So What is the Status of the NSDI ? David J. CowenProfessor Emeritus, University of South Carolina

Objectives Brief personal background Structure of the US geospatial

programs COGO – Framework Report Card Cadastre Recent GAO reports

Personal History

GIS Before Esri

Dissertation 1968

Early 1970’s Land Use

Late 1970’s Coastal Zone Management

Research Interests DOE – Environmental Atlas State – Economic Development

NASA - Commercial Apps Parcel Level Analysis Campus 3D models

State Coordination 1983 - 2005

1983 2005

Mapping Science Committee

1990 Pre FGDC 1991 R & D 1993 Defined NSDI 1994 Partnerships 1995 Foundation

1997 Future 2001 Partnership Programs 2002 State Dept 2003 National Map 2004 Licensing

Mapping Science Committee – Specific Data Themes

• Data integration (vertical and horizontal). If the enormous potential benefits of the NSDI are to be realized, datasets produced by different organizations, covering different themes and geographic areas, and at different scales, must be used in conjunction with each other, as well as with non-Framework datasets.

• Data use and applications. Clearly, the true payoff of the NSDI will be closely tied to those geospatial data-based applications that make use of Framework and other data to address specific problems or issues facing governments, companies, and NGOs.

National Spatial Data Infrastructure Partnership Programs: Rethinking the Focus

2003

1994

1994 President Clinton - Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: NSDI

“The FGDC shall seek to involve State, local, and tribal governments in the development and implementation of the initiatives contained in this order.

The FGDC shall utilize the expertise of academia, the private sector, professional societies, and others as necessary to aid in the development and implementation of the objectives of this order.”

Evolution of OMB A-16 (Milo Robinson )

Framework 1997

ARGUMENTS FOR AN EXTENDED FRAMEWORK

Framework Layers

Evolution

Next Generation SDI

Rajabifard, A., A. Binns, I. Masser, and I. Williamson. 2006. The role of sub-national government and the private sector in future spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(7):727 – 741.

Lots of Governance Models

Current Model

NGAC Purposewill provide advice and recommendations on

federal geospatial policy….Under FACA rules, will function solely as an

advisory body …. on the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).

*NGAC Charter

A few members Dr. Robert Austin, NGAC ChairManager, Enterprise Applications IntegrationCity of Tampa, FL

Dr. Jerry Johnston, NGAC Vice ChairGeographic Information OfficerU.S. Department of the Interior

Dr. Keith ClarkeProfessor, Department of GeographyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

Mr. Steve CoastPrincipal Architect, Bing MapsMicrosoft Corporation

Mr. Jack DangermondPresidentESRI.Mr. Michael JonesChief Technology AdvocateGoogle, Inc.

Mr. Don DittmarWaukesha County Land Information Office

Mr. Roger MitchellSenior Vice President, Program DevelopmentMDA Information Systems, Inc.

Dr. Michele MotskoDirector, National Center for Geospatial Intelligence StandardsU.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Mr. Dan Cotter U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mr. Mark Reichardt President & CEOOpen Geospatial Consortium, Inc.

Dr. Douglas RichardsonExecutive DirectorAssociation of American Geographers

Mr. Gene Trobia State CartographerState of Arizona

Ms. Molly VogtGIS Program SupervisorOregon Metro

Mr. David Wyatt GIS ManagerEastern Band of Cherokee Indians

My Interpretation We don’t live in a 1:24,000 world NSDI – Means acquire and use most appropriate data

(high resolution and current) Local & crowd sourced

The platform/ cloud provide new technology infrastructure

Challenges: “It’s easy to make a decision in the absence of

information” “How do we make geospatial information so

accessible that it cannot be ignored?”

-

Key NGAC Products

NGAC Transition Recommendations

Changing Geospatial Landscape White Paper

Our Objective Restore the US Federal

Government back to its rightful place as the world leader in innovative use of geospatial technology

Create Geospatial Information Services for the Nation

Provide an honest assessment of what it will take – beyond changes in terminology

NGAC Recommendations THE NATIONAL MAP

◦ A key component of the geospatial platform must be an integrated set of foundational data layers for the nation.

