A Report by a Panel of the

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

for the Bureau of Land Management,Forest Service, United StatesGeological Survey, and NationalOcean Service

a.JgahIJANUARY 1998 graph

Informationfor the

21 st Century:Building a Strategy

for the Nation

Panel Members

Edward E. David,Jr., Panel ChairGerald R. Riso, Panel Co-Chair

Eric A. AndersonJerry A. Aspland

Lawrence E Ayers,Jr.Jack Dangermond

Jonathan B. HowesBradford Huther

TerrenceJ. KeatingLawrenceJ. Korb

Wendy Lathrop

'14F

The views expressed in this document are those of the contributors alone.They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution.

National Academy of Public Administration1120 G Street, N.W.8th FloorWashington, DC 20005

First published 1998

Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of AmericanNational Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed LibraryMaterials, ANSI Z39.48.1984.

ISBN 1-57744-062-5Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation

ilI7V

Officers of the Academy

Jonathan B. Howes, Chair of the BoardDavid S.C. Chu, Treasurer

MaryJane England, Vice ChairR. Scott Fosler, President

Jane Pisano, Secretary

Project Staff

Arnold E. Donahue, Project Co-DirectorRoger L. Sperry, Project Co-Director

Robert Lee Chartrand, Senior Research AssociatePatricia M. Durkin, Editor

Martha S. Ditmeyer, Research AssistantJeffrey Fitzpatrick, Project Coordinator

Michael B. Fraser, Senior Research AssociateEmily K. Hage, Research Assistant

Bruce D. McDowell, Senior Research AssociateRebecca Wallace, Senior Research Associate

Lisa Warnecke, Senior Research Associate

liii/ 3 qrc

TABLE OF CON

FO REW O RD .............................................................. ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xi

COMPLETE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... iii

CHAPTER ONEOrigins of the Study and Research Methodology .................. ............ 1

CHAPTER TWOEconomic, Technological, and Societal Trends and the Panel's Vision -Where Geographic Information Is Headed ................... ................ 7

CHAPTER THREEGeography-based Public Purposes and Geographic Information Roles .......... 35

CHAPTER FOURProviding National Leadership and Coordination for the NSDI ................ 61

CHAPTER FIVEPolicy Bases, Structure, and Organization to Meet Today's and Tomorrow'sGeographic Information Challenges and Opportunities ....................... 101

CHAPTER SIXBalancing the Roles and Functions of the Government and Private Sectors ...... 147

CHAPTER SEVENOther Issues ........................................................... . 179

ACRONYM S .............................................................. 195

GLO SSARY ............................................................... 199

APPENDICESAppendix A: Panel Members and Staff ...................................... . 203Appendix B: Agency Contacts ............................................... 207Appendix C: Issues, Other Analyses, and Underlying Assumptions ............. 209

'A91I sn "pr

M-M -1

Table of Contents Appendix D: Interview and Contact List ..................................... 213Appendix E: Historical Evolution of the Federal Government's Needs

and Programs for Geographic Information (GI) .................. 229Appendix F: International Trends and Comparisons .......................... 253Appendix G: U.S. Geographic Information Resources Conference .............. 267Appendix H: Selected Bibliography .......................................... 305Appendix I: Relationship Between Public Purposes and Geographic

Inform ation .................................................... 323AppendixJ: Comments of Sponsoring Organizations ......................... 331

TABLESTable 2-1: Principal Relationships between Geographic Information

and the Econom y ................................................. 12Table 2-2: Elements of the Policy Base and Governance Structure .............. 32Table 3-1: Principal Relationships Between Public Purposes and Geodata ...... 41Table 3-2: The Intergovernmental Nature of Geodata for Geography-based

Public Purposes ................................................. 42Table 3-3: Federal Lead Agencies .................... 48Table 3-4: Sources of Current Transaction Records Related to Major

Types of G eodata ................................................. 51Table 4-1: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Implementation Actions

from Executive Order 12906, 1994 FGDC Plan for the NSDI,and 1997 Strategy for the NSDI .................................... 68

Table 4-2: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Implementation Actionsfrom the National Performance Review ............................. 71

Table 4-3: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Implementation Actionsfrom Reports of the Mapping Science Committee,National Research Council ........................................ 72

Table 4-4: Comparison of Functions Performed by National Spatial DataCouncil and Federal Geographic Data Committee ................... 81

