December 12, 2007

Agenda:

Review Minutes of October 10 Meeting
Coastal Marine Working Group – Seth Barker
Geolibrary Update – Christopher Kroot
Web Services Subcommittee Update – Don Katnik
Review Status of Implementation/Agency Priorities
USGS Update – Dan Walters

Members Present:

Matthew Bampton - USM

Seth Barker – DMR

Maria Jacques – ESCB

Ellen Jackson - LURC

Don Katnik – IF&W

David Kirouac, Chair, OIT-MEGIS

Christopher Kroot, OIT-DEP

Bob Marvinney – MGS

David Maxwell – OIT-DEP,PUC, MHDO , PA

Janet Parker - SPO

Jason Sardano - BMV

Dan Walters, USGS

Agenda Item #1: Review Minutes of the October 10 Meeting

Outcome: The minutes were unanimously approved without any modification.

Agenda Item #2: Coastal Marine Working Group – Seth Barker

Seth proposed the creation of a committee to work on GIS issues related to coastal and ocean management. There have been a lot of informal coastal related GIS activities in the past but it is time to formalize the GIS coastal activities. Seth suggested that the committee would focus on setting priorities, shared planning, outreach and education, and also coordination with Federal agencies and other entities outside of state government. Seth discussed the results of an assessment conducted a few years ago by DMR and Northern Geomantics and recommended that this study could be used as a guide by the committee.

Outcome: The Stakeholders approved the creation of a coastal marine committee and Seth will serve as the committee's first chair. Seth will begin organizing the committee and report back to the Stakeholders in 3 to 6 months.

Agenda Item #3: Geolibrary Update – Christopher Kroot

Christopher brought the Stakeholders up to date on key Geolibrary activities. The Geolibrary is currently reviewing applications for a project to link parcel data with assessor data from the registry of deeds and also to generate a strategic plan for the Geolibrary. It is anticipated that a vendor will be selected in the next few weeks. On a different project, the Geolibrary has selected the ESRI GeoPortal to be implemented as the Geolibrary portal.

Outcome:

Agenda Item #4: Web Services Subcommittee Update – Don Katnik

Don expressed that the there has been some confusion within the committee as to whether the committee should focus on ArcIMS and ArcServer or expand it's focus. At the last committee meeting, the committee decided that they would have to expand their focus to include all GIS server oriented architecture (SOA) and altered the committee's name to the GIS Service Oriented Architecture Committee to accommodate this expanded focus. The top priorities of the committee are to: develop standards and guidelines, research SOA related technologies, and monitor system performance. The ability to develop standards/guidelines will be difficult until the state has the experience with the technologies to develop these standards/guidelines. The committee will only be able to enforce standards/guidelines on the SOA environment that it oversees. Research on different technologies will probably have to come from the research undertaken at the agency level.

Outcome: The GIS Service Oriented Architecture Committee charter was approved with some minor modifications.

Agenda Item #5: Review Status of Implementation/Agency Priorities

David K. reviewed the current status of the implementation plan and agency priorities: several agencies have provided priorities but there are still some agencies that have not provided priorities,

Outcome: David K. will email out a final request to get a prioritized list of agency GIS priorities with a December 28 deadline and target DHHS and DOT for their agency priorities. David M. will work with PUC for their priorities. David K. will also email out a list of current MEGIS core services. The January 9 meeting will include an agenda item to discuss creating an implementation plan based on the agency priorities.

Agenda Item #6: USGS Update – Dan Walters

Dan provided an overview of USGS National Map priorities and discussed the possibility of acquiring new imagery and elevation data. Dan suggested that the GIS Stakeholders should publish a tactical plan as soon as possible. The USGS focus is for projects involving framework data and the Stakeholders should work with groups with overlapping interest with the Stakeholders and approach USGS for funding. Most of Maine is covered by the USGS “geographic focus” areas. Maine is mostly covered by a 50 mile buffer from international borders and a 50 file buffer from the coast. Dan discussed the availability of 2007 half foot color imagery and elevation data (2 foot and 5 foot) for southern Maine . Dan is trying to find parties interested in contributing to the purchase of these data.

Outcome: The GIS Stakeholders should complete their strategic plan so that there is a documented direction. The Stakeholders should work with other groups with overlapping interest and approach USGS for project funding. Anyone interested in contributing to the purchase of the imagery and elevation data should contact Dan.