What's the status of the NSDI? Cowen's address will provide his perspective on the current status of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). He will draw from his extensive experience with the National Research Council’s Mapping Science Committee, chairing the NRC study National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future, a recent term as chair of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee, and his service as vice chairman of the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO) Report Card Committee on the NSDI. Through these activities he has observed and analyzed the Federal geospatial landscape for the thirty years since president Clinton issued Executive Order 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure in 1994. He will comment on the changing role of various stakeholders in the collection, maintenance and sharing of geospatial data.

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

2. Objectives
 Brief personal background
 Structure of the US geospatial programs
 COGO – Framework Report Card
 Cadastre
 Recent GAO reports

3. Personal History

4. GIS Before Esri
Dissertation
1968
Early 1970’s Land Use

5. Late 1970’s Coastal Zone
Management

6. Research Interests
DOE – Environmental Atlas State – Economic Development
NASA - Commercial Apps Parcel Level Analysis Campus 3D models

7. State Coordination 1983 -
2005
1983 2005

8. 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

9. Mapping Science Committee – Specific Data Themes

10. • 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

11. 2003

13. 1994

14. 1994 President Clinton - Coordinating
Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: NSDI

15. Evolution of OMB A-16
(Milo Robinson )

16. Framework 1997

17. ARGUMENTS FOR AN EXTENDED FRAMEWORK
Framework Layers

18. Evolution

19. Next Generation SDI

20. Lots of Governance Models

21. Current Model

22. NGAC Purpose
 will 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

23. A few members
Dr. Robert Austin, NGAC Chair
Manager, Enterprise Applications
Integration
City of Tampa, FL
Dr. Jerry Johnston, NGAC Vice Chair
Geographic Information Officer
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. Keith Clarke
Professor, Department of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara
Mr. Steve Coast
Principal Architect, Bing Maps
Microsoft Corporation
Mr. Jack Dangermond
President
ESRI
.
Mr. Michael Jones
Chief Technology Advocate
Google, Inc.
Mr. Don Dittmar
Waukesha County Land
Information Office
Mr. Roger Mitchell
Senior Vice President, Program Development
MDA Information Systems, Inc.
Dr. Michele Motsko
Director, National Center for Geospatial Intelligence Standards
U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Mr. Dan Cotter
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mr. Mark Reichardt
President & CEO
Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.
Dr. Douglas Richardson
Executive Director
Association of American Geographers
Mr. Gene Trobia
State Cartographer
State of Arizona
Ms. Molly Vogt
GIS Program Supervisor
Oregon Metro
Mr. David Wyatt
GIS Manager
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

24. 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?”

25. Key NGAC Products
NGAC Transition
Recommendations
Changing Geospatial Landscape
White Paper

26. 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

27. 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.”

28. 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.

29. Report Card on the
U.S. National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
Prepared for the Coalition of Geospatial
Organizations (COGO)
DAVID J. COWEN, VICE CHAIRMAN
PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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

31. “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…

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

33. Work on the Report Card began in 2014 with
the selection of the Expert Panel
James E. Geringer
Chair
Dr. David J. Cowen
Vice-Chair
John J. Moeller
Vice-Chair
Susan Carson Lambert Thomas D. Rust Dr. John D. Bossler RobertT.Welch

34. ASCE Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

35. 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

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

37. Assessment Methodology
• The Panel graded both the individual Framework DataThemes
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.

38. 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

39. Grading Criteria
• A = FIT FORTHE 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 = REQUIRESATTENTION 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.

40. Framework Layer Evaluations
Cadastral Data
DOI-BLM (land) & BOEM (offshore)
Geodetic Control
DOC – NOAA/NGS
Elevation Data
DOI – USGS (land)
DOC - NOAA (water)
D+
C+
B+

41. Governmental Units Data
DOC - Census
Hydrography Data
DOI - USGS
Orthoimagery Data
USDA – FSA (NAIP)
DOI – USGS (leaf-off)
Transportation Data
USDOT - BTS
C
C
C+
D

42. 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
D
D
C
C
C
C

43. the result…

44. after thinking about the issues…
the Expert Panel had the following conclusions
and recommendations…

45. 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 NationalGeospatial 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.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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

52. Closing Comments
A BILL
To improve the coordination and use of geospatial data
Be 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.

53. Geospatial Data Act of 2015
1) Providing FGDC with authority to make
other agencies follow the rules
2) Providing Congressional oversight to make
FGDC and the other agencies accountable
3) AllowingCongress 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 –

54. New Conceptual Model Developed
by the Expert Panel

55. 55
TIGER
Data
Community
TIGER
Services
Census Products
TIGER Updates
Partner
Data
Contribution
Management
Service
Simplified System Architecture

56. Lets talk about cadastre
56

58. Waukesha County WI
Excellent Parcel map

59. Data Base Relational Join

60. 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.”

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

62. Parcels are linked to many operations
of Government

63. But, of course, we knew that in 1980

65. Land Parcel Databases: A National Vision
The National Research Council Study Committee

67. 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: AVision for the Future” (NRC, 2007).
• Furthermore, in light of the discussion and analysis within this
chapter, perhaps the Cadastral DataTheme should be
considered for removal from the Framework layers
and re-addressed as a separate significant initiative.

68. 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.”

69. 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.

70. 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.

71. 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).

72. Governmental Units – parcels critical

73. Thailand - $118.1 Million from U.S. taxpayers

74. Congressional Research
Service

75. Katrina

76. HUD – Request for Parcels
June 2006 – 10 Months Later !!!

77. Southern California

78. Cooperation
Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR)

79. 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

80. 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

82. Cowen Quote

83. Dodd – Frank - 2010

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

85. Russian Public Cadaster Portal
Jack Dangermond
NGAC Meeting
March 18, 2011

86. Many Governments Are Developing National GIS Strategies
Geospatial Platform – USA
Abu Dhabi
INSPIRE – EU China
Providing Shared Geospatial Knowledge
Emerging
Systems
Indonesia
India
Russia
Programs / Platforms Systems

87. Parcel search by address
Search results Coloration of
search results
Address point
Search query
interface

88. 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

89. GAO – Nov 2012

90. 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

91. 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.”

92. GAO – February 2015

93. 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.

94. Matter for Congressional
Consideration
 Congress 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.

95. 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.

96. NGAC ignored
 NSGIC 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.

97. Addresses
 In 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.

98. Next Generation 9-1-1
 Next 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.

99. 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.