Table 5-1: Federal Agency Field Structures and Their Counterparts:Geodetic and Geological Agencies ................................. 120

Table 5-2: Federal Agency Field Structures and Their Counterparts -Federal Land Management Agencies ............................... 122

Table 5-3: Federal Agency Field Structures and Their Counterparts -Other Federal Agencies ........................................... 124

Table 5-4: Federal Field Presence in States .................................... 125Table 5-5: Framework Layers and Assignments ............................... 127Table 5-6: Geodetic Datums Used in the United States ........................ 134Table 5-7: Surveyors in Four Federal Agencies ................................ 136Table 6-1: Dimensions of the Public/Private Choice ........................... 158Table 6-2: USGS National Mapping Division ................................. 163Table 6-3: National Ocean Service ........................................... 165Table 6-4: Bureau of Land Management ................................ 166Table 6-5: Forest Service .................................................... 167Table 6-6: Variations in Outsourcing ............................. 168~.MoIsJ Lo . ,,JoJ r uu L..UL. L.p ruzll.g .......... .................... 170i

a1uL, ( -a. *.r llLC:u U..uIommrcial Kemote sensing Satelites ................... 181Table E-l: National Marine Sanctuaries, November 1997 ................. ..... 236Table E-2: Disposition of the Public Lands, 1781-1995 ....................... 240Table E-3: Organizations and Functions Transferred to FEMA ................. 246

FIGURESFigure 2-1: Geographic Information System (GIS) ............................ 15Figure 2-2: Federal Lands Impact Localities: Sandy, Oregon .............. ..... 16Figure 2-3: Federal Data Discrepancies: Differing Agency Data Encourages

Integration, Reconciliation, and Collaborative Data Revisions ....... 23Figure 3-1: Relative Shares of Public Lands: Six Largest Federal

Land Management Agencies ...................................... 46Figure 4-1: The Vision for DoD's Global Information Infrastructure (GII) ....... 85Figure 4-2: Local, State, and Federal Agencies Collaborate in Utah Ecoregions ... 96Figure 5-1: Proposed Department of Natural Resources ....................... 104Figure 5-2: Differing Regional Boundaries of Federal Agencies Having

GI Activities and Land Management Responsibilities ............... 117Figure 5-3: Geographic Data Service and National Spatial Data Council ......... 132Figure 5-4: Composite of BLM and FS Lands in Twelve Western States ......... 135Figure 7-1: Increasing Use of the US Geological Survey

National Mapping Division's World Wide Web Server .............. 183Figure E-l: History of the Four Sponsoring Agencies .......................... 231Figure E-2: History of the Bureau of Land Management ....................... 231Figure E-3: History of the Forest Service ...................................... 233Figure E-4: Relative Shares of Public Lands: Six Largest Federal

Land Management Agencies ...................................... 234Figure E-5: History of the National Ocean Service ............................. 235Figure E-6: Major Eras of Federal Land Ownership and Land Management ..... 239Figure E-7: Longevity of Selected Federal Government Programs

Relying on Geodata .............................................. 242Figure G-l: Commercial Satellite Imagery ..... ............................... 297Figure G-2: Commercial Market Push and Pull ............................... 298Figure G-3: Information and Data Service Markets ........................... . 299

Table of Contents

/S'

TokIo 7_1 Dl... rI .... -l -- , _^ . ..

FORE 0I

The U.S. government has played instrumental roles in surveying, mapping, and othergeographic information functions since the beginning of the Republic. These roleshave changed significantly over the years as the country moved from an era of explo-ration and expansion to one in which government is expected to help ensure publicsafety, manage the public lands for multiple uses, preserve the nation's resources forfuture generations, and help meet the basic needs of an expanding economy.

While studies have been performed of geographic information technology-relatedissues in recent years, no one in the past quarter century has addressed comprehen-sively the public management aspects. In the summer of 1995, conversations beganbetween the National Academy and the American Congress on Surveying andMapping about undertaking a broad study of U.S. geographic information resources inand outside of government. Calls in Congress to abolish four cabinet departments andhundreds of federal programs stimulated interest in a dispassionate and non-partisanassessment of the significance of spatial data to the economy, the allocation of respon-sibilities to different levels of government and the private sector, and opportunities forfurther consolidation of spatial data-related functions in the federal government Theprofound impacts of the information technology revolution and the ClintonAdministration's support for further development of a National Spatial DataInfrastructure (NSDI) provided additional impetus for the study.

