#NSGICMidyear: Congressional Research Service Briefing

Paul Schirle and Jan Johansson of Congressional Research Service (arm of the Library of Congress) spoke to us about that organization. It was founded in 1914 and has about 700 people who offer nonpartisan info in timely fashion. (Sometimes read live on TV via Blackberry!) We support Congress throughout a bill’s life cycle. Sometimes we can’t be authoritative so we don’t provide an answer.

CRS launched a GIS in 2009 to do spatial analysis for Congress (from simple to complex). Congress likes geospatial analysis because it helps them understand, reveals consequences/impacts that might be otherwise concealed, helps them relate their work back to their constituencies.

Some examples of what CRS does (faked up to maintain confidentiality): A bill has geography but no map. We can overlay data on a map to find out what counties are impacted. We can bring in data from databases. Ranking, then mapping geographies.

Challenges CRS faces: hundreds of requests, tight deadlines, unfamiliar datasets, unique questions, deal with all levels of geography, comparing domestic and international data.

Advantages of state and local data to Congress:

- Get best, most up do date data, details of creations, etc.
- Statewide clearninghouses with standardized data is immediately useful
- State Clearinghouses can help us: help us find it, assure authoritativeness, make it easier to do nationwide analysis, preservation and maintenance of data

Conclusions:

- Congress doesn’t know to ask about parcel level data, but there are issues of privacy
- Clearinghouses are important to us and thus to you since they enable better decisions
- We want to connect to your authoritative data for redoing analyses over time

Q&A (paraphrased)

Q: How can you help us advocate to Congress.
A: Not really our role; we respond to Congresses requests. But recent reports (GIS Issues and Challenges (pdf, Issues Regarding a National Land Parcel Database (pdf) are helping them realize the value. (Szolt Nagy: with this info you can tell your Congresspeople the value of data to his or her work!)

Q: How do you know when data is authoritative? How do you/we archive for 15 years when technology changes?
A: Authoritativeness is really hard - we look at: methodology to create it, “test the data against itself,” have our specialists have a look. Also look to metadata, back to the source person - though this is time consuming. Try to avoid aggregators (sorry Geocommons!) Archiving is a challenge - we hope to find solutions so we can make a case that Fed should archive it when states can’t anymore. See also: GeoMapp archiving project.

#NSGICMidyear: FCC Update/Broadband Mapping

Mike Byrne (ex GIO from California) is now GIO for the Federal Communications Commission. He provided an update on what’s going on at FCC.

The FCC website will be updated (beta site); it’s not too great now. FCC is partnering with National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on broadband efforts focusing on data integration/validation. A set of crowdsourcing tools will go live tomorrow (Tuesday, hopefully) to find speed testing (two different tests) and note if you do/don’t have broadband access. It’ll be available for iPhone/Android, too.  It’ll be at broadband.gov. Data will come in to FCC, be geododed and be part of its data sources. We want to see if this is a valuable way to collect data.

Also coming: a spectrum viewer (search by license, frequency, by geography etc.) will yield maps and lists of results. This is part of the FCC’s transparency efforts.

Anne Neville of NTIA then spoke to the state of the broadband grants.

NTIA has announced 54 out of 56 grants for more than $100 million, 75%/25% mapping to planning. Everyone is funded for two years of data collection, verification and display.

She addressed some issues raised in recent days: The display part will be done in connection with the FCC and will be part of your grant. We need to spend time sharing information about how to drive users to the state crowdsourcing website. There’s a lot of flexibility (uncommon in grants) because we didn’t have a lot of time to put together the plan. National Map due Feb 2011, but funds need to be allocated by Sept 2010 (to the state, not the contractor) - which is not ideal. Defining “middle mile” is different between carriers, but we need that data as best we can get it. (Here’s a definition of middle mile: “Middle Mile Projects - an area composed of one or more contiguous census blocks where one interconnection point terminates in a census block area(s) that qualifies as unserved or underserved for Last Mile projects.”

She then tackled a list created by NSGIC yesterday, plus questions from the floor. Mike Byrne chimed in on occasion, too. (note: these are paraphrased)

Q: Can we make clear that there are multiple speed tests (with different results) on state/fed sites?
A: We need to message that better.

Q: WIll you show points on the map (actual addresses)?

A: No, not at FCC. Crowdsourcing a great opportunity, but we don’t know how do stats on that data, and that’s ok.

Q: What is a delegate?
A: One entity per state was to be entity for grant. NIST has one contact for the grant.

Q: How can we help you define “best practices.”
A: Wiki coming and perhaps working groups.

Q: How’s the NSGIC data model?
A: OK, but we have a few suggestions on a few minor contradictions. We want to fix these and push out version 1.1.

Q: How will we know when an NTIA product is done?
A: If your state doesn’t bother to do its work (make the map), we’ll need to have a chat. Some will be great. Some will be in the middle. Most important to know if there’s a problem as early as possible. We think we can get “good” data in this first round; we want to push for that.

Q: Middle mile data?
A: Get what you can.

Q: Is NTIA going to do anything to educate Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP)? Integrate efforts?
A: Maybe we can get them info on the designated organization doing mapping.

Q: Plans for long term maintenance of this data?
A: Still a conversation about this…the decision needs to be made soon.

#NSGICMidyear: Mon Morning Open Mike Session

The last session of the morning was an open “question” period. The Q&As are paraphrased.

Q: What is StateStat usage by public?
A: We don’t have a way to track pages created by ArcGIS Server. There is a the ability to e-mail the gov with a question and those show up, and we know from where you sent the question. They know they are not reaching the segment of the public they’d like to. [!]

