Donald Buhler Cadastral Subcommittee, Bureau of Land Management, David Downes Office of Policy Analysis, Department of the Interior December 16,

FGDC Steering Committee Actions October 17, 2008 Begin addressing NRC Recommendation #1 through examining the statutory and policy authorities of BLM to coordinate Federal and national parcel activities. As recommended by the NGAC, the FGDC Cadastral Subcommittee will convene a stakeholder group to address parcel data issues related to the mortgage crisis and the economic recovery bill. The FGDC Cadastral Subcommittee, in coordination with DOI, the FGDC Secretariat, and others, will review the budget assumptions in the NRC report recommendations. navsrc2= The FGDC Steering Committee will receive a briefing on the BLM National Integrated Lands (NILS) System at the December 2008 meeting.

Task: Begin addressing NRC Recommendation #1 on Land Parcel Data NRC recommendation #1: Examine authorities and capacities of BLM to serve as Federal and national coordinator for integration of land parcel data. NRC vision: Coordination of multiple sources of data Minimal set of data attributes (in light of cost, privacy) Presentation/delivery of data through one portal Incentives (mandates or assistance) OST would coordinate for Indian lands and share data with national coordinator

Federal Lands Parcel Coordinator Role Coordination Circular A-16 gives BLM clear lead; statutes provide basis at least for BLM, public domain lands BLM has strong institutional base; estimated 1 FTE needed Presentation Likely covered by A-16; statutory basis for BLM, public domain lands Capacity of “most visible” NILS project uncertain pending BLM and DOI reviews; resource needs probably substantial Incentives: No authority to enforce compliance absent new legislation conferring mandate on participating agencies Limited authority to transfer funds absent Economy Acts agreement; funds would need to be appropriated, possibly per joint budget initiative

National Lands Parcel Coordinator Role Coordination Circular A-16 supports BLM role; statutory basis unclear Good institutional base; estimated 1 FTE needed Presentation Unclear if A-16 role covers this; no statutory basis found NILS capacity under review by BLM, DOI; additional users may demand new functions; substantial resource need Incentives No basis in A-16 or statutes to require non-federal entities to share data; no clear basis to provide funding No existing enforcement or funding resources

Parcel Data - Mortgage Crisis Economic recovery Categories of Stakeholders Identification of Participants Strategy and Action Steps Support Required Timeline

Categories of Stakeholders Data Sources Authoritative Data Sources – local govt. (counties – assessors, recorders, parcel mappers) Trusted Data Sources – publishers at State or regional levels Consumers and Applications Fire and Emergency Regulatory, monitoring and oversight agencies

Stakeholders County Parcel Data Authoritative Data Source Most Current Source Maintained to Support Local Business Needs Data needs to be standardized Mapping Needs to be completed nationwide Support for standardization and completion State/Regional Hosting Trusted Data Source Provides integrated portal or access Technology to serve to applications Data is standardized and is integrated with state and federal owned lands Support for collecting public lands, integration and publication Applications Built on top of Authoritative and Trusted Data Serves Business needs and built by business area experts Uses Core and Core Plus data RAVAR HAZUS Mortgage and Financial Analysis By agreement between Authoritative and Trusted Sources I f state or regional hosted data is not available Project Level (site specific) request for the most current data Consumers Agencies that use applications to support decision making, analysis and reporting

Identification of Participants International Association of Assessment Officers (IAAO) FGDC Cadastral Subcommittee (Cadastral Subcommittee) Consumers - Federal Times - some of the federal agencies involved in regulation and response ( – Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) – Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) – Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Strategy and Action Steps Define the application needed to support the consumer needs such as including the standard processes and standardized data sets. Develop a demonstration of solutions for the Consuming Agencies, including the departments of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as a point of beginning to reach an understanding among all stakeholders concerning what is needed (in terms of data content, technology, standardization, data availabilities etc.) Facilitate work with the private sector to develop applications according to standards and consumer needs. Coordinate with local Authoritative Data Sources and Trusted Data Sources for the data needed to support mortgage and economic recovery applications. Document participation from and benefits to all stakeholder groups.

Activities to Date Completed the approach and strategy document Developed and established partnerships with IAAO and NSGIC Assembled team to do the work David CowenNancy von Meyer David StageDavid Moyer George DonatelloMarc Thomas Bob AderStewart Kirkpatrick John Sperling Obtained and Reviewed Applicable Standard business processes for valuation and analysis Identified pilot counties in Florida and Minnesota

Support Required Funding $35K for contract support and travel – FGDC / USGS Contacts from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Treasury Working through HUD Coordinator (Jon Sperling)

Timeline Refine application needs and document - 2 weeks Apply demonstration application and capture scenarios and results – 1 month Identify stakeholders, set up meeting time – 2 weeks Meeting with Consumer Stakeholders – 1 day Document meeting results and publish results to data producers – 2 weeks Total Project – 2 to 3 months

Review the Budget Assumptions $ 375 million (estimate) Privately owned lands only Points only for non-automated parcels No technology for counties $ 995 million (estimate) Privately owned parcels only Parcel polygons and technology for counties $ 850 million (estimate) Federal and public parcels State and County owned lands and small federal parcels (for example - post office lots)

Conclusions and Questions ? 15