Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
FUTURE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EVOLUTION OF NSDI ACTIVITIES 40 tactical goals are very closely related to the Framework data efforts. These efforts support the other, less tangible but broader and strategic objectives such as increased citizen participation in decision making, and the provision of improved information to support decision making at all levels of government as well as in the private sector. The evolution of Framework-related NSDI activities and the supporting partnership program can be divided into two major categories of activities: Framework data production; and data access, use and other Framework issues. FRAMEWORK DATA PRODUCTION The challenge in this area is to make effective use of partnerships to stimulate, encourage, and enable the shift from small-scale, project-based data creation and maintenance efforts to large-scale, sustained, and efficient data creation, integration, and maintenance. Because Framework data are, by definition, fundamental to a broad range of geospatial information applications, it is a core goal of the NSDI to ensure that these data are being produced and maintained. Since the operating premise of the NSDI is that state, local, and tribal governments as well as private sector and NGO entities are each potential key contributors to the Framework, their successful participation in data production is a requirement for the success of the Framework and hence the NSDI itself. Therefore, because of budget constraints, partnership programs must take all possible steps to ensure that the Framework is, in fact, being populated and maintained. With the understanding that the federal government is not in a position actually to fund full-scale, ongoing Framework production efforts across the range of non-federal, data-producing organizations, how can the federal government use partnership programs to address the Framework data production goal most effectively? ⢠Increase the scale, scope, and accountability of partnership activities. This could be accomplished by selecting a small number of key non- federal entities that would be willing to participate in carefully monitored and documented data production and maintenance tasks for specific Framework layers. The objective use
FUTURE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EVOLUTION OF NSDI ACTIVITIES 41 would be to rigorously evaluate specific approaches to data capture and data update. These experiments could be based on the use of new technology or an evaluation of protocols and procedures. The selected partners would be evaluated on their willingness to establish the capabilities to measure cost savings, data access improvements, and data accuracy increases, etc. The goal of these activities would be to take the technological and organizational steps required to put in place a complete Framework data production system, and then to run this system for sufficient time to obtain measurable and statistically significant assessment results. If the data production activity is determined to be a success, based on the criteria listed above, the goal would be to then clone the system nationwide, to the degree appropriate. Each of the partnership projects would be evaluated against the four key criteria: reduced redundancy, reduced costs, improved access, and improved accuracy. Not only should partnership programs explicitly require the capture of these factors on a before-and- after basis, but also steps need to be taken to assist non-federal organizations to take advantage of proven methods to achieve these goals. Once the assessment results indicate that these goals have been achieved, the technological and organizational or other aspects of a production system would be disseminated to the community. This process would significantly enhance the ability of non-federal organizations to produce and maintain Framework data in a manner that has been shown to be effective and efficient (e.g., soil data in Minnesota; see Box 4 below). The FGDC could also identify additional successful case studies where federal funding has resulted in partnerships that have benefited both the federal and non-federal organization. These case studies could be compiled into a âcookbookâ that would provide guidance to others. A good example of such a resource is the recently completed NSDI Communications Toolkit. These communication tools were developed through a cooperative partnership between the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and the FGDC (available at: http://www.fgdc.gov/ nsdi/docs/communications/index.html). Of equal importance is the development of software tools that facilitate the integration of data from a variety of sources. In fact, the vendor community has made remarkable progress in this area. Efforts such as Microsoftâs Terraserver clearly demonstrate that users can
FUTURE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EVOLUTION OF NSDI ACTIVITIES 42 use their Web Browsers to easily access a huge quantity of image and other spatial data sources. The efforts of the Open GIS consortiumâs Web Mapping Test Bed demonstrate that similar tools can be used to combine data housed on several different FGDC clearinghouse nodes. Such nodes now number more than 240 located in 26 different nations. There has also been considerable technological advancement integrating desktop GIS software with industry standard database management systems and common office products. Better support for the development and use of metadata has facilitated easier exchange of spatial data among formats, map projections, and datums. In fact, map projections can be converted âon the flyâ and several databases can be integrated into a single project. Software wizards and improved on-line help systems have led to significant improvements in the usability of sophisticated spatial analytical tools. Partnership programs designed to support this kind of complete production system and evaluation effort will necessarily require a higher level of per-project funding than has been available in previous partnership programs. Clearly, the more of these efforts that can be funded, the more rapidly the successful population of the Framework database will occur. ⢠Identify whether critical components of the Framework database are being adequately addressed, either by the federal agencies or by non- federal organizations, and take action to address any gaps that are identified. Such gaps may be geographic in nature, thematic, scale- specific, etc. A strategy for addressing such gaps may include providing incentives to an organization to perform the data production, even though the organization would not normally produce such data. In the extreme, it may be determined that it is in the broad public interest to ensure that these data exist and are maintained, and therefore that subsidies or outright funding of the activity might be appropriate. Based on the specific Framework layer(s) involved, one or more federal agencies may have a particular interest in ensuring that the data are collected and maintained and therefore may support the activity financially, or alternatively may collect the data itself. ⢠Offer creative incentives for non-federal organizations to carry out their Framework data production and maintenance missions. These incentives could include cash awards based on completion and continuing maintenance of Framework data. Such incentives could be
FUTURE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EVOLUTION OF NSDI ACTIVITIES 43 BOX 4 SOIL DATA IN MINNESOTA-A PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS STORY A 1994 survey of the Minnesota GIS community identified soil data at the top of the list of needs for new and improved data. The need was especially high for county governments and natural resource agencies. At the time, only one of Minnesotaâs 87 counties had a spatially correct digital soil map and the rate of production for such products by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS-then called the Soil Conservation Service) was one county per year. Something needed to be done to provide the required geospatial soil data. NRCS recognized a need to accelerate soil mapping nationwide and joined with USGS and other federal agencies to create a National Digital Orthophoto Program, with the expectation that the resulting orthophotos would provide a solid base for creating new soil maps. The Minnesota legislature provided matching funds, which accelerated completion of orthophotos across the state. As a consequence of the availability of these orthophotos, NRCS scientists focused new mapping activities on Minnesota. The Minnesota Governorâs Council on Geographic Information created a soil committee, which studied the situation and determined that the biggest problem for many counties was spatial distortion in many of their soil maps, caused by lack of an orthoimagery base when the maps were compiled. Most Minnesota counties are in areas of low to moderate relief, and there was hope that these existing soil maps could be adjusted to the spatially correct orthophotos using elevation data collected as part of the National Digital Orthophoto Program. The Minnesota Legislature, using special funds set aside for investing in natural resources, funded research by Professor Jay Bell at the University of Minnesota to see if such adjustments could be made without distorting other parts of the map. The project was successful and his approach is now being considered for approval by NRCS for use in other states. The approach has also helped focus fieldwork in counties updating obsolete soil maps. As of late 2000, fourteen Minnesota counties have spatially-correct, modern digital soil maps and ten more are in progress. This progress would have been impossible without the contributions of the NRCS, USGS, the state policy council, the state legislature, individual counties, and the University of Minnesota.
