Minor change to the charter, since we will be going
to a quarterly meeting schedule, Tod Dabolt volunteered
to be the co-chair of the committee. The committee
unanimously agreed to appoint Tod Dabolt to co-chair.
Action: submit the co-chair addition
by the subcommittee parent organizations to get
their approval on the change.
(T. Dewald) we may need to update the reference to
breaking a voting tie. (K. Lins) two chairs can’t
break a tie, typically a 2/3 majority forum. Maybe we
don’t need the 2nd sentence, if 2/3 makes a decision
then there will be no tie.
Action: The charter will reexamine
the co-chair language and incorporate the necessary
updates in the charter.
(B. Pierce) since we will be moving to a more frequent
meeting schedule, we will need to update the Website
Membership organizations and representatives to ensure
we have active members.
(T. Dewald) observation on page 3, 2nd sentence that
says a representative of water resources division
will be the chair, this is fine for now, but at some
point in the future we may need to change. Also, the
word Hydrologist makes it to specific; maybe we should
broaden the description to a water resource background.
2. Subcommittee objectives for FY06
(T. Dabolt) some of the objectives are taken right from
the charter, the one that is highest priority as a result
of Katrina is to focus on federal collaboration. I think
that Water Spatial Data concepts is an over arching goal
and objective, we need too pursue tightening our coordinating
efforts around national spatial datasets in an interoperable
environment or at least make them available in a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA).
For example, Bob reached out to the Corp for assistance
with dams and navigation waterways and how those relate
to our other datasets.
(C. Clarke) I would like to know where we fit into
the ArcHydro model, I want to know so I can avoid duplication
efforts and it could be a way to leverage resources.
(K. Lins) are you saying that we need to consider ArcHyrdro
as the framework for an embraced model.
(C. Clarke) I’m not saying that, but the ArcHydro
model is the first image that comes to mind, and I would
just like to know where NRCS
fits into that model. We need to figure out how to pull
the pieces together and create a model for real analysis
and problem solving. (B. Pierce) Watershed Boundary
Date Sets (WBD),
National Elevation Data Sets (NED),
and National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD)
are definitely placeholders within the model. (D. Farrow)
does the model include marine components? (T. Dabolt)
not really, the model is heavily focused on networks,
not estuaries or coastal environments. I have some concerns
about ArcHydro; this is not the only logic model for
looking at spatial water data. (W. Blake-Coleman) it
would be great if NOAA
could provide marine and estuary models and maybe we
could use these as a starting point for coastal waters.
(D. Farrow) NOAA
is heavily focused on ecosystems based management and
that’s why we wanted to update the coastal framework
Office of Reseach and Development (ORD) historically
has done a lot of coastal work, but collaboration has
been missing. Our big thing is that we want to make
sure we fit into the National Spatial Data Infrastructure
and ArcHydro model so we can begin to link up land,
water, and coastal datasets.
Action: (D. Farrow) will send some
one pagers explaining the update process for the coastal
(T. Dabolt) we also need to see where we fit within
the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Geospatial Profile.
(K. Lins) Perhaps we need a paper on our data and how
we fit into the ArcHydro model. (K. Roth) do it from
the conceptual level discussion of network, because
D. Maidment spent a lot of time on ArcHydro. The committee
will revisit this topic during the next subcommittee
(C. Clarke) I would like us to come up with a common
vision and direction that can be shared with others
that want to join our committee. We would like a clear
picture for where NRCS is contributing and leveraging resources for benefiting the community.
(T. Dabolt) could you clarify this further? (C. Clarke)
it’s often times difficult to understand the relationship
between these datasets (WBD,
we need to make sure we leverage the overall picture.
We need a clear vision in plain English that can be
presented to all agencies. (K. Kirby) OMB would love
to see a clear picture of joint performance, basically
showing that all the agencies involved have joint performance
measures that are contributing to the entire process.
(T. Dabolt) we can do this collaboratively and dictate
our future together, knowledge of the collective is
a powerful voice of reason. (W. Blake-Coleman) the $10k
that was put forth by EPA
is committed to a document
(T. Dabolt) another 06’ objective should involve
reaching out to some of the folks on the ground, user
communities, states, local, and private to help inform
our direction. (D. Farrow) I think that is a great idea,
we could reach out to the Texas Water Development board
or the WI Regional Planning Council. (K. Roth) FL conducted
several presentations on the use of ArcHydro during
the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) conference; perhaps we should contact them
for additional insight.
