In 1993, 1994, and 1995 this committee issued reports on the contents of NSDI, the need for development of a robust NSDI in the United States, and a method for satisfying that need through creative partnerships (NRC, 1993, 1994, 1995). These reports have received widespread acceptance, and as the concepts embodied in these reports mature, it is becoming increasingly obvious that an effective and widely used NSDI will be developed with substantial if not primary input from organizations outside of the federal government. The FGDC has undertaken the task of promoting the development of the NSDI. The core contents of the NSDI are referred to as the Framework. The seven themes that form the Framework for the NSDI were detailed in Chapter 1 and are identified in Table 1. In addition, the Framework also includes procedures, guidelines, and technology to enable participants to build, integrate, maintain, distribute, and use Framework data. In this chapter we explore the roles of non-federal organizations, and offer suggestions as to appropriate extensions of the NSDI conceptual framework at the state, tribal, city, and county levels.

The Framework, as it is now defined, serves the purposes of the federal government and is useful for national or large-region proj-

ects. But the seven themes, as now defined, may not fulfill the needs for more local studies by states, tribal nations, cities, and counties, for two reasons:

1. The information the seven themes encompass is required in greater detail at the local level. For example, roads may have to be described by their edges instead of by their centerline. Property owners and local officials often need to define and locate the right of way between an individual’s property and a road. Tax maps are often the most critical resource in resolving local land use and zoning conflicts. These maps must also be integrated with the location of specific buildings and the location of utility infrastructure networks. It simply is not feasible to accurately depict these features at the map scale used by federal mapping organizations. In fact, the largest scale federal map series is still the USGS 1:24,000 series of 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. In the local mapping community, maps of this scale would be considered small scale with a map accuracy of approximately 40 feet, based on the statistical methods advocated in the FGDC standard for specification of spatial accuracy. The base maps for large-scale mapping are often legally required to be of a scale of 1 inch to 100 feet or 1:1200.

   The requirement for large-scale source materials is critical for the development of federal-local partnerships. It must be noted that this is not the first time that a NRC committee has highlighted the need for federal support for the development of a nation-wide database that accurately depicts individual property ownership records (see Box 5). The committee is pleased to note that the FGDC has recognized this need for increased resolution, concluding in its 2000 assessment of the Community Demonstration Projects that “…many federal datasets lack sufficient resolution to support local planning needs…” and advocating that “…federal agencies should continue to enhance the quality of data using the latest technology…” (FGDC, 2001).

2. Additional themes may be needed at the state, tribal nation, county, and city levels: for example, water rights in the western United States, or utility information at municipal levels. It is clear that not

all types of data layers are used by everybody, but at the state, tribal nation, city, and county levels some additional themes are used by a great number of users. In such cases, it may make sense to incorporate these additional data themes into an extended Framework, incorporating all fundamental data layers identified for the cities, counties, tribal nations, states, and the nation.

In general, one would expect that data layers might require increasingly finer resolution and perhaps a greater amount of data detail at the city or county level than at the state or tribal nation level. The same may be true of the state or tribal nation level compared to the national level. Of course, some data layers may have the identical resolution and data detail in more than one of the three geographic levels (nation, state or tribal, local). The committee developed a matrix that attempts to examine the responsibility for the creation and maintenance of different framework data layers (Table 1). The data layers are the ones mentioned in the National Academy of Public Administration’s 1998 publication, Geographic Information for the 21st Century (NAPA, 1998). The intent of this matrix is simply to demonstrate that the NSDI must be built on the basis of shared responsibilities, costs, benefits, and control. The committee recognizes that responsibilities will vary across the country depending on available resources and differing mandates and regulations, as well as property ownership, density of development, and other factors.

The matrix could serve as a useful starting point for the development of an extended framework. Preliminary designations of primary and supplementary responsibilities for each layer are indicated. It should be noted that orthoimagery is viewed as a critical component of the development of any extended Framework data collection effort. The ultimate responsibility for the creation and maintenance of any individual theme would be determined by the legislative or regulatory mandates in a particular region. It must be acknowledged that local government requirements for zoning, property assessment, or other land-use decisions will often determine where such authority resides. Some local governments have been able to couple these mandates with the requisite financial resources to develop such systems independent of other organizations. The chal

lenge is to find ways to reach a common ground that can benefit all the potential users. This visual representation of the actual features on the ground, in their planimetrically correct position, provides the best evidence and source material for updating and correcting spatial data. A fundamental goal and driving force behind an extended Framework is that data will be collected once and maintained regularly. In other words, if a data layer is part of the NSDI and also a component of both

a State Spatial Data Infrastructure (SSDI) and a Local Spatial Data Infrastructure (LSDI), the data for these layers need to be collected at the lowest level and generalized to the other levels. This ensures logical consistency among the parts of the extended NSDI Framework. Again, it must be noted that the data content standards being developed by the FGDC working groups are facilitating this process. The 16 accepted standards and the additional ones under development represent a major effort to develop consistent definitions and descriptions of geographic features and attributes.

There are at least nine major steps necessary to realize this extended Framework:

1. Definition of the contents of the city, county, or local extended Framework.

2. Definition of the contents of the state or tribal nation extended Framework.

3. Definition of the extended Framework hardware architecture.

4. Definition of coordination mechanisms.

5. Assignments for layer responsibilities.

6. Definition of quality standards (collection and maintenance) and procedures for the development of the extended Framework at all levels.

7. Data generation in agreement with the corresponding Framework.

8. Data maintenance program.

9. Budget allocation.

This chapter primarily addresses the first and second items above. For further details and discussions, the interested reader is directed to the recent National Academy of Public Administration’s volume entitled Geographic Information for the 21st Century (NAPA, 1988). With respect to the last item above, the lack of financial resources will be an impediment to development of an extended Framework for smaller counties, cities, and possibly states. In such cases, substantial subsidies will be needed from higher levels of government, unless development can be financed through partnerships with other organizations.