[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1604, MAP IT ONCE, USE IT
MANY TIMES ACT AND H.R. 916,
FEDERAL LAND ASSET INVENTORY REFORM
ACT OF 2013
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, December 5, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
____________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Steve Daines, MT Matt Cartwright, PA
Kevin Cramer, ND Vacancy
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Vance M. McAllister, LA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rob Bishop, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Paul C. Broun, GA Niki Tsongas, MA
John Fleming, LA Jared Huffman, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Tony Caardenas, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Joe Garcia, FL
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT Vacancy
Kevin Cramer, ND Vacancy
Vacancy Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Vacancy
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, December 5, 2013....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of
New Jersey................................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress for the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Gallagher, Kevin T., Associate Director for Core Science
Systems, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], Department of the
Interior................................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Lovin, Jeff, CP, PS, Chairman, Coalition of Geospatial
Organizations [COGO]....................................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Questions submitted for the record....................... 56
Lower, Jeff President, the Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors [MAPPS].......................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Questions submitted for the record....................... 46
Mouritsen, Karen, Deputy Assistant Director for Minerals and
Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management [BLM]......... 7
Parrish, Jay B., Ph.D., P.G., Former State Geologist,
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Chair, Mapping Committee,
Association of American State Geologists [AASG]............ 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Questions submitted for the record....................... 65
Powner, David A., Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO]........ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Questions submitted for the record....................... 27
Sumner, Curtis W., LS, Executive Director, National Society
of Professional Surveyors [NSPS]........................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Questions submitted for the record....................... 52
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Letter submitted for the record.............. 4
National Enhanced Elevation Assessment at a Glance, by
Gregory I. Snyder, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department
of the Interior............................................ 57
The 3D Elevation Program--Summary of Program Direction, by
Gregory I. Snyder, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey.......................................... 60
U.S. Department of the Interior, Prepare statement on H.R.
916........................................................ 8
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1604, TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TO
ENHANCE THE USE OF GEOSPATIAL DATA, PRODUCTS, TECHNOLOGY, AND SERVICES,
TO INCREASE THE ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY OF FEDERAL GEOSPATIAL
ACTIVITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, MAP IT ONCE, USE IT MANY TIMES ACT;
AND H.R. 916, TO IMPROVE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT, RESOURCE
CONSERVATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND USE OF FEDERAL REAL
PROPERTY, BY REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DEVELOP A
MULTIPURPOSE CADASTRE OF FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY AND IDENTIFYING
INACCURATE, DUPLICATE, AND OUT-OF-DATE FEDERAL LAND INVENTORIES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, FEDERAL LAND ASSET INVENTORY REFORM ACT OF 2013
----------
Thursday, December 5, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Fleming, Thompson,
Lummis, Duncan, Holt, Horsford, Lowenthal, and Garcia.
Mr. Lamborn. The committee will comet to order. The
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting today
to hear testimony at a legislative hearing on H.R. 1604,
introduced by myself, the Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act,
and H.R. 916, introduced by Representative Kind, the Federal
Land Asset Inventory Reform Act of 2013.
Under committee rule 4(f), opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee;
however, I ask unanimous consent that members be permitted to
submit opening statements to the hearing record if submitted to
the clerk by close of business today. Hearing no objection.
Mr. Holt. No objection.
Mr. Lamborn. So ordered.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. I would like to thank our witnesses for being
here today. Today we are holding a legislative hearing on two
bills aimed at reducing Federal bureaucracies and streamlining
Government inefficiencies in Federal land management. These
bills will also coordinate what are currently duplicative
missions of multiple Federal agencies to create a more
efficient government and save taxpayer dollars by ensuring that
they are not being spent on duplicative efforts.
As technology advances, local, State, and Federal
Governments are increasingly turning to geospatial information
for a variety of purposes. Multiple Federal agencies, such as
the Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture,
and Department of Defense, all use geospatial mapping for their
own purposes. The challenge comes when these governments and
government agencies are using taxpayer dollars for duplicative
efforts in surveying and mapping. Rather than sharing
information or coordinating efforts, these agencies often map
the same areas on multiple occasions, replicating the efforts
of the other agencies and using taxpayer dollars to repeatedly
map the same area.
On other occasions, these agencies acquire equipment, such
as planes, ships, or computers, rather than contracting with
private sector companies that specialize in conducting state-
of-the-art geospatial surveys. In fact, my home State of
Colorado is home to many very capable geospatial and mapping
companies who are anxious to work with the Federal Government
to meet our geospatial surveying needs.
For decades, Government reports have highlighted the
problems facing the Federal Government's geospatial programs.
Recognizing these challenges, Government officials have
attempted to coordinate these efforts by the various Federal
agencies. However, a November 2012 GAO report concluded that
while policies and procedures for coordinating investments in
geospatial data have been established, agencies have not
effectively implemented them.
Today we will hear testimony on two bills. The first, my
legislation, H.R. 1604, the Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act,
establishes a National Geospatial Technology Administration
that will oversee and coordinate all geospatial functions that
are currently undertaken by multiple Federal agencies. The
administration would also promulgate standards for ensuring the
geospatial data collected will be used efficiently and
effectively by all Federal agencies.
We will also hear testimony on H.R. 916, the Federal Land
Asset Inventory Reform Act of 2013, or FLAIR Act. This
bipartisan legislation will improve Federal land management,
resource conservation, and environmental protection by
requiring the Secretary of the Interior to develop a
comprehensive register of Federal property to identify
inaccurate, duplicative, and out-of-date Federal land
inventories.
These two bills will reduce duplicative Federal efforts,
ensure effective and efficient management of taxpayer dollars,
and streamline Federal geospatial mapping programs to ensure we
will have a state-of-the-art inventory of all Federal lands
that can be used across multiple Federal agencies for their
varying needs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
I'd like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. Today we
are holding a legislative hearing on two bills aimed at reducing
Federal bureaucracies and streamlining Government inefficiencies in
Federal land management. These bills will also coordinate what are
currently duplicative missions of multiple Federal agencies to create a
more efficient Government and save taxpayer dollars by ensuring they
are not being spent on duplicative efforts.
As technology advances, local, State and the Federal Government are
increasingly turning to geospatial information for a variety of
purposes. Multiple Federal agencies, such as the Department of
Transportation, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Defense,
all use geospatial mapping for their own purposes. The challenge comes
when these governments and Government agencies are using taxpayer
dollars for duplicative efforts in surveying and mapping. Rather than
sharing information or coordinating efforts, these agencies often map
the same areas on several occasions--duplicating the efforts of the
other agencies and using taxpayer dollars to repeatedly map the same
area.
On other occasions, these agencies acquire equipment, such as
planes, ships or computer equipment, rather than contracting with
private sector companies that specialize in conducting state-of-the-art
geospatial surveys.
In fact, my home State of Colorado is home to many outstanding
geospatial and mapping companies who are anxious to work with the
Federal Government to meet our geospatial surveying needs.
For decades, Government reports have highlighted the problems
facing the Federal Government's geospatial programs. Recognizing these
challenges, Government officials have attempted to coordinate these
efforts by the various Federal agencies. However, a November 2012 GAO
report concluded that while policies and procedures for coordinating
investments in geospatial data have been established, agencies have not
effectively implemented them.
Today we will hear testimony on two bills. The first, my
legislation, H.R. 1604, the ``Map it Once, Use it Many Times Act,''
establishes a National Geospatial Technology Administration that will
oversee and coordinate all geospatial functions that are currently
undertaken by multiple Federal agencies.
The administration will also promulgate standards for ensuring the
geospatial data collected will be used efficiently and effectively by
all Federal agencies.
We will also hear testimony on H.R. 916, the ``Federal Land Asset
Inventory Reform Act of 2013.'' This bipartisan legislation will
improve Federal land management, resource conservation and
environmental protection by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to
develop a comprehensive register of Federal property to identify
inaccurate, duplicative, and out of date Federal land inventories.
These two bills will reduce duplicative Federal efforts, ensure
effective and efficient management of taxpayer dollars, and streamline
Federal geospatial mapping programs to ensure we will have a state-of-
the-art inventory of all Federal lands that can be used across multiple
Federal agencies for their varying needs.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this
hearing. I appreciate the witnesses for coming.
Well, when it comes to knowing what school your kids attend
or buying or selling land or getting directions on your smart
phone to the nearest gas station, accurate and easily
accessible geospatial data really are essential nowadays. And
the Government Accountability Office has pointed out repeatedly
and multiple administrations have acknowledged that the Federal
Government could and should be doing a better job in how it
collects and handles geospatial data. The lack of effective
coordination, according to the GAO, among the Federal agencies
is causing them to spend millions of dollars that could be
saved if they were better coordinated.
One of the bills here today, our Chair's Map It Once, Use
It Many Times Act, is a good attempt to tackle this complex and
longstanding issue. I commend the Chair for the thoughtful
attention he has paid to this problem, and I look forward to
the testimony on this subject.
I do share some of the administration's concerns with the
legislation as it is currently written. I am not convinced that
a new agency within the Department of the Interior is necessary
to address the Government's lack of coordination of data and
handling of the data, and I do support the role of the private
geospatial industry in this country. Yet, I question whether in
this legislation there is an overdependence on the private
sector, which might raise some conflict of interest issues. So
I hope we will explore that.
The other bill on today's agenda, the Federal Land
Assessment Inventory Reform Act, the FLAIR Act, introduced by
Mr. Kind and Mr. Bishop, is a response to the simple fact that
the Federal Government simply doesn't know how much land it
owns. I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into
the record a letter from Representative Kind of Wisconsin, one
of the cosponsors of this legislation.
Mr. Lamborn. If there is no objection, so ordered.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Kind follows:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Ron Kind, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515,
December 5, 2013.
The Honorable Doug Lamborn,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rush Holt,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Holt,
I extend my gratitude to you for holding a hearing on H.R. 916, the
Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform [FLAIR] Act. This bill will not
only reduce wasteful spending, but it will also allow for greater
protection of our natural environment and resources.
Over the past six Congresses, the Government Accountability Office
[GAO] has repeatedly designated ``Managing Federal Real Property'' as
one of the high-risk areas within the Federal Government most prone to
waste, fraud, and abuse. One of the reasons cited by GAO is the fact
that the Government does not have a current, accurate inventory of the
land it owns. The General Services Administration [GSA] collects data
from at least 30 Federal agencies; however, it system has been
criticized by the GAO for being ``unreliable and of limited
usefulness'' and ``not current or reliable.'' On the other hand, the
government inefficiently maintains a plethora of land inventories that
are inaccurate, out-of-date, single purposed, and non-interoperable.
The inefficient and wasteful nature of the Government's current
approach of doing business was demonstrated by then-Interior Secretary
Gale Norton's 2005 testimony before the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee:
``The Department currently uses 26 different financial
management systems and over 100 different property systems.
Employees must enter procurement transactions multiple times in
different systems so that the data are captured in real
property inventories, financial systems, and acquisition
systems. This fractured approach is both costly and burdensome
to manage.''
This inefficiency should not be the case when a single, uniform,
reliable, regularly maintained data base is currently available through
state-of-the-art geographic information systems [GIS] technology.
On February 28, 2013, I introduced the FLAIR Act with Congressman
Rob Bishop. This bill creates a single, Federal multipurpose cadastre
(a uniform Federal computer data base), in accordance with standards
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. The bill also calls
for an ``inventory of inventories,'' so that duplication can be
identified and eliminated. The FLAIR Act will provide all agencies
owning Federal real property an improved accounting of their land
assets. Such an inventory will assist in improved Federal land
management, resource conservation, environmental protection and
utilization of real property, as well as identify property the Federal
Government no longer needs to own.
I urge you to support this common sense, good governance bill, and
I thank you for holding this hearing.
Sincerely,
Ron Kind,
Member of Congress.
______
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
It might seem incomprehensible to taxpayers that the
Federal Government doesn't know how much land it owns, but it
becomes more understandable when you think about how the West
was settled with railroad land grants and the Homestead Act and
the Mining Act of 1872, and lots of bits and pieces of other
legislation that resulted in enormous transfers of Federal land
to private ownership.
However, this is now the 21st century, and despite the
enormity of the task, we should be able to compile an accurate
inventory of Federal land. The administration has some concerns
on this legislation also, mostly having to do with cost, which
is estimated to be as high as $68 billion.
Now, this high cost comes, I believe, largely from the
requirement in the legislation that each parcel of land have
attached to it a current value. And of course, we want to know
the value of the land that the Federal Government owns, but
maybe there will be more cost-effective ways to accomplish what
we are trying to do here.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here, particularly
Dr. Parrish from Penn State, who we have invited to come and
who is representing the Association of American State
Geologists. I have asked Dr. Parrish to provide us not only his
thoughts on this specific legislation, but also to discuss the
USGS initiative called the 3D Elevation Program, or 3DEP, which
is an example of a widely supported and we think, I think,
critically important mapping initiative that is getting under
way.
So I thank the Chair for setting up what proposes to be an
interesting hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I appreciate the Ranking Member's
thoughtful and kind remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Rush Holt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this
hearing that will call more attention to the continuing issues the
Federal Government has with collecting and managing geospatial data,
and also allow us to discuss some proposed solutions.
Although most people are probably unfamiliar with the term
``geospatial data,'' the issue of how Federal, State, and local
governments manage that data is critically important to the lives of
every American. When it comes to what school your kids go to, buying or
selling a plot of land, or getting directions on your smartphone to the
nearest gas station, accurate and easily accessible geospatial data is
absolutely essential.
Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office [GAO] has
pointed out repeatedly over the past decade, and multiple
administrations have acknowledged, the Federal Government could be
doing a better job in how it collects and handles geospatial data. In
particular, GAO is concerned that the lack of effective coordination
between Federal agencies is causing them to spend millions of dollars
in potentially duplicative data collection.
One of the bills we are here today to discuss, the Chairman's ``Map
It Once, Use It Many Times Act,'' is an attempt to tackle this complex
and long-standing issue, and I commend him for the thoughtful attention
he has paid to this problem.
However, I share some of the administration's concerns with the
legislation as it is currently written. I'm not convinced that a new
agency within the Department of the Interior is necessary to address
the Federal Government's problems with geospatial data, and while I
strongly support the growth of the private geospatial industry in this
country, I worry that there is an over-dependence on the private sector
written into the legislation, raising some potential conflict-of-
interest issues.
The other bill on today's agenda, the ``Federal Land Asset
Inventory Reform Act of 2013,'' or the FLAIR Act, introduced by Mr.
Kind and Mr. Bishop, is a response to the simple fact that the Federal
Government simply does not know how much land it owns. It seems almost
incomprehensible, until you look at the history of how the West was
settled, with the railroad land grants, the Homestead Act, the Mining
Law of 1872, and other legislation resulting in enormous transfers of
Federal land to private ownership. But this is the 21st century, and
despite the difficulty of the task, I believe we should be able to have
an accurate inventory of Federal land.
I understand the administration has some concerns about the cost of
the legislation, which they have estimated to be as high as $68 billion
largely due to the provisions in the bill that require determining
value estimates for each parcel of Federal land. I am certainly
interested in hearing more about those cost estimates, and whether
there are ways to accomplish the goals of the bill in a more cost-
effective manner.
Finally, I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here,
particularly Dr. Jay Parrish from Penn State, who is here at the
request of the minority, and is representing the Association of
American State Geologists. I've asked Dr. Parrish to not only provide
us his thoughts on the legislation, but also on a USGS initiative
called the 3D Elevation Program, or 3-DEP, which is an example of a
strongly supported and critically important mapping initiative just
getting underway.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing
today's testimony.
______
Mr. Lamborn. We will now launch into the hearing. I will
point out that later this morning we will have votes that are
called and we will have to leave here. There is a good chance
we will be done with both panels and the questions for both
panels by that time, but we will see how that goes.
Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will
appear in full in the hearing record, so I would ask that you
keep your oral statement to 5 minutes, as outlined in our
invitation letter to you and under committee rule 4(a). The
microphone is not automatic, so you need to turn it on when you
are ready to begin.
I also want to explain how our timing lights work. You may
already be familiar, but when you begin to speak, the clerk
will start the timer and a green light will appear. After 4
minutes, a yellow light appears, and at that time you should
begin to conclude your statement. At 5 minutes, the red light
will come on. You may complete your statement at that time, and
I would ask that you not go further than that.
Mr. Gallagher, thank you for being here. And let me
introduce our two witnesses first. We have Kevin Gallagher,
Associate Director for Core Science Systems, the United States
Geological Survey, accompanied by Karen Mouritsen, Deputy
Assistant Director for Minerals and Realty Management of the
Bureau of Land Management. And we have David Powner, Director
of Information Technology Management Issues for the Government
Accountability Office.
Thank you for being here. And, Mr. Gallagher, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN T. GALLAGHER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CORE
SCIENCE SYSTEMS, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY [USGS]
ACCOMPANIED BY KAREN MOURITSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MINERALS
AND REALTY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT [BLM]
Mr. Gallagher. Well, thank you, Chairman Lamborn, for
inviting the Department of the Interior to provide its views on
H.R. 1604, the Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act, and H.R.
916, the Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act.
I will summarize BLM's perspectives on H.R. 916, but first
I would like to discuss H.R. 1604. The stated objectives of the
bill are to reduce duplication of geospatial data and to take
full advantage of the expertise of the private sector. The
Department of the Interior is actively pursuing these goals.
The administration opposes, however, H.R. 1604 because it would
unnecessarily replicate existing government activities that are
already enabling efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
For over two decades, the Federal Geographic Data Committee
has worked to reduce duplication and increase the
interoperability of geospatial data. The new agency proposed in
this bill would replace the existing objectives and efforts of
the FGDC. H.R. 1604 states that its intention is to reduce
duplication. Yet what is sometimes perceived as duplication can
in fact be data collected over the same geographic area but for
different end user needs.
For example, the Department of Agriculture requires aerial
imagery that is collected during the growing season. Other
applications, such as mapping streams, requires data that is
collected in the winter when the leaves have fallen. This is to
say that the management of geospatial data should focus on
users' needs. OMB Circular A-16 provides for such an approach.
Under this policy, the FGDC develops effective standards and
infrastructure for sharing geospatial data and fosters
cooperation among Federal and non-Federal partners.
There are various examples that demonstrate Federal
collaboration and cooperation, but I would like to highlight
three at the Department of the Interior. The geospatial
products and services contract administered by the USGS uses
professional geospatial firms to acquire geospatial data. The
contract is designed for use by multiple agencies and State
governments to collect data once and use it many times. We are
using this contract as we speak to collect data and quality
assure that data over Colorado in response to the devastating
floods in September, as well as in the State of New Jersey in
response to Sandy.
The Alaskan Mapping Initiative, established in 2011, is
updating topographic maps for the State. The effort includes
multiple Federal and State agencies and is overseen by a joint
Federal-State committee. This initiative will provide data and
finished maps that are expected to spur economic development
and promote public safety in the State.
Third, the 3D Elevation Program is an initiative to acquire
high resolution lidar over the Nation and is funded at $9
million in the President's 2014 budget. The seeds of 3DEP were
sown in 2010 when five agencies partnered together to
commission a study of the needs for and the benefits of a
nationwide lidar program. It inventoried all publicly available
funded lidar and found less than 9 percent of it was
duplicated.
As you know, there have been impressive advances in lidar
technology in recent years, and 3DEP has been designed to meet
a wide variety of these needs, including civil engineering,
energy and minerals production, agriculture, intelligent
vehicle navigation, just to name a few. As for the
recommendations made by GAO to DOI in their 2013 report, three
of nine have been completed and the remaining six are expected
to be completed by March 2014.
Moving on to H.R. 916, the Department has serious concerns
with the bill, which would provide little new critical
information about the lands the Federal Government manages and
would be prohibitively expensive to implement. H.R. 916
requires the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a
multipurpose cadastre of all Federal real property, including
an inventory with information about the use, value, assets, and
infrastructure of each parcel. This bill further requires the
Secretary to determine which priorities can be better managed
through ownership by a non-Federal entity.
The costs of the comprehensive inventory of Federal lands
envisioned by H.R. 916 would be prohibitive. The Department of
the Interior believes that the reduction of funds away from
accomplishing important projects and jobs that they create in
the areas of energy development, resource protection,
recreation, and conservation is not the best use of taxpayers'
dollars.
[The Department of the Interior's Statement for the Record
on H.R. 916 follows:]
Prepare Statement of the U.S. Department of the Interior
h.r. 916--federal land asset inventory reform act of 2013
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to provide
this statement for the record on H.R. 916, the Federal Land Asset
Inventory Reform Act of 2013. The Department has serious concerns with
H.R. 916, which would provide little new critical information about the
lands the Federal Government manages and would be prohibitively
expensive to implement.
background
According to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal
Government manages 635 to 640 million acres of the nearly 2.3 billion
acres that constitute the United States. The largest land managers for
the Federal Government are the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, Defense, and Energy. Within the Department of the
Interior, the Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 245
million acres; the National Park Service manages approximately 80
million acres; the Fish and Wildlife Service manages approximately 150
million acres as part of the Refuge System; and the Bureau of
Reclamation manages approximately 6.5 million acres associated with
Bureau of Reclamation projects. The U.S. Forest Service, in the
Department of Agriculture, manages approximately 193 million acres.
Approximately 27.9 million acres in the United States are managed by
the Department of Defense. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of
buildings and structures are managed by a multitude of Federal
agencies.
h.r. 916
H.R. 916 requires the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a
multipurpose cadastre of all Federal real property, defined as real
estate ``consisting of land, buildings, crops, forests, or other
resources.'' The bill defines cadastre as an inventory of the real
property of the Federal Government including information about the
``use, value, assets and infrastructure of each parcel.'' The bill
further requires the Secretary to determine which properties ``can be
better managed through ownership by a non-Federal entity.''
The cost of this type of a detailed inventory of Federal real
property called for in H.R. 916 would be prohibitive. A very rough
estimate suggests that the cost could run in the many billions of
dollars.
Some of the requirements in H.R. 916 are duplicative of other work
and reports done by Federal agencies. One example is a comprehensive
review of the Federal Government's oil and gas resources which was
required by the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 2000 (EPCA), Public
Law 106-469. The final phase of the multi-agency EPCA report was
completed in 2008.
H.R. 916 also requires that as part of the cadastre, a review be
done to determine which lands could be better managed by a non-Federal
entity. For the BLM, for instance, this would be a costly process that
would duplicate work already being done by individual BLM field
offices.
Many of the decisions about how best to manage the public lands
entrusted to the BLM's management are made through 157 individual
Resource Management Plans (RMPs) which are developed with full public
participation at the local level. These RMPs provide the foundation for
every on-the-ground action taken or authorized by the BLM, and include
an inventory and assessment of a broad range of resource values and
public land uses. Among the many decisions made through the RMP process
is the identification of lands that are potentially available for
disposal. Extensive public involvement in this process is critical.
H.R. 916 appears to substitute the judgment of officials in Washington,
DC. for decisions made on the ground by local field managers, through
an open and inclusive public process. The Department has serious
concerns with H.R. 916 because of the likely costly and duplicative
process of identifying lands for disposal established by this bill.
The Department of the Interior is aware of and appreciates the
concerns expressed by some Members of Congress about the accuracy of
data on lands owned by the Federal Government and specifically in the
Department of the Interior. It is worth noting that the Federal
Government is making important strides in improving the accuracy,
efficiency and level of data available on the Federal real property
portfolio. The Federal Real Property Council [FRPC] works across
agencies to determine opportunities to spread real property best
practices, achieve short and long-term cost savings, and realign real
property inventories to agency mission and service delivery.
Beginning in 2010, the BLM initiated a mineral and land records
verification and validation program which is focused on delivering
accurate land inventory data, while improving transparency and
accountability. This system, once completed, will allow for more
efficient and effective management of mineral and land records. Until
it is completed, the public can access an updated national surface
management data set through the BLM's GeoCommunicator Web site.
conclusion
The cost of the comprehensive inventory of Federal lands envisioned
by H.R. 916 would be prohibitive. The Department of the Interior
believes that the redirection of funds away from accomplishing
important projects and the jobs they create in areas of energy
development, resource protection, recreation, and conservation is not
the best use of taxpayer dollars.
______
Mr. Gallagher. Chairman, again, I thank you for this
opportunity. I will be pleased to respond to any questions that
you may have about H.R. 1604.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin T. Gallagher, Associate Director for Core
Science Systems, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
h.r. 1604--map it once, use it many times act
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to provide
its views on H.R. 1604, the Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act. The
stated objectives of H.R 1604 are to reduce duplication of federally
managed geospatial data and to take full advantage of the expertise of
the private sector. The Department is actively pursuing these goals.
The administration opposes H.R. 1604 because it is inconsistent with
and duplicates existing authorized activities and programs, includes
definitions of geospatial information and activities that are overly
broad, and is not adequately designed to achieve the stated goals of
the bill.
The Department of the Interior [DOI] plays a leading role in the
Federal collection, maintenance, and management of geospatial data.
