REPORTTOTHEWISCONSINHOMELANDSECURITYCOUNCIL

THESTATEOF GEOSPATIALINFORMATIONSHARING IN WISCONSIN

GEOSPATIALINFORMATIONSHARINGSUBGROUP

OFTHE

INFORMATIONSHARINGWORKINGGROUP

FINAL REPORT

JANUARY9 , 2014

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 3 

2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 4 

3. ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................................... 6 

4. GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION SHARING CHALLENGES ............................. 8 

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIX A. CASE STUDY – 2008 FLOODS ...................................................... 16 

APPENDIX B. HISTORICAL TIMELINE .............................................................. 17 

APPENDIX C. GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION SHARING LANGUAGE ......... 20 

APPENDIX D. ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS ........................................... 21 

APPENDIX E – MISSOURI EVENT MATRIX ....................................................... 22 

GeospatialInformationSharingSubgroupMembers

ChrisDiller(DMA)IanGrasshoff(WaupacaCountyLIO)PeterHerreid(DOA)

TyKrugman(DOJ) JimLacy(UW‐SCO)

LisaMorrison(DATCP) CurtPulford(DOA) CPTChristopherRobbins(WINationalGuard) JodyWormet(DOJ)

3

1.EXECUTIVESUMMARY

InFebruary2013,theWisconsinHomelandSecurityCouncilcommissionedthestudyofgeospatialinformation sharing associated with public safety events and emergency responses in the state.TheCouncilaskeditsexistingInformationSharingWorkingGrouptoassembleasubgroupofGISprofessionals to research geospatial information sharing issues and challenges faced by entitiesinvolved in public safety and emergency response activities. The subgroup was also asked toprovide recommendations to help resolve geospatial information sharing issues and eliminateobstacles. This report is provided to the Council on behalf of the Information SharingWorkingGroup.

The Geospatial Information Sharing Subgroup began its work in March 2013 and concluded inJanuary2014. TheSubgroup identifiedeightmajor issues and challenges thathindergeospatialinformationsharingbefore,duringandafterpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses. Mostofthesearenottechnicalinnature,andareassociatedwiththeprogrammatic,policy,governance,and operational activities of individual entities. The successful implementation of technicalrecommendationswillbedependentontheresolutionofnon‐technicalissuesandchallenges.

Nosingleentityorgroupofentities isresponsible forWisconsin’sgeospatial informationsharingproblems,andnosingleentityhastheauthorityandresourcesnecessarytosolvethem.Previousattempts to address geospatial information sharing issues havebeen largely unsuccessful due tolack of executive level awareness and support at all levels. A coordinated, structured andsystematicapproachisrequiredtoimprovegeospatialinformationsharingamongallgovernment,privateandnon‐profitentitiesacrossWisconsin.

Once theeightmajor geospatial informationsharing issues andchallengesaffectingpublic safetyand emergency response activities in Wisconsin were identified, the Subgroup developed fourmajor recommendations to address these issues and begin to eliminate obstacles. Eachrecommendationincludessuggestedactionstepsandleadentities.

#1 Requiregovernment‐to‐governmentgeospatialinformationsharingandeliminaterequirementsforsharingagreements,fees,copyrightpermissions,disclaimers,andsimilarobstaclesassociatedwithgovernmentgeospatialinformationduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

#2 Streamlinegovernment‐to‐governmentgeospatialinformationsharingforactivities

associatedwithFEMANationalPrevention,Protection,Mitigation,andDisasterRecoveryFrameworkactivities(i.e.,activitiespriortoandafterpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses).

#3 Integrategeospatialdata,technologiesandpracticesintoWisconsin’sNationalIncident

ManagementSystem(NIMS)activities(includingICSandNRF)to(1)clarifylinesofcommunicationbetweenentitiesrequestingandprovidinggeospatialinformation,(2)definegeospatialrolesandresponsibilitiesand(3)establishproceduresforsharingofgeospatialinformationduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

#4 Establishacentralizedgeospatialdataexchangethatwillalloworganizationstoshareand

access“critical”geospatialinformationfasterandmoreefficientlybefore,duringandafterpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

4

2.BACKGROUND

Wisconsin public safety and emergencymanagement entities at all levels of governmenthave a wide range of planning, response andevaluation responsibilities that require fast andefficient access to data from other government,private and not‐for‐profit entities. This includesaccess to electronically‐created and maintainedgeospatial information, such as parcels, roads,floodplains, political boundaries, facilities,elevation, and digital aerial imagery.Understanding the spatial relationships among the people, entities, infrastructures, andenvironmental conditions associated with public safety and emergency management activitiesprovidesmanybenefits.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin’s current geospatial information sharing environment often leavesfederal,state,local,tribal,private,andnon‐profitentitiesthatsupportpublicsafetyandemergencyresponse activities without critical data needed to facilitate and improve decision‐making andresponseeffectiveness. Theabilityofoneentitytoaccessoracquireneededgeospatialdatafromothers can be extremely difficult, labor intensive and costly. InWisconsin, this has proven trueduring actual public safety events and declared emergencies. A case study of the 2008 floodingacrossWisconsin(seeAppendixA)illustratessomeoftheinformationsharingchallengesfacedbyfirstresponders,emergencymanagers,lawenforcement,andothers,andexemplifieshowthestatewouldbenefitfromamorecoordinatedapproachtogeospatialinformationsharing.

ItisimportanttonotethatWisconsin’sgeospatialinformationsharingchallengesarenotnew,andarenotisolatedtoonetypeofentityoronegovernmentallevel.Thestatusquohasexistedforovertwo decades, with only minor improvements occurring when a particular entity decides toeliminate an obstacle it internally controls(e.g., remove its data sharing agreementrequirement, make its data openly availablevia the web). While geospatial informationsharingdoesoccur,itisneitherconsistentnoradequate to meet the needs of public safetyandemergencymanagementinWisconsin.

For example, a 2013 Department ofAdministration(DOA)surveyaskedcountiesiftheywouldbewillingtocontributegeospatialdata to a “…statewide central repository forGISdataaccess.”Overhalf(38)indicatedtheywould be willing to provide some publicaccess, with another 17 counties limitingaccesstostateagenciesonly.Theremaining17counties would place additional limits onaccess to their geospatial information, withthreeofthoseunwillingtoshareatall.

“Geospatial” generally refers to the location or position of people, places and things on earth. Geospatial technologies, such as GIS, incorporate geographic information to help users understand spatial relationships and make better-informed decisions.

