodes) to
within the time frame of a project ( usually one or two years).
0 Analysis Capabilities - Most agencies routinely perform area
calculations, aggregations, statistics, transfer of data to maps,
and overlaying of maps to derive composite information. Several
agencies also handle aerial photography. Development of models
and the need to do engineering calculations are required less
frequently, but are extremely important where used. ( See Table
11- 8.)
Q Costs for Data Accumulation - Because these costs are typically
absorbed into various line items, very few agencies completed
this part of the survey forms. Therefore, no evaluation can be
made.
i
2.62 Data Needs by Category
This section summarizes the categories of data that are required by
natural resource research, planning and management entities. Uses, users,
data types, existing systems, and typical output report titles are considered
for each of the following general categories of data:*
e Air Qua1 ity ( includes meteorological aspects)
* These categories are not meant to be of equal rank or weight.
11- 14
8 Animals ( includes game and fish, insects, livestock, etc.)
CI Cultural Data ( Historical/ Archaeological)
o Geologic Framework
Q Land Use
Q Land Ownership Type - public land ownership
@ Social and Economic Data ( demographics, economics, etc .)
Q Soi 1 s
0 Vegetation
Q Water
Table 11- 9 presents an overview of data needs for all participating
agencies, by category. Pages 11- 22 through 11- 34 contain detailed information
for each of these categories.
Table 11- 4.
? = A n t i c i p a t e use o f t h i s source i n the f u t u r e .
X= S ource c u r r e n t l y used.
SOURCE FOR!.! AT
ORGANIZATION
L'. Agricui t u r e and n o r t i -
- 1 : O f fci cre~ t luo rfe C Ccoonrnommiiscs iPonla n- i I ' I
ningandOeve10~ 1nent X X X X 1 1 1 ;
- 1/ Game and F i s h Department 1 I I / ! , 1 I
?,! I X.
- C e ~ a r t m e n t o f t i e a i t h i i
Services > I ,
' I ~ t a t e Land Department/ ! I I I
l!~ ased on m a t e r i a l s s u n p l i e d by the agency, and/ or i n f e r e n c e s drawn through the
i n t e r v i e w p r o c e s j .
2 / ~ a s s d on comoleted sur., ey forms.
180 - Car70 r a o ~ v : I(
/ S: rie Land Dep: rtment/
IRD - Surver and Y a p ~ i n q 1 %
' s t a t e Land depart men^,
2 / Urban and Commercial ( I
X
Y
X
i I ! : X : ( ! x
/ i , i1 1 ; I :! ;{
1 1 1 1 i X1 - State Land Department/ I j ; ! I
Fores tr X X x t X ! K i l i i
" S t a t s LandyDepartmeor/ , , I i '
2/ ~ ~ - : i a t ' l ~ e i . ~ - o m m . 1 x x I x Y ( ;( 1 ;( 1 ! : i
- State Land 3eparrmenr/ i
EIR - M i n e r a l s / X :( X I X I
' S t a t e Land Separtment, I I 1 ;
VR - Sanqe I
/ s t a t e Land Department/ I i i
, > iR - Hydrolooy i x : x l x i i X ! j ? i '
' 3 u r e a u o f Geoiogy and
. X i n e r a l Technoloox
* 3 i l and Gas Conservi:
t i o n Conimission
1 i d i n a t i n 3 Cominissior, , ? ;
1; I
- S t a t e Parks Board ; X :
- 2; Dept. o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n / 1 :
Plannine I X x ~ X ~ X ~ X X ! X ;( X X i ' f k p ~ . o f ~ ; a n s ~ o r t a t i o n /
Hiahways / X
2;-
- Department 3 f Water
Resources
J;% irricopa H s s o c ~ a t i o n i I i
2: o f Governments j x X X X I X I
- Sobtheastern Arizona
Gdvts Org3ni ; atjon
x x ! x / Y ] X ~ X i( Y
Table 11- 5.
I
I PRODUCT FORI4AT
3RGANIZAT: OPI
i"; Z L L ' 5
- 1' ~' g r i c u l ture and horr, i - I I i
cgl ture Comm; ssion I
YOffice of Economic Plan- I
i
ninq and Oevelopment 1 X Y ! i
i
I ( X 1
- . I / " Game and Fish 9epartment , i i I X I : : I : ( , i
y ~ e p a r t ~ e noft Health I
Services . -.
- 2;- * h ~ a t eL and Ceeartxentl
; RD - Cartoara hj i
q ~ t a i eLa no oepirtie: t/
IRD - Surve! and L.: apoinq
y ~ t a t eLa nd ~ e p b r t r e n t /
grban and Commercial
&/ state Land Jepartmentl
Forestr!
l i s t a t e LandiDepartaent/
: J R - N , ~ ; ' ! R ~ ~ . C O ~ ~ .
Y s t a t e Land Cepartmenr/ i
NR - ?! iner? il s
2 :
- I State Land Department/
2 , NR - ? awe
-' State Land Gepartmentl
NR - Xydroloay
i' 3ureau of Geology and
, Mineral T g m p c v !
~ / 0 i l and Gas ~ c n s e r v z
tion Ccmrnission !
3 0 u t d o o r Recreation Coor-dinating
Corrnissicn I
I
L ' ~ t a t e Parks Board I
U ~ e p t , o f Transportation/ I I I j
X i x / X
i
2lanr: ina - I
Y; ept. of i; ansportaiion/ 1 I i1
Hiahria' 8
i l i i
, K j x i~ i I X 1 X :
i d tof h ater
I
Resources
~' hlaricopa Association
of Governments X X X
/ SOU theastern Arizona I I
i i
Govts Organization X X x I i I I
X = Product Format current!? used.
y ~ a s e don materiais stipoi; ed by the agency, and/ or inferences drawn througn the
interview process.
e , =! 3ased on conlo1 eted sdrvey f o r m .
Table 11- 6.
GEGGRAPHIC REFEREiiCE SYSTE\. 1 ( SOURCE) a
ORGANIZATION
y ~ g r i c ut ul r e and Horxi -
c u l t u r e Commission I :
u 0 f f i c e o f Economic ?! an- I
, ; ,
ninq and Development 1 X •
:/ cane and F i i h Department
gl~ epartrnenr. o f Eeal t h
Services
7 - / ~ t a t e Land Department/
IRD - Cartoaraoh\
Y S t a t s Land Departken'tl I I , j, <
IRO - Surrey and Fapping X 1 X X x I X X ; I 1 I l u z d r a n l ' r
- 2S t a t e Land Depar~ rnent/ I , : a
Crban and Comnercial x 1 X 1 X X X 1 I X 1 X X .( 1
/ s t a t e Land Department/
l o r e s t r v
/ Stare ~ 2 nDdep~ a rtment/
R R - N a t ' l Res. Comn.
LIState Land Department/
NR - i * l i n e r a l s
L l ~ t a t eL and Department1 ' ! 1 1 i i I j ! X / ' / j / /
0
NR - Ranoe j X X ! 1 I I , 1
?/ state Land 6epartrnent/
Pi2 - H d r o l o
112urea, o? Geolo: i and
Plinerzl Techno1 o y
1 I------- - O i l and Gas Conserva-cion
Com, issior j 1Cuadrangle
q i ) u t d c o r Recreation Coor- j a
d i n a t i n g Commission X i 1 1 1 i X ! I -
L ' ~ t a t e Parks Board X !
q ~ e p t . o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n /
Plannina
U D e p t . o f ~ ; a n s ~ o r t a t i o n /
% hwia s
" 2epar: men: o f ~ a t e r II
Resources
L1Vlaricopa A s s o c i a t i o n
o f Governmen&
:/ Southeastern Arizona
Govts S r 2 a n i z a t i o n
X = Geographic Reference System c a r r e n t l y used.