These activities are coordinated by the Federal Geospatial Data
Committee [FGDC], which has its Secretariat housed at the USGS. The
FGDC is co-chaired by leadership from DOI and the E-Government Office
at the White House Office of Management and Budget and includes the
participation of 31 agencies. The policy framework that guides these
activities is found in OMB Circular A-16. For over two decades, the
FGDC has worked to reduce duplication and increase the interoperability
of federally sourced geospatial data. The FGDC has established common
geospatial data standards across the Federal Government, so that data
collected by one agency can be used by another. The FGDC has also
determined authoritative sources for a set of data themes, ensuring
that one agency does not produce data already being produced by
another. The new agency proposed in H.R. 1604, the National Geospatial
Technology Administration [NGTA], would replace the existing objectives
and efforts of the FGDC (FGDC's advisory board, the NGAC, would be
replaced by the newly established National Geospatial Policy Commission
under title II). This, however, conflicts with the recommendations made
by the Government Accountability Office [GAO] currently being
implemented by the FGDC (discussed below).
H.R. 1604 would substantially alter the activities of the Federal
Government related to the collection and management of geospatial data,
which include the location, boundaries, and ownership of land in the
United States. Title I would establish a new bureau in the Department:
the NGTA. This provision would transfer to the Administrator of the
NGTA all geospatial functions vested by law within DOI, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce,
and the Department of Agriculture with respect to National Forest
System lands. This new bureau would be directed to establish a
comprehensive data base that would include a large variety of
geospatial data from both public and commercial sources. Title II would
establish the National Geospatial Policy Commission [NGPC], a body of
Federal and non-Federal stakeholders tasked with developing a plan for
the management of the new geospatial data base and identifying
activities performed by Federal agencies that should be converted to
performance by private geospatial firms. It is important to note that
the National Geospatial Advisory Commission is already in existence and
is quite active in advising the Federal agencies on geospatial
activities. Title III and title IV concern the use of private
contractors for the production of geospatial data and repeat direction
that already exists in current Federal acquisition law. Title V would
authorize a Federal geospatial research and development plan.
The nature of place-based information, or geospatial data, has
evolved significantly in just the last few years. Information that was
once available only in printed form is now available on almost every
mobile communications device on the market, and while the data were
once produced by a cadre of experts such as cartographers,
photogrammetrists, and GIS specialists, today, some categories of
geospatial data, such as building or street locations, are often
produced by everyday users through crowd sourcing and Web-based
applications. These changes are a byproduct of revolutionary advances
in information technology, which are affecting nearly every aspect of
our lives. In particular, when precise Global Positioning System data
were made available for civilian use in 2000, the general availability
of geospatial data and applications increased exponentially.
Modern mapping applications developed in the private sector often
rely on geospatial data from Federal sources. For example, much of the
imagery available on Web-based mapping applications, such as Google
Maps and Esri's ArcGIS, is procured through the Department of
Agriculture's National Agriculture Imagery Program. This imagery is
used for agricultural monitoring by the USDA Farm Service Agency, but
it is also made available to the public free of charge, allowing
private firms to design value-added applications using the imagery. The
same is true for other forms of geospatial data, such as boundaries for
ZIP codes or National Parks, center lines for streams and rivers, or
land cover datasets. Finished maps produced by private firms are often
made using data from Government sources as the base.
H.R. 1604 states that its intention is to reduce duplication--yet
what is sometimes perceived as duplication can, in fact, be data
collected over the same geographic area but having different attributes
to respond to significantly different end user needs and
specifications. For example, the Department of Agriculture requires
aerial imagery that is collected during the growing season, when there
are leaves on the trees; other applications, such as the detailed
mapping of hydrography, requires aerial imagery that is collected in
the winter, when the leaves have fallen and do not obscure the view of
stream networks.
We support a user-focused approach to the production and management
of federally sourced geospatial data. OMB Circular A-16 is aimed at
promoting the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial
data nationwide and follows such an approach. Currently, under this
policy framework, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee [NGAC]
advises the FGDC on effective standards-setting, the management of
Federal and national geospatial data, the development of a uniform
infrastructure for all geospatial data, and cooperation among Federal
and non-Federal holders of geospatial data and users of geospatial
data.
In 2011, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] conducted a
review of the extent to which the Federal Government has established
and effectively implemented policies and procedures for coordinating
its geospatial investments and avoiding duplication. GAO recommended a
number of improvements to the implementation of Circular A-16. Of the
nine recommendations made by GAO to the FGDC and DOI, three have been
completed. The remaining six are expected to be completed by 2014.
(This is in addition to 11 recommendations made by GAO in 2004, all of
which have been completed.)
Another example of the user-focused approach is the Geospatial
Products and Services Contracts, administered by the USGS. These
contracts, which are already used by Federal, State, tribal, and local
agencies, help agencies leverage their resources to collect geospatial
data that meet multiple needs. There are also existing laws that
further support collaboration on geospatial information, such as the
Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act (OCMIA, 33 U.S.C. 3501).
OCMIA establishes a program for developing a coordinated and
comprehensive Federal ocean and coastal mapping plan that includes
cooperative mapping efforts, collaborative technology development,
standards and protocols, and archiving of the data for public use.
Last, a very current example of user-focused procedures is the Alaska
Mapping Initiative. Established in 2011, the initiative is developing
updated topographic maps for Alaska. It includes multiple Federal and
State of Alaska agencies and is overseen by a joint Federal-State
committee. The initiative will provide data and finished maps that are
expected to spur economic development and promote public safety.
Under these and other authorities, Federal agencies have
coordinated many of their geospatial acquisitions. One example is
elevation data collected by advanced sensor types such as Light
Detection and Ranging (lidar) sensors. In 2010, five Federal agencies
concluded a comprehensive study of the needs for and benefits of a
nationwide lidar program. A component of the study was to complete an
exhaustive inventory of all lidar data collected for the United States
to date. The study concluded that less than 9 percent of the data was
duplicated and virtually all data were justified by operational
necessity. Recognizing these realities, the President's Fiscal Year
2014 Budget includes $9 million for a 3D Elevation Program (3DEP),
which will take advantage of the impressive technological advances of
lidar to meet communities' needs nationwide. 3DEP has been specifically
designed to leverage funding from multiple Federal agencies as well as
State and local governments.
With respect to the specifics of H.R. 1604, the bill states that
the Administrator of the NGTA, a Presidential appointee confirmed by
the Senate, would report directly to the Secretary. The bill, however,
also states that the NGTA would be created within the USGS, which is a
non-regulatory science agency. Because the NGTA would include a number
of regulatory functions, its establishment as a part of the USGS could
conflict with its existing mission and potentially compromise the
unbiased nature of USGS science. For this reason, we recommend
clarifying the language. Further, H.R. 1604 directs the Administrator
to represent the views and interests of private geospatial firms to the
Federal Government if the policies or activities of a Federal agency
affect private geospatial firms (sec. 402(d)(2)), raising issues of
ethics and conflict of interest.
Section 103 outlines a variety of data types that would be
collected in the National Geospatial Data base, which include
boundaries and ownership information on Federal, tribal trust, and non-
Federal lands. Some of these are problematic. For example, underground
infrastructure is often privately owned, potentially implicating the
interests of private property owners, or it may be sensitive for
security reasons. Also, the terms ``as-built drawings'' and ``service
connection cards'' are unclear. Furthermore, there are Department of
Defense and Intelligence agency concerns that go beyond the nature of
this statement.
Sec. 108 requires the head of every Federal agency--specifically
including the Census Bureau--to provide to the Administrator all
geospatial or address data held by the agency. Potential transfer of
this data to private geospatial firms under this bill raises
significant concerns about privacy and confidentiality, and the
unauthorized disclosure of statistical information made confidential by
title 13 of the United States Code, among other issues.
We believe title III is unnecessary. The President's 2010 National
Space Policy directs the Government to ``pursue potential opportunities
for transferring routine, operational space functions to the commercial
space sector.'' We believe the language of this title would restrict
the Government's ability to select the acquisition approach that best
meets end users' needs. Title IV could lead to conflicts of interest
for the NGTA and the NGPC.
In conclusion, the Administration opposes H.R. 1604 because it
would unnecessarily duplicate existing Government activities and
structures that already enable efficient use of taxpayer dollars for
the collection and maintenance of geospatial data. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Kevin T. Gallagher
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Doug Lamborn
h.r. 1604--map it once use it many times act and h.r. 916--federal land
asset inventory reform act of 2013
Question. Do we know how much the Federal Government spends on
geospatial activities each year? How much is spent in-house and how
much by contract? What is the total U.S. geospatial market and what
percentage does the Federal Government represent?
Answer. Geospatial data and tools are becoming ubiquitous in the
consumer marketplace, in academia, in industry and in government. A
2012 published report from the Boston Consulting Group estimated that
geospatial services (electronic maps and satellite imagery describing
our physical and human environment) and the geospatial services
industry (businesses, consumers, and government and non-government
organizations) generated about $73 billion in revenues in 2011 and
involves about 500,000 high-wage jobs (about equal to the airline
industry). The report estimates that geospatial services deliver
efficiency gains in the rest of the U.S. economy valued at many times
the size of the sector itself, creating a lasting source of competitive
advantage for the U.S. Such services are used on a daily basis by about
5.3 million U.S. workers (over 4 percent of the U.S. workforce). U.S.
consumers put a direct value on geospatial services at $37 billion
annually.
The Federal Government's use of geospatial data and tools has
created, and continues to create, extraordinary gains in efficiency and
in some cases has revolutionized the way that Federal programs are
delivered, dramatically improving services to citizens. As the use of
geospatial data and tools continues to permeate the many aspects of
Federal programs, it is increasingly more difficult to separate
geospatial investments from investments in programs, tools, data, or
technology more broadly. Currently, there is no formal definition of
``geospatial activities'' and no comprehensive report or mechanism that
totals how much the Federal Government (Defense and non-Defense
agencies) spends annually on ``geospatial activities.'' Additionally,
there is no data representing the Federal share of the total U.S.
geospatial market. Efforts are underway however, to establish reporting
processes that focuses on Federal investments in national geospatial
data sets, a critical component of the Nation's infrastructure.
The Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC] member agencies are
developing the A-16 Portfolio Management Implementation Plan (Plan),
established by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] in 1990 and
re-chartered in the 2002 revision of Circular A-16 ``Coordination of
Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities''. The FGDC
is a 32 member interagency committee composed of representatives from
the Executive Office of the President, and Cabinet level and
independent Federal agencies. The FGDC promotes coordinated
development, use, sharing and dissemination of geospatial data on a
national basis. FGDC activities are administered through the FGDC
Secretariat, hosted in the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Plan outlines an approach for instituting a portfolio
management process that supports efficient and effective sharing of
geospatial assets across the Federal enterprise, its partners, and
stakeholders. Focused initially on national geospatial data sets,
recognized as capital assets, a 3-year phased approached will be
implemented to identify, document, and evaluate, existing federally
created or managed geospatial data. This effort will also develop
processes for reporting existing levels of Federal geospatial data
investment, gaps in the existing data holdings, and projections of
additional levels of investment needed to ensure the Nation has the
data required to address national, regional, and local issues and
priorities.
With regard to the question: How much is spent in-house and how
much by contract?
The USGS is committed to leveraging the expertise of the private
sector for the acquisition of geospatial services and data. As
documented in the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment [NEEA], there
is a National need for high resolution elevation data [LiDAR and
IfSAR], estimated at $150 million per year, with an estimated return on
investment of up to $13 billion annually. The USGS 3D Elevation Program
[3DEP] has been designed to utilize the private sector to fulfill that
need. In 2013, the USGS demonstrated success in combining the resources
of Federal and State agencies to award approximately $25 million in
contracts to the private sector for the acquisition of high resolution
elevation data (described in more detail below). We estimate that an
additional $25 million in high resolution elevation data is acquired
annually by public institutions without USGS participation, leaving a
remaining gap of approximately $100 million to fulfill the vision for
3DEP. We have no data as to what extent of the estimated $25 million
collected without USGS participation is acquired in-house vs.
contracted.
The USGS administers a set of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite
Quantity [IDIQ] contracts awarded through a competitive,
qualifications-based selection process, which provides a mechanism to
obtain geospatial data and services throughout the United States. The
contracts are flexible and can be used by other Federal, State, and
local agencies. The Geospatial Product and Service Contracts [GPSC] are
a suite of contracts, broad in scope, that can accommodate activities
related to standard, nonstandard, graphic, and digital cartographic
products. Services provided may include: photogrammetric mapping and
aerotriangulation, orthophotography, thematic mapping (for example,
land characterization), digital imagery applications, IfSAR and LiDAR,
geographic information systems development, surveying and control
acquisition including ground-based and airborne GPS, and much more.
Over 2010-2013, the USGS awarded over $20 million per year through
the GPSC contracts. Much of this funding came from other Federal,
State, and local agencies to support projects of mutual interest. Other
Federal agencies engaging in projects which make use of these and other
contracts include other Department of the Interior [DOI] agencies such
as the National Park Service and the Office of Surface Mining as well
as Federal agencies from outside the DOI, including the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency [NGA], the U.S. Forest Service, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Spending by these other agencies is likely to be
substantially less than that for the USGS and the NGA since their
requirements are typically limited in their geographic extent and do
not require the same level of information to perform their land
management missions.
Question. Sec. 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
[FLPMA], (43 U.S.C.1711) says, ``The Secretary shall prepare and
maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and
their resource and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor
recreation and scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical
environmental concern. This inventory shall be kept current so as to
reflect changes in conditions and to identify new and emerging resource
and other values.'' Is that inventory on-line or posted somewhere for
public review?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] maintains and updates
the inventory of the public lands managed by the BLM through its land
use planning process. Maintenance of or updates to inventories do not,
of themselves, change the management or use of public lands. Such
information can only change the management and use of public lands
through the land use planning process to revise or amend land use plans
pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1712. Currently, the BLM has 157 individual
Resource Management Plans [RMPs], i.e., land use plans, which are
developed with opportunities for full public participation at local,
State and national levels. These RMPs provide general management goals
and objectives, land allocations for resource uses and management
prescriptions to control the resources and resources uses applicable to
all activities authorized by the BLM. The RMP is based on an inventory
and assessment of a broad range of resource values and public land
uses. Approved RMPs are available on-line through the BLM Web site.
Additionally, those RMPs currently being revised are available on-line
through the BLM Web site as Draft and Proposed RMPs.
Question. Does the Interior Department or anyone in the executive
branch know how many different land inventories are currently
maintained?
Answer. In respect to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
[FLPMA], (43 U.S.C. 1711) the following text is included: ``(e) The
term `public land' means any land and interest in land owned by the
United States within the several States administered by the Secretary
of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard
to how the United States acquired ownership, except--(1) lands located
on the Outer Continental Shelf; and (2) lands held for the benefit of
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.'' The BLM maintains and updates the
inventory of public lands managed by the BLM per the FLPMA.
While other Federal agencies have data about the public lands they
manage, such as the Forest Service or the DOD, and many States have
data on the public lands over which they have jurisdiction, the DOI is
not aware of a formal definition of what constitutes a land inventory
(beyond the FLPMA requirements for BLM lands). As such, the DOI does
not know how many other land inventories may exist outside the
Department, nor is it aware of another source of that information.
Question. According to the National Academy of Sciences study on a
national parcel system, ``the cost of completing parcel data for the
Nation is estimated to be about $300 million.'' If the cost for the
entire nation is $300 million, how does the Interior Department
estimate H.R. 916 will cost ``many billions of dollars''?
Answer. The National Academy of Sciences cost estimate is based on
parcel data substantially narrower in scope than the FLAIR Act
requirements. Its parcel model costs include a very basic set of
attributes that support only the discovery and navigation of parcels
which is substantially different than the details stipulated in the
FLAIR Act. The FLAIR Act would direct the Federal Government to collect
extensive data for both the surface and subsurface estate concerning
the ``use, value, assets and restrictions associated with each
parcel.'' This would require an inventory of all valid existing rights,
resources, and restrictions associated with each parcel as well as
appraisals and inventories. The BLM's initial estimate of costs as
provided to the Committee in 2012 was based on the information required
in the FLAIR Act; the estimate is potentially in excess of $50 billion.
The estimate is summarized as follows:
Total acres owned by Federal Government: 635-640
million acres
Total Federal acres divided into 40-acre parcels: 15.8-16
million parcels
Federal Parcel Task Approximate Costs
Automate parcel maps $6/parcel $95 million
Collect Linkages for critical $3/parcel $47 million
information
Collect resource and use $1/acre $635 million
information
Determine estimate of value $2,500/parcel $39 billion
Determine mineral resource $1/acre $635 million
potential
Cultural/archaeological resource $12-$45/acre $7-$28 billion
inventory
TOTAL $47 billion-$68 billion
______
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Powner, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE [GAO]
Mr. Powner. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and
members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to
testify on the need to better coordinate billions of dollars on
geospatial information. Geospatial data is used to manage real
property, public lands, climate and weather, and disease
outbreaks, to name a few, and it supports important national
functions like national security and disaster response.
Mr. Chairman, despite Presidential and OMB policies that
have been in place for nearly 25 years, geospatial investments
across the Federal Government are poorly coordinated, resulting
in the acquisition of duplicative geospatial data. GAO issued a
report last year on this and highlighted this in our annual
duplication series this past year. This morning I would like to
highlight the key issues and recommendations to address this
mismanagement, starting with OMB.
OMB has budget reporting mechanisms tied to spending that
do not provide complete and accurate information to identify
duplicative geospatial investments, and its effort to create a
geospatial line of business in 2006 to address this situation
was ineffective. OMB cannot tell us how much our government
spends on geospatial investments. OMB told us that this is not
a priority area and that they are tracking duplication in other
areas of IT.
That is true, as we reported just last month on OMB's
efforts to identify over 200 opportunities to reduce IT
duplication across the Federal Government that could save us up
to $8 billion. However, our government spends billions of
dollars on geospatial investments, and this should be an OMB
priority.
Turning to the Federal Geographic Data Committee, which was
created in 1990 within the Department of the Interior to
promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of
geospatial data, it is governed by an interagency steering
committee, and about 30 agencies are currently members. This
coordination body's responsibilities have been reinforced and
strengthened over the years through executive orders and OMB
policies.
Despite this, limited leadership, coordination, and
progress have resulted. This committee has established some
standards and has created a clearinghouse to identify existing
and planned geospatial investments; however, this committee's
clearinghouse does not identify all existing and planned
investments, and it has not fully set up a portfolio or theme
approach to manage geospatial information, as directed by OMB
policy.
Mr. Chairman, a clearinghouse to know exactly what the
government has planned and this portfolio approach is exactly
what is needed to coordinate to avoid additional duplication.
In fact, there are currently 17 proposed themes that include
land use, climate and weather, and transportation. However,
this portfolio approach to managing geospatial data is far from
being implemented effectively.
In addition to the lack of leadership from OMB and the
committee, the agencies we looked at in our review were not
effectively coordinating or managing activities within their
respective agencies, nor were they effectively managing data
themes. For example, one requirement is to adopt procedures to
search the clearinghouse before expending funds on geospatial
data. Such procedures did not exist.
To address this situation, OMB, the committee, and agencies
need to take a number of steps to better coordinate geospatial
data. OMB needs to strengthen its oversight by providing an
accurate picture of what the Federal Government spends on
geospatial investments and use its budgetary levers to identify
and stop duplicative investments in this area. The committee
needs to ensure that the geospatial clearinghouse has all
existing and planned geospatial investments and that these
investments are managed in a portfolio or theme-based fashion.
And the Federal Government agencies need to stop managing in
stovepipes. This means making data available in the
clearinghouse, participating in theme-based management of
geospatial data, and accurately reporting investments and their
associated costs to OMB.
Recently, some steps have been taken to address our
recommendations. For example, in September the committee issued
guidance directing departments to identify planned investments
using the clearinghouse.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, legislation to better manage the
billions of dollars our Nation spends on geospatial investments
should consider the major leadership and management gaps our
work has highlighted and the numerous recommendations we have
made. This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond
to questions.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology
Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO]
geospatial information--omb and agencies can reduce duplication by
making coordination a priority
GAO Highlights
Highlights of GAO-14-226T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study
The Federal Government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial
information--information linked to specific geographic locations--to
support many functions, including national security and disaster
response. In 2012, the Department of the Interior estimated that the
Federal Government was investing billions of dollars on geospatial data
annually, and that duplication was common.
In November 2012, GAO reported on efforts to reduce duplicative
investments in geospatial data, focusing on OMB, FGDC, and three
agencies: the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Transportation.
This statement summarizes the results of that November 2012 report
on progress and challenges in coordinating geospatial information and
includes updates on the implementation of recommendations made in that
report.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making no new recommendations in this statement. In November
2012, GAO recommended that to improve coordination and reduce
duplication, FGDC develop a national strategy for coordinating
geospatial investments; Federal agencies follow Federal guidance for
managing geospatial investments; and OMB develop a mechanism to
identify and report on geospatial investments. Since that time, FGDC
and several agencies have taken some steps to implement the
recommendations. However, additional actions are still needed.
What GAO Found
The President and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] have
established policies and procedures for coordinating investments in
geospatial data, however, in November 2012, GAO reported that
governmentwide committees and Federal departments and agencies had not
effectively implemented them. The committee that was established to
promote the coordination of geospatial data nationwide--the Federal
Geographic Data Committee [FGDC]--had developed and endorsed key
standards and had established a clearinghouse of metadata. GAO found
that the clearinghouse was not being used by agencies to identify
planned geospatial investments to promote coordination and reduce
duplication. In addition, the committee had not yet planned or
implemented an approach to manage geospatial data as related groups of
investments to allow agencies to more effectively plan geospatial data
collection efforts and minimize duplicative investments, and its
strategic plan was missing key elements.
Other shortfalls have impaired progress in coordinating geospatial
data. Specifically, none of the three Federal departments in GAO's
review had fully implemented important activities such as preparing and
implementing a strategy for advancing geospatial activities within
their respective departments (see table). Moreover, the agencies in
GAO's review responsible for governmentwide management of specific
geospatial data had implemented some but not all key activities for
coordinating the national coverage of specific geospatial data.
Status of Federal Departments' Implementation of Geospatial Activities,
as of November 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Commerce Interior Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designate a Partially met. Fully met. Partially met.
senior
official
Prepare and Not met. Not met. Not met.
implement a
strategy
Develop a Partially met. Not met. Not met.
policy for
metadata
Make metadata Fully met. Fully met. Fully met.
available on
clearinghouse
Adopt Not met. Not met. Not met.
procedures for
accessing
clearinghouse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation.
While OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial data, GAO
reported in November 2012 that according to OMB staff, the agency did
not have complete and reliable information to identify potentially
duplicative geospatial investments. GAO also reported that FGDC,
Federal departments and agencies, and OMB had not yet fully implemented
policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments because
these efforts had not been a priority. As a result, efforts to acquire
data were uncoordinated and the Federal Government acquired duplicative
geospatial data. For example, a National Geospatial Advisory Committee
representative stated that a commercial provider leases the same
proprietary parcel data to six Federal agencies. GAO concluded that
unless the key entities determined that coordinating geospatial
investments was a priority, the Federal Government would continue to
acquire duplicative geospatial information and waste taxpayer dollars.
__________
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the
subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of
coordinating Federal investments in geospatial information--information
linked to specific geographic locations--in order to avoid duplication.
The Federal Government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial
information to support many functions, including national security and
disaster response. In 2012, the Department of the Interior estimated
that the Federal Government was investing billions of dollars on
geospatial data annually, and that duplication was common.
In November 2012, we reported that while the President and the
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] had established policies and
procedures for coordinating investments in geospatial data,
governmentwide committees and selected Federal departments and agencies
had not effectively implemented them.\1\ In that report, we made
multiple recommendations to OMB and Federal agencies to improve
coordination and reduce duplication among geospatial data investments.
My testimony today will summarize the results of that report.
Specifically, I will cover (1) progress and challenges in coordinating
geospatial data, and (2) the current status of agencies implementation
of GAO's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Need to Make
Coordination a Priority to Reduce Duplication, GAO-13-94 (Washington,
DC: November 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work on which my statement is based was conducted from November
2011 to November 2012 and was focused on governmentwide activities to
implement the National Spatial Data Infrastructure [NSDI]--an
infrastructure to facilitate the efficient collection, sharing, and
dissemination of geospatial data among all levels of government, and
public and private sectors--as well as efforts of the Federal
Geographic Data Committee [FGDC]--the Federal committee established to
promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial
data nationwide. Additionally, the report focused on activities within
three selected departments: Department of Commerce (Commerce),
Department of the Interior (Interior), and Department of Transportation
(Transportation); and within three selected agencies responsible for
managing data themes:\2\ the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. Further details on the scope and methodology
for the previously issued report are available within that published
product. In addition, we analyzed documentation from the agencies on
the status of their efforts to address our recommendations. All work on
which this testimony is based was performed in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Data themes are comprised of one or more sets of geospatial
data that have national significance, as established by Federal
guidance, such as hydrography (i.e., surface water features, such as
lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
background
For many years, the Federal Government has taken steps to
coordinate geospatial activities both within and outside the Federal
Government. In 1953, the Bureau of the Budget \3\ first issued Circular
A-16, encouraging expeditious surveying and mapping activities across
all levels of government and avoidance of duplicative efforts. In 1990,
OMB revised Circular A-16 to, among other things, establish the Federal
Geospatial Data Committee [FGDC] within Interior to promote the
coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data
nationwide. Building on that guidance, in 1994 the President issued
Executive Order 12906 for the purpose of addressing wasteful
duplication and incompatibility of geospatial information, and assigned
FGDC the responsibility to coordinate the development of NSDI.\4\ In
2002, OMB again revised Circular A-16 to further describe the
components of NSDI; clearly define agency responsibilities for
acquiring, maintaining, distributing, using, and preserving geospatial
data; and to reaffirm FGDC's role as the interagency coordinating body
for NSDI-related activities.\5\ The circular established the following
five components of NSDI and described how these components were to be
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Bureau of the Budget became OMB in 1970.
