Federal Geographic Coordinating Committee of California
| |
Federal Geographic Coordinating Committee of California
|
|
| MINUTES |
Attendees:
NAME - AGENCY - PHONE - EMAIL
1. Purpose of CMCC/FGC3 Coordination
One purpose of the joint meeting is information sharing. As the state and federal operational coordinating groups, can and should we also look at taking a proactive role in setting some near-term goals, agreeing on a vision that we are all working toward (like making data available in Geography Network/National Map form), and making recommendations to the CA GIS Council?
The state's strategic plan must include local participation, but CMCC and FGC3 have a responsibility to address the state-federal needs and issues and represent them to the Council. We could start looking at "low hanging fruit" to demonstrate near-term successes, and there are a lot of issues we can address without Council approval. Examples of low-hanging fruit might include making the DOQs and mosaics available, statewide ownership layer, Census data, DRGs, custodian/stewardship for some datasets, and others.
Any ideas or recommendations we come up with for the Council can be forwarded by Gary Darling as its Executive Director.
A subcommittee was established to explore a common strategy and to make recommendations to CMCC and FGC3 about how to move forward. Members of the subcommittee will include Vicki Lukas, Ray McDowell, Lorri Peltz-Lewis, Dave Hansen, Dave Kehrlein, Tim McMonagle, Matt Price, and Robin Marose. Bob Beckwith was also volunteered by Chris English for BIA. The FGC3 and CMCC charters include information about strategic goals and can be used as a resource to the subcommittee.
2. Project Updates
a. CA Spatial Data Architecture (CASDA) and CA Spatial Information Library (CASIL) – Lorri Peltz-Lewis explained that the CASDA group has had 13 meetings and is nearing completion of the draft version two architecture definition for state data (the Teale model is considered to be version one). They have developed recommendations for CASIL and best management practices for establishing in-house data libraries. Standards are fairly wide open to allow for greater participation. The next step is to sell their recommendations and take comments from both the policy and operational level. Gary suggested they produce a presentation for the Council and middle management. It was also suggested that because CASIL will reflect the CASDA architecture it should be tested before it is put forward. When the next draft is done, Lorri will send it out to CMCC and FGC3. Those who want it sooner should email Lorri and she will provide the current version. The CASIL public URL is gis.ca.gov. The state index is based on Teale's organization. The internal development site is as follows: http://sonoma.regis.berkeley.edu/website/casil/datathemes
CASIL developers need feedback on the site and will be looking at issues like the inclusion of multiple projections.
b. Webpage coordination – Our common goal is to coordinate state, FGC3 and CA Geographic Information Association (CGIA) webpages. The FGC3 page is currently at http://fgc3.wr.usgs.gov and includes basic information like meeting notes and the charter. Bill Perry and Bryant Chesney will be upgrading the site with more information. Robin Marose described the goals of CGIA to coordinate one site or index page that would direct users to all GIS-related resources in the state. CGIA's unique role is to track legislation and education opportunities and their plan is to contract for web development. CGIA is also considering developing a peer resource database. Another need is a partnership database for posting opportunities for cooperative data development. A meeting between the key people of each group will need to be set up soon.
c. Homeland Security Subcommittee of the GIS Council – Dave Kehrlein reported on the activities of the Council's Homeland Security Subcommittee, which also serves as the GIS subcommittee of the State Strategic Committee on Terrorism (SSCOT). The subcommittee has nearly completed technical interviews of the other SSCOT subcommittees including Food and Agriculture, Medical, Radiological, Chemical, Transportation and others. They are in the process of compiling and analyzing the interview data.
An SSCOT meeting at the agency secretary level was held last Thurs. So far there has been no federal funding to the state for homeland security efforts. Projections are that the state will receive $400 million - $100 million for state activities and $300 million for distribution to local jurisdictions. Health organizations will get funded from a separate pot. The State identified over $1 billion of requirements for the $100 million that it is likely to receive, and it's not clear how the items will be prioritized and the money spent. Don Johnson of CalEPA would like to coordinate major GIS projects and data sharing. Imagery is on the wish list for this funding, but again there's no good indication of how the funding will get allocated.