- dased on m a t e r i a l s s u c o l i e d by the agency, and/ or inferences : rawn t3rotigh Y e
inter vie!^ ;) recess.
2 /
- 3asea - n ccmoleted survey ' orms.
X = Geographic Reference System currently used.
GEOGRAPHIC 2EFERE; iCE SYSTEr4 ( PRCDUCT)
0RGANIZA: ION
U ~ g r i c uzlu re and Horti - . cu; ture Commission
g 0 f ~ i c 2of Economic Plan-ning
and Development I ! ,
/ / I
I I ' i~ arne and dish Deparraent 1 : uame i. igmt 1 x 1 1 x I ! I x ,
Y ~ e p a r t m e n t o f Health
Ser, vices
u s t a t 2 Lana Departrent/
IRD - Carto raphv
q i r a t e Land Cepirtmentl
8 , q ~ t a t eLa nd Deparcmenr/
2i
Urbzn and Corcrnercial i x I 1 i i i i
- State Land Departrent/ I / j I I 1 1 !
F o r e s t r - -. I X i j Y i i / i i i i X i i i X I i i
'/ state Land 3eparrment/ 1 ' i
> i R - ) i a f l l z e s C o p m . i / X i 1 j X I 1 I 1
' 5ta: e and Department/
NR - Minerals
!/ state Land Deparxventl
I R - Ran e
Z1siate Land zepartment/
> iR - ' iydroiog
L12ureau of isolog: and
N j n e r c B ~ n n o , o a y
U 0 i l and Gas Conserva-t
i on C o_" lc$ m~ i_ c n
/ butdoor iecrearian Ccor-dinating
Commission
- L:'~ tare Parks Board i i
3 3 e p t . of Transportation1
, Plsnninq 2 Uept. of Transportation/
H i hwavs
q ~ p a r ? m e n io f ~ a t e r ; 1
Resources 1 x 1 x j ( X / X i ; ARCS
l/ i4aricopa Association j ; X i i i I ) i i i
of Governments X I I , I / X ! i 1 1
u6ased on materials suoplied by the agency, and/ or inferences drawn through the
interview process.
/ S o u t h e a s t e r n Arjzona
~ o v t sO rqanization
Y' 3ased on completed survey forms.
I ( / /
x i 1 i x i x I I 1 i iL
CATEGORY ANALYSiS PERFORHE2
ORG. AIIIZATiCt:
2 / - Agriculture and Horri- 1
c u l t u r e Commission I !
- Offin cineq oaf ndE cDoneovme1ioc om? le ar; nt- x / 1 X K 1 X 1 X 1 : :(
Y ~ a m e and Fish Deoartxent 1 i I 1 I
/ Department of health
1 I
Services X i II j X X I 1 !
/ s t a t e Land Departsent/ I IRD - Cartoqra hv : i j
Z / ~ t a t ei ana ~ e p a r t i e ; i / I
:? D - s ~ r r e y2 nd f? appir; q X 1 i i X 1 / 1 1 X . X
' s i a t e Land Deparxmentl I
Urban and Commercial X X X X ~ X \ X ! ~ X
' S t a t e Land Separtment/ ! X
i o r e s t r :
" state LandJDepartment/
NR - Nat'l Res. Corn.
?/ state Land Ceparrnent/ 1 I
NR - ivlinerals X X x i X / X ~ Xj ~ 1
? / s t a t e Land Department/ j X j l i x I X i x i x i1 1
NR - Rance
/ s t a c e Land Departrent/
NR - K drolo
y3ureau o ~ G e o l oan~ d I I 1 1 I I I
" lrneral ~ e c h n o l ov I I I I ! I i I
h i 1 and Gas Conservz- I I
2 / tior! Corrmission I
- Outdoor Recreation Coor-dinating
Conmission I I -
3 1- 1 I I ! I - j t a t e Parks Board I i / / 1 I i
of Governments I 1 I
2 / ~ o u t h e a s t e r n Arizona
I
X
! i
fovts Organization i
X = Analysis currently performed.
1/ 3ased on materials supplied by the agency, and/ or inferences drawn through the
intervjeiq process.
2,'
- Based on conoleted survey forms.
-? i. n, f ormation cot a v a i l a t l e for t h i s survey.
Table 11- 9.
? = Anticipate use of t h i s data type in the future
X = Data type current1 y used.
CATEGORY DATA PiEEDS BY HAJOR CATEGCRY
ORGAKIZATION
L' 9, qricui ture and Horri -
c u i t u r e Commission
l/, V - . - , I t i c e cf Economic Plan- i
ning and Develoowent 1
1
' isam i r d Fish Oeparineni 1 ? i x 1 1 ? x x i x ;( x
z/~ e~ ar: ment of ? eel t h 1 ! I
Services l X I X 1 - ; ( X ! X x i x i X , X
2 ' ~ t a t e Land Departmenti
iRD - Czrtoqrapnv 1 IRTE&: ;" ITH A< L S E C ~ I O ? U~ FS TH; ----------
~ ~ ; j G T i i K ~ i e p a r t i z e & ! 1 I !
lilD - iurvev alld Faapina / ---.----- L---- STATE LAND ( EPARTI~ EEIT - 4----- i----------
~ ~ t a t e a a n d ~ p ~ r - , z e n t- / ' '
-----?- ;
I
Urban 2nd Cofi: mercial 1 ! X X X i X I X j ! Y
U i t a t e Land Departrent/ 1 I !
' 3ased on m a t e r ~ a l s supplied by the agency, and/ or inferences drawn through tne
~ ~ t e - v i e l wpr ocess.
7 /
- 3ased cn complered survey ' orvs.
F O ~ E S ~ L Y . , I) X i 1
Zj~ ra? ltR e- i aNnadtL ' le ? Raretsn. ieCnoim/ m. i 1
, X 1 X X x I X x i :
/ X iI % / X X X I X
tat? Lan:: Dzpartrnent/
NR - Winerals 1
/ S t a t e Land Department/ 1 I
NR - Ran e I 1 I X l X 1 X i x
" i t a t e Land 8epzrtoent/ I
NR - H drolocv X
/ ~ u r e e u o ? G e o i o ~ and
Mineral Techno? oc 1 I X I I X i X i x X
LIOil and Gas Conserv: I I
+ L - ~ o nC ormission -- I , X I X
L/ Outdoor Recreation Coor- i I i
dinating Comi ssion I ?- j X X / X
7 ;-
i t i ! I
- State Parks Board 1 ? I I X / X X X X j X j X i l i
g 2 e p t . of Transportation/
Pl annin
l i a e p t . of T: ansportation/ I I
Hi nhwa\ s j I X I X I X j X 1 , < i x
g/~ epa; iren: of ~ a t e r 1
Resources ' I / ?
I
X X X / X / X x l x
L/~ aric; pa Association i X i X
I
of Governnents
~ o v t sO rganization / ? 1 I ? X , X / X ( X I , <
?
- 21 - S outheastern Arizona 1
AIR QUALITY ( includes meteorologic aspects)
! 9 Identified Uses of Data:
- Compl iance checking
- Baseline monitoring
- Trend evaluation
- Air quality maintenance planning
- Comparison against standards
Q Identified Users:
- Department of Health Services*
- State Land Department ( Forestry)
- Department of Transportation
- Local governments ( includes COGS)
8 Possible or Potential Users:
- Game and Fish Department
- Universities
- Industry
- Legislative bodies
- Public
- Federal agencies: Soil Conservation Service
Bureau of Land Management
8 Identification of Existing Systems in Arizona:
- Department of Health Services' Monitoring Section
operates the State Air Quality Monitoring ( SLAMS)
network of 46 stations and 60 instruments or moni-toring
devices; and the National Air Surveillance
Network ( NASN) stationsI, in Arizona.
