|
|
IGC Meeting Minutes
October 7,
2004  |
|
Basement Conference Room, LBJ Building, Boise
|
|
|
|
Call to Order
|
|
Committee Chairman Jonathan Perry, Bureau of Homeland
Security, called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
|
|
|
|
Attendance:
|
|
Members/Designates Present:
|
|
Nathan Bentley, ITRMC Staff; Lanie Paquin Boler, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
(designate); Janet Cheney, Bonneville County (designate); Linda Davis,
Department of Water Resources; Tracy Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey; Nancy
Glenn, Idaho State University; Dennis Hill, City of Pocatello; Mike McDowell,
Kootenai County; Jonathan Perry, Bureau of Homeland Security; Frank Roberts,
Coeur d'Alene Tribe (via phone)
|
|
|
|
Members Absent:
|
|
Mike Beaty, USDI Bureau of Reclamation; Dr. Charles Bolles, Idaho State Library;
Senator Hal Bunderson, Idaho State Senate; Bart Butterfield, Department of Fish
and Game; Sean Harwood, USDA Forest Service; Craig Rindlisbacher, Madison
County/City of Rexburg; Two open positions (public utilities/private business
representatives)
|
|
|
|
Others Present:
|
|
Sheldon Bluestein, Ada County; Stephen Cox, Department of Lands; Gene Dana, U.S.
Geological Survey; Emily Gales, ITRMC Staff; Bruce Godfrey, University of Idaho
Library; Dan P. Jensen, City of Idaho Falls; Bridgette Krawczak, U.S. Geological
Survey; Jeff Servatius, State Tax Commission; Bruce Tuttle, Department of Water
Resources
|
|
|
|
Approval of Minutes
|
|
A motion was moved and seconded to approve the June 10, 2004, Idaho Geospatial
Committee meeting minutes.
|
|
|
|
County Mapping Survey
|
|
Per Nathan Bentley, ITRMC Staff, the State Tax Commission (STC) performed a
survey of what was being done digitally across the state. He highlighted a few
changes that had occurred since the previous survey was performed. Per Mike
McDowell, Kootenai County and chair of the Idaho Association of County Assessors
Mapping Committee, a survey needed to be done for a number of reasons. The
primary push of the mapping committee was going to be to update and publish the
assessor's mapping manual in an up-to-date environment, and to identify the
resources and processes needed to conduct the work the assessor's were required
to do. The goal was publish the manual in three different formats (paper,
compact disc, STC website). Sheldon Bluestein, Ada County, and others discussed
the manual further. In response to a question from Nathan, Mike advised outreach
to/solicitation of input from other organizations was not currently a part of
the plan, but was not unreasonable. Nathan requested the manual be presented to
the IGC when complete. It was expected a final draft would be introduced to the
Association of County Assessors (Assessor's Association) for consideration in
February 2005. Attendees then recognized Mike for his leadership on the effort.
There was brief discussion regarding accessibility of the information contained
in the manual to non-assessors. Sheldon gave a brief overview of how some
counties were handling cadastral data, as well as Oregon's model. Jonathan
announced two Oregon representatives would be at the Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI) seminar entitled "Working with Labels and
Annotation Using ArcGIS 9" on October 26, and offered to stay thru the 27th
to meet with anyone interested in discussing cadastral land records-related data
models, geodatabase migration, etc. This was discussed further, as well as
additional conversation regarding geodatabases.
|
|
|
|
Privacy from Cadastral TWG - follow-up to
"Mike Ciscell Paper"
|
|
Michael Ciscell, Department of Water Resources, presented to the Information
Technology Resource Management Council (ITRMC) at its August meeting on draft
recommendations concerning personal information and parcel data prepared by
members of the IGC Cadastral and Geodetic Control Technical Working Group. There
was concern that the information had not been presented to the IGC; and it was
suggested geographic information systems (GIS) issues should be brought before
the IGC for review prior to being introduced to ITRMC. Mike advised the
recommendations had been presented to and adopted (as written) by the Assessor's
Association. He mentioned that about a month ago, Kootenai County received a
request for an interpretation of the section of Idaho Code that limited the
ability of counties to use their databases for mailing or solicitation lists
outside of government. Mike talked about the law further, advising some of the
wording could be interpreted differently today than it was when the code was
originally written. He strongly suspected various parties interpreted it
differently, also. There was additional discussion on the issue.
|
|
|
|
AmericaView
|
|
Bruce Godfrey, ISU, provided some background information on AmericaView (AV)
(refer to handouts: idaho.gov/itrmc/committees/igc/minutes/m041007/av-overview.pdf
and idaho.gov/itrmc/committees/igc/minutes/m041007/av-bylaws.pdf).
