NGS Height
Modernization Conference
Session Results
July 17-18, 2007
Table of Contents
■ National Height Modernization – Vision
|
3
|
■ Height Modernization Group Session Notes
-
Envisioning the Future
-
Strengths and Weaknesses of Zonal
Approach
-
Strategic Focus Areas
-
Breakout Groups – Strategic Focus
Areas
o
Regional/ Zone Approach
o
Funding Strategy
o
Business Case
o
Outreach and Education
o
Political Strategy
o
Standards
o
SOP’s
|
4
5
9
12
15
15
17
18
20
23
25
27
|
■ Regional Management Givens
|
29
|
■ Individual Input on Regional Approach
|
30
|
■ Session Evaluations
|
35
|
National Height Modernization –
Vision
(Draft)
Where do we want to be in 10 years?
“We provide the accuracy you need in the time you need
it.”
A highly effective national program
Working together, we
will…
·
Establish
a nationwide, integrated real-time data acquisition network
·
Define reliable, sustainable national standards that
lead to a single, well
defined vertical datum, with seamless measurements between states
·
Achieve nationwide consistency and efficiency, balanced with the
flexibility needed to address local issues
·
Institute an effective national, regional and
state-level management structure that accounts for both geopolitics and geophysics
·
Create a state-of-the-art technology infrastructure,
with 3-dimensional
systems in place that support all geospatial activities
·
Enable
the conversion of existing data to new standards and levels of accuracy
·
Lead
the effort to coordinate federal and state agencies in adopting national
standards and benefiting from the latest/best available data
Benefiting
NOAA & the Nation
With such a program in place, we will be able
to…
·
Better
meet the needs of critical applications including emergency preparation and response,
floodplain management, and land management
·
Demonstrate a measurement of change for NOAA and the
nation
·
Make
reliable heights to national standards readily available to all sectors, public
and private
·
Integrate height modernization into other key
programs and local systems
·
Promote
greater scientific collaboration for models and tools development
Building broad
support
As partners in this shared interest, we will…
·
Speak with one voice to clearly communicate the
value of this program to policy
makers, users and to the general public
·
Ensure
state partners understand the importance of non-federal funding
·
Make a concerted, organized effort to build a broad
constituent base, mobilizing local interest (buy in) in a national program
·
Ensure stable funding support to maintain the base
structure and support key initiatives
Strengthening Federal-states and
states-to-states partnerships
To strengthen the foundation of this effort,
we will…
·
Continuously strengthen working relationships Cooperation/coordination between
Federal government and state partners
·
Share resources to realize shared benefits
·
Coordinate our efforts to educate, train and
transfer technology
Height
Modernization
Group
Session Notes
Task 1: Envisioning the Future
·
Where do we want to be in 10 years?
·
What could this Program look like if we pulled
together on a national level?
·
What could we achieve together?
·
What would the benefit be to this nation as a whole?
Table One:
Where do we
want to be in 10 years?
·
National standards
·
Consistency
·
Modernization of national standards
·
Currently takes too long
·
Org structure to support
·
Integration
·
Modern IT infrastructure
·
Modern programming language
·
Consistent
What would a national program look like?
·
Est. HT Mod standards for a consistent national
program
·
Est. infrastructure to support national HT Mod
·
Setting standards
·
Tech transfer
·
Enabling others w/ tools
·
State advisor – more coordinated less independent
What could
we achieve together?
·
Money $
·
Consolidate voices
·
Regional
·
National
·
Education
·
Training
·
Tech Transfer
·
Shared resources for shared benefits
What would
the benefit be to this nation as a whole?
·
Reduced duplication
·
Done right
·
Disaster mitigation
·
National framework to support multiple applications
·
Shows a measurement of change
·
NGS has a unique ability to measure change to NOAA
and the Nation
Table Two:
Envisioning the future
·
2
cm Geoid (95%)
·
2
cm orthometric on every CORS
·
Guidelines/standards/procedures
for achieving 2 cm heights
·
Examples
memo 58 and 59
·
Mechanism
for dealing with change over time
·
E.g.
subsidence/relationship to sea levels
·
Velocities
on CORS
·
Publish
predictive models
·
Concerted
outreach to state legislators
·
Understanding
by policy makers of state partners of importance of funding non-federal share
·
Benefit/cost
analysis of HM program
·
Role
of NGS in assuming coordination of all federal agencies (to use latest/best
available data)
·
3
dimensional systems that support all geospatial activities
Table Three:
·
2
cm orthometric heights in 5 min or less w/o leveling
·
Budget
initiative for H.M. for the nation
·
Clear
standards and guidelines from NGS
·
Milestones
to get there
·
Seamless
boundaries between states
·
Can’t
confine modern technology
·
Don’t
like to see heights change abruptly
·
National
agency unified datum
·
Single,
well defined vertical datum
·
Nationwide
real time network
·
Advisor
for every state
·
More
than one if needed
Table Four:
·
2
cm ortho heights 10 mm or les
·
National standards
·
Height mod supporting a lot of other programs
·
The accuracy you need in the time you need it.
Application and geography dependent.
·
Stable funding
·
Regional flexibility
Question 1
·
NOAA contact to help build partners and outside
resources have local interest (buy in) in a national program
·
Spatial reference center in CO (each
state/region/zone)
·
Program is cost effective.
