APPENDICES
APPENDIX B: COOPERATION/PARTNERSHIP MODELS IN EXISTENCE TODAY
APPENDIX D: STATE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AUTHORIZATIONS AND COORDINATION--SUMMARY
ACRONYMS
1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cooperation and partnerships for spatial data activities among the federal government, state and local governments, and the private sector will be essential for the development of a robust National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
The NSDI is the total ensemble of available geographic information that describes the arrangement and attributes of features and phenomena on the Earth, as well as the materials, technology, and people necessary to acquire, process, store, and distribute such information to meet a wide variety of needs. The twenty-first century will see geographic information transported from remote nodes using computer networks to support decision making throughout the nation. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) will provide the technology infrastructure to make this possible. There are vast amounts of spatial data ready to move across the information superhighways today. Timely use of these data would be difficult due to ill-defined format, quality, and accuracy. National or regional decision making would be severely impaired because most data sets are not adequately characterized. This is to be contrasted by the fact that the NII may well be the most important technology needed to facilitate a coordinated NSDI.
The Mapping Science Committee (MSC) has recommended1 that the NSDI be developed to a level that would support the needs of the nation. The costs of creating and maintaining digital spatial data are high, so it is particularly important that spatial data collection not be duplicated, and that data be shared to fully realize its potential benefits. Largely for these reasons, the National Performance Review (prepared under the guidance of Vice President Gore) urged the formation of spatial data partnerships between federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. After examining the pros and cons of several current spatial data programs that involve partnerships, the MSC agrees that a partnership model, the subject of this report, is an excellent approach for enhancing the NSDI. A companion report (in preparation--The National Spatial Data Infrastructure: The Data Foundation) suggests a rationale for identifying the principal elements needed to create the data component of the NSDI.
The focus of partnership arrangements within this report is on federal and state agencies. However, the MSC recognizes that a large volume of spatial data is created and used by local governments throughout the nation. Recently a number of state geographic information councils have been established to coordinate spatial data activities within the respective states. Such councils can also encourage partnerships between state and local government agencies, coordinate arrangements between state agencies and the private sector, and provide points of contact for partnerships with the federal government organizations. Although many states have geographic information councils, they are not universal. The MSC agrees with the recommendation of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) in its strategic plan to help form or strengthen these state geographic information councils. The principles developed in this report should be transferrable to a wide variety of spatial data partnerships.
The committee identified several key elements during the course of this study that should be common to future partnerships. These include the following:
- Shared Responsibilities. The parties to a partnership should have a formal agreement that defines each party's responsibilities in the activity.
- Shared Commitment. The costs of the activity should be shared between the parties according to some agreed formula.
- Shared Benefits. Each party to the activity should derive some benefit that is consistent with its mandated role as an agency.
- Shared Control. Decision-making control of the partnership should be divided between the participants.
In addition, the committee believes that the following conditions should be emphasized in the formation of NSDI partnerships:
- Benefits of spatial data partnerships must be evaluated for the entire national community of spatial data users, not merely for the agencies participating in the partnership.
- The contribution of a spatial data partnership to the wider objectives of NSDI must be considered in its design and management.
- Data of known quality are an important factor in the value of any investment in spatial data. Potential users will be confident using data only if they know the data are reliable.
- Stewardship is a key concern in reaping the benefits of investment in any spatial data partnership; the organization closest to the source of the data should be best able to maintain the data.
- An essential element of the NSDI partnership model must be a commitment to support the partnership as part of an ongoing program. Long-term commitments will help ensure that data are maintained and that mutual trust in a partner's ability to meet respective needs will be achieved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- The size and diversity of the federal establishment suggest that viable partnerships will require focal points within the federal government for coordinating data production and partnership activities. The range of alternatives to consider should include regional coordination staff and coordinating positions within organizations responsible for spatial data production. Stewardship responsibilities for base (framework) data sets specific to geographic areas should be encouraged. The practicality of a data stewardship certification program should be studied. The clearinghouse function should catalogue data available through data stewards.
- Clear guidelines for cost sharing in partnerships need to be developed. The formulation of such guidelines should be one component of the FGDC's role in NSDI. Guidelines should reflect the responsibility of the federal government to address and fund the nation's interest in the NSDI.
- It is imperative that states and other organizations be involved in the standards development process and that only standards essential to NSDI objectives be required of partnership agreements. Promulgation and maintenance of standards is an important component of the FGDC's role in NSDI; standards must not be compromised in the formation of partnerships between state and federal agencies.
- Incentives are needed to encourage partnerships that are designed to maximize use and benefits to the broader user community. Such incentives could be provided through the monitoring and coordinating roles of the FGDC and state geographic information councils.
- The Federal Geographic Data Committee should investigate the extent to which federal procurement rules (and future revisions resulting from the National Performance Review) are an impediment to the formation of spatial data partnerships, and identify steps that can be taken to ease them.
- The partnership model with data stewardship responsibilities at all levels of government represents a fundamental shift in the way the nation develops and supports the NSDI. Federal agencies will devote more resources to coordination and less to data production. States and other government entities will continue to expand their data production roles to support national needs. It is consistent with the recognition that today data are distributed across the nation at all levels of government and the public. The rapidly expanding communication network (the NII or information superhighway) will be the conduit to bring these data sets together. The FGDC, federal agencies, and state geographic information councils in concert will form a critical component of the infrastructure that ensures logical consistency and availability of framework and other spatial data to carry the nation into the next century.
NOTES
Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation (1993). Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 171 pp.
2 - THE NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE
BACKGROUND
It is generally accepted that in the early 1960s, the United States moved from being an industrial society to being an information society. This information society depends upon spatial (geographic) data and information. Until recently, maps (usually in paper form) have been a mainstay for a wide variety of applications and decision making.
This is changing as more spatially referenced data and information on a wider variety of topics or themes (e.g., population, land use, economic transactions, hydrology, agriculture, climate, soils) are being produced, stored, transferred, manipulated, and analyzed in digital form.
Several factors have contributed to the advancement of digital technology for collecting, handling, and processing spatial data. Perhaps the most important are the relative ease with which digital spatial data can be edited and updated (no more handwritten notes on paper maps); improved integration of operations between administrative departments within agencies (departments share and contribute to spatial data as a common resource); data management and storage; more effective analysis and decision making (manual analysis of paper maps is exceedingly tedious and costly); and faster access to current data (changes are available to all users in near real time).
With the current emphasis on digital spatial data, new products (representing the conversion of paper map information, the enhancementä of that information, and the collection of new data) are appearing with greater frequency. With this increased production comes the potential for substantial duplication of effort, as virtually identical digital products appear from different agencies to satisfy their often very specific needs. The costs of creating and maintaining digital spatial data are high, so it is particularly important that data created at considerable cost and effort be shareable, that costly data collection not be duplicated, and that the collected data be fully utilized to realize all of their potential benefits.