6~ Data Types:
- Air emission qualitylquantity
- Air quality data by parameter
- Cl imatological data
8 Out~ ut Renort Titles:
- Annual Strategy
- Annual Report and Reasonable Futher Progress and
Emission Inventory
- Emergency Episode Reporting
- State Implementation Plan Documentation
- Environmental Assessments
* Primary data user.
ANIMALS
8 Identified Uses of Data:
- Impact assessment
- Game and fish management planning
- Site location evaluation
- Range management
- Eradication of pests
b~ Identified Users:
- Game and Fish Department*
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission*
- State Parks Board*
- Federal agencies: Fish and Gildlife Service*
Bureau of c ~ h ! M anagement
Forest Service
- Department of Health Services
- State Land Department
- Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
- Universities
Q Possible or Potential Users:
- Department of Water Resources
- Department of Transportation
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Local governments ( includes COGS)
- Public
- Industry
- Other federal agencies
Q Data Types:
- Rare, endangered, and threatened species
- Distribution of fish and wildlife populations
- Density of fish and wildlife populations
- Wildlife habitat
- Harvests of fish and game
- Non- game animals ( including insects)
- Pest detection surveys
0 Outout Re~ ort Titles:
- Strategic Plans for Big Game Animals and Fishes
- Habitat Management Pians
* Primary data user.
CULTURAL DATA ( HI STGRICAL/ ARCHAEGLOGICAL)
Q Identified Uses of Data:
- Identify existence of cultural values on lands
to be sold or developed
- Land use planning studies
- Corridor analysis
- Planning for federal projects
a Identified Users:
- State Parks Board*
- Nature Conservancy*
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission*
- Game and Fish Department
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Department of Transportation
- Federal agencies: Bureau of Land Management
Forest Service
- Industry
- Local governments ( includes COGS)
- Historical societies
- State Land Department
- Universities
- Legislative bodies
0 Data Tv~ es:
- Descriptions and locations of all historical and
archaeological data
Identification of Existing Systems in Arizona:
- University of Arizona's State Museum has initiated
computerization of archaeological site data. Arizona
State University also has computerized archaeological
site data.
* Primary data user.
GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK
Identified Uses of Data:
- Resource management planning
- Construction planning
- Site management
- Clineral resources mapping
- Permit application and monitoring
- Urban planning
- CountylRegional planning
- Statewide planning
- Mineral leasing and management
- Highway planning and construction
- Mineral exploration and developnent
- Recreation planning
- Land use planning
- Community assistance planning
- Land assessment and valuation
- Emergency service planning
a Identified Users:
- Department of Mineral Resources*
- Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology*
- Oil and Gas Conservation Commission*
- Department of Water Resources*
- State Land Department*
- Department of Health Services
- Department o f Transportation
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
- State Parks Board
- Universities
- Local governments ( includes COGS)
- Federal agencies
- Industry - Emergency Services
Possible or Potential Users:
- Radiation Regulatory Agency
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Game and Fish Department
6 Data Types:
- Suriicial material maps
- Subsurface geology maps
* Primary data user
GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK ( continued)
8 Data Types ( continued) :
- Bedrock geology maps
- Mineral resource maps
- Major landforms
- Topography
- Mine files
- Floodplain maps
- Geologic hazard maps
- Fault maps
- Geologic cross sections
- Earthquake epicenter maps
- Paleontological data
- Library of rock cuttings and cores
Q Output Report Titles:
- Field Notes ( Quarterly Newsletter)
- Geologic reports
- Theses
- Guidebooks to geology in specific areas along
hi ghways
- Bibliographies of geology
LAND USE
Q Identified Uses of Data:
- Land use planning
- Planning control of use
- Industrial ( and other facility) site planning
- Determine potential for development
- Community planning assistance
- Water quality planning
- Lease management: grazing/ minerals/ agricultural
- Land assessment and valuation
- Land use treatment needs
Identified Users:
- State Land Department*
- Department of Water Resources*
- Department of Transportation*
- Local governments ( includes COGS) *
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Game and Fish Department
- Department of Health Services
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
- State Parks Board
- Federal agencies
- Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
- Industry
- Universities
- Legislative bodies
8 Possible or Potential Users:
- Radiation Regulatory Agency
- Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology
- Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Q Data Types:
- Land use classification maps
- Inventories of: rangeland
agricultural uses and patterns
municipal/ industrial uses
flood plains
mines
mineral resources/ occurrences
known and potential geologic hazards
seismicity
young faults
geologic featureslland forms
reservoirs
wilderness areas
- Intensity of land use
- Aerial photographylorthophotoquads
* Primary data user.
LAND USE ( continued)
o Output Report Titles:
- Management Plans ( e. g. State Highway System and
State Airport System)
- Updated Local Government Plans
- Absentee Land Ownership Study
- Report on Land Use and Airport Relationships
- Farm and Ranch Conservation Plans
- Construction Plans
- Trespass, Misuse and Abuse Reports
- Livestock Carrying Capacity Reports
- Trust Lands Resource Reports
- Annual Range Inventory Report
- Mine Reclamation Plans
- Statewide Inventory of State's Land and Natural
Resources
- State Lands Available for Sale or Lease
LAND OWNERSHIP ( pub1 ic 1 and ownership)
0 Identified Uses of Data:
- Law enforcement
- Site selection
- Recreation needs identification and planning
- Right- of- way planning
- Urban planning
- Route and corridor analysis
o Identified Users:
- All state, federal and local units of government*
- Public
- Legislative bo! ies
- Industry
- Universities
6 Data Tvnes:
- Land ownership: surface and subsurface
- Lease status maps and data
- New lease applications files
- Sales and exchanges application files
6 Output Report 7 i t l es:
- State Trust Lands map - surface and subsurface
- Bureau o f Land Management maps - surface and
subsurface
- U. S. Forest Service maps
- National Park Seryice maps
- Indian Reservations
- Game refuge maps
* Preliminary data user.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA
e Identified Uses of Data:
- Demographic description and projections
- Planning
- Needs assessment
- Recreation needs identification and planning
- Planning for health services
- Law enforcement planning
- Site selection
- Local planning and technical assistance
- Appl ications for zoning changes ( county and
city levels)
Identified Users:
- Department of Economic Security*
- Department of Transportation*
- Local governments ( includes COGS)*
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
- State Parks Board
- Department of Administration
- Industry
- Universities
- Department of Water Resources
- Department of Health Services
o Possible or Potential Users:
- Most other state agencies and some federal agencies
- Local communities ( e.~. Chambprs of Commerce)
s Data Tv~ es:
- Population projections
- Land parcel value
Output Report Titles:
- Community Profiles ( updated yearly)
- Monthly Report on Park Attendance
- Transportation Plans
- Numerous reports not well documented auring
this survey
* Primary data user.
SOILS
8 Identified Uses of Data:
- Land evaluation and assessment
- Construction development planning
- Development of management practices for soils
( e. g. irrigation, grazing, etc.)
- Reclamation development planning
- Permit evaluation and monitoring
- Vegetation production management ( e. g . forests,
crops, etc.)
