ANNEX D

NAPA, 1998, "Geographic Information for the 21st Century - Building a Strategy for the Nation", January 1998, from National Academy of Public Administration, 1120 G St. NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC, USA, January 1998, ($30 US) from (+1) 202 393 0993

The summary given here is taken from http://www.napawash.org/napa/index.html (choose "Publications").

Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation
This report provides the first comprehensive assessment of the public management issues created by developments in geographic information.
(January 98) Order # 98-01, $30

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on behalf of itself and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Forest Service, and the National Ocean Service (NOS), asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to undertake a formal study of civilian federal surveying and mapping activities. The American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) had served as the catalyst for the study, suggested a potential role for the Academy, and formulated an initial list of the major topics to be addressed. Officials from the four sponsoring agencies determined that trends in the larger geospatial arena required a revisiting of how their agencies and how other federal agencies, provide surveying, mapping, and other geographic information (GI) services.*

The project was undertaken partly in response to the fiscal-year 1996 House Appropriations Committee report language that urged USGS to work within the Department of the Interior (DOI) to identify options for consolidating federal mapping functions at the department and to work with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on consolidating these functions governmentwide. OMB led a Federal Mapping Task Force study in 1973 that considered management alternatives and advocated greater consolidation of federal GI functions. Additionally, the trend toward devolution of government programs to state and local governments and the need to address the congressional concerns about the existence, structure, and funding levels for federal surveying and mapping functions precipitated the necessity for more timely information about how current federal GI functions and services can be most effectively structured and managed.

In October 1996, the Academy, in consultation with the sponsoring agencies, appointed a project Panel comprised of Academy Fellows and experts in the GI field. Research and analysis of issues guided the development of the Panel's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which are presented below, according to the four topical areas the Panel was asked to address. In formulating its recommendations, the Panel considered the issues from a broad, national perspective - one that took account of the needs and resources of all levels of government, academia, the private sector, and the general public.

Selected recommendations are presented in this summary, followed by a complete list of recommendations which are contained in Chapters Three through Seven of the full report.

NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NSDI)

One of the most significant changes since the earlier mapping studies has been the growing acceptance of an NSDI. Members of the "GI community" throughout the country seem naturally attracted to the idea of combining the resources of the various levels of government and the private sector to develop and maintain automated databases of geospatial information. Many believe that data should be made widely available at no cost or at reasonable cost to the user, and that this will satisfy an almost infinite variety of governmental, commercial, and societal needs.

In 1994, the President issued an executive order supporting implementation of an NSDI that he defined as the "technology, policies, standards, and human resources necessary to acquire, process, store, distribute, and improve utilization of geospatial data." (Emphasis added.) The President assigned to the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) the task of making this come about.

The scope and dimensions of an NSDI are becoming clearer. In a recent strategy document, the FGDC presented the following vision:
Current and accurate data will be readily available to contribute locally, nationally, and globally to economic growth, environmental quality and stability, and social progress.

The NSDI policies, standards, and activities emerging under FGDC guidance offer the prospect of providing for far more comprehensive, integrated, and available data than what exists today. The listing below synthesizes the characteristics of an NSDI "ideal."

Toward An NSDI Ideal

· There is a common spatial data foundation organized according to widely accepted layers and scales (or resolution) that is available for the entire area of geographic coverage (parcel, neighborhood, city, county, state, nation, etc.) to which other geospatial data can be easily referenced.
· The foundation data is readily accessible and available at no or little cost from user-friendly and seamless sources to meet public needs and encourage conformance with it by producers of other geospatial data.
· Both foundation and other geospatial data, as required and specified cooperatively by data producers and users, is updated according to commonly accepted standards and measures of quality.
· Thematic and tabular data are also available on terms not incompatible with the foundation data.
· When cost-effective, geospatial data produced by one organization, political jurisdiction, or nation is compatible with similar data produced by other organizations, political jurisdictions or nations.
· Geospatial data can be integrated with many other kinds or sets of data to produce information useful for decisionmakers and the public, when appropriate.
· Responsibility for generating, maintaining, and distributing the data is widely shared by different levels of government and the private sector. Governments take advantage of private-sector capabilities available at reasonable prices rather than maintaining dedicated capabilities.
· The costs of generating, maintaining, and distributing such data are justified in terms of public benefits and/or private gains; overlap and duplication among participating organizations is avoided wherever possible.