The next decade will see rapid and large-scale investment in communications technology as the nation moves to exploit the full potential of the information age. Recent actions by the federal government, including the passage of the act calling for a National Information Infrastructure (NII), as well as announced plans for private and public investment, make it clear that within a few years an unprecedented capability will exist for sharing of data along "electronic superhighways." Investment in digital communications technology has been likened to the national investment in the interstate highway network in the 1950s and 1960s, which spawned a major restructuring of U.S. society. Already some 10 million users of the Internet research network communicate nationally and internationally at megabit speeds. Many are predicting that within the next 10 years we will see a similar development in the consumer marketplace.
The high-speed communication networks will be essential for widespread access and sharing of spatial data. Spatial data tend to be voluminous, and sharing has traditionally been difficult at the communication speeds and bandwidths that were available in the past. Standards were often absent, or confusing at best, and it was often more cost-effective to communicate by mailing a paper map and redigitizing it rather than confront the problems of digital format conversion. In the last few years the research community has begun to develop effective methods for describing data quality and other aspects of data that potential users must know if they are to be able to assess the potential value of someone else's spatial data for their own use.
A major challenge over the next decade will be to increase the use of spatially referenced data to support a wide variety of decisions at all levels of society. Using an effective, efficient, and widely accessible NII, spatial data could be readily transported and easily integrated both thematically (e.g., across environmental, economic, and institutional data bases) and hierarchically (e.g., from local to national and eventually to global levels). Transparent access to myriad data bases could provide the information for countless applications, e.g., facility management, real estate transactions, taxation, land-use planning, transportation, emergency services, environmental assessment and monitoring, and research. Work on these applications could take place in schools, offices, and homes across the nation. In addition, these activities will lead to new value- added services and market opportunities in emerging spatial information industries.
In consideration of these challenges and opportunities, the Mapping Science Committee (MSC)2 conceptualized a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) as "the total ensemble of geographic information at our disposal that describes the arrangement and attributes of features and phenomena on the Earth, as well as the materials, technology and people necessary to acquire, process, store and distribute such information to meet a wide variety of needs." In its broadest sense, the infrastructure also includes the cultural, environmental, economic, political, legal, and educational values and institutions that support, facilitate, and shape its character, including the forms in which spatial data are represented and utilized throughout society. The MSC's concept of the NSDI is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. NSDI building blocks.
PREVIOUS
REPORTS
Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program
In 1990, the MSC issued a report entitled Spatial Data Needs: The Future of
the National Mapping Program.3 The report resulted from
numerous written reports and briefings provided by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). The vision of a cartographic enterprise and its sequel, the NSDI was
developed, and recommendations pertaining to the National Mapping Division
(NMD) of the USGS were provided. One of the most important recommendations made
in the report is that the future role of the NMD should focus on coordination
of certain NSDI functions in addition to production of spatial data. With the
establishment of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to address coordination and standards objectives,
NMD will be able to focus on supporting the operational aspects of NSDI
development. In keeping with the recommendations, this current report addresses
one aspect of the NSDI--the concept of federal/state partnerships to achieve
production objectives.
Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data
Infrastructure for the Nation
After assimilating information from 12 federal agencies, the MSC produced a
report entitled Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the
Nation.2 This report defined the elements of the NSDI and
provided a conceptual framework for an enhanced spatial data infrastructure for
the nation. The recommendations of that report follow:
In keeping with this last recommendation, this present report expands the ideas
of cooperation and partnerships between federal and state spatial data
activities within the NSDI.
The NSDI is in existence today. It continues to evolve as the FGDC continues
to define its role and responsibility for the nation's geographic data of the
future. The Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense have
been traditionally the major suppliers of spatial data. Most other departments
and independent agencies are users, and sometimes suppliers, of spatial data.
At the state level, over two-thirds of the states have active geographic
information councils, geographic information systems (GIS) coordination groups,
or similar organizations responsible for coordinating spatial data; data
collection activities are dispersed among the various agencies within a state.
At the local level, most counties, municipalities, and utility companies are
pursuing the collection and useä of spatial data to address their
information needs for management and planning.
There seemed to be a lack of coherent direction for the NSDI in the past, and
the infrastructure often appeared chaotic. At all levels of spatial data
handling, organizations are confronted by myriad problems, confusing policies,
and even disincentives to coordinate their activities. Many of these problems
are addressed in the previous reports of the MSC. The FGDC has made significant
advancements in the past two years by effective communications of the NSDI
challenge through newsletters, magazines, and professional journals. The FGDC
has hosted conference forums and opened communications with state geographic
information councils. This activity has served to heighten the awareness of
NSDI and the need for broad-scale coordination to meet NSDI objectives. The
metadata and spatial data transfer standards developed over the past few years
are examples of the standards framework needed to enhance the NSDI. Without
them, the ability to bring diverse data sets together would be severely
impaired.
The federal government agencies and states will play an important part in
building the data sets that go into the NSDI. Through standards development,
the data structures have been minimally defined at least. The data framework
needed to support NSDI will be addressed in a companion report The National
Spatial Data Infrastructure: The Foundation Data, which is in preparation.
This report promotes a concept that partnerships are valid means to develop
these data sets and are essential to achieve longer-term NSDI objectives.
A comprehensive partnership program no doubt will have its inherent problems,
but it will provide the opportunity to build the NSDI rapidly. With this in
mind, the body of this report develops the partnership concepts. It begins with
a discussion of the costs associated with the NSDI and how these costs could be
minimized through partnerships. Then, the critical success factors for a
federal/state partnership model for spatial data are presented; the same
factors would apply to partnership models between any organizations.
Partnership initiatives are being promoted currently asä a valid approach
to develop the information infrastructure. A review of relevant literature
(Appendix A) clearly reveals this trend as well as the inherent challenges to
make it all work. The factors were derived from several data sharing programs
currently in existence (Appendix B). Impediments to this model and roles of the
various organizations in such partnerships are also discussed. The report
concludes with a number of recommendations to further develop these spatial
data partnerships.
1Realizing the Information Future: The Internet and Beyond,
1994, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 320 pp.
2Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the
Nation, 1993, Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 171 pp.
3Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping
Program, 1990, Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 78 pp.
Historically, the federal spatial data infrastructure has been managed as a
set of discrete mapping responsibilities within several federal agencies. The
data management role of federal agencies has been that of data stewards for
large homogeneous data sets (more often in paper map form rather than digital
data sets). Examples of such data sets include the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle
maps, Soil Conservation Service soils maps, census geography maps from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, and the Fish and Wildlife Service national wetland
inventory maps. As part of their mandates, federal agencies have collected and
published data on maps that were then distributed to all levels of government
and the private sector. Relationships with states have been largely limited to
ad hoc or cooperative projects, with the states generally taking on the role of
suppliers of data to the federal agencies.
This set of historical arrangements has many problems, both obvious and
subtle. The activities of the federal government have been established largely
by legislative mandate, and although these may be initially tied to need, it
has been difficult to keep up with changing technologies and changing
requirements in the user community. Mandates sometimes leadä to
redundancy, as legislators require different agencies to collect and maintain
similar or even identical data. Costs are difficult to identify, quantify, or
control, and the government finds it increasingly difficult to maintain
established programs in the face of constantly increasing pressures on the
federal budget. Finally, programs of spatial data creation have often been slow
and inadequately funded for data maintenance. As a result, data are often so
out of date that their value is seriously compromised. These problems are
increasingly evident when the state data programs are viewed in the same
context and as part of the NSDI.
