Governance of the NSDI Continued from cover It was a wonderful concept—liberating and energizing—but we have gotten much less than I was hoping for over the past 15 years. There are only a few success stories. As I see the problem, we simply have not organized ourselves very effectively. This article describes the current geospatial governance structure in the United States, discusses current problems, looks at state models for success, and makes recommendations for doing things differently at the national level. Through a directive from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), we have put significant effort into identifying key data elements in that infrastructure and assigning responsibilities to develop and maintain that data. The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is charged with coordinating those efforts but does not have the power to make or enforce rules. Federal agencies continue to create “stovepipes of excellence” and cooperate only when desirable to themselves, very rarely because of outside pressure. Equally important, the NSDI has a federal focus and often does not meet the needs of state or local government—let alone the private sector or public. State governments have done a better job of coordinating their state spatial data infrastructures. Ironically, they have gotten funding from FGDC to develop the strategic and business plans necessary to make the transition. Many states have geographic information officers (GIOs) to coordinate state-level activities and advisory councils composed of other stakeholders to help coordinate the activities of municipal, county, and tribal governments. A similar approach should be used at the federal and national level to create the governance structure that will allow us to finally reach the full potential of the NSDI. Cracks in the system are becoming apparent to Congress. In June 2009, the Congressional Research Service published a report called Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Current Issues and Future Challenges. The report tries to address the questions of “how effectively [is] the FGDC . . . fulfilling its mission” and “how well is the federal government coordinating with the state and local entities” (see www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40625.pdf). On July 23, 2009, the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on federal geospatial data management. Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland quoted a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report from his briefing material saying that only 4 of the 17 [sic] FGDC member agencies were in compliance. A video of that hearing and written testimony of witnesses is online at resourcescommittee.house.gov/ index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid= 27&extmode=view&extid=278. Most of the discussion in the hearing was about eliminating redundant data collection. Not much was about filling gaps. OMB, FGDC, and NSDI The current federal geographic governance structure has a long history. In 1953, the federal executive OMB issued Circular A-16. Originally aimed at federal surveying and mapping activities, that circular has been revised several times and is now titled Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities. Circular A-16 is the basis for all federal geospatial data coordination efforts. OMB is a cabinet-level office, monitoring the performance of the various federal agencies that report to the president, guiding them when they stray, and making recommendations for future presidential budgets. This is a powerful office, but it has tended to delegate geospatial data coordination to FGDC. FGDC was created in the 1990 revision to OMB Circular A-16. This is when the circular began looking at spatial data use and coordination across federal agencies. The committee COVER STORIES and socioeconomic data for my urban planning work. But, these seven were seen both as easy first steps and as a solid frame to which other data could be referenced. To be sure, Circular A-16 lists some 34 data categories and assigns each to a federal agency, but few agencies are working on their assignments. Land use is not in the list of data categories—along with many other elements that we all find useful in our daily work. It turned out that framework data was not so easy to complete or coordinate. The National 3 from the National Academy of Sciences. The first of these was Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation, which predated Clinton’s executive order and set the stage for it. Perhaps the most relevant today is the 2003 report, Weaving a National Map: Review of the U.S. Geological Survey Concept of The National Map, that envisioned a national quilt of high-resolution local data that could be rewoven into a national blanket of uniform quality. Data for the Nation The National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and others are starting to use the phrase for the nation. Imagery for the Nation (IFTN), Transportation for the Nation (TFTN), and Elevation for the Nation are examples of this new approach in labeling. To NSGIC, this term means something Minnesota quite specific: data is available nationGIS Community wide, it has sufficient spatial and topical resolution to meet the needs of all levels of government, and resources are available to keep the data current. The processes for conceiving, developing, and