[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
``FEDERAL GEOSPATIAL DATA
MANAGEMENT;'' AND
H.R. 2489, ``AMERICAVIEW
GEOSPATIAL IMAGERY MAPPING
PROGRAM ACT.''
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 23, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
JIM COSTA, California, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking Republican Member
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Don Young, Alaska
Samoa Louie Gohmert, Texas
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John Fleming, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts officio
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 23, 2009.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee......................................... 6
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Byrne, Michael, Geographic Information Officer, State of
California................................................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 32
Marlow, Susan, Chief Executive Officer, Smart Data
Strategies, Inc............................................ 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 49
Palatiello, John M., Executive Director, Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors.......... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 39
Siderelis, Karen C., Geospatial Information Officer, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 16
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 23, 2009.......................... 65
Statement of Members:
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Herseth Sandlin, Hon. Stephanie, a Representative in Congress
from the State of South Dakota............................. 67
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Statement of Witnesses:
Batzli, Dr. Sam, Director, WisconsinView, Geospatial
Information Scientist, The Space Science & Engineering
Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.................... 102
Prepared statement of.................................... 103
Letter from State of Wisconsin Department of Military
Affairs submitted for the record....................... 108
List of documents retained in the Committee's official
files.................................................. 110
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 110
Dodge, Rebecca L., Ph.D., Outreach Director, AmericaView..... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
StateView Consortia Summaries submitted for the record... 83
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 91
Kimball, Suzette M., Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 72
O'Neill, Mary, Principal Investigator, South Dakota View, and
Manager, Office of Remote Sensing, South Dakota State
University................................................. 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 99
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``FEDERAL GEOSPATIAL DATA MANAGEMENT.''
----------
Thursday, July 23, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Costa
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Costa, Lamborn, Holt, Sablan,
Sarbanes, Tsongas and Lummis.
Also Present: Representative Blackburn.
Mr. Costa. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being
here this morning for the House Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources meeting.
Today is a two-fer. First, we are going to have an
oversight hearing on Federal geospatial data management. When
we complete the testimony from our panel members and questions
that are asked by Members of the Subcommittee, we will conduct
a legislative hearing to formally consider the measure from our
colleague from South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who has
been working on this for some time.
It will be a good opportunity to discuss the AmericaView
Act and where the oversight, I think, needs to be applied as it
relates to the Federal efforts on geospatial issues that
involve so many areas of national policy in terms of resources,
in terms of defense policy, in terms of general planning and
our relationship at the state and local level, and also the
private/public intersection because so much has changed. So
much has changed.
So we will be holding two hearings back-to-back today. The
first will discuss the geospatial data, and then when that is
over we will officially reconvene for a legislative hearing
with a panel of experts to discuss the AmericaView bill in more
detail.
But first let me make some observations as it relates to
the subject matter at hand.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. In this field, believe it or not, five years can
literally feel like a lifetime. You might ask why. Well, those
of you who are in the audience obviously know because this is
an issue near and dear to your heart.
Google Maps, Google Earth, iPhone, all of these things that
we seem to take for granted these days, didn't exist five years
ago. The people's iPhone they have there, they can have the
ability to provide directional course in your automobile or
wherever you are going. We take that for granted, but five
years ago that didn't exist.
So how we use the state-of-the-art technology in our
everyday lives that now seems to be taken for granted is really
the subject matter at hand and so while most Americans may not
know what geospatial means, what we do know is they use it
every day in their lives.
We all use it every day in our lives, whether it is, as I
said, looking at instructions on an outline or whether it is a
complex way of figuring out how our regions and our states deal
with forest fires, for example, or the complex way to deal with
information for fisheries, our resource management, whether it
be oil or natural gas.
The Federal government's role in geospatial information
mapping has changed significantly over 200 years. It has come a
long way since Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark in one of
the first expeditions, as they said, to map this great expanse
of the United States that resulted in the Louisiana Purchase
from France, and to find out whether or not there was a passage
that connected the great river systems of the Continental
Divide on the east to the river systems of the Continental
Divide on the west.
Clearly the ability to link the Missouri River and the
Columbia River was not to be, not nearly in the way that
President Jefferson had hoped or that Lewis and Clark later
discovered was not available.
Nonetheless, today the Federal government still has and
collects voluminous amounts of geospatial data. The Department
of the Interior estimates that roughly 80 percent of the
Federal data that they have on record has a geospatial
component to it.
Unfortunately, like a number of things, one hand of the
government doesn't necessarily know what the other hand of the
government is doing. The Department of the Interior estimates
that 50 percent of the money the government spends on
geospatial efforts is redundant. Agencies oftentimes do not
know what other agencies have already done and therefore can't
use the existing data because it wasn't collected with the
right information necessary to make it work.
There have been efforts to better coordinate these agencies
that have been going on record of gathering and collecting this
data for really over 50 years, but I think Congress has learned
that in the last set of geospatial hearings in this decade that
the efforts have moved very slowly and have been very, very
ineffective. So today we stand here to try to figure out how we
can try to fix these things.
Before I yield to the Ranking Member for his opening
statement, I would like to do something that I think makes it
much more informative and interactive.
When I was talking about some of the stuff that we see on
the news where they use geospatial and they will take you right
to a specific location, whether it be in Mumbai, India, or
whether it be in Pakistan or whether it be the flooding of the
Red River up in the Dakotas where all of a sudden you are
zoomed in on a region and, all of a sudden, you are right on
the site. Well, all of that is done as a result, in part, of
this mapping.
I--my staff I should say--give credit where credit is due--
we have a five-minute video that will bring home, I think, to
everyone the subject matter at hand. We will see how good we
are with Marcie's efforts to make this happen. If it is
successful, I will take all credit. If it doesn't work, it is
because Marcie couldn't figure out how to get the computerized
video thing going.
Let us see how it works here. We will show you what we are
talking about today. It is from Penn State.
[Whereupon, a video was played.]
Mr. Costa. I like that. ``The location of anything is
becoming everything,'' and we want to thank Penn State
University for this trailer for the geospatial documentary that
they are producing. I think it does a nice job of setting up
today's hearing in terms of the subject matter at hand.
With that, I would like to thank our witnesses and
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Doug Lamborn from Colorado,
for any opening statement that he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources, on ``Federal Geospatial Data Management''
Good morning, and welcome to the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee hearing on geospatial information. Officially this is a
the first hearing of a doubleheader that we will be holding this
morning, so those of you in the audience and watching online will be
getting your money's worth. The second hearing will be a legislative
hearing on a bill sponsored by my good friend and fellow Blue Dog,
Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, and I will have more to say
about that bill a little later.
This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to chair a
hearing on this important topic, and, to the best of my knowledge, the
first Congressional hearing directly on geospatial issues since 2004.
While five years might not seem like a huge gap, when it comes to
technology it is a lifetime. Five years ago, Google Maps and Google
Earth did not exist, nor did iPhones. Today, Americans take it as a
given that they should be able to get instantaneous driving directions
across a city, state, or the entire country, or, if they have a GPS-
enabled device, they should be able to find out the location of the
nearest restaurant or gas station. Most people probably could not
explain what ``geospatial'' means, but they know what it does, and it
has become an increasing part of our everyday lives.
Also, most people probably have no idea what goes in to collecting
that data and making it available in a useful form. I think we take for
granted that every road will be there when we search for directions, or
that the U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps will be there when
we want to go on a hike in the forest, or that there will be a map
showing what areas are being affected by severe drought. But a
tremendous amount of time and money is required to make sure these maps
exist, that they are accurate, and that they match up properly. Often
times, such as when emergency responders need to know where to go, and
where hazardous utility lines may be buried, this can be a matter of
life and death.
Historically, the federal government has been the primary
collector, manager, and integrator of geospatial data. Over 200 years
ago, Thomas Jefferson signed the bill creating the United States Coast
Survey, and the need to understand the shapes of our coastlines and the
boundaries of our frontiers made mapping a truly federal affair. But
recently the situation has changed, and the federal government has
fallen from its preeminent position. This is not necessarily a problem
in and of itself. In many cases, state and local governments need a
much higher level of detail than the federal government, so it is
fitting that they now create some of the highest resolution geospatial
data sets. And often times the private sector is better equipped to
efficiently collect or process the data. I believe the variety of
geospatial information on the web provides excellent examples of that.
But the federal government has a number of other significant
problems in this field. Government Accountability Office reports from
five years ago point out that data duplication and a lack of
coordination are a serious problem for the federal government. Earlier
this decade, the Department of the Interior estimated that about 50
percent of the federal government's spending on geospatial data is
redundant. Numerous examples exist where one agency spends considerable
money collecting data that, with a little extra coordination between
different parts of the federal government, could have been useful for a
number of different agencies. But the federal government has failed to
manage this coordination effectively, and the American people pay the
price, either through wasted money or inadequate data.
In theory, the federal government has been working towards
resolving these issues, and establishing something called the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure, since the early 1990s. But progress has
been extremely slow, and some people have doubts that we even know what
the National Spatial Data Infrastructure really is, or if we would know
when it is completed. The dramatic advances in technology over the past
several years raise questions about whether we need to reevaluate how
the federal government manages geospatial data and activities.
I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses about how they
believe the federal government can make improvements in the years
ahead, and I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lamborn, for his
opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed that
also.
Before anything else, I would like to ask unanimous consent
that the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, be allowed
to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing, especially
for the purposes of an introduction when it comes time to bring
up the first panel of witnesses.
Mr. Costa. Without objection.
Mr. Lamborn. And thank you for having this hearing also. I
appreciate doing this so we can examine the acquisition and
management of our Federal geospatial data. My state of Colorado
is proud to be the home to many outstanding geospatial and
mapping companies, including DigitalGlobe, CompassData and
others. We know the importance of this science and industry to
America.
Today's hearing will hopefully provide us with answers
regarding how much money the Federal government spends on
geospatial data; what, if any, improvements in coordination
between Federal agencies for data collection have been
implemented recently; and how we can ensure the Federal
government is getting the most out of our citizens' tax
dollars.
One of the key questions we will try to answer at this
hearing is how can we improve the coordination between our
Federal agencies when collecting geospatial data. One of the
key agencies responsible for enforcing this coordination is the
President's Office of Management and Budget, OMB. I am certain
that their testimony on this issue would be particularly
enlightening.
Unfortunately, we will not be hearing from OMB today.
Although they were apparently invited to attend, OMB must have
decided the issue was not important enough to participate in
this hearing. This unwillingness by OMB to come before this
hearing and help us answer the important questions facing
Federal geospatial data management will leave us with many
unanswered questions, regardless of how enlightening and
informative our witnesses will be today.
The lack of OMB's willingness to testify is particularly
troublesome when you consider that the so-called stimulus bill
authorizes billions of dollars for mapping and could end up
wasting hundreds of millions of precious taxpayer dollars on
duplicative and needless surveys.
On our Federal lands in the West where many of us use the
motto ``Take only memories, leave only footprints,'' the
mapping community likes to use the motto, ``Map once, use many
times.'' Unfortunately, collectively, Federal agencies seem to
use the motto,`` Map many times, hoard the data.'' This
mentality by our agencies wastes taxpayer dollars.
When the Department of Transportation spends money on maps,
which duplicates work done by the Department of Agriculture or
Commerce, that means less money for roads and infrastructure.
Eliminating this sort of duplication is exactly why we are here
today and again one of the reasons OMB should have been here
with us as well.
I want to welcome the witnesses, and I look forward to
their testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
I think now would be an excellent time to do any
introductions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, on ``Federal Geospatial
Data Management''
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today
to examine the acquisition and management of our federal geospatial
data. My state of Colorado is proud to be the home to many outstanding
geospatial and mapping companies, including DigitalGlobe, CompassData
and others. We know the importance of this science and industry to
America.
Today's hearing will hopefully provide us with answers regarding
how much money the federal government spends on geospatial data, what,
if any, improvements in coordination between federal agencies for data
collection have been implemented recently, and how we can ensure the
federal government is getting the most out of our citizens tax dollars.
One of the key questions we will try to answer at this hearing is:
``how can we improve the coordination between our federal agencies when
collecting geospatial data.''
One of the key agency's responsible for enforcing this coordination
is the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). I am certain
that their testimony on this issue would be particularly enlightening.
Unfortunately, we will not be hearing from OMB today. Although they
were apparently invited to attend, OMB decided the issue and this
committee not important enough to participate in the hearing. This
unwillingness by OMB to come before this committee and help us answer
the important questions facing federal geospatial data management will
leave us with many unanswered questions regardless of how enlightening
and informative our witnesses will be today.
The lack of OMB willingness to testify is particularly troublesome
when you consider that the Obama-Pelosi non-stimulus stimulus bill
authorizes billions of dollars for mapping and could end up wasting
hundreds of millions of precious taxpayer dollars on duplicative and
needless surveys.
On our federal lands in the west many of us use the motto, ``take
only memories, leave only footprints'', the mapping community likes to
use the motto, ``map once, use many times''. Unfortunately,
collectively federal agencies seem to use the motto ``map many times,
horde the data.'' This mentality by our agencies wastes taxpayer
dollars.
When the Department of Transportation spends money on maps which
duplicates work done by the Department of Agriculture or Commerce that
means less money for roads and infrastructure.
Eliminating this sort of duplication is exactly why we are here
today, and again one of the main reasons OMB should be here with us as
well.
I want to welcome the witnesses and I look forward to their
testimony.
______
Mr. Costa. All right. I will defer to our colleague who has
one of our first panel members from her district who she knows.
Mrs. Blackburn?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank
you and Ranking Member Lamborn for allowing me to be here this
morning. I do appreciate the courtesy that you are extending.
I come before the Subcommittee with the distinct honor this
morning of welcoming my constituent, and long-time friend, I
will have to add to that, even though we will not tell you how
long because it would date us, and women who are over 50 years
old don't talk about such things.
But Susan Marlow will offer some expert testimony for you,
and she will provide this Committee with a unique perspective
on geospatial coordination in governance at the Federal level.
There is a reason that her testimony is so well placed for this
Committee. She is the president and CEO of Smart Data
Strategies, Inc.
Now, that business started in 1989, and it is a woman owned
and woman run business in Tennessee's seventh congressional
district. She is a well-known professional in Middle Tennessee,
and she is sought after for her expertise regarding geospatial
business and technology. The Committee will no doubt benefit
from having access to her experience.
There is no other voice in our state and certainly in
Tennessee's seventh congressional district, which goes from
Memphis to Nashville, all the way to Fort Campbell, Kentucky,
and there is no voice more knowledgeable or well versed on the
issues that are before this Committee in the geospatial and
mapping discipline.
Susan, we are thrilled that you would take your time, that
you would step away from your business. As we know, for small
business people the clock never calls it a day. You are always
working.
So we are thrilled that you are here. I know you all have a
busy schedule, so I will welcome my constituent and will yield
back my time, and I thank you for the courtesy.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Congresswoman Blackburn. We look
forward to hearing your constituent as a part of this panel.
Ms. Marlow, you are to be advised, with all the members of
the panel, that we have a rule that limits you to five minutes.
Your statement won't be as long as your introduction was.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costa. I am sorry, but we do have a written statement
that we will be anxious to read.
But for all panel members, those of you who have not
testified before here, it is a five-minute rule. Right in front
of you, there is a timer. The green light will be on for the
first four minutes, and then when the yellow light goes on, you
have one minute left. When the red light goes on, then your
time is expired.
The Chair generally gives points for those that are within
the five minutes. Correspondingly, if you go beyond the five
minutes you get demerits so we hope and appreciate that you
will comply with our rule, and obviously we look forward to the
question and answer time where we get a chance to further
provide information and learn from the testimony that you
provide.
So with that understood, we have in the order that the
introductions began Mr. John Palatiello. Is that right?
Mr. Palatiello. Palatiello.
Mr. Costa. Palatiello.
Mr. Palatiello. Very good.
Mr. Costa. OK. Executive Director for Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, known as
MAPPS; Mr. Michael Byrne, Geospatial Information Officer from
my home state of California. It is good to have you here. And
Ms. Karen Siderelis. Is that correct?
Ms. Siderelis. Siderelis. Almost correct.
Mr. Costa. Siderelis. OK. The Geospatial Information
Officer for the U.S. Department of the Interior.
As the Ranking Member noted, we had hoped that the
representative from the Office of Management and Budget would
have testified. Staff made a serious effort to try to get them
to be here today. It is unfortunate that they were not able to
be here.
We will hold them to that because their information and
their testimony is an important part of this discussion, so we
hope in the future that they will provide that opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee and that we can go from there.
So why don't we begin at the beginning--that is usually a
good place to begin--with Ms. Karen Siderelis, the Geospatial
Information Officer from the Department of the Interior. We
look forward to your five-minute testimony and also some
explanation as to how we can deal with this issue of
redundancy.
So, Karen, you are on first.
STATEMENT OF KAREN C. SIDERELIS, GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION
OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Ms. Siderelis. Excuse me. I am the Geospatial Information
Officer----
Mr. Costa. Speak in closer to the mic. We all want to hear
you.
Ms. Siderelis. Is this better?
Mr. Costa. Yes.
Ms. Siderelis. OK. I thank you for the opportunity to be
here this morning and to provide testimony for the hearing on
Federal geospatial data management and look forward to
contributing positively to a dialogue about the value of
geospatial information and the efforts to create a National
Spatial Data Infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I would particularly like to thank you for
using the video this morning to help us understand the value of
geospatial data to the nation. It was quite impressive and I
think a very nice beginning to the hearing.
This morning I would like to briefly discuss the status of
Federal efforts to create a National Spatial Data
Infrastructure, alert the Members to opportunities and
challenges that we face in establishing a coordinated NSDI and
describe some of the current directions that the Administration
is pursuing to address the opportunities and challenges.
Over the last decade, significant Federal progress has been
made to an NSDI. My written testimony provides information
about advancements in seven key areas, work that we have done
in strategic planning, improving Federal governance and
accountability, developing partnerships with the non-Federal
community, developing data sharing mechanisms, streamlining our
investment management, developing approaches for sharing
operational data assets and supporting key national issues.
Please allow me to call your attention to just a few
noteworthy accomplishments that are in my written testimony.
Firstly, through the Federal Geographic Data Committee we have
provided partial funding for more than 600 projects to support
the NSDI. Since 1984, we have invested more than $18 million in
our partners to leverage their investments, and they have more
than matched that investment of $18 million.
We have contributed seed money to help states develop
geospatial strategic and business plans as part of the 50 state
initiative, and that helps us in the Federal agencies
understand how we might leverage the investments of our
partners.
We have supported NSDI training through a distributed
network of partners. We have endorsed 24 geospatial standards
and initiated another 14. We have registered almost 200,000
records in the geospatial one-stop portal, making it easier for
users to find and use geospatial data.
We have established a SmartBUY contract vehicle to
consolidate purchases of geospatial software, and we have
developed a draft plan for the Imagery for the Nation
Initiative that could provide significant cost savings in the
acquisition of aerial imagery across the entire country.
And we have established the National Geospatial Advisory
Committee to provide a forum for non-Federal advice. Two of my
colleagues on the panel today, Michael Byrne and John
Palatiello, are currently serving as members of that committee.
And perhaps most important, we have used geospatial
technologies and data to monitor, respond and prepare for a
number of national issues. Geospatial technologies and data are
being used to address many key national issues, including
climate change, economic recovery, energy, homeland security
and managing our natural resources and critical infrastructure.
And I think your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and the
examples we saw in the video were wonderful examples of some of
the things that we also are doing in the Federal agencies to
use this information. I have provided as an attachment to my
written testimony a document providing web links to some of the
outstanding uses of geospatial data in the Federal agencies.
Regardless of our achievements, the United States still has
work to do to achieve an effective National Spatial Data
Infrastructure, and the Federal government must provide
competent and appropriate leadership. We must continue to
develop and refine spatial data policy, increase our
understanding of the collective geospatial capacity of the
Federal government and our partners and provide the means to
oversee our investments.
Mechanisms to ensure performance and accountability and
incentives for participation in a collaborative and coordinated
NSDI must continue to be a focus. We have tremendous
opportunities to leverage the intersection of an era of
``unprecedented transparency and accountability,'' a renewed
commitment to innovative government, an increasingly
geospatially literate society, as you described, Mr. Chairman,
and a period of unparalleled technological sophistication in
order to put geospatial information at the fingertips of the
Nation.
The Administration is committed to the National Spatial
Data Infrastructure and considers fully embedding geospatial
information into the business of government as an obvious and
essential direction. We will do this through encouraging
innovation both in the use of new technologies and transformed
business processes, ensuring broad and effective collaboration
with state, local and tribal governments, leveraging progress
made in industry with our partners, our commercial partners,
clearing policy obstacles and providing a focus on performance.
In the short term, the Administration will concentrate in
three areas. Firstly, we will engage the Nation in a dialogue
about its geospatial future. We intend to hold a national
geospatial open forum using new media to garner input from all
corners of the country to seek out the best ideas for enhancing
the NSDI.
Second, we will bring creative energy to making Imagery for
the Nation a reality. We will work with our partners to
demonstrate the principles and concepts of the NSDI through the
Imagery for the Nation Initiative and thereby meet a key
national need.
And, third, we will bolster the geospatial governance
structure that we have in place and assure that the Federal
Geographic Data Committee is successful in providing
unprecedented leadership in the twenty-first century.
Today American society demands and expects geospatial
information to be at their fingertips. Leveraging advancements
in the private sector and leadership from our partners in
state, local and tribal government, the Nation stands ready and
poised to enjoy the benefits of a robust National Spatial Data
Infrastructure.
I look forward to working with Members of the Subcommittee
on any further efforts toward the NSDI and appreciate your
leadership in convening this hearing today.
I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony and
would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siderelis follows:]
Statement of Karen C. Siderelis, Geospatial Information Officer, U.S.
Department of the Interior and Acting Chair of the Federal Geographic
Data Committee
I thank The Honorable Chairman Costa and the Members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources for the opportunity to
provide testimony for this hearing on Federal Geospatial Data
Management and to contribute positively to the dialog about the value
of geospatial data to the nation and efforts to create the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
My experience with the subject of geospatial data includes my
present position as Geospatial Information Officer for Department of
the Interior (DOI) and my current role as Acting Chair of the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). I also have served as Associate
Director for Geospatial Information and Chief Information Officer for
the U.S. Geological Survey and worked a number of years in the State of
North Carolina as the Director of the Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis.
Chairman Costa's letter of invitation stated that this hearing will
examine 1) the usefulness of geospatial data to the nation; and 2) the
status of federal efforts to create a National Spatial Data
Infrastructure, reduce redundant geospatial data investments, promote
data sharing, and increase coordination of geospatial data gathering
activities within the federal government and between federal agencies
and non-federal entities.
To address the first point of the usefulness of geospatial data to
the nation, I will briefly share with you some examples of how
geospatial information and technology have and are being used to
address issues of national significance, and invite you to explore with
me the possibilities of the future National Spatial Data
Infrastructure.
To address the second point, my testimony includes observations of
the Federal progress that has been made over the last decade to ensure
more effective investments in geospatial data, promote data sharing,
and improve coordination both within the federal government and between
federal agencies and non-federal entities. I will also alert you to
opportunities and challenges we face in realizing a robust and
coordinated NSDI, and describe directions the current Administration is
pursuing to address these opportunities and challenges. The testimony
is centered on efforts of the FGDC and its responsibilities outlined in
OMB Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906.
Usefulness of Geospatial Data to the Nation
A report prepared by the National Geospatial Advisory Committee
entitled The Changing Geospatial Landscape states a remarkable truth:
``Practically overnight, access to terabytes of geographical
information, much of it in three dimensions, has changed the
way people work, live, and play.''
Geospatial information and technology are now ubiquitous and
embedded in numerous aspects of society. They support planning,
decision-making, and action in many disciplines, professions and
organizations literally around the world. Geospatial information is
being used to address the nation's critical issues and applications
include natural resource management, land records management,
conservation and environmental restoration, facility management,
transportation and logistics, human health, security, natural and human
disasters, humanitarian relief, climate and environment--just to name a
few. Today the consumer market has exploded and geospatial information
and technology are being used in ways never imagined even a decade ago.
Geospatial information has been a valuable tool in the Nation's
response to the events of September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina, the
annual fire season, avian influenza, Census data collection and
analysis, weather forecasting, and now the economic recovery. The
impact and benefits of this information in each of these efforts was
significant.
However most of these uses and applications still arise issue-by-
issue and project-by-project and require extensive time to prepare and
synthesize information. Imagine the United States with a National
Spatial Data Infrastructure that enables easy access to current, high
quality, application-ready information--information that is produced
once, used many times, and satisfies a broad range of users from
scientists to end consumers. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure
of the future could place geographic knowledge at the fingertips of the
nation.
Federal Progress, Achievements, and Status
Over the last decade remarkable Federal progress has been made
toward a National Spatial Data Infrastructure. I call your attention to
achievements in 7 key areas: strategic planning, improved Federal
governance and accountability, partnerships with the non-Federal
community, data sharing mechanisms, streamlined investment management,
shared operational data assets, and support to key national issues.
Strategic Planning
Over the past several years federal partner agencies have conducted
two significant efforts to develop strategic approaches for geospatial
coordination.
NSDI Strategic Directions
In 2004, the FGDC launched the NSDI Future Directions Initiative to
craft a national geospatial strategy and implementation plan to further
the development of the NSDI. The resulting document, ``NSDI Future
Directions Initiative, Towards a National Geospatial Strategy and
Implementation Plan'', drew on the collective insights and
contributions of the geospatial community at-large and requires a
variety of organizations and individuals to become involved and share
the responsibility for implementation in order to achieve success. This
report provides a context for action to address the needs of the
geospatial community, built on past successes and providing the
blueprint for collective action. The strategy described in the report:
Is based on communication, cooperation, and partnerships;
Reflects an integrated approach to access critical
geospatial data and products;
Recognizes the need to communicate the NSDI's value
beyond current constituents;
Emphasizes coordination of resources and appropriate
technical services for all Federal and non-federal entities;
Focuses on achieving interoperability and framework
standards compliancy and adoption; and
Outlines procedures, defined more concretely in its
accompanying Action Plans, for achieving each objective and serves as a
starting point to address the issues.
Geospatial Line of Business
Subsequent to development and execution of this National Strategy,
the FGDC embarked on a follow-up effort to enhance coordination across
federal agencies. The FGDC used a business process approach in
developing the next iteration of its strategic efforts in 2006 through
the OMB sponsored Geospatial Line of Business Initiative. The
Geospatial Line of Business is a government-wide initiative, sponsored
by the Office of Management and Budget that focuses on improving
government effectiveness by promoting the use of geospatial information
in order to improve both the policy decisions and the internal business
processes of Federal agencies. This initiative has produced a Common
Solutions and Target Architecture document that has served as the
operational framework for federal geospatial coordination over the past
three years. Two of the major accomplishments that this initiative
produced are the Geospatial SmartBUY Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)
and the OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental guidance. These specific
accomplishments will be described in more detail later in this
testimony.
Improved Federal Governance and Accountability
Implementation of the strategic vision required executive
participation and concurrence from partner agencies, a mechanism to
guide the Steering Committees efforts, clarification of the Federal
roles and responsibilities directed in A-16, and recognition of the
importance of managing geospatial investments. Improved governance and
accountability mechanisms include the following items.
Senior Agency Officials for Geospatial Information
In March of 2006, OMB directed select executive departments and
agencies that produce, maintain, or use geospatial information to
designate a senior agency official who has agency-wide responsibility,
accountability, and authority for geospatial information issues,
referred to as a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information or
SAOGI. Each SAOGI is responsible for internal coordination and
implementation of geospatial-related initiatives and activities in
their agency and also serve as the policy-level official to represent
the agency on the FGDC Steering Committee.
FGDC Executive Committee
In April 2008, a subset of the Steering Committee members, along
with the Chair and Vice-chair were chartered as an Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee meets frequently and is responsible for
providing guidance, making recommendations and helping move forward
critical issues for the Steering Committee. The Executive Committee
member agencies are the seven agencies with the majority of the Federal
geospatial investments, including: Department of the Interior (DOI),
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC),
Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). OMB serves as the Vice-chair. The
Executive Committee has taken the lead on advancing Federal geospatial
initiatives, such as Imagery for the Nation (IFTN), and has enabled the
FGDC to progress efficiently and maintain continuity during the
administration transition period.
A-16 Supplemental Guidance
Draft Supplemental Guidance for OMB Circular A-16 has been
developed to clarify roles, responsibilities, and management processes
to help lead agencies more systematically and effectively implement
their geospatial management responsibilities. The Guidance sets the
framework for lifecycle-based portfolio management and establishes a
reporting process to increase transparency in the development and
maintenance of nationally significant geospatial datasets. It also
provides a standard lexicon of terms for use in this process. It offers
a decision process for adding, modifying, or deleting specific themes
or datasets from the Circular based on alignment with long-term
national strategies or goals, specific business requirements, benefits,
and costs. Most importantly it establishes a meaningful process for
continuously improving nationally important geospatial data.
Individual Agency Governance Improvements
Many improvements in geospatial governance have occurred within
individual agencies. For example in 2008, DOI issued a Secretarial
Order entitled ``Enhanced Geospatial Governance'' that, among other
things, established the position of Geographic Information Officer.
This formally recognizes the importance the Department places on the
need for strategic oversight and management of geospatial investments
and operations. Two other examples of Federal Departments establishing
GIO positions are the EPA and the U.S. Army.
Partnerships with the Non-Federal Community
Non-Federal partners are key to the success of the NSDI.
Advancements in Federal coordination with these important stakeholders
are described below.
National Geospatial Advisory Committee
One of the most effective new developments to enhance our
partnership and governance process has been the establishment of the
National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC). The NGAC is a Federal
Advisory Committee established by the Interior Department in 2008 to
provide external advice and recommendations to the member agencies of
the FGDC. Two of my colleagues on the panel today, Michael Byrne and
John Palatiello, currently serve as members of the committee. The NGAC
includes a balanced membership of 28 committee members representing a
variety of organizations involved in geospatial issues, including the
private sector, non-profit organizations, academia, and all levels of
government. The NGAC has staggered membership terms, and Secretary
Salazar issued a call for nominations earlier this month for the next
round of appointments to the committee.
In the short period that the NGAC has been in existence, it has
proven to be an invaluable source of advice and feedback for the FGDC.
The NGAC promotes two-way communication on issues of common interest to
the national geospatial community and provides a forum to convey views
representative of our partners and stakeholders. The NGAC meets on a
quarterly basis and has established subcommittees that conduct research
and develop draft products between committee meetings. Over the past
year, the NGAC has analyzed and provided recommendations on Imagery for
the Nation, Geospatial Line of Business, National Land Parcel Data,
Transition Recommendations, ``Changing Landscape'' of Geospatial
Technology, Economic Stimulus, and FGDC Governance. For next steps, the
NGAC is working with us to conceptualize an approach for a new National
Geospatial Policy and Strategy. This is a very complex activity, and I
anticipate that this issue will be a major focus of the NGAC's work
over the coming year.
Cooperative Agreements Program
The NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program (CAP) was established by
FGDC to help form partnerships among organizations to implement the
NSDI. The CAP funds innovation in the GIS community to build the NSDI.
This broad effort includes a focus on people, organizational know-how,
best business practices, collaboration, education, tools, technology,
the Internet, standards and data. The NSDI CAP is a success story for
the NSDI, FGDC, and our constituents.
CAP participation is now open to all sectors, except for Federal
agencies, and has included: Federal agencies (prior to 2008), State
governments, county and city governments, Tribal organizations,
academic institutions, regional organizations, and private
organizations. Since 1994, $18 million has been spent on CAP, funding
over 600 projects, each of which is matched by non-Federal funds in the
form of in-kind services. These matches typically range from 25 percent
to 100 percent of the award.
50 States Initiative
This initiative provides seed money, requiring in-kind matches from
the awardees, to help states develop geospatial strategic and/or
business plans in support of the NSDI. These plans can then be utilized
by the Federal agencies who can, through their programs and state
liaisons, improve the integration of efforts between and across levels
of government and between agencies. Currently, 46 states have received
awards.
NSDI Training
The FGDC supports NSDI training through a distributed network of
partners including State GIS Coordinators, university GIS programs,
independent consultants, and Federal programs including the National
Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the National Oceanic
and Administrative (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. NSDI training
focuses on Geospatial Metadata and NSDI Clearinghouse implementation to
aid individuals in documenting and publishing their geospatial data
resources. An Online Training Initiative provides training modules on
Geospatial Data Discovery and Access, Geospatial Data Integration,
Geospatial Partnerships, Policy and Planning, the NSDI, GOS, geospatial
web services, NSDI Standards, NSDI data themes, geospatial business
planning, and the CAP. The FGDC also provides ``train-the-trainers''
sessions where attendees can learn the methods and materials for
specific topics and become ``certified'' trainers. These trainers can
then train others in their agencies, organizations, or geographic
areas.
Data Sharing Mechanisms
We have advanced our capabilities for data sharing within and among
Federal agencies, and also between Federal agencies and our not-federal
partners.
Geospatial Standards
Standards are critical to the sharing of geospatial information.
The FGDC in cooperation with partners develops geospatial standards for
implementing the NSDI. These include standards on: thematic data
content, metadata, transfer protocols, positional accuracy,
cartographic representation, and others. The FGDC's standards process
incorporates established Federal requirements, and complements other
National and International standards development efforts including the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), and the InterNational Committee on
Information Technology Standards (INCITS).
There are currently 24 FGDC endorsed geospatial standards and
another 14 currently in development. Since 2003, the 7 Framework data
themes, and 4 additional data themes, have been endorsed. These include
cadastre, digital orthoimagery, elevation, geodetic control,
governmental unit boundaries, hydrography, transportation, bathymetry,
geology, vegetation, and wetlands.
A significant amount of data collected by non-Federal partners
becomes part of the NSDI. FGDC standards facilitate the contribution of
data to the NSDI by non-Federal partners and provide guidance for the
partners producing their own data. For example, last year, only one
third of the new and updated data added to the wetlands layer of the
NSDI was produced using funds appropriated to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory. The rest was
contributed by cooperators.
Geospatial One Stop
Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) is an e-government initiative sponsored
by OMB. GOS makes it easier, faster, and less expensive for all levels
of government and the public to access geospatial information. The GOS
portal, also known as geodata.gov, serves as a public gateway for
improving access to geospatial information and data. It provides a
robust geospatial data catalog and tools for searching Federal and non-
Federal geospatial information. It also includes a ``Marketplace''
where geospatial data purchase/development efforts are posted to foster
partnerships for data collection and reduce costs. Use of the GOS
continues to grow. From 2004 to 2008 the number of records registered
with the GOS has increased from 11,000 to 188,000.
Data.gov and Recovery.gov
Geospatial technology and expertise have been used to support
Data.gov and Recovery.gov, two new Administration initiatives to
increase public access to government information and activities.
Data.gov deals specifically with access to high-value government
generated data sets. For example the USGS's ``Global Visualization
Viewer'' provides access to 1.5 million aerial photographs of U.S.
sites and 8.5 million images captured worldwide by U.S. Earth-observing
satellites. Recovery.gov specifically provides information about the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, providing information to the
public about the use of stimulus funds.
Streamlined Investment Management
In the last few years, several important steps have been taken to
streamline Federal investments in geospatial information and
technology.
Geospatial SmartBuy
The Geospatial Line of Business, through the FGDC, has established
a SmartBuy contract vehicle to consolidate purchase of geospatial
technology. The acquisition initiative is led by the Department of the
Interior and GSA. Multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements, provide
significant cost savings and greatly improve the government's access to
high quality commercial geospatial software, packaged data, and related
products. BPAs will be available to Federal civilian and defense
agencies as well as state, local, and Tribal governments.
Investment Reporting
As a part of the Geospatial Line of Business, a 2008 data call was
issued to the Lead Agencies responsible for each of the 34, OMB
Circular A-16 Data Themes of National Significance. This information is
being used to develop a framework for geospatial data portfolio
management.
The FY 2007 budget passback guidance issued by OMB to all Federal
agencies directed agencies to ``update and report to OMB by March 30,
2007, their inventories of geospatial data and systems using a common
set of investment definitions''. Agency information obtained through
this investment reporting request was intended to be used to coordinate
agency investments in geospatial data and services through FY 2009.
Analysis of agency responses is contained in the ``2007 Data Call
Analysis Report'' and some of the key findings were:
For the specific data sets included in the reporting
request, the Federal government financed or plans to invest, directly
or indirectly, $1.89 billion in spatial data and geospatial services
during the FY 2007--FY 2009 period.
The level of geospatial investment each year was
relatively consistent.
Fifty two percent (52%) of agencies reported a three year
average of less than one million ($1M) per year in geospatial data and
services investments within the scope of the investment data request.
DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA investments when combined total
over 90% of total reported federal geospatial data and services
investments and these agencies are lead federal agencies for 87% of the
data themes within the scope of the 2007 geospatial investment
reporting request.
A high degree of redundant investment types was not
readily apparent in comparison with other LoB initiatives (i.e. Human
Resources LoB, Financial Management LoB, Grants, etc.)
Shared Operational Data Assets
The FGDC has provided leadership to align the efforts of the
Federal agencies and worked collaboratively with our non-Federal
partners to move toward a national goal of shared operational data
assets being available on-line for multiple uses and purposes.
Imagery for the Nation
Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) is a proposed Federal program, to be
conducted in partnership with State and local governments, to address
the nation's basic business needs for imagery. The vision for IFTN is
that the nation will have a sustainable and flexible digital imagery
program that meets the needs of local, State, regional, Tribal and
Federal agencies. Imagery is used for countless applications in all
levels of government and sectors, and has been embraced by the public
through its use in online tools such as Google Earth and Microsoft
Virtual Earth. Partnerships between levels of government to acquire
imagery data have been successful and growing because the benefits of a
coordinated approach are clear: lower costs, reduced duplication of
effort, greater standardization and more data available for the full
spectrum of uses and users. IFTN has been endorsed by the National
Geospatial Advisory Committee and many other stakeholder groups. We are
finalizing a project plan for IFTN and working with our partner
agencies to develop a funding strategy.
National Land Parcel Data
Land parcel data is another key data asset that has received focus
by the FGDC. Digital land parcel data are a critical component
supporting key national programs and priorities. Parcel information,
combined with other geographic information, is used to support numerous
other programs such as management of emergency situations (including
wildland fire and hurricanes), the development of domestic energy
resources, management of private and public lands, support of business
activities, and monitoring regulatory compliance. A recent National
Research Council report, ``National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the
Future'' provided a set of recommendations on the development of a
national approach to parcel data. The NGAC has also reviewed and
endorsed the recommendations in the report. The FGDC has begun to
address the parcel data recommendations. For example, the NGAC and
other stakeholders have identified how parcel level information across
the country can be used in developing effective responses to the
current mortgage crisis. The FGDC Cadastral Subcommittee convened an
outreach conference in May with partners and stakeholders in the
financial community to demonstrate how parcel information can help
support a data-driven response to the mortgage crisis. We are working
with our partner agenciues to address the recomendations that resulted
from the meeting.
Support for Key National Issues
Geospatial technologies and data are used at all governmental
levels and by non-Federal constituents to monitor, respond, and prepare
for a multitude of issues. Geospatial technologies and data are
currently being used to address many key national issues including:
climate change, economic recovery, energy exploration, homeland
security, and managing our environmental resources and critical
infrastructure. During the 9-11-2001 response, daily monitoring and
mapping of ``ground zero'' using aerial imaging was performed to
monitor structural stability and locate heat signatures of survivors
and fires. The most costly U.S. natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina was
both tracked prior to its landfall and responded to using geospatial
technologies. The Indonesian Tsunami's impact and response by U.S.
Federal, private sector, and international agencies relied on
geospatial technologies. During the recent wildfires in the west,
public postings online of minute-by-minute fire location changes
utilized online mapping technologies. The question is no longer where
can geospatial data help, but how can we more efficiently prepare and
manage our geospatial portfolio and increase our spatial readiness to
be prepared for, respond to, and minimize time, expense and loss.
I call your attention to an attachment to this testimony that
provides web links to some outstanding geospatial activities in the
Federal agencies that are supporting critical national issues. For
example, the National Geospatial Program (NGP) in the U.S. Geological
Survey collects and integrates base national geospatial datasets,
maintains standards, coordinates data discovery and access, and ensures
consistent and current data are available for the Nation. Two of NGP's
primary products are The National Map and The National Atlas, which
present current, accurate, and consistent geospatial data and map
services online. These products contain data and information describing
the landscape of the U.S. and locational features that can be fused or
integrated and displayed online or in a traditional map format. The
National Map represents the starting point--the basic framework--from
which land and resource decisions and economic and environmental
policies can be made.
Coastal habitats are among the most important habitats for fish and
wildlife. The large number of National Wildlife Refuges along coasts
are tremendously important to myriad migratory birds and endangered
species. In its draft climate change action plan, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service recognizes that and states that it will use the Sea
Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) to develop adaptive strategies
for coastal Refuges. Absent Federal geospatial data readily available
over the internet, the use of SLAMM would be limited due to cost and
limited access to the data. These data sets include wetlands data from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, elevation from the U.S. Geological
Survey, and tide data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Opportunities and Challenges
In spite of this record of achievement, the United States still has
work to do to achieve a cost effective National Spatial Data
Infrastructure that ensures the nation's geospatial readiness to
address critical issues across all sectors and disciplines. Although
there has been a dramatic shift from the Federal government being the
primary producer of geospatial data, the expectation remains that the
Federal government will provide competent and appropriate leadership to
realize a coordinated NSDI. We must continue to refine and develop
spatial data policy, increase our understanding of the collective
geospatial capacity of the Federal government and its partners, and
provide the means to oversee and control Federal investment in
geospatial data and technology. Mechanisms to ensure the accountability
of Federal agencies and incentives for non-Federal participation in a
collaborative, coordinated NSDI must continue to be a focus.