5

Unlikemanycounties,stateagenciesgenerallyprovidemostnon‐sensitivegeospatial informationuponrequest,withoutsharingagreementsandfees.Theyalsohaveproceduresinplacetoprovideaccesstoinformationprotectedbyfederalorstatelaw.However,stateagenciesdofacegeospatialinformationsharingchallengesduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.Specifically,someadministrative rulesand internalpolicies restrictaccess to “critical”geospatial informationsolely for cost recovery purposes (e.g., Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory), because of perceivedliability (e.g., floodplain maps), or because of perceived security threats (e.g., location of publicwatersuppliesandpowergridinfrastructure). Stateagenciescurrentlylackstandardprocedurestoovercomethesetypesofrestrictionsduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

Previous attempts to identify and resolve geospatial information sharing challenges have beenlargelyunsuccessful,primarilydueto(1)lackofexecutivelevelawarenessandsupportatalllevelsof government, and (2) lack of coordinated, systematic, structured approaches to try to resolvetheseissues.Severalpatternsandrationalesthatlimitgeospatialinformationsharingarerecurringandhave remainedessentiallyunchanged in the1980s. SeeAppendixB forageneral geospatialinformationsharingtimeline.

Researching information sharing for emergency related planning, response and evaluationactivities fitswellwithin themissionof theWisconsinHomelandSecurityCouncil. TheCouncil’sestablished Information Sharing Working Group is charged with studying non‐geospatialinformationsharingissues.Asmallsubgroupofgeospatialprofessionalswasassembledunderthisworkinggroupandassignedthefollowingtasks:

Identifyanddocumentchallengesthatpublicsafetyandemergencymanagemententitiesencounterwhenattemptingtoaccessgeospatialinformationfromotherentities.

Identifyanddocumentkeyissueshinderingorpreventingentitiesfromsharingtheirgeospatialinformationwithotherentities.

ProvideasetofrecommendationstoimprovegeospatialinformationsharinginWisconsinpublicsafetyandemergencymanagementplanning,responseandevaluationactivities.

The subgroup began its work in April 2013 and met regularly throughout the process. Thesubgroup delivered this final report the Wisconsin Homeland Security Information SharingWorkingGroupinJanuary2014.

6

3.ASSUMPTIONS

Beforediscussingspecificgeospatialinformationsharingchallengesandissues,thesubgroupfirstidentifiedseveralassumptionsitusedtodefinethescopeofthisreport.Assumption1:Geospatial information sharing challengesand issuesmayoccurat severalkeyactionpoints.Specifically,publicsafetyandemergencymanagemententitiesmayencountergeospatialinformationsharingchallengesandissueswhentheytryto:

searchforneededdata, requestacopyofdataoraccesstodata(e.g.,viawebservice)fromanotherentity,or usegeospatialdatafromanotherentityoraggregatedatafrommultipleentities.

Assumption2:Geospatialinformationsharingchallenges,issuesandrecommendationsmaybe non‐technical or technical in nature. This document focuses on non‐technical conceptsbecausethevastmajorityofinformationsharingchallengesandissuesthatWisconsinpublicsafetyandemergencymanagement entities face arenon‐technical. Specifically, they involve legislative,legal,policy,procedural,governance,funding,staffing,training,communication,andsimilarissues.Thesubgroupbelievesthatnon‐technicalobstaclesmustberemovedbeforetechnicalsolutionscanbesuccessfullyimplemented.Technicalgeospatialinformationsharingchallengesissuesaremostoften associatedwith a lack of consistent data and technology standards and processes, and/orinconsistent adoptionand implementationof those standardsandprocesses. Technical conceptsarealsodescribedinthisdocument,whereapplicable.Assumption3:Geospatialinformationsharingchallenges,issuesandrecommendationsmaydiffer forgovernment,non‐profitandprivateentities. PresidentialPolicyDirective8 (PPD8)clearlyfocusesona“WholeCommunity”approachtonationalpreparedness,andprovidesdirectionfor government, private organizations, non‐profits, and citizens to come together to “…keep thenation safe from harm and resilient when struck by hazards, such as natural disasters, acts ofterrorism and pandemics.”1 While this document focuses on government‐to‐governmentinformationsharing,whereapplicable,thechallenges,issuesandrecommendationsspecifictonon‐profit (e.g., Red Cross, Salvation Army) and private entities (e.g., utility companies, privatehospitals)arealsoaddressed.

Assumption4:Geospatialinformationsharingchallenges,issuesandrecommendationsmaydifferforlocal,regional,state,tribal,andfederalgovernmententities.Thisdocumentfocuseson geospatial information challenges and issues faced by local and state government entities,primarilybecauseHomelandSecurityCouncilmembersrepresentthesegovernmententities.SincetheStateofWisconsindoesnothavecontroloverfederalortriballaws,policies,protocols,etc., itseems more efficient to “get the State’s house in order” first. However, where applicable thechallenges, issues and recommendations specific to entities of other levels government are alsoaddressed.

1http://www.dhs.gov/presidential‐policy‐directive‐8‐national‐preparedness

7

The subgroupalsoacknowledged that theStateofWisconsinhasvarious “homerule”provisionsthatallowlocalgovernmententitiestomaintaincontroloveremergencies,whilestateandfederalagencies provide support to local government. However, in situationswhere emergencies crossjurisdictional boundaries, or where one entity asks for assistance from another, sharing ofgeospatialdataisvitaltoaidinsituationalunderstandinganddecisionmaking.Assumption5:Geospatialinformationsharingchallenges,issuesandrecommendationsmaydifferforeachNationalPlanningFramework2.ThisdocumentfocusesontheNationalResponseFramework that involvesdecision‐makingandactionsduring apublic safety eventor emergencyresponse.Whereapplicable,thechallenges,issuesandrecommendationsassociatedwiththeotherNational Planning Frameworks – Prevention, Protection,Mitigation, andDisasterRecovery – thatoccurbeforeorafterresponseactivitiesarealsodescribed.

2http://www.fema.gov/national‐planning‐frameworks

8

4.GEOSPATIALINFORMATIONSHARINGCHALLENGES

Given the assumptions above, the subgroup identified the followingmajor challenges and issueslimitingorpreventingWisconsingeospatial informationsharing forpublic safety andemergencymanagementpurposes.1. LackofWisconsin statuteoradministrative rule language that requiresand facilitates

geospatial data sharing during public safety events and emergency responses. Thesubgroupwassurprisedto learnthatnospecialgovernment“informationsharing”powersorrequirements appear to exist in Wisconsin duringdisasters. Ourresearchfoundnocurrentstatestatuteoradministrative rule that directly addresses geospatialinformationsharingamonggovernmententitiesforpublicsafetyoremergencymanagementpurposes. Inaddition,ch. 323, Wis. Stats. (Emergency Management) does notinclude any specific requirements or provisions for datasharing among entities. Appendix C lists Wisconsinstatutes, rules and other legal documents that includegeospatialinformationsharingconcepts.

2. Lack of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance on the use ofgeospatial information and technologies within the National Response Framework(NRF). The NRF “provides context for how thewhole community works together and howresponseeffortsrelatetootherpartsofnationalpreparedness.”3However,geospatialdataandGIS are only mentioned in Emergency Support Function (ESF) #5 Information and PlanningAnnex.4 Inreality,geospatialdataand technologiesare, tovaryingdegrees,used forresponseactivities associatedwithall fifteenESFs (e.g.,#1TransportationAnnex, #11AgricultureandNaturalResourcesAnnex,and#13PublicSafetyandSecurityAnnex)describedintheNRF.