\4\ Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data
Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59
Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Washington, DC: Apr. 11, 1994).
\5\ OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information
and Related Spatial Data Activities, (Washington, DC: Aug. 19, 2002).
Data Themes. Data themes are topics of national
significance, such as cadastre, which includes rights and
interests in real property and surveys and land use/land cover,
which includes land surface features and use. OMB Circular
A-16 currently identifies 34 data themes and identifies the
``lead'' agency or agencies for each theme. Each data theme is
to be comprised of one or more electronic data records, known
as a dataset. Of the 34 themes, 9 are identified as a
``framework'' theme \6\--that is, a theme identified in
Circular A-16 as being critical for any geospatial application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ According to FGDC officials, there are seven framework themes,
with two of the themes having two parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards. Geospatial standards provide common and
repeatable rules or guidelines for the development,
documentation, and exchange of geospatial datasets.
Metadata. Metadata are information about datasets, such as
content, source, accuracy, method of collection, and point-of-
contact. Metadata are used to facilitate the search of and
access to datasets within a data library or clearinghouse, and
enable potential users to determine the data's applicability
for their use.
National Spatial Data Clearinghouse. The clearinghouse is
intended to be a centralized geospatial metadata repository
that contains geospatial metadata records from Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and academic and private
sector organizations that can be searched to determine whether
needed geospatial data exist and can be shared. Federal
agencies are required to identify their existing and planned
geospatial investments in the clearinghouse, and search the
clearinghouse for cost-saving opportunities before acquiring
geospatial data. In 2003, FGDC created the Geospatial One-Stop
to provide ``one-stop'' access to geospatial metadata from a
centralized data base and search function. In October 2011, the
Geospatial One-Stop was retired, and FGDC initiated a pilot
project, known as the Geospatial Platform, which was envisioned
to provide shared and trusted geospatial data, services, and
applications for use by government agencies, their partners,
and the public.\7\ According to Interior officials, Interior is
the managing partner of the Geospatial Platform. As of August
2012, there were approximately 835,000 geospatial metadata
records in the central repository, of which about 373,000 were
from Federal sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.geoplatform.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partnerships. Partnerships are efforts aimed at involving
all stakeholders (e.g., Federal, tribal, State, local
government, and academic institutions) in the development of
NSDI.
In November 2010, OMB issued supplemental guidance specifically
regarding how agencies are to manage data themes.\8\ This supplemental
guidance expands upon and clarifies some of the language and
responsibilities contained in OMB Circular A-16 in order to facilitate
the adoption and implementation of a geospatial asset management
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OMB, M-1-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental
Guidance, Nov. 10, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fulfill its responsibilities, FGDC is governed by a steering
committee--an interagency decisionmaking body that provides leadership
and policy direction in support of the development of NSDI. The
Secretary of the Interior chairs the committee; the Vice-Chair is the
Chief Architect of the Office of E-Government and Information
Technology of OMB.\9\ All departments or agencies responsible for
geospatial data themes, or that have activities in geographic
information or geospatial data collection or use, are required to be
members of FGDC. Thirty-two agencies \10\ are members of the Steering
Committee and are to be represented by their senior agency officials
for geospatial information.\11\ These senior agency officials are
responsible for overseeing, coordinating, and facilitating their
respective agency's implementation of geospatial requirements,
policies, and activities. FGDC is supported by the Office of the
Secretariat, which consists of about 10 people located in U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] who do the day-to-day work of supporting,
managing, and coordinating the activities of FGDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The chair and vice-chair may select designees to serve on their
behalf. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated the committee chair
responsibility to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
\10\ The 32 agency members of the Steering Committee are: Interior,
OMB, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Department of Defense,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (non-voting member), Department of
Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human
Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Department of Justice, Department of Labor,
Department of State, Transportation, Department of the Treasury,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Communications Commission (non-voting member), General Services
Administration, Library of Congress, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, National
Capital Planning Commission (non-voting member), National Science
Foundation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel
Management, Small Business Administration, Smithsonian Institution,
Social Security Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S.
Agency for International Development.
\11\ OMB, M-06-07, Designation of a Senior Agency Official for
Geospatial Information, Mar. 3, 2006, calls for select agencies to
appoint to the Steering Committee policy-level officials--a chief
information officer or a senior official at the assistant secretary
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior
created the National Geospatial Advisory Committee \12\ to provide the
department and FGDC with advice and recommendations related to the
management of Federal and national geospatial programs, development of
NSDI, and the implementation of related Federal guidance. Members of
the committee include approximately 30 officials from Federal, State,
local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and academia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Secretary created the committee as a Federal advisory
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB's Roles and Responsibilities for Overseeing IT Investments
OMB has specific oversight responsibilities for Federal information
technology [IT] systems and acquisition activities--including
geographic information systems--to help ensure their efficient and
effective use. Two key laws that outline these responsibilities are the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 \13\ and the E-Government Act of 2002.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 11101 et seq.
\14\ Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires, among other things,
OMB to establish processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the
risks and results of major capital investments in information
systems made by Federal agencies and report to Congress on the
net program performance benefits achieved as a result of these
investments.
The E-Government Act of 2002 establishes an e-government
initiative that encourages the use of web-based Internet
applications to enhance the access to and delivery of
government information and services to citizens, to business
partners, to employees, and among all levels of government. The
act also requires OMB to report annually to Congress on the
status of e-government initiatives. In these reports, OMB is to
describe the administration's use of e-government principles to
improve government performance and the delivery of information
and services to the public.
OMB subsequently began initiatives to fulfill the requirements
established by these laws:
In February 2002, OMB established the Federal Enterprise
Architecture, which is intended to facilitate governmentwide
improvement through cross-agency analysis and identification of
duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for
collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and
across agency programs. The Federal Enterprise Architecture is
composed of five ``reference models'' describing the Federal
Government's (1) business (or mission) processes and functions,
independent of the agencies that perform them; (2) performance
goals and outcome measures; (3) means of service delivery; (4)
information and data definitions; and (5) technology standards.
In March 2004, OMB established multiple ``lines of
business'' to consolidate redundant IT investments and business
processes across the Federal Government. Later, in March 2006,
OMB established the Geospatial Line of Business. Each line of
business is led by an individual agency and supported by other
relevant agencies. Interior is the managing partner for the
Geospatial Line of Business and the FGDC Secretariat provides
project management support. OMB reports to Congress each year
on the costs and benefits of these initiatives.
Geospatial Investments Were Included in GAO's Duplication Series
Over the past few years, we have issued a series of reports that
have identified Federal programs and functional areas where unnecessary
duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists;\15\ the actions needed
to address such conditions; and the potential financial and other
benefits of doing so.\16\ In particular, we identified opportunities to
reduce duplication and the cost of government operations in several
critical IT areas. In our most recent duplication report, we reported
that better coordination among Federal agencies that collect, maintain,
and use geospatial information could help reduce duplication of
geospatial investments and provide the opportunity for potential
savings of millions of dollars. The duplication report reiterated the
need for action among several Federal agencies, FGDC, and OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than
one Federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is
involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities
exist to improve service delivery. Overlap occurs when multiple
agencies or program have similar goals, engage in similar activities or
strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries.
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or program are engaged in
the same activities or provide the same services to the same
beneficiaries.
\16\ GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce
Fragmentation, Overlap and Duplication, and Achieve Other Financial
Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, DC: Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual
Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation,
Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, DC:
Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-
318SP (Washington, DC: Mar. 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
progress and challenges in coordinating geospatial data
FGDC Had Not Made Fully Implementing Key Activities for Coordinating
Geospatial Data a Priority
While the FGDC had made progress in some areas to improve
coordination in geospatial activities, our November 2012 report
identified a number of areas in which little progress had been made.
For example, FGDC had developed a metadata standard that included
descriptive information about a dataset--such as the framework theme to
which it relates, the timeframe of when the data was collected, and who
to contact for more information that facilitates the sharing of
geospatial data.\17\ FGDC had also established a clearinghouse that
allowed users to determine whether the geospatial data (including
planned data) they are seeking exist. As noted previously, the
clearinghouse consists of a centralized repository that contains
geospatial metadata \18\ records from Federal agencies, State and local
governments, academic and private-sector organizations; and multiple
web-based portals from which the metadata can be searched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FGDC, FGDC-STD-001-1998: Content Standard for Digital
Geospatial Metadata (Washington, DC: 1998).
\18\ As previously noted, metadata are information about datasets,
such as content, source, accuracy, method of collection, and point of
contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, despite this progress, we found that FGDC had not fully
implemented key aspects of activities needed for coordinating
investments in geospatial data. First, although the clearinghouse was
reported to have been modified in May 2012 to allow agencies to
identify their planned investments, as of September 2012, there were no
Federal agencies using this function because FGDC had not yet completed
and shared guidance with agencies on how to do so.
Second, FGDC had not fully planned for or implemented a portfolio
management approach per OMB guidance.\19\ Specifically, we found that
FGDC had evaluated the 34 data themes identified in OMB Circular A-16
to determine whether any changes were needed; in August 2011, the
Steering Committee proposed consolidating the 34 data themes into 17
themes; FGDC Secretariat officials subsequently stated that FGDC
agencies were proposing to eliminate one more theme for a total of
16.\20\ We reported that officials further stated that, as of August
2012, lead agencies had been identified for each of the 16 themes.
However, at the time, the data themes, lead agencies, and datasets had
neither been finalized nor approved, and FGDC had yet to provide
guidance to agencies about how to implement the portfolio management
approach. While Secretariat officials stated that they had developed a
draft implementation plan in November 2011, when we issued our November
2012 report, the plan had not been finalized or approved, and FGDC
Secretariat officials were unable, on behalf of FGDC agencies, to
provide a timeframe for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ OMB, M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental
Guidance, (Washington, DC: Nov. 10, 2010).
\20\ One of the 16 themes is Land Use/Land Cover, which refers to
natural and man-made surface features and how the land is used.
Examples of Land Cover are grass, asphalt, trees, bare ground, and
water. Examples of Land Use are urban, agricultural, and forest areas.
A complete list of the 16 data themes are found in appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, FGDC's strategic plan was missing key components and had not
been kept up-to-date. Specifically, we found that FGDC's current plan
had been issued in 2004 and included OMB-required components such as
(1) a vision statement, (2) three outcome-oriented goals and 13
objectives to be accomplished between 2005 and 2008, and (3) a high-
level description of how all but 1 of the 13 objectives were to be
achieved. However, the plan did not include components such as needed
resources, performance measures for 9 of the 13 objectives, or external
factors that could affect the achievement of the plan's goals and
objectives. Further, the plan did not reflect significant initiatives
that the FGDC Steering Committee had engaged in--such as the Geospatial
Platform--and the timeframes for the goals were outdated.
As we reported in November 2012, according to FGDC officials, they
had not yet fully implemented policies and procedures for coordinating
geospatial investments because these efforts had not been made a
priority. Instead, FGDC officials had been primarily focused on the
development of the Geospatial Platform. As a result, we determined in
2012 that efforts to acquire data were uncoordinated and the Federal
Government acquired duplicative geospatial data. For example, a
National Geospatial Advisory Committee representative told us that, at
that time, a commercial provider was leasing 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. We concluded
that unless FGDC decides that coordinating geospatial investments was a
priority, this situation would likely continue.
Departments Had Not Fully Implemented Important Activities for
Coordinating and Managing Geospatial Data
Our November 2012 report also showed that none of the three Federal
departments in our review--the Departments of Commerce, the Interior,
and Transportation--had fully implemented activities needed for
effectively coordinating and managing geospatial activities within
their respective departments. According to OMB guidance and the
executive order,\21\ Federal departments and agencies that handle
geospatial data are to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ OMB, M-06-07, Designation of a Senior Agency Official for
Geospatial Information, (Washington, DC: Mar. 3, 2006); OMB, Circular
No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial
Data Activities, (Washington, DC: Aug. 19, 2002); and Executive Order
No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The
National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Washington,
DC: Apr. 11, 1994).
Designate a senior agency official for geospatial
information that has departmentwide responsibility,
accountability, and authority for geospatial information
issues;
Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for
advancing geographic information and related geospatial data
activities appropriate to their mission, and in support of NSDI
strategy;
Develop a policy that requires them to make their geospatial
metadata available on the clearinghouse;
Make all metadata associated with geospatial data available
on the clearinghouse, and use the metadata standard; and
Adopt internal procedures to ensure that they access the
NSDI clearinghouse before they expend funds to collect or
produce new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the
information has already been collected by others, or (2)
whether cooperative efforts to obtain the data are possible.
However, while all three of the departments had made their metadata
available on the clearinghouse, none of the three Federal departments
in our review had fully implemented all of the other important
activities (see table 1).
Table 1--Status of Federal Departments' Implementation of Geospatial
Activities, as of November 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Commerce Interior Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designate a Partially met. Fully met. Partially met.
senior
official with
departmentwide
responsibility
Prepare and Not met. Not met. Not met.
implement a
strategy
Develop a Partially met. Not met. Not met.
policy for
metadata
Make metadata Fully met. Fully met. Fully met.
available on
clearinghouse
Adopt Not met. Not met. Not met.
procedures for
accessing the
clearinghouse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of department documentation.
Key
Fully met--the department provided evidence that addressed the criteria.
Partially met--the department provided evidence that addressed about
half or a large portion of the criteria.
Not met--the department did not provide evidence that addressed the
criteria or provided evidence that minimally addressed the criteria.
Department officials stated that the lack of progress in these
activities was due, in part, to a lack in designating priorities. This
lack of priority had contributed to the acquisition of duplicative
geospatial data. For example, three separate Federal agencies were
independently acquiring road centerline data.\22\ We concluded in
November 2012 that unless the Federal departments decided that
completing activities to better coordinate geospatial investments was a
priority, this situation would likely continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Road centerlines are vector line data that represent the
geographic center of road rights-of-way on transportation networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
theme-lead agencies had not fully implemented important activities for
coordinating and managing geospatial data
The three theme-lead agencies in our review--the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], USGS, and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics [BTS] had implemented some but not all of the
geospatial activities necessary to ensure the national coverage and
stewardship of specific geospatial data themes in our review.\23\
According to OMB,\24\ theme-lead agencies are to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The three data themes in our review were (1) geodetic control
[NOAA], which is data used to establish the precise location of other
types of geospatial data; (2) hydrography [USGS], which includes data
on surface water features such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers,
canals, oceans, and coastlines, and (3) transportation [BTS], which
includes both physical and nonphysical components representing all
modes of travel that allow the movement of goods and people between
locations.
\24\ OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information
and Related Spatial Data Activities, (Washington, DC: Aug. 19, 2002).
Designate a point of contact who is responsible for the
development, maintenance, coordination, and dissemination of
data using the clearinghouse;
Prepare goals relating to the theme that support the NSDI
strategy, and as needed, collect and analyze information from
user needs and include those needs in the theme-related goals;
Develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population of the
data theme that includes (1) the development of partnership
programs with states, tribes, academia, the private sector,
other Federal agencies, and localities that meet the needs of
users; (2) human and financial resource needs; (3) standards,
metadata, and the clearinghouse needs; and (4) a timetable for
the development for the theme; and
Create a plan to develop and implement theme standards.
However, we found that while all three of the theme-lead agencies
had made some progress, none of them had implemented all of these
important activities (see table 2).
Table 2--Status of Theme-lead Agencies' Implementation of Geospatial
Activities, as of November 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity NOAA USGS BTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designate a theme Fully met. Fully met. Fully met.
point of contact
Prepare goals and Fully met Partially met. Partially met.
analyze user needs
Develop a plan for Fully met. Partially met. Partially met.
theme population
Develop a standards Not met. Not met. Not met.
plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation.
Key
Fully met--the agency provided evidence that addressed the criteria.
Partially me--the agency provided evidence that addressed about half or
a large portion of the criteria.
Not met--the agency did not provide evidence that addressed the criteria
or provided evidence that minimally addressed the criteria.
Theme-lead agency officials attributed the lack of progress in
implementing these activities to competing priorities, among other
things. As a result, efforts to acquire data were uncoordinated and the
Federal Government acquired duplicative geospatial data. For example,
according to a National Geospatial Advisory Committee official, several
Federal agencies collected, purchased, or leased address information in
a noncoordinated fashion. We concluded in November 2012 that unless the
Federal agencies were to decide that completing activities to
coordinate geospatial investments was a priority, the potential for
duplication would continue to exist.
OMB Did Not Have Complete and Reliable Information to Identify
Duplicative Geospatial Investments
OMB has oversight responsibilities for Federal IT systems and
acquisition activities--including geographic information systems--to
help ensure their efficient and effective use. According to OMB Office
of E-Government staff members, OMB relies primarily on the annual
budget process to identify potentially duplicative geospatial
investments. Specifically, OMB requires Federal departments and
agencies to provide information related to their IT investments (called
exhibit 53s \25\) and capital asset plans and business cases (called
exhibit 300s \26\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The purpose of the exhibit 53 is to identify all IT
investments--both major and nonmajor--and their associated costs within
a Federal organization. Information included in agency exhibit 53s is
designed, in part, to help OMB better understand agencies' spending on
IT investments. OMB guidance for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014 budget
formulation instructs agencies to identify their geospatial investments
in the exhibit 53 using Federal Enterprise Architecture codes for
specific functions (e.g., geospatial services, financial management,
and acquisition management).
\26\ The purpose of the exhibit 300 is to provide a business case
for each major IT investment and to allow OMB to monitor IT investments
once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide information on
each major investment's cost, schedule, and performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as we reported in November 2012, OMB's Office of E-
Government staff members acknowledged that these two sources may not in
all cases provide the necessary information to allow OMB to identify
potentially duplicative investments or accurately quantify the amount
of Federal dollars spent on geospatial datasets for three primary
reasons.
First, according to these staff members some Federal agencies may
not classify investments in geospatial data as ``information
technology'' (such as satellites), meaning that they would not be
captured in exhibit 53s. OMB staff members stated that agencies are to
determine what qualifies as an IT investment and stated that there are
variations in the way that agencies interpret the definition of IT.
Second, agencies do not always appropriately classify geospatial
investments as ``geospatial services'' using the Federal Enterprise
Architecture codes. Our analysis of the fiscal year 2013 exhibit 53s
for the three departments that we reviewed showed that only 5 of their
24 key datasets--1 of NOAA's 6 geodetic control datasets and 4 of
USGS's 7 hydrography datasets--were included in the departments'
exhibit 53s. Further, only one of these investments was identified with
the geospatial services code, as required by OMB's fiscal year 2013
budget formulation guidance.
Third, given that the geospatial data may be only one component of
an IT investment or capital asset, even if it were included in the
agencies' exhibit 53s or 300s, we determined that OMB would have
difficulties in identifying the geospatial component, and the
associated dollars, without having a detailed discussion with
individuals responsible for each investment.
OMB staff members stated that, as a result, they did not have a
complete picture of how much money is being spent on geospatial
investments across the Federal Government because, as noted, what was
being reported may not have captured all geospatial spending, and the
data had not been reliable. We also reported in November 2012 that
according to OMB, although eliminating duplication in geospatial
investments was important, OMB's recent efforts had focused on other
commodity IT areas with higher spending and cyber security
ramifications. As a result, OMB had not yet established a way to
collect complete and reliable information about geospatial investments
because this had not been a priority. We concluded that, unless OMB
decides that coordinating geospatial investments is designated as a
priority, duplicative investments would likely continue.
implementing gao recommendations can reduce duplication and provide
cost savings
Our November 2012 report made numerous recommendations aimed at
improving coordination and reducing duplication of geospatial data.
Interior and Commerce generally agreed with our recommendations;
Transportation neither agreed nor disagreed.
First, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior, as FGDC
Chair, direct the FGDC Steering Committee to:
Establish a timeframe for completing a plan to facilitate
the implementation of OMB's November 2010 management guidance,
and develop and implement the plan within the established
timeframe;
Develop and implement guidance for identifying planned
geospatial investments in the Geospatial Platform, and
establish a timeframe for doing so; and
Establish a timeframe for creating and updating a strategic
plan to improve coordination and reduce duplication, and create
and implement the plan within the established timeframe. The
plan, at a minimum, should include (1) a vision statement for
the NSDI; (2) outcome-oriented goals and objectives that
address all aspects of the NSDI; (3) a description of how the
goals and objectives are to be achieved, including a
description of the resources needed to achieve the goals and
objectives and how FGDC is to work with other agencies to
achieve them; (4) performance measures for achieving the stated
goals; and (5) external factors that could affect the
achievement of the goals and objectives.
In addition, we recommended that the Secretaries of Commerce, the
Interior, and Transportation implement the relevant executive order
requirements and OMB guidance that apply to their departments and
agencies:
Designate a senior agency official with departmentwide
accountability, authority, and responsibility for geospatial
information issues;
Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for
advancing geographic information and related geospatial data
activities appropriate to its mission;
Develop a policy that requires the department to make its
geospatial metadata available on the clearinghouse;
Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that the
department accesses the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends
funds to collect or produce new geospatial data to determine
(1) whether the information has already been collected by
others and (2) whether cooperative efforts to obtain the data
are possible;
Prepare goals relating to all datasets within the relevant
theme that support the NSDI;
Develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population
of the relevant theme that addresses all datasets within the
theme and that includes (1) the development of partnership
programs with States, tribes, academia, the private sector,
other Federal agencies, and localities that meet the needs of
users; (2) human and financial resource needs; (3) standards,
metadata, and the clearinghouse needs; and (4) a timetable for
the development for the theme; and
Create and implement a plan to develop and implement
relevant theme standards.
Further, we recommended that the Director of OMB develop a
mechanism, or modify existing mechanisms, to identify and report
annually on all geospatial-related investments, including dollars
invested and the nature of the investment.
In the year since our report was issued, FGDC, OMB, and selected
agencies have made some progress in addressing recommendations. For
example, in September 2013, FGDC issued guidance directing all FGDC
departments to identify planned geospatial investments using the
Geospatial Platform. In May 2013, OMB issued guidance to agencies on
how to document information on the nature of investments, such as using
common standards, specifications, and formats developed by the
geospatial community, which would allow others to determine the fitness
of the data for their needs. However, because the implementation of
this new guidance is still dependent on the use of exhibit 53s and 300s
for reporting past, present, and future costs, it is unclear the extent
to which Federal agencies, OMB, or others will effectively be able to
identify how much Federal funding is being spent on geospatial systems
and data.
In addition, the Federal departments we reviewed have taken some
steps to implement our recommendations. For example, the Departments of
Commerce, the Interior, and Transportation have all begun preparing,
maintaining, publishing, and implementing strategies for advancing
geographic information and related geospatial data activities
appropriate to their missions.
In addition, the three agencies with theme-lead responsibilities
that we reviewed have begun implementing our recommendations. For
example, NOAA, USGS, and BTS have all taken some steps to create a plan
to develop and implement relevant theme standards. However, until a
comprehensive national strategy is put in place and Federal departments
and agencies establish and implement the policies, procedures, and
plans to coordinate their geospatial activities as we recommended, the
vision of the NSDI to improve the coordination and use of geospatial
information will likely not be fully realized and duplicative
investments will likely continue. Further, until OMB establishes a way
to obtain reliable information about Federal geospatial investments as
we recommended, OMB will not be able to readily identify potentially
duplicative geospatial investments.
In summary, it was slightly over a year ago that we reported that
the key players in ensuring coordination on geospatial data
investments--FGDC, Federal departments and agencies, and OMB--had not
fully implemented policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial
investments because these efforts were not made a priority. As a
result, efforts to acquire data were uncoordinated and the Federal
Government was acquiring duplicative geospatial data. At that time, we
noted that unless OMB, FGDC, and Federal departments and agencies
decide that coordinating geospatial investments is a priority, this
situation would likely continue.
Now, a year later, there has been some progress in improving
policies and procedures for coordinating the geospatial investments.
However, much remains to be done to implement and enforce the policies
and to achieve cost savings to the Federal Government. Until FGDC,
Federal departments and agencies, and OMB decide that investments in
geospatial information are a priority, these investments will remain
uncoordinated, and the Federal Government will continue to acquire
duplicative geospatial information and waste taxpayer dollars.