At the same time there are tremendous opportunities to leverage the
intersection of an era of ``unprecedented transparency and
accountability'', a renewed commitment to innovative government,
geospatially literate society, and a period of unparalleled
technological sophistication in order to put geospatial information at
``the fingertips of the nation.''
The Administration's Geospatial Directions
The Administration is committed to the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure and considers ``geo-enabling the government'' an obvious
and essential direction. We will do this through:
Encouraging innovation, both in the use of new
technologies and transformed business practices;
Ensuring broad and effective collaboration with State,
local and tribal governments;
Leveraging industry progress;
Clearing policy obstacles; and
Focusing on performance.
In the short term we will concentrate in 3 areas:
1. We will engage the nation in a dialog about its geospatial
future. We plan to hold a ``National Geospatial Open Forum'', using new
media, to garner input from all corners of the country to seek out the
best ideas for enhancing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
2. We will bring creative energy to making Imagery for the Nation
(IFTN) a reality. We are listening to the non-Federal stakeholders and
concur that this important project can serve as a superb demonstration
of the principles and concepts of the NSDI and meet a key national
need.
3. We will bolster the geospatial governance structure that we now
have in place. We will ensure that the FGDC is successful in providing
unprecedented leadership to meet the geospatial needs of the Federal
government and of the nation in the 21st century.
Summary
Today, American society demands and expects geospatial information
to be at their fingertips. Leveraging advancements in the private
sector and leadership from state, local and tribal governments, the
Nation stands poised to enjoy the benefits of a robust National Spatial
Data Infrastructure.
As I have discussed through this testimony, highlighting numerous
accomplishments over the last decade, the Federal Government is
continuing and will continue to play a key role in the NSDI. We are
making significant strides towards meeting user expectations,
leveraging private sector innovation, collaborating with non-Federal
partners, and managing our investments. While there is substantial work
to be done to realize the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, we have
advanced national geospatial efforts in order to:
quickly and effectively respond to the Nation's
priorities;
be the leader in the global spatial data infrastructure;
stay at the forefront of technology;
respond to disasters and national security events;
meet the increasing demand for access and use of
geospatial information; and
provide transparency and accountability to citizens.
I look forward to working with the Subcommittee on any further
efforts toward the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and appreciate
your leadership in convening this hearing. Thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Siderelis
Response to Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of
California
1. Ms. Siderelis, you mentioned that the administration had recently
appointed a Chief Performance Officer to try to improve agency
compliance with federal geospatial directives, such as those
outlined in Circular A-16. Could you provide more specifics on
what the Chief Performance Officer will do in an attempt to
increase agency compliance, and what other specific actions
this administration is going to take to improve the situation
with federal geospatial activities and data management?
Response: OMB Director Peter Orszag describes the role of the Chief
Performance Officer (CPO) as leading efforts ``in reforming government
hiring practices and in retaining highly skilled and effective
employees'' as well as ``contracting reform, program evaluation, and e-
government'' performance. Each of these areas of focus is relevant to
improving performance of the geospatial activities of the Federal
agencies. The CPO will work with the Chief Information Officer, the
Chief Technology Officer, and the chair and members of the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to improve agency compliance with
Circular A-16 and other directives. The FGDC subcommittees' chairs will
work with their respective OMB examiners and the new Chief Performance
Officer to ensure that all agencies use applicable FGDC standards
developed to support Circular A-16 data themes. These standards are
critical to the sharing of geospatial information within and among
Federal agencies, and between non-Federal and Federal sources. This, in
turn, fosters consistency among data sets and furthers compliance and
accomplishment of Circular A-16 directives.
One specific action the administration intends to take is the
development of a set of government-wide and agency-specific geospatial
metrics that will be monitored through a variety of means including a
geospatial ``dashboard'' that will present Federal agency investments
and performance in geospatial activities.
2. Ms. Siderelis, please provide more details on the administration's
plans or intentions for the Imagery for the Nation project. How
would such an implemented Imagery for the Nation program
improve the aerial imagery situation for different
stakeholders, such as the federal government, state
governments, local governments, and the private sector? How
much money would an Imagery for the Nation initiative, as
envisioned by the administration, cost? Would that be all new
money, or would there be opportunities to repurpose existing
money that already goes to aerial imagery? When does the
administration envision an Imagery for the Nation program being
operational?
Response: We plan to fully explore the available options to make
Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) a reality. We are listening to the non-
Federal stakeholders and concur that this important project can serve
as a demonstration of the principles and concepts of the NSDI and meet
a key national need. Imagery is used for countless applications in all
levels of government and sectors, and has been embraced by the public
through its use in online tools such as Google Earth and Microsoft
Virtual Earth.
Partnerships between levels of government to acquire imagery data
have been successful and the benefits of a coordinated approach are
clear: lower costs, reduced duplication of effort, greater
standardization and more data available for the full spectrum of uses.
Imagery for the Nation is designed to improve coordination, minimize
duplication, and maximize taxpayer dollar investments in imagery
through a reliable, sustained Federal program conducted in partnership
with State and local government.
Based on a draft plan for IFTN developed by a team of Federal
agencies working with our non-Federal partners, costs for fully
implementing Imagery for the Nation are currently estimated at $100
million per year. Most of this would be new money, but there are
opportunities to repurpose some existing money that already goes to
aerial imagery. One of the goals of the IFTN program is to better
define and understand Federal imagery expenditures with the intention
of improving the use of existing funding where appropriate. The funding
strategy in the draft IFTN plan includes making a determination in
FY2010 of the difference between the total program costs and the
existing expenditures in order to define the level of new funding
required.
Establishment of an Imagery for the Nation program management
office is being planned for Fiscal Year 2010, with the goal to
implement the funding and coordination infrastructure called for in the
IFTN draft plan by Fiscal Year 2011. Negotiations and discussions with
the affected agencies are now underway.
3. Ms. Siderelis, what role do you see the National Agricultural
Imagery Program playing in the Imagery for the Nation
initiative?
Response: The Imagery for the Nation plan proposes to build upon
and align USDA's National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) and the
USGS-NGA Urban Area Imagery Partnership, to implement a sustainable and
flexible national digital imagery program. The high resolution (1
meter) component of the Imagery for the Nation program would evolve
from NAIP and be managed by USDA, and the very high resolution
component (1 foot or better) would be managed by the USGS.
4. Ms. Siderelis, could you please describe the role that the
National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) plays with regard
to the FGDC? Does the FGDC follow priorities established by the
NGAC, and if so, what are those priorities?
Response: The National Geospatial Advisory Committee is a Federal
Advisory Committee established by the Interior Department in 2008 to
provide external advice and recommendations to the member agencies of
the FGDC. The NGAC includes a balanced membership of 28 committee
members representing a variety of organizations involved in geospatial
issues, including the private sector, non-profit organizations,
academia, and all levels of government. The NGAC Charter defines the
role of the Committee:
``The Committee will 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. The Committee will review and
comment upon geospatial policy and management issues and will
provide a forum to convey views representative of non-federal
stakeholders in the geospatial community.''
In the short period that the NGAC has been in existence, it has
proven to be a valuable source of advice and feedback for the FGDC. The
NGAC meets on a quarterly basis and has established subcommittees that
conduct research and develop draft products between committee meetings.
Over the past year, the NGAC has analyzed and provided recommendations
on Imagery for the Nation, Geospatial Line of Business, National Land
Parcel Data, Transition Recommendations, the ``Changing Landscape'' of
Geospatial Technology, Economic Stimulus, and FGDC Governance. The FGDC
reviews and considers the priorities expressed in the recommendations
very seriously. In FY2010, the NGAC will work with the FGDC to
conceptualize an approach for developing a new National Geospatial
Policy and Strategy. We anticipate that this complex activity will be a
major focus of the NGAC's work over the coming year. Additional
information about the NGAC is available at: www.fgdc.gov/ngac.
5. Ms. Siderelis, what can be done to more clearly identify the
component pieces of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure so
that goals can be identified and so that we can effectively
measure progress towards its completion?
Response: The component pieces of the NSDI, as described in OMB
Circular A-16, include data themes, metadata, the National Spatial Data
Clearinghouse, standards, and partnerships. Perhaps the greatest
obstacle in achieving the vision of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure, however, is the lack of a clear and unified
understanding of what a successful NSDI would look with respect to
these components and the priority activities. As a first step to
address this challenge, we plan to hold a ``National Geospatial Open
Forum'', using new media, to garner input and seek out the best ideas
for the NSDI. We are working with the National Geospatial Advisory
Committee to plan the Forum and to identify additional opportunities
and approaches to update and enhance our geospatial policies and
practices.
6. Ms. Siderelis, what are the unique barriers to the inclusion of
tribal governments in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure?
How are the DOI and FGDC working to address these barriers? How
well are tribal voices being represented on the National
Geospatial Advisory Committee?
Response: The FGDC and its partner agencies have an active program
to support inclusion of tribal governments in the NSDI. For example, in
partnership with the FGDC, DHS/FEMA has institutionalized the training
courses ``Emergency Management Framework for Tribal Governments'' and
``Emergency Management Operations for Tribal Governments'' at FEMA's
Emergency Management Institute (EMI). The courses are offered several
times a year at EMI and field offerings are also delivered twice a
year. The courses include sessions that focus on the importance of the
NSDI, metadata, and building partnerships.
In partnership with the FGDC, USGS, NASA, and Tribal Colleges, the
Tribal College Forum VIII will be held in Bellingham, WA, in August
2009. Forum sessions will include training on NSDI Awareness, Metadata,
and the North American Profile.
FGDC has successfully integrated the ``First Nations NSDI Training
Session'' to be included in ESRI regional and national user
conferences. Sessions are either lecture or computer lab style,
depending on the facility. The number of requests has been significant
and the NSDI track at ESRI conferences is now a 2-day event held during
the ESRI conference.
FGDC has also partnered with the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) in developing and delivering NSDI workshops at NCAI's
mid-year and annual meetings/conferences. Plans for the future include
institutionalizing this session in all NCAI mid-year and/or annual
meetings. FGDC recently delivered the first workshop in partnership
with the Canadian DNR to share NSDI boundary and metadata issues.
One of our goals in creating the NGAC was to ensure a balanced
membership that includes a wide variety of viewpoints, including tribal
and Native American perspectives. One of the members of the Committee
is Dr. Timothy Bennett, who serves as the President and CEO of the
North Dakota Association of Tribal Colleges. Dr. Bennett was appointed
to the Committee to represent a tribal perspective. We are currently
going through the next round of appointments to the NGAC, and we will
continue to seek tribal representation.
7. Ms. Siderelis, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee produced
a number of recommendations for the new administration,
including establishing a geospatial leadership and coordination
function within the executive office of the President,
establishing Geographic Information Officers within agencies,
and more. Has the administration taken a look at these
recommendations, and what does it think of them? Does it plan
to act on any of those recommendations?
Response: The Administration appreciates the thoughtful
recommendations that were prepared by the National Geospatial Advisory
Committee, which address these governance issues as well as the need
for statutory review and attention to workforce and education issues.
The administration concurs with the spirit and intent of the
recommendations--to utilize geospatial information and technologies to
their fullest potential--and will be responsive to each of these
recommendations. Precisely how we act on all of these recommendations
is still under consideration.
8. Ms. Siderelis, earlier this decade the Department of the Interior
reported that up to half of all federal geospatial investments
may be redundant. However, during the hearing you mentioned
that after the recent data calls, you believe that the degree
of redundancy might be lower than that previously believed. Do
you have a more accurate estimate for how much of the federal
geospatial investment is redundant?
Response: Since the time earlier this decade when it was postulated
that a significant portion of federal geospatial investments may be
redundant, significant strides have been made in improving
understanding and management of Federal geospatial investments.
The FY 2007 budget passback guidance issued by OMB to all Federal
agencies directed agencies to update and report inventories of
geospatial data and systems using a common set of investment
definitions. Analysis of the responses revealed the following key
findings:
For the specific data sets included in the reporting
request, (``themes providing the core, most commonly used set of base
data known as framework data, specifically geodetic control,
orthoimagery, elevation and bathymetry, transportation, hydrography,
cadastral, and governmental units'') the Federal government financed or
planned to invest, directly or indirectly, $1.89 billion in spatial
data and geospatial services during the FY 2007--FY 2009 period.
The level of geospatial investment each year was
relatively consistent.
Fifty two percent (52%) of agencies reported a three year
average of less than one million ($1M) per year in geospatial data and
services.
DHS, DOC, DOI, and USDA investments when combined total
over 90% of total reported federal geospatial data and services
investments.
A high degree of redundant investment was not readily
apparent.
A major shortcoming of the responses was that many
investments failed to specify investment-type, data theme, and service
components as directed in OMB's request. This fact limited readily
identifiable opportunities for LoB collaboration.
It may also be surmised that improvements in Federal geospatial
investment management are supported by the increasing use of FGDC's
data search and discovery tools, the geospatial application registry,
government-wide geospatial SmartBUYs, and increased coordination and
integration of geospatial programs).
Federal investments that may be redundant with non-Federal efforts
in the geospatial community are problematic to measure also. The FGDC
has not performed a widespread study of redundant investments between
federal and non-federal efforts but does try to identify and address
these issues on an initiative-by-initiative basis and through
leadership on large opportunities such as Imagery for the Nation.
9. Ms. Siderelis, can you explain how the geospatial ``dashboard''
will work? How will it differ from Geospatial One Stop?
Response: The geospatial ``dashboard'' is envisioned to be a high-
level snapshot into the efforts and health of the federal geospatial
OMB Circular A-16-based activities. The ``dashboard'' will present
information based on key initiative status and progress and will rely
on the consistent and sustained reporting of the federal agencies. This
effort will require both a defined set of metrics, and a mechanism for
ensuring prompt and accurate reporting from the agencies. The FGDC will
work with OMB and the new Chief Performance Officer to identify the
requirements for the geospatial dashboard to begin providing
transparency into the federal geospatial portfolio.
Geospatial One Stop (GOS) is a web-based tool for finding and
publishing geospatial data and map services, and for facilitating
cooperative data acquisitions. Within GOS is a ``statistics'' page that
displays certain performance statistics and graphs about the use and
content of the GOS site.
10. Ms. Siderelis, for a number of years, numerous studies by the
National Research Council, National Academy of Public
Administration, and others have recommended some form of
consolidation of Federal geographic information activities,
such as moving the activities, or at least the coordination,
currently performed by FGDC, out of the Department of the
Interior. What are your views on such recommendations?
Response: The advantages of consolidation and/or relocation of
Federal geographic information responsibilities have been well-
expressed by other entities such as the National Research Council and
the National Academy of Public Administration. Conversely,
consolidation/relocations may have disadvantages in that they are often
very complex and time-consuming. My view is that our focus should be on
developing a spatial data infrastructure for the Nation that
effectively underpins decisions about key issues at the national and
local level. That requires attention not only to structure but to
clarity of purpose and roles; focus on outcomes and performance;
adequate technical, humans and financial resources; and viable
partnerships with the non-Federal community.
Response to Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State
of Colorado
1. Can you attempt to estimate for the Committee how much the Federal
government spends on geospatial activities?
Response: The FY 2007 budget passback guidance issued by OMB to all
Federal agencies directed agencies to update and report inventories of
geospatial data and systems using a common set of investment
definitions. Agency information obtained through this investment
reporting request was intended to be used to coordinate agency
investments in geospatial data and services through FY 2009. Analysis
of agency responses is contained in the ``2007 Data Call Analysis
Report'', which estimates that, for the specific data sets included in
the reporting request (``themes providing the core, most commonly used
set of base data known as framework data, specifically geodetic
control, orthoimagery, elevation and bathymetry, transportation,
hydrography, cadastral, and governmental units''), the Federal
government financed or planned to invest, directly or indirectly, $1.89
billion in spatial data and geospatial services during the FY 2007--FY
2009 period.
This data call primarily captured investments that are recorded in
agency submissions under OMB Circular A-11, Exhibit 300 (Planning,
Budgeting, Acquisition, and Management of Capital Assets., We recognize
that other geospatial expenditures, which may be components of agency
program funding, were not fully documented by this data call.
2. Why have the Geospatial Lines of Business data calls been suspended
and do you expect them to resume? Will the results of the data
calls be released to the public? This is historic data, not
pre-decisional data, therefore such information should be
provided publicly.
Response: The Geospatial Line of Business conducted data calls in
2006 and 2007 as an attempt to establish a baseline of the use of
geospatial technology and data within Federal agencies. The data calls
demonstrated that we needed a more directed study and analysis to
accurately measure use and spending since geospatial information use is
not considered a primary activity within most agencies. The FGDC
Geospatial LoB is working to develop more effective means to accurately
capture this information. These means may recommend use of financial
coding standards and other methods to distinguish expenditures
separating hardware, geospatial applications and geodata. While the use
of future data calls is one mechanism to compile this information,
there are no FGDC data calls currently scheduled. We are considering
options for the possible use of data calls or surveys during the FY10
period.
The ``2007 Data Call Analysis Report'' is posted on the Geospatial
Line of Business web page. The direct URL is http://www.fgdc.gov/
geospatial-lob/geospatial-lob-data-call-analysis-071406.pdf.
3. Does the Federal government have the necessary national geospatial
data to monitor, implement, and manage a national healthcare
program, such as that contemplated in H.R. 3200, currently
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee?
Response: The health insurance reform proposals included in H.R.
3200 are far-reaching. As such, there are numerous opportunities to use
geospatial information and technology to monitor, implement, and manage
the health care programs described in the bill. One can imagine a
myriad of health care decisions being underpinned by geospatial data:
decisions about the geographicc distribution of health care services,
professionals, and education opportunities; and the locations of
program beneficiaries and health hotspots. One can also imagine the
benefits of understanding where program investments are being made and
the impacts of those investments. There are considerable geospatial
assets (data, technology and expertise) in the Federal government and
with non-Federal partners that could be focused on this issue of
national significance. However those assets currently are not
coordinated and directed to meet the needs of the health insurance
reform efforts described in H.R. 3200. Speaking on behalf of the
Federal Geographic Data Committee members, we stand ready to contribute
to the success of health insurance reform in any way possible.
4. At the hearing, witnesses discussed serious concerns about overlap
and duplication by the federal government regarding stimulus
money spending. Can you outline for the Committee specific
steps which your office is taking or has taken to reduce the
waste and duplication of stimulus spending on geospatial
acquisition? Can you outline for the Committee the steps being
taken by OMB to reduce waste and duplication in geospatial
purchasing?
Response: The specific example hearing witnesses described of
overlap and duplication by the federal government regarding stimulus
money spending was that of geo-coded address information. Address
information is being developed to support the 2010 Census but is not
available to support the Broadband Mapping program called for in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act because of limitations posed by
Title 13 of the U.S. Code. The possible duplication of effort is due to
legal constraints rather simply than a lack of coordination.
Through the auspices of the Federal Geographic Data Committee, my
office has worked with OMB to reduce the waste and duplication of
stimulus spending on geospatial acquisition in the following ways:
FGDC Executive Committee and Coordination Group
deliberations--Monthly meetings of the FGDC Executive Committee and the
Coordination Group have consistently included agenda items related to
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There has been a focused
effort among the agencies to keep one another informed and to provide
assistance to one another as needed.
Broadband Mapping and Broadband Technical Opportunities
Program--Through the auspices of the FGDC, the Senior Agency Officials
for Geospatial Information of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce were
convened immediately following signing of ARRA to discuss ways that
FGDC member agencies could assist in ensuring that the Broadband
Mapping program is successful. We have held technical planning
meetings, met jointly with NTIA and stakeholder organizations, and
provided various kinds of support and assistance both to the Broadband
Mapping and Broadband Technical Opportunities programs. Currently we
are assisting in the review process for the mapping program.
Recovery.gov--Geospatial technology and expertise from
across the Federal agencies have been used to support Recovery.gov, ``a
user-friendly, public-facing website to foster greater accountability
and transparency in the use of covered funds''. The mission of the ARRA
includes ``providing information to the public to monitor the progress
of the stimulus package''. The FGDC, with guidance from the Office of
Management and Budget, established an ad-hoc ``Georecovery.gov Team''
to coordinate Federal agency response to the ARRA requirements and the
use of supporting geospatial tools. During the site's initial
development stage, the team provided use cases to the Recovery.gov
developers, created a forum for Federal agencies to identify and share
common implementation solutions for geospatial reporting to provide
consistency and reduce redundant development, and provided geospatial
technical experts to provide guidance and support to the Recovery.gov
development efforts. The FGDC Secretariat as detailed a geospatial
architect to the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB)
that is now overseeing Recovery.gov.
While overlap and duplication of effort are serious concerns with
respect to ARRA, an equally valid concern is that Federal agencies will
fail to take advantage of geospatial information and technology to
inform decisions about ARRA investments and their impact and outcomes.
5. Is it true that agencies such as the Corps of Engineers manage
aerial photography and mapping programs, as does the USGS, the
Department of Agriculture, FEMA and others--and they do not own
airplanes and cameras, but rather, they contract with the
private sector for aerial imagery and mapping services?
Response: The Corps of Engineers, USGS, Department of Agriculture,
and FEMA manage aerial photography and mapping programs. The programs
all differ in scope of work, requirements, and degree of program
management. They each contract with the private sector for aerial
imagery collection.
a. Is it not true that under your leadership, there is a memorandum
of agreement between the Department of Homeland Security and
the Department of the Interior that the USGS will provide
imagery to FEMA in particular for hurricanes and other
emergencies, to do response, recovery, and damage assessment?
Response: There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Geological Survey,
and the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate geospatial
information and remote sensing activities as related to homeland
security. The MOU was signed March 31, 2006 by Michael Chertoff, then-
Secretary of DHS, and Gail Norton, then-Secretary of DOI.
The MOU outlines the shared responsibilities of DOI and DHS in
``coordinating assured access by first responders to geospatial and
remote sensing data'', and specifically states that DHS will coordinate
with DOI for:
``classified/unclassified domestic geospatial and remote
sensing data to support the needs of homeland security and
related emergency response requirements'',
``acquiring, maintaining, and disseminating homeland security
mission-specific geospatial information of all kinds through
ties and partnerships with other Federal, State, local and
commercial data providers and users'', and
``providing services for data integration, information
visualization, and situational awareness supporting homeland
security planning and operations'',
and that DOI will:
``serve as a source for domestic collection of unclassified
remotely sensed data from any airborne or satellite systems,
including commercial sources, in support of homeland security
requirements.
b. And does the USGS have contracts, with emergency response
services in these MOUs, whereby private firms provide aerial
imagery and mapping in support of hurricanes and other
emergencies?
Response: The USGS administers a Geospatial Products and Services
Contract (GPSC) that currently uses six contractors who are all full-
geospatial-service providers. One of those services is the ability to
provide image acquisition and processing in times of emergencies.
Following are some examples of recent tasks for emergency-related
imagery acquisition:
Verdigris River (KS) Oil Spill Emergency Imagery
Acquisition, July 5, 2007--digital image acquisition and rectification
over the Kansas counties of Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, and Wilson, an
area comprised of approximately 2391 square miles.
Linn County (IA) Emergency Ortho Acquisition, June 13,
2008--digital image acquisition and rectification over the Linn County
Iowa, an area comprised of approximately 264 square miles.
Hurricane Ike Emergency Pre-position and Ortho
Acquisition, September 11, 2008--pre-positioning of assets for post-
event Hurricane Ike and digital image acquisition and
orthorectification.
Lake Delton (WI) Emergency Ortho Acquisition, June 14,
2008--digital image acquisition and rectification over the Lake Delton
Wisconsin, covering two separate areas, one approximately 16.8 square
miles and the other 4.64 square miles.
The following is a list of recent tasks for National Special
Security Events (NSSE) imagery acquisition:
Yankee Stadium (NY), February 1, 2008--very high
resolution imagery for approximately 4 1/2 square mile area surrounding
Yankee Stadium, collected and processed in support of security for the
Pope's visit to New York.
Imagery acquisition for both the Democratic National
Convention and the Republican National Convention.
Imagery acquisition related to the Presidential
Inauguration.
c. Do you have any reason to believe NOAA needs to be buying planes
and cameras, ostensibly for emergency response, when the
private firms have this equipment and these capabilities, and
other agencies successfully contract with these firms?
Response: Neither the Department of the Interior nor the FGDC have
authority over how other agencies meet their missions and conduct their
procurement activities. I respectfully refer you to NOAA for further
information regarding their needs.
Response to Questions from Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
1. What is the status of geospatial issues in the insular areas? Do we
get the same sort of coverage that the rest of the states get?
Response: The status of geospatial information in the insular areas
is variable, as it often is with many of the states. Some Federal
programs create geospatial information that is consistent across the
states and insular areas. For example, the Census TIGER files include
coverage of the insular areas. Other Federal programs do not always
create geospatial data that is uniform and comparable across all of the
states and insular areas. This is generally due to technical complexity
associated with any given location and/or the lack of sufficient
resources. In addition, earlier this year, the DOI Office of Insular
Affairs provided a $350,000 grant to Guam for an Enterprise License
Agreement (ELA) for ESRI geospatial software.
2 When we speak about programs like ``The National Map'' or ``Imagery
for the Nation'' are you including the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands in those programs?
Response: Due to the costs and complexity of mapping projects in
the insular areas they are not mapped on a regular schedule by the USGS
and its national mapping program (The National Map).
The Imagery for the Nation plan includes acquiring imagery for the
insular areas with a 3 year cycle for both high resolution (1-meter)
and very high (1-ft) imagery. In addition, I understand that USDA, in
partnership with other funding agencies, has acquired satellite imagery
for many of the islands in the Pacific Basin, including the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
______
Mr. Costa. Well, we will look for those questions. You
exceeded the time limit by----
Ms. Siderelis. Yikes.
Mr. Costa.--several minutes.
Ms. Siderelis. Demerits.
Mr. Costa. We will try not to hold that against you.
Ms. Siderelis. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. I was interested in the three points you are
going to be following up on. I thought it was important that
you lay those out to the Subcommittee.
The next witness is, by example we don't want you to
follow, Mr. Byrne from California. We look forward to your
five-minute testimony.
We are glad that you came all the way here. We know
California is having a lot of challenges, our state, these
days, and the fact that you are here I think underlines the
importance of this subject matter.
Mr. Byrne, would you please begin your testimony? I am
going to be out for about 10 minutes. I have a group from the
District that I want to say hello to.
Mr. Sablan will do an able job of continuing this hearing
with my Ranking Member and the other Subcommittee Members that
are here.
Please begin.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BYRNE, GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION OFFICER,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Byrne. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lamborn and
Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to offer
testimony on Federal geographic data management activities as
they affect state government.
My name is Michael Byrne. I am the Geographic Information
Officer for the State of California. I also serve on the board
of directors for the National States Geographic Information
Council, which helps me speak knowledgeably on behalf of state
governments. Finally, as Ms. Siderelis mentioned, I am on the
National Geospatial Advisory Committee. Today I am speaking as
the GIO for the State of California.
I have submitted written testimony for the record. My
written testimony gives detailed recommendations for improving
geospatial data management. In particular I address the
California perspective when it comes to geospatial data
management and coordination, the state's perspectives on the
same, what the framework of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure is and how we know when a successful NSDI
exists.
I am convinced that geospatial technology is one of the
most important technologies of our time. Governor
Schwarzenegger is convinced enough that he asked one of his
Cabinet members to develop a statewide strategy for geospatial
data. GIS is important to the Governor because it allows him to
visualize inordinately complex situations that ask the question
why and where.
The intent of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure is
to provide the basic framework to manage and illustrate
business and policy decisions. Much like our transportation
infrastructure is a catalyst for interstate commerce, the NSDI,
if properly implemented, will stimulate better policy outcomes
for the entire nation.
California would not be the agricultural center that it is
if it were not for the highway and rail network allowing us to
export our products and agriculture. Similarly, we require a
network of data providing for decision transactions. The better
the data infrastructure, the better the decisions. If we know
where things are, we make better decisions.
The NSDI is important because it means that all levels of
government will make better decisions for all policy sectors.
To illustrate the point, consider the following examples in
California. The California Partnership for the San Joaquin
Valley is using GIS to illustrate water supply demands in the
region. This effort illustrates the struggle of scarce resource
before the decision occurs.
In particular, new maps are showing which areas have
significant declines in groundwater depth and which ones
require stream flow for sensitive habitat. This is critical
information for managing an increasingly scarce and vital
resource, water.
Additionally, consider the example from the California
Broadband Task Force. It developed a map prior to making its
full set of recommendations. Because of this map, the policy
discussion could strategically target where broadband isn't
available and then move to locations in which broadband is
available, but adoption is low. One result has been an effort
in digital literacy. Were it not for the mapping, the policy
decision would have focused perhaps in the wrong place.
We can answer policymakers' questions better if we have the
spatial information infrastructure in place which delivers the
data to decision makers before the policy discussion. We answer
them poorly if we do not have that infrastructure.
My position was created in an effort to better coordinate
California's state spatial data. My position is housed in the
Office of the State Chief Information Officer, a Cabinet agency
in California, for several reasons. First, GIS technology is a
technology component. That means it has to be aligned with
information technology.
Second, the CIO serves all state government. If my position
were located in, say, the Natural Resources agency, I would be
inclined to focus on natural resources mapping issues and not
health or education. Because my position is in the CIO's
office, I can serve the mapping needs of all state agencies.
Third, the Governor recognizes that for GIS to be
successful there needs to be a champion at a high enough level
in government to allow cross-agency collaboration. We still
have a long way to go in California.
In order for the NSDI to be successful, I think several
things need to happen. First, geospatial data needs to be
coordinated with state, regional and local governments. This is
critical to our success in California.
Second, governance of the NSDI at the national level needs
to be elevated above the Department of the Interior. Geospatial
needs to be able to serve all government. When governance is
housed in one department, it tends to by nature focus on the
business needs of that department.
Third, geospatial governance and the NSDI stewardship need
to have a mandate and line item funding. We must have a program
that is mandated to provide effective leadership and is
authorized to perform essential management tasks.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]
Statement of Michael Byrne, Geographic Information Officer,
State of California
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technologies are critical
tools for improving the quality, accuracy, efficiency and
responsiveness of government services. Using the concept of an
``electronic'' or digital map, GIS records, stores and analyzes
multiple layers of spatial data and relates this data to locations of
interest (e.g. communities, neighborhoods and people that live there.
These layers can be viewed and analyzed in various combinations to
identify underlying relationships not otherwise seen. Management of GIS
data is critical to successfully using the technology. For the purposes
of this paper, GIS data, digital maps, and geographic information are
used interchangeably.
This written testimony discusses the 1) California perspective when
it comes to geospatial data management and coordination; 2) what other
states are doing; 3) what the framework of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure is and 4) how we know when we are successful with the
NSDI.
California Perspective
This section presents the California perspective on the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure, where California's success and challenges
are, its current condition, and finish by describing our future
direction.
The California Perspective on NSDI
From California's perspective, The National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI) is the Data, People, Information Technology
Infrastructure and Policies and Standards governing geospatial data in
the nation. In order for it to be successful, it must meet local and
state government needs; in essence a NATIONAL approach. By focusing on
the needs of local government first, the NSDI will ensure that the
taxpayer will only be required to pay for the production of geospatial
data one time as opposed to duplication of data collection at every
level. If properly instituted, the NSDI will also ensure that all
levels of government will have the best possible data (highest
resolution) to meet their business requirements. Finally, with this
approach, the NSDI will result in data that has a far greater value to
both the business of government and the private sector. High resolution
data will enable literally thousands of commercial applications that
will also provide benefit to the taxpayer and stimulate economic
growth. For this approach to be successful, significant local, state
and Federal coordination are essential. This approach must be
collaborative in nature.
California's Successes and Challenges
California's experience with the NSDI offers an excellent
foundation in the following areas:
Standards for describing information (e.g. metadata) and
defining some data elements.
Partnership grants for state participation (although this
is underfunded, many success stories have come out of this effort and
California has used them to our advantage).
Direct liaisons and partnerships within California for
leveraged local and regional data investments.
California has failed to meet NSDI goals in the following areas:
An uncoordinated approach to imagery collection across
all of the Federal government.
The lack of government produced data in the public domain
which meets state and local needs for several framework layers.
An unclear central point for geospatial data assemblage
at the Federal level. Is it the Geospatial One Stop the National Map or
something else? Is our NSDI metadata node (CalAtlas - http://
www.atlas.ca.gov/) being harvested by the right portal? Furthermore, we
are unsure where the new data.gov fits into the Federal model.
California's Current Condition
California itself has experienced both success and failures when
developing our own State Spatial Data infrastructure. Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger is a proponent and supporter of mapping technology. In
2008 he said this:
``During last year's firestorm [GIS] allowed firefighters to
see through the smoke, giving them a more accurate real-time
view of the conditions on the ground. And because of that, many
of them told me that saved lives and it saved an endless amount
of homes. And this is just the start.'' Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, May 2008.
His statement set a new tone for coordination of geographic
information in California; it demonstrated that California had a leader
at its highest level who recognized the value of mapped data. The State
of California, its regional, local and education entities have long
demonstrated mapping science innovation and capacity. California is a
large state with a highly complex political, demographic and natural
landscape. Mapping technology brings much of this complexity into view
for our policy decision makers. Below is a brief assessment of GIS use
and capacity in California.
GIS technology and data is being employed in nearly 40
state departments and agencies.
California has a central repository of GIS data and
services called CalAtlas which enables the discovery of thousands of
data layers resulting from thousands of government projects.
There are more than 11,000 GIS databases or projects
currently in state government.
Our recently adopted California Information Technology
Strategic Plan (See http://www.itsp.ca.gov/) identifies geospatial
technologies as one of the six top technologies to further develop in
the state.
California has GIS Council (See http://gis.ca.gov/
council/) with representation from state, Federal, and regional
partners which advises GIS collaboration and coordination.
The GIO is housed in the Office of the State Chief
Information Officer, a Cabinet level agency in state government. The
CIO directs information technology resources and has authority over IT
policy. Importantly, the GIO is housed here rather than a specific
business unit like Natural Resources, to ensure alignment of geospatial
issues and program-neutral coordination amongst ALL government
interests.
California has successfully implemented seven of the nine
National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) success factors
(See http://www.nsgic.org/hottopics/fifty_states.cfm).
Of the seven framework (See http://www.fgdc.gov/
framework) data layers defined by the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC), we have efforts towards statewide coordination for the
following.
Geodedic Control
Elevation
Hydrography
Parcels (new)
Many local and regional efforts within the state are
further advanced than state government in terms of mapping technology
development and use; most notably Los Angeles County and the San Diego
region.
California now has a recognized central data store, called
CalAtlas, which is free to all users. This GIS hub is a library of data
that began to deliver substantial benefits when the old ``cost
recovery'' data model was removed and the data portal opened such that
users could describe, publish and discover data for download at no
cost. While the CalAtlas is not used by all state, regional and local
entities, it provides a single location for the discovery of
information. CalAtlas is a success because the state has a budget
``line-item'' dedicated for it. This budget status, while underfunded
given the size of the state is working. Moreover, our approach is
collaborative rather than a command and control approach. This
collaborative approach has contributed to the advanced GIS use by many
entities.
Most recently staff at the California Natural Resources Agency,
which houses CalAtlas, has developed a common operating picture (COP)
for the state. The COP was used by the California Department of Fire
Protection, the California Emergency Management Agency and the
Department of Public Health during statewide emergency exercise last
fall and the fires that erupted shortly thereafter. Having a common
picture allows all emergency operations centers across the state to
view the same relevant local authoritative data during an emergency. We
have also used the COP during the recent H1N1 flu outbreak and expect
to use it again as related pandemic flu activities ramp up in the fall.
Our collaborative approach to GIS has been very successful.
California has developed as many as 16 regional GIS collaboratives that
are self forming and self chartering. Some have become full-fledged
non-profit organizations (501(c)3) while others are more loosely
organized. In addition we have a non-profit professional association,
the California Geographic Information Association (CGIA), which has
provided a means to apply for grants, receive and spend money on behalf
of state GIS initiatives before the GIO position was formally
established. Finally, our California GIS Council has been in place for
nearly 10 years, now on its second charter. The Council has provided a
forum for Federal, state and regional goals to be developed and
implemented. The Council, with support from the CGIA and state and
Federal funding has published the following documents (1) the
California Framework Data Plan, (2) the California GIS Strategic Plan
and (3) an Imagery Business Plan (See http://www.cgia.org for all three
papers).
California's Future Direction
California now has a formally recognized GIO and leadership support
from the CIO, but there remains much more work to do. The following
represents a minimum set of goals:
Direct Agencies to establish GIS leads (e.g. Agency GIOs)
responsible for data coordination and collaborate with the state GIO to
align GIS investments with local and regional government.
Establish appropriate state agency leads to collect and
steward data layers for which they have logical responsibility and
business interests; and coordinate the flow of appropriate related data
to and from local and Federal levels.
Establish a competitive GIS matching grant program to
support the broader and collaborative use of GIS to solve significant
public policy issues in communities and regions throughout California.
We are moving forward. The state CIO has identified an objective in
the state IT Strategic Plan to manage statewide data as an asset, much
like we manage buildings, roads and common infrastructure as an asset.
As such, California is in the process of releasing a new strategy to
assemble and manage these data. Central to the data strategy is
managing geospatial data, in particular address data, at a central
place with state government access. This approach, based on the concept
of data as a service, will allow California to manage data more
efficiently and reduce costs. The plan recognizes that the foundation
of nearly ALL data has a geographic component. We need to collect and
manage data such that we can apply the power of GIS to analyze these
data assets geographically. Management of this common store will be
driven by state government business needs rather than some technology
specific drivers.
To sum up, California strongly endorses the concept of the NSDI
(one that meets local and states needs in a coordinated way), and is on
its way to ensuring a robust State Spatial Data Infrastructure, but
still has more work to do with respect to coordination and funding.
States Perspective
This section presents the collective states perspective on the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure, in particular some direction from
the National States Geographic Information Council and the Western
Governors' Association regarding the requirements for a robust NSDI.
States Perspective on NSDI
There is a high degree of variability from state to state. As an
example, compare California to the District of Columbia. California is
the third largest state (164,000 square miles) and D.C. is a major
metropolitan municipality (61 square miles). California has
approximately 37 million people and D.C roughly 600,000. One thing that
these two places share is a common vision for the NSDI. Both California
and D.C. recognize that business needs drive the need for efficient
mapping technologies and, in particular that, a national approach to
data collection should be driven by local and state business needs. One
thing that makes this complicated, is that the states and local
government are all in varying stages of development and have adopted
different approaches. This makes the job of coordinating the NSDI
incredibly complex and its gets more complex each year that passes
without effective Federal leadership. There are few incentives for
local and state agencies to ``retool'' their efforts when they are
heavily invested in their current operations.
In order to further develop a common goal, the states formed the
National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) in 1991. NSGIC
is an organization committed to efficient and effective government
through the prudent adoption of geospatial information technologies. As
such, NSGIC gathers state GIS coordinators to provide a common voice
for GIS infrastructure and future recommendations. NSGIC has developed
criteria for successful GIS coordination within states (called the
Fifty States Initiative) and keeps a survey of GIS activities for
states in order to measure progress. Finally NSGIC develops an advocacy
agenda each year to focus the community on the most important GIS
activities. Currently the NSGIC advocacy agenda, which is adopted by a
vote from each state, lists the following as core issues for 2008:
Imagery for the Nation (IFTN)--IFTN (See http://
www.fgdc.gov/iftn) would create two effectively coordinated imagery
collection programs for the nation and would establish basic standards
for imagery collection and distribution. These programs will, annually
capture 1 meter data leaf-on, and less frequent hi-resolution leaf-off
data with buy-up options for states and locals who need additional
features. This program would eliminate duplication of effort and reduce
national costs. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee has endorsed
ITFN. Imagery provides the picture from which most other data are
derived, making it the single most critical data layer.
Nationwide Parcel Mapping--This initiative would create a
seamless parcel dataset for the nation. Parcels are a framework data
theme under the FGDC yet there is no national data layer available for
government use. The National Research Council recently published a
paper outlining what should be done, and those recommendations have
been endorsed by the National Geospatial Advisory Committee. If created
a national parcel database could be effectively used to monitor the
health of the mortgage industry in the future, among other uses.
Transportation for the Nation--This initiative calls for
the Federal government creating a seamless nationwide addressable roads
dataset that is built in a collaborative and shared environment. While
the U.S. Department of Transportation has authority to do this under
OMB Circular A-16, a regular annual program does not exist.
NSDI Cooperative Agreement Grants--The FGDC manages this
competitive grant program in order to increase capacity for geospatial
management in each state. The program budget for FY 2009 was $1.3
million with individual grants at about $50,000. The budget for this
program, in order to be successful, needs to be significantly
increased.
Technology for the 21st Century--GIS is an advanced
technology and as such needs to have ancillary technologies in place in
order to be successful. NSGIC has identified increases in broadband
availability and the reauthorization of the E-Gov act as critical to
the success of the NSDI.
NSGIC's Recommendations
Since the adoption of this advocacy agenda in September 2008, NSGIC
has developed specific recommendations along two lines. First, it is
clear that the lack of a comprehensive imagery program inhibits further
geospatial development. Second, with the release of the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and in particular the National
Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) notice of fund
availability for broadband mapping releasing the highly accurate
address point database from the U.S. Census Bureau is critical. Below
are suggested actions for each of these issues.
Imagery for the Nation
Congress should fund Imagery for the Nation through the
President's Budget at the full amount needed for national coverage.
