Regional Federal Perspectives 

Background 

The Fifty States Initiative is “a partnership between the National States Geographic 

Information Council [NSGIC] and the Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC]. It 

is designed to bring all public and private stakeholders together in statewide GIS 

[geographic information system] coordination bodies that help to form effective 

partnerships and lasting relationships” (NSGIC 2009). To implement the initiative, the 

FGDC supports States’ efforts to develop and implement statewide strategic and business 

plans that facilitate the coordination of programs, policies, and technologies in support of 

the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (FGDC 2008). For more information about the 

Fifty States Initiative, see the FGDC web site 

http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/50states/50states and the NSGIC web site 

http://www.nsgic.org/hottopics/fifty_states.cfm. 

The FGDC started supporting State strategic and business planning activities in 2006. 

Including awards made in 2009, 41 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands have received support. 

The FGDC is reviewing the Fifty States Initiative. One goal of the review is to enhance 

coordination efforts through better inclusion of Federal agencies and programs. The 

FGDC is engaging Federal personnel to gain insights about how coordination can be 

enhanced. 

Because regional offices of Federal agencies often have responsibilities to carry out 

Federal programs, the FGDC sought perspectives from regional Federal personnel who 

have responsibilities for coordinating their agency’s geospatial activities with those of 

State and local government agencies in their regions. Six persons from four agencies 

were interviewed. These persons coordinate with fourteen States, of which eleven have 

completed or ongoing “Fifty States” planning activities. 

They were asked questions developed for the review. The questions asked and the main 

points from their responses are provided below. The responses might not be consistent 

because the individuals interviewed, and their agencies, have different views and 

experiences. 

For more information about the interviews, please contact Michael Domaratz by 

telephone at 703.317.6929 or by electronic mail to mdomaratz@mbakercorp.com. 

Are personnel in regions aware of the National and State 

Fifty States activities? 

• The Federal Geographic Data Committee’s (FGDC) national Fifty States 

Initiative 

o Limited awareness of the national initiative 

o Most knowledge is gained from meetings, such as those of National States 

Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and regional groups 

• Individual States’ “Fifty States” activities 

1 February 17, 2009

o Depends in part on how actively the State advertises its efforts 
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

o Some individuals actively participate; other individuals participate 

passively through receipt of meeting announcements, notes, and 

anecdotes. 

o Individuals might participate in some States, but not in others, because of 

different levels of awareness of States’ activities. 

How could Federal agencies benefit from State 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Strategic 

and Business Plans? 

• Increase in communication among organizations (local, regional, state, federal, 

private, academic, and non-profit) that collect and use geospatial data within the 

State 

• Ability to identify organizations’ business needs that underpin needs for 

geospatial data. A better understanding of this might allow participants to suggest 

substitutions and trade-offs. 

• Ability to coordinate and consolidate otherwise independent geospatial data 

collection efforts being conducted by entities within a State (in cases where the 

benefits of coordination outweigh the costs) by: 

o Making data easier to compile and use: A project might cover a 

watershed, a corridor, or an area defined by an issue. Anything (such as 

use of common content, accuracy, or coordinate system specifications) 

that reduces the cost of integrating data collected by multiple entities 

helps. 

o Aligning needs and schedules of programs that collect data 

o Pooling available funding to procure data at less cost, or to obtain better 

data (e.g. expanded content, better accuracy, larger area of coverage, or 

fewer restrictions on use), than organizations could procure on their own 

• Opportunity to create a focal point for geospatial activities in the State by: 

o Developing a stable geospatial coordination effort in a State. Some 

States have a hit-and-miss record on coordination. 

o Aligning views and adjudicating differences among organizations 

within a State. In addition to helping align resources among State 

organizations, it can provide support for Federal program alignment with 

State plans. 

o Gaining State executives’ recognition that geospatial data are a 

critical element of infrastructure. Avoid the waxing and waning of 

support caused by different priorities of new officials. 

o Providing a central point of contact with local governments within a 

State. Federal officials who need to reach out to local government staff 

regarding geospatial efforts would appreciate any help that State officials 

can provide. States might act in the role of a central certifier of data for 

2 February 17, 2009
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

which the State has legal responsibilities, such as the boundaries of 

governmental units. 

