April 14 Operations Review & Evaluation Meeting Minutes

]

General/Intros/Upcoming Meetings/Summary of Action Items:

Ivan DeLoatch welcomed the Coordination Group members to the special Coordination Group meeting focused on the review and evaluation of the FGDC Enterprise. This meeting is a precursor to an offsite that will be planned in the near future, place and date yet TBD. Roll call was taken and the agenda topics were reviewed. The last topic on the agenda is to develop a list topics and issues that will be shared with the Executive Committee. Any topics that are brought up today will be taken to the Executive Committee offsite at National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, WV, April 15-16.

Everyone has a copy of Ken’s graphic, the FGDC, Conceptual National Spatial Data Infrastructure Model [PDF]. The graphic focuses on the governance structure including the FGDC Secretariat support and coordination.. The box on the left hand side of the document depicts example(s) of and agencies implementation of its internal coordination structure to address OMB A-16 requirements. I t would be helpful in the review exercise if each agency prepared their model so comparison analysis can be conducted.. There is a great deal of information on this graphic, please supply feedback if you see anything that needs to be addressed.

Current FGDC Activities Update: Ken Shaffer, FGDC

245KB]

Ken Shaffer presented two topics on current FGDC activities: an update on recovery.gov and an update on two Executive Committee meetings.

The Recovery.gov meetings are part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) efforts. OMB asked FGDC to provide representation and to help ensure the use of geospatial tools for placed-based visualization for the stimulus funding. The FGDC GeoRecovery.gov Team has representation from DOI, EPA, DHS, GSA, DOE, USDA, NFS, NPS, NGA and HUD. Meetings are held weekly. Doug Nebert, FGDC is participating on the development team and Tom McCarty from DHS is the lead for data architecture. One of the goals of the team is to define how data will be geoenabled in recovery .gov and to provide best practice guidance to agencies that choose to develop the same geospatial capability. Initial text for both the guidance and architecture has been provided to OMB as a placeholder for the website.

Q. Tony Lavoi, can these documents be shared with the CG?

A. Sure, we can share the information, however, we would prefer not to give weekly updates but to wait until there is final documentation. Also, this information is stored on an OMB site https://max.omb.gov Once registered, the information is available.

March 10 ExCom meeting update:

• Sarah Siddiqui replaced Dominic Sale as the new OMB portfolio manager for GeoLoB. Sarah attended and was introduced at this meeting.
• OMB is beginning E-Gov visits and requested the FGDC to highlight GeoLoB strengths, successes and challenges. FGDC supplied Mike Howell, OMB with a two page summary.
• Discussion began on development of a National Geospatial Policy and Strategy Framework
• Stimulus Priority Criteria were revisited and discussed

Q. Randy Fusaro, What is the status with the Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance?

A. Ivan DeLoatch, the A-16 Supplemental Guidance was submitted to OMB’s Legal Counsel. Sarah Siddiqui will provide a follow-up.

Q. Tony Lavoi, What is the purpose of the Stimulus Priority Criteria?

A. Ken Shaffer, The Stimulus Priority Criteria was revisited so that planning can be done on taking an interagency approach to leverage any funding, especially if there is a second round of stimulus. Mark DeMulder, USGS was invited to speak at the ExCom about priorities and allocations of how their recovery dollars will be applied to The National Map.

March 31 ExCom IFTN meeting update:

• Main focus of this meeting was Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) high-resolution approach, governance strategies and contracting.
• USGS presented their Recovery funding allocation priorities focused mainly on floods and hazards for The National Map.
• The GeoRecovery.gov team’s first meeting was reviewed.
• Alaska Elevation issues were discussed briefly due to lack of time. This discussion was deferred to a later date, TBD.
  

Q. Tony Lavoi, Will the ExCom notes be shared with the CG?

A. Ivan Deloatch, yes, we had that discussion with ExCom and they will be shared.

Q. Who spoke to the ExCom on behalf of IFTN?

A. Vicki Lukas the IFTN Program Manager, Kari Craun, USGS, and Geoff Gabbott, USDA, the Partnership Work Group leads.

FGDC Secretariat Activities: Ken Shaffer, FGDC

1.1MB]

Ken Shaffer presented a comprehensive overview of the FGDC Secretariat activities. See presentation slides for additional details.

The Secretariat is a DOI commitment with the leadership responsibility as stated in OMB Circular A-16. The DOI funds all the Secretariat activities as a component of their annual budget. Secretariat staff consists of 14 FTE’s, one temporary employee and one contractor.

The Secretariat takes into account requirements from the FGDC Chair, Vice-Chair, DOI, ExCom, Steering Committee, Coordination Group, and NGAC when developing plans and activities for the year.

Support and implementation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure is the main focus of the FGDC Secretariat.

Major tasks and activities include:

• Administrative Support to the Chair, Vice Chair, ExCom, SC, CG
• Program Management and Administration
• Outreach, Communication, and Education
• Enterprise Architecture
• Geospatial Line of Business
• National Geospatial Advisory Committee Support
• GSDI and International Activities

The major activities outlined above are summarized in more detail in the presentation slides.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch, We are trying to balance the breadth of content while providing good information that is shared. This is a very comprehensive portfolio; we would like your input for review and comment.

