Report of the Subcommittee on Base Cartographic

Data (SBCD) Elevation Focus Group Meeting

1/13/00

FEMA Headquarters, 500 C Street NW, Rm 273

Purpose: This was the 2^nd meeting among FGDC/SBDC agencies that are considering the formation of a federal consortium for elevation related matters. The group met to discuss and hear reactions and comments to the draft charter for a proposed National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP).

Twenty-one representatives from eight Federal agencies attended. It was noted that Department of Agriculture representatives could not attend.

1. Models for the NDEP:

Tom Connolly (USGS) led the meeting by citing the shared missions and similar requirements of the group. He then discussed both the NAPP and NDOP as possible models to emulate. The proposed NDEP charter is almost identical to the NDOP charter and Connolly stated that there was support for an NDOP-like model at the USGS for elevation data. Both are based on the creation and collection of standard products and that this would be a major difference, given the wide range of elevation products, for the NDEP. Although it might be possible to establish elevation data standards they aren't considered crucial to the creation of the NDEP. The proposal would include the creation of a Technical Subcommittee that could consider standards. FEMA stated that they would be submitting a draft standard for Airborne Light Detection and Ranging Systems as part of contracting specifications. Copies were handed out.

Connolly also discussed levels of participation based on resources contributed (full partners, associate partners) and that an MOU may be a requirement. Mention was made of linking steering committee membership to some threshold of resource commitment. Although the proposed Programmatic Subcommittee is envisioned to operate under an NDOP-like approach, the fact that the Steering Committee has oversight argues for a membership of contributors. The idea of ‘associate’ membership, stakeholders who would participate in discussions but not vote, was floated to the group. This was also suggested as a way to handle the anticipated transition from a focus group to a ‘formal’ NDEP. Once 3 or 4 agencies were signatories, the NDEP would officially meet, with all pending members participating as ‘associates’. Details of the criteria for participation TBD at later meetings.

Some concern was expressed about the appropriate organizational level at which an MOU should be signed and the length of time that securing such signatures could take. The general guidance was to select that level of management having authority over resources sufficient to meet the agency’s anticipated role in the proposed consortium. It was also stated that so long as it was perceived by the participants that the objectives were in the best interests of the geospatial community, even slow progress would be meaningful.

***ACTION***: All attendees to consider the NAPP and NDOP models to see which concept best fits their requirements and what they see their role in the NDEP as (level of participation). To be discussed at the March meeting.

***ACTION***: All attendees were asked to circulate the NDEP Charter within their agencies to the appropriate personnel and provide feedback to Connolly by 1/28/00. respective

Some impressions on the models were discussed:

• elevation data is a base layer for which they are pursuing funding

• Timeliness is imperative
• Would like to see standards
• Post storm data requirements
• Would offer data to public
• For concept of inter-agency cooperation in light of Capital Hill scrutiny

• Would rather see NDEP under auspices of FGDC rather that MOU or MOA
• Prefers NDOP-like model rather than a NAPP-like model
• Operates under project-by-project basis
• Sees some standards as a condition for participation
• May be more of a participant at an associate level on the technical side (new shoreline mapping technologies) as opposed to data creator/cooperator
• Asked how different agency requirements would be accounted for within a standard given canopy/bare ground capabilities.

2. The discussion moved to data archiving, licensing, and access issues:

• The NDOP model was cited. USGS as the central repository.
• Sharing data with vendors on licensed data:

1. Repository could hold time delayed data
2. Resampled or degraded data
3. Could be a copy of the vendor's data

NIMA noted that it currently plans to forward shuttle radar data to USGS/EDC for distribution. They also noted that they are constrained with respect to open use of their data although those constraints are loosening.

FEMA's position is there needs to be a central repository with local storage and distribution of data: available to the public.

USGS is in favor of an open DB but realizes new vendors and technologies will require options to deal with each situation.

NGS sees a need to share data for all applications. Mention was made of data ‘mirroring’ and of the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center. It was suggested that coordination occur with NGDC regarding archive and distribution.

NASA's experience with vendor data was that you get what you pay for and that the vendor's are necessarily interested in the sale of their old data. NASA has 5 different agreements wit as many companies. ***ACTION*** to Mike Thomas to provide copies of agreements to participants. NASA's concern was with new technologies and QA/QC of the data from those technologies. NIMA stated they have had similar experiences with vendors and that under a Title 50 license all of DOD has access to their data. This could be expanded to include other agencies.

NOAA questioned the wisdom of placing all eggs (data) into a single basket. Argued for distributed DB.

There is general support for defining data characteristics and/or contract options that can be good compromises between public access and the protection of intellectual property.

The issue of including bathymetric data in NDEP was raised. It was noted that the technologies and processes related to bathymetry may be more mature than emerging topographic data technologies. It was suggested that inclusion of bathymetric data could occur after the topographic structure was created. A suggestion was made to coordinate with the FGDC Bathymetric Subcommittee to facilitate a seamless view for those interested in land/undersea applications.

4. LIDAR data presentation - Paul Bryant gave a presentation on FEMA’s experiences with exploratory LIDAR enhancement of IFSAR and distributed a guideline which FEMA intends to use for LIDAR data acquisitions supporting the National Flood Insurance Program. Feedback was solicited from the group on this guideline. FEMA and NASA are collaborating on $2M worth of tests on LIDAR. Fusing LIDAR and IFSAR has achieved 5m postings accurate to 15cm in the vertical at a cost of about $200/km². Paul offered to make this data available to the group.

***ACTION*** for Bryant to make briefing slides available to the group.

 

5. Vendor day planning

• When: The week of the ASPRS annual meeting in May was suggested. Some argued that this would deny access to non-convention participants.

• Who: ISFAR and LIDAR vendors
• How to contact:

1. CBD announcement
2. RFI - ***ACTION*** to all to forward items to be included in a possible RFI to Connolly.
3. It was proposed that the charter or a whitepaper be drafted to be included with any announcement that was to be sent to vendors.

1. Wrap-up

• It was agreed that the next meeting of the group would be in March.

• NGS offered to hold meeting in Silver Spring.

NSGIC would be offered invitation to attend. . Discussion followed on whether other similar representatives (e.g. NACO) should also be invited. The group perception is that counties and municipalities are currently obtaining high-resolution elevation data and that increased federal dialogue with them may be of mutual benefit.