Many useful steps have been taken to further an NSDI since 1994. These efforts are helping to transform the "old" GI processes into more comprehensive and integrated sets of policies, standards, and procedures for an NSDI. Nonetheless, the challenges of getting to an NSDI that is fully populated with current, accurate, and readily accessible spatial data are daunting, complex, and time-consuming. Not all policies, standards, and procedures are fully in place; and, in the current era of government frugality, the resources available to further them must come largely from within, not as add-ons. Problems, such as data management, integration and maintenance; gaining adherence to standards; providing easy and widespread access; and protecting privacy and personal property, demand attention and resolution. In addition, technologies already available or on the horizon provide important new opportunities to further an NSDI.

The Panel believes that legislation is needed, but the case for any measure beyond the current executive order still needs to be made. Such a statute, at minimum, should include:
· a list of congressional findings about GI
· a statement of national goals and a definition for NSDI
· a charter for the National Spatial Data Council (see below)
· orders for the consolidation of federal base GI functions
· modifications to existing law to facilitate GI partnerships, cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs), and private-sector procurements
· amendments or rescissions of current law to modernize and conform existing program authorizations to the NSDI concept.

Recommendation

· Draft a new statute in cooperation with state and local governments and other organizations to create an NSDI, establish a National Spatial Data Council, and better define federal agency roles and responsibilities for NSDI so as to meet the participating organizations' programmatic needs.

The Panel's responses to the questions posed by the study sponsors build on this basic recommendation.

STUDY QUESTIONS AND THE PANEL'S RESPONSES

Is GI Acquisition, Analysis, and Distribution Critical to Keeping the United States Competitive in a Global Economy?

What Are the Most Important Uses of This Information on a National Scale?

GI is important to over half of the areas of economic activities discussed in the Panel's study, though the importance of GI systems in the global, national, regional, local, and personal contexts cannot be easily described or summarized. The field is too immature, the tool kits too experimental, and the value too imprecise to make a universal assessment. The measures of benefits provided to decisionmaking about land and resources, and the distribution of costs and benefits among individuals and components of society, are poorly documented.

GI and geographic information systems (GIS) are beginning to change how government does business as the complexity of societal interactions and the ease of data manipulation increases. It is neither possible nor necessary to measure and/or assess on a personal or global scale the importance of each or all these activities. The information age now makes it possible and desirable to do many things with geospatial data that were previously impossible and to gain new insights on a variety of public policy issues. While the ultimate value and importance of GI is not in doubt because of the wide range and significance of the economic areas it impacts, measuring and verifying it is an evolving process.

The U.S. economy is in a highly advantageous competitive position internationally and is well-situated to export the information-rich tools its strong commercial GI industry has developed. U.S. companies are recognized as worldwide leaders in the development and marketing of GI capabilities and products. The United States is a leader in establishing standards vital to integrating both data and analysis, and its representatives have a lead role in helping to structure international standards that are both compatible with U.S. technology and consistent with U.S. GI approaches. The United States is also in the lead in developing a clearinghouse for GI. In the world economy, the United States is believed to dominate the GI market, and it has served as the model for more recent GI initiatives in the European Community and Japan. Although many countries are adapting the growing kit of GI tools in the context of their own national political structures and! ! economic approaches, U.S. leadership is likely to continue as long as the U.S. government and industry build on current progress and create a robust NSDI.

What Is the Appropriate Role, Given Recent Technological and Sociological Trends, of the Federal Government in Civilian Surveying, Mapping, and Other GI?

What Functions Are Largely Federal, as Contrasted with Those That Are More Appropriately Administered by State and Local Governments, the Private Sector, or Academe?

The Panel identified 12 major public purposes of the federal government - such as property rights and voting, agriculture and natural resource development, and emergency management - that now rely on GI, and showed how they relate to several common types of GI that the federal government collects. Some of these purposes are pursued directly by the federal government (management of the public lands and nautical charting, for example), while others are pursued in partnership with state and local governments through federal aid and federal regulatory programs (transportation, for example). Some, like ecosystem management, are equally applicable to federal agencies and to state and local governments. Some also apply to the private sector (agriculture, transportation, property rights, environmental protection, for example).