The role of state and local governments within the overall context of the NSDI
is changing. The federal coordination of surveying, mapping, and related
spatial data activities are defined in OMB Circular A-16. The most recent
version of Circular A-16 (October 1990) added a major objective of developing a
national digital spatial information resource with the involvement of federal,
state, and local governments and the private sector. The mechanism for the
involvement of state and local governments and the private sector has yet to be
established. This problem was specifically recognized in Executive Order 12906
(signed by President Clinton on April 11, 1994):
The Secretary [of the Department of the Interior], under the auspices of the
FGDC, and within 9 months of the date of this order, shall develop, to the
extent permitted by law, strategies for maximizing cooperative participatory
efforts with State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and
other nonfederal organizations to share costs and improve efficiencies of
acquiring geospatial data consistent with this order.
Organizations that build and maintain spatial data have a vested interest in
the quality of their data when the success of critical missions depends on the
accuracy and availability of the data. This suggests that data stewardship
roles may be served best by organizations that collect data for the purpose of
meeting specific operational missions. These spatial data stewards have
commitments to their own organization as well as obligations to meet the needs
of partners throughout all levels of government. The mission of spatial data
stewards could be expanded to meet data needs of multiple organizations as well
as their own business needs. Currently,ä a major mission of the USGS is
one of data collection. The stewardship concept introduced here is different
from the data steward role of the USGS in that business needs other than a data
collection mission also drive the development and maintenance of data.
The challenge faced by all levels of government is to place data stewardship
responsibility as close to the data originator as possible while maintaining an
effective national infrastructure. Partnership agreements may result in data
stewardship responsibilities shifting between federal, state, and local
agencies. Federal agencies should take on new coordination roles to ensure that
data are available to meet a growing national need. State and local government
agencies with mandates and other needs for certain data should be responsible
for building and maintaining these data. This is occurring on an informal basis
with many states now but will take on entirely new significance in the future
as more organizations depend on others for data.
One clear benefit of moving data responsibility closer to the source and in
line with the business needs of organizations is that maintenance of the data
is usually an integral part of their day-to-day activities. As an example, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the federal responsibility for the Public
Land Survey System (PLSS). But in many states, after years of requesting the
necessary funds, BLM is still unable to meet its objectives for modernization
of its Geographic Coordinate Data Base. However in Washington State, for
example, the State Land Surveyor has the responsibility to maintain current
records of surveys and to make them available to land surveyors on demand. The
State Land Surveyor also has the responsibility to manage and make PLSS data
available to GIS customers throughout the state. As new surveys are recorded,
the PLSS section corners are added to the data base. A partnership opportunity
clearly exists that would establish data stewardship responsibility close to
the source of the data and provide opportunities to meet both state and federal
objectives.
One of the strongest arguments for partnerships is their critical role in
reducing the overall costs of the enterprise. After 30 years of experience in
spatial data handling, there can be no remaining doubt about one fundamental
truth--it is expensive. Spatial data bases are expensive to create and often
more expensive to maintain.
Why is spatial data handling so expensive, and where does the money go? How
can partnerships help to reduce costs, and what is needed to ensure that
economies are realized? This section looks briefly at these issues and at the
ways in which federal/state partnerships in particular might help to minimize
the costs of developing the NSDI.
Spatial data require specialized data collection systems, specialized hardware
and software, and specialized training and education of the necessary support
staff. All of these factors contribute to the overall cost of spatial data and
the NSDI. Although GIS software development is a relatively small part of the
overall electronic data processing industry, and few software companies claim a
GIS business of more than $100 million annually, it is estimated that worldwide
total annual expenditures on all aspects of spatial data handling are on
the order of $10 billion.1 This figure should include every aspect
of data base creation and use, from investments in mapping satellites, geodesy
and positioning systems, through airborne photography, digitizing, data base
design, software and hardware acquisition, and analysis, to specialized
training. The cost of data input by digitizing and scanning (data conversion in
the terminology of activities related to automated mapping and facilities
management) is estimated by the Environmental Systems Research Institute to be
$4.5 billion2 annually. The OMB recently surveyed federal spending
on geographic data activities and found it to be about $4.4 billion
(FY1994).3
These figures reflect current practice. As such, they miss much of the
potential future role of spatial data in society, and the demands that are
driving the interest in geographic information. We have only just begun to tap
the potential that is illustrated by the range of consumer products based on
digital spatial data bases that are now entering the market such as consumer
GPS, visitor street guides to cities, kiosk vending of custom maps, and
applications of IVHS.
As with any new field, there is no doubt inefficiency and waste in the current
practices of spatial data handling. There is duplication of effort when the
same map is digitized or scanned more than once, adding to the already high
cost of converting spatial data to digital form. Duplication is hard to
document, as it is rarely in anyone's interest to report when it occurs, and it
would be impossible to come up with reliable estimates of the costs of
duplication on an annual, nationwide basis. It occurs because there is little
knowledge of what data sets exist or because the data might not be at
appropriate detail or accuracy to be shared. The need to establish a
clearinghouse has been recommended by the MSC4 and is being
developed as a prototype by the FGDC. Ironically, it can cost money to avoid
duplication by developing data indexes, improving communication through
conference attendance, and building data sets to meet other organizational
requirements.
As the field matures, some problems will disappear as communication becomes
easier and the level of general information on activities improves. But that
will leave the more difficult problems. Duplication is obvious when two
agencies each digitize the same map. It is much more difficult to persuade two
agencies to collaborate in the collection of raw data, or in analysis,
especially when collaboration requires some loss of autonomy or disruption of
traditional professional boundaries. It is easy, also, to overestimate the
occurrence of duplication by overlooking the subtler aspects of spatial data
needs. Two agencies may both need wetlands data, but for different purposes,
using different definitions and different levels of precision and accuracy. In
such cases, reduction of duplication can be a lengthy and difficult business.
Yet the rewards can be enormous. Although digitizing is expensive, and it is
important to avoid obvious cases of duplication, the potential economies that
can be achieved by collaboration and coordination in the total mapping effort
are equally significant.
One of the major barriers to realizing potential economies from decreased
duplication is the lack of agreed-upon standards, particularly data content
standards, as previously discussed. The problems with different software
systems should be allayed with adherence to the Spatial Data Transfer Standard
(SDTS), which is now a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS-173).
Specific content, accuracy, and metadata standards present much of the
challenge facing the spatial data community. The various subcommittees of the
FGDC are currently addressing many of these standard issues from the federal
perspective. However, the state and local governments and the private sector
need to be active participants in the standards development process.
It may appear that partnerships are exactly the wrong way to reduce costs in
an expensive enterprise like the NSDI. It costs money to organize and
facilitate partnerships. Partnerships can seem cumbersome when compared to a
lean, efficient organization that carries out its mandate as inexpensively as
possible. However, no matter how internally efficient an organization is, it is
inefficient in the broader perspective if it duplicates the products of others.
In practice, we believe that partnerships can reduce the long-term cost of NSDI
in three major ways.