``Line items'' are required in the USDA/FSA and DIO/USGS budges, and
statutory language is required to protect funds from being diverted to
short-term agency needs, unwarranted management fees or new priorities.
An annual appropriation of $95.6 million is required; current
expenditures likely exceed $30 million, but increased funding on an
annual basis is critical.
Ensure the business requirements of all levels of
government can be met through buy-up options that allow government
agencies to procure what THEY need (e.g. high resolutions, increased
accuracies).
Provide active leadership for the FGDC to implement IFTN
and use it as a model to build the NSDI in concert with state and local
governments.
Address Points from the Census Bureau
Congress should remove addresses and address point
locations from the Title 13 restrictions and instruct the U.S. Census
Bureau and other Federal agencies (e.g. the U.S. Postal Service and the
Department of Health and Human Services) to work together to develop a
common file and make the data available throughout government levels.
Give the U.S. Census Bureau funds and granting authority
to work with state and local governments to create and maintain a
national address file.
Address and coordinate data should be updated by local
address authorities as building permits are issued, thereby capturing
new construction developments. Data should be developed locally, with
local and state custodians acting as regional integrators that merge
local data into region-wide databases.
Western Governors' Association Recommendations
Finally, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) recently released
a Geospatial Policy Statement (See http://www.westgov.org/wga/policy/
09/GIS.pdf). The WGA first identified the key business issues facing
the western states: economic downturn, renewable energy zones/energy
reform, wildland fire protection, and water delivery. The WGA statement
goes on to say that in order to affect these issues from a public
policy perspective, the western governors require ``timely, accurate
and multilayerd geographic data.'' The WGA statement calls for the
following to occur:
Implement effective policies in geographic technology
that will help inform effective policies in economic, energy, fire and
water agendas.
Encourage regional, state and interstate data sharing, in
particular for the Bureau of Land Management to lead and complete the
national parcel dataset.
Support IFTN and urge Congress to fully fund it.
Support Federal, state, tribal and local coordination
through Coordinating Councils.
Support the National Geospatial Advisory Committee and
the Geospatial Line of Business which is analyzing geospatial
investment across the Department of Interior.
Western Governors believe in an intergovernmental
approach to the development and governance of geospatial activities is
necessary to a successful NSDI.
State and local government inclusion in managing the NSDI is
imperative. A working solution must include the lowest common
denominator of data collection (e.g. city/local) and, at a minimum,
must include regular collection and maintenance of imagery, parcels,
elevation, hydrography, transportation, geodedic control, political
boundaries and address point data. At a maximum, the data must be
developed, coordinated and published such that interstate collaboration
exists to evaluate and analyze landscape public policy issues.
National Spatial Data Infrastructure Framework
This section describes the promise of a robust NSDI and provides
specific steps Congress can take to make the NSDI real.
Production of geospatial data and technologies has shifted from the
Federal government to state and local government and the private
sector. However, the United States is still using a Federal-centric
governance model for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
We cannot build the NSDI without eliminating the ``silos'' and
duplication of effort in Federal government, and implementing an
inclusive governance model. This requires strong leadership that is
independent of the specific agencies and has the authority to regulate
geospatial budgets.
The FGDC and its participating agencies understand the role of
state and local governments and the private sector in building the
NSDI, but since there is no clear definition of the NSDI or effective
business plans to build it, focus has remained solely on Federal
business needs instead of national objectives that include local and
state government benefits. In large part, this has been driven by the
lack of a national policy, effective strategic and business plans, and
the unwillingness to approach Congress for adequate appropriations to
do the job.
Only those agencies with missions clearly tied to geospatial data
are successful in securing budget appropriations are subsequently
protective of their own targeted efforts. The FGDC has no authority or
power to interfere with the budget processes in these agencies. For
example, perhaps the largest public policy debate facing the 111th
Congress will be healthcare reform. Healthcare represents the largest
growth sector in the U.S. economy currently representing about 15.2
percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) projected to reach 19.5
percent of GDP by 2017, making it the single largest industry in the
nation. Geospatial technology advancements can substantially improve
the policy debate around health care by; 1) better understanding fraud
and waste, 2) identifying high risk areas and providing focused
outreach and prevention in those areas, 3) more accurately mapping
quality and cost to provide better health outcomes and accessibility
and 4) providing transparent information in a global pandemic (like
H1N1) for better response and control of disease.
The NSDI is very complex and efforts to effectively describe it or
its significance to decision makers often fail. It must also be
understood by policy makers that the vision of the NSDI can't be
achieved until local government data (i.e. parcel maps at local scales)
are fully integrated to meet Federal business needs.
The FGDC does not currently allow state and local governments or
the private sector a significant voice. This lack of input is contrary
to the new vision of a more open and transparent government.
No one is willing to acknowledge the true cost of building an
effective NSDI and its ultimate cost and value are difficult to
quantify. NSGIC believes that the price tag is over $8 billion with an
annualized maintenance cost of approximately $2.5 billion. For context,
the global geospatial market is estimated at $30 billion dollar a year
and growing. The largest part of this expenditure is born by state and
local governments, largely because no effective incentives from the
Federal government cause them to conform to national standards or spend
additional money to share data. A large portion of the initial $8
billion has already been expended.
No Congressional committee has oversight for national geospatial
activities or the NSDI. You can make significant improvements through
the following actions:
1. Immediately create a Federal Geographic Information Officer
(GIO) position in OMB with funding and the staff required to
investigate and understand Federal agency expenditures. Give this
individual the authority to require that agencies work together to
define, develop and manage an effective NSDI.
2. Fund and task the GIO to develop a credible research report
within 18 months that details the value of geospatial technologies and
a shared NSDI to the nation, including all levels of government, the
private sector, and the public.
3. Establish an oversight committee that deals with geospatial
activities to ensure a point of contact in Congress with a clear
understanding of the issues that can take appropriate action. Focusing
on the needed improvements to E.O. 12906 and OMB Circular A-16 would be
a positive start.
4. Build a governance structure for the NSDI that includes equal
representation by the private sector (service providers and consumers);
Federal, state, regional, tribal and local government; academia;
utilities; and the general public. The FGDC should focus on Federal
agency coordination working with the GIO.
What does success look like?
A successful NSDI is reached when decision makers are regularly
using digital mapped data in policy discussions every day. This section
will outline what a successful NSDI implementation would look like. In
particular it addresses two main ideas; 1) the leadership required
given the drastic advances in technology and 2) the vision described by
the NGAC.
Leadership
Recently the NGAC published ``The Changing Geospatial Landscape''
(See http://www.fgdc.gov/ngac). This paper outlines specifically the
changes and advancements the GIS community has witnessed over the pass
thirty plus years. The paper captures the major milestones and
identifies several of the major issues that lie ahead. These milestones
were reached in large part due to innovation in the Federal government
(e.g. the U.S. Census Bureau, the Global Positional System and the
advancement of the World Wide Web). However, in conclusion the paper
says:
``If we as a country are sincere about resolving universal
concerns such as global warming, sea level rise, and affordable
health care, the Federal government needs to adopt innovative
policies supporting a dynamic and robust spatial data
infrastructure, an initiative that was promised more than 15
years ago.''
Since President Clinton signed Executive Order 12906 in 1994 and
OMB Circular A-16 was reauthorized much of the technology that GIS and
geospatial activities is built on has changed dramatically. The
``Changing Geospatial Landscape'' paper identifies how a new
collaborative approach to leadership is required to fully develop the
NSDI. Further, it articulates how government data is being used for
commercial applications particularly in social media and web 2.0 tools.
One does not have to look far to see how the Obama Administration has
opened to Web 2.0 tools for a more efficient and effective government.
The NGAC have illustrated how GIS tools are fundamentally collaborative
tools for advanced policy decisions.
To illustrate just how much has changed, nearly every Department,
Division, and line unit in Federal, state and local government employ a
Web master or and individual whose job duties include Web publication.
Indeed this hearing is now being webcast. These advances are intended
to make government more transparent to the public. Yet, the World Wide
Web was not even an implemented technology 20 years ago. At the same
time, in today's government, we do not have GIO's in each line unit
similar to Web masters. GIOs would make significant advances in
decision making through coordinating mapped data.
Vision
The NGAC's ``Strategic Vision'' document clearly outlines what
success looks like for the full implementation of the NSDI. The desired
outcome is ``The Nation and its citizens value and are empowered by
geospatial resources.'' A lengthy list of vivid descriptions for this
future state is listed in this document. To get there, the Federal
government needs to 1) lead with the collaboration of state and local
partners, 2) publish ALL government owned data (that is publishable) as
geographic data, 3) train the next generation workforce, and 4) set a
clearly defined plan for the data and computing infrastructure required
to manage this data.
When the NGAC vision is reached, all citizens will be relying on
spatial data. Indeed all decision makers will be consulting map based
data for decisions. In short, we know there is a successful NSDI when
executive, commission and legislative bodies are using geospatial data
in real time for collaborative decision making and policy
recommendations.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Byrne
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. Mr. Byrne, how useful are the National Map and Geospatial One-Stop
to non-Federal stakeholders?
From my perspective, the National Map and the Geospatial One-Stop
are not very useful products and have ``missed the mark.'' I will deal
with them separately, since they are very different in scope and
purpose. The National Map attempts to bring together a limited number
of data products to create a modern version of the USGS topographic map
series. Those maps are produced at relatively small scales compared to
the scales used by state and local governments. Therefore the products
of the system have limited uses. It was originally envisioned as a
system that would bring together state and local partner data into
seamless national coverages, but that has proven to be more difficult
than expected. The private sector (e.g. Google and Microsoft) have been
much more successful in assembling disparate data. Every level of
government tends to do the same thing and some are more successful than
others. While The National Map may be useful to some Federal agencies,
and even states and local governments in particular situations, its
generally utility to state and local government is highly questionable.
Some (not all) of the data inside The National Map are very useful.
The Federal Government should concentrate more on data production,
distribution and proper archiving. It is unlikely that Federal agencies
will ever compete effectively with the private sector in providing
access to map services for public consumption. Federal agencies should
work in closer partnership with state and local governments through
initiatives like Imagery for the Nation that are designed to
simultaneously meet the business needs of all levels of government.
The Geospatial One Stop is similar in concept to a library card
catalog. It provides information about available maps and geospatial
data, online map services, and even paper map products. In addition, it
strives to service many other needs by offering features such as
communities of interest and a market place to link potential partners.
The concept is good, but the execution is difficult. The Federal
metadata standard on which it is built 1) allows a great deal of
``flexibility'' in documenting data, and 2) can be difficult for many
users to understand. Often a user can't find information in the system,
because the steward of the metadata records didn't understand how to
document their information properly, or they use ``odd'' terms that
don't result in any ``hits'' when searches are conducted. As with all
Internet search engines, the information you seek can be right at your
finger tips, but miles away. It's a very frustrating situation. The
concept is good, but we probably need some changes in approach.
Modifying the metadata standard and approaching the inventory as a
database instead of a ``search engine'' would be a good start.
2. Mr. Byrne, do you think the States speak with one voice when it
comes to geospatial issues? What problems are there aligning
the differing interests of non-Federal stakeholders?
I think the states generally do speak with one voice. The state
GIOs network and speak to each other on an almost daily basis, seeking
advice on the full range of issues that confront them. The common voice
for state issues comes from the National States Geographic Information
Council (NSGIC). While there is a great deal of variability in states
(e.g. Rhode Island is not like Alaska), geospatial data issues are
generally similar and these issues are well addressed through NSGIC. It
is still a fact that the states are at differing stages of development,
and have different business drivers that cause them to react
differently to more immediate opportunities. This is sometimes judged
as significantly divergent view points. The most significant problems
arise in aligning all non-federal stakeholders. The ``go to''
organization is unclear to these stakeholders. NSGIC is attempting to
bring stakeholders together (with assistance from FGDC and its CAP
grants process) in statewide coordination councils, but there is
significant variability across the nation in this effort. FGDC might be
the ``go to'' organization, but its effectiveness in building the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure is questionable and it does not
operate in a manner that accommodates widespread participation by non-
federal stakeholders. In part, this is due to the concerns about
Federal advisory committees. There are several Federal agencies outside
of the FGDC structure (and indeed outside of The National Map and
Geospatial One-stop), that build clearinghouses for geospatial data
(for instance the Health Resources Services Administration has a
geospatial clearinghouse). From a non-federal stakeholder point it is
confusing with whom a stakeholder should engage. I am optimistic that
the new Data.Gov portal will provide more useful tools in the future,
but clear policy needs to be set and enforced with regard to these
activities.
One of the greatest problems the states face in working with the
Federal government is the rapidly changing programs and standards or
projects that come and go. It takes a great deal of coordination effort
to pull the entire community together to work on a program with Federal
agencies and it is very discouraging when the Federal agencies change
direction, because it causes statewide coordinators to lose credibility
with the community.
3. Mr. Byrne, what can be done to more clearly identify the component
pieces of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure so that
goals can be identified and so that we can effectively measure
progress towards its completion?
I can think of several specific points;
Identify a Geographic Information Officer who has the authority and
responsibility to develop and implement strategic and business plans
for the NSDI. This Office should be able to collaborate across
agencies, and be above a single department (e.g. at the Office of
Management and Budget).
Clearly articulate in all new legislation a line item for
geospatial data and infrastructure to adequately fund development of
the framework and other data that are required to implement the
legislation. Have the GIO oversee the development of these data by the
agencies and publish them in the public domain.
Use the eGovernment reauthorization act to identify exactly how the
GIO would interact with eGovernment activities allowing geospatial
technologies to become part of the enterprise approach.
Institutionalize Congressional oversight of the GIO so there is
accountability outside of the administration.
Fund a competent economic analysis of the current and future value
of geospatial technologies to the national economy in terms of their
contributions to the GNP. The purpose of this study would be to provide
additional focus on priority setting efforts.
Some form of score card or maturity assessment should be required
for each Federal agency with a 360 degree evaluation process available
to their stakeholders. Something similar should also be used to
evaluate the contributions of the states. NSGIC has used a score card
for the states in the past without a 360 degree review. It is currently
working on a maturity assessment for future efforts.
4. Mr. Byrne, are there any incentives for state and local governments
to share their data with each other, and with the federal
government, and are there any particular incentives that you
would suggest to improve the situation?
The incentive for data sharing is that data becomes more valuable
with more use. No event ever stops at a jurisdictional boundary.
Earthquakes, floods, fires, tornados, disease, education, homeland
security and more all have in common their geography that spans
multiple cities, counties, regions and states. It is in the best
interest of California to understand the full set of geographic data in
Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and Mexico. As a data owner and steward there
is intrinsic value and incentives to make my data available for any
consumer. My data becomes more valuable as more people use it. The
incentive is clearly there. For government to government (at any level)
there is intrinsic value. However, there are many local, county,
regional and state mandates requiring cost recovery for data.
This is the result of as many as 35 years of investment being made
by local and state government in digital geospatial technologies with
little return on their investment from past partnership opportunities.
Effective data sharing will only be fully realized when data are
created once to meet the needs of all levels of government and the
private sector. This requires a serious commitment by state and Federal
agencies to support the production of data by local government agencies
that can be aggregated for use by state and Federal agencies as
necessary. Currently, our partnership opportunities are opportunistic
and not part of a cohesive national plan. We must fundamentally change
the way we work together to build the NSDI. Adequate funding is
essential to ensure stable partnerships and mandates will be required
to do the job right. Again, well thought out programs like Imagery for
the Nation need to be implemented and funded for long-term successes.
5. Mr. Byrne, could you provide some examples as to why having
detailed address data, such as from the census, available more
broadly would be in the public interest?
Nearly every single business process in government and private
applications deals with the address as a common data element. MediCare
sends benefits to beneficiaries. Labor departments track employment by
address. The IRS collects taxes by address in addition to social
security numbers. In all cases there is an underground economy taking
place. Using the address point data, business intelligence analytics
could be performed to assist in the audit and investigation of these
systems. Identifying addresses by location which are outside of the
range of known variability for a given area/time (either high or low)
will help auditors identify investigation requirements and save tax
payer money. This type of analysis cannot be performed when address
(e.g. the X and Y location on a map) information is missing. The
government value alone for audits using the address location from
Census is likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
In the private sector, address information is critical for
innovative web and smart phone applications. Nearly all of these
applications rely on address information. Mapping addresses, even in
applications like Yahoo Maps and Google Maps, currently uses a linear
reference system where the location of the street address is estimated
based on the length of the street and number of addresses in the range.
In rural areas these estimates can be miles away from their actual
location. Even in urban areas, these estimates can be significantly
off. Take for instance the location of the Sacramento County Emergency
Operations Center at 3720 Dudley Blvd McClellan, CA 95652. A Google Map
and Yahoo Map location of this facility is over 1.5 miles from its
actual location. Providing the actual address points collected by the
Census Bureau at the front door of all households is an invaluable
benefit to business and society. Inaccurate address locations cost
time, money and most importantly--lives.
The most serious issue surrounding address points is the
duplication of effort to collect this data. The Federal government
likely invested hundreds of millions of dollars to create these data.
State and local governments will invest similar amounts in coming years
to obtain the same data. Most of these efforts will result in the data
being placed in the public domain. This is a perfect example of
government waste that must be avoided. The values associated with the
Census Bureau data are 1) completeness, 2) quality/consistency, 3)
currency, and 4) they come from an authoritative source.
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. Would you recommend that the Federal government implement a
government-wide Geospatial Information Office, like your
position in the State of California?
Yes, most definitely. I believe the full vision of the NSDI has not
been attained because there has not been a single office accountable
for this effort. Simply appointing a GIO will not solve the problem.
The GIO needs a clear mandate, authority and responsibility for Federal
agency oversight. They will also need a strong political champion. Many
states have established GIO positions through legislation or Executive
Order. Clearly, a legislative solution is preferred and the GIO must be
properly resourced to conduct the required work.
2. What carrots or sticks to do have at your disposal to assure
coordination and to avoid duplication?
In California we value GIS as part of our Information Technology
enterprise. As such, I have two sticks at my disposal. First, the
Office of the State Chief Information Officer, where my position is
housed, has the statutory authority to write state IT policy. We have
the ability to include, in the State Administrative Manual policies,
standards and procedures that all IT functions in the state must follow
as a matter of state policy. Since GIS is an IT solution, our policies
can guide the further development of the enterprise. Second, all IT
projects require, as a matter of state practice, a Feasibility Study
Report. This report must describe the technology solution, the business
case for the technology solution and management plan for the technology
solution. The OCIO is one of the approving entities of these reports,
and provides the regulatory oversight for these projects.
At this time there are no defined carrots. However, incentives are
usually defined through collaborative opportunities for multiple
departments to leverage investment in IT and GIS projects by joining
forces for combined effects and increased economies of scale.
The ``ultimate'' carrot will be when we actually ``turn the
corner'' on business as usual and we are able to show that all agencies
save money by working effectively together. There are many issues
related to trust and agency missions that must be put behind us. When
they are, the carrots will be much more obvious to the point of not
being required. That's the end state that I seek.
Questions from Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
1. What is the status of geospatial issues in the insular areas? Do we
get the same sort of coverage that the rest of the states get?
I must speak while wearing my NSGIC hat on this question. NSGIC
provides ``state'' membership in its organization to each of the
insular areas and Washington DC. The only active insular area is the
U.S. Virgin Islands, but we do have communication with Puerto Rico.
Unfortunately, there has been little or no interaction with the insular
areas in the Pacific Rim, so we do not know the status of their
activities. NSGIC would be pleased to have the other insular areas join
the organization which would help us provide information and services
to them. I would be pleased to follow-up on this personally if contact
information is provided.
With regard to Federal programs, I suggest this question should be
directed to Mr. Ivan DeLoatch, Staff Director of the FGDC to poll all
Federal Agencies.
2. When we speak about programs like ``The National Map'' or ``Imagery
for the Nation'' are you including the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands in those programs?
Again, I must speak through NSGIC on this question. The Imagery for
the Nation initiative does include the insular areas. They are
exceptionally difficult to acquire using aircraft and aerial cameras.
Therefore, the general thinking is that they should be acquired via
satellite imagery which meets the same technical specifications.
Upon cursory examination of The National Map, it does not appear
that the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is included. This
program is run by the U.S. Geological Survey and specific questions
should be addressed to the Director of the USGS.
______
Mr. Sablan [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrne.
I would like to now recognize Mr. John Palatiello.
Palatiello?
Mr. Palatiello. Very good.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PALATIELLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION FOR PRIVATE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS [MAPPS]
Mr. Palatiello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is John Palatiello, and I am the
Executive Director of MAPPS, a trade association of more than
170 private geospatial firms throughout the United States and
around the globe.
I would like to offer some perspective on where we are and
where we need to be with regard to fully embracing the
technology that you saw in the video at the opening of the
hearing.
Reference has already been made to the National Spatial
Data Infrastructure, NSDI. The NSDI was established or the goal
and vision of an NSDI was established by President Clinton in
an Executive Order in 1994. It established seven framework
layers of data that you saw in the video represented in sort of
a GIS sandwich, geographic information sandwich, of layers.
Unfortunately, we have not made the progress that we should
in making the NSDI a reality. It has not been well funded. It
has not been completely implemented and so we are not fully
seeing the benefits that we saw in the video.
Why has that occurred or why has that not occurred? First
of all, we don't have a national geospatial strategy in this
country. Our investments are made on a very ad hoc basis. We
have extraordinarily well built, impenetrable stovepipes in the
Federal government, and efforts to try to break them down and
share data across those stovepipes simply are not occurring.
We are not tying our geospatial activities to national
priorities. For example, the climate change bill passed by the
House a few weeks ago does not have a provision creating a
process by which we measure, monitor, verify or validate
whether the phenomena of climate change is indeed occurring or
at what rate it may be occurring.
The mortgage crisis. We should have seen it coming. We
should have had an early warning system, and if we had had a
parcel-based land information system, that cadastral layer of
the NSDI, we would have seen it and we could have taken
corrective action on a small problem before it became a large,
multi-national, multi-trillion dollar problem.
My fear is we are going to do the same thing in Congress
with regard to health care. There is no provision in the
legislation before the Energy and Commerce Committee that
creates an epidemiology GIS or a way of locating and
identifying where uninsured Americans reside so we can deliver
services to them.
Part of the reason is that we lack that policy. For
example, the USGS operates under the Act of 1879. The Congress
hasn't passed a National Mapping Act of 2004 or 2005 or 2009,
so we are still operating under a very antiquated framework,
and there is no statutory policy framework for many of today's
geospatial activities in the Executive Branch.
We have not defined roles and responsibilities. Government
very often is neither a teammate nor the umpire, and all too
often it is the opposing team. Nothing frustrates my members,
owners of small- and mid- and large-sized businesses, more than
when government competes with the private sector.
We have some very good people like Ms. Siderelis and others
in the Federal agencies who are good people that are
unfortunately working in a very, very unfortunate circumstance
in terms of structure. Coordination, duplication, a lack of
coordination, too much duplication.
For example, when you look at the broadband mapping
initiative that was in the stimulus bill and you look at what
the Census Bureau has already collected, we have an example of
where the taxpayers have already paid for geospatial data, but
yet it is not being shared with another agency and we are going
to spend part of $350 million to collect it once again.
Mr. Byrne mentioned no champion. We have no champion. We
don't have accountability. The buck stops nowhere. There are
neither carrots nor sticks at Ms. Siderelis' disposal to
enforce the standards or assure coordination. We don't have
metrics. You can't manage what you can't measure, and we don't
have metrics in place to see what our progress is.
Private insurance companies are mapping house locations as
was indicated in the video to do ratings and to quantify their
risk, yet, as I said, the government can't measure the effects
of climate change.
I will end there and say that we would like to work with
the Committee to make sure that we have quality data, that we
have timely data and we have accurate data, and we think
Congress needs to step in and play a role, and we would like to
work with you on that.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palatiello follows:]
Statement of John M. Palatiello, Executive Director,
Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS)
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I'm John Palatiello,
Executive Director of the Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) the nation's only national
association exclusively comprised of private sector firms in the
mapping, spatial data and geographic information systems field. The
more than 170 member firms of MAPPS are engaged in mapping,
photogrammetry, satellite and airborne remote sensing, aerial
photography, hydrography, aerial and satellite image processing, GPS
and GIS data collection, integration and conversion services.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify today on the Federal
government's geospatial information activities and areas where
improvement is needed in order for the citizens of our Nation to
receive the full benefit that geospatial technologies has to offer.
Executive Order 12906, issued by President Clinton and reaffirmed
by President Bush established seven framework layers of geospatial data
for Federal investment--geodetic control, parcels (cadastral),
orthoimagery, elevation, hydrography, administrative units, and
transportation--and constituting the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI). Sadly, now fifteen years later, not only is the
NSDI not complete, but there is no record of how much progress has been
made on any of the framework layers.
One of the shortcomings of the government's current geospatial
management is the limited structure and participation in the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Neither state and local government,
nor the private sector, has a seat at the table. Broader participation
by private sector interests in setting policy and strategy for FGDC
will result in a stronger offering that better represents the interests
of the American public and American business, and will engage all
stakeholders.
Under the current structure, for Federal agencies the FGDC is
essentially voluntary and secondary. Agencies are focused on their own
missions, not a broader national strategy. Coordination, data sharing,
interoperability and duplication-avoidance are secondary to meeting the
agency's own program needs. They are after-thoughts or low priority
items. For all agency employees, other than the very small staffs at
FGDC, these goals are no one's full time responsibilities. There is
neither a carrot nor a stick to incentivize or mandate conformance. A
change in the charter and implementation of FGDC in particular must
provide either incentives or penalties to assure compliance.
Delegating responsibility for implementation of these coordinating
mechanisms to entities within the Department of the Interior is not the
most effective model. The widespread perception is that these are
Interior or USGS activities, not OMB activities affecting all Federal
agencies. We believe a stronger OMB role must be established to make
coordination, inter-operability, duplication-avoidance and data-sharing
a reality.
Prior to the promulgation of the first version of OMB Circular A-16
in 1953, the old Bureau of the Budget had a much stronger role in
coordinating Federal geographic information activities. Executive Order
3206, issued on December 30, 1919, established the Board of Surveys and
Maps of the Federal Government to coordinate and promote improved
surveying and mapping activities by Federal agencies. It was a Bureau
of the Budget entity. Its name was changed to the Federal Board of
Surveys and Maps by Executive Order 7262 on January 4, 1936. Under that
authority, in 1941, the Bureau of the Budget issued the ``United States
National Map Accuracy Standards,'' which applied to all Federal
agencies that produce maps. The standards were revised several times,
and the current version was issued in 1947. They are still used today.
The Board was abolished by Executive Order 9094, on March 10, 1942 and
functions were transferred to the Bureau of the Budget. An office in
the Bureau of the Budget coordinated Federal geographic information
activities. Those responsibilities were devolved to voluntary
coordination activities of the agencies when Circular A-16 was issued
in 1953. We believe the reestablishment of an OMB office should be
considered by Congress or by OMB itself.
Bold, decisive action is needed to eliminate the extraordinary
waste, duplication and inefficiency in the Federal government's
geospatial activities, the lack of a strong partnership in Federal
agencies' relationship with State and local government, and the
insidious extent to which there continues to be unfair government
competition with the private sector.
Efforts by the Bush Administration to revise OMB Circular A-16,
create Geospatial One-Stop, launch the Geospatial Lines of Business
(GLOB), and establish the National Geospatial Advisory Committee
(NGAC), as well as the Clinton Administration's restructuring of the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and creation of the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and the enforcement of OMB Circular
A-16 all have one thing in common: they attempted to treat the
symptoms, rather than the disease.
There are dozens of Federal agencies engaged in geospatial
activities. Neither the agencies, nor OMB, have a comprehensive
understanding of what agencies are involved in geospatial activities.
No one in the Federal government has a current, accurate accounting of
the annual geospatial expenditures. It is virtually impossible to
determine how many Federal employees are involved in these activities.
There is no balance sheet, performed 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. GLOB attempted to
gather this data. However, due to a poor structure and internal systems
within the agencies and the Federal government generally, GLOB failed.
In fact, none of the historic budget data gathered from the agencies
through numerous annual data calls have ever been released to the
public. In fact, the annual data call process has been terminated, due
to the paucity of data OMB received from the agencies. While the NGAC
has recommended that the data calls be resumed, and that the data be
released, those recommendations have not been implemented.
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. There are some bright, dedicated professionals
working in geospatial positions in Federal agencies who are trapped in
an unworkable structure.
There are far too many Federal agencies operating geospatial
production capabilities that are expensive, inefficient, and which
duplicate and compete with the private sector. There is in the
geospatial structure, no uniform application of the federal policy that
the government will not compete with the private sector. There is no
accurate record of the extent to which the Federal government utilizes
(or duplicates or competes with) the private sector (including the
dollar amount and percentage contracted to the private sector and
whether that has increased in the recent past and can increase in the
future). Although mapping-related activities are consider
``commercial'' in nature, agency compliance with the FAIR Act, Office
of Management Budget Circular A-76 and Executive Order 12615 has been
minimal. The relevant provisions of the Economy Act and the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, intended to prevent unfair
government competition with the private sector, are routinely ignored.
There is no cross reference to these policies in NSDI, A-16, FGDC, GLOB
or Executive Order 12906.
Federal agencies provide grants or other Federal financial
assistance to non-Federal entities (including but not limited to State,
local and foreign government) to perform surveying and mapping
activities. Many of these activities could be performed by the private
sector. Moreover, Federal agencies provide grants and other Federal
financial assistance to universities to perform surveying and mapping
activities or research. In fact, these activities could be performed by
the private sector and the ``research'' is on activities already
commercially available. Much of this expenditure is outside the FGDC
and A-16 structure.
With the advent of new airborne and space-based remote sensing and
imaging technologies, there are new business models under which
government agencies can now buy licenses to commercial off the shelf
maps and images, rather than the government owning data. However,
civilian Federal agencies are very slow to embrace this concept. We
were encouraged by developments, including the ``Tenet memo'' and the
White House Policy on Commercial Remote Sensing, and we were hopeful
they could help stimulate new thinking and new ways of doing business
in the government, as well as a new paradigm for government utilization
of the private sector. However, despite the remote sensing policy
language on utilization of the private sector, government duplication
of and competition with the private sector persists. We are
disappointed that no Federal agency has been assigned the role of
enforcing that provision in the policy.
Given the failure of the NSDI to become a reality, numerous new
initiatives have been launched to complete some of the framework. These
include National Land Parcel Data, Imagery for the Nation, National
Lidar Initiative and Elevation 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 either fund and complete the NSDI as a holistic approach
or to fully implement these individual initiatives.
There is also a need for Congress to comprehensively address the
confusion in some agencies on the application of the qualifications
based selection (QBS) process codified in the ``Brooks Act'' (40 USC
1101) to geospatial services. The current Federal Acquisition
Regulation (48 CFR 36.601-4) does not accurately reflect the deep
legislative history or the intent of Congress. MAPPS brought an action
to Federal Court (MAPPS v. United States 1:06cv378) to address this
important matter, but we were denied standing. We urge Congress to
provide unequivocal clarification of the need for demonstrated
competence and qualifications in the acquisition of geospatial services
in data acquisition, production and related activities.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is not just that we built solid,
impenetrable stovepipes in Executive Branch agencies, but I must say
the problem begins here in Congress. There are more than 30
subcommittees and full committees of the Congress that have some
oversight or legislative jurisdiction over geospatial activities. If we
are to implement a better process for carrying out geospatial
activities in the Executive Branch, then we must also implement a
better committee structure for the authorization and appropriations of
geospatial programs by the Legislative Branch.
Mr. Chairman, numerous studies have been conducted which detail the
lack of coordination of Federal mapping and geospatial activities, and
the government's duplication of and competition with the private
sector. These studies date back to the 1930s. The time for action is
long overdue. We hope this hearing will help stimulate that action. We
commend you for your interest and leadership and we stand ready to work
with Congress and the Executive Branch to better serve the geospatial
needs of the American people in economic development, resource
management, environmental protection, infrastructure, construction and
maintenance, homeland security and a variety of other national needs
and applications.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Palatiello
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. Mr. Palatiello, what can be done to more clearly identify the
component pieces of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure so
that goals can be identified and so that we can effectively
measure progress towards its completion?
Answer: The component pieces of the NSDI are well defined. The only
data layer that the NSDI omits that should be added is underground
utilizes and infrastructure. The challenge is not identifying or
defining the SDI, but rather it is in actually implementing the NSDI.
There has never been authorizing legislation enacted. There has never
been an OMB funding strategy. Too often, Congress passes legislation
that requires the NSDI data in order to be successful, the Cap and
Trade bill being the most recent and glaring example, but doesn't
authorize or appropriate the funds to build the NSDI. With regard to
metrics to measure progress on the NSDI, I would suggest: Currency;
Completeness (which may include interoperability & metadata); Scale/
Resolution; Accessibility.
2. Mr. Palatiello, how useful are the National Map and Geospatial One-
Stop to non-Federal stakeholders?
Answer: The National Map (TNM) is a sound and useful program.
Studies by the National Research Council and other organizations have
demonstrated the need for and benefits of TNM. If fully implemented, it
would provide a considerable portion of the data envisioned by the
NSDI. It would also accomplish the goals of initiatives like the
National LIDAR Initiative to provide elevation data and Imagery for the
Nation to provide orthoimagery. USGS has established an effective
public-private partnership to collect TNM data, through its Geospatial
Products and Services Contracts (GPSC). These multiple-award,
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contracts, awarded via
the qualifications based selection process (QBS), pursuant to 40 USC
1101 and 48 CFR 36.6, are vehicles to provide professional geospatial
services to USGS, other DoI agencies, other federal agencies, as well
as state and local government. USGS also fosters partnerships with
other federal agencies, as well as state and local government, on the
use of the GPSC contracts and to populate TNM data. However, TNM is
another example of a program that has not been specifically authorized
by Congress and a successful funding strategy has not been developed or
implemented. Thus, TNM is languishing. Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) has
been a disappointment. There is no longer much discussion in the
geospatial community about GOS and it is not widely used. One of its
major shortcomings has been its failure to successfully capture private
data. As a result, it does not provide true ``one-stop'' shopping for
available geospatial data. MAPPS has tried to work with USGS to provide
a cost-effective means to include commercial data, but that effort has
not proven fruitful. Finally, the ``market place'' feature of GOS,
wherein agencies are to theoretically post their upcoming geospatial
data requirements, in order to facilitate collaboration and prevent or
reduce duplication, has never been successful.
3. Mr. Palatiello, are there any incentives for state and local
governments to share their data with each other, and with the
federal government, and are there any particular incentives
that you would suggest to improve the situation?
Answer: The greatest incentives for sharing should be cost
avoidance, cost savings, and partnering. If two governmental units with
common data and geographic interests can share the cost of data
collection, they both benefit financially. We would support greater
emphasis on forging partnerships, facilitating cost-sharing
arrangements, and conducting needs assessments by government agencies,
and providing policy and management mechanisms and financial incentives
(``carrots'') to do so, and, if necessary, penalties (``sticks'') for
agencies' failure to do so. Moreover, government agencies should be
focused on these activities, rather than government agencies completing
with and duplicating the private sector. Government agencies should not
be engaged in commercially available activities, such as data
collection and value-added services.
4. Mr. Palatiello, you mentioned that a lot of the imagery in
GoogleMaps comes from the federal government. Do you know what
percentage of Google's imagery data is from the federal
government, and what agencies or programs within the federal
government provide that imagery?
Answer: I do not have an accurate estimate of the percentage of
Google's imagery that comes from the federal government, but it is my
understanding that there are millions of sq km of ortho imagery and
terrain published to Google Earth and Maps that has been contributed to
Google through partnerships with local, state, and federal programs.
These include: USDA-FSA (NAIP), USGS/EROS (DOQQs, current and
historical aerial imagery, historical satellite imagery, terrain), and
the National Archives. It is also my understanding that the largest
single source of sub-meter aerial coverage that Google has is the
direct result of USGS partnerships with state, regional, and local
governments for aerial collections.
5. Mr. Palatiello, you discussed your concerns with the federal
government competing with private industry when it comes to
collecting geospatial data. However, you also discussed the
usefulness of federal data because it is ``authoritative''
data. Also, privately collected data is typically proprietary,
requiring the purchase of licenses in order to use the data,
while federal data is typically in the public domain. How
should the federal government determine when it is in the
public interest to collect data itself, so as to be an
authoritative, freely-available source that can be accessed by
many users, and when it is better to allow private companies to
collect the data?
Answer: There are widespread misconceptions about licensed
geospatial data. While this is a relatively new business model in the
geospatial field, there is considerable literature to support the
increased use of licensed data by federal agencies in order for such
agencies to fulfill their statutory missions. Federal agencies use
commercial software (such as Microsoft Word) on a regular basis.
However, the government does not own that software, it owns a license
to the software. That license does not in any way inhibit the ability
of a government agency to serve the public or fulfill its mission. The
same is true about licensed data. In 1999, MAPPS was provided a grant
by USGS to host a conference, ``Licensing Data, Licensing People'' that
addressed the policy issues and mechanisms for using licensed data in
government agencies. Additionally, the National Research Council was
funded by federal agencies to conduct a study on this issue, resulting
in the publication of the NRC report, ``Licensing Geographic Data and
Services'' (2004). This study found that licensed geographic data is
not an inhibitor to government agencies. Unfortunately, very few of the
NRC's recommendations have been implemented by the federal government.
6. Mr. Palatiello, could you provide some examples as to why having
detailed address data, such as from the census, available more
broadly would be in the public interest?
Answer: The most explicit example of the utility of address data
was demonstrated when New Orleans flooded as a result of Hurricane
Katrina and the levee breaches. We all saw news footage of rooftops
with the entire road system flooded-out and obliterated. Maps without
addresses were virtually useless. Had address data been available,
emergency response deployment would have been exponentially more timely
and effective. In its report ``Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the
Future'' (2007), the National Research Council did an excellent job of
describing the uses of cadastral (or parcel and address) level data.
These include improved land records, more efficient property tax
assessment, better planning and engineering, improved environmental
management, enhanced economic development, better statistical and
demographic data, better government service delivery, improved
management of mortgages and home ownership data, better land title
procedures, and greater development of location based businesses. There
is almost no data that is not improved when it is given a geographic
attribute. The more that geographic data is address-based, the more
valuable it becomes.
7. Mr. Palatiello, please describe your thoughts on how a parcel-based
national system could have provided an early warning system of
the mortgage crisis.
Answer: Today, there is no common, enforced national standard for
parcel information. The 3200 counties, plus the cities and towns all
collect and manage their parcel information to their own standards. It
is estimated that 20 percent of the data in the U.S. (mostly in less
prosperous jurisdictions) is not even in a digital format. Therefore,
there is now data set upon which to monitor disruptions, anomalies or
significant changes or trends in our housing, home ownership, or real
estate financing system. We only have episodic data or samplings of
activities. Had the United States operated a national parcel-based
system, agencies such as the Federal Reserve, HUD, Fannie and Freddie,
and others could have seen the small, incremental increases in
foreclosures and taken early remedial actions, rather than not
realizing the problem until it had become a large, trillion dollar
international crisis. With the federal government now managing a
portfolio of hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages, it is
absolutely necessary that a national parcel system be in place so that
this asset can be properly managed. There are a number of experts,
including Dr. Ian Williamson at the University of Melbourne and The
Honorable Gary Nairn, a member of Parliament in Australia and a
professional surveyor, have been critical of the United States on the
lack of a national parcel system (see: http://www.mycoordinates.org/
july09/spa.php).
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. How does the Federal government compete with the private sector?
Beginning in 1955 (Bureau of the Budget Bulletin 55-4), it has been
the policy of the Federal government that ``will not start or carry on
any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use
if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise
through ordinary business channels''. Surveying, mapping and geospatial
``related activities have always been considered commercial activities.
Nevertheless, federal agencies employ personnel, acquire and operate
equipment, and carry on geospatial activities that duplicate and
compete with firms in the private sector. As long ago as 1932, a
committee of the House of Representatives expressed concern over the
extent to which the government engaged in activities which might be
more appropriately performed by the private sector. Among the
activities identified as engaged in government competition with the
private sector was mapping. A 1973 OMB report of its Task Force on
Mapping, Charting, Geodesy and Surveying found ``in-house mapping,
charting and geodesy capabilities demand care and feeding once they are
in place. And so they are fed--in perfect conformance to the principles
of Parkinson's Law. Parkinson's Law suggests (1) the number of
subordinates increases regardless of the amount of work produced; and
(2) work expands so as to fill the time available for completion.'' The
report recommended, ``private cartographic contract capability is not
being used sufficiently. We found this capacity to be broad and varied
and capable of rendering skilled support ... Contract capability is a
viable management alternative ... Its use should be encouraged in lieu
of continued in-house build-up.'' Since that report, the extent to
which federal agencies have performed surveying, mapping and geospatial
activities that are otherwise available from the private sector has
continued. And, also since that report, numerous other government
studies have advocated increased contracting with the private sector
for the government's surveying, mapping and geospatial needs.
Nevertheless, the government still cares for and feeds its in-house
capability. As I indicated in my verbal testimony, we are seeing it
again with the ARRA (Stimulus) money being used by agencies to buy
equipment so that commercially available geospatial services are
performed in-house, rather than contracting for services for the
private sector. This increases unemployment in the private sector and
results in government duplication of and competition with private
firms, particularly small business.
2. How would you define the roles of the various sectors and
stakeholders in the geospatial field?
Government should be the demand for geospatial data to perform the
inherently government functions set forth in the Constitution and which
the citizenry has come to expect--such as the Census, national defense,
regulating interstate commerce and providing for the general welfare.