·
250 K base funding per state $12.5 M/year
·
Maintain base structure
·
Height mod supporting a lot of local systems
·
Program is integrated with other programs
·
Supported from the top President
·
Cadre of advocates
·
Message up support down
Table Five:
In 10 years
·
Cooperation/coordination
between fed state and local
·
Reliable
positioning system
·
With
national standards
·
Major
outline – reliable sustainable consistent standards
·
On
demand
·
1
cm gravity (national) model
·
Facilities
for conversion to new standards and levels of accuracy
·
For
existing and old data
·
Consistent
and reliable funding
·
Federal
funding tied to standards/standardization
Structure/Makeup of Program
·
NGS-developed
standards across the nation
·
Without
state boundaries
Table Six:
1. $ management/ strategy
2. Organize entire constituent
base
3. Develop region/ zone plan
(understand geopolitics, geophysics, funding)
10 years
·
Reliable
heights to national standards readily available to all sectors public and
private
# 1
·
Accurate
Geoid – 2 cm accuracy model
·
Move
away from static into real-time
·
Fully
integrated real-time data acquisition
Height Mod provides
·
Leadership
to coordinate all partners to adopt the current national standards
# 2
·
Use
local partners to mobilize local politics from bottom-up
·
Say
why it’s important
·
Leverage/engage
professional societies for needs assessment and policy making
·
Many
tentacles – different critical applications floodplain managers/ hurricane
prep/ response
·
Disaster
response and ground truthing of data
·
SRCs in every state focused on local issues or
the services of a center
·
Need
National Standards – best data is local data
·
States
must mandate coordinate systems/datums
·
Follow-up
to 1998 HM report to congress w/ new technologies
·
Need
to be able to measure success
Table Seven:
·
2
cm NAVD 88 (ortho) in real time
·
3-D
realtime NSRS (seamless)
·
Greater
scientific collaboration for models and tools development
·
All Geospatial users understand NSRS and use its
components appropriately
Benefit to Nation
·
Improved
safety in emergency events
·
Inclusion of horizontal and vertical velocities and
links to tools on datasheets
·
Cost
savings/improved efficiency
·
Less
confusion/uncertainty across state boundaries
Task 2: Strengths and Weaknesses
of Zonal Approach
Table One:
Strengths of zonal approach:
·
NOAA/ NGS wants zones
·
Common issues
·
Administrative benefit
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
Cross-zonal synergies
·
Develop strong IT sources for info distribution
·
Joint “lessons learned” applications
·
Funding coordination
Table Two:
Strengths of the zonal approach:
·
Benefits
of administration (fewer contacts /links for NGS)
·
Gets
around earmarking problem
·
Advantage
of geophysical zones
·
More
efficient use of resources (e.g. multi-state educational efforts)
·
Multi-state
efforts:
·
Sharing
of ideas
·
Lobbying
for support
·
Ability
to obtaining funding for all (e.g. due to interest and power of individual
senators)
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
HM
zones should reflect NOAA zones whenever possible
·
Ability
for single state to be in more than 1 zone
·
Provide
spatial reference center for each state
·
Facilities
interstate travel
·
Provide
SRC coverage for each state
·
Provide state geodetic advisor coverage for all
states
Table Three:
Strengths of the zonal approach:
·
Zones
first step to “seamless” concept
·
Spatial
reference centers for zones – focused on their zone
·
i.e.
not just state focus (3 votes)
·
Regions
have gained traction – why not use this as the model (6 votes)
·
No
one knows “zones” at this time
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
Why
can’t NGS assign 8 FTEs to manage HT Mod as a national program and also be NOAA
regional leaders – do both (4 votes)
·
Zones
garner more congressional support
·
Zone
does not enforce scientific approach
·
Could
advisors become regional leaders?
Table Four:
Strengths of the zonal approach:
·
Easy
to manage from NGS perspective (2 votes)
·
Emphasis
on perceived common needs (5 votes)
·
Includes
states which have not expressed an interest in the program (yet) (5 votes)
·
Make
communications more efficient (8 votes)
·
Scientific
efficiency (interstate projects)
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
Unclear
on funding and program management (7 votes)
·
Flexibility
to meet “event driven” local needs within the zone (2 votes)
·
Lack
of partner participation in defining the zones (4 votes)
·
Reference
center location affects credibility of program and local funding in other
states (4 votes)
Table Five:
Strengths
of the zonal approach:
·
Consolidation
of resources (strength in #)
·
Enhanced
funding opportunities with larger groups (multi/inter-state) programs
·
Regional
consistency
·
Easier
to draw from established resources (programs)
·
NGS
will be better positioned to shrink infrastructure
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
Funding
– no funding mechanism for zonal approach
·
Inconsistency
with NOAAs regions
·
R
and D grant and funding to state agencies/universities
·
Politics
– Hierarchy between states
·
State
level representation
To Get it Done
·
Written
implementation plan
·
A
road map
·
Explore
alternative zoning schemes that are congruent with agencies like FEMA, US ACE, Etc.
·
Marketing
– Creating a buzz
·
Solicit
professional org. influence/support
·
Funding
– Amts/mechanism
·
Matching
(fed/state) funding program
·
Strategies
for implementing local “in-kind” contributions
·
Delivery
infrastructure for products/services
·
Sustainability
·
Long-term
maintenance
·
Replacement
and upgrades
Table Six:
Strengths of
the zonal approach:
·
Strength
of Zone – FEMA has state coordinate and technical support
·
Strength
– easier to sell larger area and importance
·
Where
you draw lines is arbitrary – Go with NOAA
·
All
DOTs and flood districts come together as alternate $ source
·
USGS
has geophysical zones
·
State
role stronger
·
Fed
$ implement program
·
Projects happen at local area
·
Local
$ do projects – projects other Feds, DOTs, flood control and water districts
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
Enhancing
National Funding will retard local funding – Where will $ come from?
·
Implementation
more difficult
·
National
$ comes in through NGS but states supplement it
·
Examine
make-up of zones to find similarities
·
Strongly
consider going with NOAA regions
·
Name
zones after geophysical properties
·
Regions/
geophysical matrix
·
NOAA
regions with state leads?