First, partnerships are an effective way of achieving consensus. Instead of
each agency acting independently, partnerships create a sense of shared
responsibility for the product and its use. Partnerships broaden the basis of
support for projects and help to ensure that they survive to meet the needs of
society. Partnerships between federal, state, regional, and local governments
act to dispel the perception that one level of government ignores the others or
knows better. In economic terms, partnerships broaden the resource base by
sharing costs while enhancing the benefits of spatial data.
Second, partnerships can encourage a clear division of responsibilities even
when the data needs are shared. Historically, responsibility for spatial data
has been divided between different levels of government in the United States on
the basis of map scale and types of data. For example, the federal government
has concentrated on producing maps at 1:24,000 scale and smaller while leaving
larger-scale mapping to local and state governments and the private sector.
States have mapped themes that match their areas of responsibility, such as
transportation. These familiar divisions are becoming confused because of
the radical changes resulting from the introduction of digital technology.
For example, the federal government is supporting a digital orthophoto
quarter-quad (DOQ) program with spatial resolution and positional accuracy
higher than that of the 1:24,000 scale mapping programs. GIS is being used by
all levels of government to take advantage of these new data types and to
integrate data from a wide variety of sources. In a world of high-speed
communications and distributed data bases, we may need entirely new concepts of
ownership of data, or responsibility for its creation. This may take the form
of a division of responsibility along entirely new lines, with the federal
government responsible for data standards and quality control, and state and
local governments responsible for data collection and maintenance.
Third, division of responsibilities within partnerships can promote investment
so that we develop entirely new ways of reducing costs. Salaries account for by
far the largest share of the costs of spatial data, whether they are paid to
digitizer operators, programmer analysts, or field workers. The most effective
ways of reducing those costs lie in better technology and better training.
Spatial data handling and GIS have grown to the point where creative strategies
are needed to promote new methods and better technologies and better
development of human resources; however, no agency or level of government has
assumed a leadership role in such developments. Partnerships could foster a
sense of shared responsibility between all levels of government, the
educational sector, and private industry. We need partnerships that foster more
efficient data collection activities while at the same time fostering a more
productive and responsive human resource sector.
1The $10 billion figure was arrived at in the 1993 MSC report
Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation.
2This estimate was given by J. Dangermond (president, Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California) in a speech (sponsored by
Texaco) in June 1992 in Houston, Texas.
3This financial information was collected in the summer of 1993 for
those federal programs involved in acquisition, management, and dissemination
of geographically referenced data. Only agencies with a minimum of $500,000 in
relevant spending were required to submit information in response to OMB
Bulletin 93-14.
4Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the
Nation, Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 171 pp. The clearinghouse was also explicitly
mentioned in Executive Order 12906 (April 11, 1994).
Previous sections of this report have identified some of the advantages of
partnerships and the potential roles they could play in development of the
NSDI. In this section, attention is directed toward the identification of a
model of partnerships and their general characteristics. Issues arising from
partnerships are discussed, as well as potential impediments to their
success.
A partnership model is envisioned that promotes long-term organizational
commitments to build, maintain and manage data for a robust NSDI. The model
could replace many of the mechanisms currently in place for developing and
managing large spatial data sets and would facilitate long-term maintenance and
availability of valuable spatial data. The model may well be the only approach
that will attract the participation of states at the levels necessary to ensure
the long-term viability of the NSDI.
For the purposes of this discussion, a partnership is defined as a joint
activity of federal and state agencies, involving one or more agencies as joint
principals focusing on geographic information. Local agencies and the
private sector may also be involved. The key elements of a partnership
follow.
All of the successful cooperation/partnerships models reviewed during this
study (Appendix B) contain some partnership elements discussed above, and all
have resulted in benefits that extend well beyond the concerns of the
sponsoring agencies. At the same time, there are several significant
impediments to the formation and success of partnerships. Some are unavoidable,
but in other cases there are actions that could be taken that would reduce or
even remove these impediments.
One rational way of determining the contribution of each agency to a
partnership activity's costs would be on the basis of benefits. A state agency
would pay according to the benefits it derived; a federal agency should
contribute according to the benefits that it, other federal agencies, and the
nation as a whole derived from the activity. However, it is difficult to assess
the benefits of spatial data in any but the narrowest range of applications.
The benefits of a contribution to NSDI would be especially difficult to assess.
In practice, the costs of a partnership are often divided equally, but a wide
range of models have been used. The lack of clear guidelines for cost
sharing in partnerships is an impediment to their formation and success. The
formulation of such guidelines should be one component of the FGDC's role in
NSDI. Guidelines should reflect the responsibility of the federal government to
address and fund the nation's interest in NSDI. Without clear guidelines,
it is difficult to avoid inconsistency.
If society is to reap the full benefits from an investment in spatial data, it
is important that the data be created according to standards for both content
and format. When partnerships are negotiated between levels of government, each
party in the negotiation may have their own requirements on format, accuracy,
and other technical aspects of the data. The result is often a compromise; the
standards promulgated by the federal agency are broadened to meet the needs of
the state. A nationwide coverage created by a series of partnerships with
states can become so compromised that its eventual benefits are seriously
eroded, and the result is a patchwork of different formats and accuracies.
Although there are successful examples (e.g., the State Plane Coordinate system
maintains a reasonable level of consistency across the nation), it is important
that any program of partnerships include sufficiently strong incentives to
maintain standards. It is imperative that states be involved in the
standards development process and that only those standards essential to NSDI
objectives be required of partnership agreements. Promulgation and
maintenance of these standards is an important component of the FGDC's role in
NSDI; standards must not be compromised in the formation of partnerships.
Some countries, notably the United Kingdom, have moved in recent years toward
full recovery of the costs of collecting and maintaining spatial data. The
United States, on the other hand, remains firmly committed to the notion that
spatial data should be distributed at the cost of reproduction, at least at the
federal level. Spatial data within the federal government are a public good,
and are treated as a national resource and made available to all users at the
least possible cost. One of the strongest arguments for this policy is its
positive impact on the development and strength of industrial, commercial, and
service sectors of U.S. spatial data activities. However, it creates little
incentive for agencies creating spatial data to evaluate the broader need for
the data, or to reduce cost through sharing, despite the importance of sharing
as an underlying principle of NSDI. In the private sector, and in countries
like the United Kingdom, such incentives are provided through the market
mechanism. Lack of incentive to evaluate the potential user base for spatial
data, and to tailor data to maximize use and benefits in the broader community,
is an impediment to partnerships and the evolution of NSDI. Such incentives
could be provided through the monitoring and coordinating roles of the FGDC and
state geographic information councils.
The complexity and length of the federal procurement process1 is a
major impediment to the formation of creative partnerships with other levels of
government. The federal government imposes rules that can make it very
difficult to form contracts with other levels of government or to transfer
money to them. The FGDC should investigate the extent to which procurement
rules (both federal and agency specific) are an impediment to the formation of
spatial data partnerships, and identify steps that can be taken to ease
them.
