Fwd: RE: USNG-NAD83 - Implementing a Common OperationalPictureforEM/ES Through Location Interoperability

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

Mark, I'm forwarding your note herewith to the OASIS Emergency 
Management Technical Committee's public comments list, and also to 
the GIS subcommittee since I expect your suggestion will wind up 
there anyway.

Thanks!

- Art


From: "Whitney, Mark" <Mark.Whitney@dhs.gov>
To: "'Art Botterell'" <acb@incident.com>,
    "'rexb@starbourne.com'" <rexb@starbourne.com>
Cc: Eliot_Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>,
    "'Jules McNeff'" <jmcneff@overlooksys.com>,
    "'Richard Hogan (E-mail)'" <rlhogan@usgs.gov>,
    "'Terry Mr Neri G'" <TerryNG@hqmc.usmc.mil>
Subject: RE: USNG-NAD83 -  Implementing a Common Operational 
PictureforEM/ES Through Location Interoperability
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:12:05 -0500
Status:

Dear Art,

I certainly understand the confusion as we are in a bit of an uncomfortable
time of a transition and different agencies/entities will all have their
two-cents worth and internal differences. Given USNG is a Federal standard
and the recent memo from the Associate Director for Geography, USGS, I
believe you can safely assume their position on basically replacing all
lat/long references in the CAP spec with "USNG-NAD83/WGS84" (older GPSs use
MGRS-NAD83/84). I have copied Richard Hogan at USGS and Tom Terry at Marines
for your reference.

While I was at FEMA-HQ I initiated some very substantial and early funding
for OpenGIS but can't speak now for what they are attempting to do. I would
say however that theirs is mostly a digital world of protocols, hand-shakes,
header-files, translation/transformations on the fly... all fine and
dandy..., but, especially for very large disasters this will simply not
suffice: preparation/training/plans/voice commo/when the power is out and
only piles of debris for hundreds of square miles... it will always be a
digital/paper/voice enterprise that operates mostly in large scale mapping
environments (no lat/long on most city street level maps).

ESRI? Well I'm not sure what to tell you here except that if they had come
down to Miami to implement GIS for Andrew (instead of DMS who did a
wonderful job) the way they did for WTC, they would sure as heck be telling
their customers with a certain sense of urgency to take advantage of their
new Military Analyst tool, which ESRI kindly developed with one single
request following 9/11, and shift their reference system and datum over to
USNG (reference system being key but both important). Even with WTC, and
ESRI did a marvelous job from what I can tell (as we did in Andrew only
two/three weeks too late), still there were several grid systems in use by
different WTC responders including the one used with hand-held GPS to mark
locations where bodies/evidence were recovered: a proprietary grid reference
system, which speaks for itself in terms of a National and easy to use
public domain solution for a reference standard for all Emergency
Management/Emergency Services/and disaster uses-users.

(PS, NYC has a separate reference system in use by each of it's boroughs +
the WTC had their own unique reference system for that site. This is common,
Salt Lake City fire and police are (were?) each using a different reference
system.)

We here at USFA, and I certainly don't speak for USFA, have the task of
bringing along the Nation's fire service (and EM?), a daunting task for the
fire service alone since the vast majority of the 30,000 departments, like
NYC and SLC, use their own unique and local reference system which most
often will not work easily with GPS (see second paragraph USFA
Interoperability Advisory a quote from US Fire Service Needs Assessment
(USFA/NFPA Dec. 2002)). Only 1.6% use lat/long (3 versions x 1.6% = 5%
total) though thankfully at least 1% already use MGRS. We are working with
DOD on a proposal to pilot one FD each service between now and Jan '05 when
NFIRS changes over since they use NFIRS currently and their implementation
plans/experiences can then can be shared with civ side o' the house.
Hopefully not too much of a worry based upon the experience of the State of
Nevada's Chief Cartographer as they implemented at the State and local level
(attached).

Very good to hear you witnessed Andrew in person since it probably changed
you like everyone there. Can you imagine the challenges we have out front
given the state of "mapping" preparedness we currently have at hand? Andrew
was 2 Divisions +, I can easily imagine different human and natural caused
incidents that "will" require many more. At least one in three responders
will require a large-format paper map day one (not to even mention the
public's need for spatial information/maps if required to evac in a hurry),
with the same reference system, for just the basics of getting around not to
mention the more fancy fang-dangled "GIS" products back at the DFO used for
analysis that we spend so much time and attention on....  Until we get
everyone rigged with the same or seamlessly interoperable digital units
backed by standardized data content (all using the same reference system),
if that ever happens (I doubt it), even then the demand for paper maps will
still be great due to their own advantages in addition to other requirements
for voice commo to simply describe location (with a given there will often
not be street signs), paper plans....