·
All
about funding *
·
Develop
picture of funding mechanism and implementation (National vs. State levels)
Table Seven:
Strengths of
the zonal approach:
·
Collaboration
of resources
·
Access to
diverse expertise
·
Bringing decision making closer to users
·
Similar needs/requirements
Ways to strengthen zonal approach:
·
Organizational lines of authority and responsibility
·
Competing special interests
·
Political boundaries
·
Geographic restrictions – inability to utilize
expertise of other zones
·
Inequitable funding within zones
Task 3: Strategic Focus Areas
Where should
we focus our time and energy in order to achieve our vision?
Table One:
Key focus
areas for successful implementation of zonal approach
·
Funding (increase)
·
Marketing/outreach/education
·
Developing/maintaining Congressional support
·
“Equal” approach to distribution of funding within
zone
·
Choice of technologies to implement NSRS
Table Two:
Key focus areas
·
Educational/
outreach for HM (3 votes)
·
Surveying
profession
·
Engineering
·
Spatial
data users/ GIS folks
·
Real
estate community
·
State
policymakers/legislators
·
Quantify/document benefits and costs. (3 votes)
·
Local
partners decide on what needs to be done
·
NGS
specifies standards/specs to do what needs to be done.
·
Annual meeting to share effective ways/means of
organizing zones (technical) (1 vote)
·
Conduct annual meeting to deal with effective
equitable funding stream/ allocation issues.
·
Develop strategies to deal with perceived/ actual
“zero sum game” (3 votes)
·
National HM plan needs concise statement to define
“success” (5 votes)
·
To meet a standard (at a point in time)
·
To sustain to HM standard over time
Table Three:
Focus of Resources for NHM
·
Increase
NGS expertise on RTN
·
Improved
Geoid model to support 2 cm heights (1 vote)
·
National
standards (3 votes)
·
CORS
·
RTRN
·
Seamless
·
Accurate
orthometric hts for CORS – independent from antenna model (3 votes)
·
Support
NOAA Regional approach for NHM (3 votes)
·
Regional
congressional $ support for airborne gravity
·
Educate
contractors (construction) taking advantage of NHM – Lobby for support (2
votes)
Table Four:
Focus time and Resources
·
Capitol
Hill – get funding
·
Focus
on purpose and benefits
·
NGS
must come up with reasons of why the zone/national program is better
·
Fed to state legislative requirement
·
Federal requirement to adhere to standards in order
to get funding
·
More gravity, orthometric heights (leveling), GPS on
benchmarks and leveling to CORS (cost effective)
·
Focus on expanding program top non-coastal states
·
New tools to be more efficient (OPUS leveling and
data submission)
·
Tools for applications (real-time)
·
Build on advocacy constituency
Reduced
set
·
Funding and Advocacy (6 votes)
·
Development and promotion of purpose and benefits
and standards (8 votes)
·
NGS justification of a national program
·
Legislation and federal funding (1 vote)
·
Science and tools (6 votes)
Table Five:
To Get it Done
·
Written
implementation plan
·
A
road map
·
Explore
alternative zoning schemes that are congruent with agencies like FEMA, US ACE, Etc.
·
Marketing
– Creating a buzz
·
Solicit
professional org. influence/support
·
Funding
– Amts/mechanism
·
Matching
(fed/state) funding program
·
Strategies
for implementing local “in-kind” contributions
·
Delivery
infrastructure for products/services
·
Sustainability
·
Long-term
maintenance
·
Replacement
and upgrades
Table Six:
If we accomplish the following, the
National HM Program will implement itself under NGS Leadership
·
Identify
all end users including non-conventional
·
Build
partnerships among SRCs and other state/federal agencies and end users to leverage
funding
·
Look
at “are we doing this right?” before rolling out
·
Re-evaluate
NGS culture rooted in the “way we’ve always done it”
·
Update
standards to include new technologies
·
Develop
outreach and education program
·
Outline
benefits
·
Teach
end users how to apply what we know using local credibility and national
leadership
·
Make
sure National HM program does not stifle local innovation
·
How
will users access NSRS?
Table Seven:
Focus
Time/Resources to implement national program
·
Education of importance of HT Mod (1 vote)
·
Develop outside capacity/ability
·
Bring in new partners (1 vote)
·
Development of standards/ procedures (1 vote)
·
Integration of new technology
·
Multiyear funding plans
·
Explore international opportunities
·
Develop stringer ties to universities
·
Work with professional societies to promote efforts/
garner support
·
Identify greatest benefits of HT Mod
·
Utilize feedback from “field” (Advisors)
Task 4: Breakout
Groups – Strategic Focus Areas
Table One: Regional / Zone Approach
1.
How should the boundaries be determined / defined?
(NOAA Regions? NGS Zones? Other geographical / political considerations?)
The following are thoughts during the
brainstorming session:
- Solicit input
existing partners and stakeholders.
·
Leverage existing regional models of administration
·
NOAA; USACE; FEMA
·
Geopoliticial
·
Geophysical
·
Mix of NOAA regions and NGS zones
·
More “striped” states
“Striped
states”
·
Single coordination meetings to discuss issues at:
·
National issue
·
Regional and cross regional issues
·
State issues
·
Based on a national need
·
Critical surveys/areas
Based on the above, the
consensus at the table was the following:
To follow the current NOAA Regional
Model with the understanding that some states may cross regions and/or may
belong in another region.
2.
When we adopt one approach, how do we still integrate the value of the
alternate approaches?
·
Mix of NOAA regions and NGS zones (allow states to
play in more than one region – have more “striped” states)
·
The consensus was that the ability to have
flexibility for states to move or share regions met this requirement.
3.
A. How should the Regions/Zones be managed?
·
1 representative from each state form the regional
council that operates under a charter
·
Role of the NGS
State Advisors: We agree they should be
included; whether they would be voting members or serve in an advisory role
needs to be determined
·
Leadership rotates every 2 years
·
Develop a collective/ regional management strategy
·
Involve other
state/federal agencies, academia, NGOs.