Q: What’s this about using Virtual USA for Broadband?
A: CTO wanted a visualization for delivery of grants or for exploring challenges to grant dissemination. And that way, two agencies won’t try to fund same thing.

Q: What about the budget cuts for USGS Liasons since need them to work on EFTN?
A: That’s another example of why they are important. We need to figure this out…

Q: Virtual USA seems to be a new way to interact with states after viewers and other DHS efforts (which yielded mixed success). Is it a shift is strategy?
A: There are lots of components that deal with geospatial sharing within GIS. We are not a program office, but a research office. Cy Smith on the “tea leaves”: Very highly placed org is working on this and the way they approached us leads us to believe this is probably going to be a centerpiece, if it works. Bill Burgess: This is an opportunity; NSGIC should provide feedback.

Q: We need consequence management in Virtual USA.
A: Could be in there, if its in the requirements. There’s some in VIPER.

#NSGICMidyear: Virtual USA Session

Marc Caplan from Homeland Security (a new hire, just four months with the department) offered an overview of the vision for and progress toward Virtual USA (pdf).

Caplan suggested that Virtual USA is a response to today’s challenges: the need for real-time actionable information that’s trapped in silos and not getting to those who need it. There’s no silver bullet - it’s 10% tech, 90% relationships that will make it happen. This could be NSDI, per Bill Burgess, in his introduction.

Currently DHS’s Command, Control and Interoperability (CCI) division is funding several pilots in the Southeast (VIPER, Virtual Alabama) and Pacific Northwest. CCI is learning from these efforts. Capstone proof of concept of ROPP Phase 1 (discussed in this PDF) included eight states sharing data. CCI has seen interest in pilots from New England Area and Fusion Centers (though it intends to focus on response before intelligence uses). There’s also interest in integrating of social media to mix of data. Also in the works: a potential transition to an operational agency for a nationwide implementation since CCI is a research organziation.

Q&A (paraphrased)

Q: Who do you connect with in the states?
A: Varies - but eventually got to Cy Smith (Oregon’s state coordinator). For now its mostly folks going to CCI, not the other way around.

Q: How do we overcome standards already in place in pilots, etc.?
A: Trying to offer some cross fertilization between pilots. Looking to use open standards, but we do need to look at this as/when we transition to operational.

Q: Lots of EMS apps use KML. But KML has limited analysis capabilities…so this creates a database management issue and degrades capabilities of GIS systems.
A: That came out in a pilot in the South East. We don’t tell the pilot projects what tech to use, but share lessons learned. CCI is looking to create converters for KML and GeoRSS (to what, I’m not sure.)

Cy Smith then spoke on the Pacific Northwest Pilot. First challenge was getting the governments working together and setting up a common operating picture aimed at a demo in September focusing on severe weather scenario. Challenges: large region includes Alaska, dispersed population, different standards, tech, need for resources and sustainability. The aim it gear the app toward Flood, fire, winter storm, tsunami, and earthquake response.

Lessons the Pacific Northwest team learned from the Southeast Pilot:

- Technical capability is very different from making it operational.
- Build for the practitioners, something they can use day to day.

Q: Connection to local government?
A: We are trying to figure that out. In PNW - we include local government folks (EOC, first responders, local GIS managers) for an 80/20 local/stat and federal ratio.

Q: Security?
A: Yes it’s an issue. First we looked to data provider to insure security, but we are working on developing security solutions.

Q: What is DHS doing to try to knit existing resources together? What data layers it can provide?
A: We are looking at what we can provide - are talking to FEMA, Unified Incident Command and Decision Support (UICDS)

Q: How does Virtual USA link to HIFELD and other related existing DHS programs.
A: Work in progress. That data should be able to be included in Virtual USA apps.

Q: Are things like info on food and water in there?
A: Could be, based on requirements of pilots.

Q: What can NSGIC do to help you? A regular dialog?
A: Just this conversation is a start; we need to figure how to keep it going.

#NSGICMidyear: For the Nation RoundUp

Bill Burgess opened a session on the state of the various NSGIC “for the nation” efforts: Imagery (ITFN), Lidar (EFTN) and Transportation (TFTN).

He started by noting the efforts have “not the revolutionary charge we hoped for.” What we’ve learned: Multi-agency efforts are destined to failure without high level support. In future, perhaps a single agency should take the lead.

Imagery was first for the Nation was begun six years ago, suggested by Ted Koch (WI). The economy “got in the way.” Project Summary Phase 1 report has been “around” and edited, will be released to NGAC and public and serve as basis for Phase 2 (business case). NAIP (1 M) and High Res (Clear30 will make a commodity of this, so perhaps that’s an option) are the two parts. Congressional Hearing on USDA IT this Wednesday. Will Craig will be testifying speaking for IFTN.

Greg Snyder, USGS made the case for Elevation for the Nation (LiDAR) describing it as enhanced elevation data arguing businesses need it, that it’s more than bare earth. He also noted that the “data is ahead of the applications” based on what he saw at The International LIDAR Mapping Forum. Current status: Working on the 2010 National Enhanced Elevation Study - requirements, cost effectiveness, implementation alternatives. That’ll take a year. “We are in the concept stage.”

Steve Lewis, GIO USDOT introduced TFTN, along with reps from the two contractors selected. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong, he began…but the contract was signed for development of strategic plan Feb 2 (one year, four workshops, report). The two contractors are Koniag (Alaska Native Corporation) and Applied Geographics (of Boston). Some challenges noted: TFTN is a concept, not a program - we need to define it as a program. It’s very different from IFTN. How might we use VGI? Role of DOT?

Q: Multimodal data please (Barry from DC)
A: Yes, said Lewis but roads first, even though they are “the most difficult.”