State GIS Board

Meetings and Minutes

Members

Advisory Panel

Legislation

Standards

---

July 16, 1998

Attending Members
Mr. William Bush - Director, Arkansas Geological Commission
Shelby Johnson - Research Specialist, Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies
Susan Cromwell - Director, Office of Information Technology
Shirley Sandlin - Benton County Assessor
Suzanne Wiley - Tech Analyst, GIS, Spatial Analysis Lab, U of A at Monticello
Phil Schoettlin - Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville
Jim Wells - Wellsco Graphics Solution Center
Ben Kittler - Ben Kittler Surveying
Cecil Davis - DP Director and Alternate for Cathy Mathis, Director, Department of Arkansas Heritage

Guests
Michael Hipp - Director, Department of Information Systems
Karen Howard - DP/GIS Coordinator, Department of Human Services
Jeff Raasch - Multi-agency Wetland Planning Team

---------------------

The meeting was called to order by the chairman.

Announcements

Chairman Bill Bush announced that Tom Webb has resigned from the Board. Mr. Webb has accepted an appointment to another board and cannot serve on two boards at the same time. Since Mr. Webb had been the vice-chairman of the LIB, Mr. Bush opened the floor for nominations to fill that position. Suzanne Wiley was nominated and declined. Shelby Johnson was nominated and agreed to serve. A motion to close the nominations was made by Mr. Bush and was seconded from the floor and passed. Suzanne Wiley moved to accepted Shelby Johnson as vice-chairman, and Shirley Sandlin seconded that motion. Members voted unanimously to accept Shelby Johnson as vice-chairman of the Board.

Land Information Coordinator

The next item discussed was the State Land Information Coordinator. Michael Hipp was invited to join the meeting to discuss this position. Michael explained that DIS was ready to move forward very quickly on processing and posting this position. He asked if the LIB would help draft a job description in order to get the right type of person and added that the position will be a Grade 26. Bill Bush agreed that the LIB would draft a job description. Discussion was held regarding ways to post the position for maximum exposure. Shelby asked where the Coordinator would be housed and Mr. Hipp explained that DIS would provide office space. Susan Cromwell also explained that the position would entail other duties within DIS in addition to the Land Information Coordinator's responsibilities. Suzanne Wiley inquired as to whether the LIB members could be involved in the hiring process and Mr. Hipp said that the Board's assistance would be appreciated. Bill Bush agreed that the LIB would get a job description to Susan Cromwell as soon as possible.

Governor's Working Group on Technology
Michael Hipp also discussed the Governor's Working Group on Technology, which had met for the first time recently. He explained that this is more or less an informal group since the Governor created his own mission rather than a statutory body with this group. There are representatives from private industry, from state agencies, and from universities and colleges and schools. This group will craft legislative initiatives that the Governor will carry forward or support during the session, and Michael felt that the big thing that will come from this group will be related to distance learning. He explained that if there are things that the LIB would like to propose as projects or initiatives, then this Working Group might be of assistance and could support those efforts to the Governor.

State Backbone
Shelby Johnson inquired as to the status of the state backbone and Michael Hipp said that it is looking very good right now. He explained that the Fayetteville line is in place and should be active by September 1. Mr. Hipp also explained that thanks to a partnership with the Department of Education, lines would be ordered soon for the Pine Bluff, Jonesboro, and Arkadelphia and Hope areas.  He said that things are moving faster than was previously expected. He is hoping in the next legislative session to get permanent funding for major lines to make this a stable resource, which will provide less cost to customers. Jim Wells inquired as to whether there has been an assignment of priority outside of the Little Rock to Fayetteville line and Mr. Hipp explained that Pine Bluff will be the second one and the other two lines will follow shortly after that. Mr. Hipp also explained that one of the reasons the new lines were being pushed is to get T1 service to 220 public schools.  

LIB Mission Statement and Report

As the next topic, Mr. Bush raised the subject of the LIB developing a mission statement and writing an annual report as required by legislation. He pointed out that the significance of the annual report is that the legislature will not consider any appropriation bills for the Board unless there is a report filed and that the report is a record of the previous year's activities by the Board. Mr. Bush invited LIB members to draft a mission statement to be sent out to all members for review and Phil Schoettlin and Jim Wells volunteered to work on this. The annual report will be a summary of the minutes of the meetings and is due by the end of December.

Guest Speakers

Next, Susan Cromwell introduced Karen Howard, new chairperson of the GIS Working Group, and also introduced Jeff Raasch from the Multi-agency Wetland Planning Team. Susan also explained that the GIS Working Group has been discussing how to provide information to the LIB for prioritization of projects that which may be advanced by the Board.