ThislackoffederalguidancewithintheframeworkWisconsinreliesuponduringdisastersmayleadsomepeopletoviewgeospatialinformationandtechnologies,suchasGIS,as“nicetohave”but not essential to decision making. It may also be one reason why very few GIS staff inWisconsin local, county and state government entities have any Incident Command System(ICS) training, participate in drills and exercises, or are included in Emergency OperationsCenter(EOC)activities. Boththedatarequesteranddatastewardmaybeconfusedaboutthebasic fundamentalsof ICS communicationand support activities‐Whocanask for informationandwho canapprove the release of informationwhen ICS protocolsare inplace?‐resulting incostlydelaysandunnecessaryworkload.

3http://www.fema.gov/national‐response‐framework4http://www.fema.gov/media‐library‐data/20130726‐1913‐25045‐

2444/final_esf_5_information_and_planning_20130501.pdf

It is generally assumed that information sharing is somehow legally required and automatically occurs during public safety events and emergency responses, but this is not the case.

9

3. Lack of consistent and adequate Wisconsin protocols for requesting and sharinggeospatial information during public safety events or emergency responses. From apractical point of view, it makes sense that each entitycreates and maintains geospatial information based on itsinternal business mission, needs, priorities, and resources.These efforts rarely consider needs beyond the entity, soeach entity’s geospatial information typically stops at itsjurisdictional boundary. Natural and man‐made disastershave no boundaries, and regional and state governmententitiesmustoperateacrosslocaljurisdictionalboundaries.

Anentity that creates andmaintains a geospatialdataset is considered the “data steward”ofthatinformation,andgrantsaccesstoitaccordingtothatentity’sinformationsharingpolicies.Each steward handles geospatial information sharing requests differently, and, inWisconsin,stewardship rights over “critical” geospatial information are widely dispersed amonggovernment entities at all levels. Therefore, most geospatial information sharing that doesoccur during disasters is informal, relying on professional “goodwill” among geospatialcolleagueswithin theparticipatingentities. Asmore jurisdictionsare impactedbyadisaster,andmoregovernment,non‐profitandprivateentitiesbecomeinvolvedinresponseefforts,thelogistics andworkload involved in accessing geospatial information can be burdensome andtimeconsuming.

When goodwill fails, Wisconsin’s Open Records law (ch. 19.31‐19.39, Wis. Stats.) is onemechanismentitiestrytousetoaccessgeospatialinformationfromothergovernmententities.While sometimes successful, the Open Records request process is inefficient during publicsafety events andemergency responsesbecause it: (1) allows time for review, interpretationanddenialbydatastewardsand(2)canbehamperedbyinformationsharingagreements,feesandotherobstacles.

SomeWisconsinstateagenciesrequiredatasharingagreementsorfeesforspecificgeospatialinformation under statute, administrative rule, or internal policy. Wisconsin counties, cities,villages, and towns also have Constitutional or administrative “home rule” authority to passordinancesorenactpoliciestoregulatelocalaffairs.5Insomecases,theconceptof“homerule”has also resulted in the adoption of local policies requiring geospatial information sharingagreementsorfees.

Geospatial information sharing agreements required by state and local government entitiespresent several challenges, especially for other government requesters during public safetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

IsitunclearwhetheritisapplicableandlegallyvalidforaWisconsingovernmentstewardtorequireasignedagreementtoshareitsgeospatialinformation‐createdandmaintainedusingpublicfunding‐withanotherWisconsingovernmententity.

5http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/im/IM2013_01.pdf

Most stewards do their best to share geospatial information quickly and without obstacles during public safety events and emergency responses.

10

TheconceptofgeospatialinformationagreementsappearstocontradicttheintentandprotocolsofWisconsin’sOpenRecordslaw.Thisisespeciallytruewhenagovernmentstewardrequiresasignedagreementtofulfillwhatpracticallyamountstoanother’sOpenRecordsrequest.

ThecontentandimplementationofgeospatialinformationsharingpoliciesandagreementsarehighlyinconsistentacrossWisconsingovernmententities.Eachagreementrequireslegalandprogramreview,afterwhichpeoplewithappropriatesignatureauthority–forboththerequesterandthesteward‐mustbefoundtosignit.Allofthesestepstaketimeandeffort,andcanunnecessarilydelaydecisionsandactionsduringpublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponse.

Evenifageospatialinformationsharingagreementissigned,thestewardmaynotalwaysprovidethedatainatimelymanner.SomestillsenddataonDVDviamailserviceduetoperceivedsecurityconcernsaboutFTPandotherinternet‐baseddataexchangemechanisms.Insomecases,thesteward’sacceptabledeliverytimeline–daysorweeks‐isincludedintheagreementthatmustbesignedbeforedatacanbeaccessed.

Somegovernmentstewardsrequireafee–nominaltothousandsofdollars‐toaccessorsharetheirgeospatialinformation.Dealingwithgovernmentpurchasingprotocolsduringapublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponsetakestimeandeffort,delayingcrucialdecisionsandactions.Inaddition,manywonderwhetheritisapplicableandlegallyvalidforWisconsingovernmententitiestochargeeachotherforgeospatialdatacreatedandmaintainedusingpublicfunding.

Inmanycases,informationsharingagreementscontainsignificantrestrictionsongeospatialdatacreatedandmaintainedusingpublicfunding.Theseareintendedto:(1)limittheuseofthedata,(2)requirespecificallywordeddisclaimersoracknowledgementsonmaps,and/or(3)indicatethestewardhas“copyrighted”thedataand,therefore,mustgrantadditionalpermissionforitsdisplay,reproduction,distribution,and/oruseinderivedworks.Wastingtimedealingwiththeseissuesservesnorealpurposeexcepttodelayefficientandeffectivedecision‐makingandactionduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

4. Lackofconsistentprotocolsandpolicies forsharing “sensitive”geospatial informationduring public safety events or emergency responses. Within this report, “sensitive”geospatial informationis identifiedasconfidentialorotherwiseprotectedfromaccessand/ordistribution under federal law, or Wisconsin statute or administrative rule. All Wisconsingovernment entities collect andmaintain some “sensitive” geospatial information,much of itrelatedtopersonally identifiable information(ch.19.62Wis.Stats). However,somesensitivegeospatialinformationmaybecriticalduringspecifictypesofemergencies,suchasDepartmentofAgricultureTradeandConsumerProtection(DATCP)registeredlivestockpremiseslocations,orWisconsinEmergencyManagement (WEM)EmergencyPlanning andCommunityRight‐to‐KnowAct(EPCRA).Thesedatasetsareprotectedfrompublicaccessbutmayhavevalueduringanevent.

In some cases, government entities have adopted internal policies that identify geospatialinformationas“sensitive”forotherreasons.Forexample,DNRlimitsaccesstothelocationsofpublicwatersuppliesforreasonsrelatedtohomelandsecurity,andlimitsaccesstofloodplaindataforliabilityreasons.Somecountieslimitaccesstoparcelattributedatathatmaycontainpersonallyidentifiableinformation.