- Water quality planning
o Identified Users:
- Departvent of Transportation*
- Department of Health Services*
- Game and Fish Department*
- State Land Department*
- Department of Water Resources*
- Local governments ( includes COGS)*
- Federal agencies: Soil Conservation Service*
Bureau of Land Management
Forest Service
Geological Survey
Fish and Wildlife Service
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
- State Parks Board
- Universities
- Industry
63 Possible or Potential Users:
- Agriculture and Hort. iculture Commission
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology
- Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
- Department of Mineral Resources
Q Data Types:
- Soils maps ( type, slope, etc.)
- Soil erosion classification map
- Soil capability
- Soil characteristics ( e. g. shrink and swell)
a Out~ ut Re~ ort Titles:
- Soil Surveys
* Primary data user.
VEGETATION
Q Identified Uses of Data:
- Vegetation production management
- Animal management planning
- Land use planning
- Reclalnat ion development and rnoni toring
- Recreation development
- Evaluation of forest fuel levels
o Identified Users:
- Game and Fish Department*
- State Land Department*
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission*
- State Parks Board*
- Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
- Department of Health Services
- Department of Transportation
- Department of Water Resources
- Local governments ( includes COGS)
- Industry
- Universities
- Federal agencies: Bureau of Land Management
Fish and Wildlife Service
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
8 Identification of Existing Systems in Arizona:
- Arizona Heritage Program ( sponsored by the Nature
Conservancy) has a computer system for occurrences of
plant species representative of Arizona flora.
Q Data Types:
- Vegetation classification maps
- Distribution of vegetation
- Wildlife habitat
- Riparian vegetation communities
- Density, age, condition, species composition, etc.
of timber stands
*.
o) Output Report Titles:
- " Digitized Classification System for the Biotic
Communities of North America, with Series and
Association Examples of the Southwest." ( May,
1979. Pub1 ished by Academy of Science.)
- " Digitized Systematic Classification for Eco-systems
with an Illustrated Summary of the
Natural Vegetation of North America." ( June,
1980. General Technical Report RM- 73. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station).
* Primary data user.
WATER
Q Identified Uses of Data:
- Land management planning
- Recreation development
- Community and industrial development planning
- Water quality planning
- Determine grandfathered rights
- Determine irrigation water duties
- Adjudication of water rights
- Flood control planning
- Flood plain planning
- Irrigation scheduling
- Water resources conservation
~ 3 Identified Users:
- Game and Fish Department*
- Department of Health Services*
- State Land Department*
- Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission*
- State Parks Board*
- Department of Water Resources*
- Local governments ( includes COGS) *
- Federal agencies: Geological Survey*
Soil Conservation Service*
Forest Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Land Management,
- Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
- Office of Economic Planning and Development
- Bureau of Geology and binera1 Technology
- Oil and Gas Conservation Co~ mission
- Department of Transportation
- Industry
- Universities
a Identification of Existing Systems in Arizona:
- U. S. Geological Survey's STORET: Stores data
from all states on surface water parameters.
e Data Types:
- Basic hydrologic and geohydrologic data
- Flood hazard boundary areas
- Major aquifers
- Water recharge areas
- Drainage
- Surface water qualitylquantity
- Groundwater qualitylquantity
- Water discharge data
- Industrial facilities information
- Historical water use
* Primary data users.
WATER ( continued)
a Data Types ( continued) :
- River levels
- Precipitation amounts
- Groundwater levels
- Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals
Q Output Report Titles:
- Technical standards for drinking water
- Technical standards for discharges
- Permit documents
- Statewide Water Resources Plan
- Active M- nagement Area Resources Plan
- Flood Co7'; cl Planning Reports
- Water Conservation Plans
- Groundwater Model
- Best Management Practices Reports
- Erosion Inventories
- Water Quality Management Plan
- Solid Waste Assessment Report
- Wastewater Treatment Facility Plans
- Wastewater Treatment Facility Designs and
Specifications
- State Water Pollution Control Strategy
- State Drinking Water Strategy
2.63 Uses of Natural Resources Data. Below are some samples of the types of
activities being carried out by Arizona State agencies. These are not meant
to be comprehensive in nature, but rather to describe the extent of ongoing
data requirevents needed for planning and management functions.
The State Land Department must manage resources on state- owned lands,
and has some joint ranagement responsibilities on adjacent federal lands. In
addition to overseeing timber and range resources, they must also plan for the
best and most profitable use of state lands adjacent to municipalities. They
are also responsible for maintaining loase records and for adjudicating water
rights where state trust lands are involved. These activities require
virtually all data types describe in Section 2.6. For example, in order to
manage and protect Arizona's timber stands, the Forestry Division requires
accurate and up- to- date information about the stands, including species
composition, age, volume, soil type, density, acres of each type, etc. This
information is used for determining fuel types, planning for harvests and
reforestation, specification of rotations to obtain maximum yields,
controlling insects and other pests, etc.
The Department of Transportation must evaluate economic, social, and
environmental factors as they affect and are affected by highway projects.
For example, alternative routes for a proposed highway must be compared to
determine corridors having the greatest costlbenefit ratios, while having the
least adverse impact to the land. This evaluation must consider a range of
factors, including archaelogical site data, geologic hazards, soil types,
wildlife habitat and relevant demographic information.
The Department of Water Resources is faced with an enormous job in
carrying cut recent groundwater legislation. One of their tasks is to
docu~ ent historical water use for irrigation of agricultural lands since
1975. This information will be used to establish future allocations of water
in the agricultural sector. By using imagery acquired from Landsat
satellites, they will be able to quickly and accurately delineate irrigated
acreage and identify crop types for each year.
The Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission ( AORCC) must
prepare and update a state comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. This plan
requires a synopsis of all major land, water, and social/ economic factors
pertinent to locating a variety of recreational facilities throughout
Arizona. The in also documents existing facilities. AORCC uses the plan to
make recommendations about where new facilities could be developed to support
Arizona's recreational needs. In order to select these potential sites, AORCC
must have information about the landscape ( i. e., vegetation, land use, soils,
geology, water) and its amenities ( e. g. air qua1 ity, animals, cultural data).
Further, they must evaluate each potential site in light of its proximity to
vajor populations, ease of access, demands by people for certain types of
facilities, etc. Finally, they must know who owns the land under
consideration so that appropriate follow- up action can be taken.
On the basis of these types of needs which requires a range of natural
resource and related data, it is evident that the State of Arizona would
benefit greatly by implementing an information center which would act as a
focal point for cbtaining and processing information, and would provide
applications assistance.
2.7 O'E3SERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS
A number of factors became apparent during the two- week process of
interviewing staff members of Arizona state agencies and other personnel:
Q Most entities responsible for natural resources and related issues
operate by reacting to areas of need as they arise. In general,
the concept of planning is still in its infancy. The reason for
this is probably because natural resource entities are operating
with limited staff and financial resources.
o Most entities using or producing natural resources data were very
supportive of the concept of a statewide natural resource infor-mation
system. Many, however, expressed concern that if such a
system is recommended for the state, they did not want th6 system
to be " buried" in an agency that would not be able to respond ade-quately
to state needs. That is, the institutional arrangements
must accommodate the needs of multiple entities, and must ensure
that those entities can access the system with relative ease.
t3 Because state agency employees are accustomed to operating with
limited resources, the present methods of acquiring secondary
source data and producing end products are well established on an
individual basis, often built op personal contacts. Should an
employee leave the agency, his knowledge about how and where
to obtain data may leave with him.
8 For the most part, the consciousness- level of the capabilities
of natural resource information systems ( automated or manual)
is somewhat 1 imi ted. ( Departments of Water Resources, State
Land, and Transportation are notable exceptions.) Once again,
employees may be " used to" obtaining data through specific
channels and in certain formats. There is generally no clear
understanding of how an information system might help them.