maintaining such data are described with 20 discrete criteria on Minnesota the NSGIC Web site. Only a few data Geospatial MnGeo Governance Councils Information themes exist that meet these criteria. Of ce (MnGeo) There are four ways to produce data that meets the needs of all levels Statewide of government. The traditional way Council State is for federal programs to deliver data (local government, Government at sufficiently fine resolution to meet tribal government, Council everyone’s needs. A good example of private, etc.) such a program is the Soil Survey GeoChief GIO graphic Database (SSURGO) county soils maps provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; these maps provide sufficient detail for state and local applications, though not for Works with individual farmers who want to manTechnical Advisory Committee(s) age their fields intensively. Also, the • Topical Subcommittees Chairs Census Bureau provides population • Project Workgroups and housing data at the block level and above—again, sufficient for all but the most detailed local needs. The National Wetland Inventory and the National Hydrography Dataset also consists of leaders from 30 federal agencies—up Academy of Sciences points out that the fall into this category. Not many other examples from 18 listed in the 2002 revision of Circular Federal Emergency Management Agency exist. I call these “happy accidents.” They almost A-16. It is chaired by the secretary of the interior. (FEMA) needs land surface elevation data that is always involve a federal partnership with state or The strength of the committee is determined by about 10 times more accurate than data currently local government, but those partnerships are matthe strength of personalities running it, and that available (2007) for most of the nation. The trans- ters of convenience and not the result of our govstrength has varied over the years. Not all member portation layer is maintained in various forms by ernance structure. A second way to meet the needs of all levels agencies are fully committed, as indicated at the agencies including the U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Transportation, the latter having of government is through federal programs that oversight hearing. When the NSDI was created in 1994 by Presi- several different versions. The cadastral layer ef- allow state and local governments to participate dent Clinton’s Executive Order 12906, its purpose fort soon abandoned securing data on all private through buy-up options. The IFTN program, prowas to “support public and private applications landownership and even smaller federal land hold- posed by NSGIC, starts with the U.S. Department of geospatial data in such areas as transporta- ings, leaving only large federal holdings, like Yel- of Agriculture’s (USDA) 1-meter National Agrition, community development, agriculture, emer- lowstone National Park, and Public Land Survey cultural Imagery Program and allows locals to add sensors (e.g., four-band) and expanded coverage gency response, environmental management, corners. One of the best success stories is GPS, some- into nonagricultural areas. IFTN also provides and information technology.” Responsibility for implementation was given to FGDC. With mi- thing that was not seen as part of the NSDI. This for the business needs of local government with nor modifications to provide a special role for the technology was developed by a federal agency a higher-resolution 1-foot program that would new Department of Homeland Security, President (the U.S. military), but kept relatively secret with be administered by the United States Geological George W. Bush continued the NSDI in his Ex- only degraded access to it until 2000 when Presi- Survey (USGS). This component also has buy-up dent Clinton opened the door for public access. options that include 6-inch resolution, true orecutive Order 13286 in 2003. There were weaknesses in all this. One of the Today, GPS is a multibillion-dollar industry with thophotographs; increased horizontal accuracies; things that went wrong fairly early was a fixation devices on the dashboards of cars, in cell phones, and other features important to local government. on framework data. These were the seven data and even on dog collars. This happened within a Ideally, states would coordinate the many local layers that were seen as first steps toward fulfill- single agency and outside our national data gover- requirements and funding, making it easier for USDA, USGS, and their contractors to meet local ing the vision of the NSDI: geodetic control, or- nance structure. We knew early on that data could not be devel- needs. thoimagery, elevation and bathymetry, transporA third way to meet the needs of all levels of tation, hydrography, cadastral, and governmental oped without a partnership between the federal units. Circular A-16 describes these as the seven government on the one hand and state, local, and government is for local government to collect data “themes of geospatial data that are used by most tribal governments on the other. Those relation- that meets its needs, with state and federal govGIS applications.” In fact, I most frequently use ships were required in Clinton’s NSDI executive ernments rolling this data up to summary levels land-use and soil data for my environmental work order. They were underscored in a series of reports continued on page 4 Basic MnGeo Governance