◦ TNM should focus on providing this foundational data, across a wide range of scales, as its primary purpose, in partnership with an array of data providers in accordance with A- 16.

◦ The foundational layers should align with the FGDC Framework, with the addition of geographic names.

◦ Parcels should be incorporated as one of TNM’s base data layers. A lead agency or agencies should be identified as federal integrator(s) of parcel data.”

 

NGAC Recommendations   Innovative Strategies for Geospatial Programs and

Partnerships

Overarching recommendation: The FGDC responsibilities for leadership, management and coordination

of geospatial information and services across government, including continuing management of the Geospatial Platform and its supporting data, must assume a central role in the policy, budgetary, and procurement process related to geospatial programs

  NGAC believes there is a clear need to reconfigure, focus,

reposition, empower and authorize the FGDC to a level in the Administration whereby policy, budgetary and procurement activities are more effective than at present.

Outcome: FGDC has greater authority, a more comprehensive funding strategy, and permanent staffing to implement a more robust, efficient, reliable, cost effective level of Geospatial Information Services for the Nation to support decision making.

Report Card on the U.S. National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)Prepared for the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO)

DAVID J. COWEN, VICE CHAIRMANPROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO)Thirteen national nonprofit organizations focused on geospatial technologies

“Why don’t we create a Report Card for the NSDI Framework Data to draw attention to its shortcomings. We could pattern it after the ASCE Report Card on America’s Infrastructure which highlights the problems with the nation’s failing infrastructure.”

at an early COGO meeting in 2009, a member asked…

…and the lightbulb went on for all of the organizations.

Work on the Report Card began in 2014 with the selection of the Expert Panel

James E. GeringerChair

Dr. David J. CowenVice-Chair

John J. MoellerVice-Chair

Susan Carson Lambert

Thomas D. Rust Dr. John D. Bossler Robert T. Welch

ASCE Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

other factors considered:• While there have been several efforts, there still

are no effective metrics to gauge progress in implementing the NSDI

• This Report Card is the first of a series of periodic Report Cards by COGO

• The Report Card does not include cost estimates for completing the NSDI or for bringing the Framework to a specified level

• The goal of this evaluation and report is to bring attention to the need for current and accurate geospatial data for the United States

the end of the process was the public release of the Report Card on February 6 th 2015

Assessment Methodology• The Panel graded both the individual Framework Data Themes and the NSDI Framework as cohesive effort.

• The NSDI Framework was envisioned to be an integrated data resource that would serve as the “data backbone of the NSDI.”

• It was to be a collaborative effort to create a widely available source of basic geographic data.

• Its purpose was to provide the most common geographic data that users will need, and to serve as a building block for the NSDI.

• The Framework was intended to provide data that were trusted, standardized, described according to a common standard, and publicly available at minimal or no cost to the user.

• The Expert Panel developed criteria that are modeled on the criteria used by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.

Each Framework Layer section includes:• General Discussion• Impacts• Introduction• Theme Definition• Lead Agency• Collaboration and Partnering• Standards• Estimate of Completeness• Accessibility• Authority, Governance and Management

Grading Criteria• A = FIT FOR THE FUTURE The data theme is

generally in excellent condition and meets the needs for the present and the future.

• B = ADEQUATE FOR NOW The data theme is in good to excellent condition, but some geographic areas of the nation require attention for significant deficiencies.

• C = REQUIRES ATTENTION The data theme is in fair to good condition, but it requires attention for many geographic areas of the nation.

• D = AT RISK The data theme is in poor to fair condition and mostly below the goals envisioned for the NSDI.

• F = UNFIT FOR PURPOSE The data for this theme is in an unacceptable condition and provides little to no value to users.