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the
subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
gao contact and staff acknowledgments
If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony,
please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at [email protected]. Individuals
who made key contributions to this testimony are Colleen Phillips
(assistant director), Kaelin Kuhn, Nancy Glover, Jamelyn Payan, and
Jessica Waselkow.
Appendix I--Proposed Data Themes, as of November 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Theme Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biota.................................. Pertain to, or describe, the
dynamic processes,
interactions, distributions,
and relationships between and
among organisms and their
environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadastre............................... Past, current, and future
rights and interests in real
property including the spatial
information necessary to
describe geographic extents.
Rights and interests are
benefits or enjoyment in real
property that can be conveyed,
transferred, or otherwise
allocated to another for
economic remuneration. Rights
and interests are recorded in
land record documents.
The spatial information
necessary to describe
geographic extents includes
surveys and legal description
frameworks such as the Public
Land Survey System, as well as
parcel-by-parcel surveys and
descriptions. Does not include
Federal government or military
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate and Weather.................... Meteorological conditions,
including temperature,
precipitation, and wind, that
characteristically prevail in
a particular region over a
long period of time. Weather
is the state of the atmosphere
at a given time and place,
with respect to variables such
as temperature, moisture, wind
velocity, and barometric
pressure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultural Resources..................... Features and characteristics of
a collection of places of
significance in history,
architecture, engineering, or
society. Includes national
monuments and icons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevation.............................. The measured vertical position
of the earth surface and other
landscape or bathymetric
features relative to a
reference datum typically
related to sea level. These
points normally describe bare
earth positions but may also
describe the top surface of
buildings and other objects,
vegetation structure, or
submerged objects.
Elevation data can be stored as
a three-dimensional array or
as a continuous surface such
as a raster, triangulated
irregular network, or
contours. Elevation data may
also be represented in other
derivative forms such as
slope, aspect, ridge and
drainage lines, and shaded
relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geodetic Control....................... Collection of control points
that provide a common
reference system for
establishing coordinates for
geographic data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geology................................ Geographically referenced data
pertaining to the origin,
history, composition,
structure, features, and
processes of the solid Earth,
both onshore and offshore.
Includes geologic, geophysical,
and geochemical maps,
stratigraphy, paleontology,
geochronology, mineral and
energy resources, and natural
hazards such as earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, coastal
erosion, and landslides. Does
not include soils.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governmental Units..................... Political, governmental, and
administrative (management)
type boundaries that are used
to manage people and
resources. Includes
geopolitical boundaries
(county, parish, state, city,
etc), tribal boundaries,
Federal land boundaries and
Federal regions, international
boundaries, governmental
administrative units such as
congressional districts,
international lines of
separation, limits, zones,
enclaves/exclaves and special
areas between States and
dependencies as well as all
jurisdictional offshore limits
within U.S. sovereignty.
Boundaries associated with
natural resources, demography,
and cultural entities are
excluded and can be found in
the appropriate subject
themes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagery................................ Georeferenced images of the
Earth's surface, which have
been collected via aerial
photography or satellite data.
Orthoimagery is prepared
through a geometric correction
process known as
orthorectification to remove
image displacements due to
relief and sensor
characteristics, allowing
their use as base maps for
digital mapping and analyses
in a geographic information
system. Specific imagery data
sets created through image
interpretation and
classification, such as a land
cover image, can be found
under themes specific to the
subject matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use/Land Cover.................... Refers collectively to natural
and man-made surface features
that cover the land (Land
Cover) and to the primary ways
in which land cover is used by
humans (Land Use). Examples of
Land Cover may be grass,
asphalt, trees, bare ground,
water, etc. Examples of Land
Use may be urban,
agricultural, ranges, and
forest areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Property.......................... The spatial representation
(location) of real property
entities, typically consisting
of one or more of the
following: unimproved land, a
building, a structure, site
improvements and the
underlying land. Complex real
property entities (aka
``facilities'') are used for a
broad spectrum of functions or
missions. This theme focuses
on spatial representation of
real property assets only and
does not seek to describe
special purpose functions of
real property such as those
found in the Cultural
Resources, Transportation, or
Utilities themes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soils.................................. Depicts the geography and
attributes of the many kinds
of soils found in the
landscape at both large and
small map scales. A living
dynamic resource providing a
natural medium for plant
growth and habitat for living
organisms, soil recycles
nutrients and wastes, stores
carbon, and purifies water
supplies. Soil has distinct
layers (called ``horizons'')
that, in contrast to
underlying geologic material,
are altered by the
interactions of climate,
landscape features, and living
organisms over time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation......................... Means and aids for conveying
persons and/or goods. The
transportation system includes
both physical and non-physical
components related to all
modes of travel that allow the
movement of goods and people
between locations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities.............................. Means, aids, and usage of
facilities for producing,
conveying, distributing,
processing or disposing of
public and private commodities
including power, energy,
communications, natural gas,
and water. Includes subthemes
for Energy and Communications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water--Inland.......................... Interior hydrologic features
and characteristics, including
classification, measurements,
location, and extent. Includes
aquifers, watersheds,
wetlands, navigation, water
quality, water quantity, and
groundwater information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water--Oceans and Coasts............... Features and characteristics of
salt water bodies (i.e. tides,
tidal waves, coastal
information, reefs) and
features and characteristics
that represent the
intersection of the land with
the water surface (i.e.
shorelines), the lines from
which the territorial sea and
other maritime zones are
measured (i.e. baseline
maritime) and lands covered by
water at any stage of the tide
(i.e. outer continental shelf
), as distinguished from
tidelands, which are attached
to the mainland or an island
and cover and uncover with the
tide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of OMB and FGDC documentation
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to David A. Powner
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Doug Lamborn
h.r. 1604--map it once, use it many times act and h.r. 916--federal
land asset inventory reform act of 2013
Question. Is there an opportunity for agencies to consolidate, or
jointly use, contracts with the private sector for geospatial services?
If so, by more strategically using contracts, can duplication among
agencies be avoided?
Answer. There is an opportunity for agencies to consolidate
contracts with the private sector for geospatial services. By doing so,
potentially duplicative investments by agencies could be avoided. We
have previously reported that the private sector plays an important
role in support of government geographic information system activities
because it captures and maintains a wealth of geospatial data and
develops geographic information system software.\1\ Private companies
provide services such as aerial photography, digital topographic
mapping, digital orthophotography, and digital elevation modeling to
produce geospatial data sets that are designed to meet the needs of
government organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Geospatial Information: Better Coordination needed to
Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments, GAO-04-703 (Washington,
DC: June 23, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in November 2012, we reported about key issues related
to geospatial information systems and data.\2\ Specifically, we
reported on the need to coordinate geospatial information among Federal
agencies and private sector organizations in order to reduce
unnecessary duplication. Although the President and the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] had established policies and procedures for
coordinating investments in geospatial data, govermentwide committees
and Federal agencies had not effectively implemented them. For example,
although the Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC] had developed a
clearinghouse for geospatial metadata (a centralized geospatial
repository that contains information on geospatial data that can be
searched to determine whether needed geospatial data exist and can be
shared), Federal agencies were not effectively using it to identify
planned investments. We concluded that without the ability to identify
planned geospatial data acquisitions, agencies were likely missing
opportunities to reuse or cooperatively acquire geospatial data, thus
resulting in the acquisition of potentially duplicative geospatial data
and needless expenditure of limited resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Need to Make
Coordination a Priority to Reduce Duplication, GAO-13-94 (Washington,
DC: Nov. 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reported on examples of duplication, including three
agencies that were independently acquiring road data. This situation
was reported to have contributed to millions of wasted taxpayers'
dollars. The three programs include:
Census Bureau's Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding
and Referencing (TIGER) system, which uses data procured from
local sources for census enumeration and demographic
applications;
The U.S. Geological Survey's National Map Web site, which
uses licensed data from a commercial provider to create
viewable maps on the National Map; and
The Department of Defense's Homeland Security Infrastructure
Program, which uses licensed commercial data procured by the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for emergency
management.
We made recommendations aimed at improving coordination and
reducing duplication, to include FGDC developing a national strategy
and implementing guidance for identifying planned geospatial
investments in the clearinghouse. As we testified to this subcommittee
in December 2013, the agencies have taken steps to implement our
recommendations, but more work remains to reduce duplicative geospatial
investments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Can Reduce
Duplication by Making Coordination a Priority, GAO-14-226T (Washington,
DC: Dec. 5, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does GAO have any information on how many different land
inventories the Federal Government currently maintains, how much it
costs, and whether having one current, accurate interoperable inventory
would cost less than how business is done today?
Answer. We do not have information to answer this question because,
as we reported in November 2012, OMB has not established a reliable
mechanism for obtaining information about Federal investments in
geospatial data, and thus it does not have the information needed to
identify potentially duplicative investments or accurately quantify the
amount of Federal dollars spent on geospatial data.\4\ Moreover, in
recent reports, the Congressional Research Service found that a
coordinated approach to federally managed parcel data did not exist and
that the best method for obtaining an accurate tally of Federal lands
was to contact each land management agency directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-13-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our November 2012 report also describes the early stages of a
governmentwide effort that, if properly implemented, could ultimately
produce information that would answer this question. Specifically, we
reported on the FGDC's efforts to implement a portfolio management
approach for managing geospatial data--that is, a framework that would
allow agencies to manage related geospatial data themes,\5\ such as
cadastral data, and their associated key data sets \6\ as related
groups of investments to allow agencies to more effectively plan
geospatial data collection efforts and minimize duplicative
investments. Specifically, the FGDC proposed consolidating the 34 data
themes identified in OMB Circular A-16 into 16 themes--including
consolidating 4 land management themes into 1 theme called Cadastre.
However, the data themes, and associated key datasets and lead agencies
had not been finalized, and the FGDC had not provided guidance to
agencies about how to implement the portfolio management approach. We
concluded that until FGDC had provided implementation guidance, and the
themes, lead agencies, and associated datasets are identified and
approved, the agencies cannot effectively begin to implement a
coordinated geospatial asset management capability. Such capability
was, according to OMB guidance, expected to provide a mechanism for
agencies to plan more effectively in advance of data collection efforts
to identify partnership opportunities, and to minimize duplicative
investments. We recommended that the FGDC develop and implement a plan
to facilitate the implementation of the portfolio management approach
for managing geospatial data. According to FGDC officials in October
2013, the plan is to be finalized and released for implementation by
Federal agencies no later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2014.
We believe that implementation of this recommendation should allow
Federal agencies to identify key land inventories and their associated
costs, and evaluate opportunities to consolidate their investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Data themes are topics of national significance, such as
cadastral (i.e., describe the geographic extent of past, current, and
future right, title, and interest in real property, and the framework
to support the description of that geographic extent ) and Federal Land
Ownership Status (i.e., includes the establishment and maintenance of a
system for the storage and dissemination of information describing all
title, estate, or interest of the Federal Government in a parcel of
real and mineral property). OMB Circular A-16 currently identifies 34
data themes and identifies the ``lead'' agency or agencies for each
theme. Each data theme is to be comprised of one or more electronic
data records, known as datasets. Of the 34 themes, 9 are identified as
``framework'' themes--that is, themes identified in Circular A-16 as
critical for many geospatial applications.
\6\ According to OMB, a key geospatial dataset is (1) used by
multiple agencies or with agency partners such as State, tribal, and
local governments; (2) applied to achieve Presidential priorities as
expressed by OMB; (3) needed to meet shared mission goals of multiple
Federal agencies; or (4) expressly required by statutory mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you both for being here. We will now
begin with questions, and I will now recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gallagher, I want to thank you for being here to
testify. In your testimony, you highlight that we don't need to
pass the Map It Once Act because, according to you, the
Department has everything they need and everything is covered.
Now, this perplexes me because we have GAO testifying, as you
just heard, once more before this committee, as it has done
many times, about the waste and duplication that we have when
it comes to geospatial services.
So my question to you is, since the administration says
everything is covered and there is no need for change, who at
the Department is responsible for what appears to be waste
taking place so that the next time GAO has a report saying we
have duplication and waste we can have that person come before
us? And I am going to ask you to name who is responsible here
so that we can bring that person before the committee. How
would you answer that?
Mr. Gallagher. Let me start by saying the Department shares
your goal, Mr. Chairman, of reducing duplication and fulfilling
the vision of a national spatial data infrastructure with
investments for these critically important national data sets.
In answer to your question on first blush it looks like a
consolidation of activities would create efficiency and reduce
cost. When you look more closely at the way agencies acquire
and use geospatial data, what you find is that they are
acquiring data to support their mission, and that is different
than what you would find in an organization that was designed
to be a mapping agency, such as the USGS. And so I want to talk
a little bit about those differences.
In an agency like that you are likely to find that there is
not completeness of coverage across the Nation for the data. In
fact, that it is acquired around the areas that they need. In
addition, it may be acquired unique to their mission needs and
not necessarily to the needs of other agencies.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
Mr. Gallagher. And so it would actually require a
significant investment to achieve the goal of that national
data infrastructure.
Mr. Lamborn. So you are saying that there are some
differences in the missions, but isn't there a lot of overlap
in the missions?
Mr. Gallagher. There are themes that have been identified
in OMB Circular A-16 that have been recommended by the leaders
in the geospatial community. In fact, the National Geospatial
Advisory Committee is a committee made up of industry,
academia, State and local governments who have advised----
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And thank you for that, but let me get
back to my opening question.
Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
Mr. Lamborn. Who should we bring forward next time? And I
am going to give you some names: Mr. Castle, the Assistant
Secretary for Science; Ms. Schneider, the Assistant Secretary
for Lands and Management; Mr. Beaudreau, the Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Budget; or Mr. Connor, the Deputy
Secretary for the Department. Who should come forward to be
more specific and maybe take some accountability for waste and
duplication?
Mr. Gallagher. So Ms. Anne Castle, who you named as our
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and she is the Chair
of the Federal Geographic Data Committee, she cochairs that
with OMB, it is important to understand the structure of the
FGDC. There is a lot of leadership in the Department of the
Interior, but the members of the FGDC represent each agency,
and so, therefore, there is not a single point of
accountability for every single data theme that you find. So if
you are looking for duplication in a particular data theme, you
would most likely want to call the data theme owner that
represented that agency.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I am a little concerned when you say that
there is not accountability. Would it be Ms. Castle that we
should talk to about the waste issues that Mr. Powner has
highlighted? I just want a name of who is the best person to
bring here the next time so we can really dig into the
particular waste and duplication.
Mr. Gallagher. As I commented, I don't think there is a
single individual. There is a lot of accountability. If I led
you to believe that there is not accountability, there is. If
you look at the USGS, we have excellent examples of very strong
theme management and the development of national geospatial
data sets in partnership with other agencies that don't have
duplication.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I think we have gone far enough on this.
Thank you.
One last question, Mr. Powner, and then we will go to the
Ranking Member.
You said in 2012 the Department of the Interior estimated
that the Federal Government was investing billions of dollars
on geospatial data annually and that duplication was common. Do
you know that specific number of dollars? I mean, you quoted
them as saying billions of dollars.
Mr. Powner. No, that is why we were vague, because if you
go to OMB and you ask OMB how much we spend on geospatial data,
the way they collect that data, they can't give you a solid
number. We know it is in the billions, Mr. Chairman, and we
think it is important, though, that OMB use their mechanisms to
help in the management of this because it helps with the
coordination because they have the budget authority. But we
have actually seen in other areas where OMB can actually
leverage their expertise and root out duplication if it gets
identified appropriately and you flag those things that are
duplicative and not fund them going forward. That is very
important.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you very much. When it is billions
of dollars and we can't be more specific than that, that really
concerns me.
OK. I would like to recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a number of questions, so if I could ask the
witnesses to be very succinct in their responses, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Powner, the GAO has put the Federal real property on a
high risk list. Real property could be buildings, could be
lands. How do you mean it? How does GAO look at that?
Mr. Powner. Well, I think when we put that on our list, and
starting in 2003 it included lands and buildings. There is a
heavy focus, though, on buildings. In fact, I think there was
some recent press even today about a $3.8 billion figure where
you could save that. That is primarily associated with the
buildings, though, reducing excess buildings and those types of
things.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Gallagher, could you describe the interaction
between the USGS and the private sector? Is it a positive
relationship with the geospatial contractors, with the end
users?
Mr. Gallagher. I would describe it as a very positive
relationship. It is a good government story. We have a lean
Federal workforce with expertise in cartography and mapping,
but we leverage the private industry, the capacity and
expertise that they have to acquire geospatial data and to put
that data into the public domain. That is a very important
aspect of it because then it is there for the use by private
industry, by universities, by the public to underpin the
economy and to improve public safety.
Mr. Holt. Thanks. Mr. Powner, in the bill, section 402(d)
makes the administrator of this new geospatial administration
responsible for representing the views and interests of private
firms to government agencies. Is there any precedent for this?
Can you think of examples where a government agency is supposed
to represent the interests of private firms to other government
agencies?
Mr. Powner. I am not real familiar with that section of the
bill, but based on what you are describing I am not aware of
many. One thing that does come to mind, I did a lot of work at
one time associated with FAA in the air traffic control system.
I think there was a similar arrangement at one time, and that
ends up becoming very controversial if FAA is supporting the
airline industry and that type of thing. So that potentially
can be controversial in terms of is that an appropriate role
for government.
Mr. Holt. In my earlier remarks, I talked about potential
conflicts of interest, and I had that and such things as that
in mind.
Mr. Powner, your GAO reports and your testimony focus on
the implementation of the Federal geospatial structure. What
about the structure itself? Do you think the existing structure
could be made to work? Do we need a new structure or what would
be gained with a new structure?
Mr. Powner. The existing structure could work. Obviously,
the coordinating body would have to really step up from a
leadership point of view. And again, I would highlight the need
for OMB to be part of that process to help with cross-agency
coordination. I think that is very important.
I think one of the positives with the current structure is
the theme-based approach when you manage in portfolios, because
geospatial data can be quite different depending on what the
users are using it for. Climate and weather over at NOAA is
much different than some other geospatial data. So the theme-
based approached with the 17 themes does seem to make sense.
Mr. Holt. And in your testimony you said the OMB is not
doing any coordinating, or very little coordinating, at this
point.
Mr. Powner. No. OMB told us this is not a priority for
them. At one time it was. In 2006, there was a geospatial line
of business. And those lines of business, not that OMB has been
successful in eliminating duplication, there have been some
areas where they have been. H.R. systems across the Federal
Government is one example where a line of business helped
reduce duplication. So at one time it was a priority for them,
in 2006, but it is clear that it no longer is.
Mr. Holt. In the Intelligence Community there is an entire
agency that has the name ``geospatial'' in it. Now, I realize
there is a different mission, there is, I think, some overlap
of technology and application. Has GAO looked at that? Has that
been part of the review as GAO has looked for ways to organize
and implement geospatial data?
Mr. Powner. Ranking Member Holt, we have not looked in any
detail at NGA activities in any detail.
Mr. Holt. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I would now like to recognize my colleague
from the great State of Wyoming, Representative Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen.
I am going to default to my own frame of reference on this.
I was a Director of State Lands and Investments in my State of
Wyoming. We were doing an inventory of State land. We only had
3.6 million acres of surface estate and about 4.2 million acres
of subsurface estate or mineral estate. And doing those
inventories was expensive and time-consuming, and so I get it.
I get it that we are not talking about something that is
inexpensive.
But we were advantaged by the fact that if we leveraged the
resources of the State and the University of Wyoming, that has
a great geospatial mapping effort, and various private sector
groups that were willing, in some cases, to share data with us,
it did assist us in expediting both the inventory and the
digitization at a reasonable cost.
So first question for Mr. Gallagher. How can we address
something that Mr. Powner said that really resonated with me,
and that is the silo effect, where people get very proprietary,
even government employees get very proprietary and myopic about
the information that they gather? And how can we better share
that information and go to States, go to universities, go to
other databases to assist with leveraging the already gathered
resources?
Mr. Gallagher. So it is a great question. Thank you. The
good news on this front is that the evolution of data
standards, many of them led by the FGDC, have created an
opportunity for the sharing of data. Today, you can get access
to another person's or another agency's data and see it in an
application, you can view it on a mobile platform, you can use
it in a GIS system.
The elimination of the silos, I think, comes through the
clear identification of themes, of layers for geospatial data
information, authoritative owners of that, and I wholeheartedly
agree with you that leveraging the private sector to acquire
the data, working in partnership with universities and others
who are professionals, creates a relationship in which all the
resources can be pulled together to do that.
Mrs. Lummis. What if we did this State by State? Let's
look, just for example, at H.R. 916. The prime cosponsors are
Mr. Kind, who is from Wisconsin, and Mr. Bishop from Utah. What
if we just started with their two States, Wisconsin and Utah,
and said let's do these first, then we can have appropriators
appropriate just to do those two States, and then we pick
another two and another two until it is done? Would that be
easier to absorb and swallow, both financially and in terms of
the scope of the mission?
Mr. Gallagher. Yes, I think it would. Actually, the USGS
has a long history of working at the State level to do just
that, both in geologic mapping where we have gone State by
State in partnership with the Association of State Geologists
and in our topographic mapping program where now we produce
additional topographic series on a 3-year cycle going across
the Nation. And so I think there is a great opportunity to
leverage our resources with States.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, and I am going to cut you off just
because----
Mr. Gallagher. Great.
Mrs. Lummis [continuing]. I have other questions and only 5
minutes.
Mr. Gallagher. Fine. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. But I do appreciate your input on that.
Mr. Powner, what do you think? What is going through your
mind as I ask these questions and have this dialog with Mr.
Gallagher?
Mr. Powner. Well, I like your idea of going small and
building it. Another way to do it, you could do it by State.
You could also take a couple of those themes and really look at
those themes in great detail and have a couple good wins. We
have 17 themes. You take a couple of those themes and really
show it can work, not only coordinating across the Federal
Government, but with States and localities.
Mrs. Lummis. Yes.
Mr. Powner. And then you can get some wins and then focus
and say, wow, look what we are doing here, we are leveraging
State data, States are leveraging Federal data, that type of
thing. So I think that small growing it approach is the way to
go, and you can do it with States or themes.
Mrs. Lummis. Off the top of your head, which do you think
would work better, thematic or State by State?
Mr. Powner. I am not certain. I like the idea of doing
both. There is no reason why you can't do them both
simultaneously.
Mrs. Lummis. I see.
Mr. Powner. Try an experiment with both and grow it.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
Representative Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find the hearing
fascinating, but I am going to pass. I am just here to learn.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Representative Fleming.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, panel, for being here. I commend Chairman
Lamborn for introducing this legislation to consolidate Federal
mapping programs and streamline their administration. I think
there is a lot of work to be done in Federal Government in
consolidating.
If you think about it, we are like a very large company
that the revenue and the expenses are not synching up and
companies across America are consolidating and lowering their
cost structure in order to be more efficient. We need to be
doing this more in every area, and that is part of the reason
why I am preparing to reintroduce the REDUCE Act, which will
create a BRAC-style commission to consolidate all Federal
programs. But absent the REDUCE Act being signed into law, H.R.
1604 is exactly the kind of solution I think we should be
pursuing in every committee to reform our runaway Federal
bureaucracy.
And my first question is to Mr. Powner. Given the size of
our debt and the need to put limits on the growth of
government, would you support not just transferring mapping
authority to the new National Geospatial Technology
Administration, but deauthorizing specific funding within other
agencies mentioned in the bill?
Mr. Powner. I would need to know what the effect would be
on those agencies' mission, ability to deliver their mission
specifically. I think that is important. I think you want to
cut. Believe me, there is a lot to cut. And I am an IT guy, and
when you look at the $80 billion we spend annually on IT, the
administration just came up that $8 billion of that is
duplicative and wasteful. That is 10 percent. And they are
admitting to that, so you know it is probably higher. But I
think I would be cautious just to understand what the effects
would be on mission performance at those agencies.
Mr. Fleming. Could you give us a list of these programs and
how much was spent on them last year? Obviously you can't do
that at this moment, but is that something that you can supply
to this committee?
Mr. Powner. On the IT duplication?
Mr. Fleming. Yes.
Mr. Powner. Absolutely. There are 204, and the range is
between $5.9 and $7.8 billion. We issued a report last month,
and we can go agency by agency and list all 204 for you.
Mr. Fleming. Right.
Mr. Powner. Do that for the record.
Mr. Fleming. OK. Great. We would appreciate that.
And this is a question to both of our witnesses. Given that
different agencies and users have different needs, how will the
National Geospatial Technology Administration determine what
needs are primary in the creation and maintenance of maps and
data?
Mr. Gallagher. I think that is a significant challenge of
the proposed bill. As I mentioned, most agencies acquire data
for their own needs, and they are not set up at the moment to
acquire it for the broad needs of the Nation, either in
completeness of coverage or requirements. And so as I stated, I
think it would require an investment to do that. I think it
would be a challenge to have it occur.
Mr. Fleming. OK. Another question that just kind of occurs
to me now. We are learning through our current experience with
the President's healthcare law that the private sector can do
things so much more efficiently and lower cost than can
government and with much better results. How much of this sort
of work are we asking professionals in the private sector to
really do and how much are we doing in-house?
