1. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey NHD Stewardship Assessment Preliminary Results 2012 NHD/WBD Stewardship Conference March 29, 2012

2. National Geospatial Program  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 National Geospatial Program Strategic Direction

3. National Geospatial Program  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 Improvements to Liaison Network

4. National Geospatial Program

5. COU CoordinatorLiaisons Develop and manage overall user engagement strategy “User engineer”- provide technical support, document user problems, issues and suggestions Organize and lead technical committee Get to know the landscape, expand the contacts Determine user data that needs to be gathered Staff technical committees, gather data, help to refine user needs National outreachRegional outreach Roles

6. National Geospatial Program  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 Increase Visibility, Support, and Use

7. National Geospatial Program  Dr. David Cowen, NGAC Chair Professor Emeritus, University of South Carolina  Dr. Jerry Johnston, NGAC Vice Chair Geographic Information Officer, EPA  Dr. Robert Austin Manager, Enterprise Applications Integration City of Tampa, FL  Mr. Richard Clark Montana Chief Information Officer  Mr. Jack Dangermond President, Esri  Mr. David DiSera Vice President and CTO EMA, Inc.  Prof. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz Professor, University of Mississippi  Mr. Bert Granberg Manager, Utah Geographic Info. Database Group  Ms. Kass Green President, Kass Green & Associates  Hon. Randy Johnson County Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN  Ms. Laurie Kurilla GIO and Deputy CIO, Ventura County, CA  Mr. James Kwolek Director, CIO, GIO, NGA  Dr. Xavier Lopez Director, Spatial and Semantic Products Group Oracle USA  Dr. E. Donald McKay Director and State Geologist, Illinois State Geological Survey  Ms. Anne Hale Miglarese Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton  Ms. Kimberly Nelson Executive Director for eGovernment, Microsoft  Dr. Timothy Nyerges Professor, University of Washington  Mr. Matthew O’Connell President and CEO, GeoEye  Mr. Patrick Olson President & CEO, Aero-Metric, Inc.  Brig. Gen. Jack Pellicci, US Army (Ret.) President and CEO, Intergraph Gov.Solutions  Mr. Mark Reichardt President & CEO, Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.  Ms. Cynthia Salas Director, Land and Field Services and Manager, GIS CenterPoint Energy  Mr. Eugene Schiller Deputy Executive Director, Division of Management Services, SW Florida Water Management District  Mr. Anthony Spicci Missouri GIS Supervisor, Dept. of Conservation  Mr. Gary Thompson Chief, North Carolina Geodetic Survey  Mr. Gene Trobia Arizona State Cartographer  Ms. Molly Vogt GIS Program Supervisor, Oregon Metro  Mr. David Wyatt GIS Manager, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

8. National Geospatial Program  Characterize stewardship status  Figure out what’s working  Figure out what we could do better  How do we improve stewardship? Stewardship Assessment Goals

9. National Geospatial Program  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 Stewardship Assessment

10. National Geospatial Program Stewardship Assessment

11. National Geospatial Program Stewardship Agreement Status

12. National Geospatial Program Partners – Organization Type

13. National Geospatial Program Partners - GIS Coordinators

14. National Geospatial Program Partners - Agency Water Role

15. National Geospatial Program Stewardship training - NHD Update

16. National Geospatial Program Grant Activity 2006-2011

17. National Geospatial Program  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 Grant Activity

18. National Geospatial Program Partner Updates 2008-2012 (1937 total)

19. National Geospatial Program Partner FTE– 2012  15  5  2  1  2

20. National Geospatial Program  Other agencies contribute edits35  Other agencies contribute staff28  Other agencies contribute funds20 Third Agency Support for Stewards

21. National Geospatial Program  Water-quality reporting26  Streamflow modeling24  Water-quality modeling22  Fisheries management17  Rainfall/Runoff modeling12  Water rights12  Hydro-electric management 7 Application Areas

22. National Geospatial Program  35 states indicate the stewards work regularly with their POCs Technical POCs

23. National Geospatial Program  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 Participation at regular NHD meetings

24. National Geospatial Program  Does the NHD monthly newsletter provide insightful information that is helpful to state stewards?  5 - Very Useful 2  410  311  21  1 – Not Useful1  Average 3.44 Usefulness of NHD Newsletter

25. National Geospatial Program  How useful is the NHD Website for use of the NHD?  5 – Very Useful7  410  36  22  1 – Not Useful0  Average3.88 Usefulness of the NHD Website

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

27. National Geospatial Program 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

28. National Geospatial Program  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 If You Could Change Anything About NHD Stewardship...

29. National Geospatial Program  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 If You Could Change Anything About NHD Stewardship...

30. National Geospatial Program  Continue to collect information for remaining states  Analyze data  Define priorities  Develop course of action Next steps

31. 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 DullesJohn Foster Dulles Questions?? saichele@usgs.gov