March 3 Coordination Group Meeting Minutes

Welcome and Introductions:

Ivan DeLoatch welcomed the Coordination Group participants to the March 3 meeting. Roll call was taken.

Pat Phillips discussed Februarys Coordination Group action items.

Economic Stimulus Package - Ivan Deloatch, FGDC

The Economic Stimulus data call that took place in February was a significant challenge for many. This was the first time this type of data call was issued and there were lessons learned from it. No guidance was received on the criteria. Dan Cotter, DHS put together a list of investments and shared them with the Executive Committee.

Q. Wendy Blake – Coleman - asked for clarification on the current topic. Are we discussing the stimulus package or Recovery.gov?

A. Ivan DeLoatch– The stimulus criteria was used as a planning tool versus the architecture data call for the Recovery.gov piece. The Recovery.gov piece went out for comment on February 17 to Agency CIO’s and Chief Architects with a one week turnaround. FGDC did not receive guidance from the USGS CIO on the Recovery.gov call. We were at the ASPRS conference when the data call came and a group of us collaborated on how to geoenable the Recovery piece. Doug Nebert also supplied comments. It is our understanding that this was the first iteration and we put in placeholders and asked for comments from the Coordination Group and the Executive Committee members. The turn around was done in just a few hours on Tuesday, February 24 and we were pleased to see the additions that were added. The final draft document was sent for review through the DOI and OMB chain of command.

Comment: Dennis Crow - there is nothing about data architecture in the Recovery.gov document. There needs to be a revision. All criteria across the federal government should be common needs criteria.

Comment: Wendy Blake - Coleman - the schema already exists for financial data. Zip codes are not sufficient for Recovery.gov, latitude /longitude is sufficient. It is no longer good enough to have just a public map; the process has to be geoenabled.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch - it has been suggested to OMB for someone to participate in the Recovery.gov Work Group and OMB is amendable to this. We have to make sure that we are clear in what we say and submit to OMB.

Comment: Lew Sanford - thanked Wendy Blake Coleman and Dave LaBranche for commenting on the Recovery.gov document.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch - Earle Demany is the new Recovery.gov Czar from DOI. Many agencies are working on this and each agency will have there own Recovery.gov page that will then roll up to a central page. Our input was to put in the geoenabling piece where it needs to go.

Comment: Dennis Crow - there should be guidance to the agencies exactly how to define the fields, for instance, what exactly is the definition of an address? Existing schema exists that could be used. The Federal agencies need a single interface.

Comment: Rani Balasubramanyam – we should all start thinking as one federal entity and just stand up one interface instead of each agency doing their separate thing. One Government, one voice.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch - a single interface that cascades up and down with the states. We want to make sure we promote collaboration with the states as well.

Action 20090303-1 Send comments and ideas on Recovery.gov to Ken Shaffer at kshaffer@fgdc.gov

Comment: Ken Shaffer– I hope that this will provide the guidance on setting the structure – if you don’t have the capabilities to populate the geospatial data fields, hopefully a service can be identified to provide that information so that data is supplied in a standardized way.

Comment: Sandra Downie – we don’t need a redundant set of data. There already is an editing template. Best practices should be called out.

Action 20090303-2: Send the final version of the Recovery.gov document (as submitted to OMB) to the Coordination Group participants.

Q. Was a datum field included in the initial data call?

A. The geoenable fields are not yet all thought out at this point. A uniform datum and coordinate system is needed.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch - this is a discussion for the Geo LoB Technical Architecture Work Group.

Action 20090303-3: Send names of anyone interested in working on the Geo LoB Technical Architecture Work Group which will be working on the architecture for Recovery.gov.

