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.
AN EXTENDED NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK: 68 THE ROLE OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS positional system at the county or local level, this may not be practical at the state government level. For example, in the case of the State of Ohio, NAD 27 is the basic reference system for horizontal data for a large amount of the existing spatial data for the state. Some states mandate the use of the SPC. Another major difference is theme related: The location of wetlands, ecosystems, land cover, watersheds, and geologic formations are themes a large number of state agencies use. In some cases historic buildings, monuments, or burial grounds are state themes as well as features required for disaster preparedness and emergency response. It is evident that a state or tribal extended Framework must be defined with the cooperation of state or tribal officials, and that only those additional themes used for most of the state or tribal agencies should be incorporated into an extended Framework. A meeting of the major stakeholders concerned with geographic data layers at the state and tribal level needs to be convened in order to discuss and define an extended Framework. As in the case of counties, the outcome of this step must be a list of themes and their content. The FGDC understands that it must develop effective coalitions with state and local government organizations if it is going to succeed in the development of an extended Framework. The committee is especially encouraged by the efforts to establish a strong working relationship with the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), and considers that this is the primary partnership needed to undertake the definition of the extended SSDI. SUMMARY OF SPATIAL DATA THEMES Many data themes have been mentioned in the above short discussions. The responsibility of the different levels of government for the various themes are described in Table 1. Where the federal government bears primary responsibility, the supplemental collection at the state and local government level must at least meet the federal data standards. In most instances, state and local standards are more rigorous than those at the federal level. But where the primary responsibility resides with the local government, supplemental
AN EXTENDED NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK: 69 THE ROLE OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS information collected by state and federal governments should at least meet the local standards. In practice this has not always been the case. For some layers, primary responsibility is shared among two or three levels of government for different parts of the layer (e.g., political boundaries and vegetation). Data standards are a critical element of this effort. It has also become clear that accurate, current orthrophotography is a critical building block. Clearly, the federal government has a primary responsibility for a digital imagery data layer that covers the entire country. Hydrography, wetlands, and wildlife habitat, vegetation, geology, and bathymetry for offshore areas may be partially collected using imagery and the federal government has a primary responsibility in each of these areas. State and local governments have primary interests in transportation and utilities, soils, vegetation, and for certain features that can partially be collected with the aid of imagery. Cowen and Jensen (1998) have documented the spectral, spatial, and temporal resolution requirements for different types of features. However, local and state governments have different responsibilities for data layers that cannot be collected through the use of imagery. These differences between national, state and local needs are in some cases fundamental. At the start of a new century, most jurisdictions find a plethora of data available. Of greater need are personnel and processes to assess those data and to define the form in which those data are needed at each level. Free data are not free if the user must invest thousands of dollars to use them. Until the personnel at each user interface are hired and dedicated to identifying both data needs and the processes to create the forms in which those data can be easily used, one cannot answer the question, What data are needed? We have developed a tremendous capability to collect data, driven primarily by the development of technology that can automatically collect them. We need now to develop the comparable capabilities to process, assess, and use those data. The Framework concept and its extension at the state, tribal nation, city and county levels outlined above begins this process.