The following three roles in providing GI seem most appropriate for the federal government:
· ensure GI availability to support federal policymaking and operational responsibilities
· ensure that federally-imposed GI requirements on state, local, and tribal governments are reasonably attainable and consistent
· help improve GI data quality and accessibility to benefit an expanding array of users through standards, a national clearinghouse, data archiving, and basic geoscience support.

Recommendations

· In order to help achieve the geography-related public purposes of federal, state, local, and tribal governments, and public utilities more effectively and efficiently, the federal government should ensure full and rapid implementation of the NSDI in a cost-effective and cooperative manner.
· Interagency, intergovernmental, and private-sector GI users and producer groups, whose cooperation is essential to implementing NSDI, should continue to be convened to encourage and accelerate the development, sharing, and maintenance of NSDI framework data files. These groups should be used to negotiate additional data sharing and joint funding agreements.
· The potential for using geographically referenced data from government and private transactions to maintain nationwide GI databases should be exploited whenever appropriate and cost-effective to ensure that the most current information is incorporated into the NSDI.

If Some Functions Are Deemed Suitable to Be Commercialized, Privatized, or Transferred to Nonfederal Governments, What Would Be the Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Those Transfers?

Governmental Functions: The Panel is convinced that the division between inherently governmental and private-sector activities is changing, will continue to shift, and is best settled by consensus rather than reliance on predetermined or philosophical judgments. In many cases, governments will continue to have a legitimate interest in ensuring availability of GI through wide public access. In those activities that involve government liability for the data, as in the case of nautical and aeronautical charts and forest maps, the government should exercise greater control. But more and more the private sector will want very similar data for commercial or business geographic reasons and may make it available at a price to governments. There is no reason to attempt to preclude appropriate resolution and accommodation by preemptively narrowing the role of either. The lack of a clearly defined division between governmental and private-sector roles is not ! ! unique to GI - economic data, societal trends, and information generally are not neatly parceled. This may result in some temporary uncertainties, and even some healthy duplication and competition, between the sectors.

The public purposes served by GI are extensive and fundamental to a broad range of governmental activities. However, the GI functions that need to be retained as "inherently governmental" are limited. The government's technological skills and contract-monitoring capabilities will need to be carefully maintained in the face of a growing and highly dynamic private sector.

Devolution Options: The Panel examined several candidate GI activities for possible devolution to state or local jurisdictions, including public land records, base cartographic mapping, and the production of digital orthophotoquads. The long-standing federal Public Land Survey System (PLSS) complements state, local and private land records, but devolution would impose a heavy burden, particularly on Western states, where federal land is a greater percentage of the total land mass and where issues of land ownership and encroachment are common. Similarly, states and local governments have interests in base cartographic mapping and some have substantial capacity, but the fiscal and technical capacity of many states and localities are limited. Most of the goals of an NSDI have required, and will continue to require, intergovernmental coordination and cooperation, as opposed to unilateral product responsibility, and it would not be prudent to recklessly! ! devolve substantial major land record, base cartographic, or orthophoto production responsibilities to state and local governments.

Candidates for Privatization: The Panel considered several GI activities as possible candidates for privatization during its deliberations. These included current governmental recreation mapping in which almost all federal landholders service recreational land use by the public in federally owned parks, forests, wilderness areas, flood-control projects, and hydroelectric sites; production of so-called digital raster graphics (DRGs), currently almost completely outsourced; and street mapping, which is increasingly being privately compiled to support automated automobile navigation systems. There are clear cost advantages to privatizing some or all of these activities, or at least relying on the private sector to produce many of these products, even if market incentives are inadequate to provide uniform nationwide coverage. Nonetheless, the Panel noted that there are potential liability and quality-assurance difficulties that would need to be address! ! ed a nd felt it was premature to endorse specific GI activities as candidates for privatization. But private-sector capabilities and market interests are growing rapidly, and the Panel is confident that governments and the private sector can, and should, find the means to accommodate their common purposes and interests.