This report, prepared under the supervision of a distinguished panel of AcademyFellows and outside experts, addresses broadly these issues of public management inthe context of the nation's total needs for geographic information and how they canbest be met. It draws on the work of other organizations, extensive contacts with offi-cials in all levels of government and leaders in the private sector, and a two-day confer-ence designed to tap the knowledge and ideas of experts in the field.

The Panel endorses vigorous development of the NSDI. It urges creation of a nationalforum to address geographic information policy issues, limited consolidation of federalagencies responsible for the most basic foundation layers of spatial data, reliance onthe private sector's burgeoning capabilities to nroduce and disseminate smatial data

u o -r - .r- - -r--

Aix/Jn "'r

and further expansion of partnership arrangements to advance the concept of sharedresponsibility for spatial data development and dissemination. At the same time, thePanel endorses current federal policy for maintaining open, low-cost access to spatialdata generated by or for governments.

The Panel found that there are many technological challenges to realizing the full promiseof a robust NSDI, but the greatest challenges now appear to be on the human side. Thetechnology makes it possible to provide remarkable new capacities for governments andthe American people and to do many things more efficiently, but implementationrequires significant changes in human relationships and behaviors as well. We hope therecommendations of the Panel help point the way to meeting these challenges.

The Academy thanks the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping and the fourfederal agencies who sponsored this study - the Bureau of Land Management, theForest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Ocean Service - for pro-viding the opportunity to undertake this work. Many people at all levels of govern-ment, the private sector, and academia devoted countless hours providing information,insights, and ideas to the Panel and project team for which we are most grateful. Specialthanks also go to the busy people who served on the Panel and the staff who performedthe work The report has benefited from these many contributions.

R. Scott FoslerPresident

Foreword

'V

EXECUTIVE SUM A'

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 NationalAcademy of Public Administration (the Academy) to undertake a formal study of civilianfederal surveying and mapping activities. The American Congress on Surveying andMapping (ACSM) had served as the catalyst for the study, suggested a potential role for theAcademy, and formulated an initial list of the major topics to be addressed. Officials fromthe four sponsoring agencies determined that trends in the larger geospatial arenarequired a revisiting of how their agencies and how other federal agencies, provide sur-veying, mapping, and other geographic information (GI) services.*

The project was undertaken partly in response to the fiscal-year 1996 HouseAppropriations Committee report language that urged USGS to work within theDepartment of the Interior (DOI) to identify options for consolidating federal mappingfunctions at the department and to work with the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on consolidating these functions governmentwide. OMB led a FederalMapping Task Force study in 1973 that considered management alternatives and advo-cated greater consolidation of federal GI functions. Additionally, the trend towarddevolution of government programs to state and local governments and the need toaddress the congressional concerns about the existence, structure, and funding levelsfor federal surveying and mapping functions precipitated the necessity for more timelyinformation about how current federal GI functions and services can be most effec-tively 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, con-clusions, and recommendations, which are presented below, according to the four

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

Ixi'qV

topical areas the Panel was asked to address. In formulating its recommendations, thePanel considered the issues from a broad, national perspective - one that took accountof the needs and resources of all levels of government, academia, the private sector, andthe general public.

Selected recommendations are presented in this summary, followed by a completelist of recommendations which are contained in Chapters Three through Seven of thefull report.

NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NSDI)

One of the most significant changes since the earlier mapping studies has been thegrowing acceptance of an NSDI. Members of the "GI community" throughout thecountry seem naturally attracted to the idea of combining the resources of the variouslevels of government and the private sector to develop and maintain automated data-bases of geospatial information. Many believe that data should be made widely avail-able at no cost or at reasonable cost to the user, and that this will satisfy an almostinfinite variety of governmental, commercial, and societal needs.

In 1994, the President issued an executive order supporting implementation of anNSDI that he defined as the "technology, policies, standards, and human resources neces-sary 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 docu-ment, 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, andsocial progress.

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

Toward An NSDI Ideal

0 There is a common spatial data foundation organized according to widelyaccepted layers and scales (or resolution) that is available for the entire area ofgeographic coverage (parcel, neighborhood, city, county, state, nation, etc.) towhich other geospatial data can be easily referenced.

