Personal tools
Document Actions

February 3 Coordination Group Meeting Minutes

[PDF Version] [Agenda] [Attendees]


Actions

Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-1

Action:

Provide comments on the NSGIC whitepaper “Criteria for Federal Coordination of Geographic Information Technology – a State Perspective” by 02/06/09.

Contact:

USGS, Vicki Lukas , vlukas@usgs.gov or Randy Fusaro, randy.j.fusaro@census.gov

Resolution/
Response:

Link to paper was sent via email 1/16/09. Also available at http://www.nsgic.org/. Four agencies supplied comments for consideration/incorporation to the response.


Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-2

Action:

Any member wishing to receive a basic overview of IFTN, contact Vicki Lukas

Contact:

USGS, Vicki Lukas, vlukas@usgs.gov

Resolution/
Response:



Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-3

Action:

Final review of the draft Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Geospatial Profile is due by February 13, 2009.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Lew Sanford , lsanford@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:



Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-4

Action:

A new Chair is needed for the Geospatial Line of Business, Common Services Work Group. Send nominations to Lew.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Lew Sanford, lsanford@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:



Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-5

Action:

Send nominees of those interested in working on a FGDC charter review to Lew.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Lew Sanford, lsanford@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:



Lead:

FGDC Secretariat

Action #: 20090203-6

Action:

Send GeoLob Joint Business Case document and include the current known 2009 priorities and work plans.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Lew Sanford, lsanford@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:



Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-7

Action:

Contact John Mahoney if attending the Feb 4-5 National Geospatial Committee Meeting.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, John Mahoney, jmahoney@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:

Contacts made, meeting held.


Lead:

FGDC Secretariat

Action #: 20090203-8

Action:

Send out the analysis spreadsheet prepared by Dan Cotter on the economic stimulus package.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Ivan DeLoatch, ideloatch@fgdc.gov, and Ken Shaffer, kshaffer@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:

Sent 1/30/09 by Dan.


Lead:

Coordination Group members

Action #: 20090203-9

Action:

Forward any information that the agencies put forward for the economic stimulus package to Ivan DeLoatch.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Ivan DeLoatch, ideloatch@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:



Lead:

FGDC Secretariat

Action #: 20090203-10

Action:

Send data call with the stimulus package decision criteria to the FDGC Coordination Group representatives. A possible conference call will take place.

Contact:

FGDC Secretariat, Ivan DeLoatch, ideloatch@fgdc.gov, and Ken Shaffer, kshaffer@fgdc.gov

Resolution/
Response:

Draft criteria sent to Acting Chair 1/30. Forwarded to DHS, NGA, EPA 2/5 for comment on criteria type.


General/Intros/Upcoming Meetings/Summary of Action Items

Introductions and roll call was taken.


Announcements:

  • The Federal Stakeholders 50 States workshop meets today, February 3 at 1:00 P.M. at the National Capitol Planning Commission and is available by WebEx.
  • The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) has a new Director, Julianna Blackwell.
  • The next FGDC Coordination Group meeting is March 3 at NCPC.
  • Jeff Booth is now representing DHS on the Coordination Group.


An Informal Federal Response to NSGIC’s "Criteria for Federal Coordination of Geographic Information Technology – A State Perspective"  Vicki Lukas, USGS

[Handout PDF]

An Informal Federal Response to NSGIC’s “Criteria for Federal Coordination of Geographic Information Technology – A State Perspective” is available on the NSGIC website at http://www.nsgic.org/.  Initial comments to this document were received from Census, USGS, USDA and NOAA. The majority of the comments expressed concern that the critera used in the whitepaper does not reflect the federal perspective. Please provide feedback to Vicki Lukas, vlukas@usgs.gov or Randy Fusaro, randy.j.fusaro@census.gov  by February 6. Feedback will be presented during a session at the NSGIC mid-year conference in Annapolis, February 22-24.


Comment: Wendy Blake-Coleman - All of the work across the FGDC should be included in the response. We should move away from responding by individual agency to one federally coordinated response. We have the opportunity to leverage our products in this paper.

Comment: Bill Burgess appreciated the comments and looks forward to a dialog coming soon.