Karen Howard, GIS Working Group Liaison
Karen Howard first went over the minutes of the last GIS Working Group. She explained that the GIS Working Group discussed the fact that if the group needed to talk to the LIB regarding any sort of legislative funding, now is the time to do it. That lead to a discussion by the Group of priorities, specifically that of digital data. She explained that Ray Fox of the USGS had been asked how much it would cost to complete the digital data - either in progress or authorized by the USGS on a national level - he communicated the costs to the Group. A consensus was reached of the need for the DOQs to be completed, and next was the need for the Level II DEMs to be completed. The GIS Group talked about the Watershed Development Project as being something that may need funding, as well as the Soils Data. She pointed out that it would take about $300,000* total to get both sets of data completed - the DEMs and the DOQs. A map was passed out that showed the status of the DOQ coverage for Arkansas. 

*($63,900 for DEMs, $291,000 for DOQs = $354,900)

LIB discussion followed regarding mapping, funding possibilities, and alternative ways of managing the state mapping projects, and also watershed projects and soils data. Karen Howard asked whether the LIB should ask the USGS about getting 11-digit boundaries for Arkansas and Bill Bush said he would follow up on that through his agency contacts.

Jim Wells inquired as to what action the LIB needs to take in relation to mapping. Bill Bush stated that the responsibility of the Board in this action is to make sure the DOQs are available for users to build databases and to set standards where everybody can have equal access.  Wiley asked how much money the Board should request for funding to help support NRCS to get the soils data done. Shelby said that the Board should communicate with Charles Fultz at Soils to see what is needed. Bill Bush made the comment that if the Board is going to accelerate the DOQ program, the NCRS might be willing to financially support this as a cooperative program.

Jeff Rasch, The Wetlands Project
Jeff Raasch from the Multi-agency Wetland Planning Team was introduced next. He explained that this Team is made up of the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, the Forestry Commission, the Heritage Commission, the Arkansas Soil & Water Conversation Commission, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. The Highway Department is also always invited to participate. He explained that this team has been working together since 1992 to coordinate and seek grants to do wetland conservation. The state has been broken up into large watersheds and the agency has looked at what is available and where it is available in terms of GIS data. Jeff explained that they have several layers of data the agency works with and that visual soils data and vegetation maps are two layers of data they use. A third layer is based on hydrology from NRI, primarily in the Delta area, and it allows definitions of current areas of wetlands and possible old wetlands in current farmlands.

The Wetlands Planning Team produces reports that look at the watersheds and makes recommendations about what is an appropriate amount of restoration or protection that might need to go with each watershed. This information is passed on to decision makers to allow good choices in terms of watershed protection. The Team works with other agencies, including CAST, in terms of GIS data. In the coming years, most of the Delta area will have been mapped and analyzed, which will provide a significant tool for decision makers. From the standpoint of future needs, his group recognizes the DOQs as being an early layer that is very useful. He explained that what they are doing regarding hydrology, in conjunction with CAST, is looking at river patterns in relation to landscape and water changes. The team is interested in pursuing the DOQ layer for more of the state.

Shelby Johnson, CAST - Data Repository Project
Next, Shelby Johnson spoke to the Board regarding the data repository project. He explained that CAST has submitted a grant proposal for the development of the Seamless Warehouse of Arkansas Geodata (SWAG) - the systems, software and code to support geodata in an online fashion. The data repository project is possible if the SWAG initiative is also funded through the grant proposal. In Act 914 there is a call for a statewide digital geodata repository, and CAST has looked at some other state projects as models.

Some of the objectives for the geodata repository are

• the repository should be easy to use;

• it should be designed to allow for growth;

• the data should be in formats that are easy to use;

• it should be available in projections and datums that are widely used;

• It should comply with the FGDC metadata standards or standards developed by the LIB;

• it should be accessible and capable of being downloaded from the internet and should be able to be distributed to non-internet users;

• existing data in differing formats and structures should be reformatted to be consistent and accessible by users.

 

Tasks that CAST could perform in an archival role would be

• to receive, archive and catalog data;

• check and verify integrity of data submitted to the repository;

• submit reports on data to the LIB;

• ensure that metadata meets FGDC standards and is accessible;

• convert and transform databases to varying software formats to allow wide accessibility.

• create a formal web presence as a front-end to the repository so that it is accessible via the web, 24 hours a day, seven days a week;

• create and maintain an archival catalog of the data and a dictionary.

• coordinate at the state and federal levels, facilitating their data development and submission to the repository;

• provide assistance on downloading or using the repository and provide support to DIS and the LIB on the repository of metadata and distribution issues and link the repositiory FGDC and NSDI and other agencies.