Current FGDC Working Groups and Subcommittee Activities: Milo Robinson, FGDC

[Presentation 831KB] [FGDC Subcommittees and Working Groups-- one pagers, 187KB] [Summary table about FGDC Subcommittees and Working Groups, 82KB]

Milo Robinson thanked the Working Group and Subcommittee Chairs for participating in the recent review that was conducted. The attached charts show historical changes in Work Group and Subcommittees and depicts whether they are currently active or inactive and the dates the groups were formed or sunsetted.

Action 20090414-3. A recommendation by Randy Fusaro, Census, was made to resurrect and re-charter the FGDC Transportation Subcommittee as it is a much needed theme. This recommendation will be discussed at the April 15-16 Executive Committee offsite.

Milo and attending Chairs briefly summarized the following;

Geospatial Enterprise Architecture Work Group, Chair, Doug Nebert, FGDC

Historical Data Work Group, Chair Brett Abrams, NARA

Homeland Security Work Group, Chair, Jonathon Hasse, DHS

Metadata Work Group, Sharon Shinn, FGDC

Marine Boundary Work Group, Chairs, Cindy Fowler, NOAA and Steve Kopach, MMS. This is a very active Work Group per Tony Lavoi and the group may be absorbed by the Coastal Subcommittee that Tony Chairs.

Standards Work Group, Chair, Julie Maitra, FGDC. This Work Group could use additional participation, particularly standards reviewers. Meetings are only held when there is a standard going through the review process.

Cadastral Subcommittee, Chair Don Buhler, BLM. There will be a Parcel Stakeholders meeting on May 7 at the American Institute of Architects in Washington D.C. and Don encourages broad attendance although seating may be limited due to room capacity. Attendees must register in advance at www.nationalcad.org

Cultural and Demographic Subcommittee, Chair, Randy Fuscaro , Census

Geodetic Control Subcommittee, Chair, Juliana Blackwell, NOAA

Geologic Subcommittee Chair, Dave Soller, USGS

International Boundaries Subcommittee, Chair, Ray Milefsy, State Department. State, NGA and CIA contribute to this Subcommittee. There are 322 land boundaries and over 400 maritime boundaries.

Marine and Coastal Subcommittee, Chair, Tony Lavoi, NOAA. Tony discussed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub. L. no. 111-11, §12202 Subtitle B: Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act - (Sec. 12202) Directs the President to establish a coordinated federal program to develop an ocean and coastal mapping plan for the Great Lakes and coastal state waters, the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf of the United States that enhances ecosystem approaches in decision-making for conservation and management of marine resources and habitats, establishes research and mapping priorities, supports the siting of research and other platforms, and advances ocean and coastal science. Requires a plan for an integrated ocean and coastal mapping initiative within NOAA. Authorizes appropriations.

Spatial Water Data Subcommittee, Chairs, Bob Pierce, DOI and Todd Dabolt, EPA

Vegetation Subcommittee, Chair, Ralph Crawford, USDA

Wetlands Subcommittee, Chair Bill Wiland, FWS

Statement: Jeff Booth discussed the fact that DHS is funding a wiki on critical infrastructure data classification and wanted to offer this as an opportunity for FGDC participation.

Geo LoB Working Groups/Current Activities and Roles: GeoLoB WG Chairs

[Presentation 391KB]

Each of the WG leads presented a short summary of their group.

Lifecycle Working Group, Chair, Wendy Blake-Coleman, EPA

Goals – to improve government processes through consistent management of A-16 by establishing common terminology, efficient and effective management of A-16 inventory, and to improve A-16 data theme reporting. The development of the A-16 Supplemental Guidance document was successfully endorsed by the Steering Committee and submitted to OMB. Wendy would like more theme managers to join this team.

Statement: Ivan DeLoatch, the FGDC Secretariat has been providing leadership for the workgroups but these teams should be led by other federal members.

Q. Jeff Booth, estimate the amount of contract support that the Lifecycle Working Group receives.

A. Approximately one FTE.

Q. Do you envision lifecycle elements be a good potential for future data calls?

A. Yes- it will take us to the next step and efficiencies of managerial best practices. Some of the reporting will be based on lifecycle.

Q. Data Center’s across the landscape are huge, how should we fund these, hoping to find some economies.

A. What is the universe of data sets that we want to focus on? BMP will help. This type of analysis will be in the 2010 work plan.

Technical Architecture Working Group, Chair Doug Nebert, FGDC

Goals-Finalize and publish FEA Geospatial Profile, Version 2.0. Investigate and document best practices for geospatial services. Engage other LoB activities to assure adherence to the FEA Geospatial Profile and reference model guidance. This is a form of Communication and outreach; to make sure geospatial concepts are introduced and to give folks the needed tools to speak about geospatial to their favorite audiences.