Action: the subcommittee members will
send 06’ objective ideas to T. Dabolt and he will
try to engage interest and support from other groups.
3. WBD Update and Management Discussion
(K. Lins) handed out the WBD progress report for committee
review. The ultimate goal of the report is to provide
a status update on where we are in the process and on
funding. EPA was generous with putting forth the funding
to get the job done. We have identified a need for an
increased management role for the field workers.
3.2 Charter for a WBD Steering Committee
(K. Lins) Presented a c proposed charter for a WBD
Steering Committee, as a subgroup of the Subcommittee
on Spatial Water Data (SSWD).
On the last page is a conceptual diagram showing that
subcommittee reports to Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
and Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI).
Can we endorse this in this subcommittee? (T. Dabolt)
can you describe the role of PM? (K. Lins) we need a
set of mangers to collaborate with and give guidance
to ground workers, they need to know the technical details
and filter that back to ground work.
(C. Clarke). USGS
will be the lead steward for WBD activities. USGS
will manage and update the standard and be in responsible
for data management and architecture. In addition, NRCS
funded tool development with Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), and NRCS
will step up to provide training. NRCS
is engaged in contracts and will continue to provide
management and oversight. The goal is to get this charter
reviewed and approved by the subcommittee and FGDC.
Our subcommittee on Spatial Water Data has the ability
to have a subgroup for one year and if goes longer then
we have to take it to the ACWI to continue more than
Action: (C. Clarke) will capture review
comments and edits on the charter during the update
process. The final product will be sent to B. Pierce
and T. Dabolt two weeks from today.
(T. Dewald) we need to update the termination clause
on page 3 of the charter to reflect the one year deadline.
In addition, on page 2 under responsibilities, we
need to think about item J. Data maintenance and refresh
is a big issue, I think we need to say a little more
here, we should think about developing a process for
3.3 WBD Standard
(K. Roth) we outlined a standard from the meeting
a couple days back, that’s currently at FGDC
as the proposed standard. We need to focus on watershed
granularity issues at the ground level, so should
we entertain getting into some detail with spatial
data transfer standards. What’s the standard
way of transferring that, what extent should we start
developing or capturing a pilgment ????? what’s
this? data standard. We decided for time being to
side line this issue and get back to the purpose of
the standard, but at some point in time we need to
(B. Pierce) let me draw you a visual representation.
We will have a main piece focused on looking at the
code name with annexes hanging of the basic standards
of code names. This system will provide us with a
way to go forward as standards change, for example
guidelines would be an annex. Acreage numbers would
lie in the annex, same as before but now references
6 levels instead of 4. This will go out for committee
review. (T. Dabolt) so you don’t have to republish
every time a change occurs.
(W. Blake-Coleman) we talked about releasing the guidelines
for technical specifications can that then be an annex.
(K. Kirby) absolutely and that’s exactly the
sequence, it would enable getting the over arching
standard on the deck much quicker and have technical
specifications ahead time.
(C. Clarke) at no time has this gone through a FGDC
process. (K. Lins) we tell states to comply with guidelines,
I’m concerned that annex guidelines will be
interpreted as state guidance only – not the
Action: (K. Kirby) given the aggressive
schedules that were juggling, I would like to propose
a follow up meeting with core individuals for more
4. Hurricane Response
(Dan Farrow) NOAA was pulled into the Gulf alliance
and Gulf restoration effort. The Gulf Alliance is on
of the actions from the five state gulf governors meeting,
the alliance is focused on regional Gulf issues, mostly
environmental. The feds are suppose to come together
and work to support priority needs identified by alliance.
Five major issues identified from the 5 Gulf States:
nutrients, water quality, wetlands restoration and characterization,
habitat characterization, and education. NOAA currently
has a data explorer search engine served up to GeoSpatial One-Step (GOS).
(B. Pierce) you know we have Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for the Gulf up and
running out of GOS. (D. Farrow) at some point in time
we need to focus on that, but right now we are mainly
focused on supporting the 5 regional activities.
Action: D. Farrow will send out some additional
material related to the Gulf alliance efforts.