Government should not be the supply of geospatial data. The role of
government should be to conduct analysis of its geospatial data needs,
establish standards, award and manage contracts, oversee the data
quality of that produced by its contractors, and apply the data to
produce the solutions it needs to perform its inherently governmental
functions. Universities should be engaged in education and research,
but not do so in a manner that duplicates or competes with the private
sector or results in the performance of services that are otherwise
commercially available. The private sector should be meeting the demand
for geospatial data generated by government and other users and meeting
that demand with services, data, products, applications, and value-
added solutions.
3. What would you recommend that Congress to do improve Federal
geospatial data management?
There have been a number of studies by OMB. The National Research
Council, the National Academy of Public Administration and others that
have concluded that the current management structure in the government
does not work. There is overwhelming support in the community for the
creation of a management office in the Executive Office of the
President (OMB, OSTP, OIRA, etc.), rather the current system wherein
the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is operated in the
Department of the Interior. MAPPS has suggested a geospatial management
office modeled after the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP),
with a national board (not advisory committee) to set policy and
priorities (the model of the National Capitol Planning Commission
(NCPC) has been suggested) made up of private citizens with expertise
and experience in the geospatial field. I would recommend legislation
to implement such a structure. MAPPS supported the legislation that
resulted in the creation of a Geospatial Management Office (GMO) in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and would recommend similar
offices in other departments and independent agencies. Finally, bills
have been introduced over the years, but not enacted, that have sought
to strengthen geospatial activities and the role of the private sector.
MAPPS supports the FLAIR Act introduced by Mr. Kind and Mr. Bishop
(H.R. 1520--in the current Congress) and the Freedom from Government
Competition Act (H.R. 2682 in the current Congress) and has supported
legislation such as S. 4006 (Senator Allen 109th Congress), H.R. 4461
(Mr. Young of AK 102nd Congress), H.R. 3639 (Mr. Rahall 101st
Congress). Legislation of this nature would be helpful in reforming
management of federal geospatial activities.
Questions from Congressman Gregorio KiWi Camacho Sablan from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
1. What is the status of geospatial issues in the insular areas? Do we
get the same sort of coverage that the rest of the states get?
I am not the most qualified individual to answer that question. I
believe a more comprehensive response can be provided by the Department
of the Interior. I am aware that USGS programs, such as the National
Atlas, include the Northern Mariana Islands. I do know that private
firms on the mainland do deploy aircraft and perform mapping and
geospatial activities when contracted by clients (government or
commercial) in the insular areas. I am aware of more activity in Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin islands, but when there is a need for data and
funding is available, firms do provide services in the insular areas of
the Pacific.
2. When we speak about programs like ``The National Map'' or ``Imagery
for the Nation'' are you including the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands in those programs?
While much of the focus and discussion of these programs has been
on the 50 states, it is my understanding that in insular areas and the
Northern Mariana Islands would be included. I would, however, make two
additional points. First, compared to the lower 48 states, Alaska is a
terribly under-mapped portion of the United States. It is my
observation that the lower 48 states get much more attention than
Hawaii, Alaska and the insular areas. Second, I have been involved in
the geospatial profession for more than 25 years and I have not had a
lot of interaction with representatives of the insular areas generally
and the Northern Mariana Islands in particular at professional
conferences and similar venues. It would be helpful for the Northern
Mariana Islands to be involved in organizations like the National
States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and other organizations
so that their interests are known. Moreover, the USGS has an excellent
program of liaisons to interface with the states on geospatial
programs. It is my understanding the USGS Geospatial Liaison based in
Hawaii is responsible for the Northern Mariana Islands. That is the
individual the islands should be working with on their participation in
programs such as The National Map and Imagery for the Nation.
______
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Palatiello.
And last, but certainly not least, and the most best
introduced witness we have today, I would like to recognize Ms.
Marlow.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN MARLOW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMART DATA
STRATEGIES, INC.
Ms. Marlow. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. It is my privilege to testify before you today on
behalf of Smart Data Strategies, a woman business enterprise
specializing in geospatial solutions established in 1989.
I know that when we refer to geospatial it becomes
confusing. Even with the video, we have so many professional
acronyms and nomenclature, but when you put it in the context
of the video and Google Earth and things like that it becomes
much more understandable.
The Federal government has long recognized the need for
geospatial data for decision making purposes. In 1990, the
Federal Geographic Data Committee was formed. This committee,
in turn, identified seven base layers that are critical to the
U.S. Government, now known as the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure or the NSDI framework that so many people are
talking about today.
Each one of these layers was assigned to a lead agency to
oversee the development of context standards. While this was
good in concept, it has not been completed. The primary
obstacles are lack of funding and intergovernmental agency
coordination.
As stated already today, we are now funding a $350 million
broadband mapping through the stimulus. While this is a great
initiative, the framework layers are still incomplete. It is
time to move from concept to action. Much like you need to
frame up a house before the roof and walls go up, you need
these base layers as the building blocks to all other layers.
Today I am going to talk to you about the parcel layer,
which is my expertise. While much of what I will discuss will
pertain specifically to the parcel layer, many parallels exist
with other framework layers.
The ability and privilege to own land is an important
characteristic of any free and democratic society. It is why we
refer to it as the American Dream. The current mortgage crisis
leaves no doubt that land ownership and the associated rights,
interests and value of property is fundamental to our entire
socio-economic system, yet the parcel layer remains the least
successful of the seven framework layers.
Local jurisdictions across the United States have the
statutory responsibility for maintaining an inventory of the
parcels used primarily for equitable taxation. With
approximately 3,200 counties in the United States, this creates
the challenge of 3,200 puzzle pieces that do not all fit
together, but with the proper coordination they certainly
could.
The State of Tennessee and Alabama are very good examples
of coordination between local jurisdiction and state agencies.
However, there is very little coordination between local, state
and Federal agencies except when there is a national emergency
such as a hurricane or a wildfire. It is during these times of
crisis that the Federal government discovers that the pieces
don't fit together, and often times the data is nonexistent in
those areas.
Here is an example. I will point you to the PowerPoint
here. Here is an example of what happens when there is no
coordination between the framework layers. In this example, the
parcel layer and the orthoimagery layer were collected at two
different times for different purposes. You can see that the
parcels are in the streets, which is obviously not an accurate
representation of what is on the ground. But the problem is you
don't really know which one of these is wrong. Again, another
example of the need for coordination.
Nearly 30 years of reports have called for a national
property layer. Fourteen years before the NSDI identified the
parcel layer as a must have, the National Research Council
identified the critical need for it in the study, The Need For
a Multi-Purpose Cadastre. And, yes, the word cadastre is
another word for the parcel layer.
In 2007, the NRC report came to the same conclusion that a
national property database is necessary, feasible and
affordable. Billions of American tax dollars have provided
funding to foreign countries to develop spatial data, leaving
the U.S. behind most industrial nations as it relates to the
parcel layer and the information associated with it.
In both the 1980 report and the 2007 report, the problems
identified were political and institutional, not technical. In
addition, the 2007 report included a coordination and
implementation plan as part of its recommendation. I believe
this model could serve as an example for all of the framework
layers.
One of the recommendations called for the Federal
government to provide an inventory of its own property. Yes,
the Federal government does not have an accurate inventory of
its own property. This was documented in a GAO report in 2004
and remains true today.
It should be noted that this is the fourth consecutive
Congress in which GAO placed managing Federal real property in
the high risk series, those Federal programs most at risk for
waste, fraud and abuse.
There is, however, pending legislation, H.R. 1520, the
Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act, otherwise known as the
FLAIR Act, introduced in a bipartisan manner by full Committee
Members Ron Kind and Rob Bishop. While this legislation is
important and I respectfully urge you to enact it, I would also
urge you to support additional legislation that would fund the
creation of all framework layers and to establish Federal
leadership roles and responsibilities.
It is time to accept the research and start acting. This is
not a technical problem. If FedEx can track the location of
millions of packages per day moving around the world, the
Federal government should be able to track the location of
land.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marlow follows:]
Statement of Susan Marlow, President, Smart Data Strategies, Member,
National Academy of Sciences Committee Land Parcel Databases: A
National Vision
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is my privilege to
testify before the subcommittee on behalf of Smart Data Strategies,
Inc, a woman owned enterprise established in 1989.
As the owner of a small geospatial business with many government
clients, I have seen the geospatial market mature, both technologically
and professionally. The introduction of Google Earth and Microsoft
Virtual Earth and the disasters of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have all
had a significant impact on the rapid adoption and application of
location based technologies. The geospatial market is expanding into
every area of business through the enhancement of visualization and
analytical capabilities. Any database with an address has the ability
to be georeferenced to a location on the earth. The use of this
decision support technology has been identified as critical to all
levels of government. While significant milestones have been
accomplished by federal agencies, such as the creation of the FGDC and
the concept of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), there
is still much to do in order to complete these initiatives. All levels
of government (local, state, federal, tribal) spend millions of dollars
each year for single purpose geospatial data collection. One of the
missing components of making the NSDI a reality is a model and
governance plan for data sharing and geospatial coordination. By
comparison, most industrialized nations throughout Europe, Asia, and
Latin America already have a coordinated national geospatial database
with many of them being funded by U.S. tax dollars through the World
Bank. The U.S. has the intellectual capital and the technology
necessary to create the most accurate geospatial database in the world
by coordinating efforts and funding.
Created in 1994 through Executive order 12906, the NSDI defined
seven base framework layers as critical information that needed to be
centralized. These include hydrography, elevation, cadastral, digital
orthoimagery, governmental units, transportation, and geodetic control
layers. The vision of the FGDC in creation of the NSDI was designed by
thought leaders throughout the geospatial community. Each layer has a
defined set of standards and a lead agency responsible for that
particular layer.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We have spent years and countless hours with some of the brightest
people in the geospatial profession defining what the framework should
be as well as the standards associated with each layer. While that is
good in concept, it has not been carried out in practicality. After 14
years, the framework layers are still incomplete. While I won't speak
to every layer, I will draw some parallels to all layers using the
parcel layer as an example of failed coordination and a lack of
standardization.
1. The parcel layer is collected at a local level primarily for
tax purposes. This means that each local jurisdiction has the ability
to define their own data standard based on their unique needs. The end
result is 3200 plus puzzle pieces that don't quite fit together. While
millions of dollars are spent on the creation and maintenance of this
data at the local level, the investments are not being realized at the
federal level due to a lack of coordination.
2. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been assigned the
parcel layer (cadastral layer), however it is not part of BLM's core
mission to collect parcel information for the entire country. They
manage only the property owned by the U.S.
3. Appropriate accuracy levels must be considered as part of
standardization. The parcel layer is the most detailed and requires a
higher level of accuracy. As an example, the USGS quad maps are at an
accuracy of plus or minus 30-40 feet depending on the terrain. Now
imagine if your property lines were at the same accuracy level, it's
obvious that you and your neighbors may have a few issues with that.
Similar issues exist for each layer. If the NSDI is to be a reality
we need to provide each lead agency the proper funding, governance
structure, and coordination authority to move beyond the development of
content standards into data creation, implementation, and maintenance.
This should be accomplished in coordination with the private sector
which has the resources and expertise to partner with government
agencies to complete the framework layers.
An example of how this can work has been presented by the National
Research Council's study National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the
Future. These recommendations define a strategy for developing
sustained coordination between government agencies and stakeholders to
create and maintain the parcel layer. While these are specific to the
parcel layer, they can serve as a road map to complete all seven
framework layers. The recommendations are as follows:
1. In order to achieve nationally integrated land parcel data,
there should be both a federal land parcel coordinator and a national
land parcel coordinator. A panel should be established to determine
whether BLM has the necessary and sufficient authority and capacity to
serve as the federal and/or national land parcel coordinator, and if
not, either it should be given the authority and resources, or some
other agency should be named. The panel should conduct a review of
BLM's existing stewardship responsibilities for cadastral and federal
land ownership status under OMB Circular A-16, as well as its current
legislative authorities and budget priorities.
2. As part of the Geospatial Line of Business process, the FGDC
should identify the role of parcel data in the collection and
maintenance of the following data themes: Buildings and Facilities,
Cultural Resources, Governmental Units, and Housing.
3. The Federal Land Parcel Coordinator should coordinate the
development and maintenance of a single, comprehensive, and
authoritative geographically referenced database for land parcels
managed by the federal government, including public lands. This
database should include the ownership, area, and use of all federally
managed lands. (H.R. 1520, the Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act
of 2009)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
4. The National Land Parcel Coordinator should develop and oversee
a land parcel data business plan for the nation. This plan should serve
as the basis for evaluation of the program and as a model for state and
local governments. Metrics should be based on the FGDC Parcel
Management Program Business Plan Template.
5. The Office of the Special Trustee for Tribal lands should
establish an Indian Lands Parcel Coordinator who would manage a program
to coordinate and fund the development and maintenance of a
geographically referenced database for Indian trust parcels. The data
should then be made available to the National Land Parcel Coordinator
to be integrated with national land parcel data.
6. Congress and the Bureau of the Census should explore potential
policy options, including modifications to Title 13, that would allow
its digital data on building addresses and their geographical
coordinates to be placed in the public domain while also maintaining
important privacy protections. If publicly available, these street
addresses and coordinates could be used to assist in the development of
parcel data in areas where parcel data sets do not exist.
7. The National Land Parcel Coordinator should embrace the Fifty
States Initiative and require that every state formally establish a
state parcel coordinator. State coordinators should develop a parcel
data business plan and manage the relationships among all levels of
government involved in parcel production. The plan and program should
achieve comprehensive border-to-border parcel coverage for all public
and privately owned property within the state. The state parcel
coordinator should either work with the state office responsible for
the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation program or with local
government offices if a statewide program does not exist.
8. The National Land Parcel Coordinator should develop a plan for
a sustainable and equitable intergovernmental funding program for the
development and maintenance of parcel data. The plan must provide
financial incentives to local governments that will produce and
maintain the majority of the parcel data. Many of the funds for this
program should come from existing federal programs that require parcel
data; however, new funding will be required to establish an initial
baseline, integrate the data, and make them available through a web
interface.
9. To participate in federal geospatial programs such as federal
collection and dissemination of orthoimagery, a local or state
government should be required to make the parcel geometry and limited
set of attributes needed for the national land parcel data system
available in the public domain. Further, in order to be eligible to
receive federal funds that are directly associated with property, such
as for disaster relief or community development assistance, digital
land parcel data necessary to effectively administer the program should
be made available by local and state governments.
Of these nine recommendations, only recommendation number three has
pending legislation. On March 16th, 2009 Representatives Kind (D-WI)
and Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R. 1520, the Federal Land Asset
Inventory Reform (FLAIR) Act of 2009. This legislation called for the
federal government to act on the recommendations by the Government
Accountability Office and the National Research Council to create an
inventory of all federally owned properties. The current status of
existing inventories of federal properties is known to be unacceptable.
They are incomplete, outdated, and inaccurate thus resulting in excess
and underutilized property, deteriorating buildings, and the
continuation of costly accounting and leasing errors. The FLAIR Act
will only impact the current status of the federal government's effort
to properly inventory property if government agencies agree to
coordinate geospatial data management efforts.
If the government decides to coordinate efforts and complete the
NSDI, the available data and potential combinations of data would
provide numerous opportunities for research, strategic planning, and
ongoing data accuracy efforts and utilization initiatives. For example,
the following results were identified as potential benefits of a
national parcel layer to the federal government in the 1983 and 2007
National Research Council studies:
Provides a flow of standardized data for updating federal
maps and statistics, e.g., for the federal censuses
Provides a database for monitoring objects of national
concern, e.g., agricultural land use and foreign ownership of U.S. real
estate
Provides a reliable record of the locations of federal
ownerships or other interests in land
Provides standardized records for managing federal
assistance to local programs such as housing, community development,
and historic preservation
In addition to benefitting the federal government, a completed
national parcel layer would provide long reaching benefits to other
jurisdictions and stakeholders.
Potential Benefits to Local Governments
Assures that the best available data are used in each
public transaction
Avoids conflicts among land records of different public
offices
Improves accuracy of real-property assessments
Provides base maps for local planning and preliminary
engineering studies
Provides a standardized data base for neighborhood,
municipal, county, or regional development plans
Avoids costs of maintaining separate map systems and
land-data files
Encourages coordination among separate map systems
affecting land
Improves public attitudes toward administration of local
government programs
Potential Benefits to State Governments
Provides accurate inventories of natural assets
Provides accurate locational references for
administration of state regulations such as pollution controls
Accurately locates state ownership or other interests in
land
Provides a standardized database for management of public
lands
Provides large-scale base maps for siting studies
Simplifies coordination among state and local offices
Potential Benefits to Private Firms
Produces accurate inventories of land parcels, available
as a public record
Produces standard, large-scale maps that can be used for
planning, engineering, or routing studies
Speeds administration of public regulations
Potential Benefits to Individuals
Provides faster access to records affecting individual
rights, especially land title
Clarifies the boundaries of areas restricted by zoning,
wetland restrictions, pollution controls, or other user controls
Produces accurate maps that can be used for resolving
private interests in the land
Reduces costs of public utilities by replacing present
duplicative base-mapping programs
Improves efficiency of tax-supported government services
as described earlier in this table
Currently, there exist numerous reports, analyses, and studies that
endorse coordination at a national level. Of particular note are the
following studies:
The Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre (1980) recommended a
nationwide land parcel system with strong coordination from the federal
government.
Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation
(1993) helped define the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
which identified the parcel layer as one of seven critical layers.
National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the future (2007) conducted
by the National Research Council reviewed the 1980 report as well as
the current status parcel data in the United States, concluding that a
national property database is necessary, feasible, and affordable.
Land Parcel Data for the Mortgage Crisis: Results of the
Stakeholders Meeting (2009) concluded that there are three key
recommendations that could improve the ability to track and monitor the
status and progress of mortgage and property value conditions in the
U.S.: 1. Add the local Parcel ID to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA) data, 2. Develop a Parcel Early Warning System, 3. Complete the
standardization and availability of parcel data nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, 30 years of reports and research have called for the
parcel layer yet it remains unfunded and incomplete. The problem is not
technical, it is political and institutional. While FedEx can track the
location of millions of packages per day moving around the world, the
federal government does not track the location of land, and it is
stationary. The ability and privilege of land ownership is an important
characteristic of any free and democratic society; it's why we refer to
it as the American Dream. The current mortgage crisis leaves no doubt
that land ownership and the associated rights, interests, and value of
property is foundational to our entire socioeconomic system. While the
federal government has identified numerous needs for parcel data such
as efficient emergency preparedness and response, disease tracking,
agricultural management and land use, community development and zoning,
energy and resource development, there still is only sporadic use due
to the lack of availability and accessibility of usable parcel related
data as a result of failed coordination between local, state, federal,
and tribal agencies. I urge Congress to accept the research and enact
legislation to provide funding and agency coordination to complete the
parcel layer and all other NSDI framework layers.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Marlow
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. Ms. Marlow, what can be done to more clearly identify the component
pieces of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure so that
goals can be identified and so that we can effectively measure
progress towards its completion?
There are seven framework layers in the NSDI. Each one of these
layers may have different uses requiring different levels of accuracy
for various agencies. In order to measure the progress of the NSDI, I
believe we need to identify what accuracy levels are needed for each
framework layer and then make all layers accessible through the
National Map and Geospatial One-Stop.
2. Ms. Marlow, how useful are the National Map and Geospatial One-Stop
to non-Federal stakeholders?
The National Map and the Geospatial One-stop are not widely adopted
or used by non-federal stakeholders.
3. Ms. Marlow, how much would it cost to fund the national parcel data
layer that you described in your testimony?
According to the National Academy of Sciences study Land Parcel
Databases; A National Vision, the cost to complete is $294.6 million.
4. Ms. Marlow, please describe your thoughts on how a parcel-based
national system could have provided an early warning system of
the mortgage crisis.
If property information was accessible, organized, and current
regardless of jurisdictional or political boundaries, land property
data (including but is not limited to value, loan type, loan status,
and interests of real property) would be searchable, accessible and
analyzable across the Nation.
The accessibility of property data would have allowed the federal
government to:
Run automated analyses to track and investigate negative
market movements before trends emerge, such as:
Foreclosures.
Loan/Tax defaults.
Land devaluation and inflation or deflation.
Create visual representations of movements and trends on
maps providing an early warning system.
Manage property foreclosure inventory.
This type of system would have also allowed the government to
monitor the value of homes against a known trend line like the GNP
gross national product and alert the nation when the trends begin to
diverge.
5. Ms. Marlow, can you provide any examples of where implementation of
parcel systems, digital tax mapping systems, or other GIS has
provided a favorable, quantifiable return on investment to a
states or units of local government?
The Los Angeles County Assessors Office has reduced their yearly
overtime hours from 1200 to zero. The cost and staff saving have been
generated by a more automated assessor map creation and reproduction
methodology with GIS.
The state of Wyoming used its GIS to audit the mass appraisal
process and found that approximately 250,000 parcels were not on the
tax rolls.
The Metropolitan Sewer District (Cincinnati, OH) used GIS to find
parcels with sewer connections which were not being billed. The
District generated thousands of dollars of missing revenue that more
than covered the cost of their GIS.
Santa Clara County, CA conducted a study to determine the possible
cost savings that could be achieved by implementing a multi-participant
GIS system it was discovered that if data were exchanged electronically
the County estimated that staff time would be reduced by 75 percent,
resulting in an annual savings of $720,000. In addition, it was
estimated that if all agencies and departments used the same base map
and map updates were coordinated to eliminate duplication of effort
approximately $684,000 in map maintenance costs could be saved
annually.
St. Paul, MN participated in the Local Update of Census Addresses
(LUCA) program. This program allows communities to ensure that the
Census Bureau has accurate information. The City used GIS and
identified 1,099 housing units that the Census Bureau had not accounted
for. The 2,900 people residing in the additional housing will result in
the City receiving an additional estimated $5 million in federal
funding over a ten-year period.
Baltimore County conducted a thorough cost benefit analysis of
their GIS system and discovered that they saved 119,377 man hours every
year which results in a net benefit of $1,944,845.
6. Ms. Marlow, are there any incentives for state and local
governments to share their data with each other, and with the
federal government, and are there any particular incentives
that you would suggest to improve the situation?
Almost all sharing of parcel data by local, state, and federal
government is on an ad-hoc basis and is totally voluntary. This usually
works in times of disaster but the problem is that the data from one
local jurisdiction to another is not necessarily in a standard and
usable format. It is like trying to put two puzzle pieces together that
don't quite line up. Most parcel data is created at a local level and
local governments don't have any incentive to create or modify the data
to a national standard.
One suggestion would be to enact a provision calling for the
establishment of an integrated, inter-governmental land information
system based on compliance with a set of national land data standards.
7. Ms. Marlow, you discussed your concerns with the federal government
competing with private industry when it comes to collecting
geospatial data. However, you also discussed the usefulness of
federal data because it is ``authoritative'' data. Also,
privately collected data is typically proprietary, requiring
the purchase of licenses in order to use the data, while
federal data is typically in the public domain. How should the
federal government determine when it is in the public interest
to collect data itself, so as to be an authoritative, freely-
available source that can be accessed by many users, and when
it is better to allow private companies to collect the data?
I certainly believe the federal government should collect the data
from an authoritative source and make it publically available. However,
I also believe the federal government should not use government
employees to create the data. I believe the federal government should
contract with the private sector mapping professionals to create the
data for the local state and federal governments.
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. Does the Federal government have the necessary national geospatial
data to provide an early warning system for the mortgage crisis
or to manage the vast mortgage portfolio it now owns?
No. The federal government needs a national property database to
monitor the mortgage industry and the valuation of property.
2. What challenges in securing contracts with from the government does
your company face as a result of the lack of coordination and
oversight?
The federal government is so big and geospatial contracting is in
so many departments it is a challenge for small company to be able to
afford to spend the time and money to visit so many agencies and visit
with so many departments.
3. Is government competition with your company real and what
challenges does it create?
Government competition is very real and it is very hard if not
impossible to compete with the government.
Questions from Congressman Gregorio KWH Camacho Sablan from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
1. What is the status of geospatial issues in the insular areas? Do we
get the same sort of coverage that the rest of the states get?
It varies depending on what procedures and systems are in place in
these areas.
2. When we speak about programs like ``The National Map'' or ``Imagery
for the Nation'' are you including the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands in those programs?
I don't believe so.
______
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Marlow.
Thank you, all of you, for your testimony.
I am going to reserve the Chairman's time for his
questions, but for now I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, for his own questions.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just jump
right in and we will get going here. Mr. Palatiello?
Mr. Palatiello. That is fine, but you can call me John.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, John. What would you recommend that
Congress do to improve Federal geospatial data management?
Mr. Palatiello. You know, we have thought long and hard
about this, Mr. Lamborn, and, quite frankly, over the years a
number of studies have been done. I brought a couple of them
with me today.
This is a 1973 OMB report that called for the creation of a
Federal Survey and Mapping Administration. This is a 1998
National Academy of Public Administration report that called
for the creation of a National Spatial Data Council.
I think we have come to the conclusion, as at least my
colleagues to the left and right indicated in their testimony,
that while the very well-placed intentions of a lot of good
folks in the Federal government are there, the current
structure doesn't work, and we need to elevate the coordination
of spatial data out of the Department of the Interior and into
someplace like the Executive Office of the President.
Someone who has carrots and has sticks and has the
authority to make sure that there is coordination and that we
avoid duplication and that we are making those investments in
as strategic a manner a possible. So I think legislation would
be necessary or a reorganization plan from the President.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Now, Ms. Siderelis, you have heard some of those comments
and you have heard discussion of the stovepipes and so on. What
would be your perspective, and how do you think we could make
the sharing between Federal agencies work better?
Ms. Siderelis. Thank you for the question. I think the
comments I provided earlier in my testimony with respect to
what the Administration intends to do are the things that I
think would make our situation better.
And those include, and if I could repeat those, but maybe
elucidate on them slightly, is that I think that we need to
encourage innovation. As you well know, this Administration is
very much about bringing technological innovation and
innovation to our business processes and so I think that we
have to look at the NSDI anew, in a different way, and be
flexible and innovative in our approaches.
I think we also need to continue our efforts toward
ensuring broad and effective collaboration with our non-Federal
partners in state and local government, and I think that is
absolutely key to the success of the NSDI.
We also need to leverage innovation and developments that
have occurred both with our state partners and local government
partners and with industry. We need to look at the NSDI as a
National Spatial Data Infrastructure and work to leverage
progress in all sectors.
And, last, I would like to say that we think that focusing
on performance is going to be a key to the success of the NSDI.
As you are aware, the Senate just confirmed Jeffrey Zients as
the government's first Chief Performance Officer and Deputy
Director in the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Zients
will work with the Chief Information Officer in OMB, Vivek
Kundra, and the Chief Technology Officer in OSTP, Aneesh
Chopra, to improve the performance of the Federal government.
As I said, this is our first CPO for the government and so
we would look for these three individuals to work effectively
with the FGDC to help improve the agency's performance.
And there are many tools and mechanisms that we might use
to manage government performance. I am going to share with you
today that we intend to deploy a geospatial dashboard for
making geospatial performance transparent to the public.
It would be similar to the recently launched IT dashboard
that provides the public an on-line window into Federal
investments, and we are hoping to do a rapid deployment of a
similar dashboard for monitoring and managing performance as
well.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Byrne, with your experience with the State of
California. Within California, what carrots and sticks do you
have that maybe we could learn lessons from at the Federal
level to prevent duplication and ensure the maximum efficiency
of resources in taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Byrne. Yes. Well, as I mentioned in testimony, my
position is in the Office of the State Chief Information
Officer, and the Office of the State Chief Information Officer
has the authority over directing IT investments in the state,
so clearly geospatial information has a very significant
information technology component.
We have a process called the feasibility study report
process, and that process, aligned with our capital IT
improvement plans, requires all departments to illustrate for
us, the CIO, where they are going to invest capital
improvements in IT.
So we have authority over approving those plans, and those
plans often incorporate data management issues like geospatial
data. That is where our biggest carrot and stick opportunity
come into play.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And, John, do you think that the stimulus
bill is going to be wasting taxpayers' dollars because of
duplicative mapping?
Mr. Palatiello. Well, I can think of at least one instance,
a couple of instances.
Number one, we have a very deep concern about several
procurements that we have seen in the last couple of days and,
I guess, rumors at this point of further procurements where
stimulus money is going to be used by Federal agencies to buy
mapping equipment.
That is going to increase unemployment because you have
private companies that have already made the investment in that
equipment struggling to keep people employed, and if the work
for services, contracts for services, isn't coming out of the
government to keep people employed or to create jobs in the
services sector then those equipment purchases are actually
going to have the opposite than desired effect.
The second point with regard to stimulus that Ms. Marlow
referenced, as well as I, in our statement is the broadband
mapping.
Mr. Lamborn. John, I see that my time is up. If there is
going to be a second round, I would be happy to wait.
Mr. Palatiello. OK. I understand.
Mr. Lamborn. Yes. Since there is a good likelihood that we
will have a second round of questioning, I will reserve the
follow up and your follow up to that time. Thank you.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. I will leave
that decision to Mr. Costa. Chairman Costa will be here.
I would like to recognize Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts at
this time.
Ms. Tongas. Thank you all for your testimony, and I think
my question would probably be directed to all of you.
I have to say, much of what you are discussing is new to
me, but we do have the example of a company like Google that
all of us have come to depend on and use with great frequency,
and I am curious as to your thoughts as to why--I have heard
some indication, but why the Federal government has lagged so
far behind.
But, more importantly, is it even worth it for the Federal
government to try to catch up or should we simply look to the
resources and the expertise of private sector companies like
Google?
I don't know if you want to start.
Mr. Byrne. I will go first. We refer to a company like
Google as offering a presentation layer. It presents
information to us. However, it is built mostly on government
collected and managed data.
So the National Spatial Data Infrastructure is an intent to
build nationally recognized and integrated data. That includes
several components. It requires a data component, the actual
collection of the data, and government does that spectacularly
well.
It requires an IT component. It requires a human component.
People actually have to be there managing information,
understand how that information is developed and produced, and
it requires a standards component. We have to have government
developed standards.
A company like Google and others have been able to be very
successful because they can be elegant in presentation. They
can take lots of that information and make it available to us
in a very simple and easy-to-use form.
It is not, however, a geographic information system. It
doesn't provide the full analytical capability that we really
need to develop policy decisions before they are made like the
ones I quoted in my testimony.
Mr. Palatiello. Ms. Tsongas, first of all I want to
reiterate a point that Mr. Byrne made so that everyone on the
Subcommittee understands.
A lot of the imagery in Google is from the government. My
organization is a great advocate of privatization. However,
this is not really a question of do we just leave this to the
private sector or do we leave this to the government. There has
to be a partnership. There is a role for both, so it is not an
either/or question.
I think the great question is should government be the
demand for geospatial data or should government be the supply
of geospatial data, and we come down on the side of it ought to
be part of the demand.
It has real problems, whether it is the mortgage crisis or
land management or climate change or health care services or
building roads. The government needs the data, but when the
government gets on the supply side of the data I think that is
where it runs into difficulties.
So I think there is a very strong difference between Google
and the government. As Mr. Byrne indicated, I think Google
serves a very important function as a visualization tool. I
believe Google is moving toward on-line GIS, and I think they
will do a lot of that integration.
A lot of those data layers in the sandwich I think you are
ultimately going to get from Google, and there is a certain
level of GIS analysis that anyone will be able to do right on
the web. I think we will see that in the next two to three
years.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Ms. Tongas. Thank you.
Ms. Marlow. One of the things that I would refer to that
Michael referred to. In the community again we have a lot of
nomenclature and a lot of our very specific verbiage, but one
of the things that we refer to as the government data is
authoritative data.
So data that is created for decision making purposes for
the government should be authoritative data, not necessarily
the presentation data that Google or someone like Google has
presented to the general public.
So quite often the data that the government needs to make
decisions is not the data that is available on Google because
you really don't know where all those sources came from, so you
really need authoritative data to make decisions on that at a
government level.
Ms. Tongas. Thank you all.
Ms. Siderelis. I might just add in response to the question
is it worth it for the government to try to catch up, and I
would say that the government doesn't intend to catch up or
compete, but leverage what we have learned from Google and the
advancements that they have actually contributed to our Nation
and take advantage of those advancements and the literacy that
they have actually brought to our society by their success.
Mr. Costa [presiding]. All right. Thank you very much.
Why don't we begin with Mr. Sarbanes? We saw you earlier on
the video. You did an excellent job.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. I didn't realize we were going to give you a
cameo role, but now you actually have five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, as you
gathered from my cameo in that thing, I am a map fiend, and any
member of my staff will attest to that. I think I drive them
crazy sometimes because I am trying to get every little piece
of information that affects my life onto a map one way or the
other.
I have spent a lot of time focusing on these issues, and it
is fascinating to hear where some of the issues are in terms of
coordination so I am going to ask just a bunch of random
questions here.
First of all, you have alluded, a number of you, to the new
Administration and its focus on technology and taking that to
the next level. I am just curious. How optimistic are you that
there will be a focus on this issue of geospatial mapping and
analysis and so forth that will be new and different from what
you have seen up to now and I gather has been frustrating to
you?
Maybe a quick answer on that would be good because I have
some other ones.
Mr. Byrne. Very. I point to in particular The Changing
Landscape paper by the National Geospatial Advisory Committee,
which at the end of it concludes for us to move forward we have
to be innovative, and I think we are at that tipping point.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK.
Mr. Palatiello. I don't know if I am yet at the point of
optimistic, but I am certainly at the point of hopeful.
Ms. Marlow. Well, the wheels of government typically move
very slowly, so maybe I am less optimistic probably as a small
business owner.
Even today, while we are very hopeful of seeing some of the
effects of the stimulus, it is still a little bit slow in
coming. I mean, I am definitely guardedly optimistic.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. There is a discussion in our Committee
memo about a GAO finding that, despite the Circular, there were
only 4 out of 17 agencies fully complying with the A-16
Circular and that there were not sufficient incentives in place
for agencies to do that.
I was curious. Are there certain agencies that you regard
as candidates to be as it were the lead agency or first among
equals in terms of making sure this gets pushed forward? I
would imagine, for example, like the Census Bureau and things
like that would be ones that you would want to be on the
forefront.
Are there certain agencies that have kind of shown
themselves to be leaders in this? If not, are there ones that
you would give that responsibility to as a way of trying to
help with this coordination effort?
Again, anybody? Why don't we start there?
Mr. Palatiello. I think the difficulty is, number one, that
the current process is that first and foremost for any agency
is its mission. That is what the employees were hired to do.
That is what they are paid to do.
Anything with regard to coordination under A-16 is
secondary and it is pretty much voluntary so it becomes an
afterthought, and that is why we have had these stovepipes
created. So putting it in an operational agency, whether it is
in USGS or in Census, I think doesn't work because of those
biases and those priorities.
I think that is what Mr. Byrne's experience is in
California, and that is why his job is in the Office of the
Chief Information Officer, which is part of the Executive
Office of the Governor.
Mr. Sarbanes. So this clearinghouse, this structure, this
kind of super structure needs to be set up kind of next to or
outside of, but connected to, the kind of agency configuration?
Mr. Palatiello. That would be our view, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Byrne. The coordination for sure.
Mr. Sarbanes. Right.
Mr. Byrne. There are specific departments that have
business operations in framework data that make sense.
Mr. Sarbanes. Right.
Mr. Byrne. Like U.S. EPA clearly has jurisdiction from
Clean Water Act over waterways, and they have done a
spectacular job on the National Hydrography Dataset.
Mr. Sarbanes. Let me ask you another quick question because
my time is going to run out.
There has been some discussion at Google, which is
obviously a fascinating visioning tool for this geospatial
presentation and so forth, but do you advocate partnerships
between the government and entities like Google to speed up the
goals that you have set forth here? If so, how does that work?
Mr. Byrne. Yes, we do advocate partnerships, and in
particular those partnerships in my mind have to be driven
through local and regional and state government first, but
there is clearly a role for private-sector partnerships in a
number of things.
We have developed some in California around particular
mapping efforts, broadband in particular is one, but there
clearly has to be partnerships amongst several opportunities,
not just the private sector.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. I, too, have had a
long-time interest in mapping, both historical mapping and
present day mapping, so we share that.
Mr. Lamborn for some comments or questions and then around
to Mr. Holt and myself.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
John, we were talking when my time ran out earlier, so I
appreciate this opportunity for another round. To clarify,
first of all, you were about to make a second major point. If
you could briefly make that, and then I will continue on.
Mr. Palatiello. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. The point is that
the Congress provided $350 million for broadband mapping in the
stimulus bill. One of the datasets that is going to need to be
collected for that is address data, virtually address data on
every American.
The Census Bureau already has that data. They have
collected that in something called MAF/TIGER. It is their
database for the 2010 census. Census' position is that Title
XIII--it is actually Section 9 of Title XIII--of the U.S. Code
is the provision that assures the confidentiality of the Census
data.
But if you read that provision, that talks about the
specific response that you or I or any citizen put on the
Census form or give to the enumerator. The address data, and
there is point data--there is what is called a centroid that is
a location point on that address. It doesn't tell anything
about you or me--or any other American-- other than a piece of
property.
So Census is withholding that address data from any other
entity. You can't get it. I can't get it. Mr. Byrne can't get
that data on the State of California. The USGS can't get it. So
when the broadband program is implemented, they are not going
to be able to access that Census data. They are going to spend
money to collect it again.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Now, when we talk about the amount of
money that the stimulus package--or I say the so-called
stimulus--will be potentially wasting are we talking about
millions, hundreds of millions or even into the billions?
Mr. Palatiello. I think it is difficult to put a number on
it, but I think there is certainly going to be tens of millions
of dollars that will be spent under broadband mapping that will
duplicate something that we already have.
I think the examples that I gave before about agencies
buying equipment to perform mapping activities in-house when
there are private companies that already have that equipment
and provide that capability in the marketplace, if you can
quantify how much of that actually goes on by the agencies that
is going to be in the millions of dollars as well, so we do
have a concern in that area.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Siderelis, I would like to ask you the question OMB and
GAO were asked in the last congressional oversight hearing on
geospatial activities in 2004. How much does the Federal
government spend on geospatial activities?
Ms. Siderelis. Yes, sir. I would like to answer that
question, if I might, in three ways. First, as I said earlier,
the Administration intends to focus on performance, and our
metrics will be attentive to outcomes, not simply expenditures,
so just one point.
Second, we feel that as we saw in the video today that if
the NSDI will be considered a success it will be when
geospatial information and technology are really thoroughly
embedded in the business practices of agencies and
organizations and in some way access to the data is transparent
and an assumed commodity.
And so if you think about in our personal lives, we don't
necessarily account for all of our expenditures, some that the
Chairman described this morning that go into geospatial data.
We use Google Maps and paper road maps to plan trips. We use
navigation systems in our cars. We use globes and atlases to
help our children with school projects. And so perhaps it is
the same in the government that we would like to see geospatial
part of the business of the government.
But the last point I want to make is that we do know
through analysis of some recent data calls, one through an OMB
passback request, that for specific datasets that we have
queried the Federal agencies in reporting requests that the
Federal government planned to invest, directly or indirectly,
through the period of 2007 to 2009, this three year period,
about $1.89 billion in spatial data and services.
This was not a complete reporting, but it is more
information than we have known in the past, and then further
analysis of these recent data calls actually was starting to
show, based on the results of the data calls, that there is not
as high a degree of redundant data investment. It was not
readily apparent that there was as high a degree of redundancy
as perhaps we might have imagined.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. OK. The gentleman from Colorado and I obviously
have a different perspective on the stimulus package, but we do
I think share a similar concern that the money be used and that
we not be redundant.
I am pleased to note that Earl Devaney, who served as the
Auditor General in the previous Administration, has been
selected by President Obama as the Chairman of the new Recovery
Act Transparency and Accountability Board, so the Transparency
and Accountability Board that will now be chaired by Earl
Devaney, who I think has been respected on a bipartisan level,
will try to ensure, and we will probably need to follow up with
him on a letter to the issue of the redundancy and that monies,
whether you supported the Stimulus Act or you didn't,
nonetheless that those monies are spent to the most cost
effective way possible.
I will now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, our
colleague, Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just add a
comment. I think the issue here is not whether the Recovery Act
is good or bad, but whether redundancy has existed in this
program for years and years and whether the various agencies
are actually working together under some sort of leadership to
avoid redundancy.
Let me ask a couple of questions, the first one having to
do with the flow of data to and from state and local
governments. There is some expertise and some data that are out
in the states. How does that get to the Federal government?
Does it get to the Federal government? Is it done in a useful
way? Would the Federal government use those data if they got
them?
I am not sure who is best able to answer that question, so
let me throw it open and ask you to choose among yourselves who
should answer it.
Mr. Byrne. Yes. So I will take a first cut at it. We do
consume and produce data both ways. Probably the most current
example of producing data from state to Federal that I am aware
of and involved in is the HSIP program in the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.
It was an effort to collect critical infrastructure data,
and state government worked collaboratively with local
government--in California we did anyway--to really define some
of the key critical infrastructure locations, the locations of
all the schools, all the hospitals, all of those key locations
that we knew about that was provided to the Federal government
and produced through a contractor so that Homeland Security
would have an accurate picture nationwide of all that data.
On the consumption side----
Mr. Holt. I mean, did they say that it came in the right
format? Did they have appropriate guidelines to give to you and
to other states about----
Mr. Byrne. I believe so.
Mr. Holt.--what they could use and in what format it should
be provided?
Mr. Byrne. Yes. I am under the impression that that was a
successful operation.
On the consumption side, again we consume lots of the
framework data. Probably the best one that we are involved with
from Federal production to local includes the National
Hydrography Dataset that I mentioned earlier as a program out
of EPA.