He then solicited feedback on whether the state should pursue an affiliate
membership with the organization (refer to handout: idaho.gov/itrmc/committees/igc/minutes/m041007/av-affiliatememberapp.pdf).
Bruce continued with a brief explanation of AV's membership levels. He asked
that committee members consider how to proceed and respond at the next IGC
meeting. Nancy Glenn, ISU, added that a strong consortium (of universities;
local, state, and federal governments; and private organizations), effort, and
leadership were needed in order to be successful at becoming an AV affiliate
member. She also provided more information about AV memberships. Responding to a
question from Nathan, Nancy assured the group that Idaho Space Grant Consortium
was not in competition with AV. There was more discussion on the overall issue
of future possibilities with respect to remote sensing. Nancy urged the
committee members to e-mail her and/or Bruce if their organization was
interested in participating in the long-term effort. Additionally, Terry Crooks
of AV was available via phone or e-mail. Nancy then spoke a bit on some possible
benefits of an AV membership. Then, the group talked about possible state
participants and 'member of record.'
|
|
|
|
IGC Executive Order set to expire on April 13,
2005
|
|
Following introductions, Jonathan reviewed the charge of the IGC as outlined in
Executive Order 2001-07 (idaho.gov/gov/mediacenter/execorders/eo01/eo_2001_07.htm).
He asked the group how the committee was doing in fulfilling that charge. It was
pointed out that each member participated for his or her own particular reasons,
and were more active when issues affected them. Also, the committee was the only
avenue the GIS community had for input to the Legislature. Critical issues to be
brought before the Legislature or ITRMC, said Tracy Fuller of the U.S.
Geological Survey, could be funneled through IGC member Senator Hal Bunderson.
One attendee stated IGC provided structure for the state's GIS community, but
was concerned with the disproportionate number of non-state agency
representatives. Jonathan called attention to the fact that state agencies had
not been very aggressive in following through with any of the issues raised by
the IGC. Someone commented that there was really no other forum for bringing
together Idaho local, state, and federal government GIS representatives.
Further, it was critical to keep the communication and discussion open; and
having an outlet through ITRMC and Senator Bunderson was a good tool. He
continued by suggesting there should be greater focus on channeling appropriate
communications through the IGC.
Jonathan invited the group to offer ways in which the executive order could
be improved. Nathan suggested a small working group be formed to solicit input
from the GIS community and review the document. Other members supported this
idea, and there was some discussion regarding outreach and awareness. He advised
the U.S. Census Bureau had requested a position on the IGC, and other federal
groups expressed interest in participating, as well. The revised order, advised
Nathan, should be complete by the end of January 2005. The Idaho State Library's
participation and interest was talked about briefly. Potential work group
members were considered, and Nathan advised he would send an
e-mail out that evening about holding a meeting the following week. A draft or
recommendations would be submitted at the next IGC meeting.
The amount of recent technical working group activity was talked about
shortly.
|
|
|
|
Homeland Security
|
|
Jonathan reviewed some information he, Nathan, and Tracy had received at the
National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) 2004 Annual Conference in
mid-September. The meeting focused a great deal on homeland security. In fact, a
lot of states were designating homeland security as their primary GIS agency.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was pushing its flood map
modernization, and local governments would probably be hearing more about it. In
Idaho, there was only one fully digital flood map - Ada County, Boise River. The
others (digital) were scanned. Jonathan explained FEMA was hoping to get at
least one more level of sophistication in its digital maps (flood areas only,
for the entire country) by 2007. There was more discussion on this. Jonathan
continued, advising FEMA had developed a new modeling program, HAZUS-MH (hazards
U.S. - multi-hazard), which contained models for estimating potential losses
from earthquakes, floods, and hurricane winds. (HAZUS-MH was modeled after HAZUS,
which only dealt with earthquakes.) State and especially local governments were
encouraged to participate. More discussion followed.
FEMA also had two online hazards mapping websites (hazards.fema.gov
and hazardmaps.gov).