B. What are
the roles of the “Leader” and the other members?
·
Approach regional based vs. state based
·
Serve as honest brokers for a “regional approach”
·
Recognizing national needs vs. regional needs and
vice versa (e.g. Geoid)
4. How do we identify qualified and willing
players within states that haven’t been involved yet?
Constant
education and outreach
·
Identify direct and indirect benefactors
·
Find “champions” (e.g. governors)
Key remaining questions:
·
Who will
represent individual states?
·
Who will
represent individual states that are not embracing Ht Mod?
·
NGS needs to pull this together:
·
Organize regions
·
Identify state reps
·
Establish charters
·
Provide dedicated personnel
·
Timeframe – Immediately
·
This is the “long pole” in the tent
Discussion notes:
·
Supplement Regions with “striped states” (dual
membership) based on geophysical issues
·
Take advantage of the flexibility of regions
·
Influence NOAA’s regional definitions
·
Don’t lose local enthusiasm – balance between
regional emphasis and state focus/attention
·
Caution against inland states being “second class”
·
Regional centers are intended to focus on regions –
not specific states
·
E.g. Name them “Regional Centers”
·
Do Spatial Reference Centers have a regional or state focus?
Action Plan
Action
|
Lead
|
Due Date
|
1. Determine Regional Boundaries
|
Dave Zilkoski
|
ASAP
|
2. Determine roles and responsibilities both for the
states and NGS
|
DZ and SRCs and/or current
Zone leads
|
1 month after #1 is
completed
|
3. Hold first meetings of the Regions supported by
NGS.
|
DZ and SRCs and/or current
Zone leads
|
3 months after #2 is
completed
|
Table Two: Funding Strategy
Assuming some Regional/zone approach:
1.
What is the funding flow from NGS to Regions/Zones
and their members?
2.
How would funding decisions be made? How will funds
be distributed?
3.
What role would NGS play? Partners?
4.
Will there be a standard process for applying for
funds?
5.
How will recipients be identified? What
qualifications would recipient have to have to get funding?
·
Can
states pass federal HM funds through to other states? Probably not.
·
Funding
flow: NGS directly to each recipient state within a zone (preferred)
·
Can
HM funds be allocated for multiple years?
·
If
yes, allocate for the maximum number of years
·
Every
state receiving HM funds will have a HM plan
·
Incorporate
state plans into zone plan (that is part of a HM zone plan)
·
Assuming
competitive grants:
·
Who
reviews proposals?
·
NGS
staff?
·
Peer
states? (May not be practical if funds/grants are competitive award.)
·
Both
of the above?
·
Others?
·
If
funds continue to be limited…
·
Is
distribution within zone based on merit of proposal?
·
Zone
leader should receive an administrative stipend to support their role
Discussion Notes:
·
Federal
funding should focus on the national “Program”
·
Local
funding should focus on Projects
·
States
would need some sort of “Business Center” (not necessarily Height Mod Center) to handle moving funds across
borders
·
Consider
“in-kind” contributions
·
Regional
bodies should focus on regional issues
·
Consider
managing regional projects from a regional center
·
Maintain
Regional management on a federal level to allow $ to move between states –
Regional management is a federal role
·
Look
at USGS model
·
Can
we leverage NOAA regional $ system? Or should we not?
Action Plan
Action
|
Lead
|
Due Date
|
1. Provide guidance for states/zones on how to write a
HM proposal that is good for states/zone and nation (e.g., nationwide gravity
survey).
|
NGS
|
ASAP
|
2. Develop a nationwide HM plan for FY09 budget.
|
NGS/partners
|
7/08
|
3. Identify agency in each (currently non-active HM)
state, who will agree to receive federal HM dollars and take lead in state HM
program.
|
NGS
|
7/09
|
Table Three: Business Case
1.
What should be included in a “business case” /
cost/benefit analysis?
·
Definition of National HT Mod Program: Homogenous, Contemporaneous Continental Geoid less
than 2 cm
·
Integrated
into satellite-derived Geoid
·
Ortho Heights to less than 2 cm (ellip and
geoid)
·
Reference
epoch surface for vertical displacements
·
Concise statement of benefits:
·
Provide
methods, standards, instrumentation, etc.
·
To
enable all users to achieve their requirements for accurate heights in a cost
effective – efficient
·
Spin-off
– very accurate horizontal position
·
Significantly
more end-users
·
New/
undiscovered uses
·
Machine
control for construction agricultural
·
Elevation
data for fewer $s
·
Elevation
data for fewer hours
·
Easier
to use/train user
·
Safety
of life and property
·
Environmental
factors: Sea level, tidal inundation, etc.
·
Successes
realized by:
·
NCGS,
CSRC, LSRC, South Carolina, etc.
2. Who should be involved in developing Business Case:
·
Current
NGS (source already exists) constituents
·
NOAA
offices who would benefit
·
Depts.
Ag., USGS, COE, Coast Guard, FEMA, etc.
·
National
Roadbuilders Association
·
John
Deere, CAT (Source already exists), Starfire, Trimble (source already exists),
Lieca, Topcon (Vendors, Manufacturers)
·
States
(source already exists) with RTN share lessons learned
·
States
without RTN
·
ACSM,
AASHTO, ASCE
3.
What sources already exist that we can draw on?
·
Current
NGS
·
CAT
·
Trimble
·
States
Discussion Notes:
·
What
is value of CORS network to nation? (NGS
needs to define this; this is a huge success story)
·
Ask
American Congress of Surveying to help (What should we ask them? Who should we
talk to?)
·
Include OPUS solutions
·
The Business Case must have a compelling reason for
the public to accept a change to the elevation system (NAVD88).