We have invested time in our own organization, the
Department of Water Resources, to help steward that data so
that it works both ways. We say we are the most knowledgeable
about stream locations and stream flow in California, and there
is a potential to make that transformation work both ways. It
is working reasonably well.
Mr. Holt. Would others care to add to that?
Ms. Siderelis. I might add just one other example if I
might and just to preface my example by saying that Michael
Byrne referenced earlier the paper that was developed by the
National Geospatial Advisory Committee entitled The Changing
Landscape.
And in that document and part of the testimony today we
find that there really has been a dramatic shift over the last
few years from the Federal government being the primary
producer of data to much of the data being produced at
different levels of the government and the Federal government
becoming more of a consumer of data than provider.
And so given that shift, it is incredibly important that we
be able to take data from the state and local governments and
use it in the Federal system as much as going the other way,
and I would just like to give one example, one recent example,
because I think it is partially a success story, and that is
with the national wetland data layer that is overseen by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior.
They will make the point that only about a third of the
data that has been added to that national dataset over the
recent years has been from the Federal agency itself; that two-
thirds of the information is actually provided by state and
local government.
So that is a success in that we are working together to
create a national dataset, and I think it is partly a testament
to the benefits of standards that we have worked through in the
Federal Geographic Data Committee that we have a standard that
enables that data sharing.
Mr. Holt. Let me get another question in--that they may
have a short answer. Does the Geospatial Advisory Committee
that you referenced and you have talked about today have broad
enough representation?
There were some comments in the past about whether the
Federal Geographic Data Committee had enough representation
from the private sector, from local governments and so forth.
Has that been addressed? If it is not a short answer, maybe we
will have to take that for the record.
Mr. Palatiello. I think I can do it quickly. The NGAC and
the FGDC are two entirely different entities. The FGDC is
Federal only. The NGAC has two Federal members, but the rest is
state, local, private, academia.
I think it has a very good--I am a member, Mr. Byrne is a
member--cross section of representation of non-Federal
stakeholders, but we are only advisory, and FGDC is who makes
the policy, and that is Federal only.
Ms. Marlow. I would like to say something on behalf of
state and local government because that is a lot of my client
base.
One of the issues at the state and local government is that
if they don't get some type of carrot from the Federal
government then they don't really want to have to roll up their
data or create a standard that the feds may have created for
them.
And so especially as it relates to the property
information, a lot of local governments, they are maintaining
that data. They feel like that they are the ones who have made
the investment in it and so there is a big divide in the parcel
community about whether the data is free and publicly available
or whether you should pay me for it because I collected it at a
local level.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. They view it as proprietary information.
Ms. Marlow. Yes. They feel like they had----
Mr. Costa. Even if it is a local public agency.
Mr. Palatiello. Mr. Chairman, can I add something to that
in response to Mr. Holt's question?
Mr. Costa. If it is brief.
Mr. Palatiello. First of all, there are 50 different
answers to that question because there are 50 different states.
Mr. Costa. That is not brief.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costa. How about one of the 50 answers?
Mr. Palatiello. Well, the point that I was making is that
in some state law that data is permitted to be treated as
proprietary by a state or a county, and they either have a cost
recovery requirement so they have to charge for it, or in some
states it is free, or in some states they actually copyright it
and license it so it does vary.
Mr. Costa. Thus 50 answers. It is obvious. Why didn't I
think of that?
Anyway, we have been joined by the Congresswoman from
Wyoming, Congresswoman Lummis, and it is your turn for
questions. Five minutes.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palatiello, can I ask you to clarify an earlier
statement? It seems to me that when we talk about the stimulus
bill and the Federal government buying mapping technology
aren't we really talking about the government hiring employees
that will then subsequently drive private small businesses out
of business?
Mr. Palatiello. That is our concern, and there has been a
long history of that in the government. There is a lack of
definition of roles and responsibilities.
I have never heard a government employee say we intend to
compete with the private sector. That is never their intent,
but that is often the outcome of the way the Federal government
tries to exercise what it perceives as its role is that it ends
up competing with and duplicating the private sector.
Mrs. Lummis. At one point I was the Director of State Lands
in Wyoming, and inventory, Mr. Chairman, was always an issue
that we spent time on too.
Mr. Costa. Would the gentlewoman yield as a follow up to
your point?
Mrs. Lummis. I will yield.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Palatiello, could you provide an example
where the Federal government has duplicated work that the
private sector has done and some cases where it would make
sense to provide some framework in terms of public/private
partnerships?
Mr. Palatiello. Well, I will give you two examples to
illustrate two different types of ways in which the government
competes with the private sector.
One is a company either in or certainly has employees
living in Mr. Lamborn's district in our membership that is
flying elevation data of the entire United States. They were
contracted by the insurance industry in the U.K. and flew the
entirety of the U.K. and then sold a license to that data. They
are now trying to replicate that with a project they call
NEXTMap. It is a company called Intermap Technologies just
south of Denver.
They are selling a license to the data, and the government
has been very reluctant to buy that and therefore going out and
collecting its own simply because Intermap is selling a license
to their data and not just willing to turn it over to the
government for unlimited reproduction or distribution.
Mr. Costa. But this is proprietary information that this
company has developed? They haven't taken information that the
government had paid for?
Mr. Palatiello. That is correct. That is correct. They are
doing it on their own.
Mr. Costa. I will yield back. I am sorry, but I thought it
would be nice to have an example.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also have a question for Ms. Marlow. As I was saying, I
had been Director of State Lands in Wyoming. We have 3.8
million acres of surface, and even we were struggling with the
costs of doing an inventory of state lands that are
intermingled among Federal lands and private lands.
My question is this. Is a single, current, accurate
inventory of the land owned by the Department of the Interior
or land owned by the Federal government feasible from a
technology standpoint?
Ms. Marlow. Absolutely from a technology standpoint it is
feasible. I think that we have proved that in many, many
instances.
The State of Tennessee is an obvious example of that--the
entire state is mapped to one single standard--so it is
definitely feasible technically.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Mr. Chairman, those are the only questions
I have. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. I thank the gentlewoman, and it is good to have
you here.
I am going to, since I really didn't get a chance to ask
any questions, try to hit on a few here, and then we will go to
the next panel and have our colleague, Congresswoman Herseth
Sandlin, talk about her bill and we will go from there.
Quickly here, Mr. Byrne, you recommended that Congress lift
Title XIII restrictions on the Census Bureau giving out its
address data. Do you think if that happens that we are still
going to be able to protect the issue of privacy?
Mr. Byrne. I do indeed. You know, what I recommended in my
written testimony is that the address data and the XY location,
the actual doorstop or centroid as Mr. Palatiello recommended,
be released.
And in no way does that infringe on the full other set of
records or fields identified in Title XIII, the tomography and
economics that are collected there, so just the address and the
location would be very useful to a whole suite of other data
and wouldn't infringe on privacy.
Mr. Costa. All right. I love the whole technology and the
gathering that has come, but I think part of the issue of
redundancy and trying to figure out what the appropriate roles
are between the private sector and the public sector, whether
we are talking about at the Federal level or at the state level
or local, is what a completed National Spatial Data
Infrastructure looks like.
I mean, all in your heads, and we had the nice video and
stuff, but what would a national data infrastructure for
spatial data--can any of you describe it to me so that we can
make maybe some distinctions what is the appropriate role of
the public sector and what is the appropriate role of the
entrepreneur, the private sector?
Who wants to take a first crack at that?
Mr. Palatiello. First of all, an NSDI would not be a static
thing. It would be something very dynamic over time.
The landscape of the Nation changes virtually every day.
Every time a new house is built, every time a subdivision is
created, every time a road is built the map changes, so it is
not do it once and then check the box and move on to something
else.
Mr. Costa. Every time a flood changes the course of a
river?
Mr. Palatiello. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Costa. A forest fire.
Mr. Palatiello. So when we have a dataset that is current,
however you define currency--in terms of temporal resolution,
in terms of accessibility--then we will have a National Spatial
Data Infrastructure.
Mr. Costa. Does anyone else want to----
Mr. Byrne. I agree with John.
Mr. Costa.--describe what success would look like?
Mr. Byrne. I agree with John. I think there are again I
mentioned four components--data, IT, people and standards.
And where I see it being successful is when my son, who is
seven, is in my position or your position. He has a laptop open
and has the ability to dynamically query all that data prior to
the policy decision. That is when I think we have an NSDI.
Mr. Costa. Ms. Siderelis?
Ms. Siderelis. Well, I share the opinions of my colleagues
here, but I also think that we will be successful when the
geospatial information is an assumed commodity. It is just
built into the way we make our decisions, the way we run our
agencies, and in some ways it is just totally transparent, that
there is a whole back end of professionals and standards and
infrastructure supporting the NSDI and a research agenda.
And so I think it really will be beyond where we are today
in terms of an operational capacity. The data will be there at
our fingertips. It can be assumed to be of high quality and
relevant to a whole range of decisions that need to be made.
Mr. Costa. A follow up on that again dealing with the issue
of the redundancy.
There are a lot of different Federal mapping programs that
we are aware of that are out there. Often times the difference
between them is not very clear. How does the Imagery for the
Nation differ from the National Map, and how do they both
differ from the National Agricultural Imagery Program that we
support with USDA?
If we map the whole Nation, doesn't that also include
imagery? This is a layperson asking. And would it automatically
cover agricultural areas?
Ms. Siderelis. I will take a shot at that if I might. So if
we think about how it all fits together, at the broadest level
we are talking about the National Spatial Data Infrastructure,
so the overarching framework for building out spatial data for
the country.
As Mr. Byrne said, there are different elements of the
NSDI. Part of that is data. Part of it is technology. Part of
it is process and standards. But if we focus just on the data
of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure there are a number
of different data layers that we saw in the graphics and in the
video that are pulled together for the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure, and part of those are basic foundational
datasets that underpin all of the other data--framework data.
The National Map is an effort to pull together for the
country that basic framework data in a unified and integrated
kind of way, and the National Map, this base data, includes
just basic datasets such as the streams and water bodies, the
transportation networks, imagery and political boundaries and
other basic framework datasets. So that would be the National
Map. As I said, imagery is a part. It is one of those layers in
the National Map.
We have several programs across the country that are
contributing imagery into this basic National Spatial Data
Infrastructure. We could talk for hours about imagery alone and
the whole portfolio of imagery assets that the Nation has, but
two of our programs in the Federal government that are geared
toward high resolution imagery so that we could see a
resolution of about a foot or a meter on the ground are being
bundled together in what we call Imagery for the Nation.
And the goal of Imagery for the Nation is to create a
program of imagery, high resolution imagery that we develop on
an ongoing cyclical basis so that in Wyoming you can predict
that in this period of time you would refresh your data and
that we would do this in collaboration across the Federal
agencies.
IFTN is being built on, is being formed around and
combining the efforts of the National Agricultural Imagery
Program, the NAIP program.
Mr. Costa. So you would be collaborating with the USDA in
that instance?
Ms. Siderelis. The idea would be that we would be working
together from Agriculture and Interior programs, working with
the other Federal agencies to build out a sustainable,
predictable program of high resolution imagery for the country,
so it would be across the----
Mr. Costa. That is a good idea, but to what degree is the
collaboration taking place?
Ms. Siderelis. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, on Imagery for
the Nation that is probably the one thing that there is the
most consensus on in our community that it is technologically
feasible that you had asked, that there is a common
understanding of the need.
We worked on a draft plan for how we host that data, the
technical plan of how we put together what areas of the country
we might cover at what resolutions. We have worked on
mechanisms for contracting and so forth, so I think that it is
a feasible plan that we are putting a lot of effort into at the
moment.
Mr. Costa. More to follow?
Ms. Siderelis. I hope so if we can help it.
Mr. Costa. Yes. I want to thank all the members of the
panel here. There are I think probably a number of questions
certainly that I have, maybe other Members have, that we will
submit to the panel folks.
We would like you to respond as expeditiously as you can.
Ten working days is what we usually allow for timely response
back to those questions that we weren't able to ask this
morning.
And now let us begin moving to our next panel. This is the
two-fer where we will have a legislative hearing on H.R. 2489,
otherwise known as AmericaView, the Geospatial Imagery Mapping
Program Act.
The Subcommittee will now recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m. the Subcommittee proceeded to
other business.]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2489, ``AMERICAVIEW GEOSPATIAL IMAGERY
MAPPING PROGRAM ACT.''
----------
Thursday, July 23, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:41 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Costa
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Costa, Lamborn, Holt, Sablan,
Sarbanes, Tsongas and Lummis.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
will now come to order for the purpose of hearing H.R. 2489.
We are joined by our colleague, the Congresswoman from
South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who does an excellent
job in so many areas. This is an issue that she has had a keen
interest in for some time now, and we are pleased that she has
joined us.
H.R. 2489, as the members of the new panel are coming
before us, this is a bill that would authorize the AmericaView
program for the U.S. Geological Survey specifically. We have
just heard about the need for special coordination on Federal
geospatial data activities in general. This measure, H.R. 2489,
lets us examine one specific way in which the Federal agency is
expanding the use of some of the geospatial information data it
collects.
AmericaView is a program that the U.S. Geological Survey
has been involved in for decades. It is a core program of the
U.S. Geological Survey in maintaining the vast archive of
satellite imagery that has been developed by USGS.
Through AmericaView, it provides that data about the earth.
It also provides information that allows state partnerships,
typically with colleges and universities. There is a specific
example that I know that our colleague, Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin, will describe to us at an appropriate time.
The state partners, in turn, provide training and
technology to help all sorts of people, from farmers to
resource managers, to use remote sensing information to answer
policy and management questions. For example, what fields
should be irrigated? What can images and maps determine based
upon soil, moisture, and composition?
And so I am looking forward to hearing more about H.R.
2489, which in a nutshell, as we like to say, cuts to the
bottom line, directs the Secretary of the Interior to advance
the availability and distribution of this geospatial imagery
through the AmericaView program.
So I am sure that the witnesses that we have here that hail
from three different states that are partners with the
AmericaView program can tell us about the impact of this
legislation within their state, and I want to thank the
witnesses for being here.
I will recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Colorado, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa on H.R 2489 follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, on H.R. 2489
We will turn now to H.R. 2489. This bill would authorize the
AmericaView Program at the U.S. Geological Survey. We have just heard
about the need for better coordination on federal geospatial data
activities in general. H.R. 2489 lets us examine one specific way in
which a federal agency is expanding the use of some of the geospatial
information it collects.
AmericaView is a program that USGS has been involved in for about a
decade. A core program of the USGS is maintaining a vast archive of
satellite imagery. Through AmericaView, USGS provides that satellite
data about the earth, along with grants, to state partners--typically
colleges or universities. Those state partners, in turn, provide
training and technology to help all sorts of people, from farmers to
resource managers, use that ``remote sensing'' information to answer
policy and management questions. For example, what fields should be
irrigated? What can the images and maps tell an agency about how to
plan for wildfires?
The program also helps students of all ages learn how to work with
mapping technologies and satellite images. For example, in California,
state partners in AmericaView are developing a remote sensing
certificate program to enable community colleges to certify geospatial
mapping technicians. As an added bonus, this certificate program can be
used by AmericaView partners in all states.
I look forward to learning more about H.R. 2489, which--in a
nutshell--directs the Secretary of the Interior to advance the
availability, distribution, and use of geospatial imagery through its
AmericaView Program. I am sure the USGS, and the witnesses who hail
from three different state ``partner'' programs with AmericaView, can
tell us what impact this legislation could have on the ground.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing.
Today we are going to hear about the AmericaView Geospatial
Imagery Mapping Program Act, H.R. 2489, introduced by our
colleague from South Dakota, Representative Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin. I appreciate the chance to learn more about the
AmericaView program and the legislation before us.
While I won't reiterate the history of the AmericaView
program, I would point out that we are examining a program that
was started by the Appropriations Committee through an earmark.
Since its inception without authorizing legislation, the
program has received more than $30 million.
Regardless of how worthy a program may be, I believe that
the authorizing committee of jurisdiction should be responsible
for establishing Federal programs, not the Appropriations
Committee, and that is one reason I am happy that we are here
today to discuss the long overdue authorization of this
program.
There are a number of questions I will have about it and
the legislation we are considering, and I am looking forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laamborn on H.R 2489
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, on H.R. 2489
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. Today
we are going to examine the AmericaView Geospatial Imagery Mapping
Program Act (H.R. 2489) introduced by our colleague from South Dakota.
I appreciate this hearing and the chance to examine the AmericaView
program and the legislation before us.
While I won't reiterate the history of the AmericaView program, I
would point out that we are here examining a program started by the
Appropriations Committee through an earmark. Since its inception
without Authorization the program has received more than $30 million
dollars. Regardless of how worthy a program may be, I believe that the
Authorization committee should have a strong oversight role over
federal programs and that is one reason why I am happy that we are here
today to address the long overdue authorization of this program.
There are a number of questions I will have about this program and
the legislation we are considering and I am looking forward to hearing
from the witnesses.
# # #
As we hear the witnesses' testimony, I hope they will address what
the actual cost of this legislation may be, since it authorizes ``such
sums'' are we approving $10 million, $50 million, $100 million or more
annually for this program?
Does this program require a cost share from the state partners and
if so should we require those cost sharing provisions in the
legislation?
______
Mr. Costa. Thank you, my friend and colleague from
Colorado.
I would now like to recognize our colleague who has
introduced this legislation from South Dakota, Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin, who we are very appreciative can be here this
morning to give us a description as to why this legislation is
important.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank
you and the Ranking Member for holding today's hearing on
Federal geospatial data management and today's legislative
hearing on my bill, H.R. 2489, the AmericaView Geospatial
Imagery Mapping Program Act.
As you heard from the first portion of today's hearing, the
Federal government has invested billions of taxpayer dollars to
collect vast amounts of geospatial data. My bill would
facilitate the ability for the private and public sectors to
more fully utilize geospatial imagery resources.
The purpose of the AmericaView program is to advance the
availability, the distribution and the widespread use of
geospatial imagery for education, research and monitoring.
Since its inception nearly a decade ago, the AmericaView
Consortium has partnered with the USGS to increase the
accessibility of remote sensing data by the public and private
sectors within each member state. H.R. 2489 would authorize the
AmericaView program for five years.
As it is designed, the StateViews that belong to the
AmericaView Consortium have the flexibility to offer
educational programs and other resources designed to meet the
needs of stakeholders in their state. At the same time, because
the AmericaView Consortium is a nationwide program, the
Consortium is able to facilitate the sharing of ideas among
StateViews.
H.R. 2489 is important because AmericaView serves a unique
role in ensuring that geospatial imagery and related resources
are available to educators. There has been an effort to expand
resources in South Dakota through K-16 educators, to local,
state and tribal governments--in South Dakota there are nine
sovereign Sioux tribes--to researchers and to other possible
stakeholders. So, by authorizing this partnership, we would
recognize and strengthen the important function that
AmericaView provides to communities throughout the country.
I also would like to take a moment to welcome one of my
constituents, Mary O'Neill, the Principal Investigator for
South Dakota View. Ms. O'Neill has been involved in a variety
of applied research, development and outreach programs for the
past 37 years.
In addition to her role as Principal Investigator for South
Dakota View, she is the Manager of the Office of Remote Sensing
within the Engineering Resource Center at South Dakota State
University.
I am confident that Ms. O'Neill's testimony, based on her
years of involvement with the AmericaView Consortium, coupled
with the wide array of activities she has spearheaded as the
Principal Investigator for South Dakota View, will contribute
significantly to today's hearing.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. I appreciate your interest in Federal geospatial data
management and H.R. 2489, and I look forward to working with
you and all of our colleagues here on the Subcommittee to
secure passage in the House on this important legislation.
Thank you.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, and thank you for your excellent
testimony and all the good work that you do.
We welcome all of the panel members, including the
constituent of yours who is obviously going to provide
testimony now.
I have been informed that we are going to have votes here
within the next 15 minutes, so let us try to see how quickly we
can get through our panel members here. There are four to five
votes that are being advertised, so we will use that to allow
our panel members to have an opportunity to have a little lunch
break because once we go for that series of votes it will be
probably about 45 minutes before we are able to return.
So with that said, we have Ms. Suzette Kimball, Acting
Director for the U.S. Geological Survey; Ms. Rebecca Dodge, the
Associate Professor of the Department of Geosciences from
Midwestern State University; Ms. Mary O'Neill, who has already
been introduced, who is the Principal Investigator for South
Dakota View and Manager of the Office of Remote Sensing for
South Dakota State University; and Mr. Sam Batzli--is that
right, Batzli--the WisconsinView Director and Geospatial
Information Scientist at the Space Science Center for the
Engineering School of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
That is important. I didn't want to leave that out.
Anyhow, let us begin with Ms. Kimball, Acting Director for
U.S. Geological Survey. You know the rules I think. It is five
minutes. The green light is on for four. Yellow means you have
a minute left, and the red light means you are in trouble if
you are still speaking.
So thank you very much. Ms. Kimball.
STATEMENT OF SUZETTE M. KIMBALL, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Ms. Kimball. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Suzette Kimball. I am the Acting
Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Mr. Costa. A little closer into the mic? There you go.
Ms. Kimball. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. We want to hear you.
Ms. Kimball. All right. Thank you very much for providing
me with this opportunity to speak to H.R. 2489, the AmericaView
Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program Act.
The Department of the Interior supports the goals of the
AmericaView program, although it does not believe as a
Department that further legislative authority is necessary to
meet these goals and objectives. However, if legislation is
discussed, we would very much appreciate the opportunity to
consult with the Committee on appropriate language.
In this testimony I will provide a brief overview of
AmericaView from the Federal government's perspective. Then I
will address the role that AmericaView plays in advancing the
Department of the Interior and Federal government goals.
In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey received appropriated
funds to demonstrate the technology and capability for high
speed processing and delivery of satellite data among academia
and public agencies in the State of Ohio.
This OhioView prototype, a university-led consortium in the
State of Ohio consisting of 10 research universities
distributed across the state, was intended to facilitate and
expand the use of Landsat satellite data and imagery from other
earth observing satellites, including NASA satellites.
The OhioView Consortium in turn established computer
systems and network infrastructure to redistribute the
satellite data to member institutions and to also make it
available to Ohio citizens. The goal of the USGS was to
establish this prototype as a pilot for a nationwide program.
The prototype with OhioView created a rapid data delivery
infrastructure at the USGS Earth Resources Observation and
Science Center, known as EROS, that was capable of near real-
time data distribution of satellite data. It also reduced the
cost of acquiring imagery to the OhioView Consortium members,
in turn facilitating access to USGS data products and
encouraging their widespread use.
It developed a multi-sensor reception capability at the
EROS Center. Perhaps most important, it grew the OhioView
Consortium to include additional university participants,
including several minority participants, thereby expanding the
research and education community that was able to access
remotely sensed data, in turn facilitating the development of a
broad-based user constituency.
In 2000, Congress determined that the single state
prototype was well positioned to begin fulfilling the vision
for a nationwide program. Accordingly, in Fiscal Year 2000
appropriations language for the Department of the Interior,
Congress instructed the USGS to pursue a national concept,
initially entitled Gateway to the Earth, based on the ongoing
OhioView prototype.
In 2001, Gateway to Earth, renamed AmericaView, remained a
fairly loose concept in which informal gatherings of interested
parties briefed each other on local developments. Initiatives
were then established in other states, such as South Dakota,
Alaska and Texas.
Since 2002, AmericaView has continued to emerge from its
status as a USGS prototype project. Its members have worked
intensively with the USGS to develop AmericaView into an
independent organization capable of partnering with not only
the USGS, but other Federal agencies in support of mutually
beneficial goals and objectives.
Today there are more than 35 states with hundreds of
members actively participating in a national program dedicated
to expanding access to and uses of our nation's earth
observation satellite assets for education, research, hazards
monitoring and natural resources management. Other Federal
agencies have also benefitted from this investment in
AmericaView.
Some of the benefits that AmericaView has provided to USGS
and the Federal government include a partnership supporting our
USGS mission to serve the Nation by providing reliable
scientific information to describe and understand the earth;
minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters;
manage water, biological, energy and mineral resources; and
enhance and protect our quality of life.
The AmericaView Consortium also supports the National
Research Council's recommendation from its 2007 report, which
stated that the USGS should pursue innovative approaches to
educate and train scientists and users of earth observations
and applications.
It has provided that network of state partners to enhance
the science of remote sensing and data sharing, accomplished
needed research in the earth sciences and supplemented the USGS
capability to deliver data to a growing user community.
Based in part on the suggestions that we received from the
AmericaView members, the USGS has improved its computer systems
and network infrastructure and its ability to meet our
customers' needs. These enhancements have facilitated the web
enabling of the entire Landsat archive.
The USGS and the Nation have benefitted from the research
that has been performed by the AmericaView members and from the
students that have been educated by AmericaView not just in the
field of remote sensing, but in science and engineering fields
as well. It has been a highly successful partnership from which
the USGS, AmericaView members and the American public have all
benefitted.
This concludes my statement this morning, Mr. Chairman. I
will be happy to answer any questions as the testimony
proceeds. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimball follows:]
Statement of Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Suzette Kimball, and I am the Acting Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on H.R.
2489, the AmericaView Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program Act. The
Department supports the goals of the AmericaView program, but does not
believe further legislative authority is necessary to meet these goals
and objectives. If further legislation is discussed, we would like the
opportunity to consult with the committee on appropriate legislation.
I will provide a brief history of AmericaView from the Federal
Government's perspective. Then I will address the role that AmericaView
plays in advancing the Department of the Interior and the Federal
Government goals. Finally, I will provide a few comments on the Act
itself.
In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received appropriated
funds to demonstrate the technology and capability for high speed
processing and delivery of satellite data among academia and public
agencies in the State of Ohio. This ``OhioView'' prototype, a
University-led consortium in the State of Ohio consisting of 10
research universities distributed across the state, was intended to
facilitate and expand the use of Landsat satellite data and imagery
from other earth observing satellites, including NASA satellites. The
OhioView Consortium, in turn, established computer systems and network
infrastructure to redistribute the satellite data to member
institutions and also make it available to Ohio citizens. The goal of
the USGS was to establish the prototype as a pilot for a nationwide
program.
This prototype with OhioView created a rapid data delivery
infrastructure at the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science
(EROS) Center, capable of near real-time data distribution of satellite
data and it reduced the costs of acquiring imagery to the OhioView
Consortium members, in turn facilitating access to USGS data products
and encouraging their widespread use. It developed a multi-sensor
reception capability at the EROS Center. Perhaps most important, it
grew the OhioView Consortium to include additional university
participants, including several minority participants, thereby
expanding the research and education community able to access remotely
sensed data and in turn facilitating the development of a broad-based
user constituency within the State of Ohio.
In 2000, Congress determined that the single-state prototype was
well positioned to begin fulfilling the vision for a nationwide
program. Accordingly, in FY 2000 appropriations language for the
Department of the Interior, Congress instructed the USGS to pursue a
national concept initially entitled ``Gateway to Earth,'' based on the
ongoing OhioView prototype. In 2001, ``Gateway to Earth''--renamed
``AmericaView''--remained a fairly loose concept in which informal
gatherings of interested parties briefed each other on local
developments that utilized the OhioView model. Initiatives were
established in other states, such as South Dakota, Alaska and Texas.
Since 2002, AmericaView has continued to emerge from its status as
a USGS prototype project. Its members have worked intensively with the
USGS to develop AmericaView into an independent organization capable of
partnering with the USGS and other Federal agencies in support of
mutually beneficial goals and objectives. Today, there are more than 35
states with hundreds of members actively participating in a national
program dedicated to expanding access to and uses of our Nation's Earth
observation satellite assets for education, research, hazards
monitoring, and natural resources management. Other Federal agencies,
such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, as
well as state agencies have benefited from the investment in
AmericaView.
Now I will address some of the benefits that AmericaView has
provided to the USGS and the Federal Government. The USGS-AmericaView
partnership supports the USGS mission to serve the Nation by providing
reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth;
minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage
water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and
protect our quality of life. The AmericaView Consortium also supports
the National Research Council's recommendation from its 2007 report
entitled ``Earth Science and Applications from Space: National
Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond'' that the USGS should
``...pursue innovative approaches to educate and train scientists and
users of Earth observations and applications.'' It has provided a
network of State partners for enhancing the science of remote sensing
and data sharing, accomplished needed research in the Earth sciences,
and supplemented the USGS capability to deliver data to a growing user
community.
Based in part on the suggestions the USGS received from the
AmericaView members, the USGS has improved its computer systems and
network infrastructure and its ability to meet our customers' needs.
These enhancements facilitated the web enabling of the entire Landsat
archive. The USGS and the Nation have benefited from the research that
has been performed by the AmericaView members and from the students
that have been educated by the AmericaView members, not just in the
field of remote sensing but in the science and engineering fields as
well. It has been a highly successful partnership from which the USGS,
AmericaView members, and the American public have all benefited.
The USGS Fiscal Year 2009 budget included $1 million for
competitive grants awarded to AmericaView members. The USGS Fiscal Year
2010 budget justification for Land Remote Sensing maintains the funding
level of $1 million to continue these competitive grants for national
education outreach and research activity.
The USGS Science Strategy emphasizes societal benefits--namely,
better understanding of the role of the environment on human health,
understanding ecosystems and the effects of ecosystem change,
quantifying and forecasting the Nation's freshwater resources, and risk
assessment due to natural hazards. AmericaView achieves this goal
across the Nation by educating large sectors of the population across
States and territories and leveraging assets for research issues that
affect pressing issues on our society. The USGS is continually
increasing the breadth and volume of geospatial imagery available to
the public for education, research, assessment, and monitoring at the
State level. It is essential that our future workforce has a firm
foundation in the Earth sciences and the role that historic and present
day remote sensing data and technology has on effective decision-
making.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to
answer any questions you and other members may have. I appreciate this
opportunity to testify before you and this Subcommittee.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Kimball
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. Please provide details on AmericaView's funding by year since the
program's inception. Also, please provide an estimate of the
amount and percentage of annual funding which USGS passes on to
StateView programs.
Answer: The historical funding of today's USGS AmericaView (AV)
program began as an earmark included in the USGS FY 1998 appropriation
of $3 million for an OhioView initiative to develop a capability to
process and deliver Landsat 7 data in near real-time to the State.
Funding for the OhioView project continued through FY 2000 at the $3
million level. In FY 2001, funds were specifically earmarked for the
Texas Natural Resources Information System ($0.2 million), the
Mississippi Space Commerce Initiative ($0.15 million), the California
Land Science Information Partnership ($0.2 million), and the National
Interagency Fire Center ($0.2 million) in an effort to transition from
a pilot project into a national program. In FY 2002, USGS awarded
competitive grants to 10 individual State educational institutions/
organizations to continue efforts in delivering satellite data to meet
State needs. The FY 2003 appropriation again earmarked funds for the
USGS AmericaView project.
The table shows the USGS funds appropriated for the AmericaView
program by fiscal year, the amount available to AmericaView, the number
of StateViews receiving AV funds, and the amount each StateView
received. Prior to FY 2007, a portion of these funds were used to
support infrastructure augmentation at EROS to improve data delivery
and provide customer support to StateViews for products and services.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. H.R. 2489 refers to an ``AmericaView Program'' as well as the
``AmericaView Project'' and once simply to ``AmericaView.'' Can
you help clarify the definitions of each of these entities, and
which entity, particularly the Department of the Interior, is
responsible for what activities?
Answer: H.R. 2489 sets forth a framework that reflects the
management of the AmericaView program in existence today.
AmericaView is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation established under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. AmericaView, Inc. manages a
national consortium of universities located in the States that possess
communications networks, facilities, and capabilities for acquiring and
sharing remotely sensed data with users and among themselves. The
AmericaView Consortium, as it is known, works to ``help the university,
secondary-education, and public sectors in each State identify,
develop, and distribute the kinds of applications each State needs
most.'' (See http://www.americaview.org/about.htm.) AmericaView
Consortium universities are grouped into StateView affiliates of
AmericaView, Inc.
The USGS AmericaView program as described in H.R. 2489 refers to a
federal satellite imagery program activity within the Discipline of
Geography at the USGS. The program is dedicated to working with
AmericaView, Inc. to fulfill the objectives of the Department of the
Interior in promoting the use of land imagery to better achieve the
goals of the Department in land and natural resource management. This
program is managed in concert with the USGS operation of the Landsat
satellites and their archival records. Under P.L. 102-555 Land Remote
Sensing Policy Act of 1992, the USGS is charged with archiving and
distributing Landsat data to all ``civilian, national security,
commercial, and international'' users. The Department of the Interior
funds the program as part of the program management responsibilities
assigned to the Department under P.L. 102-555 and PDD/NSTC-3 Amendment
to Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy, 2000.
The USGS AmericaView project as described in H.R. 2489 is the USGS
image processing and distribution, science, and data archive activity
managed by the Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science
(EROS). EROS provides technical coordination and support for the
implementation of the AmericaView program.
Under H.R. 2489, these roles would continue, although the USGS may
award multiple grants to AmericaView affiliates rather than a single
grant as is performed today.
3. H.R. 2489 proposes an extensive list of activities for the
Secretary of the Interior to undertake ``acting through the
AmericaView Program.'' The list includes expanding the number
of mapping courses, expanding mapping research, building
partnerships, and developing mapping standards. How do the
specific responsibilities proposed for USGS in H.R. 2489
compare to the kinds of activities USGS currently undertakes
through AmericaView? Is the USGS already undertaking these
activities, or would some be new? If so, which? Do you have any
concerns or comments about this list of proposed activities and
how it might challenge USGS' capacities?
Answer: AmericaView, Inc. plays an essential role in support of the
Secretary, consistent with P.L. 102-555 and PDD/NSTC-3 as amended.
Historically, the Secretary, working through the USGS, has assigned
authorities to AmericaView related to acquiring, managing, and
distributing imagery to the States as is expressed in section 4(b).
Because educational institutions play a vital role in service to
communities, the Secretary sponsors the AmericaView, Inc. activities
cited in section 4(c). However, the Department does not view the
activities cited in section 4(c) as exclusive activities--since there
are many organizations throughout the States that carry out these roles
both on behalf of the Secretary and independently of the Department.
Therefore, we do not believe that section 4(c) should be linked to the
purposes the Secretary carries out through this legislation.
One change that we would propose in the draft bill would relate to
setting standards for geospatial applications of imagery. We propose
that AmericaView, Inc. affiliates should ``promote the use of
nationally consistent standards'' but should not be assigned
authorities or activities to develop standards in each State. While we
do not think that development of such standards should be a
responsibility assigned to AmericaView, Inc. we do believe that
educational institutions participating in the AmericaView Consortium
will be a useful resource to State and Federal agencies in developing
such standards.
Many of the activities identified in H.R. 2489 are already being
undertaken by the USGS. The USGS is working to identify new
requirements for geospatial imagery, developing new applications of
geospatial imagery, expanding the knowledge and use of geospatial
imagery, promoting the use of standards, and educating users on
geospatial imagery. The proposed bill would expand these activities to
include more State, local and tribal involvement, as well as increasing
the scope of these activities, such as more research into geospatial
imagery applications focused on tribal issues. The proposed bill would
also include some new activities, such as transferring geospatial
imagery and applications back to the USGS. Although these represent new
activities for the AmericaView program, they support the mission of the
USGS.
4. H.R. 2489 directs the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with
the AmericaView Project ``to develop nationally consistent
standards for geospatial imagery mapping in each state.''
However, the development of standards for mapping seems like
the kind of activity that should involve more stakeholders than
the Department of the Interior and AmericaView. Could you
clarify the role you think would be appropriate for AmericaView
in the development of standards for mapping? Would
AmericaView's focus be more appropriately described as
development of standards for the distribution of images,
information, and technology, rather than for mapping?
Answer: Please see the response to question #3.
5. This bill would expand AmericaView to all 50 states. Is that
realistic? Why is it important for this program to be in all 50
states and territories?
Answer: The Department has no opinion as to whether AmericaView,
Inc. should be established in all 50 States as it is conceivable that
some States could acquire AmericaView services from multi-state
consortia or through sharing provisions that exist among educational
institutions in different States. However, it is important that the
land and natural resource management expertise unique to each region of
the United States be adequately reflected by the location of the
AmericaView affiliates and that each State find itself adequately
represented by AmericaView, Inc.
6. How do you see AmericaView interacting with ongoing image-
collection initiatives like Imagery for the Nation and USDA's
NAIP aerial photography program? Please explain the differences
between the Imagery for the Nation Initiative and the NAIP
Program and the activities that will be authorized through H.R.
2489.
Answer: The Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) initiative was proposed
by the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and
endorsed by the multi-agency National Digital Orthoimagery Program
(NDOP) as a comprehensive program to acquire high-resolution imagery of
1-meter resolution and higher for the entire nation, including Alaska,
Hawaii and the territories, on a cyclical basis.
The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is currently
developing a phase 1 plan to implement IFTN by building upon and
enhancing two existing programs, USDA's National Agriculture Imagery
Program (NAIP) and the USGS-NGA Urban Area Imagery Partnership (UAIP).
Under IFTN, the FGDC would provide governance and ensure overall
coordination, USDA will manage the 1-meter, leaf-on component, and USGS
will manage the 1-foot and higher, leaf-off component.
In comparison, the AmericaView program is not a data collection
program, per se, and has not been used by the Department to distribute
high- and very high-resolution data to the States nor to perform other
services related to these data. AmericaView distributes satellite data
whereas IFTN and NAIP focus primarily on distributing aerial data.
AmericaView is dedicated to distributing satellite data through the
nation's educational community whereas IFTN and NAIP provide imagery
directly to government users.
State and local governments are experienced users of high- and very
high-resolution aerial imagery, and therefore have well established and
standard approaches to handling this type of data. Satellite imagery is
not standardized and is more complex, requiring formatting, processing,
interpretation and analysis steps that are largely unfamiliar to State
and local governments. Thus AmericaView serves an important role in
acting as a bridge between the academic community and government users
of satellite imagery.
For these reasons, we recommend that the definition of imagery in
H.R. 2489 be restricted to data acquired by satellite since this is the
primary purpose for which the Department would rely on AmericaView,
Inc.. This is not to restrict AmericaView, Inc. affiliates from
otherwise performing distribution of aerial data independently or in
support of other Department and Federal Government objectives, but it
is to indicate that the distribution of aerial data is not the
exclusive and intended purpose of the federal satellite imagery program
proposed in H.R. 2489.
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program has a state match
funding requirement. Do you believe that you could continue to
operate this program with a similar requirement for the America
View Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program
Answer: State governments indirectly provide matching funds by
providing facility space, salaries, and communication services to
Stateview programs. The Department would pursue additional matching
fund arrangements in its review of competitive grant proposals under
this Act.
Questions from Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
1. How are the territories involved in AmericaView?
Answer: U.S. territories have not been involved in AmericaView,
Inc., to date.
2. Is there going to be a ``Territory View'' or other program relevant
to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands?
Answer: The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is
included in the definition of ``State'' in the proposed legislation, so
a StateView program could be formed to provide AmericaView program
services to a territory under this Act.
______
Mr. Costa. We will look forward to that. You exceeded your
time by a little bit, but we will forgive that.
Our next witness is Ms. Rebecca Dodge, the Associate
Professor in the Department of Geosciences at Midwestern State
University. Rebecca, please.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA L. DODGE, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, THE
DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES, MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Dodge. Thank you. I would like to thank you and Ranking
Member Lamborn for having us here today and for giving me this
opportunity to testify, and I would also like to thank
Committee Member Lummis for her support, as well as
Representative Herseth Sandlin.
I would like to first comment a little bit about
AmericaView's growth and then to explain how the activities to
be supported by this bill will sustain and expand the benefits
provided by AmericaView.
As the pilot for a nationwide program, OhioView was
designed to prove the concept that a statewide network of
universities and their partners could develop new scientific
and educational applications for geospatial data that would
improve the lives of citizens of their states.
OhioView provided a very solid proof of this concept.
Within two years, OhioView's successes led to planning for the
national AmericaView Consortium. The AmericaView Consortium
incorporated as an educational nonprofit in 2003 with 10
founding members. Since officially going national, steady
growth of new StateViews each year has increased the membership
to 36.
With this steady growth across the country, the time has
come for this bill to be passed. Thanks to the leadership of
Representatives Regula and Herseth Sandlin in the previous
Congress, as well as Herseth Sandlin and LaTourette in this
Congress, H.R. 2489 was introduced in the House in May. A
companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Johnson
and Voinovich.
The bill is designated to authorize a comprehensive
national program and a set of activities that will promote the
application of geospatial imagery for a broad range of
applications and purposes through education, workforce
development and training and applied research.
Within the proposed legislation there is listed a set of
activities that are the heart of the legislation. These are
keyed to the existing strengths, activities and contributions
of AmericaView. A subset of these activities is going on in
each member state now. H.R. 2489 will ensure that the impact
will improve in each state.
In a few moments you will hear more about these activities,
such as the development of applications, education and training
infrastructure in each state spanning K-12 education through
professional development. You will also hear examples of
activities that address expanding geospatial imagery mapping
courses that are being taught at the university level.
CaliforniaView in particular is leading several StateViews
in a project focused on the community and tribal college level.
StateViews continue to expand geospatial imagery mapping
research at educational institutions beginning at the
undergraduate level.
StateViews are expanding the use of geospatial imagery
through outreach programs to groups ranging from private
industry to Federal and state emergency response employees,
natural resource management personnel and K-12 teachers.
AmericaView is also promoting the sharing of techniques and
tools among and within participating states.
H.R. 2489 will enable AmericaView to expand such activities
within each state and to all 50 states and the U.S.
territories. It will also ensure a workforce prepared to apply
the geospatial imagery being made available by the USGS toward
effective decision making.