Framework Layer Evaluations

Cadastral DataDOI-BLM (land) & BOEM (offshore)

Geodetic ControlDOC – NOAA/NGS

Elevation DataDOI – USGS (land)DOC - NOAA (water)

D+

C+

B+

Governmental Units DataDOC - Census

Hydrography DataDOI - USGS

Orthoimagery DataUSDA – FSA (NAIP)DOI – USGS (leaf-off)

Transportation DataUSDOT - BTS

C

C

C+

D

The following elements of the INFRASTRUCTURE that support the data were also evaluated:

• Capacity• Condition• Funding• Future Need• Operation and Maintenance• Public Use• Resilience

D

DD

C

CCC

the result…

after thinking about the issues…

the Expert Panel had the following conclusions and recommendations…

Conclusions•The Framework requires attention •There have been many positive actions in the implementation of the NSDI Framework. For example: • Individual thematic datasets have been

developed. • Multiple datasets for each of the themes can be

accessed through the National Geospatial Platform

• Metadata and data standards have been adopted and are generally used by data collectors.

• Government agencies routinely make their data assets publicly available through data portals and spatial data clearinghouses.

• The NSDI Framework provides substantial value to users by making large amounts thematic data available to the public.

Conclusions (continued)

• The original vision and the greatest potential value of the NSDI Framework have not yet been fulfilled.• Definitive sets of nationally consistent, fully

integrated, and reliable data do not exist for the entire nation.

• Current representations exist as seven separate themes rather than a fully integrated system.

• The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) decision to reduce its emphasis on the concept of Framework data and move towards portfolio management for a much larger number of data layers raises questions about whether the portfolio management approach can meet the fundamental purposes of a common digital base map available to all users.

Conclusions (continued)

•This assessment suggests that the Federal agencies charged with the stewardship of the seven Framework data layers face serious obstacles in terms of authority and funding.

•The shift in data production from the federal government to the private sector and state and local government calls for new forms of partnership.

Conclusions for Cadastral Data • There is a critical need for an assessment of user needs and requirements for a modern data system.

• The Federal government does not have the authority to develop and maintain a national cadastral data layer.

• Years of effort have resulted in progress towards a nationally coherent cadastre that will serve multiple purposes, but the prospects for a National Cadastre or NSDI cadastral data layer are dim.

• The results have shown that a collaborative model has not worked in such a complex situation.

• New authority will be needed to bring a National Parcel Dataset to a reality.

Recommendations of the Expert Panel

•The concept of the Framework needs to be reaffirmed.

•A new model for Framework data needs to be adopted, and this new model must acknowledge the importance of local partners.

•This model should be transaction based and emphasize the use of current information technologies, federated, and web-based capabilities; and support web-based services and applications.

Recommendations (continued)

• The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) needs to emphasize that the Framework is part of its Strategic Plan, and that it will work in collaboration with non-federal and non-governmental partners to build an effective NSDI Framework.

• In today’s environment the most accurate and current geospatial data are often collected by local government. A successful NSDI demands that these high resolution data become part of the Infrastructure.

• Budgetary and leadership investments must be made to implement a new model.

Closing Comments

• The Expert Panel created the Report Card and independently assigned the grades

• COGO Member Organizations unanimously approved the content of the Report Card and its public release

• You can obtain a copy at: http://www.cogo.pro

Closing CommentsA BILL

To improve the coordination and use of geospatial dataBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Geospatial Data Act of 2015’’.

• This legislation promises to solve some of the issues that have hampered progress on the NSDI.

• Ed Cox, Legislative Assistant for Senator Hatch is the Point of Contact for this legislation.