The foundation data is readily accessible and available at no or little cost fromuser-friendly and seamless sources to meet public needs and encourage confor-mance with it by producers of other geospatial data.

*Both foundation and other geospatial data, as required and specified coopera-tively by data producers and users, is updated according to commonly acceptedstandards and measures of quality.

,iary

xii L'V7

.... u..1---I __ I - ___ -i - - .,1 II

I· Iutci1i(L ani taDular aata are also avaluale on terms not incompatible with thefoundation data.

" When cost-effective, geospatial data produced by one organization, politicaljurisdiction, or nation is compatible with similar data produced by other organi-zations, political jurisdictions or nations.

* Geospatial data can be integrated with many other kinds or sets of data to pro-duce information useful for decisionmakers and the public, when appropriate.

* Responsibility for generating, maintaining, and distributing the data is widelyshared by different levels of government and the private sector. Governmentstake advantage of private-sector capabilities available at reasonable prices ratherthan maintaining dedicated capabilities.

* The costs of generating, maintaining, and distributing such data are justified interms of public benefits and/or private gains; overlap and duplication amongparticipating organizations is avoided wherever possible.

Many useful steps have been taken to further an NSDI since 1994. These efforts arehelping to transform the "old" GI processes into more comprehensive and integratedsets of policies, standards, and procedures for an NSDI. Nonetheless, the challenges ofgetting to an NSDI that is fully populated with current, accurate, and readily accessiblespatial 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, theresources available to further them must come largely from within, not as add-ons.Problems, such as data management, integration and maintenance; gaining adherenceto standards; providing easy and widespread access; and protecting privacy and per-sonal property, demand attention and resolution. In addition, technologies alreadyavailable 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 cur-rent executive order still needs to be made. Such a statute, at minimum, should include:

* a list of congressional findings about G(

* a statement of national goals and a definition for NSDI

· a charter for tie National Spatial Data Council (see below)

· orders for the consolidation of federal base GI functions

* modifications to existing law to facilitate GI partnerships, cooperative researchand development agreements (CRADAs), and private-sector procurements

* amendments or rescissions of current law to modernize and conform existingprogram authorizations to the NSDI concept.

Recommendation

* Draft a new statute in cooperation with state and local governments andother organizations to create an NSDI, establish a National Spatial DataCouncil, and better define federal agency roles and responsibilities forNSDI so as to meet the participating organizations' programmatic needs.

The Panel's responses to the questions posed by the study sponsors build on thishacir r^rr\wnmnsA«% ̂ i*-i j

,.A. ·L .t .XC- mUL.lLUi.U1k.u

xiii

. 'A

F

/' )

L

STUDY QUESTIONS AND THE PANEL'S RESPONSES

Is GI Acquisition, Analysis, and Distribution Critical to Keeping the UnitedStates 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'sstudy, though the importance of GI systems in the global, national, regional, local, andpersonal 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 assess-ment. The measures of benefits provided to decisionmaking about land and resources,and the distribution of costs and benefits among individuals and components of soci-ety, are poorly documented.

GI and geographic information systems (GIS) are beginning to change how govern-ment does business as the complexity of societal interactions and the ease of datamanipulation increases. It is neither possible nor necessary to measure and/or assesson a personal or global scale the importance of each or all these activities. The infor-mation age now makes it possible and desirable to do many things with geospatial datathat were previously impossible and to gain new insights on a variety of public policyIssues. While the ultimate value and Importance of GI is nout in doubt because of thewide range and significance of the economic areas it impacts, measuring and verifyingit is an evolving process.

The U.S. economy is in a highly advantageous competitive position internationally andis well-situated to export the information-rich tools its strong commercial GI industryhas developed. U.S. companies are recognized as worldwide leaders in the developmentand marketing of GI capabilities and products. The United States is a leader in estab-lishing standards vital to integrating both data and analysis, and its representatives havea lead role in helping to structure international standards that are both compatible withU.S. technology and consistent with U.S. GI approaches. The United States is also in thelead in developing a clearinghouse for GI. In the world economy, die Unlited States is

believed to dominate the GI market, and it has served as the model for more recent GIinitiatives in the European Community and Japan. Although many countries are adapt-ing the growing kit of GI tools in the context of their own national political structuresand economic approaches, U.S. leadership is likely to continue as long as the U.S. gov-ernment and industry build on current progress and create a robust NSDI.