In fact, the AmericaView program is built on the precept
that there are remote sensing needs that are best understood
and addressed at the state level, and these are well handled by
a workforce that has acquired local knowledge and skills to
select and apply that appropriate data and technology.
As Acting Director Kimball pointed out, the National
Research Council recommended that the USGS should pursue
innovative approaches to educate and train scientists and users
of earth observations and applications. At that time, the USGS
had already been involved in developing and expanding the
AmericaView program for over 10 years.
I would like to thank the USGS for their foresight and to
echo Acting Director Kimball's sentiments that ours has been a
successful partnership. The cooperation with each state has
benefitted the American public, as has the cooperation among
states and between both the government and nonprofit sides of
the AmericaView program.
We look forward to welcoming the remaining states and
territories into our family. H.R. 2489 will help make that
happen.
Thank you for your consideration. I would be glad to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dodge follows:]
Statement of Rebecca L. Dodge, PhD, Outreach Director for AmericaView,
on H.R. 2489
I would like to thank Chairman Costa and the committee members for
giving me the opportunity to testify with respect to the AmericaView
Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program Act. My name is Rebecca L. Dodge and
I teach Geology and Environmental Science at Midwestern State
University in Wichita Falls, Texas. I have been actively involved in
the development and leadership of AmericaView for the past seven years.
Today I would like to add a few remarks to Acting Director
Kimball's comments about AmericaView's history, from the AmericaView
members' perspective, and then to explain how the activities to be
supported by H.R. 2489 will sustain and expand the benefits provided by
AmericaView.
As described earlier, OhioView was the pilot for a planned
nationwide program, designed to prove the concept that a statewide
network of universities and their partners involved in applied research
could develop new scientific, educational, and practical applications
for geospatial data to improve the lives of citizens of their state.
OhioView, comprised of 10 Ohio Universities in partnership with the
U.S. Geological Survey, provided very solid proof of this concept.
This pilot focused on education and on applied research emphasizing
solutions to state needs. To date, OhioView partners have educated
thousands of students at both the university and K-12 levels, while
also providing training for hundreds of K-12 teachers and university
faculty. OhioView's applied research concerning natural resource
management has set the standard for new StateView efforts across the
nation, providing new ways to solve problems in forestry, agriculture,
city planning, and water quality. Within two years OhioView's successes
led to planning for the national AmericaView Program; recruitment was
(and still is) facilitated by the focus on addressing individual state
needs.
The AmericaView consortium has been in development since 2000,
incorporating as a 501c3 non-profit educational organization in 2003
with 10 founding members (OH, SD, AK, KS, TX, AR, MS, GA, WV, and WY).
Since officially ``going national'' in 2003, steady growth of new
StateViews each year has brought membership to the current level of 36
StateViews.
With this organic growth across the country, the time has come for
H.R. 2489. Thanks to the leadership of Representatives Regula and
Herseth Sandlin in the previous Congress as well as Representatives
Herseth Sandlin and LaTourette in this Congress, H.R. 2489 was
introduced in the House in May; a companion bill, S 1078 was introduced
in the Senate by Senators Johnson and Voinovich. The bill is designed
to authorize a comprehensive national program and set of activities
that will promote the application of geospatial imagery for a broad
range of mapping purposes, through education, workforce training and
development, and applied research. AmericaView is already engaged in
activities prescribed in H.R. 2489 in 36 states, and this Act will
ensure the program's activities and impact will spread within each
member state and to all 50 states and the Territories.
As you read the legislation you saw this set of activities listed.
These activities are the heart of this legislation and they are keyed
to the existing strengths and contributions of AmericaView; at least
several of these activities are going on in each state now. H.R. 2489
activities that are designed to promote imagery mapping applications
begin with 1) the development of geospatial mapping applications,
education and training infrastructure in each state. Applications and
education and training infrastructure development have gone hand in
hand, as new applications technologies and tools that are developed for
applied research are transformed into classroom and laboratory teaching
instruments and then become available for training the existing
workforce to apply the new tools and technologies.
CaliforniaView's applications-oriented Remote Sensing Certificate
Program, under development with support from GeorgiaView, VirginiaView,
IowaView, and TexasView, will serve not only undergraduates at the
University and College level, but also returning students and others
already in the workforce. AlaskaView makes its training infrastructure
available to private companies that train the Alaskan workforce. Peter
Hickman, CEO and Principal GIS/GPS Consultant for GeoApps, Inc. stated
that
Providing training has been fundamental to the success of
GeoApps as a startup small business. In the past year alone, 83
students from across the academic, government, and private
sectors in and around Fairbanks have successfully completed our
ESRI Authorized training in the GINA RS Lab. The continued use
of the GINA RS Lab for instruction is an integral part of
accomplishing our goals. (2007)
The addition of geospatial student internships as part of the
educational infrastructure in many states has created positive effects,
as indicated by Dawn Liverman, undergraduate Geosciences major at the
University of West Georgia. She participated in a GeorgiaView
internship for rural Carroll County, Georgia and studied the impact of
historical tree canopy changes to establish baseline maps prior to
extensive proposed residential development.
This internship has given me a new way of looking at the
environment, invaluable experience with geospatial software,
self-confidence in speaking publicly about the findings of my
research, and professional skills that will be a definite help
in my future professional life. This experience will be very
important to me when looking for employment after graduation
when so many companies want an employee with previous
experience in the geospatial field. (2006)
Existing educational infrastructure has benefitted from South
DakotaView's efforts according to MaryJo Benton Lee, Diversity
Coordinator for South Dakota State University College of Engineering,
who complements them for reaching 200 American Indian high school
students participating in a college preparatory program in a 2007 SDSU-
Flandreau Indian School Success Academy students.
Your presentations were hands-on, interactive, and highly
successful in interesting and exciting freshman high school
students in your discipline. I especially appreciate the many
ways you made your workshop culturally relevant, starting with
the title ``Technology and Tradition: New and Old Ways of
Viewing Mother Earth''. Also I commend you for employing two of
our Native SDSU engineering students to assist you....these
Native American college students were strong positive role
models of American Indian professionals. Your excellent
workshops are truly models for all of us who try through our
work to attract minority students to science, math, engineering
and technology disciplines. (2007)
K-12 teacher training infrastructure is broadly enhanced and
supported by StateViews. Todd Ensign from the NASA IV&V Facility
Educator Resource Center (ERC) complements West VirginiaView for its
support, saying that
the ERC has received assistance in downloading and using geo-
referenced imagery, developing and delivering teacher
workshops, producing educational podcasts, and in the
successful bid for educational grants to expand the program.
The ERC greatly appreciates the services of West VirginiaView
and hopes to continue our strong partnership into the future.
(2006)
West VirginiaView also received kudos for its support of K-12 pre-
service education. According to Dr. James A. Rye, West Virginia
University Interim Associate Dean for Research and Technology:
We have begun to integrate global positioning (GPS), geographic
information systems (GIS), and remote sensing into our
undergraduate and graduate science methods course for pre-
service and in-service teachers. West ViginaView has provided
an invaluable expert resource...they have also developed and
provided an extended RS/GPS/GIS experience that integrated a
project GLOBE hydrology application in our undergraduate
science methods course. Geospatial science and technology are
integral with such 21st Century content as ``global awareness''
and the skill area of ``information and communication
technology'' literacy. Dr. Landenberger's assistance and
associated West VirginiaView projects are critical to
integrating into our methods courses experiences that prepare
teachers to facilitate 21st Century learning in their future
and current classrooms.
Dave Varner, an Extension Educator with the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln Extension Service, reported that 4-H youth and leaders at the
2006 National 4-H Science and Technology Conference presentation were
impressed with NebraskaView's presentation
regarding capabilities and exploration into future applications
of remote sensing technologies that took this session to a
whole new level. Participants were impressed with both the
technology and applications discussed. Your Google Earth
demonstration provided participants more hands-on experience
using imagery collected via remote sensing technologies. The
group connected well with this topic and will certainly share
their experiences with their communities which represent
approximately 20 states. We appreciated NebraskaView helping
enhance the knowledge and skills of the outstanding 4-H
audience that UNL had the opportunity to host in July. (2007)
AmericaView members have all benefitted as new applications as well
as training programs for K-12 teachers, University faculty, youth
groups, state and local government employees, and private industry are
developed, refined, and shared among our membership. We are also
expanding geospatial imagery mapping courses and provide training,
remote sensing data, and teaching tools to educators. Expanding courses
and curriculum has been the goal of John C. Kostelnick, GIS Instructor
in the Department of Natural and Social Sciences at Haskell Indian
Nations University who states that
This letter comes in support of the KansasView Program. Haskell
Indian Nations University (HINU), a four year university that
serves students from federally recognized Indian Tribes in the
United States, is among the many institutions that have
benefited greatly from the services and data sources provided
by KansasView. In recent years, HINU has worked to develop a
program in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related
remote sensing applications to support the environmental
science curriculum as well as in response to the growing need
for geospatial technology in tribal lands. The KansasView
Program has provided numerous benefits to this endeavor by
providing HINU students with internship opportunities and
allowing HINU faculty to collaborate with faculty and staff at
the Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program at the
University of Kansas. The continued involvement of HINU in
programs such as KansasView is key to ensuring that HINU is
successful in its efforts to sustain and to expand the existing
GIS program. (2006)
StateViews are all working to expand geospatial imagery mapping
research at research educational institutions. Dr. Sylvio Mannel, GIS/
Remote Sensing Manager at Oglala Lakota College, recognized South
DakotaView's provision of Landsat imagery that
enabled us to map possible Mountain Lion habitat on the Pine
Ridge Reservation. In addition, the Landsat imagery archive is
a very user friendly source of data. Before it became available
we had to contact other researchers and other institutions to
ask for any data they might have available. This was not very
efficient and often unsuccessful. I hope the Landsat depository
will be available in the future to conduct Remote Sensing
education and research at Oglala Lakota in an efficient way.
(2006)
Russ Brinsfield, Executive Director of the Harry R. Hughes Center
for Agro-Ecology at the University of Maryland, praises MarylandView's
assistance
in developing geospatial approaches to a more accurate
understanding of agriculture and its environmental implications
and for providing a more precise agricultural cropland data
layer for our area and for assisting us in researching
innovative geospatial methods for cropping practices, nutrient
applications, pesticide usages and other significant
agricultural characteristics of interest to our program. (2009)
Gregory S. Vandeberg, Assistant Professor of Geography at
University of North Dakota reports that he is
currently overseeing a grant from the North DakotaView program:
Geographic Variables Affecting Bald Eagle Nest Locations in the
Red River Valley of ND and MN. This grant has provided the
funding for Josh Johnston, MS Candidate in geography, to
investigate the distribution of bald eagle nests. The grant
covers both his graduate research assistantship as well as
costs for an aerial survey of the northern part of the Red
River Valley. The information gathered in his study will be
very useful to federal, state and local conservation officials,
as well as for the completion of his thesis. This project would
have been severely limited without the North DakotaView grant.
I strongly urge the managers of the AmericaView Program to
continue funding to state programs such as North DakotaView.
(2006)
AmericaView is also expanding the knowledge and use of geospatial
imagery map products through outreach programs to diverse groups
ranging from USDA extension agents to the National Forest and National
Park Services, and including emergency management and natural resource
management personnel as well as State and National Guard troops.
MinnesotaView's outreach to natural resource managers has provided new
data and tools for lake clarity analysis, as reported by Bruce Wilson,
the program manager at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
We have used every trick of the trade, with a large body of
volunteers and lab tests, but the truth is we can only monitor
about 1,200 lakes a year. And now, out of the sky--literally--
has come this opportunity to help provide the information we
are asked for thousands of times a year by citizens, business
owners, and local units of government. (2009)
AlabamaView has been coordinating statewide conferences as part of
its outreach effort. H. Craig Seaver, U.S. Geological Survey Liaison to
Alabama, thanks them for their
efforts in organizing training and presentations at the 3rd
annual GIS meetings at Auburn this year....Based on my
observations, the participation level was significant, with
representation from federal, state/local and private sector
entities....The wide scope of geospatial topics presented
allowed one to choose both professionally related training and
presentations and intriguing new ones as well. I look forward
to getting involved with AlabamaView and promoting it within
the state with USGS partners. (2006).
WyomingView's outreach presentations at workshops for farmers and
ranchers have expanded applications across the state. Chuck Duncan, an
Agriculturist for Wyoming Sugar Company who councils growers about how
to raise a better crop, attended a workshop put on by WyomingView in
cooperation with the University of Wyoming County Agent and with
farmers and scientists from North Dakota. There he was introduced to
the remote sensing technology and its applications for agriculture. He
indicates that
I was pleased that they brought to this workshop some sugar
beet farmers from ND who have used this technology. They
actually did most of the training and were able to answer
questions from their own experiences. I believe that this
technology could be useful in managing farm land through out my
district. I believe that the activities of WyomingView
(workshops and image distribution) are the wave of the future
in farming and therefore should be used the best we can. They
can assist growers to do a better job on their own farms and
increase production, therefore keeping their viability in
coming years. (2006)
Another private sector client impacted by WyomingView's outreach
effort, Chris Jesson, P.G., Geologist/GIS Analyst with States West
Water Resources Corporation, states that
I would like to express my support for the services provided by
WyomingView. It has been extremely beneficial to our efforts to
serve our clients (with oftentimes much needed efficiency) with
readily available satellite imagery. We have used WyomingView
Services to assist a number of irrigation districts in Wyoming,
the State of Wyoming, and many individual land owners with
documentation of historical irrigation. Access to this
information serves to dispel much doubt from proceedings that
may otherwise lead to burdensome, expensive legal ventures for
Wyoming and its citizens. It is my belief that this provision
of taxpayer-funded information enables simple evenhandedness in
the face of litigious issues. Moreover, it speaks to
responsible and efficient utilization of taxpayer resources to
serve information that provides for a basis of truth (that has
already been funded by taxpayers) for the equal benefit of all
citizens. States West endorses continued funding for Wyoming
View Services.
StateViews are building partnerships with governments to carry out
pilot mapping projects concerning coastal erosion, invasive species,
wildfire prevention, volcanic hazards, drought extent and impact, to
name a few. John F. Fry, the National Park Service's Chief of Resources
Management the Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia, reported
on a pilot project supported by GeorgiaView and performed by University
of Georgia graduate student C.J. Jackson:
Back-barrier shoreline erosion is a highly critical issue on
Cumberland Island, as it threatens significant natural and
cultural resources. C.J.'s final report, maps, and graphics
provide exactly the sort of information the park staff needs in
addressing the erosion problem. His research indicates the
scope of the problem over the entire expanse of the Cumberland
Island back-barrier, where critical hot spots are, how the
issue has developed over an extensive (145 year) period, and
what potential agents are for the erosion. C.J. went well above
and beyond what was anticipated. He has provided us with an
extremely valuable tool that is remarkably thorough and
technically sound. The Park Service is most fortunate to have
had C.J. working on this project''. In my twelve years of NPS
Science and Resource Management experience I cannot recall
being more impressed with the quality and thoroughness of a
research project than what C.J. has completed for the park.
(2006)
C.J. Jackson won the Georgia URISA Thomas Mettille Student
Achievement Award, for this work on the ``Assessment of Back-Barrier
Shoreline Erosion for Resource Management: Cumberland Island National
Seashore, Georgia''. This technique has wide applications for barrier
islands managed by both Federal and State agencies. While mapping
applications development has focused on addressing each state's unique
needs, applied researchers have found solutions that cross borders to
meet regional and national needs.
The national AmericaView leadership, in concert with working groups
composed of StateView members, is promoting cooperation and sharing of
data, expertise, techniques, and tools regarding geospatial imagery
among and within participating States. Individual StateViews are
sharing data among diverse users. Sandy M. Ebersole, a geologist with
the Mapping and Hazards Section of the Geological Survey of Alabama,
informed the AlabamaView Director that
We currently have a number of Landsat scenes and will likely be
acquiring MODIS and other satellite data in the near future for
some of our research here at the survey. AlabamaView is a very
impressive website, and a wonderful tool for researchers. I was
wondering if you would accept other satellite imagery to be
posted to your site as well so that it can also be shared with
others. The data we have was not purchased through the
AlabamaView project, but we would like to make it available for
download for public use. (2009)
Dr. A. Kim Ludeke, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab
Manager expressed strong support for TexasView as a
valuable source of statewide datasets at no cost to the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the Texas Natural
Resources Information System (TNRIS). Moreover, this updated
imagery has allowed TPWD scientists and planners to document
change in the natural and cultural environment of Texas. In
addition, the TPWD game wardens have found these products to be
invaluable, whether in investigations of environmental crimes,
in prosecuting game and fish law violations, or in planning and
executing Homeland Security exercises along the border with
Mexico. This includes both training and real-life situations.
Finally, the TexasView scientists have always been available
for technical assistance and advice. It would be a major loss
to Texas to lose the services of TexasView. This imagery
provides a very important base for work on TPWD properties as
well as with private landowners with whom TPWD field biologists
are developing Wildlife Management Plans. These plans benefit
private land owners as well as the natural resources of Texas
for all Texans.
Consortium members in each StateView are active in state-level
geospatial planning activities to promote cooperation and sharing,
establishing strong contacts with State agency personnel. John Ellison,
Agency Technology Officer for the California Resources Agency,
commented in 2007 that the CRA
looks to projects such as CaliforniaView to provide outreach
and educational materials to ensure that geospatial data are
utilized to their fullest extent. We also look to
CaliforniaView to provide expertise and support in
incorporating these data into a working environment. (2007)
Steve Bauserman, Chair of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional
Commission whose responsibilities span the Virginia/West Virginia
border, reports the approval of a cross-border cooperative study in
which VirginiaView and West VirginiaView will
prepare a pilot project for the Shenandoah Valley, VA-WV which
is an historical land cover/land use view of the Shenandoah
Valley footprint. A compilation of 1930 USDA aerials, more
recent photography or Landsat imagery, would give a base from
which to analyze land cover and land use change over the last
75 years for the region, counties and municipalities. This
would serve as a base for future monitoring for drought onset,
water quality, movement of pollutants in the air, comparison of
small watersheds for runoff after rain, and other analysis.
(2006)
James P. Verdin, Manager of the U.S. Geological Survey Early
Warning and Environmental Monitoring team, wrote that
As the lead of the Early Warning and Environmental Monitoring
team at the U.S. Geological Survey's Center for Earth Resources
and Science, I would like to express our appreciation to the
Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program and KansasView in
this letter....During the last six months, KARS provided a
valuable remote sensing data set to us and to our collaborators
at the National Drought Mitigation Center. This data consisted
of preprocessed (mosaicked and projected) MODIS Vegetation
Index data covering the entire North American Continent. The
work performed by KARS...probably saved our organization
approximately 120 person hours of labor...we look forward to
investigating the future potential to partner further in remote
sensing research and applications with KARS. (2007)
H.R. 2489, the AmericaView Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program Act,
would enable AmericaView to expand activities such as these to all 50
states and the U.S. Territories, addressing each state's unique needs
by educating and training educators and professionals who will perform
applied Earth observations. StateViews will also be instrumental in
developing key applications that serve educators and transferring the
technologies and tools developed to a wide range of state and federal
agencies, private industry, and the general public.
As Acting Director Kimball has pointed out, the USGS is continually
increasing the breadth and volume of geospatial imagery available to
the public for education, research, assessment and monitoring at the
State level. H.R. 2489 will ensure that the workforce is provided with
the ability to apply remote sensing data and technology towards
effective decision making in each state. In fact, the AmericaView
Program is built on the precept that there are remote sensing needs
that are best understood and addressed at the state level, while other
aspects are best addressed at the national level. Operating satellites
and maintaining centralized global data archives are critical national
priorities well handled by USGS. Education, emergency response, and
support of local natural resource managers are local issues that are
well handled by a workforce that has acquired local knowledge and the
skills to select and apply the appropriate data and technology.
The National Research Council's Strategy for Earth Science
Applications from Space (2007) recognized that a robust program to
train users on the use of these observations will result in a wide
range of societal benefits ranging from improved weather forecasts to
more effective emergency management to better land-use planning. The
report recommended that the USGS should pursue innovative approaches to
educate and train scientists and users of Earth observations and
applications. At the time of these recommendations, the USGS had
already been involved in developing and expanding the AmericaView
program for over 10 years. I would like to echo Acting Director
Kimball's sentiments that ours is a great partnership. The cooperation
within each state has benefitted the American public, as has the
cooperation among states and between both the government and non-profit
sides of the AmericaView Program. We look forward to welcoming the
remaining states and territories into the family.
Thank you again for your consideration and attention, Mr. Chairman
and Committee members. My Outreach Committee members and I will be
happy to answer any questions you and other members may have.
[The StateView Consortia Summaries submitted for the record by Dr.
Dodge follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEVIEW CONSORTIA SUMMARIES
The AlabamaView vision is to benefit the economic development of
the state through the use of satellite and aircraft remote sensing
information and technologies and their application to pressing issues
in the state. AlabamaView is working with state agencies on to save
dollars and insure homogeneous airborne coverage of all areas of the
state with full high resolution coverage of the state every four years.
It is also working with the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service in
training Extension agents together with farmers in the use of
geospatial technologies in general and remote sensing in particular. It
is supporting workforce development through scholarships for
undergraduate students at the partner universities and colleges. It is
supporting K-12 learning experiences in collaboration with the Alabama
Science in Motion (ASIM) program and begun development of a program
that will utilize satellite imagery in modules developed for ASIM. It
is posting surface temperature and biomass information from MODIS
updated weekly on its website, and developing products from RS data
such as an improved drought index based on surface temperature.
AlabamaView also recently partnered with a private firm named Galileo
in a pilot research study to map invasive species utilizing
hyperspectral imagery.
AlaskaView is the leading source of satellite imagery and
geographic data for Alaska. Implemented through the University of
Alaska's Geographic Information Network of Alaska AlaskaView captures
and distributes real-time satellite imagery to emergency responders,
operational agencies, and the general public. A key element is an
ongoing collaboration with USGS EROS to receive Landsat 5 data at
FCDAS. This data will populate the National archive, covering currently
unserved areas of Alaska. This data will also be available in less than
24 hours for emergency response, including wildfire and volcano hazard
management. AlaskaView also houses the most comprehensive collection of
high-resolution imagery for Alaska and is the top distribution site for
the state. Frequent users include wildfire fighters tracking smoke and
hot spots, meteorologists forecasting weather, flooding, and sea ice,
and marine operators transiting the sea ice. AlaskaView also plays an
important role supporting the training needs of Alaskan users by
hosting of university and professional training courses in our training
facility.
The ArkansasView consortium includes universities, the EAST
initiative, state and federal agencies, and non-profit organizations
that continue to build Arkansas' remote sensing community. We 1)
develop and distribute online satellite and airborne remote sensor data
products of significance to Arkansans; 2) transfer remote sensing
technology to education, government, and the private sectors; 3) create
and maintain remote sensing-related public outreach; and 4) build
Arkansas' capacity for near real-time remote sensor data products and
autonomous online remote sensor data processing. In the long term the
ArkansasView consortium seeks to encourage cooperation and
collaboration among its state members and across borders to other
``StateView'' programs. Our members cooperate regularly on educational
and outreach activities such as sponsoring informational seminars,
developing appropriate curricula for K-12 education, and offering
professional short courses on user-recommended remote sensing topics.
Our members collaborate on identifying and obtaining funding and
publication opportunities. Through cooperation, collaboration, and the
effective leveraging of existing resources within and between
``Stateview'' programs, we will best accomplish AmericaView's mission
to build a stronger and more viable remote sensing community in
Arkansas and America.
The main emphasis of CaliforniaView is on higher education,
workforce development and outreach in the field of remote sensing. We
are currently developing a remote sensing certificate program to become
the online intersection of education and internships for remote sensing
career development in California. CalView is supported by partnerships
with the Space Grant Consortium, University of Berkeley, the California
Community College and Economic Workforce Development (CCCEWD) as well
as the California Community Colleges Geospatial Information Support
(C3GIS). The Baseline Remote Sensing Certificate is offered at no cost
to each AmericaView State Member. Additionally CalView is developing
certificates at the intermediate and advanced levels to enhance
workforce retraining.
ColoradoView recently attained status as a full member of the
AmericaView consortium of states and is excited to join the mission of
individually, and collectively, promoting remote sensing and GIS.
Colorado is a hot-bed of geospatial science and technology, and boasts
many world class academic, governmental, and private entities. We will
draw upon this expertise to incrementally build a vibrant and useful
resource for all Coloradoans involved with remote sensing and GIS. Our
first goal is to leverage expertise and resources provided by
AmericaView to develop a web portal that will facilitate the
dissemination and exchange of Colorado-specific remote sensing and GIS
data, information, and educational materials.
The GeorgiaView consortium has played very important roles in
serving the citizens of Georgia since 2003, by 1) setting up the
framework of sharing mid-resolution satellite imagery, 2) preparing
Georgians for the geospatial information technology careers, and 3) by
applications focused on local and regional issues. Projects have
included Georgia 2007 wildfire mapping and analysis, urban sprawl, land
cover change impacts on drinking water reservoirs, and Georgia
shoreline changes. We have constantly supported and promoted
internships for students, workshops for faculty in K-12 and higher
education, and top-level satellite image data sharing mechanisms.
GeorgiaView will continue to help more Georgians prepare their careers
in the geospatial technology fields and to research Georgia's
environmental issues with satellite and other remotely-sensed images.
Finally, one of GeorgiaView's goals is to help disaster responses (ex.
wildfire, hurricane, flooding, etc.) in Georgia using timely satellite
imagery.
HawaiiView's activities continue to focus on educational outreach,
training, and research. Learning more about the local environment,
including the link between the terrestrial and coastal ocean systems,
is of great interest to Hawaii's middle and high school students.
HawaiiView engages in numerous activities as conduits for introducing
and connecting local students to remote sensing technologies and
science. The PI will present a workshop activity at the School of
Ocean, Earth Science, and Technology's bi-annual Open House event (16-
17 October 2009). The workshop will use the PI's FLIR thermal imaging
camera to demonstrate thermal imaging applications of remote sensing.
In January 2009 the PI has been invited to teach on the subject
``Thermal remote sensing of volcanoes'' at an NSF funded workshop in
Costa Rica, which will focus on training students and professionals
from North, South, and Central America in the use of remote sensing for
hazard mitigation. We will also continue to make remote sensing data
available via the HawaiiView website.
IdahoView's goals establish IdahoView as the primary coordinating
entity for remote sensing data management, training, and applications
for Idaho. The AmericaView and IdahoView programs have stimulated
active communication in the state of Idaho as well as coordination that
has already led to significant success in building the cyber
infrastructure critical for remote sensing data management in the
state. Other activities include enabling both national participation as
well as state participation across our diverse geographic regions that
encompass a wide variety of biophysical settings, land management
entities, and environmental monitoring needs. A strong focus will
remain on establishing communication and coordination of activities
being funded from a variety of sources. IdahoView will develop
coordinator tasks and means for leveraging in-state initiatives with
those underway across the AmericaView program. A final goal for the
coming year will be to become more active in service to the national
AmericaView program through attendance at the meetings, outreach, and
participation in AV working committees. IdahoView is committed to the
collective vision of the AmericaView program and active participation.
IndianaView is a state-wide consortium of 14 universities and
institutions in Indiana. IndianaView facilitates and promotes the
sharing and use of public domain remotely sensed image data (from both
aerial and satellite platforms) by Indiana universities, four-year
colleges, community colleges, K-12 institutions, libraries, museums,
government agencies and the private sector through tutorials and
training. IndianaView provides mini-grants to support research and
technology education to member institutions and provides free access to
near real-time satellite images to the community. We also promote the
use of remote sensing data to monitor statewide issues such as crop
development, water quality, urban development, and flooding.
IowaView is presently working with several federal, state, local
and tribal agencies in Iowa on remote sensing related research,
education and outreach activities. The main goal is to continue to
build partnerships and infrastructure to conduct remote sensing
education, research, and outreach activities in the State of Iowa with
the following goals and objectives: 1) continue to develop advanced
remote sensing education and training programs that are tailored to the
needs of academic staff, local and state government agencies and
private sectors, 2) to promote and support collaborative remote sensing
application research effort, develop techniques and tools for local as
well as state government agencies, 3) to transfer remote sensing data
to educational institutions, local and state agencies, and the private
sector in Iowa, 4) to provide remote sensing research opportunities for
students, and finally 5) to establish a synergistic relationship with
other AmericaView states on educational and research activities.
The overarching goal of KansasView is to advance the availability,
timely distribution, and widespread use of remotely sensed data and
geospatial technologies to support the needs of the state's public
agencies, research and education communities, tribal colleges, private
enterprise, and the general public. KansasView has helped create and
maintain several key imagery databases, and has customized all imagery
data sets to correspond with other geospatial databases; data sets are
available without charge. KansasView also continues to support the
training and education of undergraduate and graduate students,
consistently funding graduate students and providing data to numerous
research projects. We have reached out to K-12 educators by working
cooperatively with programs that bring together networks of teachers in
both science and geography that have allowed us to capitalize on their
interest in introducing new technology to their students.
The primary focus of KentuckyView is on the use of images collected
from satellites and aircraft, as well as other geospatial technologies,
to support K-16 education, public outreach, applied research, and data
distribution. The KentuckyView consortium currently comprises six
universities and two state agencies in Kentucky. Via its mini-grant
program for students and faculty at member universities, KentuckyView
strives to bring remote sensing materials to formal and informal
educational curricula at all levels through workshops and student
projects; reaches out to the public via presentations and our website;
and distributes and applies remote sensing data and technology to help
solve pressing environmental (e.g., forest health) and societal (e.g.,
water quality) issues in the Commonwealth. Particular emphasis is
placed on providing students (the future workforce) with training and
research opportunities.
LouisianaView is a state consortium of geospatial science,
education, and natural resource management organizations that work
together to advance remote sensing and related geospatial technologies
in ways that leverage federal and private investment in remote sensing
instruments and data. Louisiana View activities are designed to: 1)
strengthen a Louisiana consortium of data users, 2) actively build an
archive of multi-sensor satellite imagery, aerial photography, etc. and
a user-friendly dissemination mechanism, 3) provide continuing
education opportunities at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette for
end users, 4) collaborate in remote sensing research, and 5) provide
technological support and technology transfer to data users.
LouisianaView serves Louisiana by working in Natural Disaster Response
and Training. We also work to develop and apply Imagery and Geospatial
technologies with the USGS-National Wetlands Research Center, the
Louisiana National Guard, the Governors Office of Homeland Security,
FEMA, the State of Texas, and many of our local Parish Governments.
The mission of the MarylandView Consortium is to ensure that
educational institutions, government agencies, non-government
organizations, and businesses in Maryland make the fullest use of
remotely sensed imagery and other digital geospatial data and
technologies. The goals of the MarylandView Consortium are to 1) serve
as a Consortium of users and suppliers of remotely sensed data in the
State of Maryland; 2) serve as a remote sensing education and outreach
program for the State of Maryland; 3) make appropriate data, software,
and pedagogical materials on remote sensing and digital image
processing available for use by K-16 teachers; 4) serve as a conduit
for research into new applications of remotely sensed data in academia,
government, and business; 5) develop pilot projects in cooperation with
the U.S. Geological Survey and other end users to demonstrate the
application and benefits of remotely sensed data; and 6) facilitate the
use of remote sensing data to monitor statewide issues such as urban
sprawl and forest fragmentation.
MichiganView seeks to provide needed resources for building a
workforce that is more skilled in science and technology. The purpose
of MichiganView is to promote the use of remote sensing technology in
Michigan by supporting research, education, workforce development, and
technology transfer. The consortium consists of academic, non-profit,
and government organizations that are involved in remote sensing and
are interested in the public sharing of educational resources, research
activities, and dataset sharing. Activities for the MichiganView
consortium that will further promote the use of remote sensing
technologies in Michigan include 1) expanding the membership of
MichiganView to other organizations within Michigan, 2) provide IT
infrastructure to enable collaboration among members within Michigan,
and support collaboration among AmericaView members, 3) maintain a no-
cost publicly accessible data archive of remote sensing data for
Michigan, focusing on providing easy to user data formats and access
protocols, and 4) developing web-based tutorials for processing and
distributing remote sensing data.
MinnesotaView was approved for funding by AmericaView for 2008. Its
vision is to work with state agencies and universities in Minnesota to
advance remote sensing research, education and outreach. The
consortium, led by the University of Minnesota, includes the Minnesota
Land Management Information Center, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and Minnesota State University--Mankato. Its goals include
1) Increased access to and application of remote sensing data and
imagery by agencies, schools and colleges, and citizens, 2) Enhanced
understanding of the characteristics and uses of remote sensing data
with information on its website, 3) linking potential users to remote
sensing specialists so that sensors and data are well matched to user
needs and applications, 4) development of improved linkages between
remote sensing and GIS to make the best use of geospatial data, 5)
promotion of collaboration among agencies for development and
application of remote sensing, and 6) participation in and support
AmericaView activities and program.
MississippiView, in combination with other Mississippi educational
institutions, provides support and resources to further remote sensing
and GIS activities throughout the state. MississippiView works with
partners in Mississippi to support a high school outreach project in
which partner educational institutions work with local high schools to
introduce students to remote sensing and geospatial concepts and to
complete geospatial projects of benefit to the local community. Through
this program, MississippiView and its partners have introduced more
than 100 high school students to potential careers in the geospatial
industry. MississippiView provides support across all aspects of the
geospatial community in Mississippi by supporting training courses,
summer camps, after school programs, and other activities.
MontanaView is a state-wide consortium of 9 universities, non-
profit organizations and government agencies working within Montana to
advance the availability and timely distribution of remotely sensed
data. MontanaView works with farmers and ranchers on applying sight-
specific agriculture techniques to reduce environmental impacts and
economic outputs. We support wildfire management by aplying innovative
science and technology to on-the-ground natural resource incidents.
MontanaView is also establishing a network of geospatial professionals
and resources to respond during emergency disasters. Working with our
partners, we support geospatial education and workforce development
including training and geospatial resources for K-12 school teachers,
agencies, and other professionals as well as support to tribal collages
in meeting their geospatial needs and course offerings.
NebraskaView works to ensure that Nebraskans make full use of
satellite imagery, geospatial data and technologies such as geographic
information systems (GIS) and remote sensing for mapping, monitoring
and managing our cities and rural lands, and protecting our natural
resources. NebraskaView collaborates with the Nebraska GIS Council and
the Nebraska GIS/LIS Association to coordinate the implementation of
geospatial technologies by state and local governments in Nebraska. We
also promote the use of geospatial technologies to the general public
through community outreach activities and museum displays. We work with
our partners at all of Nebraska's state colleges and universities to
support geospatial education and workforce development. Our educational
activities have included training and geospatial resources for K-16
school teachers, Nebraska 4H educators, and the state's Science
Olympiad.
NevadaView will ensure ongoing, readily available, access to a
growing amount of remote sensing and other geospatial data sets.
Educational outreach programs in remote sensing and geospatial analysis
will increase as will the variety of web enabled remote sensing tools
that will become available to the States data users. NevadaView will
allow us to bring more remote sensing resources online, continue the
growth and development of the Keck state geospatial data set repository
web site, allow for remote sensing outreach workshops for a variety of
government and public entities, and help support teaching and research
labs by insuring access to up-to-date image processing and GIS
software. These goals, implemented together, will increase the
availability and use of remote sensing data and technology throughout
Nevada to an ever growing list of users and applications. In
accomplishing these goals NevadaView will be implementing the its
mission to provide to all levels of government and the private sector
increased access to training, remote sensing data, and imagery
applications. This will allow greater integration of the geospatial
data and technology into everyday decision making.
New Hampshire View provides a means to bring many groups that use
remotely sensed imagery and other geospatial data together in a formal
way to aid communication and sharing of resources. In addition, the
consortium provides a single point of access for anyone in the state
needing imagery or wishing to learn more about geospatial technology
resources within New Hampshire. For its members, the consortium
provides networking and collaboration infrastructure, educational
support and outreach. The ongoing goal of New Hampshire View is to
continue to develop and expand activities that will increase awareness
among and collaboration between users of remotely sensed and other
geospatial information in New Hampshire. We will continue to document
and demonstrate the benefits of remote sensing education, outreach, and
research activities throughout the state. We propose to achieve the
following outcomes: (1) bring together all those in New Hampshire
interested in using remotely sensed data to solve real problems, (2)
develop a collaborative relationship between all academic institutions
in the state that can then benefit state and local agencies, the
private sector, and the public, (3) increase awareness and foster
opportunities to work together among all remotely sensed data
stakeholders in New Hampshire, and (4) expose those who may not know
about the uses of remote sensing and other geospatial technologies to
their many benefits and possibilities.
New Mexico View, a consortium of 11 institutions including
universities and public agencies, is committed to expanding the
knowledge and use of remote sensing data and technologies through
outreach programs. These programs are designed to facilitate the
training of the existing and future high tech workforce of New Mexico.
Our sponsored workshops and online tutorials are designed to educate
and train a wide variety of users in remote sensing and geospatial
concepts, data use, and applications of advanced technologies. In the 3
years since New Mexico view was established, we have successfully
conducted educational training events to communities, public agencies,
and students throughout the state. New Mexico View mini-grant funds
have allowed member institutions to develop educational materials and
demonstrations on a range of geospatial concepts that support
technology careers within the state.
New YorkView joined in our AmericaView consortium in 2009. New
YorkView focuses on two major activities: 1) establishing strong
research groups in diverse applications of remote sensing particularly
focusing on urban landscape and terrestrial ecology, and 2) promoting
the use of remote sensing in academia and user communities by
facilitating education as well as access to remote sensing data and
products. New YorkView also plans to provide education and training
opportunities to non-professionals and K-12 students. These activities
will provide great benefit to various levels of the remote sensing user
communities by improving remote sensing infrastructure of the state and
nurturing good quality remote sensing scientists of the future.
The objective for the North Carolina View consortium is to remove
barriers between willing cooperating providers and users, to promote
and expand the further development of applied remote sensing for local
issues and problems, to cooperatively nurture the intellectual and
technical capacity of users through higher education and outreach, and
to engage with and educate the public about remote sensing through
outreach and educational activities. North Carolina View's
participation as a full member in the national AmericaView will enable
remote sensing data users in North Carolina to 1) utilize a more
efficient and effective means to locate, access, and retrieve existing
and future remotely sensed data and applications statewide, 2) develop
and enhance collaborative relationships of academic, federal, state,
county, city, and public and private sector users, and 3) further the
use of remote sensing in North Carolina to address critical issues the
State faces, with emphasis on land use and land cover type change, and
environmental and coastal resources.
The North DakotaView consortium continues to focus on work with
geospatial technology educators at tribal colleges serving American
Indian groups with land holdings in North Dakota. In 2008, for example,
we received an NSF Advanced Technology Education grant to work with
educators at Turtle Mountain Community College that will ramp up
geospatial technology education at that school. We continue to work to
raise awareness about remote sensing and geospatial technologies among
the general citizenry of North Dakota through various outreach and
training efforts. In 2008 we awarded four $500 scholarships to students
using geospatial technologies in their research. Many of those students
completed their work successfully and presented results at regional
and/or national conferences (duly acknowledging their funding from
AmericaView). North DakotaView purchased an ERDAS Imagine HEAK license
that will be shared among consortium members involved in higher
education. In Fall 2009, North DakotaView will co-sponsor the North
Dakota GIS Users' Conference in Grand Forks. We have seen an increased
demand in the state for people trained in geospatial technologies and
spatial reasoning, and we are pleased that AV funding helps us to fill
that need.
The goals of PennsylvaniaView are to 1) build partnerships within
the Commonwealth to support interests in satellite remotely sensed
data, 2) create resources for K-12 teachers to utilize in their
classrooms to educate students about satellite imagery, 3) promote the
sharing of data through connections with existing resources and
acquisition of new data resources, 4) promote the annual Pennsylvania
Workshop on Remote Sensing, and 5) work with undergraduate educators
and institutions through the Commonwealth to enhance access to
satellite data and encourage its use in their courses. The current
economic situation has precluded many organizations from moving forward
in their development and deployment of educational and training
resources. The strong history of California University of
Pennsylvania's role in such activities will allow CUP as the principal
organization to provide leadership in this area. In addition, members
of the PennsylvaniaView team have also led the way in developing and
providing access to LIDAR data for Pennsylvania.
In Ohio, OhioView is contributing to economic development and
redevelopment of the economy through remote sensing and geospatial
technology. Ohio's manufacturing base has shrunk considerably and Ohio
is one of the hardest hit states due to the recession. Training of
workers, teachers and students is an important step in preparing
workers for the new economy. In Ohio, OhioView is also contributing to
detection of water contamination through algal bloom detection in
drinking water supplies and farmland/urban analysis. OhioView is
contributing to disaster preparedness from oil spills on Lake Erie to
installation security.
The strength that has emerged from the South Dakota View program is
its education, training and outreach activities. South DakotaView
annually sponsors a Geospatial Technology for Educators workshop for K-
12 teachers, hosted at the USGS Center for Earth Observation and
Science (EROS). At this workshop, and at other similar training and
outreach events, educators learn how to incorporate remote sensing and
related geospatial technologies into their classroom curriculum. South
DakotaView's educational efforts also extend to the university
classroom and to various user communities such as extension educators
and agricultural producers. The extensive archive of remotely sensed
imagery maintained by South DakotaView is utilized by a wide variety of
users in South Dakota and beyond, including students, researchers,
farmers and ranchers, and natural resource managers.
As a founding member of the AmericaView Consortium, TexasView has a
long and well established record of leadership and accomplishment.
TexasView is patterned after the OhioView model. It is a consortium of
universities, federal, state and local entities, dedicated to promoting
remote sensing through a comprehensive program of research, education
and outreach activities. This mission is closely aligned with the
mission of TexasView host institution, the Columbia Regional Geospatial
Service Center System, housed at Stephen F. Austin State University.