I truly can understand how at this juncture finding out about this standard
could be a bit more than frustrating. In my humble opinion, we at FEMA are
in a large way at fault for that deficiency due in large part to internal
issues. In the big scheme though, it is actually early in the game and I'm
glad I came across your emails.

With very best regards,

Mark A. Whitney
Fire Programs Specialist
National Fire Data Center
United States Fire Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Homeland Security
16825 S. Seton Ave.
Emmitsburg, MD 21727
(301) 447-1836
USNG: 18SUJ00539638


-----Original Message-----
From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 1:41 PM
To: Whitney, Mark; 'rexb@starbourne.com'
Cc: Eliot_Christian; 'Jules McNeff'
Subject: RE: USNG-NAD83 - Implementing a Common Operational
PictureforEM/ES Through Location Interoperability


Mark -

I'll confess I'm having a little difficulty extracting precisely what
you're suggesting.  The current CAP specification was designed with
input from USGS, the Open GIS Consortiuma and ESRI.  GIS isn't my
specialty, so could I ask you to spell out precisely what you'd like
to see changed so the Technical Committee can consider it at the
appropriate time?

A number of us were involved in Andrew and other responses so we
don't need persuasion, just a clear direction.

- Art


At 11:29 AM -0500 3/8/04, Whitney, Mark wrote:
>Thanks for the reference which I had not seen (I found a lat/long reference
>this morning on a Partnership for Public Warning  site). This in fact would
>be marvelous news if USNG/MGRS-WGS84 (UTM)! Apart from being
>non-interoperable with military response resources, the bulk of folks on
the
>disaster ground large events such as Andrew, Latitude and longitude are not
>well suited for mapping at large scales and can be very difficult/confusing
>to use, especially given you'd have to get everyone to use just one version
>enterprise-wide and on a disaster ops such as the Columbia debris recovery,
>that can take several weeks to partially implement among all responders
>involved. When there are life/safety considerations, massive evacuation,
>large eq/hurricane, we need to all be much better practiced and prepared
>well in advance if we are to serve the public as expected, or closer to it
>in any case than we otherwise would. While the DFO had a handful of
>large-format UTM gridded maps beginning about week 1.5, until they were
>blue-lined and several thousand copies of these gridded maps were taken out
>to the Army troops working on the ground in Andrew (week 2.5-3), they (two
>divisions +) used maps torn from phone books and other "tourist" map
>products. They were very dissatisfied and for very good reasons. The U.S.
>Military in its 1993 "capstone doctrine" for domestic support operations
(FM
>100-19) using lessons learned from Andrew termed the need for establishing
a
>common frame of spatial reference among both military and civilian entities
>as "critical."
>
>PS. Where two years ago there were no easy to use tools on several of the
>more popular GISs or websites used by communities and consumers, that has
>changed with ESRIs Military Analyst plug-in and a DeLorme's XMap along with
>USGS's National Map and FEMA's HazardMaps.gov with more to come (note the
>different versions of lat/long on those two sites), and a very nice
National
>Guard site.
>
>It certainly is a paradigm shift from what many have known, but it truly is
>a standard required nationwide.
>
>Please let me know if I can provide further information and/or contacts at
>USGS, National Geodetic Survey (tools for converting existing data tables),
>Marines (chem/bio response force).
>
>With very best regards,
>
>Mark A. Whitney
>Fire Programs Specialist
>National Fire Data Center
>United States Fire Administration
>Federal Emergency Management Agency
>Department of Homeland Security
>16825 S. Seton Ave.
>Emmitsburg, MD 21727
>(301) 447-1836
>USNG: 18SUJ00539638
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:39 AM
>To: Whitney, Mark; 'rexb@starbourne.com'
>Cc: Eliot_Christian
>Subject: Re: USNG-NAD83 - Implementing a Common Operational Picture
>forEM/ES Through Location Interoperability
>
>
>Mark -
>
>Thanks very much for your note... although I'll admit I was under the
>impression we'd effectively done that.  I refer to the WGS-84 note on
>page 18 of the current spec document, as referenced from the
>individual items in the data dictionary.  Is there some ambiguity
>there that we've overlooked?
>
>If it's just an editorial change you're suggesting, we can certainly
>take that back to the Technical Committee.  Otherwise, could you
>please say a little more about the difference between the current
>spec and what you'd like to see?  We're fully intent on supporting
>your direction.
>
>Thanks!
>
>- Art
>
>
>At 10:08 AM -0500 3/8/04, Whitney, Mark wrote:
>>Gentlemen,
>>I'm taking a break and sending you this email as a "private person." My
>>views and/or opinions do not necessarily represent those of my parent
>agency
>>though they too are referenced at the bottom of this message.
>>This morning I've learned of your OASIS organization and wanted to pass
>>along information re. subject standard so that if your EM Notification