11

This issue is equally important for public utilities, non‐profit and private entities that arestewards of “critical” geospatial information, especially given their role in the PPD8 “WholeCommunity” approach (see Assumptions above). Specifically, some of their data may beconsidered“sensitive” forreasonsassociatedwithhomelandsecurity(e.g., locationsofpowergridcomponents),toprotectcompetitivetradesecrets(e.g.,milktruckroutes),oravarietyofotherreasons.

Accessing“sensitive”geospatialinformationfromagovernment,publicutility,orprivateentityusually requires therequester tosignaconfidentialityagreementordatasharingagreement.Asmentionedabove,spendingtimereviewingandsigninglegaldocumentsduringpublicsafetyeventsoremergencyresponsesinhighlyinefficientandcandelaydecision‐makingandactions.

5. Lack of an official list of “critical” geospatial information commonly considerednecessaryforpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses. Itisimpossibletoprioritizethe state’s geospatial information creation, acquisition andmaintenance activities, aswell asrelated resource and funding allocations, without an officially adopted list of critical datanecessarytosupportdecision‐makingandactionsduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

Suchalistwouldhelpprioritizedatasharingneedsandprovidedirectionforstewardswillingtosharetheirgeospatial informationopenlyandfreely. Sinceprivateentitiesarestewardsofsome “critical” geospatial information, such a list would also help identify wheregovernment/privatepartnershipsmustbedeveloped tohelp facilitate geospatial informationsharingasguidedbyPPD8. TheStateofMissouriStateEmergencyManagementAgencyhasdeveloped sucha list (seeAppendixE)which couldbea good startingpoint for aWisconsinspecificlist.

Inaddition to identifying“critical”geospatial information thatcurrentlyexists, theprocessofdevelopingandmaintainingsuchalistwouldhelpidentifygapsinavailabledata.Forexample,itcouldidentifywhich“critical”geospatialinformationis:

Completestatewide,current,andavailableforsharing Incompletestatewide,butpiecescurrentandavailableforsharing Non‐existentinanelectronicgeospatialformat Non‐existentinanyformat

6. Lackofacomprehensive,statewideinventoryofallgovernmentgeospatialinformation.WhatWisconsinentity,ifany,canprovideinformationaboutthelocationsofschools,livestock,floodplains, contaminant plumes, areaswith power outages, etc.? Unlikemany other states,Wisconsin lacks a centralized, easily accessible, andmaintained inventoryof “critical” andallothercurrentgeospatialinformationholdingsofgovernmententities.Asmentionedabove,thisfosters the statusquo inwhich each entity’s success acquiring critical geospatial informationduring a public safety event or emergency response depends primarily on the knowledge,involvementandrelationshipsofgeospatialprofessionalswithinentities.

Of course, it is impossible for even themost experiencedgeospatial staff toknoweverythingabout all geospatial information inWisconsin. Contactingmany different potential stewardsduringapublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponseisextremelyinefficientandtimeconsumingforgovernment,non‐profitandprivateentities.Astatewideinventorythatprovidesbasicfactsabout all existing government geospatial datawould support the initial searches for data tosupportpublicsafetyeventandemergencyresponseactivities.

12

Whatgeospatialinformationexists? Whichgovernmententityisthesteward? Whoisthesteward’scontactperson,andwhatishis/hercontactinformation? Isthegeospatialinformationusefulforaparticularsituation(e.g.,current,complete)? Howcanthegeospatialinformationbeaccessedoracquired?

At the very least, an inventory identifying and describing “critical” geospatial informationcommonlyconsiderednecessaryformostpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponseswouldbenefit all stakeholders (seeChallenge5 above). However, sinceeacheventor responsehasunique aspects, it is difficult to predictwhat geospatial informationwill be useful in a givensituation.Therefore,amorecomprehensiveinventorywouldhelppeoplesearchforgeospatialinformation not previously identified as “critical” for public safety events and emergencyresponses.

7. Lackofacentralizedexchangemechanismforaccessing“critical”geospatialinformation.Wisconsin also lacks a centralized exchangemechanismwhere copies of the “best available”geospatial information from multiple stewards are easily searched (i.e., via a centralizedinventory–seeabove)andaccessiblefordownload.Suchanexchangewouldsupportcommonlocationalawarenessofallentitiesinvolvedinthepublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponse,allowing them to integrate their respective subjectmatter informationwith shared “critical”geospatial information. When all participants are using the same “base map” information,decision‐makingandactionsaremorefocused,efficientandeffective. Otherstates(e.g.,Utah,Arkansas, Oregon) have demonstrated the value of a centralized, “public access” geospatialinformation exchangemechanism,which also includes inventory services,webmap services,datadownloadservices,etc.

Acentralizedexchangemechanismwouldalso facilitateamoreefficientprocess forreceivingupdates to critical geospatialdatasetsona regularbasis. Currently,manystewards considerrequestsforinformationupdatesasnewandseparaterequests,andsomeevenrequirethatanewdatasharingagreementbesignedand/oradditionalfeesbepaidforeachupdate. Infact,manysharingagreementsspecificallystatethatthestewardisundernoobligationtonotifytherequesterofupdatesortoprovideupdates. Asaresult,most“critical”geospatialinformationrequestedduringapublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponsequicklybecomesoutdated,andmustberequestedagainforthenexteventorresponse.

8. Lackofgovernmentresourcestoidentifyandacquiregeospatialinformationproactively

priortoapublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponse. Asmentionedabove, inadditiontoimmediateNationalResponseFrameworkactivities,geospatialinformationandtechnologiesareused for Prevention, Protection,Mitigation, and Disaster Recovery Framework activities thatoccurbefore and after a response. However, no singleWisconsin government entity has theresources or authority necessary to identify and resolve‐proactively‐all existing geospatialinformationsharingissuesonbehalfofallpotentialstakeholders.Inthecurrentenvironment,this would require negotiating information sharing agreements between thousands ofcombinationsofgovernment,non‐profitandprivateentities.Similarly, individualentities lacktheresourcesto identifyandresolve–proactively– thegeospatial informationsharing issuestheywouldhavewithalltheirpotentialpublicsafetyoremergencyresponsepartners.Amorecoordinated,structuredandsystematicapproachisurgentlyrequired.

13

5.RECOMMENDATIONS

Basedonresearchandunderstandingofthechallengesandissueshinderinggeospatialinformationsharingduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses,theGeospatialInformationSharingSubgroupproposesthefollowingrecommendations.

RECOMMENDATION#1Require government‐to‐government geospatial information sharing and eliminaterequirementsforsharingagreements,fees,copyrightpermissions,disclaimers,andsimilarobstacles associatedwith government geospatial information during public safety eventsandemergencyresponses.