Geospatial Data Act of 2015

1)  Providing FGDC with authority to make other agencies follow the rules2)  Providing Congressional oversight to make FGDC and the other agencies accountable3)   Allowing Congress to find out where the money is really going –they will be able to see that the budgets really are inadequate.4)   Providing a great deal more ‘clout’ to NGAC and requiring FGDC to address NGAC’s concerns –

New Conceptual Model Developed by the Expert Panel

55

TIGERData

CommunityTIGER

Services

Census Products

TIGER Updates

Partner Data

Contribution Management

Service

Simplified System Architecture

Lets talk about cadastre

56

Waukesha County WI Excellent Parcel map

Data Base Relational Join

Technology• “Current technology is adequate in most cases for the

surveying, mapping, data collecting, filing and dissemination of information.

• Advancement in computer applications, communication networks and copying processes promise of more-efficient use of the multipurpose cadastre.”

Obstacles

• The major obstacles in the development of a multipurpose cadastre are the organizational and institutional requirements.

Parcels are linked to many operationsof Government

But, of course, we knew that in 1980

Land Parcel Databases: A National VisionThe National Research Council Study Committee

Parcel Discussion • The grade (D+) is based on the fact that a comprehensive parcel database for cadastral information does not exist. Nor is there a program to create a “sustainable and equitable intergovernmental funding program for the development and maintenance of parcel data” as recommended by the 2007 National Research Council Report “National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future” (NRC, 2007).

• Furthermore, in light of the discussion and analysis within this chapter, perhaps the Cadastral Data Theme should be considered for removal from the Framework layers and re-addressed as a separate significant initiative.

Parcels • Furthermore, when the BLM requested resources to

implement the NRC plan, the DOI concluded that it “does not have the statutory authority or funding to provide national parcel coordination” (NGAC, 2012).

• It must be emphasized that the absence of national coordination of cadastral data in the United States is in stark contrast to the 28 countries of the European Union (EU), which made cadastral parcels the foundation of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). As they state:

• “The cornerstone of the specification development was the definition of the Directive on the cadastral parcels: “areas defined by cadastral parcels or equivalent.”

Parcels • To summarize, the BLM and other partners

commissioned an objective evaluation of the need for Federal coordination of the Cadastral data theme. The plan and recommendations were endorsed by the most important Federal advisory committee. The BLM asked for resources to implement the plan and recommendations. The DOI did not give BLM additional resources, or a mandate to implement such a program.

Parcels • Much of the confusion is based on inherent ambiguity in

the database design. When the FGDC defined National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Themes and created multiple databases under the cadastre and real property data themes, it failed to follow appropriate spatial data design principles with respect to the role of parcel data.

Parcels • Logically, the datasets for national parks, forests, and

wildlife refuges should simply be subsets of the Federal parcel dataset, which complements a non-federal land category. Similarly, one would assume that Federally-owned real property would be associated with Federal parcels.

• The states (e.g. Montana) have implemented this logical database model for years (Figures 3 and 4).

Governmental Units – parcels critical

Thailand - $118.1 Million from U.S. taxpayers

Congressional Research Service

Katrina

HUD – Request for ParcelsJune 2006 – 10 Months Later !!!

Southern California

Cooperation Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR)

Presenter’s Name June 17, 2003

What benefits do you perceive from having a national multipurpose cadastre?

• Parcel data is the fundamental building block for all geographic analysis and serves as the raw material for most applications – most geographic analysis is benefit from the ability to understand the result at the parcel level• A multipurpose cadastre enables a vast range of location-based services that will improve safety and increase efficiency of current operations• Available, critical data for emergency response

• Local parcel data were still being sought 8 weeks into the response to Hurricane Katrina• Impact from most disasters is best understood at the parcel level• GIS is becoming the way disasters are managed. A common operating picture depends on

an available multipurpose cadastre• National response centers such as IMAAC depend on the availability of local data for

accurate hazard predictions and health recommendations such as shelter in place

• Most DHS programs depend on geographic data that is at the parcel scale - for example Critical Infrastructure Program

•The ability to protect the privacy of individuals is dependent on an accurate parcel-level database

What Have Americans Paid (and Maybe the Rest of the World)for Not Having a Public Property Rights Infrastructure?