Michigan was synchronizing all state GIS data through its county emergency
operations centers, and developing a cadre of GIS professionals. Jonathan
continued with some logistics.
Indiana was likely the most advanced state Jonathan had seen, he said. Its
number-one homeland security goal was to build an integrated complimentary
interoperable statewide GIS for prevention of terrorist-type events. This was
very important from a homeland security perspective. He continued with some
details.
Minnesota, Utah, and Massachusetts had all been developing GIS in their K-12
classrooms. Additionally, Utah and Minnesota were making it a part of the
statewide curriculum.
Jonathan mentioned 80% of homeland security funding received from the federal
government had to be distributed to local governments. The other 20% was for
state government. He believed the Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security director
actually gave 90% to local communities. A conversation on obtaining grants
occurred. The importance of recovery measures, specifically cataloging, was
pointed out. Per Jonathan, local GIS representatives needed to contact their
first responders (fire) and 911 committee regarding the benefits of GIS. Also,
county commissioners needed to be convinced before the state was approached.
These steps could help in obtaining a good deal of funding. He indicated the
Indiana GIS Initiative website, in.gov/ingisi,
had some good wording about supporting homeland security at the local level.
Added Nathan, GIS was included as a fundable line item in the approved homeland
security funding section of the 2004 state budget. Jonathan advised he was
working on obtaining funding at the state level. There was more discussion.
Jonathan mentioned the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was also reaching
out to tribal governments. There was some discussion on how tribes could obtain
homeland security funding.
|
|
|
|
NAIP Update
|
|
Nathan provided an update on the status of the U.S. Farm Service Agency's
National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) in Idaho. The flights were complete.
He had 20 compressed county mosaics (CCMs) including areas in eastern, southern,
and northern Idaho. The CCMs were preliminary data to be used at the state's own
discretion. Though, NAIP representatives recommended the state only use the CCMs
for light review, as they were subject to change. Copies were available from
Nathan. He provided more details about the imagery. CCMs for the entire state
should be available by the middle of November. It was anticipated the Digital
Orthophoto Quarter-Quadrangles (DOQQs) would be received by the end of December.
|
|
|
|
NDOP Overview
|
|
Nathan advised this was the first opportunity the state had to host the
bi-annual meeting of the National Digital Orthophoto Program (NDOP) Steering
Committee. He reviewed meeting topics and participants. Nathan represented the
National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) at the meeting, which was
held October 5-7.
|
|
|
|
Single-edition Quads Twin Falls Forest service area Nov
29 - Dec 1
|
|
Per Nathan, the USDA Forest Service district was holding a three-day meeting in
Twin Falls to review the single-edition quadrangles (SEQ) process and to review
what data would be updated. Local governments were being invited to attend.
Nathan talked more on the Forest Service's plans with SEQs in Idaho.
|
|
|
|
USGS Projects - New/Proposed projects
|
|
Tracy advised state agency proposals were submitted to plan what the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) National Mapping Division would do over the coming
year. Idaho favored fairly well in the initial cut.
|
|
|
|
Do we need to have IGUM?
|
|
One attendee suggested perhaps the Idaho Geospatial Users' Meeting (IGUM) could
be held at the end of the 2005 Intermountain GIS Users' Conference (sponsored by
the Northern Rockies Chapter of the Urban-Regional Information Systems
Association, URISA) to be held in April 2005, if time permitted. Said Nathan,
offline comments received supported this suggestion, and indicated that state
agency resources were drained in years when Idaho was host to the Intermountain
GIS Users' Conference and an Arc users conference. Further, he did not have time
to produce an IGUM comparable to those in past years. He then solicited input
from other attendees, and there was some discussion. As a side note, he
mentioned there was ITRMC interest in the development of a GIS portal linked
from the state homepage. There seemed to be consensus regarding holding IGUM in
conjunction with the April conference. Agencies involved in GIS were encouraged
to submit an end-of-year report to Jonathan for inclusion in the IGC's annual
report to ITRMC.
|
|
|
|
Next Meeting
|
|
It was decided the next meeting would be held on December 2, 2004.
|
|
|
|
Adjourn
|
|
Jonathan adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m.
|
|
|
|
![[]](/itrmc/media/blkcir_top.gif){kind=small}
![[]](/itrmc/media/blkcir_mid.gif){kind=small}
![[]](/itrmc/media/blkcir_bottom.gif){kind=small}