What Is the Appropriate Role, Given Recent Technological and SociologicalTrends, of the Federal Government in Civilian Surveying, Mapping, andOther GI?

What Functions Are Largely Federal, as Contrasted with Those That Are MoreAppropriately Administered by State and Local Governments, the PrivateSector, or Academe?

The Panel identified 12 major public purposes of the federal government - such asproperty rights and voting, agriculture and natural resource development, and emer-gency management - that now rely on GI, and showed how they relate to several com-

"47

/ q 2

iary

mon types of GI that the federal government collects. Some of these purposes are pur-sued directly by the federal government (management of the public lands and nauticalcharting, for example), while others are pursued in partnership with state and localgovernments through federal aid and federal regulatory programs (transportation, forexample). Some, like ecosystem management, are equally applicable to federal agen-cies and to state and local governments. Some also apply to the private sector (agricul-ture, transportation, property rights, environmental protection, for example).

The following three roles in providing GI seem most appropriate for the federalgovernment:

* ensure GI availability to support federal policymaking and operationalresponsibilities

* ensure that federally-imposed GI requirements on state, local, and tribal govern-ments are reasonably attainable and consistent

* help improve GI data quality and accessibility to benefit an expanding array ofusers through standards, a national clearinghouse, data archiving, and basic geo-science support.

Recommendations

In order to help achieve the geography-related public purposes of federal,state, local, and tribal governments, and public utilities more effectivelyand efficiently, the federal government should ensure full and rapid imple-mentation of the NSDI in a cost-effective and cooperative manner.

* Interagency, intergovernmental, and private-sector GI users and producergroups, whose cooperation is essential to implementing NSDI, should con-tinue to be convened to encourage and accelerate the development, shar-ing, and maintenance of NSDI framework data files. These groups shouldbe used to negotiate additional data sharing and joint funding agreements.

* The potential for using geographically referenced data from governmentand private transactions to maintain nationwide GI databases should beexploited whenever appropriate and cost-effective to ensure that the mostcurrent information is incorporated into the NSDI.

If Some Functions Are Deemed Suitable to Be Commercialized, Privatized, orTransferred to Nonfederal Governments, What Would Be the Effectivenessand Economic Impact of Those Transfers?

Governmental Functions: The Panel is convinced that the division between inher-ently governmental and private-sector activities is changing, will continue to shift, andis best settled by consensus rather than reliance on predetermined or philosophicaljudgments. In many cases, governments will continue to have a legitimate interest inensuring availability of GI through wide public access. In those activities that involvegovernment liability for the data, as in the case of nautical and aeronautical charts andforest maps, the government should exercise greater control. But more and more theprivate sector will want very similar data for commercial or business geographic rea-sons and may make it available at a price to governments. There is no reason to attemptto preclude appropriate resolution and accommodation by preemptively narrowing

jxv

/93

1r _ _ · _ .ss

the role of either. The lack of a clearly defined division between governmental and pri-vaLe-sector roles is not unique to GI - economic data, societal trends, and informationgenerally are not neatly parceled. This may result in some temporary uncertainties, andeven some healthy duplication and competition, between the sectors.

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

Devolution Options: The Panel examined several candidate GI activities for possibledevolution to state or local jurisdictions, including public land records, base carto-graphic mapping, and the production of digital orthophotoquads. The long-standingfederal Public Land Survey System (PLSS) complements state, local and private landrecords, 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 ofland ownership and encroachment are common. Similarly, states and local govern-ments 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 ofthe goals of an NSDI have required, and will continue to require, intergovernmentalcoordination and cooperation, as opposed to unilateral product responsibility, and itwould not be prudent to recklessly devolve substantial major land record, base carto-graphic, or orthophoto production responsibilities to state and local governments.