Action Plan
Action
|
Lead
|
Due Date
|
1. Gather up collection of success stories.
|
HM Program Manager
|
|
2. Publish a brochure/website to begin publishing the
worth of HM.
|
NGS*
|
|
3. Establish three focus groups:
·
Representatives
of engineering associations (ASHTO)
·
Industry
Leaders (ESRI, Trimble, etc)
·
Decision
Makers in HM States (SecDOTs, State Emergency Managers)
|
NGS*
|
|
4. Request a study by the National Academy.
|
NGS*
|
|
5. Oversee development of the Business Case (utilize a
contractor with appropriate expertise).
|
HM Program Manager
|
|
*With assistance from Partners
Table Four: Outreach & Education
NOTE:
·
The task here was not to develop the “marketing
materials”, but identify the priority audiences
·
Each Region/Zone can develop its own detailed
outreach plan
(Bolded items are top priority)
1.
Who are the priority target audiences across the
nation?
Professional
Associations
·
ACSM
·
Flood Plain Managers Association
·
NSPE
·
NSGIC
·
AASHTO
·
Building Industry Association
·
WGA
·
NACO
·
Land
surveyors
·
Emergency
Services
·
Other
GIS Associations
·
ASPRS
·
Contractors/Construction
·
Precision
Agriculture Association
·
Realty
Association
·
Oil
and Gas Associations
·
Utility
Associations
·
Right-of-way
Association (International)
·
Assessors
(IAAO)
·
County Surveyor Association
·
NGA
(Governors Association)
·
Dam
Safety
·
Agencies
Federal
State
·
DOT’s
·
Environmental
Services
·
Transit
Authority
·
Universities
·
Emergency
Mgt
·
Water
Resources
·
Land
Department (Trust use)
·
Commerce
·
Agriculture
·
Regional
and Metro Planning
Private Sector
·
Manufacturers (LBS location-based services)
·
Software
developers
·
R
& D companies
·
NASCAR
·
Insurance
companies; Navigation companies
2.
How do we engage / market to them?
·
Develop education materials (grade school to college)
·
Utilize conferences (National, State, Local)
·
Communicate success stories (and tragedies)
·
Communicate relevant examples of benefits (examples of where/ when HT
Mod worked or was missing)
·
Hire professional marketing firm
·
Logo
·
T-shirt
·
Workshop
·
Articles
in newspapers and trade journals
·
Media
(60 min, Discovery)
·
Web
site linking
·
Blogging,
Geocaching
·
Press
releases
·
Web
tools – Data access and manipulation
·
News
Letter – non-technical (toilet reading)
·
Directed
marketing – what is important to the user?
·
Real
world applications
·
Integrate
message into other groups training
·
Marketing
insert for equipment manufacturer
·
Action
Hero: “Captain HT Mod & Kid CORS” vs. “The Evil Dr. Subsidence”
·
Sign
flippers
3.
Who plays what roles and responsibilities (NGS vs. Partners)
·
Embed staff with other NOAA and Federal agencies
·
NGS
funding (base funding)
·
Develop
materials – NGS and partners
·
NGS
technical expertise,
·
Partners-story
Business case and contractors needs
·
Contractors
·
Market
·
Presentation
·
Sales
·
Innovation
·
NGS
– identify standards and how they benefit other agencies programs
·
Partners-
Sharing ideas and experience
Discussion Notes:
·
Look
at Charleston Coastal Center Outreach Model
Action Plan
Action
|
Lead*
|
Due Date
|
1. Establish a outreach
budget.
|
NGS*
|
6 months
|
2. Prioritize target audiences – see highlighted
organizations as start
·
Identify venues and contacts
|
NGS*
|
6 months
|
3. Develop materials (with support from partners and
marketing firm).
·
Educational materials
·
Brochures
·
Powerpoints
·
T-shirt/ NASCAR logo
·
Technical and business oriented materials
|
NGS*
|
6-12 months
|
4. Develop long-term outreach strategy (National and
Regional).
|
NGS*
|
1 year
|
*With assistance from Partners
Table Five: Political
Strategy
1. How do we impact/influence political decision-makers effectively?
2. Who plays what role? (NGS vs.
Partners)
3. How do we impact/influence
political decision-makers effectively?
1.
How do we impact/influence political decision-makers effectively?
- Identify common issues shared between a broad
array of constituents with respect to height modernization in order to
present the program as a ‘common interest’ issue rather than a ‘special
interest’ issue.
- Identify people who are politically connected
who can act as promoters and champions of height modernization.
·
Establish
educational initiatives to affect political objectives. These initiatives can be developed for the
following target audience.
·
Congressional
staffers
·
Constituents
who are politically active through professional organizations or direct
lobbying efforts
·
Govt.
agency heads who are involved in budgeting processes.
·
Universities
and educational groups
·
Professional
organizations
·
Clearly
identify and accentuate benefits and success stories.
·
Leverage
existing and develop new lines of communication to those who influence the
funding processes.
- Develop language that better frames the height
modernization issue. For example,
height modernization is a general interest issue, not a special interest
issue, thus terms like ‘pork’ and ‘earmarks’ shouldn’t be associated with
height modernization funding efforts.
·
Reference
existing materials and create concise documents that support height
modernization pros and cons must be identified and addressed
·
Develop
concise answers to ‘devil’s advocate’ questions that might be raised when
discussing height modernization with political entities.
2. Who plays what role? (NGS vs. Partners)
·
Public
Sector (NGS)
·
Education
·
Private
Sector (Partners)
·
Lobbying
3. How do we impact/influence political
decision-makers effectively?
