Washington Cadastral Framework Partner Meeting Minutes
June 15, 1999
Room 172 - Natural Resource Building Q:\docs\CadastreFW\Project Mgt\Communications\mtg990615minutes.wpd
1. Greg Tudor, WADNR
2. Carrie Wolfe, WADNR
3. Debra Ivers, WADFW
4. Susan Peterson, WADFW
5. George Spencer, WSDOT
6. Karl Herzog, IAC
7. Dave Steele, WADNR
8. Larry Holmes, BLM
9. Frank Fischer, WADNR
10. Bob Carl, Clallam County
11. Steve Kimsey, WADNR
12. Tim Young, WADNR
13. Jeff Devitt, WADNR (contractor)
14. Kevin Kozak, WADNR
Project Status: Greg indicated that the last whole partnership meeting was held on November 18, 1999. Since then, approximately monthly Snohomish County Pilot meetings have been taking place to test and develop a means of integrating partner data to the Framework database. Conversion of WADNR cadastral data to the new model is complete. Conversion of BLM, Snohomish County, and WADNR aquatic cadastral data is currently in testing stage. Within the pilot effort, technical work has focused on trying to minimize the workload on both the data provider and the data integrator. A flat file data transfer standard has been developed for the main survey components of the model. ESRI shape files will be used for transferring the spatial data. The technical project team has been developing AMLs to format partner data into the transfer standard. These can be used as examples for future integration. The procedures are not yet developed and no work has been done on check-out/check-in or notification components to the process. Evaluation of the project workload left to complete is underway to determine if a grant project extension request will be required.
Project Deliverables: Greg passed out a Project Deliverables summary sheet. The group discussed the required grant deliverables and the other identified deliverables and prioritized those left to complete. Partner contribution agreement/plan, long term funding proposal, and state integration plan/recommendations came out as top priority. Second priority included partner data integration documentation and training. Third priority included data update and conflict notification, check-in/check-out procedures and data project area display and information.
Project Funding/Budget: Greg went over original estimated and actual funding and expenditures to date. The project is under budget, but also underfunded. The DNR is looking to make up the loss of resource management funding (based on the slumping timber market) from partners. The project needs to get complete reporting of partner in-kind contributions to match grant requirements, and also needs additional cash contributions to pay for software development and database administration or in-kind software development time.
Funding for continued support of the framework database has not been allocated for the project. Greg estimated that $1000/month would support the Cadastral Framework data distribution role (includes things like database administration, network administration, software and hardware upgrades, maintenance of applications, and backup system). This does not include support for the data integration role. The data integration role may require a full time employee from WADNR and BLM and a quarter time employee from counties. Dave Steele indicated that he could try to build in an extra staff person for next biennium (2001-03). Larry Holmes indicated that BLM is hopeful that they will be able to get at least as much funding next fiscal year as they've had this fiscal year. However, those are special project dollars rather than stable GCDB funding.
Long Term Support Plan Discussion: Karl Herzog, from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC), talked to the group about the Public Lands Inventory Project (PLIP). This has been an effort to inventory all public lands in Washington. The IAC was instructed to build a database that could be updated in the future. They looked into the possibility of building a GIS database out of the information they collected, but found that it was not feasible. Instead, they have built a tabular database. There are approximately 1700 public agencies within Washington. Out of those, IAC has received approximately 1000 data survey responses. Many data issues surfaced throughout the process. A Data Reporting Committee was formed in order to develop some recommendations for future public land inventory needs. Carrie Wolfe and Greg Tudor participated in the Data Reporting Committee. Preliminary support of the Cadastral Framework was identified as a recommendation. The IAC will be reporting back to the legislature at the next session (year 2000).
The PLIP report and recommendations create an important opportunity for the Cadastral Framework. Carrie passed out a DRAFT document that provided a two year goal and associated objectives with a focus on building up the land survey and public ownership portions of the Cadastral Framework. She reviewed the document with the group and asked for feedback. She indicated that if this seemed to be a good direction to the partners, a potential budget package could be developed based on the goal and objectives. The group agreed that it made sense to align with this opportunity and move in this direction. A tenth objective was added to establish a funding mechanism for support of the Cadastral Framework Data Integrator role. The group also suggested using, or amending, existing mandates to require large landholding state agencies to provide and maintain GIS based ownership and land survey information to the Cadastral Framework.
Action Item: Carrie and Greg will continue to work with others to develop the Cadastral Framework 2 year strategic direction and potential budget package proposal. Additionally the parcel component will be added to the cadastral transfer profile in order to facilitate this future direction.
Partnership Agreement: Greg indicated that the a final Cadastral Framework Partnership Agreement was sent up for signature at WADNR. Carrie asked the group if they wanted to go over any portion of the document. Bob asked if more specific needs from counties and other data providing partners could be identified in the Agreement. The group felt it would be appropriate to add an addendum or attachment of the mandatory and optional data elements in the Cadastral Transfer Profile and reference it in the Agreement. The suggestion was also made to draft a state integration plan that outlines assistance in preparing partners for contributing data to the Framework, the partner commitment (Agreement), partner metadata requirements, etc.
Action Item: Greg will work to draft a state integration plan for the Cadastral Framework and will circulate it for review before the next Cadastral Partner meeting in August.
National Integrated Lands System (NILS): Greg briefly discussed the NILS project to develop cadastral object classes and editing software for ARC 8.1 based on the FGDC Cadastral Data Content Standards. Greg will be participating in the near term as the Washington/PNW Parcel Consortium representative. Their first meeting will be held the week of June 22, 1999 to June 15, 1999.
Technical Issues: Several members of the technical development team gave presentations and led discussions in the afternoon session. Jeff Devitt presented a transfer standard summary document titled Survey Data Transfer Method to the group. He explained the general process involved with transferring data to and from the Framework database and asked for feedback from the group. The document was produced as a result of the Snohomish County pilot effort to develop a means to integrate partner data to and from the Framework. He talked about some different options for the partner data update process. Kevin Kozak, from DNR Aquatic Resources Division, gave a presentation of the process that he went through to use the transfer standard to convert the aquatic data to the Cadastral Framework model. Tim Young, another member of the technical development team, led a discussion on some options for implementing a Framework integration database. One option would be to have both a Framework Production/Distribution database and a Framework Integration database. Perhaps a more advantageous option would be to store only one Framework database that provides both functions. The single Framework database would have start dates that could be "turned on" when data was "accepted" as an update to the Framework. A data retirement system would need to be worked out in order to avoid continual growth, but historical views of data would also be possible with this approach.
Business Processes: Greg handed out a document on proposed Internet integration business processes. It was developed based on the work of the Snohomish County pilot effort. There was some discussion about the Professional Land Surveyor qualifications identified in the document for updates to legal area descriptions, boundaries, corners, and geodetic control. The group decided that these qualifications were probably appropriate for the corners and geodedic control, but that exceptions may be needed for the legal area descriptions and boundary data. Dave Steele suggested the possibility of DNR/BLM providing some oversight to counties with no qualified survey staff. Approximately 10 counties have a qualified surveyor. The other 29 counties do not have a qualified surveyor. It was noted that there would be no qualification limit on original data population elements to the Framework database.
Next Meeting: The next partner meeting will be held in mid August. Greg will try to schedule it on the 18th or 20th which would be the day before or after the quarterly Framework Management Group meeting.