Candidates for Privatization: The Panel considered several GI activities as possiblecandidates for privatization during its deliberations. These included current govern-mental recreation mapping in which almost all federal landholders service recreationalland use by the public in federally owned parks, forests, wilderness areas, flood-controlprojects, and hydroelectric sites; production of so-called digital raster graphics (DRGs),currently almost completely outsourced; and street mapping, which is increasinglybeing privately compiled to support automated automobile navigation systems. Thereare clear cost advantages to privatizing some or all of these activities, or at least relyingon the private sector to produce many of these products, even if market incentives areinadequate to provide uniform nationwide coverage. Nonetheless, the Panel noted thatthere are potential liability and quality-assurance difficulties that would need to beaddressed and felt it was premature to endorse specific GI activities as candidates forprivatization. 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 con-stant shifts among four sectors: pure government, government enterprises, govern-ment purchases from the private sector, and commercial enterprise. There is no singleright answer to the question of which public purposes should be met within any givensector. Times change, and the answers change with the times. All four sectors are usedto meet public needs. At any given moment, the Constitution and the laws enacted by

:ary

xvi L'IV

Congress provide the answer to what should be the proper balance among the four sec-tors, or an array of options that may be used.

Partnerships: Multilateral partnering and consortiums are more likely to build the formof intergovernmental coordination and private-sector cooperation that the NSDIrequires. Increasingly, consortiums, rather than bilateral partnering, are needed to meetthe mutual geospatial data needs of multiple users and provide a means to promotecooperation and data-sharing. The GI capabilities of states and localities need to bestrengthened. Empowering their GI groups, adopting and implementing national stan-dards, promoting greater linkages with counties, cities, and other local jurisdictionswould greatly improve the ability of states and localities to build the NSDI. Federal agen-cies and the FGDC, for their part, need to coordinate their demands on state and localGI groups, support state and local programs responsive to their data needs, and encour-age greater awareness and understanding of the value and utility of the NSDI, includingFGDC standards, clearinghouse 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, asituation that is likely to be exacerbated as more data is digitized and becomes availableon line. These practices constrain partnering to dte mutual disadvantage of all sectors.

Recommendations

* GI resource managers should increasingly emphasize multilateral partner-ships - interagency, inter-governmental, and with the private sector - topromote a robust NSDI and as a source of savings. Broad consortiums thatinvolve multiple governmental levels and engage the private sector shouldbe favored, and USGS's unique authority to engage in innovative partner-ships should be extended to other agencies.

" Multilateral partnering, including CRADA-type partnering with the privatesector on agency operational activities, should be increased. Governmentagencies should avoid engaging in value-added activities beyond the R&Dphase when they can be provided by the private sector at or near govern-ment 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 shouldbe avoided.

* The federal government policy of promoting open access, especially for alldata used in public policy decisionmaking, should be maintained and thestates and localities should be urged to adopt similar policies.

* The federal government, possibly under the lead of the FGDC, should articu-late a dear policy or draft legislation that allows the government to workcooperatively with the private sector to protect private-sector intellectual prop-erty rights for GI, particularly uniquely private and value-added data sets.

Exec

Axvll

Are There Opportunities to Consolidate or Otherwise Restructure FederalSurveying, Mapping, and Other GI Functions to Achieve Greater Economyand Performance?

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

While the FGDC has been instrumental in much of the progress achieved over the pastfew years, the Panel is convinced that an organization is needed which provides fullparticipation by all the major parties and interests engaged in developing and main-taining the NSDI.

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

Charter and Mission* advances national goals for dhe NSDI, preferably through a new federal law

provides a forum for bringing together the views of all sectors engaged in devel-oping, 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 (Nil), and policy com-munities 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

" mnainlailn staL-of-tLt art knowledge about advancLs in GI and elated

technologies

* help ensure that goals set for the NSDI are actually carried out in practice byserving 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 forthis function

* provide training and education on the utility of and techniques for fosteringthe NSDI

Recommendations for Immediate ActionIn order to aid in reconciling conflicts and to monitor agency implementa-tion, designate that the OMB program associate director for naturalresources, energy, and science be a full member of the FGDC.

xviii K7 V 1/3,

mary

To bring a broader technology perspective to the FGDC, a senior staffmember of the Office of Science and Technology Policy also should be amember of the committee.

* Until the NSDC is established, increase state, local, and tribal governmentparticipation in the FGDC and encourage stronger involvement by the pri-vate 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 muchgeospatial data as possible, including that derived from states, local gov-ernments, 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 ofthe plans to develop it among the public, members of Congress, state legis-latures, county commissions, city councils, professional associations, andcommercial interests.

* Establish through legislation a national goal to create and maintaina robust NSDI.

* Create a private, nonprofit NSDC, modeled on the current FGDC and NSDIcharters, with appropriate representation by all levels of government andthe private sector.

* Retain a federal committee with ties to the NSDC to coordinate federal GIunder the NSDI.