State government must work with many federal agencies in order to initiate
spatial data collection programs. Likewise, federal agencies desire to have
focal points in state government for the purpose of implementing national
programs. For example, the establishment of State Mapping Advisory Committees
was in large part a desire to have a mechanism for states to channel their
requirements to the USGS's NMD for the national mapping program. The state
geographic information councils are the present day response by states to
provide focal points for coordination of spatial data needs. The size and
diversity of the federal system suggests that for viable partnerships some
action must be taken to provide focal points within the federal government for
coordinating data production and partnership activities. The range of
alternatives to consider should include regional coordination staff and
coordinating positions within organizations responsible for spatial data
production.
This section addresses the roles played by key agencies in the development of
the NSDI--the FGDC, the various state coordinating groups and bodies for
spatial data, and the NMD of the USGS.
Figure 2. Generalized organizational diagram describing statewide geographic information organizations in 1993.
1Many of the issues on federal procurement are addressed in
Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less: Report of the
National Performance Review, 1993, Vice President Al Gore, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 168 pp.
2Spatial Data Needs:The Future of the National Mapping
Program, 1990, Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council, 78
pp.
. Benefits of spatial data partnerships must be evaluated for the entire
national community of spatial data users, not merely for the agencies
participating in the partnership.
. The contribution of spatial data partnerships to the wider objectives of NSDI
must be considered in its design and management.
. Data quality is an important factor in the value of any investment in spatial
data. Potential users will be confident using data only if they know the data
are reliable.
In conclusion, the MSC finds that the FGDC, federal agencies, and state
geographic information councils are making positive contributions to the
evolution of the NSDI. The MSC further identifies the partnership model and
approach as one of the key components of the enhanced NSDI. This report
encourages the acceleration of partnership activities and identifies probable
areas that will need attention to ensure success. The single largest challenge
will be for many organizations to move from predominately production activities
to accomplishing objectives through partnerships. This will necessarily mean
that organizational tactical plans be reviewed and modified to achieve the
objectives of a more robust NSDI.
APPENDIX A:
RELATED INITIATIVES AND
DEVELOPMENT OF PARTNERSHIPS
The promotion of the NSDI through partnerships represents but one dimension of
a broader national thrust toward enhanced federal/state cooperation. Through
legislation, governmental pronouncements, conference emphases, and media
commentaries alike, the search for new and better ways of shaping a more
efficient and responsive system for acquiring, maintaining, and distributing
spatial data continues. Early in the new Administration, President Clinton and
Vice President Gore stated, "Effective management of technology policy . . .
requires an effective partnership between federal and state governments. The
states have pioneered many valuable programs to accelerate technology
development and commercialization."1
Several organizations and reports have recently focused on the high potential
of such collaborative efforts.
. The National Association of State Information Resource
Executives2 has interacted directly with the OMB in a positive
effort to establish effective partnerships to change paradigms and prototype
new approaches. Case studies with proposed solutions were identified--from such
states as Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and
Texas--across a spectrum of applications.
. The stated goal of the report prepared by the State Information Policy
Consortium3 was to provide "a scenario in which technology and
information can be used to re-engineer and streamline government operations at
all levels." The consortium consists of representatives from the Council of
State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the
National Governors' Association.
. A study issued by the National Academy of Public Administration4
further reflects the belief that "information is pivotal to the vitality and
productivity of government services and the nation's competitiveness."
. In Vice President Gore's report5 on the National Performance
Review, the establishment of an NSDI as a responsibility of the Department of
the Interior was specifically noted:
By supporting a cross-agency coordinating effort, the federal government can
develop a coherent vision for the national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI).
(Spatial, or geographic data refers to information that can be placed on a
map.) This will allow greatly improved information analysis in a wide range of
areas, including the analysis of environmental information and the monitoring
of endangered animals and sensitive land areas.
. In a similar vein, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and
Government issued a report6 that examined the achievements of the
states in managing science and technology. The report also recommended ways in
which the states can join with industry and the federal government in
addressing the domestic issues of the 1990s and beyond: "The establishment of
an interstate compact to help the states themselves decide what policies work
best in a decentralized and variegated nation."
. The Library of Congress, also exercising a leadership role in this crucial
focal area, held a conference on July 14, 1993 on "Delivering Electronic
Information in a Knowledge-Based Democracy." The emphasis was on helping shape
the policy framework essential to creating an advanced information
infrastructure through an examination of the "critical policy issues central to
the development of electronic information resources that will be distributed
over the emerging digital `highways.'"
. In September 1993, a State-Federal Technology Partnership Colloquium was
"designed to establish broad-scale cooperation between the federal government
and the states in matters related to science and technology." Topics such as
"telecommunications and information infrastructure," "national and state
science and technology policy," and "redefining federal laboratories" were
explored.7
. In October 1993, a National Research Council report8 on the
National Biological Survey that called for "a new national, multisector,
cooperative program of federal, state, and local agencies; museums; academic
institutions; and private organizations." A large portion of the proposed
programs of the new National Biological Survey involve the generation,
management, and application of biological information tied to geography. The
organization will become an important component of the NSDI.
. Several key congressional measures encourage the use of advanced
technologies. These include the Stevenson Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980, the Technology Transfer Act of 1986, and the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988. Illustrative of Presidential action (in 1987)
augmenting these initiatives was Executive Order 12591, "Facilitating Access to
Science and Technology."
. Last but not least, the recent Executive Order (Executive Order 12906, April
11, 1994, "Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: National
Spatial Data Infrastructure") explicitly calls for the development of
partnerships for spatial data acquisition.
Although most of these undertakings have not concentrated on the creation of a
national spatial data infrastructure per se, the overarching concerns regarding
federal/state cooperative processes, protocols, and priorities are quite
germane to the philosophy and programs of those responsible for developing such
an infrastructure upon which the nation and our society are increasingly
dependent. It is imperative that public and private entities charged with
creating the national spatial data infrastructure be fully aware that they
represent only a single, but critical, component of a far more comprehensive
information infrastructure.
NOTES
1Science policy address, February 28, 1993, Palo Alto, California
(cited in Executive Summary of the National Association of State Information
Resource Executives Case Studies, April 22, 1993, p. 1).
2National Association of State Information Resource Executives Case
Studies, April 22, 1993.
3National Information and Service Delivery System--A Vision for
Restructuring Government in the Information Age, 1993, State Information
Policy Consortium, 8 pp.
4The Information Government: National Agenda for Improving
Government Through Information Technology, 1993, National Academy of Public
Administration.
5Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less: Report
of the National Performance Review, 1993, Vice President Al Gore, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 168 pp.
6Science Technology, and the States in America's Third
Century, 1992, Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government,
New York.
7The State-Federal Technology Partnership: Colloquium Proceedings,
September 12-14, 1993, Battelle Memorial Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, 38 pp.
8A Biological Survey for the Nation, 1993, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 195 pp.
