Personal tools
Document Actions

July 11, 2000 FGDC Coordination Meeting Summary


Site:
National Association of Counties
8th Floor Conference Room
440 First Street NW, Washington, DC (on the corner of First and E, NW)

Report of Western Governor's Association recent resolution concerning the Geographic Coordinate Data Base and its role in providing a base Public Land Survey System layer for GIS and mapping activities - Stewart Kirtpatrick, MT & Dan Mates, BLM

Dan Mates - the Geographic Coordinate Data Base (GCDB) is an integrated network of survey records, horizontal control, and land descriptions that together portray the Public Land Survey System (PLSS). The GCDB is the foundation for a parcel-based records system to support land management decisions, and is critical to the utilization of automated systems by Federal, State and local government agencies, Tribal governments, the private sector and others. The GCDB data is collected by BLM State Offices, working in conjunction with Western States, to provide a high quality framework for GIS and related uses. Open Space and Smart Growth issues are applications that make use of this data.

At a Cadastral Data Forum held in March of this year, a resolution was drafted ...The recommendations were passed by the Western Governor's Association. A summary report of the recommendations will be available soon.

Questions - Does that GCDB data follow any standards? Yes, the Cadastral Data Content Standard, however, this data was collected before the Cadastral standard was developed so transitioning the data is still being done. The collection level for the data is 40 acres - collected from the original survey plats.

- How much money goes into the GCDB? $4 million. This money is spent collecting and maintaining the data. However, funding limitations prevent some the collection of complete coverage.

- Is the GCDB a Clearinghouse node? No, but it is a good suggestion.

Stewart Kirtpatrick - There is a lack of meaningful data for use in GIS. Framework data must include private lands, currently the FGDC definition of Framework leaves private lands out. Data has to be at the scale that people can identify with and use to solve problems in their communities. In Montana they have started a Montana Automated Parcel Program. This program includes collecting information about all lands. They have found that it has proven to be cost effective and limits expensive parcel research to extracting only the information they need for each particular situation. The GCDB is a good source of data for Montana because it is based on legal descriptions. And the GCDB accuracy continues to improve with updates from the various communities.

Report on NACo's 2000 E-Government Survey - Bert Jarreau, NACo

In April 2000, the National Association of Counties distributed an E-Government Questionnaire to all counties in the country that have functioning governments. Twenty-three (23) percent of the counties completed and returned the survey. The 714 counties represented a cross section of counties by region and by population size.

The survey analysis reveals that the availability of the tools of technology is usually determined by the size the county. In bigger counties, PCs are generally available to employees, but E-mail availability is not nearly as wide spread. And a large majority of the counties who responded do not provide employees with Internet access.

Many counties are working towards the use of the Internet, however, major obstacles include lack of knowledge and funding. The most common goal of the counties is to make access to county records available to constituents.

NACo plans to do this survey every year. A major objective of this survey was to serve as an education tool. NACo plans to release an RFP to develop an E-Government model.

Update discussion on Design Study Team's Implementation Plan - Bruce McKenzie, FGDC

A handout was distributed that identified activities that support the implementation plan of the Design Study Team. Each item was discussed. Of particular interest to the group were the upcoming meetings with OMB. The FGDC, while not organizing these meetings, was invited to participate and looks at these opportunities to further build a working relationship with OMB.

FGDC and NSGIC have had recent discussions about the need to complete a 1999 funded proposal to develop a GIS Awareness Toolkit geared towards educating elected officials. To date, the Women Executive's in State Government, working in conjunction with NSGIC and acting in an advisory capacity, have documented the direction for the development of a communication toolkit. In a recent teleconference with Hank Garie, NSGIC, it was discussed that to get moving with this project, two teams need to be formed. The first team - Input/Review Team, would consist of stakeholders and policy makers would first be asked to provide input on what catches policy-makers attention. This group will also be asked to review draft toolkit material. The second team would consist of a small group who have the time and are committed to quickly work on defining the key audience and messages for the toolkit - give the toolkit some direction. Once ideas are documented from the Study Team, this material will be handed over to a communications specialist that NSGIC is employing. It is intended that draft toolkit documents be presented at the NSGIC Annual Meeting in September.

Interest was expressed in the FGDC being a focal point for hazards coordination. No one, however, stepped forward to lead this activity.

FY2000 Cooperative Grant Program Recommendations - Dave Painter, FGDC

Recommendations were presented to the Coordination Group for their endorsement. The proposals to be funded will be announced in late July.

A special thanks to this year's CAP reviewers:

Category 1: Don't Duck Metadata

Richard Pearsall - FGDC/NMD
Jennifer Gaines - USGS-BRD
Bonnie Gallahan - FGDC
David Painter - FGDC
Jo Anne Stapleton - USGS-NMD

Category 2: ISO Metadata Software Development

Richard Pearsall - FGDC/NMD
Peter Schweitzer - USGS-GD
Joe Sewash - Office for Information Resources, State of Tennessee

Category 3:ISO Metadata Training Development

Richard Pearsall - FGDC/NMD
Lynda Wayne - FGDC Metadata Education Coordinator, NCGIA

Category 4: Web Mapping Testbed Projects

Doug Nebert - FGDC
Mark Reichardt - FGDC
Robin Fegeas - USGS-NMD
Bill Ryder - USACE

Category 5: Framework Demonstration Projects

Eric Goods - USACE
Julie Maitra - FGDC
Richard Yorczyk - NGS
Bruce Spear - DOT
Richard Hogan - USGS-NMD
Fred Malkus - Census
Jim Mauck - USGS-NMD
Mohamed Barry - BLM - Eastern States
John Szemraj - USGS-NMD
Bruce Westcott - Montpelier, VT

Category 6: Canadian/U.S. Framework

Canadian team:

    Paula Rojas - Canada: GeoConnections Secretariat
    Rupert Brooks - Canada: Natural Resources Canada/CCRS
    Tim Evangelatos - Canada: GeoConnections Secretariat
    Marc Lemaire - Canada: Natural Resources Canada/MSB

US team:

    Milo Robinson - FGDC
    Paul Frazier - Spatial Technology Industry Association
    Barbara Ray - USGS
    Lisa Warnecke - GeoManagement Inc.

Next meeting:
Tuesday, September 12, 2000
9:00 to Noon EST

Location:
National Association of Counties
440 First Street NW, Washington, DC (on the corner of First and E, NW)

Nearest metro stops are either Judiciary Square or Union Station (Red Line)

Last Updated: Jan 10, 2006 02:37 PM
Spinner Image