1028-0111 The National Map Corps Supporting Statement A

Supporting Statement A

for paperwork reduction act submission

The National Map Corps (TNMCorps) –Volunteered Geographic Information Project

     

OMB Control Number 1028-0111

Terms of Clearance: If OMB previously approved the information collection with terms of clearance, quote the terms here: “OMB approved this information collection on [Insert date of previous OMB approval] with the following terms of clearance: [Insert terms specified by OMB].”

If there were no terms of clearance, type "None." If this is a new collection, type "Not Applicable - New Collection."

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection.

The mission of the USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP) is to organize, maintain, publish, and disseminate the geospatial baseline of the Nation’s topography, natural landscape, and built environment through The National Map, a set of basic geospatial information provided as a variety of products and services.

Through Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16, the Federal Government assigns leadership responsibilities for themes of geospatial data among Federal agencies. Based in part on this assignment, and because of the unique niche of the Program to provide national coverage of topographic data, the primary focus of the program is to provide national leadership in The National Map themes of hydrography and elevation. The role of the other six layers of The National Map is generally to provide contextual or reference information to its cartographic products and services. The objective of the Program for these layers is to maintain current coverage by obtaining the data from other organizations and suppliers with a minimum investment of Program resources.

NGP is currently pursuing a two-pronged approach for acquiring and maintaining structures data. First, the Program is seeking authoritative national sources for the structures data included in the NGP Data Lifecycle Management Plan. Negotiations are continuing with a variety of agencies including NGA, Oakridge National Laboratories, and Federal Land Management agencies such as the US Forest Service and National Park Service. A second arm of NGP’s strategy is to deploy The National Map Corps (TNMCorps) in using new and evolving technologies and Internet services to enable members of the public to produce Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) that will update and enhance the datasets.

The volunteer effort of TNMCorps to collect and improve structures data provides several benefits to the Program, its users, and the Nation. Benefits include:

• Volunteer participation improves government efficiency and saves resources.

• Volunteer participation improves public access to data.

• Volunteer participation improves the data quality.

• Complete and current structures data may improve emergency preparedness and response.

• The National Map Corps benefits the agency and the participants by providing opportunities for citizen participation in USGS science and creating a positive image for the agency.

• Creates opportunities for collaboration with other Federal agencies and partners.

• Participation in The National Map Corps raises geographic awareness and improves users’ skills in using web-based tools.

• Participation in The National Map Corps is easy and completely voluntary. Complete registration instructions and editing guidelines can be found at:

https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/tnm-corps

• The use of The National Map Corps and VGI will result in more complete national datasets in The National Map with improved positional and attribute accuracy.

Because of the success of TNMCorps, the program is expanding to collect additional required geospatial data that falls within our current scope of structures. Increasing use and support of citizen science was referenced in the recent Biden administration Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking— “…promising opportunities to address gaps in current scientific-integrity policies related to emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine-learning, and evolving scientific practices, such as citizen science and community-engaged research.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection. Be specific. If this collection is a form or a questionnaire, every question needs to be justified.

The National Map Corps (TNMCorps) is the name of the NGP project that encourages citizen participation in volunteer map data collection activities. NGP is using crowdsourcing - new technologies and Internet services to georeferenced structure data and share this information with others on map-based Internet platforms - to produce volunteered geographic information (VGI). People participating in the crowdsourcing will be considered part of TNMCorps.

In general, the National Structures Database has been populated with the best available national data. This data has been exposed for initial improvement by TNMCorps volunteers via the online Map Editor (the instrument). The data goes through a tiered-editing approach which ensures and improves data quality, and includes Standard Editors, Peer Reviewers, and Advanced Volunteers. All volunteer-contributed points go through automated quality checks referred to as the “magic filter” and any points with potential issues go into a queue for internal review. Points that pass the “magic filter” or have been approved through the review queue go into the National Structures Database. In addition, USGS conducts quality assurance procedures which include reviewing a sample of all new volunteer points.

Once part of the National Structures Database, the data is made available to the NGP and to the public at no cost via The National Map and incorporated into derived products such as the US Topo. Data from TNMCorps is also shared and used by other federal agencies, including the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) open data platform.