Common Services Working Group, Chair Michelle Torreano, EPA

Goals – of this Working Group are to develop a set of common services that all agencies can use to better support their missions. Existing tools and programs that have been promoted so far are GEAR, the Geospatial Applications Registry and the Geo-SmartBuy program. The next steps include developing a rollup kit marketing plan. This Working Group also needs additional participation.

Q. Jeff Booth, estimate the amount of contract support that the Common Services Working Group receives. A. Approximately 1 ½ FTE.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch, The FGDC Secretariat will look at the annual expenditures to more accurately determine the FTE expenditure rate on each of the Geo Lob Work Groups. The actual expenditures will then be compared to what was planned to determine the deltas.

Geo-enable Working Group, Chair, Sharon Shin, FGDC

Goal is to increase comprehension and use of geospatial solutions among federal business managers. A Communications plan has been successfully developed. Send names of anyone interested in Chairing the Geo LoB Geo Enabled Working Group to Lew Sanford at lsanford@fgdc.gov.

Grants and Contract Working Group, Chair, Lew Sanford, FGDC

The goal of the common grants and contract language is to require contractors and grantees who create geospatial information to characterize the data using endorsed FGDC metadata. The metadata would then be shared with the FGDC and the data made available through a clearinghouse such as the Geospatial One - Stop.

Develop Topics for Joint Meeting Between CG and ExCom: Karen Siderelis, DOI

Karen Siderelis reviewed the agenda topic for the ExCom offsite meeting at the NCTC Shepherdstown, WV on April 15-16, 2009 and asked for additional topics that the CG would like to see addressed. This is the first opportunity for the CG to engage the ExCom. We are having an offsite meeting because of urgency of a number of the issues. These issues demand more attention than what can be conducted during the monthly meetings.

One of the primary topics is a follow up on Economic Stimulus. In case there is a second stimulus call, we would like to step back and evaluate the big picture, see what our priorities are and get a common understanding throughout the federal sector of what is needed.

Comment: Randy Fusaro, the National Geospatial Policy and Strategic Plan that Dan Cotter is working on, Census sees it as classified- centric and would like to see it more from the civilian side.

Comment: Dave LaBranche, has just the opposite concern about the draft policy. Dave states Executive Order 12333 should be weighted the same as Executive Order 13906, there must be a balance.

Comment: Dave Morehouse, The National Geospatial Policy and Strategic Plan is draft, still a work in progress.

Karen is serving as a conduit between the CG and the ExCom and would like to take the CG feedback to the meeting. Is there a necessity to hold a joint meeting?

Suggested topics to present at the ExCom offsite:

• FGDC governance and the relationships between the enterprise, this needs confirmation and coordination
• Role and value of the Steering Committee
• There is a strong sense there is need for a Transportation Subcommittee.
• The Coordination Group is drafting a new Charter which shall be ready to review in about two weeks. Jeff Booth is leading the effort.
• The CG would like to be informed about when the ExCom meets and would like to receive the minutes.
• IFTN issues have seemed to have been shelved and scale of photography dropped without the CoordinationGroups knowledge.
• The National Geospatial Policy and Strategic Plan should be balanced and include the entire geospatialenterprise.

Q. Jeff Booth, will IFTN and some of the other initiatives be run through the stimulus criteria to validate the criteria?

A. The priority criteria while initially designed to apply to potential stimulus projects, will be expanded to provide the FGDC a mechanism for rating other FGDC/federal initiatives.

Comment: Tony Lavoi, The ExCom was created when Mr. Cason became frustrated by the Steering Committee. The leadership did not show up to the meetings and seemed to become disinterested. What is the relevancy of the ExCom, the leadership of the Steering Committee is now put on the side lines? Originally the ExCom was formed to deal with the IFTN initiative. The Steering Committee has not worked many issues. The Coordination Group used to bring issues to the Steering Committee members. Would like to know if the ExCom members would like to see this model again and what is the expectation of the ExCom members? The Coordination Group has all agencies represented, but the Steering Committee does not seem to have much interest.

Comment: Randy Fusaro, is concerned about the lack of engagement with the new SAOGI’s. Having meeting 4 times a year does not lead to enough engagement. Possibly the SAOGI’s should have the opportunity to call in to the ExCom meetings.

Comment: Karen Siderelis, Their mind set could be switched from "this is your responsibility" to "this is your opportunity to…"

Comment: Dave LaBranche, I don’t often have the opportunity to speak with my SAOGI. We should not expect them to go to a lot technical meetings; it should be up to the Coordination Group to attend the technical meetings. This Coordination Group should do the arguing and should be the priority.

Comment: The ExCom should become the Steering Committee.

Comment: Geospatial is not the Steering Committee SAOGI’s favorite topic with all their other responsibilities, the members do not show up for the meetings. This is not true with the ExCom, the members attend monthly meeting and the topics are a major part of their work.

Comment: The ExCom members are good in responding to data calls.

Comment: SAOGI need to speak on behalf of their agency that is what SAOGI duties are.

Action Review and Next Step: FGDC Secretariat

The FGDC Secretariat will plan and organize a two day off site to continue the evaluation and development of recommendations on the FGDC Enterprise.

Adjourn