Mr. Gallagher. At USGS, I can speak for USGS, we have a
very lean Federal workforce with a competency in cartography
and mapping, and we are using the private sector exclusively to
acquire all this data. They have the capacity and they have the
instrumentation and they have, quite frankly, the expertise to
do that. So, I think it is an effective partnership, and I
think it is a model of how it can work in all agencies.
Mr. Fleming. OK. Is there any mechanism for a State or
local government to cost share or prioritize the data for
needs?
Mr. Gallagher. Absolutely. The answer is, yes, we have a
geospatial products and services contract that has been
designed so that States can share in the cost, and in fact, we
are using that vehicle across the Nation now. It is a major
part of our mapping of Alaska, which is the State-by-State
concept, where we have a joint Federal-State committee mapping
Alaska using that vehicle. And so that is a great point, and
yes, it is very capable.
Mr. Fleming. Right.
Mr. Powner, in the few moments I have left, do you have
anything to add?
Mr. Powner. Nothing more. Thank you.
Mr. Fleming. OK. Great.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Representative Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for hosting this
hearing. I very much appreciate what the subcommittee is doing
here.
Gentlemen, thank you for your expertise, your leadership,
bringing your input here.
Mr. Gallagher. I just want to kind of dovetail a bit with
my good friend from Louisiana. And thank you for what USGS
does. I appreciate it, I benefit from that information. Your
representatives have been in my office. We need good data to
make good decisions. We sometimes wing it around here and shoot
from the hip. We don't always do good, sound policy based on
good, sound data.
You kind of reflected on the current state of USGS that
today, about how much you work with different entities, whether
they be academic universities and States, those types of
things. I am interested in seeing what the trajectory is for
that. I mean, how far have you come in the past 10 years with
that partnership and what do you see in the future? Because it
seems like as technology has developed, industry interest has
developed it seems like today there is a lesser role for the
Federal Government based on the development of these other
entities, and what do you see for the future? Is that the
trajectory we are going to stay on?
Mr. Gallagher. Great. Thank you.
Well, first of all, the last decade has been a revolution
for USGS where we have gone from cartography where everything
was manual and surveying in the field to a digital environment,
and we have done that with a partnership with, as I mentioned,
the private sector and agencies.
Now, your question of where this is going, a lot of times I
will get the question, well, look at all the data that is
available from Google, why do we need a separate mapping
organization. And maybe I will just touch on three points. The
breadth of the geospatial data is very broad, and the data that
is available today on the Internet is rather narrow. It might
be imagery or it might be data to support navigation.
And so I think there is a very important role going forward
for the Federal Government to acquire this geospatial data, to
do it efficiently in partnership with the private sector, and
to put that into the public domain. That is a very important
aspect because data that you will find out on the Internet that
has been collected nonpublicly is, therefore, proprietary and a
license is usually associated with it to use it.
The role of the Federal Government in acquiring important
data should be looked at as infrastructure for the Nation, put
into the public domain to underpin and support economic
development and public safety.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. You had mentioned that three of
the nine GAO recommendations to the FGDC have been completed.
What are the other recommendations and what is the holdup?
Mr. Gallagher. So there is no holdup. We are actively
engaged in those. The recommendations are rather complex, so
what I would like to do is provide a statement for the record
on the status of those----
Mr. Thompson. That would be wonderful
Mr. Gallagher [continuing]. If that is all right with you.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. A written response would be very
helpful.
Mr. Gallagher. OK.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Powner, it is my understanding that we
don't even know which agencies are involved with geospatial
activities and what kinds of data they are collecting for them.
I am kind of surmising from some of the testimony submitted
with the second panel. What are your thoughts on this?
Mr. Powner. Well, we have approximately 30 agencies that
participate in the FGDC, so we know who the players are, we
know who the themes are. The problem is, is we don't really
have a good handle on exactly what we have within those
agencies and departments, and then exactly what is in the
acquisition process to acquire. And that is not a good thing.
That is why the clearinghouse is so important. We need a
comprehensive picture of what we have and then we also need a
comprehensive picture of what we are planning to acquire so
that we don't duplicate further going forward.
Mr. Thompson. I would concur. And the gentlelady from
Wyoming was whispering to me. We agree. The clearinghouse
concept is always, no matter what we are talking about, it is
good to know what we have. We have to have that good place to
launch from.
And then just finally, some have told us, including
testimony in the second panel, that effective coordination has
not occurred on geospatial mapping, which is why legislation
such as H.R. 1604 is needed. What is USGS doing to help improve
such coordination?
Director.
Mr. Gallagher. So, there are ample examples within the
USGS. Our national hydrography data set is a data set of
surface water for the Nation. We are working with the States in
partnership to steward that. In fact, the States maintain the
data and we bring it together through a consistent framework to
serve it out to the Nation. That is one example.
Our 3D Elevation Program is another one where we have stood
up an interagency executive forum. We are the OMB A-16 themed
lead for terrestrial elevation, so we are taking that
leadership role and we are developing the standards and working
with the other agencies to share in investment of that program.
I think you will hear more about that from other witnesses
today. Those are two examples.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you both very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am out of time.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Just had a quick question. Either one of you,
Kevin or David, can answer. It is my understanding that the
U.S. Government is intending to spend about $146 million in
funding stream for 3DEP per year. How much of that do you
already have? And given that level, when do you anticipate
south Florida gets mapped?
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you very much for that question.
The 3D Elevation Program is proposed for funding in the
fiscal year 2014 budget of $9 million from the President's
budget. So certainly that will help, if we get it, to make our
way down to Florida.
Currently in the USGS there is about $6 million that is
dedicated annually to the acquisition of lidar. Having said
that, we are very effective at working with our agency partners
to have them match our investment. And so in 2013 we acquired a
total of about $25 million of high resolution elevation data
across the Nation.
One last comment. We are very sensitive to your State being
one of the lower elevation States. It is actually more
important there to understand your elevation data for flood
inundation and for a host of other reasons. And so our----
Mr. Garcia. Elevation is inches, not feet there.
Mr. Gallagher. Right. And so our plan is to originally
focus along the coastlines so that, particularly on the east
coast where there is hurricane alley, to procure the data
there.
One last thought is we did conduct a very comprehensive
inventory of publicly available lidar with the NEEA study that
was conducted. I would be happy to provide for you information
about the available lidar in your State. We are also producing
fact sheets of that State by State, and I would be happy to
share that with you or get input from you on how that should
look.
Mr. Garcia. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. Do you yield back?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
To take advantage of your expertise and knowledge, I want
to have a second but abbreviated round because time is ticking.
So we are going to have a 2-minute round for whoever has a
question, and I will start out. So we are going to keep the
clerk on her toes.
Mr. Powner, duplication, as you have highlighted in your
report, is when two or more agencies do the same thing. But
there can also be duplication when government does the same
thing as the private sector. In your study, did you interview
any entities in the private sector? Is there any concern on the
part of GAO that government might be duplicating the private
sector in geospatial activities? And do you have any comments
or recommendations regarding the use of the private sector?
Mr. Powner. We didn't look at that in detail in terms of
duplication with the private sector. Although, Mr. Chairman, I
will say it is important to leverage the private sector to the
extent possible. And in many of these cases the private sector
is under contract. There is a key question, I think, with some
of these, who owns the data and who owns the infrastructure?
When you start looking at government putting satellites up,
should we be doing that, should we be relying on the commercial
sector? Right now it is a mix. And it is important to leverage
the private sector in many of these areas.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
And last, Mr. Gallagher, I want to ask you a question. I am
curious about the statement for the record that the Department
submitted. In order to explain to the committee how much land
the Federal Government owns, it cites the Congressional
Research Service. Does the executive branch of the Government
not have its own data base on how much land is owned?
Mr. Gallagher. If I may, I would like to ask Karen
Mouritsen to answer that question.
Mr. Lamborn. Yes, please come forward. Just state your name
for the record, and I would be happy to have you answer the
question to the best of your ability.
Ms. Mouritsen. I am Karen Mouritsen from the Bureau of Land
Management.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Ms. Mouritsen. At the Bureau of Land Management we track
the land we manage and own, but we do not track the lands of
the other agencies, like the Park Service or the Forest
Service.
Mr. Lamborn. But the Department, as an entire Department,
apparently, at least for the purposes of this statement, relied
on the Congressional Research Service. I am just curious,
aren't there Department-held databases?
Ms. Mouritsen. Not that I am aware of as one Department
data base. I can ask the Park Service or the other agencies for
that data. The GSA may have that data in a data base.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
Ms. Mouritsen. But the BLM itself does not have that data.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. All right. Thank you very much.
Representative Holt.
Mr. Holt. Because we have votes approaching on the Floor
and I am eager to hear from the next panel, I will pass. Thank
you.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Powner, could you expound a little bit on this
clearinghouse concept? That sparked my attention when you
mentioned it before. Is this something that you saw a need for
as you did your evaluation of the silo effect of data
collection and redundancy in the Federal Government?
Mr. Powner. Well, if you look at the current structure that
has been set up, there is a clearinghouse that has been
established, and now they refer to it as the geospatial
platform. So the idea is right. The problem to date is we don't
have all agencies populating that appropriately. There is even
some State information in there.
Mrs. Lummis. I think you mentioned 30 agencies that are
involved in that?
Mr. Powner. There are 30 agencies associated with the FGDC.
If you look right now, it is real heavy, Interior populates a
lot of information. I would say Ag and the Department of
Transportation are light in populating that. And then the other
thing is you need to look at it does not identify the planned
investments. So was one of our recommendations. And since then
there has been attention placed on that, that we really need to
identify the planned investments.
But again, it is a simple concept, but it is difficult to
get folks to play in that clearinghouse sandbox. And that is
where sometimes, you could have the FGDC doing it, but
sometimes OMB with the little things they can do through their
budgetary mechanisms, sometimes that really helps getting
agencies to comply with that.
Mrs. Lummis. In the grand scheme of things at OMB, where
they are trying to find waste and duplication, and hopefully
economize, where does this fit? Where does an $8 billion
estimate about waste and duplication fall in the waterfall of
waste and duplication in the Federal Government?
Mr. Powner. As you well know, we have issued three reports
now at GAO over the last 3 years on waste and duplication. IT
is one of many areas. Clearly, the $8 billion within OMB's
office that houses the Federal CIO, that is a top priority.
Now, that is commodity IT, so that is like infrastructure and
administrative systems. It is not these geospatial investments.
So that is what we need to do. We need to expand that concept
into some of the more mission critical areas where we know
there is duplication.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. I am good, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
Representative Fleming.
Representative Thompson.
Excuse me. Representative Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the panel for being here. I understand today
we are looking at just two bills, and our subcommittee
Chairman, Mr. Lamborn, has the ``Map It Once, Use It Many Times
Act,'' and my subcommittee Chairman from the Public Lands
subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, has a bipartisan bill with
Representative Kind, the ``Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform
Act.'' I want to ask the panel first about Chairman Lamborn's
bill.
The Department of the Interior submitted a statement for
the record in opposition to the bill. The administration's
position on the bill is that it would compromise the USGS'
reputation as an unbiased source of scientific information. Is
that correct?
Mr. Gallagher. That is correct. That is the statement for
the record.
Mr. Horsford. Can you explain at little more of it to me,
sir?
Mr. Gallagher. Yes, I certainly can. The USGS, as the
Nation's premier science agency, must maintain independence and
an unbiased view of our research. The integrity of this is so
important to our work and our reputation that we have developed
fundamental science practices within the USGS to ensure an
unbiased nature of our research. We are concerned that if we
are put into a role of advocacy in any regard, whether it is
regulation or in this case advocating for the private industry,
it could put us in a potential conflict of interest or an
ethical dilemma with regard to our independence.
Mr. Horsford. OK. I also want to ask a quick question about
Mr. Bishop's bipartisan FLAIR Act, H.R. 916. As I understand,
it seems like it is based on a pretty simple concept: The
Federal Government should have a more accurate understanding of
all the property that we own. One of the concerns I do have,
however, is the estimated cost, which could be as high as $68
billion. Are there ways that we could meet Mr. Bishop's goal
without the high price tag of the proposal?
Ms. Mouritsen. Thank you. We do collect information, as we
do our land use planning process, on many of the items listed
in this bill. And we do that every 10 to 20 years as we look at
amending or developing new land use plans. And as necessary we
collect information during that time for actions on the ground.
And so we think that doing this through our locally driven
planning process is the way to go to collect this information.
Mr. Horsford. Can I just clarify, Madam Chair?
Mrs. Lummis [presiding]. Yes.
Mr. Horsford. So what is missing, then, from what Mr.
Bishop is trying to achieve from what you say you do now every
10 years?
Ms. Mouritsen. This bill is mandating that we collect all
of this information, including some information we don't
collect now through our planning process, and we do it all at
once, and do it not during the individual land use planning
processes, but focus all our resources on collecting it all at
once.
Mr. Horsford. Can you provide the committee with what you
would need to collect that you don't currently collect?
Ms. Mouritsen. Yes. We have got a breakdown of the
different tasks that we would need to do to implement the bill,
which we can get to you.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the committee, and I thank the panel.
Members of the committee may have additional questions for the
record, and I will ask you to respond to those in writing.
And with our gratitude to this panel, you are excused.
I would now like to invite forward our second panel. We
have Mr. Jeff Lower, President, the Management Association for
Private Photogrammetric Surveyors. We have Mr. Curtis W.
Sumner, Executive Director of the National Society of
Professional Surveyors. Mr. Jeff Lovin, Chairman of the
Coalition of Geospatial Organizations. And Mr. Jay Parrish,
former State Geologist, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, and
Chair of the Mapping Committee of the Association of American
State Geologists.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today.
Mr. Lower, you may begin. As you know, we have 5 minutes.
At 4 minutes and 30 seconds, you will see a yellow light. So we
will ask you to wrap it up. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JEFF LOWER, PRESIDENT, THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
FOR PRIVATE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS [MAPPS]
Mr. Lower. Thank you, Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to express our
views.
MAPPS is a national association of private sector
geospatial firms. I would like to commend the Chairman for
holding this hearing and introducing H.R. 1604. There is a
critical need to reorganize Federal geospatial activities,
including governance, strategic investment and data, structure,
and understanding the proper roles and responsibilities of
various stakeholders, including the government and the private
sector. Let me cite a few examples of why H.R. 1604 is
necessary.
Mr. Fleming had commented on the healthcare law. In
reference to that, there are 814 provisions in the healthcare
law that require references to location, geographic or place-
based information. However, there is no geospatial management
office, GMO, or Geospatial Information Officer, GIO, within the
Department of Health and Human Services. One can only wonder if
the lack of strategic approach to geospatial data is one of the
contributing factors with the problems in the implementation of
the healthcare law.
Our Nation's failure to develop a national parcel system
cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in the mortgage crisis.
Such an early warning system would have provided the ability to
track anomalies in the housing market, such as an increase in
defaults and foreclosures. Chairman and Mr. Holt, Mr. Fleming,
Mr. Garcia, you and your constituents have personally
experienced the need for better, more coordinated response to
natural disasters, wildfires and floods in Colorado, Hurricane
Sandy in New Jersey, multiple hurricanes in Florida, as well as
Louisiana. H.R. 1604 will provide a new, more up-to-date
authorization for the USGS rather than relying on a law that
was passed by Congress in 1879. It will consolidate civil
Federal mapping activities into a new National Geospatial
Technology Administration that will focus on leadership,
coordination, and providing the basic geospatial data the
government needs under a new inclusive governance structure.
The bill also provides for an accounting of all Federal
geospatial activities. This provision is particularly necessary
as the Federal Government still cannot accurately track its
geospatial expenditures.
H.R. 1604 includes elements of H.R. 916, the FLAIR Act.
Both proposals call for current accurate inventory of land
owned by the Federal Government. Not only does the Federal
Government lack a current, accurate, and reliable inventory of
its land assets, but tax dollars are wasted through duplication
and inefficiency through a proliferation of stovepiped
noninteroperable inventories. An accurate inventory is an
important feature of good land management. Proper conservation,
recreation, multiple use activities are dependent on accurate
information about the government's land ownership.
I would like to close with a bright note. MAPPS does work
closely with Mr. Gallagher of the USGS on the first panel. He
is a dedicated public servant and a good, trusted partner.
MAPPS strongly encourages and supports the 3DEP program. This
is a model for how there should be cooperation among Federal
agencies. It is an excellent example of Federal leadership, and
it recognizes the respective roles and responsibilities at all
levels between the government and the private sector.
And then, finally, in support of H.R. 1604, and in
reference to Mr. Holt's question earlier about the NGA, the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NIMA before that, and
the DMA before that, NGA was created as a consolidation of
defense intelligence agencies and programs, just as H.R. 1604
proposes for civil government agencies.
Thank you. That is my statement.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Lower, for your expeditious
summary of your testimony. We appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lower follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Lower, President, the Management Association
for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors [MAPPS]
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present our views on H.R. 916 and H.R. 1604. MAPPS
(www.mapps.org) is a national association of private sector geospatial
firms. Our 160+ member firms span the entire spectrum of the geospatial
community, including satellite and airborne remote sensing, surveying,
photogrammetry, aerial photography, LIDAR, hydrography, bathymetry,
charting, aerial and satellite image processing, GPS, and GIS data
collection and conversion services and companies that provide hardware,
software, products and services to the geospatial profession in the
United States and other firms from around the world. A significant
number of our member firms are prime contractors or subcontractors to
USGS and other Federal agencies, and to the State and local governments
that receive Federal grant monies.
I'd like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and
for introducing H.R. 1604. There is a critical need to reorganize
Federal geospatial activities, including governance, strategic
investment in data, structure, and in understanding the proper roles
and responsibilities of various stakeholders, including government and
the private sector.
H.R. 1604, the Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act, is an effort to
re-establish the USGS to its position as the pre-eminent civil Federal
mapping agency. It focuses a new USGS, through its National Geospatial
Technology Administration on leadership, coordination, and providing
the basic geospatial data needed for smaller more efficient government
and lower costs. The bill also updates USGS authorizations for data
activities, such as the framework layers of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure [NSDI]. It would accomplish this through greater
utilization of the private sector, and strengthening Federal agency
performance of inherently governmental activities.
Why are a new focus and a new governance structure necessary? Let
me cite just a few examples.
There are 814 references to location or geographic data that
require place-based information in the health care reform law.
Notwithstanding all of these disparate needs for geospatial data,
Congress failed to create a Geospatial Management Office [GMO] or
Geospatial Information Officer [GIO] within he Department of Health and
Human Services [HHS] to coordinate the collection, management,
utilization, and sharing of the required geospatial data activities.
Moreover, the legislation lacked a provision establishing a Health Care
GIS at the Department level. Congress established such a position in
the Department of Homeland Security after it was created and a GMO-GIO
has been administratively implemented in the Department of the
Interior, Agriculture, EPA, FCC and other agencies. The National
Geospatial Advisory Committee [NGAC] recommended a Geographic
Information Officer [GIO] in each Cabinet department. MAPPS wrote
Secretary Sebelius about the need for such an office after Congress
failed to do so in the legislation in 2010. One can only wonder if the
lack of a strategic approach to place-based, location and geospatial
data is one of the factors in the problems with implementation of the
health care law and the lack of functionality of the e-commerce Web
site.
Regardless of which side of the climate change debate one is on,
all parties should be able to agree on one fundamental point: that
government decisions should be based on the best data available. But
what data is the government currently relying on? There is a need for
geospatial data to measure, monitor, verify and validate the phenomena
that may be caused by global climate change. There is fundamental data
the U.S. Government and the American people need in order to determine
if climate change is indeed having the effect some claim, and the
catastrophe some are predicting. A national elevation data set
utilizing LIDAR technology to quantify change in vegetative canopy
structure and coincident field measurements of aboveground biomass, a
network of geodetic bench marks, coastal tide and sea level gauging and
shoreline delineation maps for measurement and observation of long- and
short-term sea level change, and a series of historic and current land
use and land cover classification data are all needed to accurately
determine and quantify the effects of climate change, but do not exist.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money was expended due
to the mortgage crisis that is still having lingering adverse affects
on our economy. If the Federal Government had a national parcel system,
we would have had an early warning system that could have prevented the
subprime mortgage crisis. Such a system would have given our nation the
ability to track changes in the housing market, such as a slight
increase in defaults and foreclosures, early on. We could then have
taken small steps to curb the crisis instead of having to take big
steps that have now cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Holt, you, and your constituents, have
personally experienced the need for a better, more coordinated response
to natural disasters--wildfires and floods in Colorado and Hurricane
Sandy in New Jersey. While processes are improving, the Federal
Government, in coordination with State and local government and the
private sector, still lacks an adequate response to both natural and
anthropogenic disasters. There is still lack of coordination, a lack of
clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, gaps in coverage, and
the absence of a process for timely funding of the collection of
critically needed geospatial data. Many of the recommendations in the
National Academy report, ``Successful Response Starts with a Map:
Improving Geospatial Support for Disaster Management'', (2007) still
have not been implemented.
The Census Bureau spent nearly $1 billion developing an in-house
mapping and addressing system for the 2010 census. The Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing [TIGER] system is a less
accurate, less current version of mapping available from the private
sector. Consumers have become accustomed to utilizing high quality maps
every day on their mobile phones, GPS devices, laptops/desktops/tablets
and in auto navigation systems. A study conducted by the Census Bureau
itself found private sector maps to be of higher quality than Census
maps (``Census Bureau Market Research Project with Nokia''). The
private sector, having already made the hundreds of millions of dollars
in investment in the creation, updating and maintenance of their maps
for their existing customer base, could provide the Census Bureau with
the highest quality maps at a fraction of the in-house cost. However,
duplication of and competition with the private sector appears to be
the norm, as there is little indication that Census will be increasing
it contracting with the private sector for the 2020 effort.
The USGS operates primarily under authorization provided by the act
of March 3, 1879 (codified in 43 U.S.C. 31 et seq.). It has been
decades since Congress last enacted major legislation affecting one of
the original and core missions of the USGS--the surveying and mapping
of the United States. As a result, surveying and mapping has
proliferated among more than 40 Federal agencies, resulting in
duplication, a lack of coordination, gaps in coverage and the absence
of a strategic approach to providing the basic geographic information
needed in the 21st century for scientific research, as well as
practical applications that contribute to the economic health, quality
of life and safety and security of our Nation. The need for better
coordination of Federal surveying and mapping activities has been well
documented by previous Congressional hearings, including by this
subcommittee, GAO reports, National Academy of Sciences studies, and
investigations by the National Academy of Public Administration, OMB
and other entities.
USGS should be focused on leadership and coordination among Federal
agencies, and non-Federal stakeholders. Its functions should be
assisting with applying geospatial data to our Nation's challenges;
encouraging economic development, private sector job creation and
export promotion; driving a research agenda that is responsive to the
private sector's needs; working to assure a geospatial workforce that
will meet the demands of the Nation; and contracting with the private
sector and partnering with other government entities to build and then
maintain the NSDI. We believe this is where USGS's priorities should be
and we support building a stronger USGS that once again leads the
Federal Government's geographic information activities.
H.R. 1604 would provide a new, more up-to-date authorization for
USGS. It would consolidate responsibilities for NSDI leadership in a
National Geospatial Technology Administration within USGS; merge
duplicate Federal geospatial programs of the Interior Department,
Forest Service, and NOAA into the new Administration; encourage the
uses of commercial data and private sector service providers; establish
a National Geospatial Policy Commission to replace the FGDC in order to
provide a priority-setting mechanism that not only includes Federal
agencies, but Congress and non-Federal stakeholders as well; provide
for acquisition of professional geospatial services on the basis of
quality, qualifications and experience of competing firms; establish an
advocacy function for the dynamic U.S. private sector geospatial
community; and coordinate the tens of millions of dollars the U.S.
Government spends each year on geospatial-related research and
development along strategic goals that meet the needs of government and
the private sector.
H.R. 1604 has other features we think are necessary and forward-
looking. The bill calls for an examination of a user fee system to fund
geospatial activities. MAPPS is exploring this concept and we believe
such a process may reduce the burden on taxpayers generally and provide
a more reliable flow of funding to produce geospatial data for those
who need and use these data. It also provides long overdue legislative
authorization for national imagery and elevation data collection. It
also calls for activities to define roles and responsibilities,
particularly those of the private sector, and activities to implement
these functions, to reduce government competition with and duplication
of the private sector. Moreover, it will coordinate the significant
research and development investments the Federal Government makes each
year in geospatial activities, so that such investments are strategic
and used to meet identified goals and requirements. It prevents inmates
working in prison industries from having access to certain sensitive
infrastructure or individual citizen data.
Additionally, the bill adds to the NSDI ``information on
underground infrastructure, including the location, type, size,
composition, and use of underground structures including tunnels and
pipelines''. The need for this data is extraordinary. During my 5
minute testimony, an underground utility line will have been hit five
times--once every 60 seconds. The annual cost due to utility damage is
in the billions of dollars. And one of the leading causes of these
accidents and disruptions is inaccurate records and locating.