Quality studies conducted in 2012 (Colorado Pilot Project) and 2014 (post-nationwide expansion) confirmed the effectiveness of a tiered-editing approach and resulting high-quality data. The volunteer actions were accurate and exceeded USGS quality standards. Volunteer-collected data showed an improvement in positional accuracy, attribute accuracy, and reduced errors of commission. Errors of omission are more difficult to study and quantify, but the study of post offices in the 2012 Colorado Pilot Project study provides some evidence that the volunteer model improves completeness as well.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden and specifically how this collection meets GPEA requirements.

In an era where dwindling budgets struggle to coexist with mandates for transparency and citizen involvement, crowdsourcing is a viable solution for many agencies. VGI is not new to the USGS, but past efforts have been hampered by available technologies. Over the past two decades, the USGS has sponsored various forms of volunteer map data collection projects. In 1994, the Earth Science Corps was established, and over the next seven years 3,300 volunteers annotated between 100 and 300 topographic paper maps each year. Citizen mappers reviewed every feature of their “adopted” topographic map and provided the USGS with an annotated paper map of updates. As valuable as the updates were, the technology was not yet available to take full advantage of the work done by the volunteers. In addition, some quadrangles were so out of date, the amount of work needing to be completed could be quite daunting to the volunteer who was asked to complete edits within 12 months.

Realizing the limitations of the first VGI effort and taking advantage of new technology, the program was revamped and renamed The National Map Corps in 2001. Emphasis shifted from manually annotating every feature on the published map to collecting man-made structures using handheld GPS units which had recently become affordable to the average citizen. Between 2003 and 2006, over 1,000 citizen mappers collected over 22,800 data points which were submitted in a variety of formats both analog and digital. As time passed and technology changed, VGI at the USGS also evolved. In 2006, a web-based collection tool was launched in order to help standardize the submission process, but the transition from the database onto the USGS topographic maps remained problematic and continued to require a fair amount of USGS resources to process. In 2008, the program was suspended due to lack of resources.

Today, the perfect storm of improved technology, social media, broadening support, and ever decreasing resources has once again made crowd-sourcing an attractive and viable option for federal agencies. After several pilot projects to determine the viability of bringing back the volunteer mapping program, The National Map Corps volunteers are successfully editing 10+ different structure types in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Pacific territories. Structures being collected include schools, hospitals, post offices, police stations and other important public buildings. Using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery as the primary base layer, volunteers collect and improve structures data by adding new features, removing obsolete points, and correcting existing data. Edits are contributed through an internally developed web-based mapping platform, which has been designed to support multiple USGS applications. For editing in Structures—VGI, users select among background layers that provide different types of maps and levels of detail.

The success of TNMCorps has enabled additional pilot projects with other federal agencies as well as public and private partners, to collect railroad tunnels, and update structure classifications for a nationwide dataset of structure polygons.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

The structures data theme is one of the six low-investment maintenance themes of The National Map. Over the years a variety of approaches has been pursued to acquire and maintain structures data. During 2010 through 2013, data was acquired through coordination with the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) Working Group, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), and various state agencies. This effort improved the completeness and accuracy of some structures data. In order to maintain and augment these data, NGP pursued partnerships with a number of states. Because each state had different drivers and approaches to updating their data, the datasets they shared varied in their quality, completeness and format. Another issue was that many states either chose not to participate for a variety of reasons or are not maintaining structures data. Thus, the effort of NGP to bring these datasets together into a consistent, seamless national coverage required a level of effort and resources that was out of alignment with the objective to find suppliers with a minimum investment of Program resources. Where national, authoritative datasets are available, and of sufficient currency, NGP has worked to incorporate these into the National Structures Dataset (NSD). This includes schools from ORNL, post offices from the US Census Bureau, campgrounds and other points of interest from Federal land management agencies. NGP is also pursuing partnerships with other agencies to develop pilots to combine efforts and reduce potential duplication of effort.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

This information does not impact small businesses or other small entities.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

Not collecting this information would hamper the Federal Government’s efforts to effectively map manmade structures for The National Map, thus reducing the accuracy, currency, and completeness of The National Map data and US Topo maps.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

* Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly.

* Requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it.

* Requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document.

* Requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years.

* In connection with a statistical survey that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study.

* Requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB.

* That includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

* Requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information, unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

There are no circumstances that require us to collect information in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and in response to the PRA statement associated with the collection over the past three years, and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every three years — even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

On April 18^th, 2024, we published a 60-Day Federal Register notice (89 FR 27730) page 27780-27781. We did not receive any comments in response to that notice.

In addition to the Federal Register notice, we consulted with the nine (9) individuals identified in Table 8.1 who are familiar with this collection of information in order to validate our time burden estimates and asked for comments on the questions below:

Table 8.1

Organization	Title
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user
Individual	Anonymous user

“Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; whether there are any questions they felt were unnecessary.”

Comments: The respondents agree that collecting and updating structures data via the TNMCorps map editing application is necessary and has practical applications, namely: emergency management, assisting law enforcement operations, historical research, outdoor excursion, or trip planning, etc. They agreed that there were no questions solicited by TNMCorps during the structures data collection process that they felt were unnecessary or too difficult. One respondent suggested adding the requirement that all editors enter source information and make that “source information readily available for review to all subsequent editors.” 

Agency Response/Action Taken: No agency action or response is needed as respondents agreed that structures data collection is necessary and has practical utility. They also agreed that there were no questions or steps in the data collection process they deemed unnecessary or too difficult.

“The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information”

Comments: The respondents agree that our estimate of the burden for this collection of information (structures data collection) seems accurate and reasonable. They made the point that editing times can vary greatly and our average may not account for outliers (e.g., cemeteries that might take several hours or even days to research), however this is why we use an average to represent the estimate of burden.  

Agency Response/Action Taken: No agency action or response is needed as respondents agreed with our estimate of the burden regarding review of guidance documentation and the data research and editing process. Our estimates are based on past research and lengthy observation of the editing process with the knowledge that some data points might take much less or more time than our average estimate.

“Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.”

Comments: One respondent suggested requiring all edits to include source information, and questioned the usefulness of cemetery data collection and whether the often lengthy and challenging cemetery research process is worth volunteers’ time. The other respondent had no suggestions regarding enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected.

Agency Response/Action Taken: The TNMCorps team will consider making source citation mandatory, however no action or response will be taken regarding the reconsideration of cemetery collection (even in the most remote, difficult to research areas). Cemetery data collection will continue as it is important for historical and genealogical research and is highly valued by many members of the public and TNMCorps volunteers, many of whom focus exclusively on the collection and maintenance of cemetery data. Volunteers who prefer not to engage in the more difficult task of cemetery research have the option of focusing on other structures and are not required to edit cemetery data.

“Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.”

Comments: One respondent suggested locking points saved by Advanced Editors so they can’t be re-saved by Standard Editors. The other respondent had no suggestions for minimizing the burden of structures data collection.

Agency Response/Action Taken: No agency action or response will be taken regarding this suggestion, as the ability of any volunteer to edit any data point to correct potential mistakes or discrepancies remains an important aspect of TNMCorps’ tiered editing approach.

Additional comments received during the outreach: (if you received any add’l comments – if not, you can delete this section)

Comments: One respondent suggested assigning specific geographic areas to Advanced Editors who would be responsible for monitoring that area; anytime an edit was made by another volunteer in that area, the Advanced Editor would receive a notification that an edit had been made so they could review and approve or reject the new edit. This respondent also suggested more advanced (“senior editors”) serve as mentors who could provide additional assistance to editors with lower quality work. The other respondent had no additional comments.  

Agency Response/Action Taken: The TNMCorps team has provided and will consider additional ways in which to involve Advanced Editors; particularly assigning them special tasks or projects, i.e., inviting them to test the FEMA application, and potentially allowing them access to the review queue (currently only accessed by admin/staff). We value the idea of a mentorship type program, however planning and executing such a program will take some time and thought, therefore it is unlikely TNMCorps will take any action/response regarding that specific suggestion any time soon.