ActionNeeded: Reviewand,asapplicable,modifystatute(ch.323,Wis.Stats.;ch.16.967,Wis.Stats.;

ch.59.72,Wis.Stats)andrelatedadministrativerules(e.g.,DOA47),andgrantcontractlanguageassociatedwiththeWisconsinLandInformationProgram(WLIP)torequireandfacilitatethesharingofgovernmentgeospatialdataduringdeclaredstatesofemergencyandotherpublicsafetyandspecialevents.Recommendedleadagency:DOA

Identify,reviewand,ifapplicable,modifyotherWisconsinstatutes,administrativerules,contractlanguage,etc.torequireandfacilitatethesharingofgovernmentgeospatialdataduringdeclaredstatesofemergencyandotherpublicsafetyandspecialevents.Recommendedleadagency:DOA

Developframeworkguidancethatpromotesthesharingofnon‐sensitive“critical”

governmentgeospatialinformationduringdeclaredstatesofemergencyandotherpublicsafetyandspecialevents.Recommendedleadagency:DOA,DMA

Developframeworkguidanceandapolicytemplateforallgovernmententitiesthat

establishesgeospatialinformationsharingprotocolsfor“sensitive”geospatialinformationprotectedbystatue,ruleorinternalpolicy,whileensuringtheprotectionofthisinformationduringdeclaredstatesofemergencyandotherpublicsafetyandspecialevents.Recommendedleadagency:DOA,DMA

ChallengeAlignment: LackofWisconsinstatuteoradministrativerulelanguagethatrequiresandfacilitates

geospatialdatasharingduringpublicsafetyeventsoremergencyresponses. LackofconsistentandadequateWisconsinprotocolsforrequestingandsharing

geospatialinformationduringpublicsafetyeventsoremergencyresponses. Lackofconsistentprotocolsandpoliciesforsharing“sensitive”geospatialinformation

duringpublicsafetyeventsoremergencyresponses.

14

RECOMMENDATION#2Streamline government‐to‐government geospatial information sharing for activitiesassociatedwith FEMA National Prevention, Protection,Mitigation, andDisaster RecoveryFrameworkactivities(i.e.,activitiesprior toandafterpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses).

ActionNeeded: Clarifytheapplicabilityandlegalvalidityofgovernment‐to‐governmentgeospatial

informationsharingagreementsandthevariousrequirementsandlimitationscontainedwithinthem(e.g.,copyright,liability,fees,indemnification,disclaimers).Recommendedleadagency:DOA,DOJ

ClarifyhowWisconsinOpenRecordslawsapplytogovernment‐to‐government

sharingofgeospatialinformationgeneratedbytechnologysuchasGIS(i.e.,issuesidentifiedbyWisconsinSupremeCourtinWIREDataInc.vs.VillageofSussex).Recommendedleadagency:DOA,DOJ

Establishconsistentgeospatialinformationsharingpolicies,agreements,and/or

processesamonggovernmententitiesatalllevelsby:(1)reviewingcurrentgeospatialinformationsharingagreements,policiesandprocesses,and,ifnecessary,(2)providingguidanceongovernment‐to‐governmentagreementlanguage,and(3)developingastandardagreementtemplatethatallgovernmententitiescanadopt.Recommendedleadagency:DOA

Streamlinetheprocessandreducetheburdenofeverystateandregional

governmententitybydesignatingonestatelevelentitytosigncountyandlocalgeospatialinformationsharingagreementsonbehalfoftheStateofWisconsin.Recommendedleadagency:DOA

ChallengeAlignment: Lackofgovernmentresourcestoidentifyandacquiregeospatialinformation

proactivelypriortoapublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponse

RECOMMENDATION#3Integrate geospatial data, technologies and practices intoWisconsin’s National IncidentManagement System (NIMS) activities (including ICS and NRF) to (1) clarify lines ofcommunication between entities requesting and providing geospatial information, (2)define geospatial roles and responsibilities, and (3) establish procedures for sharing ofgeospatialinformationduringpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

ActionNeeded Reviewand,ifnecessary,updatetheWisconsinEmergencyResponsePlan(WERP)

toprovidecleardirectionontheintegrationofgeospatialdata,technologiesandprocessesintoEOCoperations,includingstaffingandotherresources.Recommendedleadagency:WEM

DevelopcountyandmunicipalGISguidancetoreviewWERPandadoptanynewly

integratedgeospatialguidanceintheirinternalEmergencyOperationsPlan,EmergencyResponsePlan,orotherrelevantplans.Recommendedleadagency:WEM

PromoteandprovidetrainingaccesstotheNIMScorecurriculumcoursesforallgeospatialprofessionalsinWisconsin.Recommendedleadagency:WEM

15

Encourageandensuregeospatialrepresentationatstateandlocalemergency

exercisesbyupdatingandpublishingexerciseguidancedocumentsforallgovernmententitiestoadopt.Recommendedleadagency:WEM

ChallengeAlignment: LackofFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)guidanceontheuseof

geospatialinformationandtechnologieswithintheNationalResponseFramework(NRF).

LackofconsistentandadequateWisconsinprotocolsforrequestingandsharing

geospatialinformationduringpublicsafetyeventsoremergencyresponses.RECOMMENDATION#4Establishacentralizedgeospatialdataexchangethatwillalloworganizationstoshareandaccess“critical”geospatial information fasterandmoreefficientlybefore,duringandafterpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

ActionNeeded: Coordinateidentificationanddevelopmentofanofficiallistof“critical”geospatial

informationneededtosupportWisconsinpublicsafetyandemergencymanagementactivities.Recommendedleadagency:WEM

HomelandSecurityCouncilcoordinatewithDOA,theWisconsinGeographicInformationCoordinationCommittee(WIGICC)andtheStateAgencyGeospatialInformationCommittee(SAGIC)tocreateandmaintainacentrallyaccessibleinventoryofallgovernmentgeospatialinformationholdingsinWisconsin.Recommendedleadagency:HomelandSecurityCouncil

HomelandSecurityCouncilcoordinatewithDOA,WIGICCandSAGICtodevelopaplantocreateandmaintainacentralizedexchangemechanismthatsupportsaccesstoinventoried“critical”geospatialinformation,andalignplansforthisexchangewithresourcesassociatedwiththe“statewidedigitalparcelmap”projectestablishedbyAct20.Recommendedleadagency:HomelandSecurityCouncil

Establishrelationshipswithfederal,state,county,local,tribal,private,andnon‐profitstewardsof“critical”geospatialinformationandencourageparticipationintheinventoryanddataexchangeoncedeveloped.Recommendedleadagency:DOA

ChallengeAlignment Lackofanofficiallistof“critical”geospatialinformationcommonlyconsiderednecessary

forpublicsafetyeventsandemergencyresponses.

Lackofacomprehensive,statewideinventoryofallgovernmentgeospatialinformation.

Lackofacentralizedexchangemechanismforaccessing“critical”geospatialinformation. Lackofgovernmentresourcestoidentifyandacquiregeospatialinformationproactively

priortoapublicsafetyeventoremergencyresponse.