Outsourcing: In the mixed, public-private economy of the United States, there are constant shifts among four sectors: pure government, government enterprises, government purchases from the private sector, and commercial enterprise. There is no single right answer to the question of which public purposes should be met within any given sector. Times change, and the answers change with the times. All four sectors are used to meet public needs. At any given moment, the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress provide the answer to what should be the proper balance among the four sectors, or an array of options that may be used.

Partnerships: Multilateral partnering and consortiums are more likely to build the form of intergovernmental coordination and private-sector cooperation that the NSDI requires. Increasingly, consortiums, rather than bilateral partnering, are needed to meet the mutual geospatial data needs of multiple users and provide a means to promote cooperation and data-sharing. The GI capabilities of states and localities need to be strengthened. Empowering their GI groups, adopting and implementing national standards, promoting greater linkages with counties, cities, and other local jurisdictions would greatly improve the ability of states and localities to build the NSDI. Federal agencies and the FGDC, for their part, need to coordinate their demands on state and local GI groups, support state and local programs responsive to their data needs, and encourage greater awareness and understanding of the value and utility of the NSDI, including FGDC standards, cl! ! eari nghouse functions, and partnership efforts.

Pricing and Intellectual Property Rights: Federal data and pricing policies often conflict with state and local government and private-sector interests in generating revenue, a situation that is likely to be exacerbated as more data is digitized and becomes available on line. These practices constrain partnering to the mutual disadvantage of all sectors.

Recommendations

· GI resource managers should increasingly emphasize multilateral partnerships - interagency, inter-governmental, and with the private sector - to promote a robust NSDI and as a source of savings. Broad consortiums that involve multiple governmental levels and engage the private sector should be favored, and USGS's unique authority to engage in innovative partnerships should be extended to other agencies.
· Multilateral partnering, including CRADA-type partnering with the private sector on agency operational activities, should be increased. Government agencies should avoid engaging in value-added activities beyond the R&D phase when they can be provided by the private sector at or near government cost.
· Outsourcing decisions should be made on the basis of the respective roles, responsibilities, and competencies of the governmental and private sectors. Cost- effectiveness is one of several factors that need to be considered. On the other hand, arbitrary percentage targets for contracting out should be avoided.
· The federal government policy of promoting open access, especially for all data used in public policy decisionmaking, should be maintained and the states and localities should be urged to adopt similar policies.
· The federal government, possibly under the lead of the FGDC, should articulate a clear policy or draft legislation that allows the government to work cooperatively with the private sector to protect private-sector intellectual property rights for GI, particularly uniquely private and value-added data sets.

Are There Opportunities to Consolidate or Otherwise Restructure Federal Surveying, Mapping, and Other GI Functions to Achieve Greater Economy and Performance?

If So, Which Functions Should Be Brought Together and How Should They Be Structured?

While the FGDC has been instrumental in much of the progress achieved over the past few years, the Panel is convinced that an organization is needed which provides full participation by all the major parties and interests engaged in developing and maintaining the NSDI.

After considering options in both the public and private sectors, the Panel believes the best of both can be provided by a new private, nonprofit organization, the National Spatial Data Council (NSDC), which preferably would be authorized in law by Congress but clearly located in the private sector. This new organization's charter and activities would compliment those of the FGDC, which would concentrate much more on coordinating GI functions and activities inside the federal government.

Charter and Mission
· advances national goals for the NSDI, preferably through a new federal law
· provides a forum for bringing together the views of all sectors engaged in developing, maintaining, and using the NSDI
· serves as a link with other public and private-sector organizations engaged in GI-related activities, the National Information Infrastructure (NII), and policy communities using GI
· carries out specific functions assigned to it by law or by its membership

Goals and Objectives
· provide a national forum for developing and maintaining the NSDI
· maintain state-of-the art knowledge about advances in GI and related technologies
· help ensure that goals set for the NSDI are actually carried out in practice by serving as a catalyst for implementation
· build a comprehensive and user-friendly GI clearinghouse using a customer-responsive and businesslike approach
· bring to the table the views on national standards of all interested parties, and possibly assume over time the responsibility now housed in the FGDC for this function
· provide training and education on the utility of and techniques for fostering the NSDI

Recommendations for Immediate Action
· In order to aid in reconciling conflicts and to monitor agency implementation, designate that the OMB program associate director for natural resources, energy, and science be a full member of the FGDC.
· To bring a broader technology perspective to the FGDC, a senior staff member of the Office of Science and Technology Policy also should be a member of the committee.
· Until the NSDC is established, increase state, local, and tribal government participation in the FGDC and encourage stronger involvement by the private sector.
· Encourage active participation in FGDC by all agencies having major GI-related programs, including NASA and DoD.
· Rapidly grow the current FGDC clearinghouse to (1) identify as much geospatial data as possible, including that derived from states, local governments, and the private sector, and (2) evolve toward user-friendly, online data access as technology permits.