6 There i s a need f o r t h e s t a t e agencies t o t a l k t o each o t h e r
about data needs they have i n common. Recently e s t a b l i s h e d
mechanisms such as t h e State Data Coordination Network and
subgroups such as t h e Mapping Advisory Committee a r e an
e x c e l l e n t beginning. However, c u r r e n t e f f o r t s appear t o be
o r i e n t e d toward s p e c i f i c d a t a t y p e s o r s p e c i f i c agencies,
r a t h e r than towards c o n s i d e r i n g a l l data types " across t h e
board."
Table 11- 10 presents t h e observations of t h e User Survey Task Force
c o o r d i n a t o r , based on a two- week survey o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies ( see Table
11- 2), about which Arizona e n t i t i e s have a broader range o f needs f o r a
n a t u r a l resource i n f o r m a t i o n system. The S t a t e Land Department, t h e Department
o f Water Resources, and t h e Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n are ranked as t h e
t h r e e primary users o f n a t u r a l resources d a t a . These t h r e e agencies are also
candidates f o r p o t e n t i a l host o f an Arizona n a t u r a l resource i n f o r m a t i o n
system ( see Chapter I V ) . , I
The S t a t e Land Department i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e management and use o f
approximately 9.6 m i l 1 i o n acres ( s u r f a c e ) o f s t a t e lands. ( The Department
a l s o manages more than 10 m i l l i o n subsurface acres.) These lands are
i n t e n s e l y managed f o r t h e express purpose o f p r o v i d i n g revenues t o t h e s t a t e ,
mostly t o educational i n s t i t u t i o n s .
The Department o f Water Resources i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c a r r y i n g o u t t h e
requirements o f the r e c e n t l y enacted Groundwater Management Act, which
encorrpasses groundwater and o t h e r resources statewide. These resources are of
major i n t e r e s t t o v i r t u a l l y every s t a t e agency, t h e f e d e r a l government, l o c a l
e n t i t i e s , i n d u s t r i e s , u n i v e r s i t i e s , and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
Table 11- 10.
STATE AGENCIES: RANKED BY CURRENT PERCEIVED NEED *
Primary Users:
Q State Land Department EQUAL
CI Departnent of Water Resources RANK1 NG
0 Department of Transportation
s Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission
o Game and Fish Department
o Department of Health Services
s Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technoloay
Secondary Users: ( No ranking within category)
o Legislative bodies
Q office of Economic Planning and Development
s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
o Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
s Local aovernments
Q Councils of Governments
a Other state agencies, many of which were not interviewed
during this survey because of lack of time
Other Users:
c Public
s Federal Agencies
s Universities/ Educational Institutions
s 1ndustr. v
* Needs based on each agency's perceived needs, team judgments abcut the extent
of geographic coverage involved, and the variety of data types required by the
entity.
The Department of Transportation has statewide responsibilities for
transportation planning ( highways, airports, rai 1, other corridors) and
requires a wide range of natural resources information. Based on current
needs, a natural resource information system could be well justified for these
three state agencies alone, and indeed these agencies support the concept of a
statewide information system.
It is suggested that, if a natural resource information system is
implemented for the State of Arizona, systems staff assemble a number of teams a
to describe on an ongoing basis the capabilities and services they need and
desire. The teams might be comprised of representatives of state, federal and
local governments and others who are expected to be primary users of the
system. The teams may be organized by discipline ( Air Quality, Animals, Land
Use, Water, etc.). They should elaborate on input data requirements, output
report details, processing, analysis and modeling requirements.
111. SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
TASK FORCE REPORT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Systems and Software Task Force of the NCSL/ CSPA Resource Team
evaluated five technical data processing and : _ r- support entities:
- The Department of Transportation ( Information Systems Group),
- The Department of Administration ( DOA Data Center),
- The Department of Water Resources,
- The State Land Department ( Information Resources Division), and
- The University of Arizona ( Applied Remote Sensing Program).
Information was gat! iered through interviews, written materials
' provided, tours of facilities and demonstrations of capabilities.
The information gathered is presented! in two formats ( tabular and
narrative) and is organized into four component areas ( hardware, software,
staff and general procedures).
3.2 HARDWARE
3.21 ADOT Hardware
Review of Arizona Department of Transportation electronic data
processing ( EDP) activities revealed that the ADOT computer facilities were
efficiently managed and heavily used. Two mainframe computers, an IBM 3701158
and an Pmdahl 470V511, make up ADOT's EDP Data Center. While
both machines offer excellent processing speed, available memory,
necessary operating systems, and peripheral devices ( tape and disk drives,
plotters, and printers), they are so heavily used that they cannot be
considered as a host for a natural resource information system. The IBM
370/ 158, for instance, is at 90 to 100 percent utilization, with the bulk
of its use by law enforcement officials searching the ADOT license data
base. The Amdahl 470V511 is used to 75 percent capacity during the
daytime shift and 40 percent overall. The low overall utilization is
be- iclse the Amdahl was installed only recently to relieve the burden on
the IBM. Its use will be stepped up rapidly. CPU time on the Amdahl for
bulk processing (" number crunching") probably will be available during the
third shift soon.
ADOT EDP officials made it clear that the data processing center was
not in a good position to increase the number of users. Under the current
hardware configurations, no more time- sharing users can be added to the
' system. This forces the users into a strictly batch mode of operation, a
mode not conducive to software development. : In addition, users wishing to
take advantage of the limited available resources would need to work
evening hours. Overall, such limitations do not aid production- oriented
analysis such as a natural resource information system would be expected
to provide.
The Arizona Department of Transportation has felt the effects of
declining gas tax revenues in recent years. As part of ADOT, this has
meant lower funds for its EDP Center. This causes a redirection of
efforts to ensure that the Information Systems Group meets ADOT's Data
Processing needs before additional servicec ? re made available to outside
users. As a result, there are no plans for major hardware acquisition
software development, or upgrades for the currently ov, ercrowded physical
facilities of the ADOT Data Center.
In summary, although ADOT's Data Center possesses the hardware needed
by a natural resource information system, the center is too heavily used
to allow additional users access to the system. For a synopsis of
technical characteristics of the ADOT computer system, refer to Tables
111- 1, 111- 2 and 111- 3, " Summary of Electronic Data Processing Sysytem and
Organizations."
3.22 DOA Hardware
The Department of Administration was responsive and helpful in our
interview. Overall management of the data processing function seems to be
highly structured and efficient. The project structure in DOA is very
user responsive because the funding source for the DOA system includes
individual projects for 40 to 45 state agencies rather than allocation
from the Legislature. Quality of work in such a system normally tends to
be high because future projects hinge on the success of present work. DOA
personnel seem to be willing to accept new challenges and new programs
aimed at user satisfaction.
The DOA system consists of a Honeywell 66DPS3, a large mainframe with
dual central processors. It has 768,000 36- bit words and operates with
6- bit characters. The processing speed of the system is approximately the
same as an IBM 3701158 system. The operating system supports both batch
and tirre- sharing users with access to tapes and large disk files from
either system. The time sharing option ( TSO) response time is
approximately five seconds. The Honeywell 66DPS3 has 20 dual- density tape
drives and 34 disk drives with an average of 200 megabytes per drive.
Currently, the disk space utilization is low due to recent upgrades, with
60 percent of the total disk space available for user scratch space. User
memory is allocated on demand, up to 64K words per user. The charge
structure for the DOA system is based on system resource units with
individual rates per resource unit ( i. e. disk storage, CPU time, printer
paper, etc.). The security o f the system for disaster situations seems to
be good with a halon emergency system. Because the system contains dual
processors, a hardware failure in one system can be controlled by a system
hardware reconfiguration. A software security system of passwords and
user keys seems to be adequate for protection of sensitive data.