TexasView is the remote sensing arm of the Columbia Center System.
TexasView now includes 14 university members as well as an assortment
of state and local agency affiliates. TexasView provides a remote
sensing voice for the strong GIS community in Texas. TexasView provides
strong support for state, regional and local agencies through data
buys, archiving and distribution services. An on-going program of
education and outreach is helping prepare a new generation of
technologically savvy leaders. Finally, TexasView supports research by
providing seed grants to member institutions.
UtahView has developed Virtual Utah (http://earth.gis.usu.edu/utah/
), which was designed so that the public could appreciate changes in
the Utah landscape through multi-temporal digital aerial photography.
The map server provides users with aerial imagery (photography) for
most of the state from 1993/97, 2003, 2004 and 2006. In addition it
provides an easy-to-use interface for other forms of satellite imagery
for the state, such as MODIS and Landsat. The Intermountain Region
Digital Image Archive Center (IRDIAC; http://earth.gis.usu.edu/) is a
user-friendly website designed to assist research, land management and
educational institutions with the development of tools and decision
support systems for natural resource management using remote sensing.
The archive also stores, processes, and disseminates, through the
Internet, remotely sensed information to state and federal
collaborators and the public within the Intermountain Region.
Although VermontView has not been funded yet our AmericaView
consortium has been actively involved in insuring a return on
investment on the high resolution imagery and LiDAR datasets that exist
by 1) making them publically accessible and 2) generating usable
products such as high resolution land cover. With funding we would
really like to become more involved in disaster response. There is no
agency in the state that has robust image exploitation capabilities. As
a result imagery has not been used extensively for disaster response in
the past.
VirginiaView's goals are to distribute Landsat and related
geospatial data to a broad spectrum of users; cultivate the user
community through informational programs, workshops, development of
educational resources and Landsat-related products; and strengthen and
enlarge the coalition of VirginiaView partners through sharing of
goals, mutual support, and close communication. Current topics for
Virginia include applications of geospatial data to (a) improve
understanding environmental implications of the karst landscapes of the
Shenandoah Valley and neighboring West Virginia, (b) work with the
Virginia Department of Health to investigate relationships between
landscapes and occurrence of Lyme Disease, and (c) develop applications
of night-time imagery to improve safety and community planning. Current
activities are focused on delivering materials that support educational
activities in K-12 classrooms and Virginia's Community Colleges. These
activities are designed to exploit developments that permit data
streaming in precollege educational institutions and the capabilities
of Enterprise GIS capabilities to greatly increase the availability of
these resources to middle and high school educators, among others.
WashingtonView is the most recent affiliate member consortium of
AmericaView. While a young program, WashingtonView has been active in
developing educational materials for K-12 education and in linking
remote sensing professionals and services throughout the state of
Washington. We plan to provide quality materials to educators
throughout the state by collaborating with school districts and
educational non-profit groups. WashingtonView also functions as a
networking community to connect researchers for the purpose of
developing grants of all sizes related to regional remote sensing
applications.
West Virginia View's emphasis has been on supporting and
strengthening K-12 and higher education throughout the state. Over the
past five years, working with five academic institutions and numerous
K-12 science teachers, West Virginia View has supported the development
of new college courses, leveraged lab resources and software licenses,
supported dozens of graduate students in remote sensing, and trained
over 100 K-12 science teachers in geospatial science and technology. We
are currently developing a new two-course sequence at West Virginia
University for pre-service science teachers, focusing on geospatial
technology and Earth system science applications. Our emphasis on
science and technology education is paying dividends in schools,
colleges, and in the state's technology workforce.
The overall vision of WisconsinView has been to build and grow a
remote sensing community in Wisconsin. WisconsinView adds remote
sensing imagery to our online archive on a daily basis with the near
real-time MODIS acquisitions that we clip and process to conform to our
standard state projection. WisconsinView continues to develop and
distribute GIS/RS instructions for educators that can be used in
curricula to teach at the K-12 level. We have developed ``How-To''
instructions to accompany MODIS imagery available through WisconsinView
and companion websites. Three of WisconsinView's best success stories
involve 1) technology transfer that has resulted in the operational use
of remote sensing by our Wisconsin DNR, 2) facilitating growth in the
applications of RS data by making remote sensing data and imagery
available for free download, and 3) support of Wisconsin emergency
management for the flooding of 2008 that demonstrated the value of
AmericaView and WisconsinView and the application of remote sensing
data.
WyomingView promotes the use of remote sensing technology for
mapping and monitoring Wyoming's wildlands, rangelands, croplands and
water resources. WyomingView also collaborates with federal, state, and
tribal (Wind River Environmental Quality Commission) government
agencies, with participation from the University of Wyoming (UW)
students, for incorporating satellite images for natural resource
management issues. Every year UW students receive internships to work
on Wyoming's natural resource monitoring and mapping issues that are of
interest to federal and state government agencies. Since 2003, more
than 15 UW undergraduate and graduate students have been trained in the
use of satellite images for natural resource management issues.
WyomingView continues to provide technical support to governmental
agencies, private companies and UW students and faculty in the use of
remote sensing technology.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Dodge on H.R.
2489
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. How much annual funding does a StateView typically receive?
Beginning with the AmericaView incorporation as a 501c3 non-profit
in 2003, StateViews received $89,500 each for three years, as
membership expanded from 10 to 18. As AV funded new members, funding
dropped to $84,000, then to $51,000. For the last two years, as we have
grown to fund over 30 StateViews, the funding levels have dropped to
$24,000 and now to $23,000 for this funding year.
Also, please provide information on any contribution, including in-
kind support, that the state or lead institution in your
StateView Program provides.
While I was Director of GeorgiaView (until 1 year ago), my
University allowed me to direct the 9-member consortium out of my
office, rent free. Computer, phone, and all other utility services were
also provided free, including free long distance and conference call
services. Since I was still a University employee, I had access to
state-provided health, dental, and retirement programs, instead of
having to find those independently. I had access to the software and
hardware needed for pilot applied research projects, for free. I had
access to University laboratory facilities for offering workshops to
State and private industry employees, rent free. The University also
waived overhead charges on the grant by accepting the AV overhead limit
of 15% (vs. standard rate of 48%); for several years, I asked for and
got a complete waiver (0% overhead) because the funding rate had
dropped to the point that I could not support StateView activities
effectively. I believe that the overall value of these services and
waivers is approximately equivalent to a 25% match.
2. Expanding AmericaView to additional states and activities would
seem to require more funding. Have you considered soliciting
non-federal sources of support for AmericaView? Why or why not?
We have considered seeking funding from private foundations that
support science, technology, engineering and math education. As our
funding levels have continually dropped, the actual existence of
AmericaView has come into question over the past several years, and
that has made it a bit difficult to argue for the sustainability of our
organization as a future player in STEM education. We have turned that
attitude around and are actively working now towards this goal of
funding for our education activities. Since the rest of our work really
involves helping a federal agency to meet its strategic plan goals in
our states, private support for those activities is less likely.
Some StateViews assist the private sector with geospatial analysis and
technology. Would it be possible for AmericaView to solicit
support from private sector beneficiaries of the program, or
create some form of public private partnership for AmericaView?
Why or why not?
We have had, in several StateViews, partnerships that involve
internships for students who perform pilot projects using geospatial
technologies. This is an avenue that might be implemented very
successfully with private industry. Both the students and the private
sector host organizations would benefit. This can be pursued StateView-
by-StateView, or among StateViews with similar applications needs
(range management; forestry management, coastal zone management).
We do have partnership MOUs with private corporations that supply
data and software that we use for teaching and for applied research.
These relationships give us discounted prices for data, software, and
training. All of these partnership activities with private industry
better enable StateViews to perform their primary task, which is using
our education, training, and outreach capabilities to support local,
state, and federal agencies by transferring technology.
3. AmericaView has existed for about 10 years. Why does H.R. 2489 need
to be passed by Congress for AmericaView to continue?
The USGS AmericaView Program has existed since 1998. The
AmericaView academic consortium has existed, with focused funding,
since 2003. Funding levels have dropped continuously, and are now 25%
of what they were in 2003. The consortium has more than tripled in size
during the same period.
The Authorization Bill will not only make us accountable to
Congress in the appropriate way, but it will also ensure that a
realistic analysis of the funding needs for the program described in
the ``AmericaView Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program Act'' will be
developed by Congress. Without the Authorization process, the levels of
activity that can be achieved in each StateView Program have been
restricted and funding has dropped to unsustainable levels. Although
the StateViews do a lot with very little, as shown by the remaining
activities that are going on at current funding levels, meeting all of
the needs for bringing federally-funded satellite data and technology
to bear on state problems is not possible at current funding levels.
In my opinion, as a former StateView Director, the fact that
passage of the Act has instigated an analysis is at multiple levels of
what is meant by ``such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act''
is an important step in prioritizing what levels and ranges of activity
are expected of the StateViews. Due to low levels of funding,
StateViews have not been active in all of the areas listed in the Act.
Funding at levels that allow StateViews to engage fully in 4 to 6 of
the activities listed would ensure a very high impact in every State
(requiring $15 - $25 million/year to be distributed among 50 states
and territories). This is not to say that high levels of impact in some
activity areas have not been achieved at lower levels of funding, just
to say that wider impact in ongoing activities and expansion into new
activities is possible as funding increases. Bringing funding back to
levels to the ``original'' levels received by StateViews (\$85,000/
StateView/year) available during the first three of years of the
program (requiring $5 million/year to be distributed among 50 states
and territories) would result in high impacts in 2 to 3 areas. Passage
of the Act will result in the cooperative clarification of expectations
about activity levels, and enable StateView programs to meet them.
Assessment strategies can be developed and implemented effectively,
which will expand and sustain state-focused efforts in each StateView.
4. H.R. 2489 directs the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with
the AmericaView Project ``to develop nationally consistent
standards for geospatial imagery mapping in each state.''
However, the development of standards for mapping seems like
the kind of activity that should involve more stakeholders than
the Department of the Interior and AmericaView. Could you
clarify the role you think would be appropriate for AmericaView
in the development of standards for mapping? Would
AmericaView's focus be more appropriately described as
development of standards for the distribution of images,
information, and technology, rather than for mapping?
It would be more appropriate for AmericaView's focus to be on
helping to investigate existing standards and needs for the
distribution of data, on advising during the formulation of new
standards. It is also appropriate for AmericaView to focus mainly on
promoting the new standards through various outreach, training, and
education efforts. Finally, we believe that it is appropriate to limit
this direction to apply to remotely sensed data, rather than mapping in
general. We understand that this was raised as an issue by the USGS as
well, and believe that it is being clarified in subsequent language.
5. This bill would expand AmericaView to all 50 states. Is that
realistic? Why is it important for this program to be in all 50
states and territories?
The expansion of AmericaView to all 50 states is very realistic.
Currently, 36 states are members of the AmericaView Consortium (we are
only able to fund 33 states at this time) and our Executive Director is
engaged in discussions with an additional four states regarding their
potential membership. One significant drawback to recruiting new
StateViews at this time is the limited funding available to support
AmericaView activities.
A major focus of the AmericaView consortium has been helping to
meet the goals of the USGS Strategic Plan, in each member state.
Furthermore, we StateViews work synergistically, and are beginning to
address multiple-state projects and issues that are not confined to
state boundaries (drought, floods, fires, hurricanes). As a federally-
supported effort to bring federal resources of imagery, applications
and technology into the member states while at the same time developing
new applications, it's important to include all the states (and
territories, as per the definitions section of the Act). It's also true
that with each state we add, we gain new expertise, teaching resources,
and methodologies that can be disseminated among all the members.
6. How do you see AmericaView interacting with ongoing image-
collection initiatives like Imagery for the Nation and USDA's
NAIP aerial photography program? Please explain the differences
between the Imagery for the Nation Initiative and the NAIP
Program and the activities that will be authorized through H.R.
2489.
The primary distinction is that Imagery for the Nation and NAIP
emphasize collection and archive of data at the national level while
AmericaView emphasizes education, outreach, and application of that
data at the state level. Collection and archive within AmericaView is
limited to meeting specific local needs. The programs are, therefore,
highly complementary.
The Imagery for the Nation initiative has great potential to bring
about the kinds and levels of coverage that states need to solve many
problems. AmericaView enthusiastically supports the goals of this
initiative. We stand ready to ensure that the data delivery,
applications development, training, outreach, and education
infrastructure we have developed and are continuing to develop is
available to support this initiative. Many StateViews already deliver
NAIP imagery across their states through StateView websites. For
example, WisconsinView's consortium member, USDA - Wisconsin Farm
Service Agency, will be providing 1-meter statewide 2008 NAIP GeoTIFF
imagery by the end of 2009. WisconsinView will put that data online in
early 2010.
Just as with other federally-funded imagery, AmericaView is the
bridge between the NAIP and IFTN imagery and the end user. We identify
needs, educate and train the end user, and develop and demonstrate new
applications of all kinds of imagery. Our function is complementary to
these two programs, and in no way competitive.
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program has a state match
funding requirement. Would you support a similar requirement
for the America View Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program? Would
you support a 25% federal/75% state share requirement? Would
you support a 50/50 cost share requirement?
Effectively, the StateView host Universities, already make an in-
kind match at the 25% level. While I was Director of GeorgiaView (until
1 year ago), my University allowed me to direct the 9-member consortium
out of my office with no direct cost to GeorgiaView. Computer, phone,
and all other utility services were paid for by the University, again
at no cost to GeorgiaView, including no direct-cost long distance and
conference call services. I had access to the software and hardware
needed for pilot applied research projects, at no direct cost. I had
access to University laboratory, computer, instrument, and audiovisual
facilities for offering workshops to County, State Federal, and private
industry employees. The University also waived overhead charges on the
grant by accepting the AV overhead limit of 15% (vs. standard rate of
48%); for several years, I asked for and got a complete waiver (0%
overhead) because the funding rate had dropped to the point that I
could not support StateView activities effectively. I believe that the
overall value of these services and waivers is approximately equivalent
to a 25% match.
Often, when the lead institution gives grants to other member
institutions, they require that the 15% overhead rate be adhered to by
the institution receiving the grants (putting even more funds to
applied rather than administrative use). StateViews actually husband
our limited resources quite well, and I think it might be difficult to
squeeze more match out of our already-budget-challenged institutions.
2. What other sources of funding do the States receive for this
program? Do you receive grants from other federal agencies?
There is ``a whole lotta leveraging'' going on in each StateView,
and in each StateView's member institutions. Training programs,
scholarship programs, pilot projects, outreach events--all these and
other efforts are pursued in cooperation with private industry, other
funded groups such as NASA Space Grant, state and federal agencies
needing pilot project, and users groups. This leveraging effectively
extends our funding for specific applications and events. StateView
Directors, where such a position still exists, are typically funded
more than 50% by grant funds from non-AmericaView/USGS sources. Of
course they have the attached responsibilities for that ``outside''
funding, diminishing their focus on AmericaView goals and activities.
3. Would you support a sunset provision in the authorizing legislation
to allow Congress to review this program again in 10 years? 20
years?
We believe that it is appropriate for the program to be reviewed on
a regular basis, although the annual review provided by the USGS as
part of the competitive grant provision of the Act provides an
excellent mechanism for federal oversight. In addition, we are reviewed
annually by our peers from the other StateViews, prior to approval for
another round of annual funding.
The needs in the states are going to change over time, and such
reviews should be required. The Act actually authorizes AmericaView for
5 years, although with the time required to bring all states and
territories into the program and fully operational suggests that the
suggested 10-20 years might be more appropriate.
Questions from Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Is there going to be a ``Territory View'' or other program relevant to
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands?
Yes, this should be the case. The predicted changes in coastal
management issues could impact our Territories profoundly; it's not
just lower 48, Hawaii, and Alaska coastlines undergoing retreat.
Coastal wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs, salt marshes, and estuaries--
these are all national resources that must be monitored and protected
across the entire nation. Citizens in the Territories need education,
training, and applied research efforts in order to accomplish these
goals.
The term State, as defined in the Act, includes:
(A) each of the several States of the United States;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
(D) Guam;
(E) American Samoa;
(F) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and
(G) the United States Virgin Islands.
I assume that applies to the ``State'' in ``StateView''.
AmericaView is one key USGS effort that engages stakeholders through
1. outreach
2. education
3. applied research
4. data distribution
USGS strategic plan goals that AmericaView addresses in each state:
1. Understanding ecosystems and predicting ecosystem change
2. Climate variability and change
3. National hazards, risk, and resilience assessment
4. The role of the environment in wildlife and human health
5. A water census of the U.S.--quantifying, forecasting, and
securing freshwater for America's future
6. ``New methods of Investigation and discovery''
1. Planning for long-term data management and dissemination
into multidisciplinary science practices
2. Developing a sustainable data-hosting infrastructure to
support retention, archiving, and dissemination of valuable
USGS data sets in accordance with open standards
3. Identifying and leveraging national and international
efforts to promote comprehensive data information management
and foster sharing of knowledge and expertise
4. Enhancing workforce expertise in evolving technologies
5. Identifying and establishing external partnerships with
scientists and technologists
6. Developing ``communities of practice'' that share
resources and actively seek to deploy evolving technologies
7. Accelerating the introduction and piloting of new
technologies
______
Mr. Costa. Thank you. You were within the time allotted, so
you get extra points. We will look forward to the questions.
Ms. Mary O'Neill, Principal Investigator for South Dakota
View, Manager for the Office of Remote Sensing at South Dakota
State University. This is now your third introduction, so we
are looking forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY O'NEILL, SOUTH DAKOTA VIEW DIRECTOR AND
MANAGER, OFFICE OF REMOTE SENSING, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
UNIVERSITY
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you and good morning.
Mr. Costa. Good morning. It is almost afternoon now.
Ms. O'Neill. It is. Thank you, Chairman Costa and Ranking
Member Lamborn, for inviting me here today to testify, and
thanks also to my South Dakota Congresswoman, Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin, for her introduction this morning and for her
longstanding support of the AmericaView program and her
sponsorship of the AmericaView legislation that is our focus
here today.
AmericaView is a program that is a model of the way our
country should be utilizing its investment in earth observation
aircraft and satellites and the data they acquire. Remotely
sensed imagery is no longer esoteric, something used
exclusively by gray-bearded university researchers. Rather, it
is a tool that contributes to the quality and safety of each of
our lives on a daily basis.
Like many new technologies, potential users need to be
educated on the value of the technology and how it can help
them do their jobs more effectively, economically and
sustainably. That is the role of AmericaView--to be the conduit
of remote sensing technology transfer.
The shape and size of that conduit varies from state to
state. The conduit for South Dakota will look different than
the conduit for Maryland because our populations and landscapes
are very different. Our national coordination, however, means
that we can share ideas, experiences and data that benefit one
another.
The mission of AmericaView, according to its charter, is to
advance the availability, timely distribution and widespread
use of remote sensing data and technology through education,
research, outreach and sustainable technology transfer to the
public and private sectors. It is the education and outreach
portion of the AmericaView mission that I would like to focus
on this morning.
Each of the 36 current AmericaView states engages in
education and outreach activities. The pie chart that you see
on the screen shows the various categories of educational
activities proposed by AmericaView member states for the coming
year. The list of past, current and proposed educational
activities in the AmericaView member states is long and diverse
and includes:
Collaboratively developing an on-line remote sensing
tutorial, offering workshops such as the Hurricane Season
Imagery Workshop in Louisiana, demonstrating to state and
Federal agency personnel the use of an unmanned airborne system
for rangeland assessments, providing geospatial training to the
Texas National Guard and State Guard, training tribal
government personnel from the Wind River Indian Reservation,
providing a hands-on geospatial activity for students
participating in a 4-H camp and offering summer training for K-
12 students and teachers.
AmericaView's education services are provided to several
different groups of current and future users of geospatial
technologies. K-12 teachers comprise one of these groups.
Training the next generation of scientists and citizens is one
of the awesome tasks required of K-12 teachers. It is
imperative, therefore, that the teachers themselves are
adequately prepared.
Another user group we work with is students. We are often
invited into K-12 classrooms to make presentations and do
hands-on activities such as GPS treasure hunts or geocaching,
and we also work with students in organizations such as 4-H and
the Boy Scouts. We of course also work with postsecondary
students in community colleges, tribal colleges and our
universities.
The current workforce is another group that is served by
AmericaView. This group includes farmers, ranchers, state and
Federal agency personnel, school district administrators, local
and tribal government officials, disaster response teams,
natural resource managers, military personnel and extension
educators.
Passage of H.R. 2489 will make it possible to enhance the
quantity and quality of our AmericaView education efforts,
including extending the AmericaView program to all 50 states
and territories, expanding the number of courses taught in
universities and colleges, providing additional geospatial
tools for educators, allowing greater access to imagery and
building training partnerships with all levels of government.
As we look at the challenges that our children and
grandchildren will face in the future--energy supply, climate
change, natural resource availability and distribution and
national security--we know that the role of geospatial
technology will become more important.
AmericaView is proud of the role it has played thus far in
training the current and future workforce. We look forward to
Congress' continued and expanded support of our country's
critical geospatial education needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Neill follows:]
Statement of Mary O'Neill, Principal Investigator, South Dakota View,
and Manager, Office of Remote Sensing, South Dakota State University
Good morning. My name is Mary O'Neill. I currently serve as the
manager of the Office of Remote Sensing at South Dakota State
University and as the principal investigator of the South Dakota View
consortium. I would like to thank Chairman Costa for inviting me to
testify at today's hearing on H.R. 2489, the AmericaView Geospatial
Imagery Mapping Program Act. I would also like to thank my South Dakota
Congresswoman, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, for her long-standing support
of the AmericaView program and her sponsorship of the AmericaView
legislation that is our focus today.
AmericaView is a program that is near and dear to me. More
importantly, however, it is a program that is a model of the way our
country should be utilizing the investment it has made in earth
observation aircraft and satellites and the data they acquire. Remotely
sensed imagery is no longer esoteric, something used exclusively by
gray-bearded university researchers. Rather, it is a tool that
contributes to the quality and safety of each of our lives on a daily
basis. As with many new technologies, potential users need to be
educated on the value of the technology and how it can help them do
their jobs more effectively, more efficiently, more economically, and
more sustainably. That is the role of AmericaView--to be the conduit of
remote sensing technology transfer. The shape and size of that conduit
varies from state to state. That is the beauty of AmericaView. As our
charter proclaims, we are locally controlled and nationally
coordinated. The conduit for South Dakota will look different than the
conduit for Maryland because our populations and landscapes are very
different. Our national coordination, however, means that we get
together to share ideas, experiences and data that will benefit one
another--the synergistic nature of the AmericaView organization.
The Education Component of AmericaView
The mission of AmericaView, according to its Charter, is ``...to
advance the availability, timely distribution, and widespread use of
remote sensing data and technology...through education, research,
outreach and sustainable technology transfer to the public and private
sectors.'' It is the education and outreach portion of the AmericaView
mission that I would like to focus on this morning. As I mentioned
earlier, education is a vital part of the technology transfer process.
Each of the 36 current AmericaView states engages in education and
outreach activities. The pie chart in Figure 1 shows the various
categories of educational activities proposed by AmericaView member
states for the program year starting in September 2009 along with the
percentage breakdown of these activities.
The list of educational past, current and proposed educational
activities in the AmericaView member states is long and diverse. Here
is a sampling of those activities:
CaliforniaView, IowaView, and GeorgiaView have worked
collaboratively to develop an on-line remote sensing tutorial as part
of a remote sensing certification program
MarylandView and PennsylvaniaView are working together to
update and revise the Mid-Atlantic from Space lessons developed earlier
by MarylandView
PennsylvaniaView is creating university lessons in
conjunction with a private-sector software vendor
LouisianaView, along with the USGS National Wetlands
Research Center, annually offers a data mining workshop entitled
``Louisiana Hurricane Season National and Local Geospatial Imagery Data
Availability''
NewMexicoView, in its next program year, plans to
demonstrate to state and federal agency personnel the acquisition of
digital remote sensing images and video for rangeland assessment and
monitoring using an Unmanned Airborne System (UAS)
TexasView, in the summer and fall of 2010, will provide a
comprehensive Level III geospatial training program to the Texas State
Guard, focusing on geospatial technology for command and control
WyomingView plans to train tribal government personnel
from the Wind River Indian Reservation on image processing techniques
The AmericaView Education Working Group, comprised of
members from several states, is currently planning activities for Earth
Observation Day in the spring of 2010
New Mexico, Kentucky, Colorado, North Dakota and Hawaii
will be using Google Earth technology to assist teachers, students and
the general public in understanding remote sensing applications
HawaiiView will conduct remote sensing workshops at Na
Pua Noevau Super Saturday Events, in collaboration with the Native
Hawaiian Science and Engineering Mentorship
NebraskaView plans to provide a hands-on geospatial
activity for 60-80 students who will be participating in the 4-H Big
Red Summer Camp
OhioView, which has been offering its summer SATELLITES
(Students and Teachers Exploring Local Landscapes to Interpret the
Earth from Space) institute for the past nine years, will expand the
institute to the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland
SouthDakotaView recently offered its eleventh annual
Geospatial Technology for Educators workshop. This four-day workshop,
held at the USGS Center for EROS, exposed K-12 teachers to remote
sensing and other geospatial technologies and how they can be
integrated into their classroom curriculum
SouthDakotaView will, during its next program year,
prepare a presentation suitable for service clubs that will create
awareness of AmericaView and SDView and the general public services
they provide.
Who Benefits from AmericaView's Education Efforts?
As you can see from the list above, our services are provided to
several different groups of current and future users of geospatial
imagery and associated technologies. K-12 teachers comprise one of
those groups. Training the next generation of scientists,
technologists, engineers and mathematicians--the STEM disciplines--is
one of the awesome tasks required of K-12 teachers. It is imperative,
therefore, that the teachers themselves have adequate and state-of-the-
art knowledge in these disciplines along with the tools and enthusiasm
required to engage their students. Workshops, such as the Geospatial
Technology for Educators workshop shown in Figure 2, are offered by
many of the AmericaView states to give teachers the opportunity to
learn about geospatial technologies such as remote sensing, geographic
information systems (GIS), and global positioning systems (GPS). At the
workshops they also learn how to incorporate these technologies into
their curriculum, i.e., how to use the technologies to enhance what
they are required to teach. Our vision is that one day the use of
geospatial technologies in the classroom will be as common as the
present-day use of word processing, spreadsheets, and PowerPoint--
technologies that as recent as 10 years ago were also new to teachers.
The current popularity of GPS and Google Earth among the general
public is a hook that can be used to further the geospatial knowledge
of both teachers and their students. Many AmericaView workshops
demonstrate to teachers how these commonly available geospatial tools
can be effectively used in their classrooms. Many workshops also
require that the teachers create lesson plans that use one or more
geospatial technologies in their discipline area. These disciplines
include physical science, Earth science, chemistry, geography,
mathematics, and even the social sciences, music and art. These lesson
plans are then shared with other teachers at the workshop and in their
school districts; thus the technology transfer continues.
Another user group we work with is students. K-12 teachers will
often ask us to come to their school to tell their students about
geospatial technology and/or do hands-on activities such as GPS
treasure hunts or geocaching with their students. We also often do
hands-on activities with students who are a part of organizations such
as 4-H and the Boy Scouts. We, of course, also work with post-secondary
students in community colleges, tribal colleges, and our universities.
Interaction with these students may be in the classroom, in a research
lab, or as an advisor. AmericaView is of benefit to these students in
many ways. Some of them are able to do classroom and research projects
because of the data that are freely available to them in the
AmericaView image archives. Some of them find their classroom lectures
more interesting and relevant because of the real-world experience of
their AmericaView-associated professors or guest lecturers. Some of
them have received assistantships, internships or mini-grants from
AmericaView. Some of them will benefit from the software licenses that
another university within their state consortium was able to share with
them. And some of them will find jobs because of the connection their
instructor or advisor has to the AmericaView network. Figure 3 shows
some of the students we have recently worked with in South Dakota.
The current workforce is another group that benefits from
AmericaView's education efforts. This group includes farmers, ranchers,
state and federal agency personnel, school district administrators,
local government personnel, tribal government officials, disaster
response teams, natural resource managers, military personnel, and
extension educators. An example of the latter is the two-day training
session sponsored by South Dakota View at the USGS Center for EROS near
Sioux Falls in 2007. Approximately 16 extension educators from the
South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service attended this workshop and
learned about the role of geospatial technologies in precision
agriculture. These educators in turn transferred their new-found
knowledge to the thousands of constituents they serve in the state. An
example that involves a combination of military and disaster response
officials is the training delivered by TexasView for the Texas National
Guard and Texas State Guard. Three levels of training enable the
Guardsmen to become proficient in using geospatial technologies in
their unit facilities and in the field in response to natural or man-
caused disasters in order to safeguard human life and restore critical
services such as electrical power and clean water.
The general public can be thought of as yet another education
group. This group learns about geospatial technologies by viewing
displays in museums and other public places, by attending events that
provide hands-on experience, and by viewing AmericaView member state
websites. The value of this type of learning is documented in a study
recently published by the National Academy of Sciences entitled
``Learning Science in Informal Settings: People, Places, Pursuits.''
This study found evidence that informal education programs involving
exhibits, new media, and hands-on experiences--such as public
participation in research--increase interest in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics and related careers for both children and
adults.
The AmericaView Geospatial Image Mapping Program Act
Although the list of current and planned educational activities is
already impressive, passage of the AmericaView Geospatial Image Mapping
Program Act will make it possible to enhance the quantity and quality
of AmericaView's education, training and outreach efforts. These
enhancements include:
Extending the AmericaView program to all 50 states and
territories, thus making it possible for many more students, teachers
and workforce personnel to learn about geospatial data and technologies
Expanding the number of remote sensing and other
geospatial technology courses taught at universities, community
colleges, historically black colleges and universities, and tribal
colleges
Providing additional and easy-to-use geospatial tools for
educators
Expanding geospatial imagery mapping research at research
universities
Allowing greater access to remotely sensed imagery and
image processing tools
Providing more training for current workforce personnel
Promoting imagery formats that are compatible with
commonly used software
Building training partnerships with all levels of
government
Supporting student research and development activities
The United States Department of Labor in 2004 identified the
geospatial technology industry as a high-growth industry. The criteria
used for this designation were: (1) the industry is projected to add
substantial numbers of new jobs to the economy or affect the growth of
other industries, or (2) the industry is an existing or emerging
business being transformed by technology and innovation requiring new
skills for workers. Both criteria lend credence to the importance of
AmericaView's role in geospatial education. The U.S. Department of
Labor, in its High Growth Industry Profile of Geospatial Technology,
notes that ``Geospatial products and specialists are expected to play a
large role in homeland security activities.'' This same document states
that ``Increasing demand for readily available, consistent, accurate,
complete and current geographic information and the widespread
availability and use of advanced technologies offer great job
opportunities for people with many different talents and educational
backgrounds (US Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics).''
The current and projected demand for workers with geospatial
technology skills is evident. As we look at the challenges that our
children and grandchildren will face in the future--energy supply,
climate change, natural resource availability and distribution, and
even national security--we know that the role of geospatial technology
will become more important with each passing decade. AmericaView is
proud of the role it has played in training the current and future
geospatial technology workforce and in preparing for our future. We
look forward to Congress's continued and expanded support of our
country's critical geospatial education needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before you
and this Subcommittee.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[NOTE: Figures 2 and 3 (photographs) have been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Mary O'Neill
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. How much annual funding does a StateView typically receive? Also,
please provide information on any contribution, including in-
kind support, that the state or lead institution in your
StateView Program provides.
Since FY03 every StateView has received an equal amount of funding.
The amounts are:
FY03-FY05 -- $89,500
FY06 -- $84,000
FY07 -- $51,000
FY08 -- $23,989
FY09 -- $23,100 (anticipated amount)
South Dakota State University (SDSU), the lead institution for
SouthDakotaView (SDView), provides office space, telephone, computer
hardware and software, utilities, and all of the other services
normally included in a university's indirect cost structure. Since
FY06, SDSU has allowed a reduced indirect cost rate of 15% for SDView.
Because SDSU would normally charge an indirect rate of 44.5%, it is, in
essence, making an in-kind contribution of 29.5% of our SDView direct
costs. Previous to FY06 when funding levels were much higher than they
are now, SDSU allowed an indirect cost rate of 25%.
Although the level of StateView funding has decreased dramatically
in the past few years, many StateViews have tried hard to maintain the
level of services provided in previous years. This has necessitated
innovative types of leveraging and other means of unofficial in-kind
support. Although this may be effective for the short term, it is not
sustainable and, for many StateViews, is not possible.
2. Expanding AmericaView to additional states and activities would
seem to require more funding. Have you considered soliciting
non-federal sources of support for AmericaView? Why or why not?
Some StateViews assist the private sector with geospatial
analysis and technology. Would it be possible for AmericaView
to solicit support from private sector beneficiaries of the
program, or create some form of public private partnership for
AmericaView? Why or why not?
AmericaView will indeed require more funding to expand the number
of StateViews and their activities. We have considered soliciting non-
federal sources of support for AmericaView, including state and local
governments, foundations, and private industry. Currently, state and
local government agencies are not in a position to fund AmericaView
activities and, in fact, are often the recipients of AmericaView
services. Our mission is to show them how they can use our country's
huge investment in remotely sensed imagery to do their jobs more cost-
effectively and efficiently, with a hoped-for result of more demand for
the imagery and perhaps the creation of value-added industries that
will contribute to economic development.
AmericaView already has agreements in place with some private-
sector vendors. These agreements make it possible for StateView
consortium members to purchase imagery and software at reduced prices
for education and applied research purposes. As with the federal
government, the ultimate goal of these vendors is to cultivate more
users of remote sensing data and associated technologies. Since
AmericaView is, in a sense, creating customers for the private sector,
we may be able in the future to create a public-private partnership
that could partially fund AmericaView activities. However, my belief is
that this possibility is many years down the road and contingent upon
continued and enhanced federal funding to create a critical mass of
customers.
3. AmericaView has existed for about 10 years. Why does H.R. 2489 need
to be passed by Congress for AmericaView to continue?
As evidenced by the hundreds of highly leveraged cooperative
projects that AmericaView undertakes each year and the testimonials
regarding those projects in our annual reports to USGS, AmericaView is
providing a valuable and unique service to many individuals and groups.
Passage of H.R. 2489 will provide congressional recognition of what
AmericaView has accomplished and its potential for continued and
enhanced services. An AmericaView program that has been authorized by
Congress will create greater awareness of the program, give it more
visibility and legitimacy, and make it more accountable. It will
hopefully also be the impetus for increased funding that will allow the
program to grow to include all 50 states and territories and increase
the services provided by each StateView.
4. H.R. 2489 directs the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with
the AmericaView Project ``to develop nationally consistent
standards for geospatial imagery mapping in each state.''
However, the development of standards for mapping seems like
the kind of activity that should involve more stakeholders than
the Department of the Interior and AmericaView. Could you
clarify the role you think would be appropriate for AmericaView
in the development of standards for mapping? Would
AmericaView's focus be more appropriately described as
development of standards for the distribution of images,
information, and technology, rather than for mapping?
Developing mapping standards is not an appropriate role for
AmericaView. Entities such as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure,
the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the USGS National Geospatial
Programs Office have developed national mapping standards and are
charged with updating them as necessary. A more appropriate role for
AmericaView is to be cognizant of the mapping standards and to make
sure that state and local agencies and other ``clients'' with whom we
work are in compliance with the standards. As you suggest, it would
also be appropriate for AmericaView to be involved in the development
of standards for the distribution of remotely sensed imagery,
information and technology.
5. This bill would expand AmericaView to all 50 states. Is that
realistic? Why is it important for this program to be in all 50
states and territories?
It would seem unfair to deny any of the states or territories the
benefits that result from an AmericaView presence in their state or
territory. AmericaView is described as a program that is nationally
coordinated and locally controlled. This means that even though there
are common requirements among the StateViews, each has the flexibility
to adapt its program to meet the needs within its state. National
coordination also means that synergy exists among the states, enabling
the sharing of resources and ideas that result in savings of time,
effort and money. As more states and territories are added, the
knowledge base increases, more ``customers'' are created, and the
utilization of remotely sensed products is expanded. All of our states
and territories deserve a StateView that can work with them in
utilizing remotely sensed imagery for purposes such as better natural
resource management and inventory, increased levels of precision
agriculture, a greater understanding of climate change, and more
effective response to natural disasters.
The United States Department of Labor in 2004 identified the
geospatial technology industry as a high-growth industry. The criteria
used for this designation were: (1) the industry is projected to add
substantial numbers of new jobs to the economy or affect the growth of
other industries, or (2) the industry is an existing or emerging
business being transformed by technology and innovation requiring new
skills for workers. Both criteria lend credence to the importance of
AmericaView's role in geospatial education--in all 50 states and
territories.
6. How do you see AmericaView interacting with ongoing image-
collection initiatives like Imagery for the Nation and USDA's
NAIP aerial photography program? Please explain the differences
between the Imagery for the Nation Initiative and the NAIP
Program and the activities that will be authorized through H.R.
2489.
Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) and NAIP are programs that acquire
aerial photography and make it available for distribution and
utilization. AmericaView is a program that creates awareness (and
supports the use) of the imagery available from IFTN, NAIP, and several
other government and private industry sources. AmericaView strives to
connect imagery and users through education, outreach, and
applications. Because each StateView is university-based, the
AmericaView community is well-connected to remote sensing research and
researchers. It is the mission of AmericaView to transfer the results
of this applied research to the user community, including K-12 and
university students who are our next generation of citizens, scientists
and data consumers.
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program has a state match
funding requirement. Would you support a similar requirement
for the America View Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program? Would
you support a 25% federal/75% state share requirement? Would
you support a 50/50 cost share requirement?
With the current downturn in state and university economies, it
would be extremely difficult to cost share at either a 25/75 or 50/50
level. However, StateView host universities are already providing a
form of cost sharing by agreeing to an indirect cost rate of 15%. South
Dakota State University, for example, would normally charge an indirect
rate of 44.5%. It is, in essence, making an in-kind contribution of
29.5% of our SDView direct costs.
2. What other sources of funding do the States receive for this
program? Do you receive grants from other federal agencies?
In general, the StateView programs do not receive any other direct
sources of funding for their AmericaView activities. In order to
provide an adequate level of service, most StateViews do, however,
highly leverage other programs that allow them to share resources,
create travel efficiencies, and maximize their exposure to the user
community. As noted in question 1 above, host universities also in
essence provide funding by accepting an indirect cost rate of 15%.
3. Would you support a sunset provision in the authorizing legislation
to allow Congress to review this program again in 10 years? 20
years?
I would support a sunset provision in H.R. 2489 because of the
potential for change in remote sensing technology, its applications,
and user needs and because of the accountability that is necessary for
any program such as this. The education and outreach needs in the user
community will likely still exist far into the future, but the types of
remotely sensed data, delivery methods, and processing techniques will
change. Reviewing the program in 15 to 20 years seems to be appropriate
given the fact that only 36 states are currently within the AmericaView
program and many of them are in the initial stages of their StateView
development. This period of time would be sufficient for all 50 states
and territories to come on board and develop a mature program.
______
Mr. Costa. Thank you, and I know why your Congresswoman is
so high on the good work you are doing. Clearly it has made a
difference in South Dakota.
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. We appreciate your testimony.
Our last witness on this panel, but certainly not the
least, is Dr. Sam Batzli. We look forward to hearing your
testimony. Dr. Batzli is the Geospatial Information Scientist
at the Space Science & Engineering Center of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Did I get that right? That is a mouthful.
Dr. Batzli. Yes, that is right. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. OK. Five minutes. You are on.
STATEMENT OF SAM BATZLI, WISCONSINVIEW DIRECTOR, SPACE SCIENCE
& ENGINEERING CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN--MADISON
Dr. Batzli. Good morning. My name is Sam Batzli. I am a
scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Director of
WisconsinView and a member of the AmericaView board of
directors. I would like to thank Chairman Costa and Ranking
Member Lamborn for inviting me to testify today.
Why does AmericaView matter? Two main reasons. First,
AmericaView bridges a gap. To a significant extent, satellite
imagery is available to the public from Federal agencies like
USGS, but satellite imagery is not plug-and-play. Experts in
universities, governmental agencies and the private sector
require sophisticated software and processing techniques to
extract information for end users.
What has been missing is the infrastructure to implement
that knowledge at a local level where it can be used on a daily
basis to improve the lives of people, and that is where
AmericaView comes in. AmericaView has become that
infrastructure and bridges that gap.
Second, AmericaView helps deliver a greater return on the
billions of dollars already invested in our Federal earth
observation systems, data warehouses and university science. It
extends the reach of USGS and other agencies.
Let us look at AmericaView's support for disaster response
and recovery. As you can see here, satellite imagery and air
photos provide what no other technology can. With just a
glance, managers can see what they are dealing with.
Here are some examples. In June of 2008, all of southern
Wisconsin experienced severe flooding. As the crisis developed,
Chris Diller of the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs--
and Chris is here with us today as a guest--requested the USGS
activate the international charter, an agreement with foreign
nations to share satellite imagery at times of emergency.
The charter is especially important for floods and
hurricanes because the U.S. does not have a civilian satellite
system that can see through clouds and measure the extent of
flooding below as radar systems can.
Within a day, radar imagery of the flooding became
available from the Canadian space agency. Tapping into the
expertise of WisconsinView and AmericaView, the Wisconsin DMA
had the map it needed within 48 hours. Attachment 2 of my
written material includes a statement by Chris.
LouisianaView supported Katrina relief with rapid
deployment of a website to access air photography, among other
support activities. TexasView processed international charter
imagery for mapping Hurricanes Dolly, Gustav and, here, Ike.