16

APPENDIXA.CASESTUDY–2008FLOODS

In June2008, the southernhalfofWisconsinwasaffectedbyoneof theworst rainevents in thestate’shistory.Periodicheavyrainsfellonthestatefornearlytwoweeks,amountingto14inchesinsomelocations.Severalmajorriversystemsswelledandoverflowed,leavingmanycommunitiesflooded, roads washed away, bridges destroyed, homes demolished, and crops damaged. LakeDelton received somuchwater that it carved a newpath to theWisconsinRiver and eventuallydrained completely, taking several homes with it and leaving debris scattered for milesdownstream.

Geospatialdataandtechnology(e.g.,GIS)wereused intheStateEOC(SEOC)andinsomecountyEOCstohelpwithresponseandrecoveryefforts.ThiswasthesecondtimeinlessthanayearthatGISwasusedintheSEOC,anditwasquicklyrecognizedasoneofthemostvaluabletoolsavailabletoemergencymanagers. GISprofessionals fromseveral agenciesassisted in theSEOC24/7, andcreatedmapsandanalysesthatprovidedexcellentsituationalawarenessandgreatlyimprovedthedecision making process. However, some geospatial information sharing challenges were alsoencounteredalongtheway…

ThebiggesthurdleencounteredbyGISprofessionals in theSEOCandcountyEOCswasaccess tonecessary geospatial information from other entities. While many geospatial data sets wereavailable, some were not. Most state agencies and counties responded quickly to requests forgeospatialinformation,butotherrequeststooksignificanttime.Somegeospatialdatacouldnotbeintegrated from local sources into SEOC formats easily. One particular example involved roadclosures.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) put out daily public awareness bulletins for state andfederalroadclosures‐countyandlocalroadswerenotincluded.SEOCGISstaffreceivedarequesttocreateandmaintainan“allroads”closuremap.Thisprovedtobeanimpossibletaskbecause(1)Wisconsin does not have an adequate statewide road network data set and (2) the many localgovernmentsresponsibleforcountyandlocalroadsarenotrequiredtoreportroadclosurestotheSEOC.TheonlyalternativeforSEOCGISstaffwastocontacttheGISleadineachcountytoaskforaccesstoroadclosuredata,ifavailable.Roadclosuresexistedinmostofthe32countiesthatwouldeventuallyreceivea federaldeclaration. Contacting individualcountieswastimeconsuming,andafter discussing the request with a handful of counties, SEOC GIS staff determined that thisapproachwasunworkableforthereasonsdescribedbelow.

Thesheernumberofcountiestocontactwasimpractical.SEOChad1‐4GISstaffworkingatanygiventime.ManycountyEOCshadlittletonoGISstaff.Asaresult,contactingsomelocalGISstafftookhours,andinsomecases,days,especiallyonweekends.

Countiestrackedroadclosuresindifferentformats(e.g.,GIS,PDF).SEOCGISstaffhadtotranslateroadclosuredatamanuallyintotheSEOCGISsystem.Insomecountieshundredsofroadsegmentswereinvolved,andtheworkloadwasoverwhelming.

Countiesupdatedtheirinformationondifferentschedules.Itwasimpossibletokeepupwiththechangescominginfrommultiplelocalsourcesinmultipleformats.

Ultimately,SEOCstaffandresponderswereadvisedtoconsulteachofthe32counties’webpagesfor road closure updates andmaps. Lack of a statewide road network and closure informationhindered public information efforts and prohibited any potential vehicle routing and re‐routingactivitiesthroughouttheevent.

17

APPENDIXB.HISTORICALTIMELINE

This historical timeline describes major events influencing the development andimplementationofgeospatialdata,toolsandapplications inWisconsin,specificallyrelatedto public safety and emergency response. The timeline also notes where recurringgeospatial information sharing challenges were identified. Much of this information isextracted from the 2013 report, Land Records Modernization – 50 Years and Counting(http://nationalcad.org/2013/04/land‐records‐history/).

1970s

WisconsinquicklybecomesoneofthenationalleadersinthefieldofGISbasedonearlyadoptionandworkconductedbytheUniversityofWisconsin–Madison.

1978:TheUniversityofWisconsin–MadisonandWisconsinDepartmentofAdministrationproduceareporttitled,LandRecords:TheCosttotheCitizentoMaintainthePresentLandInformationBase–ACaseStudyinWisconsin(aka“LarsenReport”).Thisreportidentifiesseventechnicalandinstitutionalchallengestoaccessingandintegratinggeospatialinformation,aswellaspotentialcostsandfundingmechanismrelatedtothecreationandmaintenanceofcriticalgeospatialinformation.

1980s

1985:WisconsinGovernorAnthonyEarlcreatesthe“WisconsinLandRecordsCommittee”(WLRC)viaExecutiveOrder79.WLRCisdirected“toexamineandaddresstheimmediateneedsofstateandlocalagenciesregardinglandrecordscollectionandmanagement,andtodeveloprecommendationsonhowWisconsinshouldapproachthelong‐termissuesoflandrecordsmodernization.”(http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/executive_orders/1983_anthony_earl/1985‐79.pdf)

1987:theWLRCdeliversitsfinalreportthatrecommendscreatingaWisconsinLandInformationProgram(WLIP),partofwhichestablishesagrantsprogramtoassistcountiesandmunicipalitiesinthedevelopmentof“foundational”geospatialinformation.

1989:WisconsinLandInformationProgram(WLIP)legislationpassesandincludestwofundingmechanismsbasedondeedrecordingfees:(1)agrantsprogramand(2)retainedcountyfunding.WLIPbecomestheprimarymechanismforfundingthegeospatialactivitiesatthecountylevel.Since1989,countieshavereceivedover$185millioninWLIPfunds(http://www.doa.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=10532&locid=9).

1990s

WhilemajoracademicinstitutionsandgovernmententitiesareearlyadoptersofGIS,publicsafetyandemergencymanagementdonotbegintoutilizegeospatialdataandtoolsuntilmuchlater.Geospatialdataandtechnologiesbeginfindingtheirwayintodomesticoperationsandcrimeanalysissituations.

1994:PresidentClintonsignsExecutiveOrder12906creatingtheNationalSpatialDataInfrastructure(NSDI)whichisintendedtocreateanationalframeworkforinformationsharing(http://www.archives.gov/federal‐register/executive‐orders/pdf/12906.pdf).TheNSDIauthoritywaslimitedtothefederalgovernment.However,throughtheNSDIprogram,grantswereprovidedtostatestohelpthemfacilitatedatasharinganddevelopstateapproachestocontributetotheNSDI.Afteralmost20yearsthisefforthasmixed

18

results,andWisconsincurrentlylacksamechanismtocontributeitsgeospatialinformationtotheNSDI.

2000s

2001:TheSeptember11,2001terrorattacks(9‐11)onNewYorkandthePentagonrequirerelianceongeospatialinformationandGISforoperationalaspectsofresponse,recoveryandcrimeanalysis.Infact,9‐11exposestheneedforinformationsharingespeciallyat“GroundZero”whereamakeshiftEOCwasestablished.GISbecamesuchafocalpointthatpeoplehadtoscrambletoinstituteinformationsharingpoliciesandprocedures,costingprecioustimeandaffectingresponseefforts(http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/wtc_lessons).Since9‐11,GIShasbecomeanimportanttoolfornationaldisasterresponseeventssuchasHurricaneKatrina,theSpaceShuttleColumbiadisasterand,morerecently,HurricaneSandy.GISisalsobeingintegratedintomanystateandlocaloperations,withmoststatesandmajorurbanareashavingsometypeofGISsupportfunction.