Michael Hipp then discussed the status of the grants that were submitted to DIS and the fact that the grants which had made it through the review process are in the Governor's office for final consideration, including the CAST SWAG proposal.

Jim Wells pointed out that CAST was not supported by the University of Arkansas, except for the director's position. Shelby explained that CAST is supported by grants and research projects and cooperative agreements with state agencies. Jim Wells made the comment that NCRI funding is drying up for efforts like these, which are needed within the state. He pointed out that within the State of Arkansas, it was possible to lose the capabilities available at CAST right now. He also recommended that as the LIB moves forward with overall objectives for the state, funding should be a strategic initiative and that the CAST grant application pending before the Governor would fall within that area for LIB support.

Shelby emphasized that the CAST grant proposal is to develop SWAG and that initiative is to take existing data at the Center, process it into an open format, and make it accessible statewide. However, this is not to perform as a repository. SWAG is to build the code, software, purchase and maintain the systems. He explained that the Center wants to work with the LIB and if the Board has suggestions or changes regarding a data repository, to please inform him. He added that if the Board wants to pursue this with CAST, then a formal proposal would need to be made. Susan Cromwell explained that there is plenty at stake and that the Board should encourage the partnership between U of A, CAST and DIS to move ahead.

Discussion continued regarding avoiding duplication of data across all agencies. CAST would deal with the metadata and standards, but other agencies could be linked through CAST for accessibility. Karen Howard mentioned that discussion had come up in the GIS Working Group that since agencies have such a hard time keeping their own data up to date, that to keep it up on a scheduled basis would be hard to do and having to transfer data to another site as well would be difficult. A suggestion came up that in a metadata catalog there could be pointers out to other large datasets. Jim Wells pointed out that from a repository standpoint this made monetary sense and that from the SWAG perspective, they're moving in the right direction with the right technology. He added that sooner or later the Board will have to address significant needs at municipal and county levels. The technology CAST is talking about will allow accessibility for isolated state agencies and universities in the future. Shelby commented that if the Board feels that accessibility should be an important standard, that this could be added to the repository proposal.  

Jim Wells and Bill Bush asked if Shelby could provide more detailed information regarding the proposed data repository, which would cover the stages of development, priorities, and estimated costs.  Shelby agreed that he could provide this to the Board.

Karen Howard commented that the SWAG funding would have to precede the proposal to build a repository. Bill Bush said he would speak with Michael Hipp to get some support in to get the CAST grant proposal approved. Jim Wells suggested that the Board members make some phone calls to get some support for the grant.

(Note: The estimated cost for a repository at CAST is around $202,000.)

State Land Information Coordinator

At this point, Bill Bush moved back to the topic of the State Land Information Coordinator, and he mentioned that a job description was needed quickly. He offered to work up a draft to be distributed to the members for review and suggestions so that it could be given to Susan Cromwell as soon as possible to begin the job recruitment process. He pointed out that Michael Hipp would be responsible for actually hiring the person, but that the Board members could be in on the interview process, and also that the Board members could be very helpful in assisting with this effort. It was pointed out that since this position will be a Grade 26., which should attract the best possible candidates.

Shelby Johnson passed out information that Tom Webb compiled for the Board regarding job duties for a geodetic advisor. Shelby also pointed out that the Board had been under the impression that NGS was no longer co-supporting the geodetic advisor positions in the states but explained that the NGS is now supporting that program. Bill Bush pointed out that the average salary is $44,000 for a state geodetic advisor and that are 20-some states that have that type of position. Mr. Webb had estimated the cost of support equipment as a first-year, one-time expense of about $50,000. Mr. Bush and the State Surveyor at the Geological Commission are exploring the job description and costs of a state geodetic advisor for Arkansas.

Final Comments

Karen Howard asked if the Board had any issues she need to carry to the next GIS Working Group meeting. Shelby felt that one important thing the GIS Working Group could do is give support to the SWAG grant that is before the Governor.

Bill Bush proposed that the next meeting occur on August 20, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., in the DIS offices at One Capitol Mall, 3^rd Floor, in Little Rock, and this date was agreed upon.

Shelby Johnson also let the members know about an FGDC conference in Kansas about standards. There was discussion about someone going to the conference and Shelby said he was going to try to attend. Suzanne Wiley suggested that the LIB encourage the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to also send a representative.  Jim Wells volunteered to follow up with his contacts at the Highway Department regarding this, especially in light of the fact that the AHTD is studying the implementation of GIS applications in several areas.

Shelby also brought up the fact that the GIS Forum group had not met recently and new elections were needed, and he added that the next major Forum conference needs to be planned. He suggested that the Forum members and the GIS Working Group members should meet together. Suzanne Wiley agreed that this would be a good idea.

The meeting was adjourned.