2009 Priority Planning - Jeff Booth, DHS

Jeff Booth provided the FGDC with a proposal to hold a 2- day offsite to evaluate the 2009 work planning and performance management review and to redraft the Coordination Group Charter. Under Jeff’s proposal, the review would discuss the activities of:

• Geo Lob
• FGDC Working Groups
• FGDC Theme Subcommittees
• FGDC Secretariat functions, and monthly performance reviews at the Coordination Group to include,
• Scope
• Milestones/Deliverables
• Budget

The purpose of Jeff’s proposed plan is to reestablish relevancy of FGDC activities and provide transparency to stakeholders. It is time to reevaluate and know what the return of investment is.

Comment: Rani Balasubramanyam – DOJ has recently had the same discussion. DOJ is a consumer of the geospatial data, we are dependant on ESRI and DoD for data.

Comment: Dave Morehouse – redrafting a charter has to go up the chain of command to be decided on by the Steering Committee so it can not be approved at an offsite.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch – we need to look at OMB Circular A-16 and see what the roles and responsibilities are. There is a lack of participation across the landscape , not all agencies participate in the Coordination Group or the Steering Committee. The Secretariat has looked at participants at the highest Steering Committee level, but we haven’t gone any deeper to look at the Coordination Group. Circular A-16 is the framework that says there is accountability for the agencies to participate in FGDC Committees.

Comment: Dennis Crow – folks in the Coordination Group feel over-run by the Executive Committee.

Comment: Wendy Blake-Coleman- feels that we have lost sight, the NSDI is a nebulous concept. We are no longer connecting dots from Geospatial One-Stop, The National Map and other programs, there are major gaps and we don’t have the data! What is the best combination of these capabilities that help us do our work?

Comment: Jeff Booth – lets act as a business. We have all agreed to fund the joint Geo LoB but certain folks are not at the table. They are interested in a Common Solution & Target Architecture, CSTA.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch– this is a good time now, during the transition to start looking at this approach of how we operate.

Comment: Betsy Kanally – has been coming to the Coordination Group meetings for a long time. There is layer upon layer of additional committees, the Geo LoB, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee and now we are talking about the additional stimulus funding we may or may not get. None of these layers connect. Imagery for the Nation has been taken over by the FGDC from the initial NDOP and NSGIC groups. This is my opinion that a new work group replicates the old work group that was still adequately functioning.

Comment: Lew Sanford– suggests looking at the Geo LoB work plans and sit down with the leads and see if these activities are what we all want to be working on. Maybe this could serve as a model for what Jeff is proposing. The FGDC is also going to open up the charter revision process.

Comment: Jeff Booth - we are now half way through the fiscal year with 09 funds, lets try to get some return for the dollar.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch- we have to consider the Geo LoB have tasks that have to be completed this year – lets do the offsite – but need commitment that folks will be attending. Why do folks think the ExCom is taking over the Coordination Group, the Steering Committee makes all of the final decisions.

Comment: Wendy Blake –Coleman – does not think the Coordination Group is making recommendations to the Steering Committee or the Executive Committee.

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch – suggests that the Coordination Group review their charter and propose changes to the Steering Committee.

Comment: Dennis Crow - the Executive Committee has made decisions about IFTN and also with the priority of cadastral and LiDAR. These were not a priority with the Coordination Group.

Comment: Jeff Booth – the Geo LoB needs to have work plans in place before I pay under an interagency agreement. The work plans need approval from the Coordination Group.

Comment: Ken Shaffer – for a reevaluation of the FGDC structure, there is a need to have a clear focus on the expectations and direction that we intend to accomplished. There are overlaps between the FGDC Working Groups and the Geo LoB. The Secretariat staff also accomplishes many things that are transparent. It would be helpful if we can get a reevaluation started before the Steering Committee meeting on April 16 and lay a groundwork of expectations before commencing on a 2-day off-site. We also need to ensure an acceptable level of participation from across federal agencies at the offsite.

Action 20090303-4: Complete Geospatial Line of Business work plans in six weeks.

Action 20090303-5: Schedule and select a venue for a two day offsite for discussion on FGDC Priority Planning.

Action 20090303-6: Develop the scope and define the expected outcomes of the Priority Planning offsite meeting.

Action 20090303-7: Send current CG charter to the CG participants for review and comment.