2005:WisconsinEmergencyManagement(WEM),adivisionintheDMA,contractsfordevelopmentofaGISneedsassessment.ThisassessmentidentifiesGISinformationsharingasamajorobstacleinaccessingGISinformation,andrecommendsthatdatasharingagreements,standardsandpoliciesbeestablishedtoensureefficientdatasharingamongstateandlocalpartners.(WisconsinEmergencyManagementGISNeedsAssessment,ESRI,July2005)

2006:TheWisconsinLandInformationAssociation(WLIA)EmergencyManagementTaskForce(EMTF)producesafinalreportcallingfortheadoptionofstandarddatasharingpolicies,andastatewidesystemforsharinggeospatialinformationinsupportoftheemergencymanagementcommunity(http://www.wlia.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/task_force_em_final_report.pdf).

2008:TheWisconsinSupremeCourttakesupthecaseofWIREDataInc.vs.VillageofSussex(http://www.nsgic.org/public_resources/DSWGL_2_2008‐WI‐69‐Supreme‐Court‐Decision.pdf)regardingaccesstogovernmentGISdata.Aftersevenyearsoflitigation,theCourtissuesanopinionthatalsostronglyimpliesthatWisconsinOpenRecordslawsmaynotofferenoughspecificguidanceonaccesstoinformationgeneratedbytechnologysuchasGIS.

2010s

2013:Act20(http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/20)passesandamendstheWLIPtoincreasefundinginthe2013‐2015biennialbudgetto(1)helpcountiescompleteandprovideaccesstolocalparceldataand(2)helpWisconsintoplanforandcreatea“statewidedigitalparcelmap”.YetassignificantastheWLIPistoday,virtuallynothingaddressestheissueofdatasharing

2013:TheStateAgencyGeospatialInformationCommittee(SAGIC)beginsresearchinggeospatialinventory,portalandrepositoryoptionstosupportgovernment‐to‐governmentgeospatialinformationexchange

2013:TheWisconsinGeographicInformationCoordinationCouncil(WIGICC)beginsworkingonaproposalforaWisconsingovernment‐to‐governmentgeospatialdata“exchange”mechanism.Thisincludesdevelopmentofastandardgeospatialinformationsharingagreementformattobeusedbyall“exchange”participants.

19

Wisconsingeospatialprofessionalsparticipateinandfollowvariousnationalorganizations,whicharefocusingonimprovingandpromotingGISinformationsharingpracticeswithinandamonggovernmententities.Examples:

o UrbanandRegionalinformationSystemsAssociation(URISA):http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/GMI/Advocacy/URISA%20Advocacy%20Agenda%20_2.pdf

o NationalStatesGeographicInformationCouncil(NSGIC):http://www.nsgic.org/public_resources/NSGIC_Data_Sharing_Guidelines_120211_Final.pdf

o NationalAlliancePublicSafetyGIS(NAPSG)Foundation:http://www.napsgfoundation.org/about/overview

o NationalInformationSharingConsortium(NISC):http://nisconsortium.org

20

APPENDIXC.GEOSPATIALINFORMATIONSHARINGLANGUAGE

Statute66.1102(4)LANDINFORMATIONRECORDREQUESTS.o Wheneveranyofficeorofficerofapoliticalsubdivisionreceivesarequesttocopya

recordcontaininglandinformation,therequesterhasarighttoreceiveacopyoftherecordinthesameformatinwhichtherecordismaintainedbythecustodian,unlesstherequesterrequeststhatacopybeprovidedinadifferentformatthatisauthorizedbylaw.

Statute59.72LandInformation

o s.59.72(2)DUTIES.(a):“Ifthecountyhasestablishedacountyassessorsystemunders.70.99,theboardshallprovideInternetaccesstocountywidepropertytaxassessmentdata,and,ifthecountymaintainslandrecordsthatidentifythezoningclassificationofindividualparcels,theboardshallpostontheInternetlandrecordsthatidentifythezoningclassificationofindividualparcels.”

o s.59.72(5)(3):“…$2ofeach$8feeretainedunderthisparagraphfortheprovisionoflandinformationontheInternet…”

Statute16.967Landinformationprogram

o s.16.967(7)(a)1.“…andtomakepublicrecordsinthesystemaccessibleontheInternetbeforeusingthesefundsforanyotherpurpose.”

o s.16.967(7)AIDTOCOUNTIES.(a)“…andmakepublicrecordsinthelandinformationsystemaccessibleontheInternetbeforethecountymayexpendanygrantmoneysunderthisparagraphforanyotherpurpose…”

WisconsinLandInformationProgramGrantAgreement(since2006)

o Article4.PUBLICATIONS:“AllmaterialsproducedunderthisAgreementshallbecomethepropertyoftheGranteeandmaybecopyrightedinitsname,butshallbesubjecttotheWisconsinPublicRecordsLaw,Wis.Stat.19.21etseq.TheDepartmentreservesaroyalty‐free,nonexclusiveandirrevocablelicensetoreproduce,publish,otherwiseuse,andtoauthorizeotherstousetheworkforgovernmentpurposes.”

s.19.31,Wis.Stats.(OpenRecordsLaw):

o “…Further,providingpersonswithsuchinformationisdeclaredtobeanessentialfunctionofarepresentativegovernmentandanintegralpartoftheroutinedutiesofofficersandemployeeswhoseresponsibilityitistoprovidesuchinformation.Tothatend,ss.19.32to19.37shallbeconstruedineveryinstancewithapresumptionofcompletepublicaccess,consistentwiththeconductofgovernmentalbusiness.Thedenialofpublicaccessgenerallyiscontrarytothepublicinterest,andonlyinanexceptionalcasemayaccessbedenied.”