The bill also provides for an inventory and accounting of all
Federal geospatial activities, identifying unnecessary activities and
converting to the private sector those activities that are commercial
in nature, while quantifying the cost savings. This provision is
particularly necessary as the Federal Government still cannot
accurately track its geospatial expenditures.
H.R. 1604 also includes elements of H.R. 916, the Federal Land
Asset Inventory Reform [FLAIR] Act. These provisions call for a
current, accurate inventory of the land owned by the Federal
Government. Not only does the Federal Government lack a current,
accurate and reliable inventory of its land assets, but tax dollars are
wasted through duplication and inefficiency through a proliferation of
stove-piped, non-interoperable inventories. I am convinced that if the
Federal Government were to have one, GIS-based land inventory, it could
save tens of millions of dollars, or more.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is the Federal Government does not know what
it owns, where it owns it, what condition it is in, what its appraised
or market value is, what its characteristics are, whether it is still
in the public interest for the Government to own it, whether it should
be surplused and disposed, or what its designated use should be.
For more than 15 years, the Government Accountability Office [GAO]
has found that dozens of Federal agencies control hundreds of thousands
of real property assets worldwide, including facilities and land, worth
hundreds of billions of dollars. However, the portfolio is not well
managed, many assets are no longer consistent with agency mission or
needs and are therefore no longer needed, and many assets are in an
alarming state of disrepair. In 1995, GAO told Congress ``The General
Services Administration publishes statistics on the amount of land
managed by each Federal agency. However, we found this information was
not current or reliable''. (GAO-T-RCED-95-117).
As far back as 1980, the National Research Council/National Academy
of Sciences said, ``There is a critical need for a better land-
information system in the United States to improve land-conveyance
procedures, furnish a basis for equitable taxation, and provide much-
needed information for resource management and environmental
planning.'' (Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre).
Why is a Federal land inventory, as envisioned in the FLAIR Act,
necessary?
As I noted earlier, GAO has found that the government lacks a
current, accurate, reliable land inventory. That led GAO to put the
government's real property asset management activities on its High Risk
list. (High Risk Series--An Update, GAO-05-207), a position still held
today.
Since the National Academy issued its recommendation in 1980, the
technology and capability of land or geographic information systems
[GIS] has exploded. The Academy endorsed the FLAIR Act (National Land
Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future) and the National Geospatial
Advisory Committee has endorsed the recommendations in the Academy's
parcels report.
An accurate inventory is an important feature of good land
management. Proper conservation, recreation and multiple use activities
are dependent on accurate information about the government's land
ownership.
The American taxpayer can also be the biggest beneficiary of a
``cadastre'', also known as a land information system or geographic
information system [GIS]. Many units of local government--cities,
counties--have used such land information systems, or even single
purpose digital parcel or tax mapping programs, to more accurately and
efficiently inventory real estate within the jurisdiction. There are
numerous examples where local government has used GIS to identify tens
of millions of dollars in annual property taxes that were unpaid or
under paid. These systems have paid for themselves many times over,
many in the first year alone.
It is time the U.S. Government invested in a similar methodology
and technology to identify and inventory its land holdings. Such a
system can help enhance the management of Federal lands, identify lands
that could be put to higher priority use, as well as those that are no
longer needed by the government and can be made surplus and sold, thus
bringing revenue and savings to the Federal budget.
Once the multipurpose inventory is complete, the government can
become a better real property asset manager, and a responsible steward
of its land holdings. This will result in more efficient land
management, again providing savings. Additionally, areas for multiple-
use can be better identified, thus enhancing the American citizens' use
of public lands and generate more revenue from leasing, mineral rights,
recreation and fees from other activities. Moreover, legislation to
facilitate a process by which the Federal Government can more
efficiently sell its surplus lands can be enacted. This will not only
help State and local government by providing them land they can manage
as open space, or these lands can be sold to the private sector for
economic development, thus expanding the local tax base and creating
jobs. The proceeds of these sales can be used to balance the budget and
pay down the debt, be invested in higher priority activities such as
roads, schools, parks, environmental protection, resource management
and maintenance in our National Parks.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, when integrated with land records
on private property, a national parcel system can be an ``early warning
system'' to monitor and prevent disruptions in the real estate market,
like the one we recently experienced with the foreclosure crisis.
Mr. Chairman, geospatial data, products, technology and services
enhance and contribute to national priorities in economic development,
resource management, environmental protection, infrastructure,
construction and maintenance, homeland security and a variety of other
national needs and applications. The USGS was once the envy of the word
for its leadership in this field. We are heartened by the leadership
recently exhibited by USGS with the development of the national
elevation or 3DEP program. This program will satisfy the growing demand
for consistent, high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other
three-dimensional representations of the Nation's natural and
constructed features. Among the applications that will benefit from
3DEP data are flood risk management, agriculture, water supply,
homeland security, renewable energy, aviation safety, and other areas.
MAPPS believes 3DEP will promote economic growth, facilitate
responsible environmental protection and resource development and
management, assist with infrastructure improvement, and generally
enhance the quality of life of all Americans. The USGS, with
involvement from the private sector and other stakeholders, conducted a
National Enhanced Elevation Assessment [NEEA], to determine and
document the need for national elevation data within government and
private markets. The results indicated that enhanced elevation data
have the potential to generate $13 billion in annual benefits, at a
benefit:cost ratio of 4.7 to 1.
A capable, qualified private sector capacity exists to fulfill the
data acquisition requirements of 3DEP. Utilizing the Geospatial
Products and Services Contract [GPSC], a suite of multiple-award USGS
contracts with the private sector competitively procured via the
qualifications based selection process pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1101 and
FAR part 36.6, provides a public-private partnership between USGS and
the private sector to accomplish 3DEP via task orders for Light
Detection And Ranging [LIDAR] acquisition.
MAPPS strongly supports the USGS intent to utilize these contracts
for 3DEP data collection and processing. The equipment infrastructure
and service capacity and capability of the private sector, as well as
the contract vehicles in USGS, are in place to efficiently implement
the 3DEP program. Moreover, Congress provided an innovative mechanism
for cooperative activities in elevation data when it enacted section
100220 of Public Law 112-141, which can be utilized to pool funding
from Federal, State and local government entities, with participation
by USGS.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 916 and H.R. 1604, are steps to
eliminate waste and duplication; use geospatial information to grow the
economy; and better coordinate Federal geospatial activities. We
respectfully recommend their enactment.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jeff Lower
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Rush Holt
Question. Mr. Lower, you heard testimony earlier from the USGS that
one of their concerns with the FLAIR Act is the excessive cost, the
vast majority of which comes from the requirement to determine the
value of each parcel of Federal land, and catalogue it for potential
disposal. If those provisions were removed from the bill, and it was
purely an effort to get an accurate inventory of Federal lands, without
regard to value or disposal, would your organizations still support the
legislation?
Answer. The FLAIR Act, H.R. 916, has two primary features. First,
it calls for an inventory of inventories to determine how many Federal
land inventories the U.S. Government currently operates and maintains,
what the cost is, and which are candidates for consolidation,
termination or integration into a single, current, accurate inventory.
Not only do we not know how much land the Government owns, or where it
is, but we don't know how much of it is already valued or appraised.
Therefore, we don't know what the cost would be to value and catalogue
the current land holdings. Second, the bill calls for a multi-purpose
(map it once, use it many times), current, accurate inventory. While a
value for each parcel is needed, and virtually every entity in our
Nation except the U.S. Government knows the extent and value of its
land holdings, if H.R. 916 were enacted without the value of each
parcel it would still be supportable and worthwhile legislation as it
would accomplish the two goals I just stated, be a benefit to the
United States, improve the operations of government, and ultimately
save money.
Question. Mr. Lower, do your organizations have a preference for
whether the NGTA would be within the USGS, or a separate organization
outside the USGS?
Answer. The USGS has long been the primary civil Federal mapping
agency. It has in-house expertise and a new business model that engages
and utilizes the private sector. MAPPS believes these assets would be
beneficial to a new NGTA. Therefore, it would be the preference of
MAPPS that the NGTA be within USGS. However, we are open to other
structural and organizational frameworks that accomplish the goals of
H.R. 1604.
Question. Mr. Lower, could you describe what it is about the
existing structure--with the FGDC, the NGAC, and Circular A-16--that
you think is not working?
Answer. First, FGDC is made up solely of Federal agencies. No other
stakeholders, particularly the private sector, are members.
Additionally, the FGDC has a very small staff that is responsible for
coordination efforts in more than 40 agencies, thousands of Federal
employees, and, by some estimates, billions of dollars in annual
Federal expenditures. Aside from that small staff, its activities are
largely voluntary and secondary to each agency's mission. It lacks the
clout, stature, budget, or authority to effectively manage Federal
geospatial activities. The same is true with regard to OMB Circular A-
16, in addition to the circular having no enforcement mechanism.
Finally, the NGAC is an advisory committee, not a policymaking
committee. Very few of the recommendations made by NGAC have been
adopted by the Federal Government. The ineffectiveness of FGDC, NGAC
and A-16 is what has driven the findings of the GAO reports, as well as
the 1998 National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] report,
``Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for
the Nation,'' (which pre-dated the establishment of the NGAC). H.R.
1604 seeks to bring FGDC, NGAC, and policies such as A-16 and Executive
Order 12906, into one effective body that includes all stakeholders and
has real decisionmaking authority.
I would be happy to answer any more questions or provide more
detail to the answers provided above. MAPPS supports the enactment of
H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916 and we appreciate the committee's due diligence
in determining the best way forward.
______
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Sumner, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS W. SUMNER, LS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS [NSPS]
Mr. Sumner. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
on behalf of the 10,000 members of the National Society of
Professional Surveyors. Our surveyors are in public service, in
academia, and in private practice.
To put into perspective the need for H.R. 1604 and H.R.
916, I would like to cite a couple of studies. The first cite
is, the last major study of Federal surveying and mapping,
nearly 40 years ago, found a disturbing proliferation and
duplication of activity among many different agencies. Thirty-
nine Federal agencies engage in surveying and mapping
activities in an uncoordinated, single-purpose manner that has
an inability to deal efficiently and responsively with growing
and changing requirements. Agency funding is piecemeal and
lacks central management, and such surveying and mapping
activities are generally marked by agency competition, some
overlap, and shortfall in meeting important national needs.
The second cite is, there is a critical need for a better
land information system in the United States to improve land
conveyance procedures, furnish a basis for equitable taxation,
and provide much needed information for resource management and
environmental planning. Current technology is adequate in most
cases for the surveying, mapping, data collecting, filing, and
dissemination of information. The major obstacles in the
development of a multipurpose cadastre are the organizational
and institutional requirements.
These are not current statements. As a matter of fact, they
are quite old. The former is a 1973 OMB report on Federal
mapping, charting, geodesy, and surveying, and the latter is
from a 1980 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
Numerous studies have highlighted the need to reform and
redesign how Federal surveying, mapping, and geographic
information activities are funded and managed. Geospatial data,
products, technology, and services contribute to a variety of
national needs and applications, but we are not effectively
using these assets.
H.R. 1604 provides for consolidation and stronger
organizational partnerships for geospatial coordination. It
consolidates geospatial activities, eliminates obsolete
programs, and establishes today's priorities. We are pleased
that H.R. 1604 adds infrastructure location data to national
priorities. There is a critical need for current and accurate
location data for pipelines, surface and underground
infrastructure, utilities, and railroads. Every minute of every
day an underground utility is hit, resulting in costly service
disruption, environmental damage, and, worst of all, personal
injury or loss of life.
Federal officials, transportation designers, telecom, and
utilities and pipeline contractors, as well as local government
need accurate location information to manage surface and
underground infrastructure. The tragic accident in New York
last weekend demonstrates the need for positive train control
systems which use highly accurate geospatial data, such as GPS
data, lidar, high resolution digital imagery, survey data, and
mobile mapping to delineate the location of rails and
clearances and to provide a detailed asset inventory to assure
safety, train separation or collision avoidance, speed
enforcement, and for asset management, including the accurate
delineation of rights of way and property boundaries.
H.R. 916 addresses the need for a current accurate
inventory of land owned by the Federal Government. The
Department of the Interior Inspector General found that the
BLM's cadastral program was missing the opportunity to identify
and perform surveys on high risk lands where significant
potential revenues could be collected from fees or royalties.
In another report the IG said the Department can gain revenue
of $100 million or more annually by better using location and
valuation data to assess rent for rights of way on Federal
land.
The Federal Government is losing valuable revenue due to
inefficiency in the current system. As the inspector general
found in the right-of-way report, most of the recommendations
will not require additional funding. Fully implementing the
recommendations, however, should result in increased revenues,
thereby offsetting any cost. We believe this also applies to
H.R. 1604. We found 40 years and 80 years ago a disturbing
proliferation and duplication of surveying and mapping activity
among different agencies and lack of utilization of geospatial
activities and services to solve pressing national problems.
Today there is an even more critical need for a better land
information system. The technology that geospatial
professionals bring to the table still provide all the adequate
activities for making this happen. H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916 are
steps in the right direction. We urge their prompt and
favorable consideration by the Congress. Thank you for this
opportunity.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you as well, Mr. Sumner, for falling
within our 5-minute rule.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sumner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Curtis W. Sumner, LS, Executive Director,
National Society of Professional Surveyors [NSPS]
h.r. 916 and h.r. 1604
The National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) is a national
professional society with more than 10,000 members through affiliate
organizations in all 50 States. NSPS seeks to advance the sciences and
disciplines within the profession, enhance the image of the surveying
profession in the eyes of the public, advance the protection of public
welfare relative to surveying and mapping issues, and encourage high
standards of ethical and professional behavior.
Mr. Chairman, permit me to cite two quotes to put the need for H.R.
1604 and H.R. 916 into perspective.
First--
``The last major study of Federal surveying and mapping nearly
40 years ago found a disturbing proliferation and duplication
of activity among many different agencies. Today, these
activities are found among an even greater number, suggesting
that over the years the conventional budgetary process alone
could not constrain the growth of surveying and mapping outside
the core agencies, which apparently were not getting the job
done . . .'' 39 Federal agencies engage in surveying and
mapping activities in an ``uncoordinated, noncumulative,
single-purpose'' manner that has an ``inability . . . to deal
efficiently and responsively with . . . growing and changing
requirements''. Agency funding is ``piecemeal'' and ``lacks
central management' and such surveying and mapping activities
``are generally marked by insularity, agency competition, some
overlap, and shortfall in meeting important national needs''.
The effort to coordinate agencies' activities has been ``only
partially successful''. Agencies have not been ``given clear
mandates to search for and identify duplication''.
And--
``There is a critical need for a better land information system
in the United States to improve land conveyance procedures,
furnish a basis for equitable taxation, and provide much-needed
information for resource management and environmental planning
. . . Problems inherent in our present system may be
categorized as accessibility, duplication, aggregation,
confidentiality, and institutional structure . . . Current
technology is adequate in most cases for the surveying,
mapping, data collecting, filing, and dissemination of
information . . . The major obstacles in the development of a
multipurpose cadastre are the organizational and institutional
requirements.``
These are not current or recent quotes. The former is from a 1973
OMB Report of the Federal Mapping Task Force on Mapping, Charting,
Geodesy and Surveying and the latter is from a 1980 report, Need for a
Multipurpose Cadastre, by the National Academy of Sciences.
NSPS, and its predecessor, the American Congress on Surveying and
Mapping [ACSM], have been deeply involved in both these studies. In
fact, ACSM was instrumental in a more recent look at Federal geospatial
structure, organization, governance, and management, ``Geographic
Information for the 21st Century--Building a Strategy for the Nation''
by the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] in 1998, that
called for a reorganization of executive branch agencies in order to
improve coordination within the Federal Government and with State and
local government, the private sector, and the academic community.
Let me first say that H.R. 1604 includes several important changes
from its predecessor in the 112th Congress, H.R. 4233. The composition
of the proposed National Geospatial Policy Commission has been revised
to provide a broader cross-section of the geospatial stakeholder
community. The section on development of standard clauses, contracts
and form licenses has been revised to distinguish licensed geospatial
data from State-issued licenses to practice.
Mr. Chairman, GAO reports, congressional hearings, and other
studies have highlighted the need to reform and redesign how surveying,
mapping and geographic information activities are funded and managed at
the Federal level to eliminate wasteful duplication, improve governance
and coordination, and maximize the use of state-of-the art mapping and
geospatial technologies. Geospatial data, products, technology and
services benefit national priorities in economic development, resource
management, environmental protection, infrastructure, construction and
maintenance, homeland security and a variety of other national needs
and applications. Executive Order 12906, issued by President Clinton in
1994 and reaffirmed by President Bush in 2003, established seven
framework layers of geospatial data for Federal investment--geodetic
control, parcels (cadastral), orthoimagery, elevation, hydrography,
administrative units, and transportation--all constituting the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure [NSDI]. Eighteen years later, numerous new
initiatives have been launched to complete some of the framework. These
include National Land Parcel Data, Imagery for the Nation,
Transportation for the Nation, and others. While these are all worthy
programs, their proliferation indicates the failure of the NSDI. A
strategy must be developed to both fund and complete the NSDI as a
comprehensive approach, or to fully implement these individual
initiatives.
There are dozens of Federal agencies engaged in geospatial
activities. Neither the agencies, nor OMB, have a comprehensive
understanding of which agencies are involved in geospatial activities.
No one in the Federal Government has a current, accurate accounting of
annual geospatial expenditures. It is virtually impossible to determine
how many Federal employees are involved in these activities. There is
no balance sheet, prepared to accepted cost accounting standards, of
the capital investment made in equipment and plant (office space,
etc.). There is no accurate data base on the amount of geospatial work
performed in-house and by contract. The relationship of each agency
with other Federal agencies and with State, local and foreign
government agencies needs improvement. There is considerable
duplication and redundancy, little sharing of data, and development of
standards for ``interoperability'' of data has been far too slow. The
obstacles are not technical; they are political and organizational.
H.R. 1604, the ``Map It Once, Use It Many Times [MIO-UIMT] Act''
provides for consolidation and stronger organizational partnerships for
geospatial coordination. This legislation establishes the National
Geospatial Technology Administration within the U.S. Geological Survey
to enhance the use of geospatial data, products, technology, and
services, to increase the economy and efficiency of Federal geospatial
activities. MIO-UIMT also creates a National Geospatial Policy
Commission to develop and periodically amend a comprehensive plan to be
known as the ``National Geospatial Data Plan''. H.R. 1604 consolidates
geospatial activities, eliminates obsolete programs and establishes
today's priorities.
If there is a criticism within NSPS about H.R. 1604, it is that it
does not go far enough. While we understand the Labyrinth of committee
jurisdictions and the parliamentary process of referrals of
legislation, we believe there are programs, such as FEMA flood mapping,
that would benefit from consolidation and better coordination.
There is a critical need in the United States for current, accurate
location data on pipelines, surface and underground infrastructure,
utilities and railroads. The location of these assets, portrayed on
surveys and maps, are essential to public health, welfare, and safety,
as well as to protect property rights. We are pleased that H.R. 1604
adds such infrastructure location data to the NSDI.
At a hearing on pipeline safety earlier this year, Senate Commerce
Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said:
``They crisscross underneath our cities and country sides, yet
most of the time we are not even aware they are there. They
deliver critical fuel that powers our homes, factories, and
offices, and also transport the oil and gas that keep our cars,
trucks, and planes operating . . . Compared to other forms of
transportation, pipelines are a relatively safe, clean and
efficient way of transporting the goods they carry.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case . . . Lack of
records about older pipelines is a real problem and contributed
to a catastrophic pipeline explosion in California that killed
several people.''
More than 183,000 miles of railroad tracks run throughout the
United States, adjoining tens of thousands of landowners. Railroad
tracks and the monumentation that lie within the railroad right-of-way
are paramount in defining the legal location of adjoining property
boundaries. When abandoned railroad tracks adjoining landowners are
removed, and there is no monumentation showing where the tracks once
existed, defining the location of boundary lines for adjacent property
owners can be a costly endeavor.
Federal officials, transportation designers, telecom, and utilities
and pipeline operators, as well as local government, need accurate
location information to manage existing underground infrastructure and
plan for future growth and development. Surveys and maps of underground
utilities are often inaccurate. In many cases, they don't even exist.
The National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] and other authorities
often cite the lack of location data as a factor in pipeline accidents.
The inaccuracy of location data, unmarked utilities, and crowding
within rights of way are major factors contributing to disruption to
underground infrastructure. Digging, drilling or excavating in the
vicinity of unknown, unmarked, unmapped, or incorrectly located
utilities can be costly in terms of wasted excavation time, service
disruption and utility downtime, environmental damage, and--worst of
all--personal injury or loss of life.
Moreover, the tragic accident in New York last week demonstrates
the need for Positive Train Control [PTC] systems, which utilize highly
accurate geospatial data, such as GPS data, LIDAR data, high resolution
digital imagery, survey data, and mobile mapping to delineate the
location of rails, clearances and a detailed asset inventory, to assure
safety, train separation or collision avoidance, speed enforcement, and
for asset management.
As recently as January 2013, the Government Accountability Office
released a study (GAO-13-168) on pipeline safety urging ``better data''
with an emphasis on ``location'', ``proximity'' and ``topography.''
Congress should investigate the problem of railroad abandonment,
underground infrastructure location, and the need for improved location
data to enhance public safety, protect the environment, and grow the
economy by strengthening Federal law on accurate location (surveying
and mapping) of such pipelines, railroads, and other forms of utility
infrastructure. H.R. 1604 is a first step in that process.
As I noted earlier, NSPS and its predecessor have been leading
proponents for a national parcel system. H.R. 916 helps address this
need by authorizing a current, accurate inventory of land owned by the
Federal Government.
The Department of the Interior [DOI] Office of Inspector General
[OIG] Final Audit Report, ``Department of the Interior's Management of
Land Boundaries'' (Audit No. C-IN-MOA-0001--2009), July 16, 2009, found
``that the BLM's Cadastral Survey program was missing the opportunity
to identify and perform surveys on high risk lands where significant
potential revenues could be collected by the Department or Indian
tribes. . . . This revenue could result from the collection of fees or
royalties from identifying (a) unauthorized uses including rights-of-
way violations and (b) the improper removal of oil, gas, timber, or
other resources from Federal or Indian lands.''
In September 2012, the Department of the Interior [DOI] Office of
Inspector General [OIG] found in ``Management of Rights-of-Way in the
U.S. Department of the Interior,'' (Report No. C-IN-MOA-0013-2010) that
``the Department's bureaus have an opportunity to collect as much as
$100 million or more annually if they assess market value for rents''
for rights-of-way [ROW] on Federal land. This potential revenue is not
collected because rents are set below market value, rent discounts are
not justified, and unauthorized uses of ROW are not identified and
corrected. Although most ROW are valued based upon rent schedules,
obtaining true market value requires individual valuations of proposed
ROW. Data needed for valuing and prioritizing ROW could include the
value and volume of a proposed service or product in addition to its
location and land requirements. The latter are surveying and geospatial
information data requirements.
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources on May 2, 2012, in Colorado Springs, CO, the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] ``raised concerns about the accuracy and
completeness of the data used to manage Federal land and resources and
revenues collected from activities on Federal land. As these prior
reports have concluded, without accurate and complete data, managers
cannot make fully informed decisions and effectively manage and
evaluate agency activities.'' (GAO-12-691).
All of these reports demonstrate the need for a better land
information system in the Department of the Interior. That is what H.R.
1604 will provide. The Federal Government is losing valuable revenue
due to the inefficiency of the current system. As the inspector general
found in the right-of-way report, ``most of the recommendations will
not require additional funding. Fully implementing the recommendations,
however, should result in increased revenues, thereby offsetting any
costs.'' We believe the same applies to H.R. 1604.
Mr. Chairman, just as we found 40 years ago and 80 years ago, there
is a disturbing proliferation and duplication of surveying and mapping
activity among many different agencies, and a lack of utilization of
geospatial services, data and technology to solve pressing national
problems. There is an even more critical need for a better land
information system in the United States today. The technology that the
geospatial profession brings to the table is more than adequate for the
surveying, mapping, data collecting, filing, and dissemination of
information that is needed. And the major obstacles we face are
organizational and institutional.
H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916 are steps in the right direction. We urge
their prompt and favorable consideration by the Congress.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Curtis W. Sumner
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Rush Holt
h.r. 1604--map it once, use it many times act and h.r. 916--federal
land asset inventory reform act of 2013
Question. Mr. Sumner, you heard testimony earlier from the USGS
that one of their concerns with the FLAIR Act is the excessive cost,
the vast majority of which comes from the requirement to determine the
value of each parcel of Federal land, and catalogue it for potential
disposal. If those provisions were removed from the bill, and it was
purely an effort to get an accurate inventory of Federal lands, without
regard to value or disposal, would your organizations still support the
legislation?
Answer. The premise that a value or appraisal of every parcel the
Government owns is needed based on the belief that every such parcel is
eligible for surplus and disposal, is a false premise. Additionally,
when one considers the cost to the Government and our economy (such as
the cost of the 2008 mortgage crisis) of not having a national parcel
system, a national parcel system including an appraised value of every
parcel would still be a fraction of the cost of the way the
Government's business is done today. Nevertheless, NSPS would still
support the FLAIR Act if it provided a current, accurate inventory
(even without such valuation data) as a step in the right direction,
and a contribution toward more efficient and effective government
management.