Action 20090303-8: Jeff Booth and Lew Sanford to develop a draft template to use for redrafting the CG and Theme Subcommittee charters.

NGAC – February 4-5 Meeting Review- John Mahoney, FGDC

John Mahoney presented a summary of the February National Geospatial Advisory Committee meeting and gave a preview of the upcoming meeting to be held on May 12-13 at the George Washington Confrence Center in Washington D.C.

NGAC Activities for February 4-5, 2009

• Review of Transition activities
• Approval of Recommendations to FGDC on Economic Stimulus
• Approval of Recommendations to FGDC on Governance
• Approval of NGAC Strategic Vision Document
• Review and further study of The National Map
• Update on the National Parcel Data
• Invitation of NGAC analysis of Geospatial Partnerships

In early May, Don Buhler, BLM will host a stakeholders meeting with National Land Parcel data focusing on partnerships.

The NGAC recommendations that the Economic Stimulus package, specifically the Recovery.gov should utilize geospatial technology to effectively implement and manage the economic recovery legislation. (See presentation and http://www.fgdc.gov/ngac for additional recommendations and information.)

Comment: Ivan DeLoatch – NGAC is a very active group and we are in synch together in the regard with the economic recovery package.

Comment: Barney Krucoff – look at the governance slide in this presentation. It lists what is going on with the NGAC. There is a more detailed summary on the FGDC website.

Final Draft Wetland Mapping Standard – Julie Binder-Maitra, FGDC

Final Draft Wetland Mapping Standard – Margarete Heber, EPA

This standard has had a long term time-line. The project was started in February 2006 and is expected to finish this month, March 2009. An implementation plan is targeted for completion by summer 2009. Many members have participated in reviewing this standard thought out the years.

The final draft Wetlands Standard was e-mailed to the Coordination Group for review on February 17.

An informal vote took place during the meeting on whether the standard should go before the FGDC Steering Committee for endorsement at the April 16 meeting. All participants we in favor.

Action 20090303-9: CG Participants should discuss the endorsement of the Wetlands Mapping Standard with their respective SAOGI. An endorsement vote will take place at the April 16 Steering Committee meeting.

InterNational Committee for Information Technical Standards (INCITS) L1 ( Geographic Information System) Rick Pearsall , NGA

Rick Pearsall summarizes INCITS L1 and the benefits in becoming “A Friend of the Committee” member. Being a friend of the committee does not come with full membership privileges, it allows documents to be shared, but it does not include voting privileges. The goal of the committee is to have folks attend the meetings to learn what going on with ANSII, ISO and OGC. Contact Rick Pearsall for additional information at Richard.a.pearsall@nga.mil

Comment: Jeff Booth – The licensed tools are too much for first responders to plunk down $30 each time. Can the standards be made available free from FGDC? DHS will put in money to look at the first responder’s standards, maybe as a group we should look at buying standards back.

Comment: FGDC is currently writing a guidance document on this issue.

50 States Project in D.C. – Barney Krucoff, District of Columbia

Barney Krucoff presented an overview of the GIS Strategic and Business Planning processes involved in the award of the 50 States FGDC Cooperative Agreement Program grant. Barney also provides some strengths and weaknesses on the 50 States CAP program.

A refined mission statement was one result o the planning process. The mission of DC Geographic Information Systems (DC GIS) is to improve the quality and lower the cost of services provided by the DC Government, through the District’s collective investment and effective application of geospatial data and systems. Furthermore, DC GIS will reach beyond the DC government by continuing to make DC GIS data freely and publically available to the fullest extent possible in consideration of privacy and security.

Announcements: Ivan DeLoatch - apologized for the presentations that we were not able to get to, due to the time constraint. The presentations and minutes will be placed on-line.

The next Executive Committee meeting is March 10. Jeff Booth’s proposal will be made available at this venue.

The next FGDC Coordination Group meeting is April 14.

The next FGDC Steering Committee meeting is June 11.

Adjourn: