1 / 31

NHD Stewardship Assessment Preliminary Results

NHD Stewardship Assessment Preliminary Results. 2012 NHD/WBD Stewardship Conference March 29, 2012. National Geospatial Program Strategic Direction. Sharpen focus on our topographic mapping mission: elevation and hydrography New emphasis on meeting user needs

vui
Télécharger la présentation

NHD Stewardship Assessment Preliminary Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NHD Stewardship AssessmentPreliminary Results 2012 NHD/WBD Stewardship Conference March 29, 2012

  2. National Geospatial Program Strategic Direction • Sharpen focus on our topographic mapping mission: elevation and hydrography • New emphasis on meeting user needs • Priority communities of use: • Water - quality, quantity; river/stream resource management; flood risk management • Natural resources conservation • Geologic mapping • Natural hazards – landslides, volcano, earthquake

  3. Improvements to Liaison Network • Addition of user engagement activities at headquarters and liaison network levels • Data acquisition assignments by theme (elevation, NHD, names and ancillary) • Increase specialization in user communities and data themes • Status: under construction

  4. Roles

  5. Increase Visibility, Support, and Use • National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) to provide recommendations on the advancement of the Nation’s Hydrography Infrastructure – NHD The NHD is a successful model of a national dataset that is collaboratively maintained across levels of government and managed by a Federal agency. A host of resource management challenges pose the need to advance the data model, including integration of the human-made water infrastructure with natural systems, and integration of surface and groundwater models. Success in geo-enabling decision making will require accelerated development and population of the NHD. The USGS is seeking review and input on the current NHD stewardship and funding model in order to position it for meeting the growing needs. • NGP considering conducting a study for NHD

  6. Dr. David Cowen, NGAC ChairProfessor Emeritus, University of South Carolina • Dr. Jerry Johnston, NGAC Vice ChairGeographic Information Officer, EPA • Dr. Robert AustinManager, Enterprise Applications Integration City of Tampa, FL • Mr. Richard ClarkMontana Chief Information Officer • Mr. Jack DangermondPresident, Esri • Mr. David DiSeraVice President and CTO EMA, Inc. • Prof. Joanne Irene GabrynowiczProfessor , University of Mississippi • Mr. Bert GranbergManager, Utah Geographic Info. Database Group • Ms. Kass GreenPresident, KassGreen & Associates • Hon. Randy JohnsonCounty Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN • Ms. Laurie KurillaGIO and Deputy CIO, Ventura County, CA • Mr. James KwolekDirector, CIO, GIO, NGA • Dr. Xavier LopezDirector, Spatial and Semantic Products Group Oracle USA • Dr. E. Donald McKayDirector and State Geologist, Illinois State Geological Survey • Ms. Anne Hale MiglaresePrincipal, Booz Allen Hamilton • Ms. Kimberly NelsonExecutive Director for eGovernment, Microsoft • Dr. Timothy NyergesProfessor, University of Washington • Mr. Matthew O’ConnellPresident and CEO, GeoEye • Mr. Patrick OlsonPresident & CEO, Aero-Metric, Inc. • Brig. Gen. Jack Pellicci, US Army (Ret.)President and CEO, Intergraph Gov.Solutions • Mr. Mark ReichardtPresident & CEO, Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. • Ms. Cynthia SalasDirector, Land and Field Services and Manager, GISCenterPoint Energy • Mr. Eugene SchillerDeputy Executive Director, Division of Management Services, SW Florida Water Management District • Mr. Anthony SpicciMissouri GIS Supervisor, Dept. of Conservation • Mr. Gary Thompson Chief, North Carolina Geodetic Survey • Mr. Gene TrobiaArizona State Cartographer • Ms. Molly VogtGIS Program Supervisor, Oregon Metro • Mr. David Wyatt GIS Manager, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

  7. Stewardship Assessment Goals • Characterize stewardship status • Figure out what’s working • Figure out what we could do better • How do we improve stewardship?

  8. Stewardship Assessment • Questionnaires about stewardship activities were distributed to the Liaisons and POCs • 60+ questions • 9 state stewards and two Federal stewards were selected for the preliminary round • Liaisons and POCs were requested to fill in remaining forms for states not contacted based on their knowledge of the programs – will go back for complete coverage

  9. Stewardship Assessment

  10. Stewardship Agreement Status

  11. Partners – Organization Type

  12. Partners - GIS Coordinators

  13. Partners - Agency Water Role

  14. Stewardship training - NHD Update

  15. Grant Activity 2006-2011

  16. Grant Activity • Since 2006, NGP has invested in 95 stewardship projects worth $4.5 million dollars. • Grant funds for NHD have been tight, but not as tight as some other themes • 2006 - $370K – 7 grants • 2007 - $500K – 12 grants • 2008 - $230K – 5 grants • 2009 - $926K – 19 grants • 2010 - $592K - 14 grants • 2011 - $1.03M – 18 grants • 2012 - $950K - 20 grants

  17. Partner Updates 2008-2012 (1937 total)

  18. Partner FTE– 2012 • 15 • 5 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 2

  19. Third Agency Support for Stewards • Other agencies contribute edits 35 • Other agencies contribute staff 28 • Other agencies contribute funds 20

  20. Application Areas • Water-quality reporting 26 • Streamflow modeling 24 • Water-quality modeling 22 • Fisheries management 17 • Rainfall/Runoff modeling 12 • Water rights 12 • Hydro-electric management 7

  21. Technical POCs • 35 states indicate the stewards work regularly with their POCs

  22. Participation at regular NHD meetings • The NHD program has management, advisory, and technical committees. Do you participate in these committees? • 6 of 11 responded Yes • 2 of 11 responded Sometimes • 3 of 11 responded No • Of the 8 who attended at least sometimes, all thought the meetings were a source of good, useful information

  23. Usefulness of NHD Newsletter • Does the NHD monthly newsletter provide insightful information that is helpful to state stewards? • 5 - Very Useful 2 • 4 10 • 3 11 • 2 1 • 1 – Not Useful 1 • Average 3.44

  24. Usefulness of the NHD Website • How useful is the NHD Website for use of the NHD? • 5 – Very Useful 7 • 4 10 • 3 6 • 2 2 • 1 – Not Useful 0 • Average 3.88

  25. Obstacles to Stewardship (1-5) 5 is major obstacle, 1 is minor obstacle 3.8 Lack of funding 3.6 Complexity of the tools 3.3 Lack of staff 3.2 Complexity of the NHD 2.3 Lack of interest in stewardship 2.2 Lack of training 2.0 Lack of interest in NHD

  26. If You Could Change Anything About NHD Stewardship... • New tool would be easier - complexity of tools • Provide an editing process/ tool that is less complicated • To have the NHD tools work in conjunction with the latest version of ArcGIS. • Don’t like going through The National Map to download data

  27. If You Could Change Anything About NHD Stewardship... • Check in/out is big change; need tools for version 10 (NO ONE using 9.3.x); skip 10 refresh and go to 10.1; several people volunteer as beta testers • It would be helpful if there would be more information provided on "check out" emails • More frequent site visits, opportunity to interact with management

  28. If You Could Change Anything About NHD Stewardship... • More NHD fundamentals training (history, origin, intent, how NHD has evolved, structure, and use of NHD) to provide a consistent foundation for discussions • More communication among State Stewards (Regional Consortiums) for more consistency in the NHD • Better explanation of important decisions made for NHD issues, more coordination between State Stewards and other editors (USGS and USFS) • Various resolutions of NHD are not currently synchronized, need more feature codes for local and high resolution over medium resolution features

  29. Next steps • Continue to collect information for remaining states • Analyze data • Define priorities • Develop course of action

  30. The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it is the same problem you had last year. - John Foster Dulles Questions?? saichele@usgs.gov

More Related