agencies; to avoid a repetition of this situation, the state is now creating a regular process for cataloging its remote sensing data.

Missouri officials told workshop participants that cost, licensing, lack of understanding of remote sensing, and variable needs were major issues at the state level. They believe that flexibility in data sharing will be critical to the more widespread adoption of remote sensing in state agencies. The use of remote sensing data would be economically more attractive to public sector managers if state and local governments were able to coordinate data purchases and share remote sensing data across jurisdictions and agencies. Its cataloging initiative will make it easier for managers to locate data already purchased by the state.

The Missouri experience also emphasizes the value of having multiple data providers, federal and private, U.S. and foreign. Some state agencies are currently examining the use of SPOT remote sensing data because they perceive that Spot Image, the vendor, allows flexibility in public sector budgeting.

Missouri officials also emphasized the value of having state managers who understand and value remote sensing. Too often when remote sensing data are used in combination with GIS software, the remote sensing data lose their identity and are viewed simply as part of the GIS. State managers recognize the utility of GIS databases but often do not recognize that remote sensing data are part of the GIS. Similarly, when data processing and research are contracted out to state universities, public sector managers can lose sight of the importance of the activity to state operations.

Finally, Missouri officials suggest that states need more people trained in remote sensing. GIS training is now widespread, in part because training courses sponsored by GIS software firms are readily available. Remote sensing training is more difficult to obtain.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is beginning to use remote sensing to manage federal lands within the state. The DNR has responsibility for 5.6 million acres of trust land, 3.0 million of which were given by the federal government when Washington became a state. The land trusts include 2 million acres of timberland, about 1 million acres for agricultural grazing land, and about 2.6 million acres of coastal land on Puget Sound.

Unlike many agencies in state and local government that report to elected officials, in Washington the DNR is headed by an elected official, the Commissioner of Public Lands, who has responsibility for both managing trust lands and enforcing regulations throughout the state on lands that are in both public and private hands. Because the state receives income from sales of timber on trust lands, there is a growing emphasis on managing the trust lands using something closer to a business model. Stimulated by changes in budgets, requirements, and even management practices, the state is beginning to look to market signals for

Front Matter (R1-R14)

Executive Summary (1-7)

1. Introduction (8-15)

2. Public Sector Applications of Remote Sensing Data (16-37)

3. Getting Started in Remote Sensing: Common Barriers and Bottlenecks (38-49)

4. Beyond State and Local Government (50-61)

5. Findings and Recommendations (62-70)

Appendix A: Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications, Executive Summary (71-78)

Appendix B: Biographical Information on Steering Committee Members, Workshop Speakers, and Panelists (79-89)

Appendix C: Workshop Agenda and Participants (90-95)

Appendix D: Acronyms (96-97)