The DOA system currently has no graphics peripherals and is normally
used for business- oriented work. While the system supports FORTRAN and
COBOL, the majority of the programming done by DOA is in COBOL. Major
statistical packages such as SPSS are included in the Honeywell system, as
well as several nongeographic- oriented data base software systems.
3.23 DWR Hardware
The Department of Water Resources currently does not manage a computer
system. It relies on the DOH and ADOT Data Centers for computer
services. DWR does own several terminals and plans to acquire a tablet
digitizer to support work in implementing the new groundwater law.
3.24 SLD Hard\ vare
The Inforvation Resources Division of the State Land Department has a
fairly sophisticated minicomputer hardware system. The Data General S130
CPU is relatively fast and can be made much more efficient with the
addition of 256K bytes of memory. The two disks ( one 10RB and one 192M3)
are adequate for near- term operations. The tape drive is marginal in
several respects. It is not dual density ( only 800BPI), and it is
somewhat dated and prone to equipment failure.
The IRD graphics peripherals are excellent. ~ h & la rge tablet
digitizer and 36" four- pen plotter are more than adequate. There are also
two Tektronics Graphic CRTs ( Model 4010) which could be used for mapping
and general computer graphics ( pie charts, histograms, line plots, etc.).
The IRD CPU is a rental unit. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee
refused to appropriate state funds for thi s~ nit during the current fiscal
year. Funds were obtained from the U. S. Forest Service, and the DOA Data
Processing Division approved a 6- month lease pending completion of this
study so that SLD could continue current services. If further action is
not taken, the CPU will have to be returned on 1/ 1/ 81. The Systems and
Software Task Force recommends that SLD be allowed to retain this unit
I,
until 7/ 1/ 81, so that SLD can continue running current applications and
' have time to provide alternatives for future services after that date.
These alternatives will, of necessity, be a , function of legislative
decisions regarding IRD and the recommendations contained in this report.
3.25 U of A Hardware
The University of Arizona, Of. fice of Arid Lands Studies, Applied
Remote Sensing Program has access to several computers, and each is used
for particular types of applications.
Time- sharing is handled by a dedicated dual CPU DEC System 10. The
DEC is linked to a CDC Cyber 175 which handles batch processing. These
conputers are used for both research and teaching.
The Applied Remote Sensing Program also has a dedicated
image- processing system. The system has a DEC PDP 11/ 70 CPU, a 67MB disk,
an 8005PI tape drive and a color CRT.
A wide variety of graphics peripherals are available at various campus
locations, including digitizers, planimeters, drum plotters ( 12" x 36"),
an electrostatic printer and a film writer.
3.3 SOFTWARE
There is currently little Geographic Information System ( GIs) or
Landsat processing software implemented by any of the four departments.
There are some contouring and 3- 0 capabilities on the ADOT Amdahl, and
some limited GIs software at SLDIIRD. Also, DWR has several complex
hydrological models used for ongoing water resources planning.
Both SLD and DWR have plans to implement Landsat image- processing
capabilities. SLD has been attempting implementation the last two years,
but has only one simple routine ( of at least 15- 20 required) operational
to date. Also, the SLD programmer is knowledgeable but not proficient in
FORTRAN, which is used almost exclusively for such applications. A final
complicat. ion at SLD is that, in response to the JLBC resolution and
pending development of a long- term data processing plan for the entire
department, the Data Processing Division placed a temporary freeze on new
software development and applications on the IRD computer.
The Department of Water Resources could implerner~ t an initial Landsat
capability fairly rapidly. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has developed a
software package ( VICAR/ IBIS) which i s written in FORTRAN and is
270/ 360/ Arr1dahl- compatible. This package, which is in the public domain,
is available through the NASA software distribution facil ity ( COSMIC at
the University of Georgia) at a nominal fee. Once this software is
acquired by the state, NASAIAMES staff are willing to assist in the
installation of the complete package at ADOT. This could be accomplished
in a vatter of days; ADOT staff and the DWR FORTRAN programmer could
easily maintain and run t h V~ IC AR/ IBIS system.
The U of A has a wide variety of software available from various
sources, most of which is operational on one of its three ccrnputers.
These packages, however, have not been extended to large area, operational
applications. While the U of A may have most of the pieces, they need to
integrate them into a manageable systen nd increase their capacity and
efficiency in some cases. The existing software capabilities, however,
represent a powerful research tool.
3.4 ARIZONA DATA PROCESSING STAFF OVERVIEW
The evaluation of staff capabilities unfortunately involves the use of
objective categories having mostly subjective criteria. In addition, any
staff evaluation is biased in favor of the larger data centers ( ADOT, DOA,
U of A) because their staff sizes perpit sgccialization in specific areas,
and because budgets are usually directed towards maintaining staffs
capable of meeting user requirements in order to guarantee a continued
flow of income. However, because staff capabilities are the single most
important element in the successfu1 operation of a data processing
facility, it was felt that even a subjective evaluation is important i f
technical capabilities are to be understood. Therefore, it should be
noted that the following narrative is based only on collective impressions
of the technical evaluation panel.
3. al ADOT
. -
The Cepar~ r~ notr i r ~ n s p o ~ ~ d ~ riraoinn+ ,: ns a large staff versatile in
the use of PL1, FORTRAN and COBOL programming languages. It is mace up of
a core of experienced programmers, systems analysts and operators plus a
group of inexperienced personnel. Turnover is a problem with the
inexperienced staff but a trainee program that offers on- the- job
experience and instruction is improving the situation. Trainees are not
leaving for outside opportunities at as fast a rate as before. The
majority of ADOT staff works in a services or production- oriented mode
with specific assignments varying from routine accounting tasks to more
complicated modeling. ADOT does offer limited services in spatial data
analysis. Specifically, it has capabilities for processing
photogrammetric and engineering design data. However, it does not have
staff currently engaged in image processing or geographic information
system programming.
ADOT offers limited opportunities for continuing education. Because
of budget restrictions, training is limited to vendor- provided seminars.
ADOT management recognized this as perhaps its primary limiting factor.
Fortunately, Amdahl has assisted by providing training in recent months.
In terms of user support, the ADOT Data Center enforces strict
documentation standards, and offers comprehensive back- up capabilities to
ensure that user files are protected. In addition, ADOT manages a
password security system, and regulates accessibility to the computer
facil it ies.
The concensus was that ADOT does a comniendable job of providing a
capable staff considering its strict budget limitations.
3.42 - DGA
The Department of Administration data processing staff is similar in
rany ways to that o f ADOT. They, as well, have both experienced and
inexperienced programmers with turnover a big problem. DOA works in a
production or service direction, and manages excellent security and data
back- up programs. Programming, however, is done primarily in COBOL with
limited assistance in FORTRAN offered. Most of the work is considered to
be simple accounting and bookkeeping rather than complex modeling tasks.
None of the DOA Data Center work involves manipulaticn of spatial data.
Training opportunities for the DOA staff are greater than those of ADOT.
An attempt is made to provide 15 days of training each year. DOA also
maintains a trainee program to help tjsfy its staffing needs.
More than ADOT, DOA works as a user- support facility and, thus,
activities are designed to meet the needs and budgetary limitations of the
user group. DOA will attempt to provide an applications programmer who is
qua- lified in specialized areas i f the demand is present. Its
documentation standards also are dependent on user standards. If the user
B
does not request thorough documentation, only limited efforts to document
programs are made. DOA will go into considerable detail, however, if
asked to do so. i
Of all Arizona data centers, the DOA staff appeared most flexible in
tailoring activities to the user. It did also appear that the user should
know what standards are desired to ensure success.