One of the observations from the SSCOT process and the San Diego Homeland Security pilot (which was also initiated in the Homeland Security Subcommittee), is that some things will need policy direction, but there are a lot of things that can be done on the operational level, and other areas just need funding or maintenance. For the San Diego pilot we are compiling a list of data that we have and need for the area based on SSCOT and local information, and will try to initiate simple data sharing among the local users and test if they have what is needed to respond to an event. The purpose of this first step is to see what we can do without top management intervention, and isolate and track issues that truly require policy attention. This will help us separate the work that can be done at the operational level from the issues that need to be addressed at the policy level.
A question was raised about the need to identify data stewards for data sets. Gary discussed a potential effort to identify a GIO at each local, state and federal agency. This may move forward in the Resources and other Agencies.
d. National Map – Vicki Lukas reviewed the USGS National Map initiative that was designed to provide an online Internet map server with seamless data including the common base map layers (elevation, National Hydrography Dataset, imagery, transportation, structures, boundaries, geographic names from GNIS, and landcover). Pilot projects like the Lake Tahoe Area National Map Pilot are expected to show results by the end of the fiscal year, so we should have something online and publicly available by October. The pilot has collected what is available from local agencies in the Tahoe area. Newer DOQs are being produced for some of the project area, and at this time the project team is assessing and integrating data. At the national level, a web page and IMS template are being developed and the pilot should be doing testing soon.
The USGS is planning the program in light of a 10-year implementation goal, and will be looking in the near term for low hanging fruit and focusing on states like Texas and Delaware that already possess statewide datasets that can easily be connected to the National Map. Texas has been developing datasets with the USGS and local agencies for many years and has been active in building the website. Gary explained that Delaware worked through the I-team and got the Governor's attention and buy in. California needs to find a way to step forward and support this. One of the lessons learned from the Lake Tahoe Pilot is how difficult it would be to try to maintain an implementation with data revisions coming in from numerous local governments and federal agencies. The state has an important role to play in helping to facilitate statewide datasets and participation from local government. The Regional Councils that are being developed under the GIS Council may help manage the connections and process. Tim McMonagle added that the Census has the same issues in modernizing its TIGER data – they have to focus on the places where there is easily accessible data. Texas has groups that deal with data development, distribution, and coordination. Other states like UT and MI have been working on this for decades.
e. Legacy Project – Matt Price provided a briefing on some of the GIS concerns of the Legacy Project, previously called CCRISP (overall project goals are available online). They are conducting regional workshops to develop a statewide conservation strategy and identify available data in the regions. UC Davis has a project to go through the CERES catalog to identify datasets. Another effort is to inventory IMS sites in the state. The Legacy Project if forming a working group for public land ownership. It was suggested that they work with Robin's digital parcel data group. The project is also working with NWI to complete the wetlands inventory for the state. They will host and integrate datasets from various departments including public land ownership, land cover data, biodiversity indicator datasets. All data will be publicly available and downloadable.
f. Census Inventory – Tim McMonagle discussed the goal of the Census Bureau to make TIGER data positionally accurate by the 2010 Census. To do reach that goal, they are contacting the counties to find out what GIS data they have. The Census is also asking questions in support of homeland security. They have already contacted high priority counties associated with NIMA's 120 cities list. Most counties have some data in some form or other. Los Angeles and Orange counties use Thomas Brothers data and can't share it – the Census is documenting who has licensing agreements. Census is obtaining the files and metadata where possible. They plan to finish the inventory by July and put their findings into a database called TIGER Enhancement Database (TED). It is not clear how the database will be shared, and there are issues with the Census firewall.
Census has an accuracy requirement of 3 meters for data that they will use to make TIGER positionally accurate. Currently San Diego is in the process of being modernized. Census is mandated to guarantee confidentiality, so if they get a file from a county with address points of housing units, they can't return it back. They are allowed to share address ranging, however.