DISCUSSION
NOTES
3 - THE
CONCEPTS OF
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIPS
THE
CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
SPATIAL
DATA SETS
SPATIAL
DATA STEWARDSHIP PRINCIPLES
ECONOMICS
OF THE NSDI
The
Costs of NSDI
Minimizing
Costs Through Partnerships
NOTES
4 - THE
PARTNERSHIP MODEL
KEY
ELEMENTS OF PARTNERSHIPS
IMPEDIMENTS
TO PARTNERSHIPS
Formulae
for Cost Sharing
Compromised
Standards
Cost
Recovery
Federal
Procurement
Focused
Coordination
ROLES
IN PARTNERSHIPS
NOTES
5 - RECOMMENDATIONS
AND
CONCLUSION
KEY
ELEMENTS OF A PARTNERSHIP
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX B:
COOPERATION/PARTNERSHIP
MODELS IN EXISTENCE TODAY
Four examples of multiagency cooperative programs were examined in the course of this study: the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the National Geodetic Reference System, the South Carolina Water Resources Commission, and the Maryland Digital Orthophoto Program. The first two examples have been federally initiated, and the last two are state initiated. These examples provide insight into both the opportunities and the hazards of federal/state partnerships. The degree to which each of the working programs fits a partnership model can be debated; the primary purpose of this review is to identify desirable elements for partnership models.
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS-- STATE DATA PROGRAM
The Bureau of the Census is well known as a federal data gathering organization. The public and all state and local agencies are familiar with the agency and its data, and the public has indicated acceptance of the Bureau's work through participation in the data gathering process. To facilitate the data transfer process, the Bureau of the Census has provided for data transfer to the various states through joint statistical agreements. These are formal MOUs that provide for data release, usually through the governor's office. The Bureau of the Census provides the data and the state is obligated to distribute the data and data products within the state. The Bureau provides some limited training, data, and new products to the state. As state computer systems become more sophisticated, the Bureau of the Census data become more valuable. For instance, Kansas recently underwent a reapportionment based on digital census data. Legislators were able to try their own ideas for district size and configuration on the computer. In consequence, the reapportionment was not challenged in court by a disaffected political party. Additional affiliates of the Bureau of the Census are private concerns, many of whom market value-added products largely based on the original census products.
Businesses constantly use census data for marketing, sales targeting, and demographics. Commercial directories build their businesses on the value adding they do with census data. Costs for the services of this data transfer program are about $800,000 per year, mostly for the 12 full-time staff who distribute the products. All other costs are reimbursed through digital line charges and connect costs. The primary value of this partnership to the Bureau of the Census is in the visibility of census products. In this way, the bureau is perceived favorably by the public as providing a quality service.
NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY
Geographic information is of little value unless it is tied to the Earth. In the past, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey maintained leveling lines and benchmarks that have been the basis of all land surveying. Public land surveys are also tied to these benchmarks. Now the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains the National Geodetic Reference System and a national geodetic control network. Use of orthophotos and the Global Positioning System (GPS) permits the accurate positioning of all objects on the Earth, but the development of those systems is expensive. The NGS has formed partnerships with transportation, natural resources, and other agencies within the states to provide exchange of survey data and to provide for permanent recording of new survey data. This NGS partnership involves cost sharing. As presented to the MSC, there are several triggers to the development of new surveys, including new highway funding, where federal dollars require the NGS to participate, new technology (GPS), new administrative procedures such as OMB circulars, and various other agency and state needs for survey data to locate objects or sites.
There is a long-standing pride in the NGS deriving from its historical role in the United States and its dedicated clientele and staff. While this program is not as visible as the census program (it does not deal directly with the public), the function is important and should be further studied as a federal/state government model for data partnership.
Mutual planning for surveys and mutual agreement for the use of data as crucial to the success of this program. This is a program for professionals rather than lay citizens. The primary advantage to the partnership arrangement is the establishment of long-term commitments to create and maintain current data.
SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
South Carolina is developing a statewide GIS to assist in natural resource management decisions. Federal funding is administered through the South Carolina Water Resources Commission (SCWRC) and NOAA's Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, which are the lead state and federal agencies designated to build this diverse partnership. The project encompasses a broad spectrum of potential GIS user needs and information resources including the local, state, and federal agencies and the private sector. Guidance as to the goals and direction of the project is through an advisory committee that includes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USGS, and NOAA, seven state agencies, several universities, and representatives of the timber and agriculture industry, as well as experts in other fields such as economics, wetland science, anthropology, and landscape architecture.
Initial goals are on placing state-of-the-art information management tools at the disposal of local communities so that natural resource management and economic development decisions are informed and accomplished with minimum conflict. Initial data capture was focused on the nationally significant Edisto River basin where the needs for jobs and for conservation are both critical. Day-to-day operational planning, staff support, and budgetary management are within the SCWRC. Representatives of the SCWRC maintain that the establishment of a lead operational agency has been critical to keeping the project focused and results oriented. They view the strengths of this partnership to be (1) the diversity of the stakeholders, (2) the breadth of funding sources (state, federal, and private sector), and (3) the strict adherence to data quality standards.
One of the first efforts was to establish a user needs study and to design the appropriate land base and natural resource themes. The SCWRC chose the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map base, wetlands, upland land use, soils, environmental permit, and rare species data as the primary conversion targets. This extensive data conversion was financed through joint funding agreements with several federal agencies. As of mid-1993, the USGS and the SCWRC have digitized existing information from about 62 percent of the 353 quadrangles within the state through fifty-fifty cost share agreements. Joint funding agreements are also in place with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to digitize the National Wetland Inventory maps. An in-kind-service agreement exists between the SCWRC and the Soil Conservation Service for quality control so that digital soils information will meet national standards. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service have made significant monetary contributions to the project. Data investment decisions are structured to empower regional and local governments to make informed decisions regarding development and natural resource management. However, data base design decisions have always been influenced by the potential long-term value that these investments will have for water-use planning, emergency response, industry siting, transportation planning, forest products development, and all the various missions that could use the information and technology. Recently, several private businesses with large landholdings in the state have begun negotiations with the SCWRC to add additional funding to the project. The Natural Resources Decision Support System GIS now contains in excess of 20 layers of information and has maintained strict compliance with national map accuracy standards.
Other state and local government agencies are now interested in supporting the system as the data coverage and quality are recognized as appropriate for their use, so that the demand for information and the number of stakeholders continue to increase. The partnership's success is based on a shared vision that each stakeholder will achieve greater efficiencies in performing their mandates using this information management tool. Working together will allow each to own and use an application-rich data base that none could afford in isolation. The funding synergy is achieved through a level of mutual respect and codified in joint funding agreements and MOUs. This has been accomplished in spite of outdated rules restricting use of diverse federal funding sources in data conversion matching programs. The investment in building a high quality data base will lead to the development of new applications resulting in even greater benefits to the partnership.
The South Carolina example illustrates a valuable transition to digital data, adding to the resources that have been provided through former USGS cooperative information exchange and technology transfer programs. The model demonstrates how traditionally independent federal and state agencies can more effectively meet many missions by working together in a focused, well-managed partnership. The model is particularly significant as a statement for the increased benefits that can be derived from increased communication and respect between levels of government. Finally, as in previous examples, good planning that results in building and maintaining spatial data sets to national standards that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders is the key to measurable benefits and ultimate success of the project.
