NGS Height Modernization Conference

Session Results

July 17-18, 2007

Table of Contents

■ National Height Modernization – Vision

■ 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

■ Regional Management Givens

■ Individual Input on Regional Approach

■ Session Evaluations

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

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.