Question. Mr. Sumner, do your organizations have a preference for
whether the NGTA would be within the USGS, or a separate organization
outside the USGS?
Answer. NSPS does not have a preference as to whether NGTA is
housed within or outside USGS. As I mentioned in my oral testimony,
consolidation and improved coordination are needed. There are Federal
activities, such as the FEMA flood mapping program (as one example)
that are not covered by H.R. 1604, but would also benefit from better
integration and coordination with other Federal agency mapping,
surveying, and geospatial activities.
______
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Lovin, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JEFF LOVIN, CP, PS, CHAIRMAN, COALITION OF
GEOSPATIAL ORGANIZATIONS [COGO]
Mr. Lovin. Thank you for opportunity to speak on behalf of
the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations, or COGO. COGO is an
umbrella coalition of the leading national nonprofit societies
and associations in the geospatial field. COGO is deeply
concerned about the governance and land information issues H.R.
1604 and H.R. 916 seek to address.
In recent years, there has been explosive growth, as we
have already heard this morning, in the use of geospatial data
in the U.S. economy. The Federal Geographic Data Committee
estimates that as much as 90 percent of government information
has a geospatial information component.
Unfortunately, neither the executive branch nor Congress
has a consolidated or effective structure for oversight and
coordination of geospatial activities. It is our estimation
that more than 40 Federal agencies are engaged in geospatial
activities, and responsibility for oversight and authorization
of Federal geospatial activities is spread among more than 30
House and Senate committees and subcommittees.
Oversight, coordination, efficiency, and utilization of
geospatial data can enhance the quality of life of the American
people. A better management and government structure in the
executive branch, and the establishment of a subcommittee in
the House and Senate, respectively, with primary jurisdiction
over geospatial activities are needed.
COGO has been deeply involved in efforts to create a
national parcel system, as envisioned in the landmark 1980
National Academy of Sciences report, ``Need for a Multipurpose
Cadastre,'' and its 2007 follow-up report, ``National Land
Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future.'' The 2007 report
actually endorsed the FLAIR Act. The committee of COGO
overseeing this issue has been deeply concerned by the slow
pace at which the Federal Government has been implementing the
Academy's reports and recommendations and believes the Nation
would be well served by more prompt action.
One bright spot, as we have heard, is the progress made on
the 3 Dimensional Elevation Program, or 3DEP, led by the U.S.
Geological Survey. This is an example of a strategic and
coordinated approach to a national geospatial requirement.
Using existing authorization and the language in the FEMA flood
map reform provisions enacted in the MAP-21 Act, USGS is
helping to establish an innovative coordinated funding pool for
the collection of elevation data for flood mapping and other
purposes. USGS is using its geospatial products and services
contract as the vehicle for the collection of lidar and IFSAR
data for 3DEP.
The Survey is working with States and other Federal
agencies to increase the area in which the data is collected
and to reduce duplication. COGO supported the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request for 3DEP, which has been
approved by the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
Together, H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916 would provide specific and
updated authorization for 3DEP, implement some recommendations
of the parcel report, and better coordinate Federal geospatial
activities. These are consistent with COGO priorities. And as
these bills move through the legislative process, COGO would
like to offer specific recommendations for improvement, and we
look forward to working with the subcommittee and the bill
sponsors in that effort. And with that, I thank you for the
opportunity to present our views.
Mrs. Lummis. I also thank Mr. Lovin for his expeditious
review of his testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lovin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Lovin, CP, PS, Chairman, Coalition of
Geospatial Organizations [COGO]
h.r. 916 and h.r. 1604
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Jeff Lovin, a
professional surveyor and certified photogrammetrist with Woolpert, a
geospatial firm headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is my honor to
serve this year as Chairman of the Coalition of Geospatial
Organizations [COGO], an umbrella coalition of the leading national
non-profit societies and associations in the geospatial field. COGO is
comprised of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
[ASPRS], Association of American Geographers [AAG], American Society of
Civil Engineers [ASCE], Cartography and Geographic Information Society
[CAGIS], GIS Certification Institute [GISCI], International Association
of Assessing Officers [IAAO], Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors [MAPPS], National Society for Professional
Surveyors [NSPS], National States Geographic Information Council
[NSGIC], University Consortium for Geographic Information Science
[UCGIS], United States Geospatial Intelligence Foundation [USGIF], and
Urban and Regional Information Systems Association [URISA].
COGO is deeply concerned about the governance and land information
issues H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916 seek to address. H.R. 1604, the ``Map It
Once, Use It Many Times Act'', introduced by Representative Lamborn,
would establish the National Geospatial Technology Administration
within the U.S. Geological Survey to enhance the use of geospatial
data, products, technology, and services, to increase the economy and
efficiency of Federal geospatial activities. H.R. 916, the ``Federal
Land Asset Inventory Reform Act of 2013'', introduced by Representative
Kind and Representative Bishop of Utah, would improve Federal land
management, resource conservation, environmental protection, and use of
Federal real property, by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to
develop a multipurpose cadastre of Federal real property and
identifying inaccurate, duplicate, and out-of-date Federal land
inventories.
In recent years, there has been explosive growth in the use of
geospatial data in the U.S. economy. The Federal Geographic Data
Committee [FGDC]'s 2006 Annual Report noted that as much as 90 percent
of government information has a geospatial information component. The
Geospatial Information and Technology Association reported that up to
80 percent of the information managed by business is connected to a
specific location. While a 1993 survey by the Office of Management and
Budget [OMB] found total annual geospatial expenditures in Federal
agencies alone was close to $4 billion, there is no current, accurate
accounting of the government's annual investment. A recent study by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that at least
$30 billion is generated by geospatial-related companies annually. The
geospatial sector has steadily increased by 35 percent a year, with the
commercial side growing at an incredible rate of 100 percent annually.
The U.S. Department of Labor predicts that the geospatial sector is one
of the three technology areas that will create the most jobs in the
coming decade.
Despite this extraordinary growth and the near-ubiquitous presence
of geospatial data in government and the private sector, the Federal
Government, including Congress, does not have a consolidated or
effective structure for oversight and coordination of geospatial
activities. More than 40 Federal agencies are engaged in geospatial
activities and responsibility for oversight and authorization of
Federal geospatial activities is spread among more than 30 House and
Senate committees and subcommittees.
Geospatial activities have benefited from oversight by Congress and
the executive branch on a bipartisan basis. The following are a few
highlights:
Executive Order 12906, ``Coordinating Geographic Data
Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data
Infrastructure'', was issued by President Clinton on April
11, 1994. This created the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure [NSDI] as a strategic investment of the
Federal Government and established the Department of the
Interior [DOI] as the lead agency in the FGDC.
A National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] report,
requested by Congress, was released in January 1998.
``Geographic Information for the 21st Century Building--A
Strategy for the Nation'' called for a reorganization of
the executive branch agencies in order to improve
coordination within the Federal Government and with State
and local government, the private sector, and the academic
community.
Two hearings were held in 2003 and 2004 by the
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census of the House
Committee on Government Reform. These hearings identified
the challenges and shortcomings of current Federal
geospatial coordination. This subcommittee was later
disbanded.
At the request of the House Subcommittee, the Government
Accountability Office investigated Federal geospatial
activities and reported ``efforts have not been fully
successful in reducing redundancies in geospatial
investments'' and ``Federal agencies are still
independently acquiring and maintaining potentially
duplicative and costly data sets and systems. Until these
problems are resolved, duplicative geospatial investments
are likely to persist.''
In response to these hearings and the GAO report, the Bush
administration established a ``Geospatial Line of
Business'' initiative. However, it has not been able to
accurately account for annual Federal geospatial
expenditures.
In 2008, DOI Secretary Dirk Kempthorne established the
National Geospatial Advisory Committee [NGAC] to ``provide
advice and recommendations related to management of Federal
and national geospatial programs, the development of the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the
implementation of Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-16 and Executive Order 12906''.
In July of 2009, the House Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources held an oversight hearing entitled
``Federal Geospatial Data Management.'' This subcommittee
identified that the Federal Government spends billions of
dollars each year to acquire and manage geospatial data,
which go into making maps for consumers, State and local
officials, and emergency responders, among others. The
subcommittee also found that DOI has estimated that up to
half of the Federal investment in geospatial data is
redundant. The subcommittee examined how the Federal
Government manages the geospatial activities of its various
agencies, and how information sharing between Federal,
State, and local governments, and between the public and
private sectors, can be improved.
Also in July 2009, the Congressional Research Service
published a report, ``Issues Regarding a National Land
Parcel Data base'', highlighting the ``organizational
challenges'' and reporting ``a coordinated approach to
federally managed parcel data did not exist.''
In August 2009 and June 2010, OMB published memos on
``place-based'' policies, more appropriately referred to as
``geospatial''. Within these memos, these policies sought
to leverage investments by focusing resources in targeted
places and drawing on the compounding effect of well-
coordinated action. Effective geospatial policies can
influence how rural and metropolitan areas develop, how
well they function as places to live, work, operate a
business, preserve heritage, and more. Such policies can
also streamline otherwise redundant and disconnected
programs. Between now and 2050, the expected population
growth--of nearly 140 million people--will require, among
other things, the construction of more than 200 billion
square feet of new housing, business space, and retail
development and major new investments in all forms of
physical infrastructure. The new construction will
constitute an estimated two thirds of all development on
the ground in 2050.
In May 2012, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources held an oversight hearing entitled ``Federal
Geospatial Spending, Duplication and Land Inventory
Management''. This hearing covered the importance of
updating Federal land mapping practices for job creation,
additional use of public lands and scientific advancements.
The hearing also focused on the Federal Government's
mapping and geospatial management programs including
Federal data reliability and management. Advances in
mapping technology and demands for mapping products have
created greater demand in the Federal Government for
geospatial services. However, the coordination between
agencies often fails to produce the best information or
value for various constituencies and stakeholders.
Frequently, multiple Federal agencies will request mapping
of the same area at the same time, wasting Federal
resources, and taxpayer dollars.
GAO issued a report, ``Geospatial Information: OMB and
Agencies Need to Make Coordination a Priority to Reduce
Duplication'', GAO-13-94, on November 26, 2012 and it has
further addressed geospatial duplication and lack of
coordination in its 2013 Annual Report, ``Actions Needed to
Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve
Other Financial Benefits'', GAO-13-279SP, April 9, 2013.
This chronology demonstrates how the oversight, coordination,
efficiency and utilization of geospatial data can enhance the quality
of life of the American people. A better management and governance
structure in the executive branch, and the establishment of a
subcommittee in the House and Senate, respectively, with primary
jurisdiction over geospatial activities, are needed.
COGO has been deeply involved in efforts to create a national
parcel system, as envisioned in the landmark 1980 National Academy of
Sciences report ``Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre'' and its 2007
report, ``National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future''. The
2007 report endorsed the FLAIR Act. A committee of COGO, overseeing
this issue, has been deeply concerned by the slow pace at which the
Federal Government has been implementing the Academy's reports and
recommendations and believes the Nation would be well served by more
prompt action.
One bright spot is the progress made on the three dimensional
elevation program, or ``3DEP'', lead by the U.S. Geological Survey
[USGS]. This is an example of a strategic and coordinated approach to a
national geospatial requirement. Operating under authority of the USGS
Organic Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. 394; 43 U.S.C. 31), the act of
October 2, 1888 (25 Stat. 505, 526), and the language in the FEMA flood
map reform provisions enacted in the MAP-21 Act, section 100220 of Pub.
L. 112-141, that calls for USGS to participate in an innovative,
coordinated funding pool for the collection of elevation data for flood
mapping and other purposes, USGS has launched the 3DEP program. The
USGS is using its Geospatial Products and Services Contract [GPSC] as
the acquisition vehicle for the collection of LIDAR and IFSAR data for
the 3DEP program. USGS is working with States and other Federal
agencies to increase the area in which data is collected and to reduce
duplication. COGO supported the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request for 3DEP, which has been approved by the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee. I would point out that GPSC is a
contracting program that follows the COGO-endorsed geospatial data
acquisition principles, which are also consistent with provisions in
H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916.
Enhanced elevation data for the Nation will stimulate economic
growth, while improving health and security. Federal leadership will
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the activity as a whole.
In 2012, a study funded by the USGS and its partners identified
that important benefits from enhanced elevation data totaling up to an
estimated $13 billion annually would accrue to 602 mission-critical
activities of 34 Federal agencies; the 50 States; and selected local
and tribal government, private, and other organizations.
3DEP will satisfy the extensive demand for consistent, high-quality
topographic data and other three-dimensional representations of the
Nation's natural and constructed features. COGO is confident that
appropriate and desirable Federal leadership through the 3DEP will
result in significantly improved protection and management of water
resources; better identification, delineation, risk characterization,
mitigation and post-event recovery of natural hazard areas; improved
management and discovery of energy and mineral resources; more
efficient efforts in agriculture, landscape restoration,
transportation, and construction; as well as improving insights into
our natural heritage.
H.R. 1604 and H.R. 916 would provide specific authorization for
3DEP, implement some recommendations of the parcel report, and better
coordinate Federal geospatial activities. These are consistent with
COGO priorities. As these bills move through the legislative process,
COGO would like to offer specific recommendations for improvement. We
look forward to working with the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors
in that effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jeff Lovin
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Rush Holt
h.r. 1604--map it once, use it many times act and h.r. 916--federal
land asset inventory reform act of 2013
Question. Mr. Lovin, you heard testimony earlier from the USGS that
one of their concerns with the FLAIR Act is the excessive cost, the
vast majority of which comes from the requirement to determine the
value of each parcel of Federal land, and catalogue it for potential
disposal. If those provisions were removed from the bill, and it was
purely an effort to get an accurate inventory of Federal lands, without
regard to value or disposal, would your organizations still support the
legislation?
Answer. The Coalition of Geospatial Organizations has not had ample
time to develop consensus positions on either H.R. 916 or H.R. 1604. We
will forward any position statements we adopt on the bills in the near
future to the committee.
Question. Mr. Lovin, do your organizations have a preference for
whether the NGTA would be within the USGS, or a separate organization
outside the USGS?
Answer. The Coalition of Geospatial Organizations has not had ample
time to develop consensus positions on either H.R. 916 or H.R. 1604. We
will forward any position statements we adopt on the bills in the near
future to the committee.
______
Mrs. Lummis. And now I recognize Mr. Parrish.
STATEMENT OF JAY B. PARRISH, PH.D., P.G., FORMER STATE
GEOLOGIST, PENNSYLVANIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, CHAIR, MAPPING
COMMITTEE, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS [AASG]
Dr. Parrish. Thank you very much. I appreciate this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Association of American
State Geologists. I would like to thank Chairman Lamborn and
Ranking Member Holt for the invitation to be with you today. I
will focus my testimony on the essential role that the U.S.
Geological Survey plays in the operation of the Federal
Government and industry, in particular with 3DEP.
When John Wesley Powell was Director of the USGS over 125
years ago, he told Congress, and I will rephrase, ``Government
can do no scientific work of greater value than creating
topographic maps of the country.'' He implemented a plan to map
the entire country, producing topographic maps that every one
of you, your constituents, and American businesses have used at
some time. The traditional topo sheet that we have all used
became the basis for economic development in the country.
Everyone has used the original topo sheet. They are iconic.
You all are familiar with the look of them. Geologists use
them, hydrologists, hunters, developers, land use planners, boy
scouts, girl scouts, families on vacation, everybody uses topo
sheets.
We endorse 3DEP--3D Elevation Program--as a means of
continuing this Powell plan to provide something of value to
the people, consistent, current, and openly available
geospatial data that is authoritative. The U.S. Geological
Survey 3DEP initiative is a plan to systematically acquire
high-quality lidar and IFSAR data nationwide over the next 8
years, lidar over the lower 48, Hawaii, and the U.S.
territories, and IFSAR over Alaska. It is a well-coordinated
plan based on well documented requirements and benefits.
I have here the study, the NEEA study that was referred to
earlier, which goes over the requirements. I will leave it to
you if you want to read it.
[The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment study
referenced by Dr. Parrish follows:]
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
National Enhanced Elevation Assessment at a Glance
(By Gregory I. Snyder)
introduction
Elevation data are essential for hazards mitigation, conservation,
infrastructure development, national security, and many other
applications. Under the leadership of the U.S. Geological Survey and
the National Digital Elevation Program [NDEP], Federal agencies, State
agencies, and others work together to acquire high-quality elevation
data for the United States and its territories. New elevation data are
acquired using modern technology to replace elevation data that are, on
average, more than 30 years old. Through the efforts of the NDEP, a
project-by-project data acquisition approach resulted in improved,
publicly available data for 28 percent of the conterminous United
States and 15 percent of Alaska over the past 15 years. Although the
program operates efficiently, the rate of data collection and the
typical project specifications are currently insufficient to address
the needs of government, the private sector, and other organizations.
The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA; Dewberry, 2011)
was conducted to (1) document national-level requirements for improved
elevation data, (2) estimate the benefits and costs of meeting those
requirements, and (3) evaluate multiple national-level program-
implementation scenarios. The assessment was sponsored by the NDEP's
member agencies. The study participants came from 34 Federal agencies,
agencies from all 50 States, selected local government and tribal
offices, and private and not-for-profit organizations. A total of 602
mission-critical activities were identified that need significantly
more accurate data than are currently available. The results of the
assessment indicate that enhanced elevation data have the potential to
generate $13 billion in new benefits annually.
requirements for enhanced elevation data
The requirements for elevation data were documented as part of the
assessment through surveys and structured interviews. Each requirement
was described in terms of the accuracy of the data, the data refresh
cycle, and the geographic area of interest. The expected benefits that
would result from meeting these requirements were also identified. To
facilitate this analysis, the results of the survey and interviews were
sorted by 27 predefined business uses. Table 1 summarizes expected
benefits for the top 10 of 27 identified business uses, in dollar
amounts. The dollar amounts represent cost savings either for the
operating agencies or for the customers who use their services and are
detailed for each organization in Dewberry (2011). For example, in
Alabama, high-quality elevation data could potentially save the State's
Department of Economic and Community Affairs $5 million because of the
reduced time (and thereby costs) needed to create datasets for
analyzing flood risks. The improved data could potentially save the
agency's customers $3 million because the data would help reduce the
costs and amount of time required to complete certain phases of flood-
risk mitigation projects.
Table 1--Annual Aggregated Monetary Benefits for the Top 10 Business Uses Identified in the National Enhanced
Elevation Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Benefits
-----------------------------------------
Rank Business Use Conservative (In Potential (In
millions of millions of
dollars) dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Flood risk management $295 $502
2 Infrastructure and construction management 206 942
3 Natural resources conservation 159 335
4 Agriculture and precision farming 122 2,011
5 Water supply and quality 85 156
6 Wildfire management, planning, and response 76 159
7 Geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation 52 1,067
8 Forest resources management 44 62
9 River and stream resource management 38 87
10 Aviation navigation and safety 35 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Benefits were reported as single values or as a range of values in the assessment report (Dewberry, 2011). Only
one half of participants were able to assign benefits to their activities, and the conservative benefits
include these numbers only. Further, when benefits were reported as a range, only the low end of the range was
included in calculating conservative benefits. Potential benefits were based on the high end of benefit ranges
and included some estimated and projected benefits as well as the benefits expected from some emerging
applications]
For about half of the reported applications, the surveyed
organizations were unable to identify specific economic benefits even
though most of them expected major benefits from improved elevation
data. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency needs high-
accuracy, high-resolution topographic data to characterize the
landscape for both environmental protection and assessment of ecosystem
services but did not quantify the benefits. Narratives describing the
benefits of improved elevation data without associated monetary
benefits are also included in Dewberry (2011).
analysis and national elevation program scenarios
Benefit-cost analyses were developed and examined for more than 25
program scenarios (Dewberry, 2011), which included various quality
levels for the elevation data (table 2) and data-replacement cycles.
The estimated costs for each scenario include those for data collection
and life-cycle management. Each scenario would implement a national
data-collection strategy to achieve cost efficiencies and meet the
requirements of multiple organizations.
Table 2--Data Quality Levels Used in the National Enhanced Elevation
Assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal
Point Vertical
Quality Level Spacing Accuracy
(Meters) (Centimeters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 0.35 9.25
2............................................ 0.7 9.25
3............................................ 1-2 18.5
4............................................ 5 46-139
5............................................ 5 93-185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[, less than or equal to]
The final analysis yielded 10 leading scenarios, which are shown in
figure 1. The least beneficial scenario is one that provides national
data coverage at quality level 3 (see table 2 for more information on
quality levels) on a 25-year replacement schedule but realizes only 13
percent of the benefits. In contrast, the national data coverage at
quality level 1 on an annual replacement schedule realizes 98 percent
of the conservative benefits. The 58-percent mid-range scenario offers
a good benefit-to-cost ratio, uniform quality level 2 data, and an 8-
year acquisition cycle. All of the scenarios included quality level 5
data coverage in Alaska, which would be collected by using
interferometric synthetic aperture radar [ifsar] techniques; in Alaska
cloud cover and remoteness preclude consideration of lidar data over
much of the State. With the exception of the 98-percent scenario, all
of the scenarios resulted in positive benefit-to-cost ratios ranging
from 4:1 to 5:1 using the most conservative benefit estimates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5806.001
.epsThe NEEA also reviewed current and emerging commercial
elevation-data technologies, assessed data life-cycle-management costs
for the various scenarios, and produced an inventory of existing
elevation data derived from lidar and ifsar datasets. The inventory
revealed that about 28 percent of the conterminous United States is
covered by quality level 3 lidar data and that about 15 percent of
Alaska is covered by ifsar data.
summary
The current NDEP activity is a partnership between Federal, State,
and other agencies. Although the effort is efficient (very little
duplication of effort), the program currently meets less than 10
percent of the needs identified in the NEEA. The following are the
major findings:
1. Significant benefits could be realized by systematically
upgrading the Nation's elevation data. Hundreds of improved
business applications would benefit all levels of government
and multiple industries.
2. The developed program scenarios demonstrated that favorable
benefit-to-cost ratios can be achieved by integrating multiple
requirements in large projects.
3. A new information technology infrastructure is needed for a
project of this scale.
4. Current elevation technologies, industry capacity, data
standards, and related matters are sufficient; there are no
capability constraints or technical barriers precluding a
national program and no technical reasons to delay its
implementation.
5. The majority of applications now require data better than quality
level 3.
reference cited
Dewberry, 2011, Final Report of the National Enhanced Elevation
Assessment: Fairfax, VA., Dewberry, 84 p. plus appendixes (revised
2012), available at http://www.dewberry.com/Consultants/
GeospatialMapping/FinalReport-NationalEnhancedElevationAssessment.
partners
The NEEA was conducted under a contract between the U.S. Geological
Survey and Dewberry (a consulting firm based in Fairfax, VA.).
Additional support for the assessment came from other Federal agencies:
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
for further information
More information on the NEEA may be found at http://
nationalmap.gov/3DEP/neea.html, or by contacting the author at
[email protected] or (703) 648-35169.
______
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
The 3D Elevation Program--Summary of Program Direction
(By Gregory I. Snyder)
introduction
The 3D Elevation Program [3DEP] initiative responds to a growing
need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other three-
dimensional representations of the Nation's natural and constructed
features. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment [NEEA], which was
completed in 2011, clearly documented this need within government and
industry sectors. The results of the NEEA indicated that enhanced
elevation data have the potential to generate $13 billion in new
benefits annually. The benefits apply to flood risk management,
agriculture, water supply, homeland security, renewable energy,
aviation safety, and other areas. The 3DEP initiative was recommended
by the National Digital Elevation Program and its 12 Federal member
agencies and was endorsed by the National States Geographic Information
Council [NSGIC] and the National Geospatial Advisory Committee [NGAC].
goals and benefits
The primary goal of 3DEP is to systematically collect enhanced
elevation data in the form of high-quality light detection and ranging
[lidar] data over the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and the
territories on an 8-year schedule. Interferometric synthetic aperture
radar [ifsar] data will be collected over Alaska, where both the cloud
cover and the remote location preclude the use of lidar over much of
the State. It is expected that private-sector data-acquisition
companies will mobilize to respond to these lidar and ifsar data needs
and that the products and services will be accessible to all levels of
government and the public. 3DEP will provide easy access to these
authoritative data and derived products by using a cloud-based
infrastructure. 3DEP products and services will be provided nationally
at significantly higher resolution and accuracy than are available
today.