Recommendations for a Long-term Solution
· Increase awareness of the current and potential value of the NSDI and of the plans to develop it among the public, members of Congress, state legislatures, county commissions, city councils, professional associations, and commercial interests.
· Establish through legislation a national goal to create and maintain a robust NSDI.
· Create a private, nonprofit NSDC, modeled on the current FGDC and NSDI charters, with appropriate representation by all levels of government and the private sector.
· Retain a federal committee with ties to the NSDC to coordinate federal GI under the NSDI.

Consolidating Base Geographic Information Functions into a New Geographic Data Service (GDS)

The current federal structures and practices for GI need not be massively transformed as was recommended in 1973 and 1981, in part because of evolving technology and growing interagency cooperation, but the Panel believes that consolidation of base GI functions could improve efficiency and provide a stronger platform for building the NSDI.

GI functions performed by federal agencies and their present locations are as much an accident of history as they are a logical choice to meet today's and tomorrow's GI needs. For example, geodetic referencing emerged as part of the Coast and Geodetic Survey because of its affiliation with requirements for nautical charting, even though geodesy relates more to the land mass and precise positioning on land than coastal or ocean navigation. Similarly, aeronautical charting evolved in the same organization because of its charting expertise, not its affiliation in any way with aeronautics.

If creating a robust NSDI and achieving much greater spatial data sharing across agency boundaries, political jurisdictions, and the public and private sectors are the goals, then the Panel believes it is essential to achieve "critical mass" by bringing together most of the fundamental components that are responsible for the basic GI functions of the federal government. These goals are enormously ambitious, and efforts to achieve them require a strong mandate and solid support. Good intentions, consensus, and technology alone will not fulfill these goals, only provide the base for promising but modest first steps. The new GDS, along with a legislatively mandated policy base, an NSDC, an FGDC refocused on federal GI activities, and stronger partnerships with key state, local, and private-sector participants are all necessary to meet the goals.

The mission of this new organization would encompass that of all the agencies transferred into it, but the whole should literally be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore its mission should be to:
Support the full development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and ensure that U.S. economic, governmental, and societal needs for geographic information and services are met in cooperation with all levels of government and the private sector.

The new organization, the specifics of which would be designed by a federal task force under OMB leadership, could include BLM's cadastral survey and land records functions, the National Mapping Division (NMD) from USGS, surveyors and possibly some of the geometronics functions of the Forest Service, and the National Geodetic Survey from NOS. Nautical charting is also shown as part of this new organization. The Panel favors including it, but there may be reasons for leaving it in Commerce or transferring it to the Department of Transportation (DOT). A Remote Sensing Services Division would be created and include NMD's Advanced Systems Center, the EROS Data Center, and responsibility for the Civil Applications Committee. Its job would be to facilitate civil access to remote-sensing products and services of both the public and private sectors.

Capacity-sharing among federal agencies and with state and local governments for development of the NSDI requires a strong field presence and coordinated efforts among federal agencies in dealing with the states. Unfortunately, current federal field office jurisdictional boundaries and their divergent geographic locations, some of which do not conform to state boundaries, make the process of coordination difficult and complex. Some agencies have established state coordinators for their programs, but there is no one charged with interacting with state, local, and tribal governments on a broad base of GI functions. Had the ten standard federal regions of the 1970s survived, the problem might not be as complex, but the tendency in recent years has been for agencies to tailor their field structures to meet program needs and facilitate interaction with local, state and regional counterparts.

The service's new field structure would be state-based to link more directly weth state GI coordinating groups and to local and tribal government GIS capabilities in those states. State liaisons could be patterned after the NGS geodetic advisers and made responsible for coordinating with federal program officials having GI-related risponsibilities. One approach would be to establish 20-25 GI centers. Each center would be responsible for a variety of GDS programs. In this way, each could ensure that the different data efforts correspond to each other, both in terms of data accuracy and programmatically.