Action 20090203-1: Provide comments on the NSGIC whitepaper “Criteria for Federal Coordination of Geographic Information Technology – a State Perspective” by 02/06/09  to Vicki Lukas , vlukas@usgs.gov or Randy Fusaro, randy.j.fusaro@census.gov


Imagery For the Nation Update – Vicki Lukas, USGS

[Presentation PPT 1.3MB]

Vicki Lukas provided an update on the progress of IFTN.  A report status was given to the ExCom at the December 9 meeting. The ExCom decided to eliminate the 6 inch imagery and offer it as a buy-up option. This vote for eliminating the 6 inch imagery was endorsed at the December 16 Steering Committee meeting. The ExCom also recommended that annual priorities will be passed through ExCom members and that IFTN governance should be formalized through NDOP by modifying their charter to become a FDGC sub-committee.

The Department of the Interior submitted a $100 million stimulus package for IFTN on behalf of the FGDC. IFTN was also mentioned as part of other private sector stimulus recommendations.


Q. Dennis Crow – IFTN is important, does this process institutionalize imagery as a priority?


A. IFTN has been envisioned as an ongoing US program; however, work must be done to show how imagery fits in with other geospatial themes.


Comment: Ivan DeLoatch - Imagery is a priority for all of us and this is a first step opportunity for us to plan effectively up front. This should be looked at holistically and not agency by agency.


Comment: Dave Morehouse – We have been backtracking on the scope of the original goal and the area of finer resolution imagery is shrinking. This will shortchange the rural areas.


Vicki Lukas – We are looking for a process to better define requirements. There is not clear evidence that wall to wall coverage is needed. The IFTN program also is not solely designed for just for federal use.


Comment: Bill Burgess senses some indifference with IFTN. The program is designed for us to save money by not repeating coverages and it’s designed to give a way for the Feds to work with the States. This is not an entitlement process. How many would like to get a simple IFTN program overview? You have received high - level overviews but you don’t understand the basic program. Also, I do not think any part of the program should be implemented unless it is fully funded.


Action 20090203-2: Any member wishing to receive a basic overview of IFTN, contact Vicki Lukas at vlukas@usgs.gov.


Comment: Wendy Blake-Coleman - We need to come up with an overall structure so that data themes of national significance can be managed holistically. Things that can be applied holistically from a theme management point of view. I understand where Cason was coming from, he wanted things to happen, do you ever hear about the CG in any other meetings?  We don’t have governance or representation at the Steering Committee.


Comment: Doug Vandegraft – Vicki, you said the federal government does not need 6 inch imagery? My agency would benefit from 6 inch.


 Vicki Lukas – If FWS needs 6 inch imagery; we need to see this in our requirements document.


Comment: Randy Fusaro - Is there any way to combine CRSP and satellite imagery requirements into IFTN requirements document?


Shirley Hall – Both of those imagery requirements were used in the IFTN requirements survey. We know the information was not comprehensive and we are very concerned, however, we need to know how to better collect the requirements. Accurate and consistent feedback from the agencies is needed.


Geospatial  Line of Business Update – Lew Sanford, FGDC

[Presentation PPT 400KB]

Lew Sanford provided a presentation on the Geo LoB activities and accomplishments of the five Work Groups:

  • Common Service Work Group
  • Geo-enabled Business Work Group
  • Grants and Contracts Work Group
  • Technical Architecture Work Group
  • Lifecycle Management Work Group


The A-16 Supplemental Guidance document provided by the Lifecycle Management Work Group was endorsed by all 22 federal agencies and is currently under OMB review.


Action 20090203-3: The final review of the draft Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Geospatial Profile is due by February 13, 2009. Send comments to lsanford@fgdc.gov.


Action: 20090203-4: A new Chair is needed for the Geospatial Line of Business, Common Services Work Group. Send nominations to lsanford@fgdc.gov.


Action 20090203-5:  Send nominees of those interested in working on a FGDC charter review team. Send nominees to lsanford@fgdc.gov.


Q. Wendy Blake- Coleman- How much do the agencies pay annually for the Coordination Group MOU?


A. The amount varies by agency.


Action 20090203-6 - Send GeoLob Joint Business Case document and include the 2009 priorities and work plans that have been completed to date. lsanford@fgdc.gov.