3.43 - DWR
The Department of Water Resources data processing group consists of
one programmer and a handful of digital data users. The latter group has
considerable experience in data analysis but its technical competency was
not evaluated. The programmer was experienced and knowledgeable in
FORTRAN and highly user- oriented. He was aggressive in his interest in
spatial data analysis and appears eager to initiate several complex,
spatial data analysis programs, including image processing, that support
DKR functions.
Because DWR has such a small data analysis staff and because its data
processing tasks are done only to support mandated water resource
management responsibilities, it is not relevant to address DhR user
support directions. It should be noted that impressions of DWR staff are
based only on anticipated data analysis activities rather than on current
activities. DWR does, however, appear extremely aggressive in desiring to
establish a staff of talented scientific, spatially- oriented programmers
and data analysts.
As with the DWR data processing group, the SLD/ ARIS data processing
staff is small. It consists of one progranimer and several data analysts.
The data analysts are limited mostly to digitizing maps and the use of a
plotter. The programmer has been with ARIS for a short time only, so it
is difficult to assess his productivity and technical expertise. The
programming languages used are primarily BASIC and APS with limited
FORTRAN. From the data analysis software viewed, it appears that most
software development falls into the simple accounting/ bookkeeping group
with some si~ ple spatial data analysis programs beginning to be developed.
Top SLD rnanagcment is very interested in the concept of a statewide
natural resource information system. They are currently somewt~ at
frustrated with the progress of the IRD in implementing geographic infor-mation
system capabilities. Current IRD systems development, however, is
in hold due to a ban on new applications by DOA's Data Processing Division
pending the outcome of the Resource Team study and completion of an
acceptable long range data processing plan.
User assistance activities are included in ARIS staff
responsibilities. The staff manages a good security program and routinely
backs up user files for data protection. They also engage in limited
docunentation, but it was not possible to determine how thoroughly.
The ARIS programmer has received training by Data General ( DG) to aid
him in familiarity with the DG programming environment. Because of
limited staff, it is impractical for AR- td maintain a formal training
program.
The preceding narrative of ARIS staff capabilities does not truly
represent the evaluation panel's impressions of staff abilities. While
ARIS staff, like DWR staff, is pointed in the right direction, and even
though neither DWR nor ARIS has accomplished a great deal in the area of rn
spatial data analysis, the overall feeling was that the ARIS staff lacked
' the aggressiveness and direction to accomplish the tasks that are required
for land and water resource evaluation. To assist users, a production
attitude is vitally needed. Without it, any service organization will
ultimately discourage participation by outside users.
3.45 U of A
Because U of A staff felt that provision of ongoing, operational
services was not an appropriate role for the University, the Systems and
Software Task Force did not perform a U of A staff evaluation. The task
force consensus is that the staff functions under a research and
development atrxosphere rather than a production setting, and they are
well- qualified to provide highly technical, complex programming. However,
no specific cbservations were made to support this contention.
Observations of the Systems and Software Task Force are summarized in
the following tables.
L
a,
L c,
0 c,
L m o
m m "
a, a
c, 0'.
0 O L
r- L a ,
a o. c,
a . d
E hOL
o m a
U E
4 H O
m . d m
u & Q L
- CL1 @ c, rcd , a, < h 11 tc m . d
~ N U O L
- 4 L 3
4 3 0 Lc,
. 4 O V E
r M d a 4
N . A 0 ri . d
d C U I r I L r ,
m
Y o
m a, . rl
ac r l, ~. ca
a m m
f
c, L
E o
M
3 I : C m
L A > - 4 L o
T d i m 4
3 I N C
r C - 4 0
u O Y L
v . rl c, m
2 m w - x r-m
u o c
I, 0 LaeU
a d m
N D. - 1 rv
m
L L
rl a,
3 N
CT d
o I, m 4
tn
0 . d
c, a
bcD Ya,
.- 4 i c n
C m
- i1d c,
a m
. , .
aa o
a, r.
" l g z s XI-' m m o
. ax I, ru o
m n h ma,
h3rd D 4.00
a) hn m
E O m m a m
E a, i m
ru
m o
E 0 3 a ,
i r l 0
c , O L
o a
o a
d i d 3
a .. c,
ih ca ,
0 . d
C L
a, 0
Li m
5 m
O W E
C aJ
m . A c,
c m m
O 3 h
= D m
.- 4 I
' 90 1 0
C O L
a, 03 ,> . rl
a- L. r
. A m
d m I:
m a , m c ,
u7 d> X cbO
L m .4
m a nz
u ' 4
C m
2 2 X
m > r L
C L O
L 0 E
7 E a,
c, a, E
. c i
0 L m
c , a , c ,
m r? o
5 3 0
Table I11 - 2
~ ummary of E l e c t r o n i c Data Processing
Systems and O r g a n i z a t i o n s
- SOt: TI. JllRE-Arizona
Department Department of Department of S t a t e Land University of
of T r a r i s p o r t a t i o n Administration Water Resoilrces Department / Inn Arizona
opera tin;^ Systenls SVS- VSII G COS 111 Use ADOT & DOA AOS r e l e a s e 2 CYRER NOS DEClO P3P 11/ 70
RSX11
I n t e r a c t i v e TSO P o t h e r systems S e v e r a l systems Yes None Yes Yes
fac i l i t i e z
- memory a v a i l a b l e 512K 250R 64K I i / A --- 40r(
- response times 5- 10 seconds 3 seconds 3- 5 sec f o r 1- 2 u s e r s N/ A Varies Fast.
15- 30 sec f o r 5
CIS s o f t w a r e Some None A number of s p a t i a l Range v e g e t a t i o n S p a t i a l information proccss1. w
h y d r o l o g i c a l modeling rnapping system near system
systems o p e r a t i o n a l use
- polygon processing no no no yes
- c o n t o u r i n g y e s no no yes
- 3D c a p a b i l i t i e s yes no no yes
Landsat software No None Plan i n s t a l l a t i o n of Plan i n s t a l l a t i o n of S e v e r a l packases a v a i l a b l e
VICAR/ IBIS a t ADOT v a r i o u s software** - r e f o r m a t t i n g yes* yesY* Yes
- geometric c o r r e c t i o n yes* yes** yes
- r a d i o m e t r i c c o r r e c t i o n yes* yes** yes
- t r a i n i n g f i e l d s e l e c t i o n yes* yesX* yes
- c l u s t e r i n g yes* yes** yes
- s t a t i s t i c s e d i t i n g yes* yesX* yes
- c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s yes* yes** yes
- d a t a c l e a n i n g and c o r r e c t i o n yes* yesX* yes
- a g s r e g a t i o n yes* yesX* yes
- v i s u a l enhancement yes* yes** Yes
- p r i n c i p a l component yes* yes** yes
* when i n s t a l l a t i o n ** a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f f a m i l i a r
is complete, NASA with F o r t r a n r e q u i r e d f o r
' w i l l provide t e c h n i c a l , i n s t a l l a t i o n . Also, DOA
a s s i s t a n c e f o r such has p r o h i b i t e d i n s t a l l a t i o n
i n s t a l l a t i o n . of new s o f t w a r e a t SLD/ IRD.