How do Federal agencies participate in or contribute to 

the planning efforts? 

• Agencies directly participate: Regional Federal personnel are interested in the 

planning efforts of States within their region, but their availability to participate 

varies. 

o Available resources to support participation vary by agency. 

o Changing workloads affect the ability of individuals to participate. 

Sometimes the change in workload is predictable (e.g. tasks that are 

seasonal or follow a program cycle) and sometimes not (e.g. unanticipated 

budget, program, or staffing changes). Commitments to participate in 

States’ planning activities might not be fulfilled. 

o Personnel are limited in the number of States’ planning activities in 

which they can participate at one time. Federal regions can cover many 

States. At least one agency is considering the development of a State 

liaison structure. 

o Regional Federal GIS organizations provide a means for States to 

provide outreach to multiple Federal agencies regarding planning efforts 

at one time. One such group is the Regional Interagency Mapping 

Coordination Working Group, a collection of Federal agencies based in 

Denver. 

o Transition in participation: Many years ago there was direct 

participation by a Federal agency in State activities, with Federal 

personnel leading and guiding the direction. The agency intentionally 

stepped back to allow State to manage and set the direction appropriate for 

the State. Federal personnel now remain aware but do not actively 

participate. 

• Federal personnel participate because of their personal initiative and 

professional interests. The perspective of an agency might be shared in such 

participation, but the participant has no formal authority to represent the agency. 

• Agencies indirectly participate through State agencies affiliated with a 

Federal program: Some Federal agencies administer their programs, in whole or 

in part, through State agencies and personnel. The ability of these personnel to 

represent a Federal program in State planning efforts varies. 

o In cases where the affiliated State agency is the same as, or 

administratively close to, the State agency that carries out the planning 

efforts, the Federal program often is represented well in the planning 

efforts. 

o In cases where the affiliated State agency is administratively more 

“distant” from the State agency that carries out the planning effort, the 

3 February 17, 2009
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

views of the Federal program are less well represented or are not 

represented. This “distance” can be caused by a lack of knowledge of 

planning efforts among State agencies, politics among State agencies, and 

other factors. 

o In addition to the “administrative distance” among State agencies, the 

short tenure of the State personnel who carry out a Federal program in an 

affiliated agency influences the effectiveness of their participation in 

planning efforts. Some positions in affiliated State agencies have high 

turnover, and so State personnel who carry out the Federal program lack 

the knowledge and relationships to participate effectively in planning 

efforts. 

• Agencies indirectly participate through USGS state geospatial liaisons: 

USGS liaisons provide a means for Federal personnel to learn about State 

planning efforts. The USGS personnel often have a longer tenure and stronger 

relationships among organizations in their State, and have sufficient knowledge of 

Federal programs to alert other Federal personnel about opportunities in which 

their agency might be interested. 

• “One size” of Federal agency participation will not fit all Federal agencies or 

States. 

o Federal geospatial activities vary by region of the United States and 

sometimes by State. An agency that has a major role in some States 

might have little or no relevance in other States. For example, Federal 

agencies manage large areas of land in the western United States. They 

may have extensive geospatial activities that support their management 

responsibilities, and these activities would have major implications to 

coordination activities in those States. Some Federal programs have more 

of an urban focus, some more of a rural focus. Some have a technology 

focus.

o States vary in their readiness to engage Federal agencies in planning 

activities. Some States actively engage Federal agencies in their 

coordination activities; others prefer to concentrate on getting State 

government (or State and local government) concerns “in order” before 

engaging Federal agencies. Insights from States about the stage at 

which they need to be before engaging Federal agencies would be 

helpful. 

Could national program managers in Federal agencies 

align resources with other organizations better if 

they considered the state plans? 

Yes, and many agencies align resources with their counterparts in State and local 

government today, and have done so for years. 

4 February 17, 2009
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

There are constraints on the extent to which such alignments can occur. Regional 

Federal personnel work through such constraints every day as they interact with their 

State and local government colleagues to coordinate geospatial data activities. 