MARYLAND DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTO PROGRAM
As the federal government has placed increasing demands on states to develop data and to manage programs without consequent funding, Maryland has developed a cost-effective response that will have wide applicability. The digital orthophoto program (orthophotos are rectified aerial photographs) was developed in response to a mandate to map wetlands, a major issue along the Maryland coast. Previous mapping was not sufficiently accurate for the purpose of this program. The orthophoto data acquisition solved this by creating an image data base that meets accuracy requirements to locate objects or sites the size of individual homes and outbuildings. This not only permitted the wetlands mapping to proceed with great accuracy, it has also generated a great deal of interest in local government for land use planning and property appraisal.
County governments financed part of the data acquisition program by doing the physical monumenting and paying for the aerial photography. The state has funded (using primarily EPA funds) the data reduction and product development. Counties are thus stakeholders, and have been a great source of support for the program in difficult financial times for the state. Major problems for the program, in addition to funding, were concerns of state agencies about the large amount of data resident in a single agency, lack of faith in new technology, and questions of access to data. Simple MOUs and handshake agreements have dispelled these issues, and the system is working.
This model operates like the South Carolina model in one respect: there has been an individual upon whom the system focuses, an agency that leads, and a climate of mutual trust and cooperation. The Maryland system envisions future products to be large-scale small-format distribution of maps, designed on demand for individual citizen use, perhaps by kiosk distribution in shopping malls. While this may or may not reach fruition in the near future, it is clear that vision is required to make federal/state working partnerships effective and to get the job done.
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Although many of the proposed partners have examined this possible memorandum of understanding (MOU), it has not been agreed upon and should be taken only as an example. This example used Ohio, however, the general content could be similar elsewhere. The proposed partners in this example are the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (state office), the Ohio State Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio State Environmental Protection Agency, and county auditors. Again none of these organizations have formally endorsed this example.
INTRODUCTION
A current effort within the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is to digitize the original soil survey maps for the Soil Survey Geographic Data base (SSURGO). SSURGO is the most detailed level of soil mapping done by the SCS. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships, and county natural resource planning and management.
The mapping bases used meet national map accuracy standards and are either orthophotoquads or 7.5-minute quadrangles. SSURGO is linked to a Soil Interpretations Record attribute relational data base, which includes over 25 soil, physical and chemical properties for approximately 18,000 soil series recognized in the United States. Information that can be queried from the data base includes available water capacity, soil reaction, salinity, flooding, water table, bedrock, and interpretations for septic tank limitations, engineering, cropland, woodland, and recreation development.
SSURGO data are available in either the USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG-3) Optional Distribution Format or the SCS Geographic Exchange Format. SCS soil map symbols (e.g., AbC) are made available as ASCII file when SCS soils data are distributed in the DLG format.
NEED FOR DIGITAL SOILS DATA
The broad value of digital soils data is widely recognized at the federal, state, county, and local levels. Four agencies are identified in this agreement with a common need for soils data: the SCS, the State Department of Natural Resources (SDNR), the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and the County Auditors (Counties), representing county government.
. The SCS, in carrying out its responsibilities in the National Cooperative Soil Survey, has need for digitized soil survey data. The SCS uses these data for conservation planning, watershed management, engineering interpretations, and to help prioritize conservation and land use needs.
. The SDNR in carrying out its assigned responsibilities under applicable state law has need for soil and water resources data from conservation programs to meet identified state and local needs.
. The SEPA uses soils data to improve their ability to evaluate ground water pollution, aquifer and wellhead protection; perform best management practice selection and watershed prioritization; and develop pollutant-loading models and soil erosion models.
. The Counties use soils data for purposes such as siting decisions, to determine soil limitations for various uses, and to determine agricultural land valuations on parcels.
CURRENT STATUS
Since 1987 through a cooperative agreement, the SDNR and the SCS have jointly produced SSURGO data at a rate of three to four counties per year. At this rate it will take 20 years to complete SSURGO coverage of the state. Where SSURGO data are not available, the Counties, SEPA, and other groups often commission private firms to digitize the data or do it themselves. Usually soils data generated by one of these groups cannot be used by others, due to lack of common standards for data format and quality, and the limited area of coverage. For these reasons and to meet SCS standards and specifications, the data must also be digitized later into the SSURGO format. Over time, this approach results in a costly duplication of effort; therefore, an accelerated schedule for generating SSURGO data is highly desirable.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the SCS, the SDNR, and the SEPA agree to the following:
1. To accelerate the digitation of soil surveys in the state by targeting a five-year production schedule to complete coverage of the entire state, contingent upon availability of suitable base maps, soil recompilations, and funding.
2. To complete the digitizing and delivery of output products for mutually selected counties using standards specified in Technical Specifications for Line-Segment Digitizing Soil Survey Maps. The use of SCS standards and specifications to digitize soils surveys of the second order will result in a data format usable by all parties in this agreement, other federal agencies, state, and local agencies and the public.
3. That the State Department of Natural Resources will be the lead agency in carrying out this agreement, under the coordination of the Department GIS Coordinator.
4. That funding and/or cost sharing will be furnished according to this formula:
50% of cost SCS
16.67% of cost SDNR
16.67% of cost SEPA
16.67% of cost Counties
Support will take the form of cash to SDNR, and/or cost-sharing in the form of contributed labor, hardware, software, or other means agreed by all parties in a written contract. SDNR may, at its discretion, perform the work in accordance with the funding provided, or subcontract the work.
5. That the SDNR will maintain a permanent archive of SSURGO data for the state and distribute them to state residents, business, and agencies, in accordance with state law.
6. That the SCS will also maintain a permanent archive of SSURGO data and distribute them according to its standard pricing schedule.
7. That SCS, SEPA, SDNR and Counties will each appoint a representative to serve on a coordinating committee. Each representative will coordinate activities and funding on behalf of his/her agency. The SDNR representative will be the Department GIS Coordinator, who will chair the committee. Each representative will have equal decision-making authority. In addition, representatives will assist in planning the work, preparing agendas, participating in public meetings if necessary, and other similar activities.
8. That SCS, SEPA, SDNR and Counties intend to maintain the soils data in a long-term partnership arrangement. Updates to the soil maps will be digitized and funded according to the terms of this agreement.
It is mutually agreed that this agreement may be terminated if either SCS, SDNR, and SEPA fail to comply with any of the conditions of this agreement.
APPENDIX D STATE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AUTHORIZATIONS AND COORDINATION--SUMMARY
At the end of this appendix is a comprehensive listing of 100 state directives, including statutes, executive orders (by governors) and memoranda of understandings (MOUs) which mention or directly influence geographic information. All three are considered "authorizations," though only the first two are truly directives. While executive orders and MOUs can be as effective as statutes for coordination, statutes have a longer duration (beyond individual governors and signatories to agreements) and are generally needed to provide funding and authority to ensure commonality, compliance, and oversight.
Almost half (49) of these directives were authorized during or after 1991. At least five additional directives (probably executive orders) are expected to be authorized before the end of 1993 but this listing only included through September 1993. While the various state directives differ, below is a general description and findings for each type.
