October 17, 2007 Meeting Minutes and Agenda
AGENDA
Approval of the Sept. 19th meeting minutes – Chair
Presentation on USGS Programs – Dan Walters, USGS
Subcommittee Reports
- Financial – Larry Harwood
- Policy & Marketing – Marilyn Lutz
- Technical
- Orthoimagery Project /Parcel grants – Larry Harwood
- GEOPortal next direction – Christopher Kroot
Standing Subcommittee membership – Chair
Development of Stakeholder Links - Chair
Geolibrary Funding – Group
MEETING MINUTES
Present
William Hanson, Chair
James Page
Marilyn Lutz
Greg Copeland
Gretchen Heldmann ( by phone )
Elizabeth Hertz
Christopher Kroot
Nancy Armentrout
Ken Murchison ( by phone)
Staff
Larry Harwood
Visitors
Dan Walters, US Geological Survey
Carl Nylen, ESRI
Gina Raucci, ESRI
The meeting was called to order at 10:02
1. Approval of the Sept. 19th, 2007 meeting minutes
The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Jim Page moved
to approve the minutes as written. Elizabeth Hertz seconded. The
Board voted unanimously in favor. The motion carried. ( Note: unless
otherwise indicated the Chair abstains from all votes )
2. Presentation on USGS Programs
Dan Walters, Geospatial Liaison for Maine with the U.S. Geological
Survey, gave a talk on the implementation of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI), the National Geospatial Programs Office (NGPO)
and Maine’s opportunities for funding and partnering with the USGS on
projects of mutual interest.
NSDI
The National Spatial Data Infrastructure was created in 1994 by
executive order of President Clinton with the goal of improving quality
and reducing costs related to geographic information, making
geographic data more accessible to the public, increasing the benefits
of using available data and establishing key partnerships with states,
counties, cities, tribal nations, academia and the private sector to
increase data availability. It provides a base or structure of
practices and relationships among data producers and users that
facilitates data sharing and use. The NSDI is also a set of actions and
new ways of accessing, sharing and using geographic data that enables
far more comprehensive analysis of data to help decision-makers choose
the best course of action. The NSDI framework data layers are as
follows: geodetic control, orthoimagery, elevation, transportation,
hydrography, governmental units and cadastral information. The
“building blocks” of the NSDI are described as its clearinghouse or
portal, metadata ( data about data ), the framework data layers,
geodata, standards and partnerships.
NGPO
The geospatial programs for which the USGS has a leadership
responsibility have recently been consolidated into a National
Geospatial Program Office to serve the needs and interests of the
geospatial community throughout the Nation. This realignment brings The
National Map, Geospatial One-Stop, and the Federal Geographic Data
Committee into a single program office. The National Map features
on-line, interactive map services. It provides public access to
high-quality, geospatial data and information from a consortium of
Federal, State, and local partners. The Federal Geographic Data
Committee (FGDC) is an interagency committee that promotes the
coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial
data on a national basis. FGDC metadata for example is a generally
excepted standard for GIS data. The Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) serves as
a public gateway for access to geospatial information and data.
Geospatial One-Stop is one of 24 E-Government initiatives sponsored by
the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to enhance government
efficiency and to improve citizen services.
Partnerships and Funding
The NSDI is looking for any increase in coverage area, scale or content
of data. The focus is now on local stewardship of data by state
governments, that is to say local maintenance and updating data of
interest to both the state and the NSDI. The USGS priorities are
support of the USGS science programs, disaster preparedness, response
& recovery, homeland security and the National Map.
The Geolibrary is already familiar with the program of FGDC Cooperative
Assistance Program (CAP) grants. Some of the of the grants involving
MEGIS and the Geolibrary have been metadata training and
outreach, clearinghouse integration with OpenGIS Services, the
County GIS study and most recently the Strategic & Business Plan
update and a plan for an integrated land records information system.
Dan outlined possible CAP grant opportunities in federal fiscal 08:
• Metadata Trainer and Outreach Assistance
• Best Practices in Geospatial Service Oriented
Architecture
• Fifty States Initiative
• Joint Canadian and United States Spatial Data
Infrastructure Project
• Building data stewardship for The National Map and
the NSDI
• FGDC-Endorsed Standards Implementation Assistance
and Outreach
The USGS ‘Maine communication plan’ is to interact with
stakeholders across the state and to communicate the goals of the state
agency GIS Stakeholders, the Geolibrary and other GIS users in order to
enable USGS to build partnerships in support of the NSDI. As Liaison,
Dan will
• Identify potential Stakeholders
• Attend meeting and conferences to communicate goals
of the Stakeholders, Geolibrary and USGS
• Build partnerships around short and long-term goals
• Inventory current and planned geospatial data and
projects
Q: Will every state have their own Liaison officer?
A: Not yet. The Geospatial Liaisons are all on a par however state or
regional.
Q: What is the relationship between NSGIC and USGS?
A: It is a larger supporting organization. Members of NSGIC include
senior state GIS managers, representatives from federal agencies, local
government, the private sector, academia and other professional
organizations.
Q: Will USGS still be involved in new orthoimagery?
A: The USGS will definitely be in the lead especially with the higher
resolution. The Dept. of Agriculture will be updating the NAIP 1 meter
imagery every 5 years.
Q: Is there a connection between USGS and the National Science
Foundation?