Recommendations for Immediate Action
· Forward to Congress legislation to transfer the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) to USGS and to authorize the establishment of a Geographic Data Service (GDS) contingent upon submission of a reorganization plan prepared by a task force mandated by OMB.
· Consider creating a performance-based organization in DOI for federal surveying and land-title records activities.

Recommendations for the Longer Term
· Develop a reorganization plan in cooperation with the NSDC to implement the GDS and realign the federal field structure for base GI.

Using the Results Act As a Tool for Coordination

Several aspects of current federal surveying, mapping, and other GI activities could be improved through modification to existing management processes and procedures. Among these is the establishment of strategic plans for each agency with explicit ties to agency performance measures and results, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act. Currently, separate agency strategic plans and performance measures are not being integrated. Similarly, the success of the National Aerial Photography Program that consolidates a large portion of mapping-quality aircraft imagery could serve as a model for the emerging world of commercial satellite imaging and remote-sensing capabilities. Finally, the Panel took note of the success of combining of federal agencies' global change research into a single program; no comparable effort to consolidate and streamline surveying, mapping and GI research exists in the GI area.

Recommendations
· Develop coordinated goals, strategies, performance measures, and budgets for federal agency GI programs and activities. Explicitly establish selected strategic goals and performance measures, as required by the Results Act, to help move the NSDI toward further and faster realization.
· USGS, or the GDS when established, should be tasked to coordinate federal acquisition of imagery for civil government purposes from aerial platforms, and classified intelligence, civil domestic, foreign, and commercial satellites.
· The FGDC should act as the focal point for coordinating the high priority GI technology needs of civil government at all levels and for mobilizing interagency, state, and local support for selective high-payoff technology developments with utility in multiple civil applications.

Domestic-National Security Relations

Coordination between the domestic and national security components of the federal sector could also be improved. While coordination of product production and dissemination are reasonably good, other aspects of GI coordination between these sectors could be improved. More active participation by NIMA and NASA in the work of the FGDC is needed, and a new policy-level committee involving both civil and national security agency heads would be influential in promoting better coordination.

Recommendations
· NIMA should become much more actively engaged in the FGDC because of the increasing need to coordinate GI activities, including technological research, standards, security policy, procurement practices, and international activities.
· A policy-level committee that includes the secretary of interior, the directors of NIMA and the National Reconnaissance Office, a representative of the director of central intelligence, and other appropriate representatives should be established to focus on policies needed to foster greater civil use of classified imagery.
· The Civil Applications Committee (CAC), supported by the USGS's Advanced Systems Center, should become the technical and implementing arm of this committee.

Agencies' Views and Comments

The sponsoring organizations were provided a draft of this report for review and comment. Their responses varied in terms of their support for the Panel's recommendations. Generally, agencies who would lose components or whose responsibilities would be diminished by the proposed structural changes opposed those changes. Other concerns were expressed about the adverse effects of the proposed changes on related program missions. Copies of the organizations' policy comments are provided in Appendix J of the full report.

* Surveying, mapping, and other geographic information describe the broad field of activities, technologies, and science that include geodesy, land, and cadastral surveying, land records, cartography, charting, remote sensing, photogrammetry, image processing, geographic information systems, and generally the collecting of all geospatial data.