STATE STATUTES
Over two-thirds of the states have at least one statutory reference to geographic information in one form or another, with some, such as Louisiana, Minnesota, and North Carolina having multiple references. The compilation can be considered complete as of the end of most 1993 legislative sessions. Statutes address the following (followed by the number of states having each type):
1. Authorize geographic information coordination groups or studies (17, including two groups that are no longer in existence.);
2. Authorize statewide or broad environmental geographic information offices, data bases, or funding (14);
3. Direct geographic information use or data development for specific missions or needs, mainly natural resources management, environmental protection or growth management (11);
4. Provide for access and cost recovery for geographic (spatial) data, often modifying open records laws and directly impacting localities (10); and
5. Other matters, including providing some help to local and regional entities, reapportionment use, requiring compatibility of state-funded data (Minnesota), and directing the private sector to develop compatible data (New Jersey).
While there is an increase in statutory references in all of the above categories, few omnibus statutes exist specifically for geographic information, few authorize offices or funding accordingly, and few have "teeth" to require commonality or oversight. The most omnibus state statutes are in Maine and Utah, both adopted in 1991 and establishing offices along with other geographic information direction, with Minnesota adopting legislation to officially authorize its 15-year-old Land Management Information Center in 1992.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
All of the 15 reported executive orders were signed to establish councils, set direction for member state geographic information coordination groups, and possibly to establish statewide geographic information centers, as in Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oregon. Two of the orders are no longer in effect. Four states have pending executive orders to establish or sanction existing geographic information groups.
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
Five MOUs are reported. Four MOUs are to promote general geographic information coordination, with two the primary authorizing instrument for a geographic information group (Colorado and Montana). North Carolina's MOU is specifically for GPS and complements executive order direction. While not reported in the compilation, many state MOUs exist that describe geographic information relationships between two or more agencies, for example for geographic information services, projects, and data exchange.
DISCUSSION
These authorizations typify the overall findings described above. geographic information coordination is evolving and has growing support at statewide levels, as evidenced by official sanctions for coordination and state geographic information centers. Many of these directives provide for increased multisectoral participation. However, almost in contrast, some of these directives are organizationally placing geographic information direction under broad information policy and organizations that generally only address state government. To date only a few directives establish any oversight, or require data commonality and compliance.
The compilation includes a list, description, and identification of membership of statewide geographic information coordination groups. While there has been a significant increase in regional interlocal groups at the substate level, none are included here. It also includes at least one group in each of the 50 states. All but two groups (in Alabama and Delaware, though Delaware has another group) are considered active at this time. Virtually all of the groups reported are multiagency in focus and membership. Of the 21 states showing more than one group, seven have one of the reported groups officially reporting to another reported group. Many of the reported groups have subgroups that are not identified here.
Overall, there is a growing trend toward a broad naming and focusing of state geographic information coordination groups to consider all geographic information and related technologies. However, 26 states have groups with the term "GIS" in their name. Some of these groups have a limited view, focusing specifically on GIS, while others are broader. It appears that a generally accepted and emerging name in some (15) states is "Geographic Information Council" or "Committee," as is reflected by the naming of the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). Some states have both a group with geographic information in the name and another with GIS. Focus on geographic information rather than GIS is to represent a broad view and encourage attention to data rather than technology. Certain other words are also commonly used in group names, such as "land" (5 states).
Nine states have a State Mapping Advisory Committee (SMAC) reported to be a statewide geographic information coordination group. Of these, only the SMACs in Nevada, New Jersey, and Oregon are broad in focus and exist without other, more influential geographic information groups in their state. These three are in effect geographic information councils, and SMACs in name only. Most states now have SMAC functions under broader, higher-level groups.
The groups represent a full range of authority and levels of attention to both policy and technical matters. Over 40 states have at least one group with some degree of official stature, via statute (11), executive order (14), memoranda of understanding (2), or other method, such as by agency leaders. A wide range exists in terms of level of policy voice and technical issues addressed by groups. Both policy and technical issues can be addressed by the same group, particularly if they are organized under general information groups, or by two groups, with one reporting to another. Some states have what are essentially GIS users groups, with or without other groups.
Membership is the focus of the remainder of this discussion about the groups. However, not reflected in the table is the organizational level of the individual participants in the groups. Overall, these levels mirror general geographic information conditions in states, and the wide range of differences in attention to policy verses technical issues. Members can range from agency directors (as in Kentucky and North Carolina) to mid-level or policy-level agency officials or, at the other end of the scale, GIS users. Membership representation in the groups is identified by sectors and state governance functions.
The survey lists all of the sectors identified as members of state geographic information coordination groups. All groups have state government representation. All but ten groups are multisectoral, with academia and then local government being the most often mentioned membership sectors. Participation by the other sectors can vary significantly. For example, there can be many individuals for a sector such as in Montana where as many federal agencies as state agencies are involved. In other states, such as Washington, one federal official is essentially representing the entire federal government. The participation issue is also a problem regarding localities. Some states have individual local representatives which may or may not represent all localities. The most noteworthy underrepresented sectors may be Native Americans and utilities, though they are very important for a national approach.
The survey lists virtually all of the state government functions identified as members of state geographic information coordination groups. An overall classification of governance functions and specific state entities identified are as follows:
1. Branches (legislative, judicial, executive)
2. General government and administration (Governor, Planning; Budget, Finance and Comptroller; Secretary of State; Administration; Personnel, Human Development; Revenue, Property Tax Administration; Insurance, Regulation)
3. General information (Information Policy, Information Statistics, Library, Information Technology, Census Data Center, Archives, Records Management, State Surveyor, State Cartographer)
4. Natural resources management and environmental protection (also Public Land Management, State Forestry, State Geological Survey; Cultural Resources, Archeological Survey, Historical Preservation, Agriculture)
5. Infrastructure (Transportation, Regulatory Utilities Commission)
6. Human/Social Services (Social Services, Aging, Youth Programs; Human Health; Employment Security, Labor; Education; Higher Education)
7. Public Safety, Emergency Management
8. Economic Development/Growth Management (Economic Development, Commerce, Tourism; Rural Development, Community, Local Affairs)
From the compilation, it can be concluded that virtually all functions of governance are increasingly represented in the geographic information coordination groups. This trend is important and positive in terms of developing and implementing omnibus efforts on a statewide basis. This condition also directly impacts coordination opportunities with the federal government. Of these functions, the primary one is natural resources management and environmental protection, represented on virtually all state groups. Transportation is included in most as well. Representation of each of the other functions is increasing, particularly during the last three years.
ACRONYMS
AM/FM Automated Mapping/Facilities Management (an association)
BLM Bureau of Land Management
DLG Digital Line Graph
DOQ Digital Orthophoto Quarterquad
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GCDB Geographic Coordinate Data Base
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GPS Global Positioning System
IVHS Intelligent Vehicle Highway System
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSC Mapping Science Committee
NASIRE National Association of State Information Resource
Executives
NII National Information Infrastructure
NGS National Geodetic Survey, NOAA
NMD National Mapping Division, USGS
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure
NSGIC National States Geographic Information Council
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SCWRC South Carolina Water Resources Commission
SDNR State Department of Natural Resources
SDTS Spatial Data Transfer Standard
SEPA State Environmental Protection Agency
SIPC State Information Policy Consortium
SMAC State Mapping Advisory Committee
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Data base
USGS United States Geological Survey
Previous Section | HTML Home Page |
NAS Home Page | NAP Home Page | Reading Room | Report Home Page