Consolidating Base Geographic Information Functions into a New GeographicData Service (GDS)The current federal structures and practices for GI need not be massively transformed aswas recommended in 1973 and 1981, in part because of evolving technology and grow-ing interagency cooperation, but the Panel believes that consolidation of base GI func-tions 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 anaccident of history as they are a logical choice to meet today's and tomorrow's GIneeds. For example, geodetic referencing emerged as part of the Coast and GeodeticSurvey because of its affiliation with rcquircmcnts for nautical charting, even thoughgeodesy relates more to the land mass and precise positioning on land than coastal orocean navigation. Similarly, aeronautical charting evolved in the same organizationbecause 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 agencyboundaries, political jurisdictions, and the public and private sectors are the goals, thenthe Panel believes it is essential to achieve "critical mass" by bringing together most of thefundamental components that are responsible for the basic CI functions of the federalgovernment. These goals are enormously ambitious, and efforts to achieve them require

Exe

j 1xi

i>^ Ur

__

a strong mandate and solid support. Good intentions, consensus, and technology alonewill 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 refo-cused on federal GI activities, and stronger partnerships with key state, local, and pri-vate-sector participants are all necessary to meet the goals.

The mission of this new organization would encompass that of all the agencies trans-ferred into it, but the whole should literally be more than the sum of its parts. Thereforeits mission should be to:

Support the full development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure andensure that U.S. economic, governmental, and societal needs for geographic infor-mation and services are met in cooperation with all levels of government and theprivate sector.

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

Capacity-sharing among federal agencies and with state and local governments fordevelopment of the NSDI requires a strong field presence and coordinated effortsamong federal agencies in dealing with the states. Unfortunately, current federal fieldoffice jurisdictional boundaries and their divergent geographic locations, some ofwhich do not conform to state boundaries, make the process of coordination difficultand complex. Some agencies have established state coordinators lor their programs,but there is no one charged with interacting with state, local, and tribal governments ona broad base of GI functions. Had the ten standard federal regions of the 1970s sur-vived, the problem might not be as complex, but the tendency in recent years has beenfor agencies to tailor their field structures to meet program needs and facilitate interac-tion with local, state and regional counterparts.

The service's new field structure would be state-based to link more directly with state GIcooidilLathg groups and to local and uibal gouvCtrnetiL GIS capabilities in those sLates.State liaisons could be patterned after the NGS geodetic advisers and made responsiblefor coordinating with federal program officials having GI-related responsibilities. Oneapproach would be to establish 20-25 GI centers. Each center would be responsible fora variety of GDS programs. In this way, each could ensure that the different data effortscorrespond 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

mary

Service (GDS) contingent upon submission of a reorganization plan pre-pared by a task force mandated by OMB.

* Consider creating a performance-based organization in DOI for federal sur-veying and land-title records activities.

Recommendations for the Longer Term

* Develop a reorganization plan in cooperation with the NSDC to implementthe 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 beimproved through modification to existing management processes and procedures.Among these is the establishment of strategic plans for each agency with explicit ties toagency performance measures and results, as required by the Government Performanceand Results Act. Currently, separate agency strategic plans and performance measuresare not being integrated. Similarly, the success of the National Aerial PhotographyProgram that consolidates a large portion of mapping-quality aircraft imagery couldserve 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 federalagencies' global change research into a single program; no comparable effort to consol-idate and streamline surveying, mapping and GI research exists in the GI area.

Recommendations

* Develop coordinated goals, strategies, performance measures, and budgetsfor federal agency GI programs and activities. Explicitly establish selectedstrategic 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 fed-eral acquisition of imagery for civil government purposes from aerial plat-forms, and classified intelligence, civil domestic, foreign, and commercialsatellites.

· The FGDC should act as the focal point for coordinating the high priorityGI technology needs of civil government at all levels and for mobilizinginteragency, state, and local support for selective high-payoff technologydevelopments with utility in multiple civil applications.

Domestic-National Security Relations

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

Recommendations

* NIMA should become much more actively engaged in the FGDC because ofthe increasing need to coordinate GI activities, including technological

/I~~~ Clioi~ jxxi/ e»o An

research, standards, security policy, procurement practices, and interna-tional activities.

* A policy-level committee that includes the secretary of interior, the direc-tors of NIMA and the National Reconnaissance Office, a representative ofthe director of central intelligence, and other appropriate representativesshould be established to focus on policies needed to foster greater civil useof classified imagery.