Daniel ROBERGE, Canada and Bengt KJELLSON, Sweden

“… we believe that a good property rights infrastructure could have mitigated the effect of the land market crisis and thereby avoided the loss of many hundreds or even thousands of billion dollars.”

FIG Working Week 2009 Surveyors Key Role in Accelerated Development Eilat, Israel, 3-8 May 2009

Cowen Quote

Dodd – Frank - 2010

Suppose The CFPB Had come to our meetings in 2008 when we debated the need for a parcel

database !!!

Russian Public Cadaster Portal

Jack DangermondNGAC MeetingMarch 18, 2011

Many Governments Are Developing National GIS Strategies

Geospatial Platform – USAAbu Dhabi

INSPIRE – EU China

Providing Shared Geospatial Knowledge

Emerging Systems

Indonesia IndiaRussia

Programs / Platforms Systems

Parcel search by addressSearch results Coloration of

search resultsAddress point

Search query interface

Status

Started in Late 2009 • 70% of Russian territory covered (100% by December)• 160,000 settlements• 50 million parcels (80 million)

Users• 12 000 users per day• 700,000 transactions 2010• 10 million transactions 2011

88

GAO – Nov 2012

GAO Report – November 2012 Further, in a report on land parcel data, the National Academy of Sciences

stated that the lack of nationally integrated land parcel data has led to duplication of effort among various levels of government and between the public and private sector, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U. S. Forest Service, insurance companies, and private companies that list home values and sell parcel maps.

In addition, a National Geospatial Advisory Committee representative stated that a commercial provider leases the same proprietary parcel data to six federal agencies: the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve. In recent reports, the Congressional Research Service found that a coordinated approach to federally managed parcel data still did not exist and that the best method for obtaining an accurate tally of federal lands is to contact each land management agency directly

GAO Parcel “In recent reports the

Congressional Research Service found that a coordinated approach to federally managed parcel data still did not exist and that the best method for obtaining an accurate tally of federal lands is to contact each land management agency directly.”

GAO – February 2015

GAO Recommends…suggests that Congress consider

assessing statutory limitations on address data to foster progress toward a national address database.

… OMB improve its oversight of FGDC and federal agency initiatives,

…FGDC and selected agencies fully implement initiatives.

Matter for Congressional ConsiderationCongress should consider assessing

the impact of the disclosure restrictions of Section 9 of Title 13 and Section 412 of Title 39 of the U.S. Code in moving toward a national geospatial address database.

Such a change, if deemed appropriate, could potentially result in significant savings across federal, state, and local governments.

State Partnerships state officials GAO contacted are

generally not satisfied with the committee’s efforts to coordinate with them.

committee is focused on a federal perspective rather than a national one, and that state recommendations are often ignored.

NGAC ignoredNSGIC officials, officials from the

Coalition of Geospatial Organizations, and an official from one of the five states are further concerned by this development because they perceive that the NGAC does not have any real influence over FGDC actions, and that NGAC’s advice and recommendations are often ignored.

AddressesIn the absence of a single, authoritative, and

publicly available address database, multiple agencies from all levels of government are building, maintaining, and/or paying for multiple address databases.

The result is inconsistent data, redundant business processes, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

Until there is increased focus on building a national address database and providing federal sponsorship for that effort, there will continue to be duplicative address datasets developed at every level of government.

Next Generation 9-1-1Next Generation 9-1-1 is expected to use

Internet protocol-based, broadband technology that is capable of carrying voice plus large amounts of varying types of data, such as instant messaging, wireline calls, voice over Internet protocol calls, photographs, and live video feeds from an emergency scene.

Some local and state governments are using this opportunity to develop centralized address databases that share information across departments and with the local 9-1-1 authority. While this initiative holds promise, it is not clear when it will be completed.

GAO Conclusions Initiated in 1994 to coordinate

investments in geospatial data, the NSDI still holds promise;

…have not yet reached a level of maturity necessary for effectively implementing the NSDI.