The Census Bureau in now the responsible agency for transportation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) instead of the Department of Transportation. Census has road names and address ranges.
g. Parcel Data Stewardship – Robin Marose reported that CDF is taking on development and stewardship of a statewide parcel dataset and will receive funding of $700k through a Budget Change Proposal to do a study over two years to define the need and benefits of having a standard statewide digital parcel dataset. They hope that the study will provide the business case for the dataset and result in future investment by the state. The goal is to eventually develop state standards for parcel data. Then they will collect a few counties of data and try to implement the standard to see how difficult it is to do, what it will take, and what the result will give you. The study will look at 20 state entities. They had plans to look at how other states addressed this need, but the budget was reduced and that part was removed. The focus of the study is on the need in state government, but some federal agencies will need to be brought in, such as BLM. Draft documents and standards will be available for review by federal and local government.
3. Framework Data
a. Imagery
· Statewide imagery acquisition – The state received a $3.7 million proposal for public domain statewide imagery and received an estimate for statewide IKONOS at $8-11 million. They also received an unsolicited proposal for statewide 5-meter panchromatic imagery from the Indian satellite at $100,000 with similar licensing rights as with the SPOT acquisition. So the options are out there but we lack the funding at this time. IKONOS pricing might go down with new competition from Quickbird and SPOT 2m, but the licensing will never be public domain.
· NIMA – Funding permitting the USGS is producing 1/3 meter (~1 foot) resolution natural color imagery over Fresno, Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto for NIMA. The photography acquisition for Stockton and Sacramento was expanded through a funding commitment by the Dept. of Water Resources. The USGS is looking for additional state and local partners with interest in these datasets.
· Legacy imagery needs – The project is looking for 1m CIR imagery to update the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data.
· County imagery acquisitions – We need to find a way to allow for better costshares, both by making costshare opportunities widely known and by finding a way to avoid all the paperwork each time a county wants to do an update. This is another topic for the new subcommittee.
· Statewide DOQ Mosaics – Robert Yoha described the organization of the Department of Conservation (DOC), their uses for digital orthophotos (DOQs) and some of the processing they have done on the statewide DOQ collection, and Harold Feinberg added more detail on the processing issues. In July of 2001, DOC obtained the most current vintage DOQs available for the state in native (BIL) format (10,289 quarter-quadrangles, about 580 GB). Since that time, the state's first generation DOQ coverage was completed, and DOC received the balance of the files in geotiff format from the USGS and BOR, so that their data holding covers the entire state. DOC is organizing the data in 1 x 1 degree blocks (a geographic rather than alphabetical arrangement for easier user access) and has nearly completed a set of MrSid 100:1 compressed thumbnail images that will allow users to quickly see the extent of coverage for a block, differences in flight lines, black-and-white versus color, areas of no data, etc. They have also produced MrSid 5:1 compressed 7.5-minute mosaics. Other processing includes conversion of native DOQ format (BIL) to geotiff and color infrared files to black-and-white. Another design decision was to not reproject this base set, to let the user do that if needed, so to not introduce any possible positional error.
DOC has been discussing collaboration on the remaining work with CDF, CDFG, and BOR. There was a larger DOQ committee that had extensively discussed and planned to make mosaics before DOC made their data purchase, and it was recommended that the group come together again to see what other levels of mosaics and compression might be needed. We also need to determine a pathway for QC-ing the collection, maintaining it, and creating an index for CASIL. Robin Marose will follow up with meeting notice to set up a group to look at these issues.
· Statewide Landsat Acquisition – Ray plans to put together an amendment to the AmericaView grant to obtain statewide Landsat coverage. The first priority is a relatively current coverage timed at about mid-June to July, the second is April to mid-May. They may also want to acquire historical statewide sets from around 1990 or 1992. The data will be hosted at CASIL and NASA. The data will be georectified terrain corrected. It was suggested that Ray check what the Multi-Resolution Land Cover (MRLC) program has to avoid duplicating a coverage that may already be available.
