John Moeller

1
(No Transcript)
2
John Moeller J. Peter Gomez March 11,
2008 Geospatial Dimensions of Emergency Response
Symposium Seattle, Washington
3
Report Background

• Prepared by National Research Council, Committee
  on Planning for Disaster
• Requested by NASA, NGA, NOAA, USGS
• Process
• Authored by a committee of 13 with backgrounds in
  federal, state, and local emergency management
  agencies, academia, private industry, and NGOs
• 3 meetings (DC 2, Irvine) and 1 workshop (DC)
• Product A report with a vision and
  recommendations for more effective use of
  geospatial data for EM and cooperation between
  different EM geospatial users
• Audiences DHS/FEMA, state/local emergency
  management agencies, private industry, academia

4
Committee

• Michael F. Goodchild, Chair
• University of California, Santa Barbara
• Andrew J. Bruzewicz
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Susan L. Cutter
• University of South Carolina
• Paul J. Densham
• University College London
• Amy K. Donahue
• University of Connecticut
• J. Peter Gomez
• Xcel Energy
• Patricia S. Hu
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Judith L. Klavans
• University of Maryland

• John J. Moeller
• Northrop Grumman TASC
• Mark Monmonier
• Syracuse University
• Bruce Oswald
• New York State Office of Cyber Security and
  Critical Information Infrastructure
• Carl Reed
• Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.
• Ellis M. Stanley, Sr.
• City of Los Angeles, CA Emergency Preparedness
  Department
• Ann Frazier
• Study Director, Board on Earth Sciences and
  Resources

5
Study Goal and Tasks

• Goal Evaluate the current use of geospatial data
  and tools in emergency management and make
  recommendations to improve that use
• Tasks Included
• Assess the value of geospatial data and tools in
  disaster planning and disaster response
• Identify the status of and needs for
  decision-support tools that assimilate data and
  model predictions for mapping vulnerability to
  catastrophe, scenario testing, disaster planning,
  and logistical support
• Identify the mission-critical data requirements
  for effective decision-making
• Examine technical and institutional mechanisms
  that enable rapid discovery, access, and
  assemblage of data from diverse sources
• Assess training needs for developers and users of
  spatial decision-support systems
• Examine potential conflicts between issues of
  security and the need for open access to data

6
Report Includes

• Introduction
• Thinking About Worst CasesReal and Hypothetical
  Examples
• Emergency Management Framework
• The Challenge Providing Geospatial Data, Tools,
  and Information Where and When They Are Needed
• Guidelines For Geospatial Preparedness
• Concluding Comments Looking To The Future
• Appendices

7
Study Conclusions and Recommendations
8
Geospatial information is an essential element of
all aspects of emergency management
Mitigation of future events
Planning for future events
Response and recovery
Image credits left, courtesy NGA top, right
courtesy FEMA bottom right, courtesy NYS Office
of Cyber Security Critical Infrastructure
Coordination/EarthData International
9

• Maps and other geospatial information are
  essential in the earliest stages of search and
  rescue

• Overhead images often provide the best early
  source of information on damage

• Evacuation planning is critical

Image credits top, courtesy Schad Meldrum, City
of Oklahoma City middle, courtesy NOAA bottom,
courtesy Richard Church, University of
California, Santa Barbara
10

• Geospatial data and tools have the potential to
  contribute to saving lives, limiting damage, and
  reducing the costs to society of dealing with
  emergencies

Image credits top left, Michael Hodgson,
University of South Carolina bottom left,
Washington State Emergency Management Division,
FEMA top right, courtesy Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute bottom right, Michael Payne,
Pierce County GIS.
11
12 Recommendations of The Report

• The past few decades have seen massive
  investments in geospatial data and tools,
• but the specific requirements
• of EM rarely have been addressed
• The Recommendations along
• with more detailed information
• in the Report are intended to
• provide a basis for enhancing
• geospatial preparedness across
• the nation.

12
Recommendations

• 1. The role of geospatial data and tools
  should be addressed explicitly by the responsible
  agency in strategic planning documents at all
  levels. Geospatial procedures and plans developed
  for all but the smallest of emergencies should be
  multiagency

13

• 2. Strengthen the current system of governance
  of the NSDI
• DHS should play a leading role in ensuring that
  the special needs of emergency management for
  effective data sharing and collaboration are
  recognized

14

• 3. DHS should develop policies and guidelines
  that address the sharing of geospatial data in
  support of all phases of emergency management
• led by DHS
• within the framework and governance
• structure of NSDI
• 4. DHS should lead development
• of a nationally coordinated set
• of security requirements for data
• to be shared for emergency preparedness and
  response

15

• 5. Standing procurement mechanisms should be put
  in place to permit emergency managers to acquire
  overhead imagery and other types of event-related
  geospatial data rapidly during disasters
• 6. Address communication problems that currently
  inhibit communication between first responders
  and coordinating centers through intensive
  preparedness exercises

Photos courtesy of Paul Greenfield Dale Dague,
USDA FS
16

• 7. DHS should revise Emergency Support Function 5
  of the National Response Plan to include backup
  and archiving of geospatial data, tools, and
  procedures developed as part of disaster response
  and recovery
• 8. NSF and federal agencies with responsibility
  for funding research on emergency management
  should support the adaptation, development, and
  improvement of geospatial tools for emergency
  management

17

• 9. Academic emergency management curricula should
  increase the emphasis given to geospatial data
  and tools. Geospatial professionals who are
  likely to
• be involved in emergency response
• should receive increased training
• in emergency management business
• processes and practices
• 10. FEMA should expand its team of
• permanent geospatial professionals
• and develop strategies that will lead
• to more rapid deployment
• 11. DHS should establish and maintain a secure
  list of appropriately qualified geospatial
  professionals who can support emergency response
  during disasters

18

• 12. To address the current shortfall in funding
  for geospatial preparedness the Committee
  recommends
• DHS should expand and focus a component of its
  grant programs to promote geospatial preparedness
• States should include geospatial preparedness in
  their planning for homeland security to increase
  opportunities and priorities for funding
• DHS, working with the Office of Management and
  Budget, should identify and request additional
  appropriations and identify areas where funding
  can be better aligned

19
Successful Response Starts with a Map Improving
Geospatial Support for Disaster
Management--Relevance to Infrastructure
Organizations
20
Who Owns/Maintains Geospatial Information?

• Owned/Maintained by
• Government
• Utilities
• Industry
• Over 80 of infrastructure information is
  maintained by the private sector!

21
The Protection Challenge A Utilities
Perspective
What is the volume of utility assets involved?

• Water 1,800 Federal Reservoirs 1,600
  Municipal Waste Water Facilities
• Telecommunications 2 Billion Miles of Cable
• Electric Generation 2,800 Power Plants
• Electric Distribution 2 Billion-Plus Miles of
  Conductor
• Oil Natural Gas 300,000 Producing Sites
• Pipelines 2 Million Miles
• Source The National Strategy for the
  Physical Protection of Critical
• Infrastructures and Key Assets, February 2003

22
Importance to Infrastructure Organizations

• Understand how integrated geospatial information
  supports the emergency management community.
• Realize that data sharing does not mean sharing
  data in its entirety, but rather specific data
  elements pertaining to identified infrastructure.
• Data sharing agreements are a requirement unless
  all stakeholders are in the public domain.
• Adoption of appropriate data sharing standards.

23
Importance to Infrastructure Organizations
(cont.)

• Support business case for required funding to
  support these type of efforts.
• Potential to augment and enhance current data
  records via the use of data obtained via
  participation in such an initiative.
• Ability to support these type of initiatives
  without the need for federally mandated
  requirements regarding participation of data
  owners.

24
Key Data Elements that Support Critical
Infrastructure Protection

• Data sharing does not necessarily mean sharing
  data in its entirety, but rather can be limited
  to key data elements
• Location
• Commodity
• Size
• Material
• Owner and Contact Information
• these represent some of the basic information
  attributes required and can be modified as
  needed

25
Barriers to Data Sharing
The unwillingness to share geospatial data is by
no means universal. However, local governments
and private utility companies are often times
less willing to participate. This can be
attributed to

• the desire to sell data to obtain revenue from a
  costly valuable asset
• the effort required to convert data into a form
  that can easily be shared
• the fear that data may assist terrorists in
  their activities

26
Barriers to Data Sharing (cont.)

• a basic distrust of the entity requesting data
  or an unwillingness to participate
• a concern for liability if the data are
  improperly used
• the fear that once others are aware of the
  existence of data, they may attempt to obtain
  access through freedom-of-information laws
• the most basic fear that the organization will
  lose control of its data.

27
The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
Executive Order 12906 calls for the establishment
of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure
defined as the technologies, policies, and people
necessary to promote sharing of geospatial data
throughout all levels of government, the private
and non-profit sectors, and the academic
community.
28
The NSDI at a Glance
29
The Case for Mandatory Data Sharing National
Pipeline Mapping System

• In 2003, the Department of Transportation
  (D.O.T.) mandated that all pipeline operators
  submit their high pressure pipeline mapping data
  as part of the creation of a national pipeline
  mapping system.
• Included Natural Gas, Liquid
  Propane, Oil, etc.
• Electronic or Hard Copy Map
  Media was Acceptable
• Standard Meta Data format was
  Utilized
• Annual Updates Required
• 1M Penalty for Non-compliance

30
The Case for Voluntary Data Sharing 50 States
Initiative

• Effort coordinated by the National States
  Geographic Information Council (NSGIC).
• Goal By end of the decade, fifty state
  Coordinating Councils are in place and routinely
  contributing to the governance of the NSDI.

31
The 50 States Initiative (cont.)

• Statewide Councils will bring consistency to the
  NSDI by
• Serving as a focal point to aggregate the
  activities of all sectors.
• Providing incentives for non-federal entities to
  adopt appropriate national standards.
• Published list of data stewards/integrators for
  framework layers.
• Functioning clearinghouse/inventory tool.
• Adoption of appropriate data sharing standards.

32
Challenges in Developing a National Strategy

• Combining of data can sometimes result in reduced
  quality as various consolidation processes are
  invoked.
• Limited resources knowledgeable on how to bring
  data together.
• Sharing vs. Cost to Develop perception that I
  spent the money developing this data why should
  you get to access it for free?

33
Challenges in Developing a National Strategy
(cont.)

• Cost of the technology is daunting for smaller
  municipalities.
• Coordination of map production across agencies
  (Federal, State, City, private organizations).
• Coordination of multiple agencies collecting the
  same data (e.g., environmental monitoring,
  building inspections).
• Provide attractive incentives for private sector
  organizations to participate.

34
Challenges in Developing a National Strategy
(concluded)

• Develop a mechanism that will allow data owners
  to provide data to one clearinghouse
  organization rather than a multitude of agencies.
• Leverage and coordinate with existing federal
  agencies such as the Department of Transportation
  (D.O.T.), that already mandate that certain data
  be provided on an annual basis.
• Implement standards for geospatial data
  technology interoperability.

35
Contact information
John Moeller john.moeller_at_ngc.com 703-961-5328 J.
Peter Gomez pete.gomez_at_xcelenergy.com 303-571-661
4
For free PDF version of final report, Google
Successful Response
36
Questions/Discussion