(see
above)
Discussion Notes:
·
NGS
– provide “political flow chart” as to where NOAA is in the political scenario
on Hill
·
Partners
need to ask for info – if you ask,
NGS can provide it
·
Partners
– leverage associations
·
Educate
members/staffers
·
Look
at successful models (e.g. National Marine Sanctuary Foundation; Coastal States
Org. [they meet with managers])
·
Leverage
“Friends of NOAA”
Action Plan
Action
|
Lead
|
Due Date
|
1. Make efforts to affect local and state budgeting
processes so that funds are requested and allocated for height modernization
projects.
|
Partners
|
Now; ongoing
|
2. Develop a political flow chart that indicates how
the budgeting process is structured with respect to NGS activities and what
role NGS plays in that process.
·
Include the
various congressional committees and executive branch agencies involved.
|
Dave Z.
|
30 days
|
3. Develop talking points memo that clearly outline
common issues and benefits.
·
These talking
points should be used universally when NGS staff or partners are presenting
height modernization to their respective constituents.
|
Renee
|
30 days
|
4. Hire PR/Marketing firm to produce a brochure
containing the following information:
·
What is height modernization?
·
Why do we need it?
·
What are the benefits and cost savings associated
with height modernization?
|
NGS
|
60 days
|
5. Identify constituents who are politically active
through professional organizations and direct lobbying efforts, and recruit
them to lobby for height modernization funding.
|
Partners
|
12 months
|
Table Six: Standards
1.
What standards need to be defined?
·
Do
not duplicate standards that already exist
·
i.e. FGDC’s accuracy standard & data content
standard
·
Update
DRAFT standards more than 10 years old
·
Geoid (5 votes)
·
NGS
provides Model Laws and advocates that each state shall adopt by statute the
most current NGS published datum, both vertical and horizontal, but not refer
to individual datums by name (4 votes)
·
Datum
transformations- Terrestrial and Tidal (3 votes)
·
Gravity survey and processing standards (1 vote)
·
Standardize
formatting of Tropo and Ionosphere models (“TropoRINEX”)- Software independent
formatting of data stream for real time systems (1 vote)
·
RTCM
output (1 vote)
·
Re-evaluate
standards to be certain they include GNSS
·
“Network
RTK” NGS stamp of approval for:
·
Reliability
(down time percentage)
·
Monument
character, position, stability
·
“Data
archive”
·
Orbits
·
Velocity
Models
2.
Who will be involved in defining national standards?
·
Utilize
a user-driven process
·
Professional
organizations
·
National
advisory committee elected by professional societies (FEMA does this)
·
NGS
is the standard issuing authority/ leader
·
Universities/
State agencies/ Private sector do research, provide science
·
Private
sector does demonstration projects/ ground truthing
·
Equipment
manufacturers do testing
3. What
process will be effective for developing standards?
|
Authoring Authority
|
Research
|
Demonstration/ Testing
|
Education & Training
|
Implementing Authorities
|
NGS
|
X
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
Universities
|
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
Private Sector
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
State Agencies
|
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
Other Feds
|
*
|
|
|
|
X
|
Final Users
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Equipment Manufacturers
|
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
Professional Orgs
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
X Indicates lead (others may participate)
* Contract to private sector for services referring
to standards
* Provide input/ advice/ feedback
4. How
will we ensure that they are actually implemented?
·
States
pass laws that standards must be followed for any publicly funded projects
(Hammer approach)
·
NGS
finds/ provides seed $ to leverage local projects to meet standards (Carrot
approach)
·
Advantage
in grant applications to those that follow standards
·
Linkage
to other Federal programs- Map Mod etc.
5. A. Which are the priorities? (see above)
5. B.
What should be the timeline for
rolling them out? Now; 12 mos. FY 08
Discussion Notes:
·
Include
private sector in “training” – they provide lessons, experiences, etc.
(informal or formal)
·
Make
“authoring” more inclusive
·
Considering
authoring being done by professional organizations
·
Consider
simply using standard in process so that it becomes “de facto” standard (no
need to “force” people to use it)
Action Plan
Action
|
Lead
|
Due Date
|
1. Establish National Geoid Model:
Create
white paper to lay out case for national geoid model………………………………………........
·
Include plan to get this done in 5 years
·
Include “change management” strategy
·
Include funding proposal
·
Partners utilize white paper, etc., to
enroll support to secure funding
|
Dru
|
Sept. 1, 2007
|
2. NGS RTN Committee issue preliminary report on
progress toward RTN standard.
|
Bill Henning
|
Before ACSM
|
3. Create NGS Advisor Committee to review existing
state laws referring to datums and suggest updated language (if needed) to
submit to NOAA attorneys for review, then forward to each State Society of
Land Surveyors and/or state agency.
|
John Ellingson
|
January 30, 2008
|
Table Seven: SOP’s
1. What
procedures/ processes need to be standardized?
·
Prepare/provide
cookbook for HT Mod activities/projects regardless of whether funding (grant)
is requested or not (9 votes)
·
Training
for advisors and partners: “train the trainers”, eg, technical review of
leveling project proposal (By NGS); train advisors on process, eg, how to find
level line junction points, etc) as well as developing a Ht Mod project (6
votes)
·
Method
for determining local needs in order to prioritize data collection activities
and how to allocate funding among the different elements of Ht Mod activities
(7 votes)
·
Procedure
to establish NAVD 88 (1 vote)
·
Automated
digital project submittal (1 vote)
·
Elevation
on physical location of CORS
·
Standardize
application for funding – also evaluation criteria and process
·
Colored
(not “blue”) book defining data submission (not ASCII 80 Char line limit)
·
Standardized
method for utilizing HT Mod control for local projects after network is
established
·
Standards
for data collection using new techniques, e.g. InSAR, LIDAR, GNSS, Airborne
Gravity
2. What are the priorities?
·
Prepare/provide
cookbook for Ht Mod activities/projects regardless of whether funding (grant)
is requested or not (9 votes)
·
Method
for determining local needs in order to prioritize data collection activities
and how to allocate funding among the different elements of Ht Mod activities
(7 votes)
·
Training
for advisors and partners: “train the trainers”, eg, technical review of
leveling project proposal (By NGS); train advisors on process, eg, how to find
level line junction points, etc) as well as developing a Ht Mod project (6
votes)
3. How will
that standardization occur? Who will
be involved?