>>Methods and Messages Subcommittee has not finalized it's "rigorous
>technical
>>and operational review and refinement of the design" for the CAP message
>>standard and/or other OASIS standards referencing "location," you can
>>consider the needs of the entire EM/ES enterprise/lifecycle learned on the
>>"front lines" in disasters such as Hurricane Andrew and others more
recent.
>>Even if your review of CAP has been completed, I would recommend taking
>>another look and replacing any current reference to lat/long (version?
>>datum?) in the CAP with "United States National Grid - North American
Datum
>>1983 (USNG-NAD83)". Of course, this reference system has world-wide
>>applications as Military Grid Reference System - World Geodetic System
1984
>>(MGRS-WGS84) which could also be called the Universal Grid Reference
System
>>(UGRS-WGS84). This would, as you might imagine, provide for a much
smoother
>>integration of world disaster response resources, already with maps that
>>agree with their GPS, trained and practiced plans and commo protocols,
into
>>areas impacted by the more catastrophic flavors of disasters,
>>India/Turkey/Iran/Taiwan EQs, New Orleans category 5 = 40,000-100,000
>>fatalities and one huge multi-military Division SAR/relief op...
especially
>>when those relief resources are from any of the military services in NATO
>>(very often the case) where MGRS was adopted following the lessons learned
>>by our "greatest generation" WWII. PS> From what I'm seeing in Afganastan,
>>Iraq..., that same greatest generation name most certainly applies to our
>>military forces of today who are surrounded with geospatial technologies,
>>all using the same reference system/datum, so that they can see and
>>communicate "blue on blue...." paper/digital/voice, a Common Operational
>>Picture lesson/solution learned from DOD of which we should quickly
>partake.
>>Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt in his Feb. 2002 USNG White Paper
>termed
>>the Dec. 2001 FGDC Standard as a "must have" in addition to re-stateing
the
>>official FEMA position on the standard submitted to the FGDC almost three
>>years ago
>>(http://www.comcare.org/research/topics/JamesLeeWittArticleUSNG.html).
>>I have also included a recent memo from USGS's Barbara J. Ryan, Associate
>>Director for Geography, for your information and a link to a quote in the
>>Nov, 2003 FEMA-USFA Newsletter with a very explicit statement ("required
>>nationwide":
>>http://www.usfa.fema.gov/inside-usfa/newsletter/2003/news110103.shtm#g)
re.
>>USNG included in it's release to the public of the availability to a new
>GIS
>>Intro/Tutorial already sent out to thousands of fire departments. Also,
>here
>>is a URL to a nice defenition on www.HazardMaps.gov which has incorporated
>>some initial support for USNG: http://www.hazardmaps.gov/guide/usng.
>>Also be aware that the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)
will
>>be adding USNG as the "Geoaddress" in the basic reporting module and
>replace
>>lat/long in the wildland module in Jan. '05. We have also incorporated
USNG
>>information and training materials in some of our key courses here at the
>>National Emergency Training Center (NETC), EMI and the Fire Academy:
>>Intergrated Emergency Management Course, Community Master Planning, NFIRS
>>Program Management....
>>Here's to hoping we can have all oars pulling the same direction someday.
>>There are still many pieces to come together but the overall direction is
>>clear and getting OASIS/CAP to consider USNG would add much in taking "one
>>of the three most important immediate steps that the Government could take
>   >to improve homeland security." (John Marburger, President Bush's Science
>>Advisor and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.)
>>
>>Thanks very much for any assistance,
>>
>>    <<Interoperability Advisory  USNG-NAD83.doc>>
>><<NCRImplementation_V5a.doc>>  <<USGSmemo.national.grid030923.pdf>>
>><<USNG_HowtoRead_Vprri1.PDF>>
>>
>>Mark A. Whitney
>>Fire Programs Specialist
>>National Fire Data Center
>>United States Fire Administration
>>Federal Emergency Management Agency
>>Department of Homeland Security
>>16825 S. Seton Ave.
>>Emmitsburg, MD 21727
>>(301) 447-1836
>>USNG: 18SUJ00539638
>>
>>"...the FEMA program offices anticipate that the use of this system (USNG)
>>for identifying locations among emergency management personnel and
agencies
>>will help save lives, reduce the costs of disaster, and enhance
>>preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. Particularly
>>valuable is its compatibility with the system used by the National Guard
>and
>>others, the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS)...."
>>FEMA letter to Federal Geographic Data Committee 06/2001
>>
>>
>>
>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Interoperability Advi#9176F.doc
>>(WDBN/MSWD) (0009176F)
>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:NCRImplementation_V5a.doc
>>(WDBN/MSWD) (00091770)
>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:USGSmemo.national.gri#91771.pdf
>>(PDF /CARO) (00091771)
>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:USNG_HowtoRead_Vprri1.PDF (PDF
>>/CARO) (00091772)

Everyone_set_your_GPS#91968.doc