* The Civil Applications Committee (CAC), supported by the USGS'sAdvanced Systems Center, should become the technical and implementingarm of this committee.

Agencies' Views and Comments

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

xxii L

'LV On_

2o/

Theater HQ Open SourceInformation Requirements

Presented byCaptain Carl 0. Schuster

USN (Ret)

Open Source Intelligence

* Should be considered and treated like anyother intelligence discipline

* Best used as a resource saver - Why useprecious all-source or sensitive resourceswhen OSINT can do it

* Can provide a foundation or alert for all-source intelligence production

Theater Headquarters

* Headquarters with GeographicResponsibilities- Theater Security Cooperation Programs-Work bi-lateral and multi-lateral programs and

operations* Functional or Specialized Mission-Related

Headquarters- Have global responsibilities & concerns- Have functional information requirements

Geographic Commands

* Open Source Intelligence Supports- Situational awareness, particularly in regions,

countries and locales that suffer a low-priorityof intelligence coverage

-VIP, action officer and unit travels, visits anddeployments

- Disaster warning and response planning- Monitoring public reaction to U.S., bi-lateral

and multi-lateral plans, activities andoperations

Situational Awareness

* Well presented OSINT can provide "broad area"awareness at no cost to national-level ortheater-intelligence assets

* OSINT can facilitate cost-effective employmentof national and theater-intelligence assets- Many events of interest to action officers do not

warrant increased all-source Intelligencecoverage

- OSINT can alert HQ/JIC/JAC to need for increasedattentlon/collection in low-priority areas

Trip/Deployment Support

* Basic Country, Province and CityInformation

* Health, Crime, Safety Concerns* Cultural Dos and Don'ts* Key Public Issues and Responses to U.S.

programs, policies, activities andoperations

* Identify the key players and providebiographies when possible

I

r

I

1

2

Trip/Deployment Support* Identify best times to visit (weather, environment,

etc) if timing is an option* What's changed since last visit (roads, buildings,

health issues, logistics, etc)* What US and local issues has government

reported to its people* What is public "before, during and after" reaction

to the visit- What did they say in vernacular press/media?- Did vernacular differ from English-language

reporting?

Natural Disasters/Response

* Weather-related natural disaster warningwill come via open not-classified sources

* Most disaster response requirements willbe identified and reported by open sources

* Most partners in disaster response will nothave clearances: Info Sharing = OpenSource

Public Reaction

* OSINT can provide low-cost monitoring oflocal, national or regional reaction to U.S.policies, activities and operations

* Globally, public impacting governmentoperations more and more- Public opposition or support increasingly

shapes government actions and policies- Growing need to build foreign as well as

public consensus for operations

"Globally - Perception Is Reality"

* Defeating inaccurate perceptions requires rapid"perception awareness" and response- Perceptions shape reactions and support- A successful operation perceived as a failure, will

"fall" eventually because resources chasesuccess not failure

- A hostile perception generates a hostile response* OSINT can inform the commander of how his

statements, activities and operations areperceived

Functional Headquarters

* Same as Geographic Headquarters only with aglobal monitoring requirement- Service and functional commands have global

Interests and concerns- Situational awareness requirement is broader but

becomes deeper when deployment nears* Special Operations have very detailed requirements* Transportation units largely go Into areas suffering low-

priorities of coverage* Properly executed OSINT support can

accelerate planning process, enable sensitivesources to focus on "difficult" collection

Headquarters Partners

* OSINT can provide situational awarenessand background planning support tooperational partners who lack, or havelimited access to classified- Reserve and National Guard personnel and

units don't have same pre-deploymentclassified access as regular units

- Police and local emergency responders don'thave clearances, much less classified access

r

...

_~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _

_ _

203

3

Bottom Line

* OSINT is not a threat - it is a support multiplier* Sometimes having information to share will

further your objectives better than informationdominance over your partners

* Most HQ information requirements are mundaneand can be met by OSINT

* Don't waste precious all-source/sensitiveintelligence resources chasing mundane, openlyavailable information

OSS '03 PROCEEDINGS "BEYOND OSINT: Creating the Global Multi-Cultural

Intelligence Web" - Link PagePrevious 21st Century Analysis

Next REINVENTING COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Return to Electronic Index Page