Alaska DEM Funding and Implementation Plan – Dave Maune, Dewberry

[Presentation 7.3MB] [Handout PDF 4.8MB]

Dave Maune presented an Alaska DEM Funding and Implementation Plan and provided some interesting facts on why is Alaska is different than the rest of the country. Alaska has the worst geodetic and geospatial infrastructure in the country. The maps are smaller in scale; 1:63,360, in which many do not even satisfy the national map accuracy standards. Orthorectification in Alaska also has problems, normally images can be draped over a DEM from NED but this won’t work in Alaska. The NED errors in Alaska are 100’s of meters vertical and 1,000’s of meters horizontal. The Alaska NED has to be corrected as a first step.


Airborne IFSAR is the recommended method of imagery.


Dave would like to communicate with all agencies in an attempt to secure funding. He estimates approximately 55 to 75 million for complete coverage of the State.


Comment: Wendy Blake-Coleman - Have you coordinated with NHD and the watershed boundaries project? At least 25% funding should come from state of Alaska.


Administration Transition – Randy Fusaro, Census


Randy Fusaro presented background information on the administration transition team. DOI had developed papers for the transition team and the Coordination Group had not participated in the writing. The transition team was set up for the purpose of having a group of folks to articulate geospatial issues to the new DOI leadership.

There was discussion and some confusion on whether GeoLob will operate in the future and the role of the Coordination Group.


Comment: Ivan DeLoatch  - The GeoLob will continue to operate until further guidance from OMB. The Coordination Group has a significant role to see that the SAOGI’s are well informed on issues.  The Coordination Group has operation responsibilities and the Steering Committee has policy responsibilities. It is the Coordination Group that usually makes the significant recommendations.


Comment: Rani Balasubramanyam - Will e-gov be re-purposed, renamed or go away? DOJ is happy to pay and are happy to be associated with the Coordination Group and GeoLob and get the most of SmartBuy and other benefits.


NGAC Update – John Mahoney, FGDC


John Mahoney gave a download of the agenda for the National Geospatial Advisory Committee meeting being held on February 4-5 at Hotel Monaco in Alexandria, Virginia.


Comment: Dennis Crow – Individual corporate members associated with the NGAC have been putting their own ideas forward to Congress.


John Mahoney - Many different things have been submitted to the economic stimulus package.

Individuals are allowed to speak on their own and NGAC members have been very careful not to associate their personal or corporate perspectives with endorsement of the NGAC or FGDC.


Economic Stimulus Package- Ivan DeLoatch, FGDC


All agencies have the opportunity to add ideas to the economic stimulus package. We believe the administration should think geospatial is an important caveat. 85% of the house package was place- based recommendation in one way or another. The FGDC addition was specifically about IFTN. We would like you to share with us what your agency submitted.


Comment: Dennis Crow – What was the criteria? We need to coordinate this effort.

Ivan DeLoatch – The broader the federal support, the better. We are not trying to recreate any process, just trying to build upon what was submitted.

Comment: Bill Burgess – any new ideas coming out now  will not get action. This is already a done deal and we let a golden opportunity pass us by. The British have 12 -25% in geospatial tied to their gross nation product.

Comment: John Mahoney – The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and ASPRS are doing a new industry study.

Comment: Donald Draper-Campbell - The conversion to digital television is all geospatially controlled as is cellular services. It is all about elevation and travel times. Many things are placed-based; how to get Harry Potter books in a day, how to mail the 3-D Super bowl glasses to the Safeway grocery store in time for the game.

Comment: Rani Balasubramanyam  – It is useful to have a data call on what geospatial best serves a specific mission and include a dollar allocation. Include the stimulus package decision criteria.


Action: 20090203-8: Send out the analysis spreadsheet prepared by Dan Cotter on the economic stimulus package. Ivan DeLoatch, ideloatch@fgdc.gov, and Ken Shaffer, kshaffer@fgdc.gov


Action: 20090203 -9: Forward any information that the agencies put forward for the economic stimulus package to Ivan DeLoatch, ideloatch@fgdc.gov.


Action 20090203 -10: Send data call with the stimulus package decision criteria to the FDGC Coordination Group representatives. A possible conference call will take place. Ivan DeLoatch, ideloatch@fgdc.gov, and Ken Shaffer, kshaffer@fgdc.gov.


Summary of Actions:

Pat Phillips articulated the current action items for this meeting.


Announcements: Randy Fusaro - The Cultural Standards Work Group is meeting on March 11-13.


Adjourn:



Last Updated: Mar 05, 2009 05:22 PM
Spinner Image