b. LIDAR – Bill Perry describe the need of the USGS Biologic Resources Discipline and the Channel Islands National Park for high resolution DEM data. They have been looking at LIDAR and IFSAR and have a bid from local company for LIDAR at $12,000 for Santa Barbara and Anacapa Islands. They are looking for additional partners for a costshare on this dataset. NOAA is also doing a flight of southern CA coast, but because of funding limitations, the islands may not be included (Kirk Waters is the NOAA point of contact). DFG may be interested in costsharing. It was also noted that NASA JPL has flown islands using radar C and L bands to produce 10 and 5 meter DEMs, and there may be some information about the data on the web. It was also suggested that the Channel Islands cooperative GIS group may have some funding for and interest in this project.
c. Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs) – Will Patterson gave a brief overview of the DRG history in CA. The original set was produced in Teale Albers NAD27, which is a problem for using with DOQs that are are in UTM 83. The Fort Worth NRCS office had a UTM set produced by Beartooth Mapping, and that set has been shared among federal and state agencies. The Beartooth set is a little out of date – Teale rescans were not included (Lorri has the list of what's missing). They are trimmed and have two world files in NAD83 and 27. Also newer versions of some maps have been released since Teale's rescans (Los Angeles County has been looking for a way to get updates done). One idea is to reproject the Teale set in its original resolution and create sets with and without collars. We need to have a group to determine what needs to get done next. It was noted that Caltrans also has an Albers NAD83 set with and without collars, so we should look into the possibility of sharing those DRGs. Knowing what the most current quad is still an issue, and new quads have not been added to database that Dave Kehrlein established. A DRG subcommittee was formed to look at the issues: Will Patterson, Lorri Peltz-Lewis, Vicki Lukas, Ray McDowell, and Dave Kehrlein.
d. National Hydrography Dataset – Vicki Lukas provided status on the ongoing 1:24,000-scale NHD projects in southern CA, the Bay Area, and the Central Valley. The UC Davis project with two sub-basins (one along the north coast, the other on the western slope of the Sierras) is also ongoing and expected to conclude at the end of September. There are also two new cooperative projects with the Forest Service. One is in the Tahoe area and is already in work to support the National Map Pilot. The other is at the early stages of planning and will complete the eastern side of Forest Service Region 5. 1:24,000-scale NHD for the north coast is of interest to the Forest Service and other agencies like BOR.
e. Calwater – The interactive sessions for delineating watershed are working well. The northern province is done, and the group has delineated 4th field watersheds for Sacramento Valley and the Southern Sierra. More live delineation work is planned for a meeting on June 17-21 in the Redding area – see http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/calwater/ for more information. Another meeting is tentatively planned around July 22 in Sacramento or Ridgecrest. CDF is developing an Internet Map Server to show project status on the website. Through these efforts, Calwater is moving toward version 3.0 with the goal to maintain both state and federal numbering and naming conventions.
4. Value and frequency of the joint meeting
Participants generally agreed that this meeting was very useful, and we should hold joint meetings at a minimum twice a year, or even quarterly. The subcommittees can move some of the issues forward and report to CMCC and FGC3 regular meetings in the meantime. CMCC meets monthly and FGC3 meets quarterly. The next joint meeting will be scheduled sometime between August and November.
ACTION ITEM Summary
· Subcommittee (Lukas, McDowell, Peltz-Lewis, Hansen, Kerhlein, McMonagle, Price and Marose) to develop recommendations to CMCC and FGC3 on joint strategic direction.
· Robin Marose will set up a DOQ meeting to (re)-identify needs for MrSid mosaics and begin addressing QC, maintenance, indexing and other related issues.
· Ray McDowell to check what Landsat coverage the Multi-Resolution Land Cover (MRLC) program has to avoid duplication.
· DRG subcommittee to review DRG issues and make recommendations. (Will Patterson, Lorri Peltz-Lewis, Vicki Lukas, Ray McDowell, and Dave Kehrlein).
· Ray McDowell and Vicki Lukas will schedule the next joint meeting sometime between August and November.
|
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://fgc3.wr.usgs.gov/mins_2002_may.html Maintainer: FGC3 Web Team Last modified: Friday, 16-Apr-2004 12:20:32 EDT ((none)) Privacy Statement || Disclaimer || FOIA || Accessibilty |