COMPLETE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 3 - GEOGRAPHY-BASED PUBLIC PURPOSES AND GI ROLES

Recommendations
· In order to help achieve the geography-related public purposes of the federal, state, local, and tribal governments, and public utilities outlined in this chapter, more effectively and efficiently, the federal government should help to ensure full and rapid implementation of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in a cost-effective and cooperative manner.
· Interagency, and intergovernmental and private-sector GI user and producer groups, whose cooperation is essential to implementing NSDI, should continue to be convened to accelerated development, sharing, and maintaining of the NSDI framework data files. These groups should be used to negotiate additional data sharing and joint funding agreements. These groups and agreements should address the following key success factors of NSDI: (a) reliable geodetic referencing of data, (b) adequate content and format standards, (c) acquisition of commonly used and widely accepted data in compatible digital forms, and (d) the continuing capacity, expertise, skill, and engagement of public agencies necessary for them to ensure the quality of data from multiple sources.
· The potential for using geographic-referenced data from government and private transactions to maintain nationwide GI databases should be exploited, whenever appropriate and cost-effective, to ensure that the most current information is incorporated into the NSDI.
· Interagency and intergovernmental consortiums should be encouraged to become increasingly important providers of geospatial data to the NSDI, following national standards.
· The federal government should support long-term, interdisciplinary research by universities and others on GI technologies, earth sciences, and related topics, consistent with encouraging private sector initiatives. Priorities for such research should include, but not be limited to programs to develop: (1) practical generalization software to translate between scales; (2) techniques for utilizing satellite imagery to enable rapid updating of GI data files and maximum analytical use of this new source of massive amounts of GI without overwhelming the system; (3) easy-to-use automated techniques for updating base data with current transaction data; and (4) software for merging and harmonizing geographic data files from diverse sources.

CHAPTER 4 - PROVIDING NATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION FOR THE NSDI

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)

Recommendations for Immediate Action
· In order to aid in reconciling conflicts and to monitor agency implementation, designate the OMB program associate director for natural resources, energy, and science to be a full member of the FGDC.
· To bring a broader technology perspective to the FGDC, a senior staff member of the Office of Science and Technology Policy also should be a member of the committee.

Recommendations for Interim Action
· Further increase state, local, and tribal government participation in the FGDC and encourage stronger involvement by the private sector.
· Encourage active participation in FGDC by all agencies having major GI-related programs, including NASA and DoD.
· Rapidly grow the current FGDC clearinghouse to (1) identify as much geospatial data as possible, including state, local and private sector data, and (2) evolve toward user-friendly, on-line data access as technology permits.

The Need for a New Public-Private Organization - The National Spatial Data Council (NSDC)

Recommendations for a Long-term Solution
· Increase congressional, state legislature, county commission, city council, professional association, commercial, and public awareness of the NSDI's current and potential value, and current plans and strategies to develop it.
· Establish through legislation a national goal to create and maintain a robust NSDI.
· Create a private, nonprofit NSDC, modeled on the current FGDC and NSDI charters, with appropriate representation by all levels of government and the private sector.
· Retain FGDC, with ties to the NSDC, to coordinate federal GI under the NSDI.

Using the Results Act (GPRA) As a Tool for Coordination

Recommendation for Immediate Action
· Develop coordinated goals, strategies, performance measures and budgets for federal agency GI programs and activities. Explicitly establish selected strategic goals and performance measures, as required by the Results Act, to help move the NSDI toward further and faster realization.

Standard-Setting Processes for U.S. Geographic Information

Recommendations for Immediate Action
· Concentrate FGDC standard-setting activities on data content standards for the framework layers.
· Increase staff support for FGDC secretariat functions and dedicate staff in each agency for standards development, implementation, compliance, and outreach, especially to federal field offices.
· Develop performance measures for agency development and compliance with FGDC standards.
· Improve structural coordination of framework activities and the FGDC standard-setting process.
· Make use of on-going initiatives, such as land-use planning for public lands and ecosystem management, as drivers to strengthen state/local support for common standards.
· Establish a FGDC presence on the IISP.
· Provide for stronger FGDC-NIMA coordination on international standards.

Recommendation for the Longer Term
· Standards that are national in scope should be coordinated by the NSDC. FGDC would represent the federal viewpoint in this council.

State and Local Government Coordination Initiatives

Recommendations
· Designate states as major nonfederal FGDC partners and encourage development of a strategy for all states to have greater commonality of GI capacity and infrastructure.
· Re-examine the FGDC framework layers in the context of state and local GI needs as well as federal needs.

Relationship of the NSDI to the National Information Infrastructure and the Information Technology Community

Recommendations for Immediate Action
· Get federal GI more actively integrated into the administration's NII initiatives and vice versa.
· Federal agencies need to incorporate GI and GIS and the NSDI concept into their overall information technology strategies and plans.

CHAPTER 5 - POLICY BASES, STRUCTURE, AND ORGANIZATION TO MEET TODAY'S AND TOMORROW'S GI CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Building the Policy Base Around a New National Commitment to the NSDI

Recommendation
· The administration should develop a new statute in cooperation with state and local governments and other organizations to create an NSDI, establish a National Spatial Data Council, and better define federal agency roles and responsibilities for NSDI so as to meet the participating organizations' programmatic needs.

Base Geographic Functions and the Need for a New Geographic Data Service

Recommendations for Immediate Action
· Forward to Congress legislation to transfer NGS to USGS and authorize the establishment of a GDS contingent upon submission of the reorganization plan prepared by a task force mandated by OMB.
· Consider creating a performance-based organization within DOI for federal surveying and land title records activities.

Recommendations for the Longer Term
· Develop a reorganization plan, in cooperation with the NSDC, to implement the GDS and realign the federal field structure for base GI.
· Consider transferring responsibility for TIGER file maintenance, after the 2000 census, to GDS.

CHAPTER 6 - BALANCING THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE SECTORS

Assessing the Devolution Option

Recommendations
· No specific federal GI functions should be devolved at this time.
· State and local governments should establish GI coordinating groups or focal points responsible for serving as the points of contact responsible for NSDI coordination and cooperation.

Evaluating Privatization Alternatives

Recommendation
· Government agencies should avoid engaging in value-added activities beyond the research and development phase when they can be provided by the private sector at or near government cost.

Contracting Out or Outsourcing Options

Recommendations
· USGS, or the GDS recommended in Chapter Five, should be tasked to coordinate federal acquisition of imagery for civil government purposes from aerial platforms and classified intelligence, civil domestic, foreign, and commercial satellites.
· The USGS-led Civil Applications Committee should take the lead in interaction with the intelligence community and with international and commercial providers on civil governmental needs and encourage the greater utilization of these data.
· Federal agencies should lead and encourage other levels of government to be involved in remote-sensing activities through example and partnering,
· Outsourcing decisions should be made on the basis of the respective roles, responsibilities, and competencies of the governmental and private sectors.
· Cost-effectiveness is one of several factors that needs to be considered; on the other hand, arbitrary percentage targets for contracting out should be avoided.

Advancing Partnerships and Capacity Sharing

Recommendations
· GI resource managers should increasingly emphasize multilateral partnerships - interagency, inter-governmental, and with the private sector - both to promote a robust NSDI and as a source of savings.
· USGS's unique authority to engage in innovative partnerships should be extended to other agencies.
· Multilateral partnering, including CRADA-type partnering with the private sector on agency operational activities, should be increased.

Impact of Pricing Policies and Intellectual Property Rights

Recommendations
· The federal government policy of promoting open access, especially for all data used in public policy decisionmaking, should be maintained and states and localities are urged to adopt similar policies.
· The federal government, possibly under the lead of the FGDC, should articulate a clear policy or draft legislation that allows the government to work cooperatively with the private sector to protect private-sector intellectual property rights for GI, particularly private and value-added GI data sets.

CHAPTER 7 - OTHER ISSUES

GI Technology Research and Development

Recommendations
· The technology development programs of civil agencies involved in GI should focus on civil government applications and basic science support. Federal government agencies should utilize, and not attempt to compete with, private-sector leadership in many areas of technology development applicable to GI.
· NIMA and NASA should ensure that FGDC members are made fully cognizant of technological developments applicable to civil government needs. To further civil government applications, the technology development programs of NIMA, the National Reconnaissance Office, and NASA should be coordinated and undertaken jointly, whenever possible, with civil agencies.
· The FGDC should act as the focal point for coordinating the high-priority GI technology needs of civil government at all levels and for mobilizing interagency, state, and local support for selective high-payoff technology developments with utility in multiple civil applications.

Domestic-National Security Relations

Recommendations
·NIMA should become much more actively engaged in the FGDC because of the increasing need to coordinate GI activities, including technological research, standards, security policy, procurement practices, and international activities.
·A policy-level committee that includes the secretary of the interior, the directors of NIMA and the National Reconnaissance Office, a representative of the director of central intelligence, and other appropriate representatives should be established to focus on policies needed to foster greater civil use of classified imagery.
·The CAC, supported by USGS's Advanced Systems Center, should become the technical and implementing arm of this committee.