Some constraints are listed below. The list is provided so that future plans to better align 

programs consider relevant factors. These factors are items to be managed, and probably 

are not items that can be “solved.” 

• Ensuring that the performance goals of Federal programs, which might not 

be geospatial, are met: In many agencies, geospatial activities occur within the 

context of a larger program or project (e.g. administering flood insurance, taking a 

Census, planning and building public works). As agencies recognize the strategic 

value of geospatial data, they carefully schedule and budget to ensure that (1) the 

geospatial activities are successful and (2) the geospatial activities occur within a 

budget and schedule that ensures the success of follow-up program activities. 

Agencies are evaluated on the success of these larger program goals, for which 

the geospatial activities might have only a supporting role. The need to ensure the 

success of the overall program, on which the agency and managers are evaluated, 

can result in managers being less concerned about State or local geospatial plans 

and goals. This is especially true for cases in which geospatial data have a 

supporting role in the Federal program, and State and local plans conflict with or 

cannot be accommodated to the national program goals, budgets, and schedules. 

• Creating projects sensible within the model in which the Federal program 

operates: Some agencies have long-term, enduring programs that occur in the 

same place (at a local, regional, or national scale); such programs lend themselves 

to developing a long-term relationship with States in which plans to align 

resources can be developed and honored. 

Other programs tend to operate on (1) a topical (e.g. a study of fauna in an area) 

or event (e.g. a security event or disaster) basis, in which the scope, location, 

timing, and endurance of a project can vary greatly; or (2) a cyclical basis, where 

an area is infrequently revisited to undertake geospatial data collection activities. 

It is more difficult to understand how the resources for such programs can be 

aligned with long-term plans. 

Variations among these models exist, and agencies might simultaneously operate 

programs that use different models. (A useful exercise would be to map the 

duration of planned geospatial activities so that they match the duration of the 

projects and programs from which support is sought.) 

• Recognizing that people can be more important than the agency: 

Participation often happens because personnel desire and act on it, and less 

because of the agency per se. 

• Allowing the flexibility required to manage a Federal program: The 

continuing emphasis on Federal program performance effectiveness requires 

personnel to manage the programs actively, and not just let them “happen.” 

Management actions can include adjustments to the scope, location, schedule, and 

budget for program activities, including the geospatial components of an activity. 

5 February 17, 2009
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

In aligning Federal resources to take advantage of a State plan, a Federal manager 

needs to decide if the benefits gained from participating in a plan outweigh the 

reduction in management flexibility incurred by committing to a plan. 

Commitment to a plan can reduce the flexibility needed to make program 

adjustments; but reneging on a plan can hinder the ability to achieve program 

goals. 

There are examples in which a Federal agency published a long-term plan, a State 

subsequently aligned its geospatial activities to support the plan, and the Federal 

agency later amended the plan in a way that precluded its use of the new State 

data. (There also are examples of a Federal agency amending its plans to take 

advantage of new State data.) 

When the geospatial activities occur wholly within a program, program 

executives can mitigate the effects of changes. When such activites involve 

external parties, when they are available; and improve the ability of a manager to 

mitigate the effects, is limited. 

• Recognizing that “resource alignment” can occur in different ways. Some 

ways might be more effective than others. 

o Aligning resources by pooling them before the fact: In this approach, 

Federal agencies share resources (funds, services, etc.) with others to 

acquire desired products, services, or other outcomes. The benefits of 

such alignments accrue directly to the project and participating 

organizations. Examples include the pooling of funds to collect imagery 

(e.g. National Agricultural Imagery Program and urban imagery) and 

elevation (various efforts) data, and the sharing of work to develop 

hydrography data (i.e. National Hydrography Dataset). 

o Aligning resources by providing them after the fact: In this approach, 

Federal agencies provide credits to organizations that contribute geospatial 

products and services to a Federal project. This approach provides 

financial benefits to the contributor. Unless they contributed the products 

and service to the project, organizations(s) that financed the products and 

services would not receive benefits. The project that developed the 

products and services probably would not benefit, because it likely would 

have been completed. FEMA’s credits to communities that provide 

geospatial data to support a flood hazard mapping project is an example of 

this approach. 

o Aligning resources by avoiding duplication: In this approach, Federal 

agencies use a plan to anticipate products and services that will be used for 

a project, and allocate project resources to avoid expenditures that would 

duplicate such products and services. The financial benefits accrue to the 

Federal project (and, more generally, the taxpayer), but not to the 

projects(s) or organization(s) that developed the geospatial products and 

services. 