The enhanced elevation data support flood-risk management, natural
resources conservation, infrastructure management, agriculture and
precision farming, aviation safety, renewable energy development, and
many other identified business applications. The potential benefits to
precision agriculture and intelligent vehicle navigation alone are
estimated at over $9 billion annually (Dewberry, 2011). It is expected
that new, unimagined information services will be created, thus
spawning job growth and transformation in the geospatial community. The
following examples demonstrate the value of enhanced elevation data to
both Federal and State programs. These examples are among the 602
applications documented in the NEEA report (Dewberry, 2011):
1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] expects that a
national enhanced elevation program could reduce the amount of
time needed to update its flood maps. These data could provide
significant benefits to the communities and citizens that are
customers of the National Flood Insurance Program by providing
updated information to affected communities and homeowners more
quickly. In addition, the national availability of enhanced
elevation data (not just for areas where FEMA identifies a
need) could lead to innovative tools that build on FEMA's
flood-risk data and make them more powerful, effective, and
easier to use; for example, users may be able to easily
visualize a variety of flood levels in three dimensions.
2. Using lidar data, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] scientists
discovered a surface rupture along the Tacoma fault in the
State of Washington. This discovery led to a redesign of the
structural elements of a $735-million suspension bridge across
the Tacoma Narrows. When lidar data enable the identification
of active faults near planned nuclear-waste-treatment
facilities or a major suspension bridge, proactive mitigation
steps may be taken to avoid potential catastrophes in the
future.
3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA's] environmental
impact assessments [EIAs] depend upon accurate elevation data
for vulnerability mapping and for estimating the threat of sea-
level rise to human populations, infrastructure, the fish and
shellfish industries, and the coastal environment. Credible
EIAs cannot be performed without accurate lidar data. The EPA
estimates that billions of dollars would be saved by States,
local communities, and citizens because they may have accurate
elevation data on which to base their sea-level-rise mitigation
activities.
4. The Centers for Disease Control indicate that lidar data provide
significant benefits for occupational safety and health by
enabling many tasks to be performed in an office environment
that were previously performed in the field under dangerous or
unhealthful conditions. For example, conducting land surveys
during highway construction results in traffic deaths among
surveyors each year. This hazard may be largely eliminated by
the use of lidar-based surveys.
5. In the State of Alaska, poor-quality elevation data pose an
ongoing threat to aviation safety. Improved elevation data for
cockpit navigation and flight simulators may save a significant
number of lives each year by reducing the number of accidents
that result from the inability to safely fly over obstacles in
the air space. The elevation data in Alaska have large
demonstrated errors and are not reliable for safe navigation.
Poor weather conditions, extremes in terrain, and reliance on
air travel underscore Alaska's requirement for improved
elevation data for aviation safety.
6. Enhanced elevation data for the State of Illinois would
dramatically improve precision farming. A more accurate
depiction of variations in local relief helps determine a more
accurate rate for applying agricultural chemicals, thereby
yielding a significant cost savings and reducing agricultural
pollution. Approximately two-thirds of the land area of
Illinois is devoted to agricultural uses.
governance
3DEP will be a cooperatively funded national elevation program led
by the USGS, which is the Federal Geographic Data Committee's
designated lead Federal agency for the collection and management of
terrestrial elevation data. A governance model is being developed to
solidify 3DEP partner agency roles and data acquisition strategies,
program expectations, and constraints. The program will be designed to
meet the mission-critical data needs of the 3DEP partners and other
communities of use. The Federal agencies poised to realize the highest
benefits to their mission from enhanced elevation data include the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure, the
USGS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the EPA, the U.S. Forest Service, the
Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency. States and other partners will be able to
participate in 3DEP and could fund higher quality data where needed.
Efforts to reach out to current and future partners are underway.
The National Research Council (2007) concluded that the
Nation's elevation data are inadequate to support FEMA's flood-
plain mapping activities and that new national elevation data
collection is required. The report proposed the use of lidar as
the primary technology for elevation data acquisition and noted
that these data would have many beneficial uses beyond FEMA's
flood-plain mapping needs.
implementation
The program is expected to continue to function as an activity that
is coordinated by the National Digital Elevation Program. Several key
changes are expected as the current elevation program transitions to
3DEP. These changes include an expansion of the partnership base,
larger and thus more cost-effective projects, a directed approach for
national coverage, improved data quality, and expanded application
services.
references cited
Dewberry, 2011, Final Report of the National Enhanced Elevation
Assessment (revised 2012): Fairfax, VA., Dewberry, 84 p. plus
appendixes, available at http://www.dewberry.com/Consultants/
GeospatialMapping/FinalReport-NationalEnhancedElevationAssessment.
National Research Council, 2007, Elevation data for floodplain
mapping: Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 168 p. (Also
available at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11829&page=1.)
for further information
Further information on the 3DEP initiative can be found at http://
nationalmap.gov/3DEP/ or by contacting Mark DeMulder at
[email protected] or (703) 648-5569.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5806.002
.eps__
Dr. Parrish. It is an amazing piece of work. It would
require $146 million annually over 8 years, returning over $690
million annually in benefits.
State geological surveys have already made extensive use of
high-resolution topography and geologic mapping in the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. In New Jersey, State
Geologist Karl Muessig worked with USGS to fly Barnegat Bay for
detailed shallow bisymmetry topography before and after Sandy,
and they now have a detailed data set that is being used for
beach and dune damage assessments and sand redistribution
determination. At the Colorado Survey, State Geologist Karen
Berry is using lidar for mapping debris fans and debris flows
that resulted from the floods in September.
Efficient coordination of geospatial data acquisition in
the Federal Government is often diminished by competition among
those agencies for scarce resources. In Pennsylvania, we
overcame the lack of a powerful coordinating body by creating
PAMAP, partially funded by USGS, and it is part of the national
map that USGS produced. We were able to provide 67 counties
with a consistent, freely available base map across county
boundaries. The need for coordination and the amount of
duplication diminished dramatically because everyone had a
consistent, freely available base map.
By fully funding one basic and essential geospatial
program, you could make a tremendous difference. The USGS has a
long history of providing that basic, consistent,
authoritative, current, essential, and openly available data.
Any legislation on geospatial concerns would include support
and growth of the 3DEP Initiative. The Association of American
State Geologists strongly endorses the President's fiscal year
2014 budget proposal for the U.S. Geological Survey and
associated funding for 3DEP. If it could be increased, the job
would be done faster. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the panel.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Parrish follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay B. Parrish, Ph.D., P.G., Former State
Geologist, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Chair, Mapping Committee,
Association of American State Geologists [AASG]
h.r. 1604--map it once, use it many tines act and h.r. 916--federal
land asset inventory reform act of 2013
My name is Jay Parrish. I was the State Geologist and Director of
the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. As Chair of the Mapping Committee
of the Association of American State Geologists [AASG], I am testifying
today on behalf of that organization, which represents the geological
surveys in the 50 States and Puerto Rico.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the importance of H.R.
1604 Map It Once, Use It Many Tines Act and H.R. 916 Federal Land Asset
Inventory Reform Act of 2013. These bills are focused on making
geospatial data more useful and readily accessible to governmental and
civilian users, something the professional geological community can
endorse. I would like to focus my testimony on the essential role that
the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] plays in the operations of the
Federal Government, and in particular a new initiative called 3DEP. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Association of
American State Geologists.
We regard the USGS role as essential to the operations of the
Federal Government, while USGS provides scientific geological
information that is needed to optimize the health, wealth, and security
of the American people, as well as the health and sustainability of the
Nation's natural environment.
Both Federal and State government geological surveys maintain
comprehensive information on the expansive and diverse landmass
administered by the governments in which we serve, collected from
extensive mapping, monitoring, and research activities.
We believe that the President's budget proposal outlines support
for what we regard as successful and effective USGS programs that
stimulate economic development, that save lives and property from
natural disasters, and that protect the environment and public health.
When John Wesley Powell was director of the U.S. Geological Survey
over 125 years ago, he told Congress ``A Government cannot do any
scientific work of more value to the people at large than by causing
the construction of proper topographic maps of the country.'' He
implemented a plan to map the entire country, producing the topographic
maps that every one of you, your constituents, and American businesses
have used at some time in their existence.
We endorse 3DEP as a means of continuing the ``Powell Plan'' to
provide something of intrinsic value to the people: consistent, current
and openly available geospatial data.
State Geologists direct State geological surveys and work to ensure
that their States are supported by optimal, useful information. From
time to time, a technology matures in a way that offers an opportunity
to revolutionize everything that we do on the land--resulting in cost
savings and improved benefits for a broad range of activities in our
communities and their economies. Today, lidar and associated
technologies offer that new opportunity.
The U.S. Geological Survey is developing the 3D Elevation Program
[3DEP] initiative to systematically acquire high-quality lidar and
ifsar data nationwide over the next 8 years: Light Detection and
Ranging [lidar], data in the conterminous U.S. [CONUS], Hawaii, and the
U.S. Territories; and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (ifsar
data in Alaska). The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment [NEEA]
study identified more than 600 requirements for 3D elevation data to
address the mission critical issues of 34 Federal agencies, all 50
States and for a sample of private sector companies, Tribes, and local
governments. The initiative calls for funding to be increased to $146
million annually over 8 years, returning more than $690 million
annually in new benefits to the private sector directly, and to
citizens through improved government program services.
For geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, it is
estimated that there would be benefits that exceed $51 million per year
if this program were implemented. That's just one of many business uses
that would benefit from a national lidar program. In my State,
Pennsylvania, we have seen the PAMAP lidar data provide a consistent
and free base map for geospatial tools across county boundaries to
support geologic hazards assessment and mapping; flood risk assessment,
response and mitigation; forest resource management, land use
management and many other applications.
Many organizations like the Association of American State
Geologists agree that uniform national lidar data would facilitate
mission-critical applications across government and spur innovations
not possible with the patchwork of data we have in most places today.
Some have asked the question about funding and whether or not a
program of this scope could be achieved. It is clear that to achieve
the goal to acquire data over the entire country in 8 years that
investments will need to increase. It is estimated that the data
acquisition rates will need to increase by three fold over today's rate
in order to meet this timetable. New and improved program efficiencies
and advancements in technology will help this along. The 3DEP
initiative will achieve a 25 percent efficiency gain by moving toward
larger projects where data acquisition costs are inherently lower.
The momentum that 3DEP is experiencing must be accelerated. This
initiative is a key component to advancing our Nation's geospatial
capabilities. It is a well-coordinated plan based on well documented
requirements and benefits, and it aims to meet a majority of real and
important needs across the government. Any legislation on geospatial
concerns should include the support and growth of the 3DEP initiative.
In summary, the Association of American State Geologists strongly
endorses the President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal for the U.S.
Geological Survey, and associated funding for 3DEP. If it could be
increased, the job could be done faster. But it must be funded. And
Federal, State, and local governments, in their implementation of 3DEP
acquisition, must be allowed the flexibility to find the most cost-
effective means of collecting geological and topographical data, using
available and existing government resources as well as employing the
freedom to contract with any qualified organization for maximum savings
to the taxpayer.
Efficient coordination of geospatial data acquisition in the
Federal Government is sorely diminished by competition among those
agencies for scarce resources. By fully funding one basic and essential
geospatial program, you could make a tremendous difference in
geospatial data assets of our country. The USGS has a long history of
providing that basic, consistent, current, essential, and openly
available data. 3DEP is a way forward into the future.
In particular, we endorse programs that are operated as
partnerships between Federal agencies and State agencies, thus
optimizing leveraged funds, as well as encouraging coordination,
efficiency, and adoption of nation-wide standards.
In closing, I want to again indicate that we appreciate this
opportunity to offer information that we hope will be helpful for the
work of the subcommittee.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jay B. Parrish
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Rush Holt
h.r. 1604--map it once, use it many times act and h.r. 916--federal
land asset inventory reform act of 2013
Question. Dr. Parrish, does the Association of American State
Geologists have any position on the two bills on the agenda today?
Answer. No, AASG does not have a formal stand on either of the two
bills.
Question. Dr. Parrish, are there any lessons from Pennsylvania's
experience with generating a lidar base map that you think are relevant
to the national 3DEP initiative?
Answer. My personal view is that it is extremely important to
provide sufficient funding to accomplish the goal in as short a period
of time as possible. PAMAP was created to follow a 3 year cycle. 3DEP
should not be saddled with small budgets such that it takes decades to
map the country. The data should be collected as coincident as
possible.
It is important to have a knowledgeable organization oversee data
collection. USGS provided technical expertise for PAMAP. USGS has a
well-thought out plan in 3DEP.
Competition for funding and interference by State agencies with
little understanding of mapping greatly slowed the creation of PAMAP.
Adding a layer of bureaucracy on top of the mission of USGS would be
counterproductive. Forcing USGS to solicit funds from other agencies
can work, as it did with PAMAP, but it required a large expenditure of
manpower and resulted in constant uncertainty. USGS should have the
funding needed for 3DEP in their budget.
USGS works well with the private sector to acquire the data, and
set an example for our work on PAMAP. Private industry provides
insights on emerging technology as well as suggestions on optimal data
collection. By acquiring large areas of Pennsylvania at a time we
achieved cost savings. The same is true of 3DEP.
PAMAP provided a short-term boost to the Pennsylvania economy and
created jobs, but, more importantly, in the long-term, the data set
resulted in new economic development, new applications, and new ways of
doing business that continued to stimulate the economy, and create
savings in the existing government and industrial processes. The most
obvious example is the Marcellus boom. The largest user of PAMAP data
have been exploration companies. The same would be true on a national
level with 3DEP.
______
Mrs. Lummis. We will now begin with questions. The Chair
recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sumner, you mentioned in your testimony the notion of
high risk lands that were identified. What do you mean by high
risk lands?
Mr. Sumner. I don't recall mentioning high risk lands.
Mrs. Lummis. You mentioned high risk lands in association
with, I thought, properties that we were receiving inadequate
moneys in terms of Federal rents or royalties. Am I right?
Mr. Sumner. Right. I am sorry. I misunderstood.
Mrs. Lummis. That is OK.
Mr. Sumner. What we were talking about there were primarily
BLM lands and seeking their full potential and finding out ways
to be able to better utilize that land and actually provide
revenue to the government. So that is in relationship to the
land inventory part of these two bills.
Mrs. Lummis. So taking off on that notion of a land
inventory that would allow a maximization of the benefits of
those lands to the people of this country, the owners of that
land, how might a national parcel system benefit that effort?
Mr. Lovin, you were talking about a national parcel system.
Take my State, for example, it is half Federal lands, half
private lands. The private lands are taxed, because we have a
property tax, an ad valorem tax in Wyoming, and each parcel of
private land has a PIN number, a parcel identification number
for purposes of valuing them for property tax assessments. Is
that something that could or should be utilized with regard to
the Federal estate?
Mr. Lovin. Yes, it should. And again, across boundaries,
across States and so forth, having a national parcel data set
could provide so much benefit as the government looks to better
utilize the land, as Mr. Sumner stated, but also in relation to
economic development it could be a huge boon. You see many
States where they do not have wherewithal for a statewide
parcel initiative. You see businesses locating to where they
can readily obtain that sort of information, where they may
say, we are looking to build a factory in your State, we need
information on a certain type of parcel within certain distance
of rail, highway, what have you, different types of
infrastructure. And in those States that have that kind of
information readily handy, that is where they end up often
locating. So it is a huge benefit to having that national
parcel data set completed.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Parrish, you used Pennsylvania as an
example? Could you elaborate a little bit? That is clearly a
private land State, one of the original 13 colonies. So they
are not burdened by the same Federal presence that my State of
Wyoming is. Might you explain how something that is working in
a State like Pennsylvania, which is a private land State, could
be utilized in a public land State, such as my own?
Dr. Parrish. In terms of parcels?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes. Yes, please.
Dr. Parrish. Well, not to sound a little bit geeky, but
where you start doing parcels, you have to have a good base. If
you don't have a good base, you really can't do parcels because
you end up adjusting lines, which leads to trouble. So you
start with a good base. And once you start collecting the
parcel data----
Mrs. Lummis. So what is the base?
Dr. Parrish. Oh. In the simplest form, it is an air photo,
an orthoimage, and topography, because topography distorts the
land surface. So if you really want to know what a parcel looks
like, you have to know how much of it is a high slope and how
that distorts where the boundary looks, when you look at a map
view. So by having the orthophoto and the lidar data or
topographic data, you have a good base to put your parcels on.
Without that, you are really just making a drawing.
Mrs. Lummis. And then what should follow? Once you have a
good, solid base, what should come next?
Dr. Parrish. Well, there are the various themes that we
have spoken of that FGDC has pointed out. And usually you start
with the most basic transportation hydrology and work your way
up to parcels, because parcels are admittedly a man-made layer.
Mrs. Lummis. Right.
Dr. Parrish. So you want as many natural layers down first
before you can put the man-made layer on top of that.
Mrs. Lummis. And my time has expired. But I would note that
might be a way to rightsize the inventory or quantification and
coordinate the cost over time. So thank you for your input,
gentlemen. I appreciate it.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson. I thank the gentlelady.
For all the panel, in the testimony we just heard from
USGS, their main point was that H.R. 1604 would actually
increase duplication. To all panelists, do you agree with this?
And just very briefly, why or why not?
Mr. Lower, we will start with you.
Mr. Lower. Thank you. I disagree with that. In reference to
the comments from the USGS, I do agree that there are mission-
specific objectives from different agencies in terms of
temporal type data, flying data, when leaves are on or leaves
are off, for mapping data under certain conditions.
However, what we see as duplication also relates to the
coordination and the efficiency of mapping between the
agencies. And just to reference an example, we have done some
work down in the Caribbean and Puerto Rico for one agency. And
another agency had similar work on the Virgin Islands, and the
two agencies had not coordinated. And the coordination and
efficiency between those agencies could have resulted in a more
efficient planning and collection of a consolidated area and
minimized the resources that are deployed, the costs that are
involved with sending people down there, and airplanes and
sensors. So that is just one example.
So I do agree that there are mission-specific objectives
for each agency. And we support all the uses of geospatial
data. We are not saying each agency should not get what they
need in terms of geospatial data. We do believe that there
needs to be a coordinated effort between agencies.
Mr. Thompson. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Sumner.
Mr. Sumner. I would certainly agree with that statement.
And as representative of the professionals who meet the public
face to face on the ground every day, dealing with their
problems, we see this even beyond the coordination of the
mapping itself, but even the coordination for the criteria on
which the mapping is created. For example, in one situation, we
might have an elevation base, a benchmark, if you will, that
defines an elevation on a particular point, and in another
situation it has a different elevation.
So we see this as an opportunity for that coordination to
occur as well, where we have uniform data on which everybody
can depend across the country. And then when we address these
issues that affect people, we have the proper information to do
that with.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Lovin.
Mr. Lovin. Yes. I would echo that, I disagree with that
statement, that there is tremendous duplication, as I said in
my statement. And I will use my home State of Ohio as example,
as kind of a microcosm, that the State IT department basically
funded a statewide imagery and lidar initiative, much like we
are talking here with 3DEP. And what we have seen is it saved
tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of the State of
Ohio from the fact that agency has now issued that to the Ohio
Department of Transportation, to the Department of Natural
Resources, all these other agencies. And then it trickles down
also to the individual counties, and they are able to use that
data. And again, I think there could be huge benefit if the
Federal Government undertook a similar initiative as we are
talking about with these two pieces of legislation.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Dr. Parrish, good to see you again.
Dr. Parrish. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you for your service to Pennsylvania.
Thanks for your service at our alma mater, Penn State.
Dr. Parrish. Thank you. Well, as you can guess, I would
also agree with this, what has been said. If you make the
investment in infrastructure, you avoid duplication. If you
have FEMA interested only in stream valleys and collecting
lidar there, and ag interested in ag land, and forestry
interested in forest land, and each going out and collecting
their own data set, there is going to be overlap. But if you
have one agency that has the task of being the caretaker of
that data layer, with USGS with topography, for instance, you
could just collect it once, in one large geographic area, which
makes the costs go way down because you don't have small
postage stamps, and it becomes a much cheaper and much more
usable data set to everybody and avoids duplication.
And if you take the analogy of doing that at the State
level with Ohio and Pennsylvania, where we avoided the
duplication of counties doing everything over and over again,
and look at States with the United States, there is no point in
having an individual survey for a very small State surrounded
by a bunch of bigger States. You may as well just do a big
block at once.
Mr. Thompson. Dr. Parrish, is it accurate to say that the
Pennsylvania digital base map, PAMAP, has been beneficial
because there has been a lack of coordination between USGS, the
States, and other interested parties? Has it kind of helped
fill that vacuum?
Dr. Parrish. Well, actually, there has been tremendous
coordination with USGS. It has been more of a problem within
the State and local government where we haven't been able to
come up with bodies, as are found in other States, that have
been as effective. I guess I will leave it there. But as you
well know, that the data being available made possible a lot of
economic development. In particular, the Marcellus boom made
tremendous use of the lidar that was acquired.
Mr. Thompson. Very good.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Do you have any more
questions, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Sure.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, then, we will do a very brief second
round. And, Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Maybe we can do it in less. We will see.
Mrs. Lummis. OK.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Dr. Parrish, come back, just follow up on that. Are you
aware of other States developing anything similar to PAMAP.
Dr. Parrish. Well, yes, as was mentioned, Ohio, right next
door, did a similar thing. There are a number of States that
have their own system, Iowa, North Carolina. I don't want to
leave anybody out; they will be offended. But there are many
States who have done very similar things and have complete
statewide coverage.
Mr. Thompson. Very good.
Mr. Lower, you stated in your testimony as reported by the
GAO that the Federal Government does not have a current,
accurate, and reliable inventory of its land assets. Can you
elaborate on this and explain why this may be the case?
Mr. Lower. Yes. In my testimony, there are multiple
inventories from different agencies, and an issue consolidating
and figuring out how all of those work together. And we have
had discussions with the BLM related to that in terms of how do
they consolidate all this data? How do they get an inventory to
know what they really do have? So, yes. I believe there was in
the number of 30 separate inventories they were dealing with.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
And, Mr. Lovin, you stated that OMB found total annual
geospatial expenditures in Federal agencies alone was close to
$4 billion, but there is no current accurate accounting of the
Government's annual investment. I guess the question I have,
any insight on how this can be? Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Lovin. Well, I mean, other than the fact that each of
these agencies have their missions. And it is clear the
stovepipe effect. As a business owner, I work for different
Federal agencies. And you really see it where they are focused
on their mission and they collect the data for that specific
issue. But again, when you have nearly 40 agencies across the
Federal Government doing that, it adds up pretty quickly.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. Well, being from farm country, we like
to call those silos.
All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I yield
back.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
And in summary, I would like to give you each roughly a
minute to see if there is anything you wish you had said. I
mean, as you walk out of this room, is there just one thing
that you wish you could have imparted during this testimony?
And I will give you each an opportunity to answer that
question.
Mr. Lower.
Mr. Lower. All right. Thank you. Just in reference to a
comment that was made earlier by the subcommittee, in reference
to Federal offices that advocate for the private sector. Just
to note the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small
Business Administration, is an example of that, as well as the
old Urban Mass Transit Administration, now the Federal Transit
Administration, had an Office of Private Sector Initiatives. I
just wanted to make that comment related to one of the
questions that was asked earlier.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sumner, do you have a burning desire to give a last
statement?
Mr. Sumner. Not a burning desire perhaps. But I do think it
is important to recognize that once again, as I said earlier,
when we deal with the people on the ground and how they are
affected by any number of activities, floods, whatever the case
may be, it is critically important, we believe, to have good
information that can be relied upon. And so many times we find
that the information that is available isn't that good. And I
pick on FEMA a little bit because of the nature of the maps
that they have created over the years. But we certainly see
again this is an opportunity to correct a lot of that and to
provide information that really is helpful to the public and
helpful to those of us who are trying to assist them.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Mr. Lovin.
Mr. Lovin. Yes, I guess I would like to point out again
that, as I mentioned, that the 3DEP program thus far has been a
great model and I think could be a great example moving forward
for this consolidation, because USGS has done a good job of
reaching across agencies and pooling funding from FEMA and
others to get this initiative moving forward. And also, as you
have heard, both the Ohio program and the Pennsylvania program,
USGS was a key stakeholder bringing funding and cooperation to
those efforts.
As you look at such a huge initiative to tackle, you have
to start at it piece by piece, step by step. And I think the
3DEP program would be a great way to look at this consolidation
effort.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Lovin.
I now recognize Mr. Parrish.
Dr. Parrish. Thank you. I guess I would reiterate that USGS
was designed to be a mapping agency. It is an objective source
of scientific information, and it has worked very well in
cooperation with States.
The 3DEP program has an unexpected benefit that we haven't
discussed at all, and that is when you are trying to get
topography, you also get the height of every building and every
tree as a throwaway piece of information, but you can keep that
and actually know the elevation of every single piece of
vegetation in the country and every building in the country.
This is a tremendous tool. What can be done with it in the
future is just mind-blowing. And we haven't really scratched
the surface with what can be done with it, and the technology
is changing. It is a very exciting time to think 3DEP might be
able to do that for us. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the panel. At a time of big data, when
that is a buzzword about the possibilities that big data
provide in every manner of our lives, this is yet another
component. And we appreciate your expertise and thank you very
much for your testimony.
The members of the committee may have additional questions
for you for the record. And I ask you to respond in writing if
you hear from them.
If there is no further business, this committee stands
adjourned, with gratitude to our panel.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]