Table I11 - 3
SUi* ii. lARY OF EL, ECrTRONIC DATA PROCESSING
SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONS
- S'TAFF AND GENERAL-ADOT
DOA DllR SLDAR D U o f A
- Technical Expertise
- Languages used
-
Aggregate Experience Experienced Core
w/ some inexperienced
s t a f f
- Complexity o f current
work
i ~ r o t l utci on
I Orientation
OTHER I --
- DOC Standards
tiigh I tiigh
Compl ex
tii gh
-
- S p a t i a l O r i e n t a t i o n I Iloderate
- Backup Capabi 1 i t i e s
User- High
Techni cal sys terns
- l i m i t ~ d
Fortran
1
PL1, Fortran, Cobol
- Work Planning Process
- S t a f f / u s e r t r a i n i n g
Moderate
Cobol, Fortran Basic, APS
Excel 1 ent
- -
- Securi ty Sys teln
Experienced Core
w/ so~ iie inexperi-enced
Siniple
- N one
Depends on User
High I
Moderate 1 Low - - -- .- -- - i i i gt i
Pl/ A 1 poor
High
I
Excel l e n t '. pen& on poor
s k i l l s 1
Complex Siiiip! e
N/ A
1 experienced
Prograriir~ ier
1 Prograrrnier
wlbasic
Excel 1 ent
Adequate
Excel 1 en t
Excel lerit
Good
Excel 1 ent
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
Good
Adcqua t e
Good
IV. EXISTING I& STITUTIONAL SETTINGS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This report surnrnarizes the observations and evaluations of the
Institutional Arrangements Task Force of the Resource Team. The
objectives of this effort stated in the Agreement for Technical Assistance
Services signed August 7, 1980,.( Appendix I- B), are to "~, a! yze and
rcxommevd appropriate institutional ( state agency) arrangements, if
necessary, for implementation of the [ technical] systems designed [ by the
Systems and Software Task Force]". This report also summarizes the
combined experiences of other states in developing and maintaining a
successful information system. No " how to" manual exists for coordinating
natural resource data and information and providing services in this
area. Consequently, membership of the Institutional Arrangements Task
Force was carefully selected by CSPA and NCSL from two states that have
the longest history in evolving statewide information systems. The Task
Force members are:
e Peggy Harwood, Task Force Coordinator - Associate Director for
Resource Information and Technology, Council of State Planning
Agencies, and formerly a participant in the conceptual design and
implementation of the Texas Natural Resources Information System.
e John Wilson - Manager of the Systems Central Staff, Texas
NaturalResources Information System.
s Don Yaeger - Manager of the Mapping and Remote Sensing
Informationcenter, Minnesota Land Management Information Center.
The Institutional Arrangements Task Force acknowledges the support of
the individuals and agencies surveyed on existing and potential
institutional arrangements for a statewide information system. The Task
Force appreciates its own limitations. Without support and assistance
from state officials, it would be very difficult in the span of a few days
to adequately understand any state government, much less recommend an
approach for an interagency information system that might satisfy the
majority of users.
4.2 METHODOLOGY
As stated in the Agreement, the Institutional Arrangements Task Force
" will utilize interviews with ... candidate agencies; observation of current
system capabilities; and experiences of other states in implementing
resource information systems to analyze and recommend an institutional
arrangement for a natural resource information system."
4.21. Interviews of Candidate A~ encies. The Institutional Arrangements
Task Force of the NCSL/ CSPA Resource Team spent three days interviewing
key State offices with an interest in natural resource data and/ or
information systems. The Auditor General's office had scheduled
interviews for the Task Force with four entities identified as candidates
or potential hosts for a natural resource information system in Arizona:
the State Land Department, the Department of Water Resources, the
Department of Transportation, and the University of Arizona - Office of
Arid Lands Institute. The Task Force also visited with staff of the
Office of Eccnornic Planning and Development and the Department of
Administration, including the central computer facility.
In an attempt to get an understanding of each candidate agency's
present capabilities, and any future role they might play in structuring
an information system, the Task Force developed a standard set of
questions designed to gather the most consistent and complete information
in the limited time available. Summaries of these interviews are included
in Appendix IV- A. The questions asked of the senior staff in each agency
are listed in Figure IV- 1.
Figure IV- 1. Interview Questions for ' 3ndidate State Agencies
1. & hat type of information system do you have?
Manual and/ or computer
Scope: Purpose, users, data types, services provided
Computer Equipment/ Software Available
Staff Expertise
Data Processing Accomplishments
2. Are there plans to create or expand your information system?
3. Do you use other information services?
4. To whom do you provide infnrmation services? Occasionally?
Routinely?
5. What would it take for your system to provide information
services to other agencies?
- More funding, staff?
- Clear mandates, etc.?
6. What are your perceptions and/ or expectations of the Data
Coordination Network and Mapping Advisory Committee chaired
by the Office of Econcmic Planning and Development? Do you
perceive that such organizations are needed In Arizona?
7. Khat are your perceptions and/ or expectations of ARIS, as it
is today? What is your understanding of its original goals
and intended services?
4.22 Additional Evaluation Criteria. Natural Resource Information Systems in
other states are perhaps the best models for evaluating the institutional
arrangement most likely to be successful in Arizona. The Institutional
Arrangements Task Force developed a list of criteria common to these state
informat ion systems ( Figure IV- 2), based on the personal experience and
knowledge of Task Force members. The way each state addresses these criteria
and the different histories of development account for the diversity and
uniqueness found in existing systems.
The Institutional Arrangements Task Force used these criteria for
examining the progress of the State of Arizona in developing a statewide
natural resource information system, and for determining what additional
institutional changes, if any, might be needed to improve performance.
Figure IV- 2. Criteria for A State Natural Resource lnformation System
o Perceived needlDocumented need
s Clear purpose and mandate
e Well- defined scope I
- Users
- Data types
- Information services
s Functioning mechanism for user involvement
s Institutional home
s It~ plementation plan
- Staffing requirements
- Equipvent/ Software
- User education/ Outreach
- Schedule
4.23 Recornrnendation of an Institutional Arrangement. The Institutional
Arrangements Task Force performed the initial interviews during the week of
August 18, 1980, and requested comments from each candidate agency on the
accuracy of interview su~ maries.
Following completion of the draft U s ~ rNe eds Survey ( see Chapter 11),
representatives of the full Resource Team met during the week of September 15,
1980, to integrate results of the User Needs Survey, the interviews of the
Institutional Arrangements Task Force and the investigations of the Systems
and Software Task Force. The evaluation of 1 didate agencies and
institutional recornmendations were performed by the Institutional Arrangements
Task Force in consultation with the entire Resource Team.
4.3 CRITERIA FOR A STATE NATURAL RESOURCE I?( FGR? 4ATION SYSTEM
The concept of data coordination has led a nu~ nber of states to establish
special institutions called " natural resource information system centers."
Being able to access federal, state and local data through a single state
center has helped to decrease the high costs associated with collecting,
handling and analyzing these data. Another benefit to these states has been
that more information services and new technologies can be justified where
shared through an information system than could be afforded by individual
projects or agencies.
Although system details vary depending on individual state circumstances,
specific criteria appear to be common to most such systems:
o tteed. The state natural resource agencies must perceive the benefits
of data coordination to help fulfill ever expanding program needs and minimize
ccsts. A user needs survey is a first step in designing a state system.
Mandate and Purpose. A major criterion for development of a state
level natural resource information system is a well conceived mandate for aata
coordination, from the executive andlor legislative branches of state
governvent. A mandate should identify the purpose of the system to fulfill
state needs in clear, unanibiguous terms. Such a statement of purpose would
foster coordination among data providers and users, and help ensure acceptance
of the information system.
o Scope. A mandate to establish a state natural resource information
system also may provide general guidelines regarding the scope of the system.
Generally included in the scope is a definition of the users, data types and
information services t o be provided by the system. The scope should be
flexible and reflect resources available to the system. A major pitfall to be
avoided by a new information system is developing a user community with
expectations far beyond what the system can provide.
s Functioning Mechanism for User Involvement. In order to ensure that
the dev