21

APPENDIXD.ABBREVIATIONSUSED

9‐11 September11,2001terrorattacksDATCP DepartmentofAgricultureTradeandConsumerProtectionDMA DepartmentofMilitaryAffairsDNR DepartmentofNaturalResourcesDOA DepartmentofAdministrationDOJ DepartmentofJustice(Wisconsin)DVD DigitalVersatileDiscEMTF WLIAEmergencyManagementTaskForceEOC EmergencyOperationsCenterEPCRA EmergencyPlanningandCommunityRight‐to‐KnowActESF EmergencySupportFunctionESRI EnvironmentalSystemsResearchInstituteFEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgencyFTP FileTransferProtocolGIS GeographicInformationSystemICS IncidentCommandSystemNAPSG NationalAlliancePublicSafetyGISNIMS NationalIncidentManagementSystemNISC NationalInformationSharingConsortiumNRF NationalResponseFrameworkNSDI NationalSpatialDataInfrastructureNSGIC NationalStatesGeographicInformationCouncilPDF PortableDocumentFormatSAGIC StateAgencyGeospatialInformationCommitteeSEOC StateEmergencyOperationsCenterURISA UrbanandRegionalInformationSystemsAssociationWEM WisconsinEmergencyManagementWERP WisconsinEmergencyResponsePlanWIGICC WisconsinGeographicInformationCoordinationCouncilWLIA WisconsinLandInformationAssociationWLIP WisconsinLandInformationProgramWLRC WisconsinLandRecordsCommittee

22

APPENDIXE.MISSOURIEVENTMATRIX

ProducedbytheStateofMissouriDepartmentofPublicSafety

GIS NEEDS BY EVENT TYPE 12/18/2013

FOR STATE EOC SUPPORTSNOW/ICE FLOOD TORNADO EARTHQUAKE NUCLEAR TERRORIST 

HEALTH 

OUTBREAK

AG 

OUTBREAKDROUGHT LOCAL SAR

OUTSTATE 

EVACUATION

FACILITIES

ADULT DAY CARE X X X X X X

AIRPORTS X X X

CEMETARIES X X

CHEMICALS ‐RMP/TIER II X X X X

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES ‐ YOUTH  X X X X X X

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES X X X X X X X

DAY CARE CENTERS X X X X X X X

DAMS ‐STATE/FEDERAL X X X X

DENTIST X X

DIALYSIS CENTERS X X X

FIRE STATIONS X X

HAZ WASTE GENERATORS X X X X X

HELIPORT X X X X

HOMES WITH BASEMENTS X X X

HOSPITALS X X X X X X X

NUCLEAR PLANTS X X X X

NURSING HOMES X X X X

PDW SYSTEMS X X X X X X

PDW TREATMENT PLANTS X X X X X X

PDW WELLS X X X X X

PET SHELTERS X X X X X X

PHARMACIES X X

PLACES OF WORSHIP (POSSIBLE INDEP X X X X X

POWER PLANT X X X X

PUMPING STATONS X X X X

RESTAURANTS (INSPECTIONS) X X X X X

SCHOOL BUS ROUTES X

SCHOOLS X X X X X X

SHELTERS X X X X X X X

SINKHOLES X

WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS X X X X GIS NEEDS BY EVENT TYPE 12/18/2013

FOR STATE EOC SUPPORTSNOW/ICE FLOOD TORNADO EARTHQUAKE NUCLEAR TERRORIST 

HEALTH 

OUTBREAK

AG 

OUTBREAKDROUGHT LOCAL SAR

OUTSTATE 

EVACUATION

EVENT SPECIFIC DATA

ACCESS CONTROL POINTS (NUCLEAR) X

AFFECTED AREAS X

BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS X X X X

BURN BANS ‐ COUNTY X

BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS X X X

COUNTY STATUS X X X X X

COUNTIES WITH DISASTER DECLARATI X X X X X X X X

CRITICAL FACILITES WITH GENERATOR X X X X

DAMAGE COST ESTIMATES (PA) X X X X X X

DAMAGE AREA ‐ DETAILED X X X X X

DAMAGE PATH/AREA ‐ PROPOSED X X X

DEBRIS REMOVAL AREAS X X

EMBARGO AREA X X

EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE X

EVACUATION ROUTES X X X

EVACUTION AREAS X X X X X X X

EVENT LOCATION W BUFFER AREAS X X X X X X X

FATALITY LOCATIONS X X X X X

FIRE LOCATIONS X X X

FLOOD EXTENTS ‐ CURRENT POLYGON X X X

HEALTH CASE LOCATIONS X X X X X

INCIDENTS (TRAIN DERAILMENTS, FIR X X X X X X X

MAPBOOKS FOR FIELD TEAMS X X X X X X X X

MODOT TRAVELER'S INFORMATION M X X X

PA/IA Requests, status X X X X X X X

PARCELS X X X X X

POPULATIONS ‐ CENSUS X X X X

POWER OUTAGE X X X

RESOURCE BY FUNDING SOURCE X X X X

RESOURCE REQUEST STATUS X X X X X

ROAD CLOSURES (POINT, LINE) X X X X X X

SAFE BUILDINGS FOR RESPONDERS X

SEARCH AND RESCUE GRIDS X X X X

STORM REPORTS ‐ SPC X X

STREET MAPS ‐ DETAILED X X

WEATHER RADAR X X X

WIND DIRECTION X

23

GIS NEEDS BY EVENT TYPE 12/18/2013

FOR STATE EOC SUPPORTSNOW/ICE FLOOD TORNADO EARTHQUAKE NUCLEAR TERRORIST 

HEALTH 

OUTBREAK

AG 

OUTBREAKDROUGHT LOCAL SAR

OUTSTATE 

EVACUATION

EVENT RESOURCES

COMMUNICATIONS TRAILERS X X X X

DONATION DROPOFF X X

FOOD/WATER DISTRIBUTION X X X X

LOGISTICS STAGING AREA (LSA) X X X X X

POINT OF DISPENSING, DHSS X

POINT OF DISTRIBUTION (EQUIPMENT X X X X X X

RECEPTION & CARE CENTER (RCC) X

RESPONDER RECEPTION CENTERS X X X X X X X

SHELTERS ‐ TEMPORARY X X X X X X

SUPPLIES (I.E. SANDBAGS) X X X

VOLUNTEER RECEPTION CENTER X X X

WARMING CENTERS X

DMAT (MEDICAL) X X X X X

TEMPORARY MORGE X X X X X X

MEDICAL SUPPLY STAGING X X X X X X

MOBILE MEDICAL UNIT X X X X

EMS STRIKE TEAMS X X X X

SACC (STATE AREA COORDINATION CE X X X X

STAGING AREA X X X X X X X GIS NEEDS BY EVENT TYPE 12/18/2013

FOR STATE EOC SUPPORT

SNOW/ICE FLOOD TORNADO EARTHQUAKE NUCLEAR TERRORIST HEALTH 

OUTBREAK

AG 

OUTBREAKDROUGHT LOCAL SAR

OUTSTATE 

EVACUATION

HYDROLOGY

FLOOD 1993/2008 BOUNDARIES X X

USACE HIGH FLOW ESTIMATES X

RIVER STAGE LEVELS X X X

RIVER LEVELS ‐ FORECASTED  X X X

FLOOD EXTENTS ‐HISTORIC  (1993, 2008) X

LEVEE BREACH X X

LEVEE LOCATIONS X X

GIS NEEDS BY EVENT TYPE 12/18/2013

FOR STATE EOC SUPPORT

SNOW/ICE FLOOD TORNADO EARTHQUAKE NUCLEAR TERRORIST HEALTH 

OUTBREAK

AG 

OUTBREAKDROUGHT LOCAL SAR

OUTSTATE 

EVACUATION

IMAGERY

CIVIL AIR PATROL PHOTOS X X X X X

SATELLITE IMAGERY‐ EVENT X X

AERIAL IMAGERY ‐ PRE EVENT X X X X X

AERIAL IMAGERY ‐ POST EVENT X X X

LiDAR X X X X