A: There is no direct connection. Some of the programs probably have
overlaping areas. The NSF might be an alternative funding source for
the Geolibrary.
Q: The Geolibrary did not get the CAT 5 grant we applied for. Would we
be successful with a re-application in 08?
A: Probably not a CAT 5 but there are certainly other grants to apply
for.
3. Subcommittee Reports
Financial
There was one change to the financial sheet. The amount expended for
town parcel grants, second round rose to $143,779.00. The amount
encumbered for town parcel grants, second round dropped to $45,935.00
and the total encumbered now is $383,118.45 There was some
discussion about how the parcel data could be updated and if that was
possible from the funding standpoint. It was pointed out that $25,000
has for a long time been held for “standards conformity/data validation
tools”; perhaps it could be applied to parcel updates. Another
suggestion was to develop some added value service for the towns in
return for which they would submit updates. The Chair asked the
Financial Committee to review this matter and return with a
recommendation.
Policy & Marketing
There was no report to make on policy issues. The MOU between MLGIB and
OIT was tabled to the next meeting.
Technical
Orthoimagery & Parcel Grants
There was nothing new to report on the orthoimagery.
The town of Islesboro submitted their parcel data and assessor’s
database file. However they had voted at town meeting not to release
names and addresses in the assessor’s file due to privacy concerns.
After some discussion it was decided that this was allowed in the
standards as written and staff was instructed to pay the bill.
Status on GeoPortal
Christopher Kroot reported that the Technical Committee, reconstituted,
had a conference call last week to discuss the next move on the
GeoPortal . Christopher related that he had spent some time reviewing
fully open source softwares and found them very limited in immediate
functions and betraying an academic origin. It would require a great
deal of programming time to create from these what the Geolibrary needs
for an internet portal.
In conference call, the committee decided that based on the time frame
and available resources the best approach would be to use the
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) GIS Portal Toolkit.
This is a basic portal but has the advantage of “out of the box”
functionality and state agencies have history of working with the
vendor. The appearance of the portal could be easily “branded” to the
Geolibrary. Christopher and colleague Mike Smith (plus ESRI) had spent
about 5 days loading and configuring the ESRI portal kit which was now
basically functional on PC running at the Dept Environmental
Protection. A demonstration would be possible at today’s meeting.
If the Board agrees to the Technical Committee recommendation the next
steps would roughly as follows:
1. Get the portal running on an OIT server
2. Confirm by letter to Dick Thompson, CIO, what resources OIT is
willing to commit to support the portal.
3. Arrange for a dedicated server for the portal software
4. Work out a contract with ESRI and/or make arrangements under one of
the existing contracts with ESRI.
Jim Page moved to accept the GeoPortal recommendation of the Technical
Committee contingent upon compliance with state procurement rules and
for an amount not to exceed $20,000. Ken Murchison seconded. Discussion
on the motion focused on installation, branding and future
customization. It was suggested that based on previous experience the
next contract must be very clear on specific deliverables. Carl Nylen
of ESRI explained some of the details of installation and licensing the
portal toolkit. Any significant future costs will probably be due to
customization and upgrades.
Christopher now gave a brief demonstration of the aforementioned Portal
Toolkit installed at DEP. He opened with a quick look at the Federal
Geospatial One Stop site which was built with the same software. The
prototype portal has a map viewer allows users to browse, navigate, and
query map data; view multiple map services; change projections, and
save map views. The viewer supports OGC WMS, WFS, and WCS services. The
channel editor allows users to create new sub channels, populate and
manage channel content, and create external links. The metadata
harvesting allows users to get metadata from standard metadata
repository protocols. There is a function that allows others to upload
metadata for review and an administration function for review and
certification.
Q: What exactly is the $20k buying?
A: Customization, branding to Geolibrary and training.
Q: How do we know who at OIT is going to be responsible for the portal?
A: That is up to CIO Dick Thompson with whom the Board will have to
have an extensive dialog.
Q: Could we use the Federal GOS instead?
A: Not really because there would be no branding of the Geolibrary and
certain datasets relevant to Maine would not likely be maintained at
the Federal level.
The Chair called for a vote on the motion on the floor. The vote was 8
in favor, none opposed and the Chair abstaining. The motion carried.
4. Standing Subcommittee Membership
The Chair’s object was to reconstitute the standing committees. There
has been significant turnover of membership and a very heavy
workload of late. After some discussion the known members of standing
committees were noted and volunteers asked for to replenish the
membership.
Finance Committee
Bill Hanson - Chair
Jim Page
Dave Blocher
Larry Harwood
Policy Committee
Marilyn Lutz – Chair
Liz Hertz
Nancy Armentrout
Greg Copeland
Bill Hanson
Technical Committee
Christopher Kroot – Chair
Gretchen Heldmann
Ken Murchison
Greg Copeland
Gary Duplisea
Dan Coker
Marilyn Lutz
5. Development of Stakeholder Links
This item was a follow-up to the recent Bar Association meeting on
property title. One Richard Smith of the Bar has been appointed to be
liaison to the Board. On the matter of stakeholders, it was noted that
Dan Walters already has an excellent list already and the Board should
start by selecting from that.
6. Geolibrary Funding
This has been a regular item on the agenda. It was decided that at this
point in time the Financial Committee and not the full Board would be
better suited to investigate funding.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:17