AlaskaView supports firefighters every summer with daily
satellite imagery processed to detect hot spots. KansasView
mapped the aftermath of the Greensburg tornado. WisconsinView
mapped the aftermath of the Stoughton tornado.
Let us look more closely at why AmericaView works. I think
there are three main reasons. First, the equality-based funding
philosophy promotes cooperation. We are colleagues, not
competitors. There is a rich exchange of ideas at our twice
annual meetings and through working group teleconferences, and
there is significant sharing of data and educational materials
among StateViews. I would be happy to provide examples in
questions if there is time.
Second, we fulfill a need. AmericaView extends the reach of
the USGS, bridging the gap between Federal and local, removing
educational and technical barriers and leveraging our StateView
networks.
Third, each state has the flexibility within AmericaView to
adapt its programs to the unique needs of its state.
These are the three things that have brought success to
AmericaView, but AmericaView is in a sense becoming a victim of
its own success. As states join, we are slicing our budget pie
into smaller and smaller wedges. Over the past three years, our
per state allocation has diminished to critical levels.
H.R. 2489 and this hearing today gives me hope because I
see that the importance of our contributions is now being
recognized and understood by those who can help shape our
future.
I have hope that we will be able to continue to inspire awe
for science and technology in our young students, to prepare
college students and the current workforce to assist our
country with the geospatial challenges it faces and to make our
government work better by paving that final mile between our
Federal remote sensing investments and our classrooms and
worksites all across America.
In the end, AmericaView is about connecting remote sensing
science and technology with American citizens for the greater
good, and that is why H.R. 2489 is important.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share
my views on AmericaView, H.R. 2489. I am happy to answer
questions that the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Batzli follows:]
Statement of Dr. Sam Batzli, Director, WisconsinView,
Space Science & Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin--Madison
Good morning. My name is Sam Batzli and I am a staff scientist at
the Space Science & Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, director of WisconsinView, and a second-term member of the
AmericaView board of directors. I would like to thank Chairman Costa
and the committee members for giving me the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the AmericaView consortium concerning H.R. 2489, the
AmericaView Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program Act. I would also like
to thank Wisconsin Representatives Ron Kind, and Gwen Moore for their
support and encouragement of WisconsinView and AmericaView and
especially my own Representative Tammy Baldwin for her long-standing
and consistent support of our efforts.
This morning I would like to offer my perspective on the
importance, uniqueness, and value of AmericaView with examples from
Wisconsin and my fellow StateView partners. I will touch on three
topics 1) support for disaster response and recovery; 2) cooperation
among StateViews; and 3) AmericaView's connection to end-users.
Support for Disaster Response and Recovery
The State members of AmericaView (StateViews) provide each state
with a network of expertise both within each state and nationally to
enable timely response to urgent needs.
Let me start with the story of the June 2008 floods in Wisconsin.
On June 5th 2008 a severe weather pattern evolved over the Midwest. For
the next 10 days much of the Midwest including all of southern
Wisconsin witnessed an unprecedented rain event. Melt-off of the record
100-inches of snow from the previous winter had already saturated the
soil. During those 10 days in June, areas saw upwards of 17-inches of
rain, and every river system in southern Wisconsin was flooded. Many
areas of Wisconsin experienced a 500 year flood event. Thirty counties
were initially declared a ``state of emergency'' by Governor Doyle and
as the situation escalated, 31 of our 72 counties received federal
disaster declarations.
As the crises developed, Mr. Chris Diller of the Wisconsin
Department of Military Affairs (DMA) requested the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) activate the International Charter. The International
Charter is ``An International agreement among Space Agencies to
support...relief efforts in the event of emergencies caused by major
disasters.'' These satellite resources are provided at no cost to
countries requesting help. A second related program is provided by the
U.S. Air Force known as ``Eagle Vision.'' This program allows U.S.
States and Territories to access even more satellite resources that are
not covered under the International Charter. Both programs are
coordinated by the USGS and made available to states and territories at
no cost greatly enhancing access to remote sensing imagery.
Over the past few years, satellite and airborne remote sensing
imagery has become a very important part of Wisconsin's disaster
response and recovery activities. Remote sensing provides what no other
technology can. When merged with mapping technologies, it provides
emergency managers improved situational awareness, the ability to see
on a map the areas that are affected, and a fuller understanding of the
scope and scale of a disaster. With just a glance, managers can see
what they are dealing with (Attachment A).
But remote sensing imagery is not plug-n-play. Experts require
sophisticated software and processing techniques to extract useful and
accurate information relevant to an end-user's needs. And that is where
AmericaView comes in.
Once the International Charter was activated, radar imagery of the
flooding became available from the Canadian Space Agency. Mr. Diller
called me at WisconsinView for help with the processing. However, I
work with optical sensors rather than radar sensors and so I tapped
into the AmericaView network and coordinated the processing with radar
expert Dr. Jon Chipman at NewHampshireView. Within 48 hours of the
Charter activation, Mr. Diller and Wisconsin DMA had the map it needed.
I am including a statement from Mr. Diller regarding this flood event
and remote sensing support form WisconsinView/AmericaView (Attachment
B).
Use of the International Charter in 2008 was new to Wisconsin, but
WisconsinView had experience mapping tornado paths with satellite
imagery in support of emergency management including mapping of the
August 18, 2005 Stoughton tornado (Attachment C). Fellow stateviews in
hurricane-prone areas such as TexasView and LouisianaView have been
forced to utilize the International Charter more frequently and are at
the center of emergency management activities in their states. In fact,
a mere 10 days after the Stoughton Tornado, a disaster of larger
proportions was imminent.
LouisianaView found itself on the front lines of the Katrina
response in 2005. Facing catastrophic infrastructure failures along the
coast and in New Orleans, LouisianaView tapped into its network of
resources to deliver hard copy air photo maps of New Orleans during
recovery operations. Rapid deployment of a website for access to the
LouisianaView archive of air photography taken both before and after
the disaster proved invaluable for response and recovery operations
(Attachment D).
TexasView responded to multiple tropical events in quick succession
during the summer of 2008: Hurricane Dolly, Tropical Storm Edouard,
Hurricane Gustav, and Hurricane Ike. The University of Texas at Austin
Center for Space Research (CSR), a member of the TexasView university
consortium, provided geospatial support to the Texas Governor's
Division of Emergency Management (GDEM) during all four activations of
the State Operations Center and Emergency Management Council. The
International Charter was invoked by CSR during the three major
hurricane events that impacted the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast
(Attachment E).
AlaskaView supports emergency responders include wildfire fighters
who use daily satellite imagery for tracking smoke and hot spots that
would otherwise be impossible to locate. This ongoing service allows
wildfire managers to make informed decisions for directing resources
within the vast territory of Alaska (Attachment F).
KansasView has supported emergency response and preparedness
activities for a variety of natural disasters and training exercises.
Utilizing an aerial imaging system, KansasView was able provide
emergency managers with a complete map of the aftermath of the May 2007
Greensburg tornado. KansasView staff also serve as the state project
manager for the International Charter- Space and Major Disasters, and
work closely with the USGS disaster response coordinator, the USGS
geospatial liaison for the state, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, and other others in all phases of disaster preparedness and
response (Attachment G).
Cooperation Among StateViews
AmericaView provides the necessary infrastructure for cooperation
within the remote sensing community of expertise.
Within AmericaView, we learn from each other. We are colleagues not
competitors. AmericaView funding is distributed equally to all
qualified StateViews. This promotes the sharing of technical expertise,
curriculum materials, and lessons learned. We exchange ideas at our
twice-annual meetings and through our working groups' monthly
teleconferences.
Some notable examples of cooperation and sharing include:
WisconsinView has experience mapping tornado swaths with
satellite imagery. These techniques have been shared with other
tornado-prone states such as KansasView.
After the 2008 floods in Wisconsin, KansasView offered to
process post event data from WisconsinView with a special flood
modeling program they had developed for KansasView. The results will
help Wisconsin in planning for future flood events.
AlaskaView and WisconsinView develop leading-edge web-
mapping technology (using GoogleEarth and GoogleMaps) to display their
imagery for end-users. They have generously shared their technical
expertise to great advantage within the consortium and with USGS.
MississippiView hosts the AmericaView online user forum
for StateView interaction and communication.
MichiganView hosts the AmericaView wiki online
collaboration tool.
WyomingView and MontanaView have hosted and managed the
AmericaView website.
GeorgiaView hosts the online reporting tool for
AmericaView states.
IowaView, GeorgiaView, and CaliforniaView have developed
online introductory remote sensing courses that are shared throughout
the AmericaView consortium.
IndianaView and WisconsinView have access to in-house
satellite imagery receiving stations. Both programs provide daily
imagery to all of the 36 AmericaView states in user-friendly formats
that are not available anywhere else.
TexasView, LouisianaView, AlaskaView, KansasView and
WisconsinView have shared their experience and lesson's learned in
coordinating remote sensing contributions to emergency management with
each other and beyond at special sessions of national conferences (such
as the 2008 Pecora conference in Denver, Colorado).
Reaching End Users
AmericaView connects the network of remote sensing expertise in
each member state to the citizens of the state to meet end user needs.
The final theme I would like to touch on is the reach of remote
sensing to end-users and the role of AmericaView. To a significant
extent, remote sensing imagery is available to the public from federal
agencies like USGS. The knowledge on how to use that imagery resides
with the experts in the universities, governmental agencies, and the
private sector. What has been missing is the infrastructure to
implement that knowledge at a local level where it can be used on a
daily basis to improve the lives of people. That is, perhaps, the
primary value of AmericaView: to bridge that gap, to be the conduit, to
simplify the process by removing technical barriers and taking
advantage of our intrastate networks and internal state consortia. This
is especially valuable with regard to emergency management where local
knowledge is crucial.
The federal air photos and satellite images archived and provided
to the public without charge through low barrier internet access by the
StateViews are used across the state for a variety of purposes. Uses
include, but are not limited to, agricultural field management,
construction site evaluation, environmental management, drinking water
intake management, recreation planning, transportation planning,
private consulting, and natural resource management.
The imagery is widely popular. At WisconsinView I have established
a login system that records users and downloads. Our total number of
registered users topped 8,000 earlier this year. The total volume of
downloaded imagery in Wisconsin through July of 2009 alone is a
staggering 5.19TB (the equivalent of nearly 7,800 CDs). Back in
February I asked the most frequent of these users for feed back and
received over 30 testimonials and letters of support. Here are some
examples.
Agro-Industry
2/27/2009
I use the WisconsinView to download imagery which I then use to
assist in making maps for Code 590 Nutrient Management Plans as
well as CNMP's. The imagery is saved and loaded into our GIS
program. (Farmworks Sitepro) We then can layer the field
boundaries and other mapped objects on the imagery. This
greatly enhances our field maps as well as maps we make to show
restricted areas and other areas. Other imagery is available,
but it is in black and white, and most of all, very outdated,
not showing some land features that have changed.
Mike Plucinski
MP Services
Ostby MBA Inc.
KOW Consulting Association
Natural Resource Management
3/1/2009
[WisconsinView] is a great source for aerial photography which
is needed for map making duties (management plans,
demonstrations, surveying, etc). ``[It] always has worked
perfectly and allows great access. Don't know what I'll do if
it is removed.
Wade Oehmichen
Wildlife Biologist
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Utility Infrastructure
3/2/2009
Access to WisconsinView digital resources has improved our
efficiency and greatly reduced our costs in terms of both
dollars and time. Our reviews are conducted more rapidly and at
a lower cost while maintaining a high level of accuracy.
Continued support for AmericaView and WisconsinView will be
important in the coming years as efforts to upgrade our
nation's transmission system move forward.
William Fannucchi
Public Service Commission--Wisconsin
K-12 Education
3/2/2009
I am a teacher and director of a school that uses GIS
throughout the curriculum. We regularly visit your site for GIS
data and download coverage for student use. ``Your site is easy
to access, user friendly and very important to the GIS
community in Wisconsin. ``This type of site has allowed our
students to work on projects that help build 21st century
skills and an awareness of our state that is unparalleled by
other opportunities.
Paul Tweed
Wildands School
Augusta School District
Augusta, WI 54722
Summary
Why AmericaView Works:
I became involved with AmericaView in 2004 and have served on the
board of directors since 2006. Right away I discovered that there was
something different going on here, that the collegial spirit and
optimism of this organization goes beyond business as usual in
government or academia. I think there are two reasons for this: 1) the
equality-based funding philosophy promotes cooperation, and 2)
AmericaView is an education and service-based endeavor that attracts
like-minded people who want to share technology and knowledge for the
benefit of others.
We take great pride in our work because we see the tangible
benefits. We are on the front lines of workforce development, at the
earliest stages, when at our outreach events we see our young students,
inspired and awed by the magic of science and technology. We are there
giving the lectures and workshops for undergraduates and graduate
students, helping as they develop skills for the geospatial information
technology job sector. We are there running the professional workshops
and conferences where early- and mid-career professionals incorporate
new techniques and technologies that enable their companies or agencies
to improve and optimize their access and use of the rich and
indispensable remote sensing imagery resources provided by USGS (as
well as NASA, USDA and other federal agencies). And we are there,
fostering cooperation among state and federal agencies within our
states, making government more efficient and responsive to the people
it serves.
To reiterate what my colleagues have already said this morning,
AmericaView is built on the knowledge that there are remote sensing
needs best understood and addressed at the national level, while other
aspects are best addressed at the state level. Operating satellites and
maintaining centralized national and global data archives are critical
national priorities well handled by USGS. Education, emergency
response, and support of local natural resource managers, for example,
are more state and local issues that are not well handled by a
centralized effort, but that require local knowledge and adaptation.
AmericaView is the only organization established to do this throughout
the country. This is how AmericaView effectively extends the reach of
the Department of the Interior and the USGS.
It is a well-known paradox that the process of making things easy
and simple can be very hard and complex. But we are good at that;
AmericaView is a university-based consortium, experts in technology but
also education-based, working in cooperation with governmental agencies
and private sector members of our state consortia. And by removing
technical and financial barriers, AmericaView extends the value of
federal remote sensing investments, reaches across the final mile to
the end-users. We are coordinated nationally and implemented locally.
And the flexibility each StateView has to adapt to the needs of its
locale is the key to our success.
But AmericaView is in a sense becoming a victim of its own success.
As we have grown in the number of member states, with the goal of
ultimately including the full 50 states and six territories, we are
slicing our budget pie into thinner and thinner wedges. Over the past
three years our per-state allocation has diminished to critical levels.
H.R. 2489 and this hearing today gives me hope because I see that
the importance of our contributions are now being recognized and
understood by those who can help shape our future. I have hope that we
will be able to continue inspiring awe for science and technology in
our young students, preparing our college students and current
workforce to assist our country with the geospatial challenges it
faces, and making our government work better by ``paving'' that final
mile between our federal remote sensing investments and our classrooms
and worksites all across America. In the end, AmericaView is about
connecting remote sensing science and technology with American citizens
for the greater good (Attachment H).
Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views on
AmericaView and H.R. 2489. I am happy to answer any questions the
Committee may have.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Dr. Batzli from the State of
Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs to Chairman Jim Costa
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[NOTE: The documents listed below have been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
WisconsinView image of June 2008 Flooding in Wisconsin
WisconsinView image of August 2005 Tornado Path
LouisanaView image of Hurricane Katrina 2005
TexasView image of Hurricane Ike 2008
AlaskaView image of wildfires 2005
KansasView image of May 2007 Greensburg tornado
WisconsinView photographs from youth education programs
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Sam Batzli
Questions from Chairman Jim Costa from the State of California
1. How much annual funding does a StateView typically receive? Also,
please provide information on any contribution, including in-
kind support, that the state or lead institution in your
StateView Program provides.
Funding
Since 2003 funded StateViews have all received the same amount of
funding (an equal distribution from AmericaView). WisconsinView started
with $89,500 per year in 2004 but that amount dropped (along with the
amounts for other stateviews) as new States were admitted to membership
and the AmericaView budget declined. Since 2005, annual funding for
each StateView has dropped from $89,500 to $84,000, to $51,000, to
$23,989, to $23,000 where it is expected to be for FY2010 [see
Attachment 1].
Each year AmericaView has looked for ways to tighten its
administrative budget in an effort to keep costs low and to fund as
many qualified StateViews as possible at the highest level possible. At
the same time, to operate under these reductions, StateViews have been
forced to reduce services and staff positions.
Contributions and In-Kind Support
Most Universities require an overhead rate on extramural funding
between 45% and 50% for Federal grants (at UW-Madison it is 48.5%). The
overhead cost keeps the universities running and pays for general
infrastructure. Most Universities recognize that smaller organizations
such as not-for-profits like AmericaView grant relative small amounts
of money for public service projects and should be allowed a lower
rate. Facing budget pressures in 2005, AmericaView decided to require a
lower overhead rate for lead institutions to 15% to help keep as much
of the grant money available for StateView programs. By accepting this
rate (which I'm told is actually quite rare), the lead institutions of
StateViews are effectively contributing between 15% and 20% in funds to
the StateView programs. In this way WisconsinView receives an 18%
contribution from UW-Madison.
StateViews have been creative in finding other ways to help keep
their organizations going in light of shrinking budgets. At
WisconsinView we received help in the form of donated graduate Project
Assistants (nearly a $40,000 annual value [including tuition waiver and
fringe benefit costs] to the project) in three of the past four years.
In 2007 WisconsinView hosted a GIS Certificate Student summer intern
20hr per week for university credit (a $4,000 value).
Another approach is to conduct internal technology transfer. That
is, technologies such as imagery processing techniques, or curriculum
modules developed under different funding for different grants within
the same department or university are adapted for use by WisconsinView
with very little effort or cost. It is difficult to put a value on
these contributions but some examples include the following:
A. The Space Science & Engineering Center receives a NASA grant to
operate a satellite receiving station for MODIS imagery. The receiving
station has developed software to ``subset'' imagery for specific
regions on a daily basis. WisconsinView takes advantage of that system
and service by requesting and receiving a custom made daily satellite
image that would otherwise have been very expensive to develop
independently. Now that the infrastructure is in place and the
algorithms have been developed, it is relatively easy to add new
subsets to the processing stream. This service has been expanded to
include daily satellite imagery subsets for all AmericaView states by
special arrangement through WisconsinView. [Attachment 2--screen shot
of MODIS for AmericaView page]
B. My role as director of WisconsinView is a 25% position. I am
also the principal investigator on a NASA grant and a co-investigator
on a USDA grant. When the technology I help develop for the NASA and
USDA grants complements the needs of WisconsinView, that technology is
applied at no cost to WisconsinView.
The consortium is continually looking for efficiencies and cost-
savings opportunities through ``inter-stateview'' technology transfer.
For example curriculum developed by CaliforniaView, GeorgiaView, and
IowaView is shared with all other StateViews for online teaching.
2. Expanding AmericaView to additional states and activities would
seem to require more funding. Have you considered soliciting
non-federal sources of support for AmericaView? Why or why not?
Some StateViews assist the private sector with geospatial
analysis and technology. Would it be possible for AmericaView
to solicit support from private sector beneficiaries of the
program, or create some form of public private partnership for
AmericaView? Why or why not?
AmericaView will require additional funding to expand to full
membership. Yes AmericaView has considered a number of alternative
funding scenarios. However, the mission and goals of AmericaView are
public service oriented. The return on the investment in AmericaView is
education, improved workforce, improved efficiency of local government,
and improved economic performance of small and large businesses. The
benefits are spread across a broad spectrum of users. While all groups
and individuals may benefit financially, no single group benefits
financially in a large enough way to justify a significantly large fee.
It has been difficult to find industry sponsors willing to support the
public service mission of AmericaView. We have considered charging for
imagery, but it goes against the core philosophy of our organization.
We are removing barriers (economic, educational, and financial) that
stand between the public and federal imagery. Adding a fee would create
a barrier.
StateViews are encouraged to augment their budgets with
contributions solicited from their membership. But we cannot depend on
those gifts to maintain core operating budgets and programs.
I support the concept of base federal funding (such as 90K per year
for each state view as has been shown to work) with encouragement of
supplemental gifts and contributions from private sector and state and
local government.
I would also add that AmericaView has been a national program
designed to advance the goals and objectives of the USGS. We are
actively and constantly seeking additional and alternative funding, but
it has been difficult to convince other organizations to support
AmericaView when the parent organization is decreasing its funding.
USGS has repeatedly expressed its support for the program and has
maintained that the decreased funding is more a matter of fiscal
realities than an issue of organizational support, but this is a ``hard
sell'' with respect to outside organizations.
3. AmericaView has existed for about 10 years. Why does H.R. 2489 need
to be passed by Congress for AmericaView to continue?
AmericaView has demonstrated through its success that it fulfills a
unique and important national need. It deserves to be recognized as the
national program it is with a Congressional authorization. Now is the
time to act because AmericaView is at a crossroads with its funding and
growth. Add-on appropriations are no longer generating sufficient
support for this national program to continue if current trends in
appropriations and USGS budget continue. Without H.R. 2489, AmericaView
will not receive the level of funding it needs to complete its growth
in membership and to maintain a sustainable and stable future.
AmericaView was established through a Congressional appropriation,
which as has been pointed out is not the optimal way to provide
Congressional direction and oversight. AmericaView now has a majority
of all 50 states and territories in membership and should no longer be
considered an experimental program. Clear priorities and direction from
Congress will enable the states and USGS to set appropriate objectives
and metrics against which to measure the success and value of the
program and appropriations made with respect thereto. In addition,
numerous Congressional offices have stated that, while they support the
principles of AmericaView, they find it difficult to support
appropriations without authorizing language.
4. H.R. 2489 directs the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with
the AmericaView Project ``to develop nationally consistent
standards for geospatial imagery mapping in each state.''
However, the development of standards for mapping seems like
the kind of activity that should involve more stakeholders than
the Department of the Interior and AmericaView. Could you
clarify the role you think would be appropriate for AmericaView
in the development of standards for mapping? Would
AmericaView's focus be more appropriately described as
development of standards for the distribution of images,
information, and technology, rather than for mapping?
I feel it is appropriate for AmericaView to ``cooperate'' with the
development of nationally consistent standards. I would agree that
AmericaView as an organization is not focused on, nor should be focused
on, standards-setting activities. AmericaView's distribution activity
is primarily to facilitate the education, outreach, workforce
development, and to encourage the use of satellite imagery in the
civilian private sector and the implementation of remote sensing
technology to help meet societal needs. AmericaView will continue to
work with appropriate agencies and organizations to provide any
appropriate input on remote sensing aspects of mapping or distribution
standards. I would feel comfortable if the standards language were
dropped all together, but as it stands I don't see it as a conflict
within the context of ``cooperation'' as it is stated in Sec
4(c)(2)(B).
5. This bill would expand AmericaView to all 50 states. Is that
realistic? Why is it important for this program to be in all 50
states and territories?
Expanding to 50 States and the territories is realistic. One thing
we have learned as we have grown to include 36 StateViews, is that the
benefits of AmericaView in each state vary in type depending on the
needs of each State and the strengths of each StateView consortium.
Each StateView is unique and delivers tremendous quality and value at
very low cost. It would seem arbitrary and unfair to deny membership in
this national organization to the remaining states if qualified
applications are submitted. Drawing the line at 36 or 40 or 45 states
would deprive citizens in those remaining states access to the federal
resources (multi-billion dollar land remote sensing infrastructure)
they have already paid for with tax dollars but have difficulty
accessing without a StateView to bridge the gap.
It is incumbent upon the remaining states to express interest in
AV, to organize their remote sensing scientists and educators within
their state, and to compile a quality application, in order to earn
membership. It has to start within the state. That is what makes it
work. That being said, AmericaView as a national organization with a
mission to reach out to all United States and Territories to help them
develop their own StateView consortia.
Ultimately, AmericaView provides a structure where each state can
organize the remote sensing assets within that state to take full
advantage of those assets and advance them for the benefit of the
citizens of that state. By providing a national structure, all states
can benefit from the developments within each of the other states.
AmericaView will best serve its mission when all states and territories
are represented in the organization.
6. How do you see AmericaView interacting with ongoing image-
collection initiatives like Imagery for the Nation and USDA's
NAIP aerial photography program? Please explain the differences
between the Imagery for the Nation Initiative and the NAIP
Program and the activities that will be authorized through H.R.
2489.
AmericaView is excited about and supportive of the idea and of an
``Imagery for the Nation'' program because the improved coverage and
frequency of imagery collected and archived by this program would fully
complement the workforce development, imagery access, education, and
outreach activities of AmericaView.
As I understand it, ``Imagery for the Nation'' is about
coordinating the systematic and standardized acquisition of aerial
imagery. AmericaView is the mechanism by which imagery from these other
programs moves from imagery to applications at the state level.
The primary goal of AmericaView when it was founded was data
archive and distribution. However AmericaView has always had the
broader goal of generally advancing remote sensing within each state
through education, outreach, emergency response, research, and other
activities. The AmericaView program has been crucial in the development
of the current web-enabled distribution system operated by the USGS,
and to some extent this has reduced the data archive and distribution
activities within AmericaView as USGS systems (such as the AmericaView-
developed GloVis) came online. The need to make the state and national
archives, including Imagery for the Nation and NAIP, more beneficial
for the citizens of the U.S. has not abated. Indeed, as data have
become more available through these programs, the need for AmericaView
to support data applications to benefit people's daily lives has
increased.
I would also like to point out that many StateViews currently
cooperate with their state Farm Service Agencies to distribute imagery
from the NAIP program of the USDA. In Wisconsin, this is our most
popular data-download. This relieves the distribution burden for FSA
and supports the education and outreach activities of AmericaView.
AmericaView is well positioned to host additional imagery that might be
collected by the Imagery for the Nation program in the same way it
distributes NAIP imagery.
Questions from Ranking Member Doug Lamborn from the State of Colorado
1. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program has a state match
funding requirement. Would you support a similar requirement
for the America View Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program? Would
you support a 25% federal/75% state share requirement? Would
you support a 50/50 cost share requirement?
Adding a requirement for a state share to AV would adversely affect
the participation of StateViews. While it is true that state agencies
often benefit form the StateView programs in most states, they do so in
varying degrees in different states, depending on the unique nature of
each individual StateView program. Adding a required specific cost-
share amount would not be appropriate for the heterogeneous nature of
the AV program. Unlike NCGMP, AmericaView does not produce a specific
state-oriented product (like a geology map) that states would be
willing to contribute for ownership of.
I support the concept of base federal funding (such as 90K per year
for each state view as has been shown to work) with encouragement of
supplemental gifts and contributions from private sector and state and
local government.
The current model that includes base funding through the
AmericaView federal grant distributed evenly to all the StateViews,
augmented by the lead university contributions, leveraging, and in-kind
contributions uniquely adapted to the circumstances of each StateView
works well, produces tremendous value and return on investment for
citizens, small businesses, K-12 educators, state and local government,
and large businesses, and should not be changed.
2. What other sources of funding do the States receive for this
program? Do you receive grants from other federal agencies?
StateViews are actively leveraging resources at their lead
university institutions and pursuing in-kind cost sharing throughout
their consortia.
Contributions and In-Kind Support
Most Universities require an overhead rate on extramural funding
between 45% and 50% for Federal grants (at UW-Madison it is 48.5%). The
overhead cost keeps the universities running and pays for general
infrastructure. Most Universities recognize that smaller organizations
such as not-for-profits like AmericaView grant relative small amounts
of money for public service projects and should be allowed a lower
rate. In 2005 AmericaView decided to require a lower overhead rate from
lead institutions of 15% to help keep as much of the grant money
available for StateView programs. By accepting this rate, the lead
institutions are effectively contributing between 15% and 20% to the
StateViews. In this way WisconsinView receives an 18% contribution from
UW-Madison.
StateViews have been creative in finding other ways to help keep
their organizations going in light of shrinking budgets. At
WisconsinView we received help in the form of donated graduate Project
Assistants (nearly a $40,000 annual value [including tuition waiver and
fringe benefit costs] to the project) in three of the past four years.
In 2007 WisconsinView hosted a GIS Certificate Student summer intern
20hr per week for graduate credit (a $4,000 value).
Another approach is to conduct internal technology transfer. That
is, technologies such as imagery processing techniques, or curriculum
modules developed under different funding for different grants within
the same department or university are adapted for use by WisconsinView
with very little effort or cost. It is difficult to put a value on
these contributions but some examples include the following:
A. The Space Science & Engineering Center receives a NASA grant to
operate a satellite receiving station for MODIS imagery. The receiving
station has developed software to ``subset'' imagery for specific
regions on a daily basis. WisconsinView takes advantage of that system
and service by requesting and receiving a custom made daily satellite
image that would otherwise have been very expensive to develop
independently. Now that the infrastructure is in place and the
algorithms have been developed, it is relatively easy to add new
subsets to the processing stream. This service has been expanded to
include daily satellite imagery subsets for all AmericaView states by
special arrangement through WisconsinView [see Attachment 2].
B. My role as director of WisconsinView is a 25% position. I am
also the principal investigator on a NASA grant and a co-investigator
on a USDA grant. When the technology I help develop for the NASA and
USDA grants complements the needs of WisconsinView, that technology is
applied at no cost to WisconsinView.
The consortium is continually looking for efficiencies and cost-
savings opportunities through ``inter-stateview'' technology transfer.
For example curriculum developed by CaliforniaView, GeorgiaView, and
IowaView is shared with all other StateViews for online teaching.
3. Would you support a sunset provision in the authorizing legislation
to allow Congress to review this program again in 10 years? 20
years?
I support the idea of a 10-year review of the program legislation
to ensure that AmericaView is continuing to meet important contemporary
societal needs, as it does now. It is fair to assume that the
geospatial ``revolution'' that our country is currently experiencing
will evolve over time. As I read it, the current authorizing language
of H.R.2489 covers 2010-2014. Currently, the AmericaView consortium
competes nationally for a 5-year grant from USGS. I think an additional
sunset or expiration provision would not be necessary given the current
5-year cycle, but I would welcome and even prefer a 10-year cycle for
congressional review.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Doctor, and we appreciate your
succinct testimony within the time limit.
At this time, Members of the Subcommittee, we have had
votes that have been called. We have a little over nine minutes
left for the first measure. This sequence of votes is four, so
my estimate is that it will take about 20 minutes.
So for the panel, when we have completed that we will come
back for the questioning of the panel members, and the Chair
will entertain a round or two based upon the interest and I
know there is interest in our colleague's legislation, and then
following that we will adjourn the hearing.
So that is the intent of the Chair. Let us go and vote. We
will come back in about 20 minutes, 25 minutes, so if you want
to take a little coffee break downstairs at the basement you
can get coffee or water or a quick sandwich or an apple or
whatever your heart desires.
So we will be back in about 20 minutes, 25 minutes. Thank
you very much. The Committee is now in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Costa. The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals as part
of the Natural Resources Committee will now come to order.
The vote sequence took a bit longer than I had anticipated.
I apologize for that. I hope some of you got a chance to get a
little bit refreshed and get a cup of coffee or that apple you
were craving. We will now begin with the question and answer
period of the hearing and we will go from there.
Let me begin by indicating that obviously the measure
before us proposes an extensive list of activities for the
Secretary of the Interior to undertake, acting through the
AmericaView program. The list includes expanding the number of
mapping courses, expanding the mapping research, building
partnerships and developing mapping standards. That is what is
contained in the bill.
I would like to ask the panelists your thoughts as to how
those responsibilities proposed for the U.S. Geological Survey
in this measure, H.R. 2489, compare to the kind of activities
that currently USGS undertakes with AmericaView.
Who would like to begin? Let us begin with USGS. That is
probably the best place to start.
Ms. Kimball. OK. Thank you. I think that the most important
element here is that we in USGS feel we have established a very
effective working relationship with the states that participate
in AmericaView and that we have developed a governing mechanism
through the AmericaView board of directors that allows us to
systematically consider activities that would take place and
how that effort would be distributed from between USGS and the
particular states.
And I see that that mechanism would continue to work
effectively. The program itself was reviewed by OMB as part of
our Fiscal Year 2006 program review, and in that review we
received a 100 percent rating on elements associated with
AmericaView that went to planning, vision, long-term goals and
performance metrics and methods to evaluate the effectiveness
of the program, and so I believe that we would have----
Mr. Costa. So are you saying this comports with the current
activities that U.S. Geological Survey is undertaking or this
complements it, or is it redundant?
Ms. Kimball. I would say that it both comports with and
complements. It will allow us to extend the activities in the
states as new technologies and new analytical methodologies are
developed in the university community. It will allow us to
expand and enhance.
Mr. Costa. In your opening testimony you talked about some
concerns. Do you think that they could be addressed if this
legislation was modified in terms of roles and responsibilities
and clarification from your agency's perspective?
Ms. Kimball. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Costa. Will you please provide that to the Committee
and to the author of the measure?
Ms. Kimball. Absolutely.
Mr. Costa. All right.
Ms. Kimball. We will submit that for the record.
Mr. Costa. All right. Do the three of you want to take a
quick crack at that? I have some additional questions.
Dr. Dodge. I would just like to add to the comments about
how the activities in the states come into being. We actually
every year every state puts in a statement of work, and this is
reviewed anonymously by members of the StateViews and also by
the board of directors.
I am an advisor to the board of directors and a former
member of the board of directors and also a former StateView
director, so I have submitted those statements of work and also
reviewed them. You know, we make sure that things are being
done in a practical and economical way, and it works very well.
Then all of that goes up to the U.S. Geological Survey, who
also reviews everything, so it is very well assessed what is
going to happen and how it works.
Mr. Costa. South Dakota, what do we think? Are you worried
about the redundancy?
I keep harping on this, but it is still not clear in my
mind how we define the roles between the private and the public
partnerships.
Ms. O'Neill. I think that the roles are quite clearly
defined. We don't in any way pretend to compete with the
private sector. Rather, we like to think of our role as
contributing to the job that they do, training the people that
they need to do their job and in some cases finding the right
people for them when they have an open position.
Also, I think we don't compete with them in terms of
projects, but we can help them. We can find data sources for
them. So I think our roles are very complementary, and in no
way do we intend for those roles to be competitive.
Mr. Costa. All right. My time has expired.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn?
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This would be for any
one of you. As drafted, the legislation before the Committee
provides such sums as is necessary to operate the program.
I am wondering how much you think should be appropriated
for the program. If any of you wish to answer that, could you
just give me a dollar amount?
Dr. Dodge. We have discussed this extensively, and what we
have done is gone through the list of activities that are
recommended in this legislation, and it is a lengthy list, and
in each StateView each StateView is doing some of these things
at a relatively low level of funding.
There are eight things on the list. We have actually
determined by looking at the distribution of activities that if
we were appropriated $5 million and spread it out among 50
states and territories that each StateView or TerritoryView
would be able to engage in two or three of these activities at
a good level of effort.
If we were to get something like $25 million, we could
probably in each StateView be doing four, five of these, maybe
six, at a full level of effort, and if we got $50 million--not
to be greedy--then every StateView could be doing all of these
things with a very high level of effort.
And that would be the K-12 education, the training of
people who are already in the professional workforce. Student
internship programs could be initiated at all of the
universities so that the students would go out and get
practical experience.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I think you have answered my question.
Dr. Dodge. Thanks.
Mr. Lamborn. No. Thank you. Now, the National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program has a state matching fund requirement.
Would you support a similar requirement for the AmericaView
Geospatial Imagery Mapping Program? For any one of you.
Dr. Dodge. I would say that that is something that we would
definitely have to look at. We and some of the states are
funded by state funds, but we are a really young program and in
a lot of our states that outreach into the state agencies is
still ongoing.
Most of our StateViews have only been members for a couple
of years, and they are still doing the outreach to connect well
with the state government, so that is something that I think
that we would have to take a hard look at and see if that was
appropriate. I don't think we would oppose something like that,
but right now----
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. What about the two of you who
represent a state here today?
Ms. O'Neill. In the case of South Dakota and specifically
my position, I think that that match is already happening, even
though we don't report it on paper.
Part of my salary is paid with state funding, and even
though I am funded at let us say 25 percent on AmericaView, I
probably put in much more effort than that, so I think the
match is already happening. It is just not a formal requirement
at this point.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And Wisconsin?
Dr. Batzli. I think that to a great extent our consortiums,
our state consortia, are highly leveraged right now in terms of
taking advantage of common goals and vision of complementary
programs within our universities.
For example, when WisconsinView was started in 2004 we had
a budget of $89,000. We were able to afford to have a
coordinator. When our budget got smaller over adding new states
and such, we no longer could afford that coordinator, but I get
some money from my university to help support that position
because they believe in our program and they recognize the
value that it brings to the whole university and the state.
I would be a little uncomfortable with a requirement for a
specific match from the state because our states are so
different and have such different structures, and I believe
that we really do a lot with the resource we have now in terms
of leveraging.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Now, both of you have just touched on
this. Can you be more specific as to how much money your two
respective states have put into this program?
Dr. Batzli. How much we have received?
Mr. Lamborn. No. How much state money have you put into the
program? I am not talking about Federal money from any source,
but state money.
Dr. Batzli. I would have to get back to you with a specific
figure, but I would say that there is probably a 10 percent or
15 percent addition to our effort through mostly in kind
contributions.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Ma'am?
Ms. O'Neill. A similar situation in South Dakota. I would
say at least 10 to 20 percent contribution in terms of state
dollars, mostly in salary dollars.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
Dr. Dodge. I could say the same thing for GeorgiaView. I
was the founder of GeorgiaView, and it was probably 20 percent
to 25 percent. It was in kind office space, telephone, computer
hookup. Everything that we needed to run the consortium was
made available by the university, the state university.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Costa. All right. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady, the only Member of Congress, from South
Dakota where you have real power.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costa. Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Again, I thank each of you
for your testimony today.
I want to direct my first question to Ms. O'Neill, and if
you could elaborate for the Chairman and Ranking Member and
Subcommittee staff on the work that South Dakota View has done
or hopes to do with the state's Federally recognized tribes and
with Federal and state public land management agencies?
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you. We do a lot of work with tribal
government, tribal colleges and universities and also with
Indian schools in the state. We make data available to these
various entities.
In the case of the educational institutions, we work
closely with them in developing lesson plans, developing
curriculum for their courses. We sometimes actually go into the
classroom and work with their students. They bring students to
campus, and we do various activities with them with the
ultimate goal of encouraging them to become university
students.
We also try to in some ways influence economic development
on the reservations. I think there are a lot of economic
development opportunities in terms of using the geospatial
technologies on the reservations within tribal government,
training students that go back into their tribal government and
do good things in terms of developing the reservation lands
that they are required to manage.
We also work with a program at the Flandreau Indian School,
which is close to our university at Brookings, where they bring
students to campus every spring semester, all four years of
high school students, and teach them about various
opportunities that are available to them at the university and
opportunities for furthering their education.
So, yes, we interface in a lot of different ways with
tribal folks.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And then further on, are you looking
at trying to develop partnerships or how you can make your data
available that has been archived to public land management
agencies?
Ms. O'Neill. Yes. They have the same access to our data
that anyone else has from students and teachers on to folks in
the Federal and state agencies and local governments as well.
So it is not just data. Data is certainly an important part
of it, but it is helping them use and understand the data. As I
mentioned in my testimony, it is often a case of educating
folks about what can be done with the data.
There is a lot of data there that people just need to
understand, and often we can help them figure out what they can
do with that data, how it can help them in performing their
jobs.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. My understanding is that, as an
example, in terms of how the imagery and the data have been
used in monitoring activities because of some of the invasive
species that we have had on state or Federal land with regard
to our grasslands, and that has been again one area where you
have had to sort of educate and inform them how the data could
be useful in monitoring circumstances such as that, correct?
Ms. O'Neill. That is right. It is one of those cases where
a picture is worth a thousand words.
Within a very short period of time it is easy with the
right kind of imagery and data to see where the invasive
species are and the extent, the spread from year-to-year, the
change analysis. That is an example of why it is important to
have new data on an annual or somewhat frequent basis.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Very good. And then just a final
question in the time remaining for both Ms. Dodge and Dr.
Batzli.
Can you elaborate on if your states are looking at adding
additional activities to your current efforts or different
stakeholders that you would like to involve and how this
authorization might assist in doing so?
Dr. Dodge. Yes. I can comment now that I am in Texas and I
am working with TexasView, we are reaching out and doing a lot
more training for people who are working in government.
That has been one of the strengths of TexasView for many
years, but we are trying to reach out to even more agencies
because we have learned about new techniques and new
technologies, for example, for monitoring the impact of
hurricanes that have taken place in Mississippi and Louisiana,
and we want to train people on those technologies on the Texas
coast.
So we are constantly working between the states and
learning from one another and then implementing things in our
states that have been successful in other states.
Dr. Batzli. I would like to expand on the workshops that we
do to help train various professionals within the state to work
with the kinds of data that are required for emergency
management and to expand our capability within the
WisconsinView network so that we can respond quickly to the
kinds of disasters that we have been having in recent years and
do a better job with that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much for your legislation and for
your efforts. I want to thank the panel members as well.
We have had a very good hearing today. I thank the Ranking
Member and both the Minority and Majority staff for the
preparation they did to put this together.
I especially liked the visuals to really explain how
important geospatial planning is and the tremendous technology
gains that have taken place over just the last five years.
Marcie, you done good.
Anyway, I want to thank everyone for being here, and we
will work together with the Congresswoman from South Dakota to
see that her legislation gets an opportunity to do its intent.
Before you came here, Stephanie, I had asked U.S.
Geological Survey--I don't know if you were here at the time--
to make recommendations of what changes and modifications they
would recommend on your legislation, and they said that they
would provide that information to us. Please make sure you
provide it to the author and to us.
So we will go from there and do our best work, and at this
time the Subcommittee is now adjourned.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]