• Crafting plans in a way that provides Federal programs flexibility in 

participation, so that they can align resources to the extent to which it is 

6 February 17, 2009
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

sensible to the program. Contribution from a Federal program to a project 

should be commensurate with the outcomes needed by a program. For example, 

FEMA’s flood hazard mapping studies often need detailed elevation data in flat 

areas, but not for everywhere covered by a study. 

• Allowing for the realities and vagaries of the Federal budget calendar, 

schedules and cycles. A new initiative can take years to develop, and sometimes 

funds must be obligated quickly. Projects might be developed to allow for 

participants who arrive late (or suddenly), or can add value to an initial project 

later (e.g. add deeper content to an initial data collection effort).

• Recognizing that Federal agencies have different authorities for obligating 

resources which might limit their ability to participate. Some agencies, for 

example, do not have the authority to make grants.

• Occurring in a way sensible to other partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries 

of the Federal program. Federal programs provide resources, products, services, 

and other benefits to a number of stakeholders. Stakeholders are mindful of the 

number of resources available in a program and how they are allocated. There is 

seldom sufficient funding to meet all program needs. In cases where non-Federal 

organizations (State agencies, local governments, private or non-profit 

organizations) are funded to carry out a program, these organizations desire the 

“cleanest” administration of resources possible (e.g. maximum discretion, fewest 

mandates, and lowest overhead).

To the extent that resource alignment between a Federal program and a State plan 

seems sensible to other program stakeholders, they will be a valuable ally to both. 

To the extent to which an alignment dilutes a program by reducing program 

benefits or increasing program costs, stakeholders will object to the alignment, 

especially if the benefits of an alignment do not accrue to them. 

Consider this example: In meetings hosted by the FGDC in the past, participants 

have remarked about the desirability of tapping Federal transportation funds to 

develop a national road data layer. For the purpose of the example, assume that 

the members of NSGIC would be in favor of such an initiative. If the members of 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials were 

also interested, the alignment of these interests would be powerful. If not, the 

State plans could foster agreement needed at the State and local level (e.g. better 

coordination within State government, etc.) to develop such an alignment of 

interests. 

• Recognizing the influence of other organizations on what can be done, and 

how things should be done. Organizations such as the Management Association 

for Private Photogrammetric and Surveyors and the American Society for 

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing influence how Federal agencies pursue 

geospatial activities. 

7 February 17, 2009
 Regional Federal Perspectives 

How might the Fifty States Initiative dovetail with other 

Federal Initiatives (nationally or within the region)? 

• It would be remarkable if FGDC-funded State plans did not dovetail (or at least 

support or anticipate) with FGDC-supported national initiatives and programs for 

imagery, elevation, etc. 

• Provide a focal point for needs and relationships within a State, so the State is 

ready to participate as initiatives are developed. 

• Encourage the understanding that geospatial data are an asset in the State. Some 

geospatial data have this status (e.g. plat maps in local government). 

• Provide success stories (e.g. cost-benefit analyses, etc) for coordination. 

• Dovetailing of objectives is too optimistic. There is an interest in the programs 

being compatible. 

• Federal agencies with overlapping responsibilities tend to make it harder for them 

to cooperate with each other and with the States. 

• We will need to learn the bureaucracy and work within its constraints, likely at a 

slower pace. 

References 

Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2008, Policy & planning: 

http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning. (Accessed February 13, 2009) 

National States Geographic Information Council, 2009, Fifty States initiative: 

http://www.nsgic.org/hottopics/fifty_states.cfm. (Accessed February 13, 2009) 

8 February 17, 2009