·
Expand
SRC’s roles in geodetic technical expertise and developing SOPs in conjunction
with NGS
·
NGS/
Partner committee to oversee HT Mod standards are implemented (perhaps akin to
a FGCS working group)
4. How do we ensure that this standardization
is implemented?
·
Encourage
federal regulatory agencies require NAVD 88 on their products (FEMA, US
ACE, Local flood control agencies)
·
SRCs
to review and certify that completed projects meet HT Mod standards (prior to
submission to NGS)
Discussion Notes:
·
Define
methodology to determine accuracy of GPS-derived orthometric height
·
Continue to enforce (encourage) NGVD 88
Action Plan (TBD)
Action
|
Lead*
|
Due Date
|
1.
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
Regional Management
Givens:
1. NGS will utilize some regional
approach to manage National Height Modernization Program.
2. NGS will utilize Spatial Reference Centers and other key organizations to
help manage the Regions
Individual Input
on
Regional Approach
Individual Input on Regional Approach
Michael Henderson
·
Regional is here
to stay.
Garey Gilley
·
The current
state SRC with become Regional SRC funded b y NGS
·
The Regional SRC
with encourage sub SRC in each state.
·
ID funding for
each state.
·
Each state will
ID their needs.
·
Region SRC will
ID what each state needs are of regional impact.
Paul Hartzheim
·
WisDOTs concern
is the amount of resource time needed to serve as a leader for a region.
·
What are the
expected roles and responsibilities of the region lead?
·
Can NGS State
Advisor time be used to assist in the roles and responsibilities of the region
leader? What level of priority be assigned to this activity?
·
My suggestion is to send out a draft proposal
document outlining the concept of regions; roles; timelines; etc. and let us
comment.
Gene Trobia
·
The NGS National
Office needs to develop information on why a National Height Mod program will
be beneficial and should be supported – especially by states already receiving
Height Mod funding.
·
NGS needs to
develop a state centric regional/zonal approach to managing a National Height
Mod program that is consistent with individual state statutes regarding
cooperating and funding issues of working with other states.
Matt Wellslager
·
Define a spatial
reference center. (What is?)
·
Will funding –
grant money – be provided to the regions or
·
will the funding
be given to the state
·
provided the
states receive the grant money
·
Will the
regional plan oversee the implementation of how the state funding is used by
the individual states toward the Height Mod program efforts?
·
If the regional
approach is implemented, will the regional office be an extension of NGS? Will
the official review the grant proposal submitted by each state and allocate the
funding?
Scott Lokken
·
Concerns of
Regional Approach
·
Funding inequalities
by region
·
Poor getting
poorer
·
Coastal vs.
interior
·
State rainmakers
failing to support a more regional approach.
·
Positives
·
Management
efficiency should be less
·
Big Question
·
Can we keep the
bureaucracy from slowing process to a crawl?
Gary Perasso
·
Given:
·
Regional/Zonal
approach for Height Mod
·
Spatial
reference centers (utilized by NGS).
·
An ability to be
“balanced” in the distribution of funding.
Nate Czech
·
Educate those
that need to know, the value of implementing CORS – help us to lobby for Height
Mod funds.
·
Create a
“lessons learned” document from partners that have already begun implementing
CORS.
David Moyer
·
What specific
support is NGS prepared to provide to Height Mod zone leader (SRC/states)?
(i.e. budget $ and staff hours)
John Russell
·
Organization –
need a well defined organization structure
·
I need to see
the details
·
Workplan – Need
a well defined plan of work with a clear set of goals/benefits
·
Funding – Until
NOAA can provide official funding to support the project – earmarks will
continue. There should be enough mapping initiation and programs (existing and
proposed) to “piggy-back” funding. Geodetic control is the foundation for all
GIS and mapping projects and this should be utilized. We’re doing it now in Alabama.
Cliff Middleton
·
If regional
approach is adopted for Height Mod program how can it be assured that the
program will be executed consistently and equitably.
·
How can
potential disagreements across state lines be dealt with?
Emmanuel Nzewi
·
How would the
Regional Approach affect funding to current partners?
·
I would like to
propose a zonal/regional approach that uses NGS personnel as the directors of
the regions. An office (location) for the region/zone should be established and
managed by NGS.
·
A model for the
zonal/regional offices should be established and agreed upon.
·
Regional issues
that provide a forum/platform for collaborative/coordinated problem solving
should be emphasized.
Gary Jeffress
·
What is the
management structure of the Height Mod zone?
·
Should the
private sector be invited to participate?
·
Will NGS provide
additional funding to organize the zone management structure?
Adrian Davis
·
California has major issues to be resolved. Creating a region
with other nearby states is not the way to address these issues. Regions may be
appropriate in some areas where adjacent states have similar issues.
·
NGS should
identify “national” Height Mod issues (gravity work). NGS should continue to
pursue funding for the gravity project. If not successful get support from the
states for funding. However, do not redirect funding to this program without
support from the partners.
Gary Gervelis
·
Recognize that
most of the political work is by volunteers.
·
It is very
difficult to motivate local volunteers for regional issues.
·
The larger the
region, the more difficulty in getting volunteers, money and political
commitment.
·
There are state
to state political tensions and mistrust.
·
The funding
process must be transparent.
·
If you do not
have decision make influence, you will not participate.
·
I would support
a regional approach if NGS was in charge of dispersing the funding, as they are
now; but not if any other entity (other reference center) was in charge.