[Insert explanation here for any individuals you contacted as part of outreach who did not respond. You need to follow-up with them via email and/or phone call to avoid non-response bias and then indicate in your explanation the attempts you made to follow-up with the individuals to solicit feedback.]

In our initial email to nine volunteers, we clarified that their participation in this questionnaire was strictly voluntary to avoid any sense of pressure to participate, but initially only heard back from two respondents. Per the instructions outlined in this document, we then sent a reminder to the volunteers we’d reached out to who did not respond by our initial deadline (7 days after the questionnaire was first emailed out). We gave the other volunteers an additional three days to respond, however we did not receive any additional responses.

NOTE: If you received comments other than those provided to you by the Bureau ICCO, please provide an electronic version of each comment to the Bureau ICCO to be uploaded to ROCIS.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

Volunteers are recognized through virtual badges but are not given gifts or payment.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

We do not provide any assurance of confidentiality. Information is collected and protected in accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We will maintain the information in a secure System of Records (DOI LEARN (Department-wide Learning Management System) - Interior, DOI-16, 70 FR 58230).

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The collection does not include sensitive or private questions.

Username and email are collected for the purpose of follow-up contact to clarify responses. Our primary purpose for collecting contact information is to follow-up with the respondents when necessary to verify the submission as a valid and reliable entry and to invite participation in the subsequent data collection activities. Respondent usernames will not appear in any of our reports without permission.

This collection includes a PIA for email addresses. See USGS PIA - The National Map Corps. The parent PIA is the National Map Reengineering Project (NMRP), Major Application Privacy Impact Assessment.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

* Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

* If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

* Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.

• We anticipate approximately 1,000 first time users will register each year and estimate that it takes 5 minutes to complete the registration form.

• We anticipate approximately 1,000 first time users will read the editing guidelines, which takes an estimated 55 minutes to work through.

• For edits, we expect to receive approximately 100,000 responses annually, and estimate that research and editing time will average 12 per response. Time estimates in each case are based on informal trials of new users, experienced volunteers, and/or staff; all numbers represent expected 3-year averages.

We are using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, USDL-24-0485, published on 3/13/2024, to determine our dollar value for burden hours. The value used is $45.42 for public respondents.

Table 2 Respondent burden

Participant / Activity	Number of Responses	Minute per response	Burden Hours	Dollar Value for Burden Hr
Public individual reads announcement or instructions	1,000	60 minutes (5 minutes to register + 55 minutes to read user guide)	1,000	$45,420
Public individual completes survey (edits points)	100,000	12 minutes (includes research and edit time)	20,000	$908,400
Subtotal	101,000		21,000	953,820
State, Local govt reads announcement or instructions	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
State, Local govt completes survey	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Subtotal	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	101,000		21,000	953,820

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual non-hour cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected in item 12.)

* The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation, maintenance, and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information (including filing fees paid for form processing). Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

* If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

* Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We have not identified any non-hour cost burden associated with this collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The total annual cost to the Federal Government is $495,679.61. This includes salary and benefits. We used Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Pay and Leave Tables (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2024/GS_h.pdf) by duty station location to determine the hourly rate. We used the actual benefit rate from Pay Period 202407 for each employee and incorporated calculations for projected WGIs within the fiscal year.

Employee Name	Pay Plan	Grade	Step	Hrly Labor and Benefits Rate	Hrly Rate and Benefits after WGI	Total FY24 Annual Hours	Total Labor and Benefits Costs (FTE 1.0-2088 hrs)
Cartographer	GS	11	04	$ 56.45	N/A	2088	$ 117,877.52
Geographer	GS	11	01/02	$ 47.42	$ 49.00	2088	$ 99,342.38
Cartographer	GS	11	03/04	$ 56.64	$ 58.41	2088	$ 119,906.39
Supervisory Geographer	GS	12	05	$ 75.94	N/A	2088	$ 158,553.32
Totals						8352	$ 495,679.61

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments in hour or cost burden.

A decrease in staffing for this project has led to a decrease in annualized cost to the federal government.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Data from the collection will not be published as a reference. Public may download the updated National Structures Dataset using web tools.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

We will display the OMB Control Number and expiration date on appropriate materials.

18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

- 11 -