Lew Lapine
·
I believe NGS
should staff 7-8 regional offices (in the region)
·
That state
advisors/liaisons be tasked to staff this process – spread the effort out
amongst themselves.
·
State agencies
provide input to the above based on their local knowledge.
Marti Ikehara
·
Given: Need SRCs
involved in the process.
·
Concern about
“using” an SRC as a locus for distribution of funding. I think that NGS should
have an employee (new hires?) become a “Regional Director” or Administrator,
with 1 person covering two regions. E.g. for eight regions, four employees.
They would be responsible for both the administrative tasks e.g. grants,
paperwork, etc. as well as the technical
aspects – technology transfer, etc. I don’t see a way for a SRC, especially one
that is a state agency like NC, to readily distribute funds to a multitude of
other states. Not without overhead charges nor without MoUs, which can take
months (and sign-off by legal counsel on both sides) to enact. It would also be
very difficult to get state partners to request funding from national
representatives if the funding were to go to an entity in another state.
Anonymous
·
Lead entities
must be legally able to pass-through federal funds to regional members. The
main function of the zone leaders would basically be organization, not policy.
·
What are the
incentives/benefits for the spatial reference center states other states to
move to a regional approach?
Session
Evaluations
NGS Height Modernization
Conference
July 17-18, 2007
The number of submissions
(26)
1. Overall Rating
Overall, my rating of our meeting is:
1 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (20) 5 (3)
Highly Highly
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Comments:
1. Not enough people understand NOAA’s new regional
efforts.
2. There are some unanswered questions but overall
direction of meeting was successful. Having a moderator kept the meeting on
track.
3. The mood was quite positive, few bitch sessions.
4. Too much “input” by a few NGS staff.
5. Task is too great to accomplish at one sitting –
progress was definitely made.
6. Well organized, good content, informed participants.
2. Group Process
My rating of the group interaction and our
abilities to meet our desired objective is:
1 2 (1) 3 (4) 4 (16) 5 (5)
Highly
Highly
Dissatisfied Satisfied
Comments:
1. Certain people dominated the conversation.
2. The advisor table was ok. Perhaps include some HQ
people for their input.
3. Too much “input” by a few NGS staff.
4. Group interaction poor.
5. Successfully up and running in short time period.
3. The part of the process I found most
productive was…
1. Open discussion on geoid model.
2. Listening to the long list of new, good ideas.
3. Interactive.
4. Diversity of views – cooperation of all attendees.
5. Communication of ideas.
6. Creation of direction, milestones, for NGS and
partners in the Height Mod program.
7. Identification of technical issues facing the group.
8. Structure to topics and timing kept process moving
forward.
9. Interaction of partners and NGS personnel.
10. Distribution of topics to different tables for
in-depth analysis and recommendations for further action.
11. Action items on Wednesday AM.
12. Getting non-NGS participation.
13. Response from stakeholders in the state.
14. Breakout – needs from NGS from partner.
15. Networking. Various input about other models.
Provides info so we do not have to re-create the wheel.
16. Group discussions and input from NGS Division Chiefs.
17. Table discussions were extremely effective.
18. Meeting other state representatives and hearing their
voices.
19. Roll-out and discussion.
20. Discussion.
21. All attendee discussions.
22. Discussion of 1 cm geoid – white paper development –
congressional action committee.
23. Meeting with the other spatial reference center
leaders. Facilitator was knowledgeable of subject matter.
24. Listening. Learning.
4. I’d like to see us improve the following
aspects of the process and/or product…
1. Understand regional collaboration.
2. This process was very good.
3. John Riordan did an excellent job. Seth did a
tremendous job too.
4. Tangible response from NGS Headquarters.
5. More focus.
6. More lead time in arranging the next meeting.
7. Keep on track with agenda and time.
8. Reduce overlapping topics among different
recommendations.
9. Need a “white paper” before meeting, to set bounds
for discussion.
10. Have something similar for just non-NGS players, and
then into Regions.
11. Probably needed another day to discuss issues.
12. We may have tried to do too much on Day 2.
13. More attendance from other federal agencies and from
private industries.
14. Perhaps have a facilitator-led session without any
NGS folks present. Their comments would then be anonymous.
15. Include “moderators” for each group to direct
discussion.
16. Advisors need to be educated to the level of office
so they can communicate in an intelligent manner NGS Height Mod.
17. Consider no NGS personnel in attendance. You would
certainly get some different answers.
18. Tell us up front that there was going to be a
Regional Approach. We are all adults (almost).
5. Some suggestions for future meetings are…
1. Develop the marketing plan – get buy-in from private
sector.
2. More general comments at beginning.
3. Outreach to other constituents.
4. Need to have some additional federal agencies that
have money that may be void in Height Modernization. These could be invited at
a meeting held in D.C. or Silver
Spring.
5. More focus.
6. Rotate NGS personnel through each table.
7. Maintain flexibility for open discussion – as the
last part of Day 2 resulted in.
8. Use the contractors (facilitators) to handle room and
food – makes the logistics easier.
9. Possibly get more state budget people involved.
10. A smaller group to review the outcomes and especially
the white paper. A small team to generate a comprehensive paper would be
useful.
11. More attendance from other federal agencies and from
private industries.
12. Rather than meet, spend the money on accomplishing
some of the tasks outlined here (e.g. marketing specialist) and spend the time
on the products/ services requested. (e.g. talking points, cookbook on process
for doing Height Mod activities).
13. National Geoid conference.
14. Have meetings. The partners need these opportunities
to get together and share ideas and meet with NGS staff.
15. NGS needs to get their technical folks out to states
that are realizing success in RTN/ Height Mod.
16. Include the non-traditional users and moneyed
stakeholders. By and large this was the same people talking about the same
things.
17. Decisions by vote by all, after each table presents
their solution. Particularly over hot button issues.