Service Lands Spatial Data Guidelines Project Charter

Proposed Project Name: Service Lands Spatial Data Guidelines Project

System Owners: Realty and Refuges Division Chiefs, Washington Office

System Managers: Deb Southworth Green, National Spatial Data Manager; Doug Vandegraft, Chief Cartographer

Development Team: Service Land Data Technical Advisory Group
(ad hoc subcommittee of the FWS GIS Steering Committee)

User Acceptance Team: The User Acceptance Team will be drawn from the Service's Realty, Refuge, and GIS communities as needed. The guidelines under development will impact both data creators and data consumers, and thus will need a broad spectrum of review.  Thanks also to Paul Steblein R5 Biologist, who was heavily involved in the initial development and testing of the SOP.

Description of Proposed Project:

Objectives of the Project: The main objective of this project is to provide a consistent method for creating or updating a spatial data layer for refuge boundary information, and potentially other Service boundary information (e.g., Fish Hatcheries, FmHA Easements). Boundary information currently exists in a wide variety of formats, some digital, some hard copy, some survey coordinates. Furthermore, the data used are often undocumented of their source and quality. Creating guidelines for automating the data will provide a process for creating consistent boundary information that can be utilized internally or shared with ecosystem partners.

A secondary objective is to standardized the methods and formats for sharing spatial boundary data on the Internet. Data that is in the same format nationally is more useful within the Service for relating to existing databases and doing reports, and is more valuable to ecosystem partners.

Reason for Request: There is an increasing demand both within the Service and from partners for a good quality digital boundary layer. Digital boundary information (where it exists) is currently in a wide variety of formats, an even wider range of quality, and often is not documented. When staff person that created the data leaves, the history about that data departs with them. The metadata that is specified in these guidelines would alleviate that problem.

Digital boundary information is being created now in many locations, using many methods, for many different purposes including realty base maps and periodic reports, refuge management plans, comprehensive management plans, and appraisals. Putting guidelines in place for creating or updating the data would assist users in their current data creation efforts without adding significant time or costs. Use of technical guidelines allows individual offices or Regions create the data as their schedule or resource permit, but still produce compatible data. The guidelines reduce the workload on offices beginning the development of refuge boundary data by giving them an already tested and established process. The procedures also specify standard variables associated with the refuge boundaries that will allow many other kinds of data to be linked in a GIS (e.g., RMIS, RPMIS).

These guidelines specify how to create and error check the data; they do not specify who does the data creation, and can be used easily by a contractor or by an internal user.

In addition to the internal benefits of better data, data documentation, and streamlined methodology, there are increasing requests from other government agencies and non-government partners for good boundary data. As the data are created, these guidelines put the framework in place for sharing the data, which allows the Service to comply with established mandates for access to data.

Functional Description: The process summarized below will be followed, resulting in the products described.

1. Definition: The initial step in the process is the creation of the Draft SOP's (standard operating procedures) for automation of refuge boundary data. One SOP will describe the technical process in AutoCAD, the other in Arc/Info. Those are the two most common data entry software programs currently in use in the Service. The same basic steps, particularly the quality control and error checking sections, can be applied to any other software program for developing refuge boundary data..

2. Informal Review: Those SOP's will then be circulated to the various offices in the Regions involved in data entry as well as the major data end users for informal comment and testing. The target audience for the testing is the technical user community; all technical issues should be worked out at this level before the formal review process. Management will also be involved in the informal review, so that they are kept aware of the proposed guidelines and any potential impacts. The informal comments will be shared with the workgroup before revising the SOP.

3. Formal Review: Once the informal review has been completed, the revised guidelines will be presented at the FWS GIS Workshop in June, 1997. A briefing will be conducted for Washington Office Division of Refuges and Wildlife, and a formal request for comments will be sent out under the Deputy Director's signature. Comments received during this process will be shared with the workgroup, incorporated as needed, and an implementation proposal written. Washington Office Refuges and Wildlife will be briefed on the final products.

4. Implementation: The guidelines will be distributed through a variety of channels including the Internet, e-mail, and traditional hardcopy routes. Training will be coordinated with National Conservation Training Center (NCTC). The data produced by the guidelines will be posted on the Internet as well. The guidelines will be incorporated into the Service Manual, probably by a policy statement and reference to the SOP.

5. Upkeep: Division Chiefs for Realty and Refuges (WO) will need to assign project managers (stewards) to monitor and update the guidelines as needed. Since these are guidelines that deal with rapidly changing technology, frequent updates may be needed.

Further dates dependent on outcome of review

Organizations Affected: Realty and Refuges staff involved in GIS and CAD functions are required for the initial review. If the guidelines are implemented and data produced, potentially all Service offices and ecosystem partners could be impacted.

Relationship to other Projects, Systems, or Databases:While the guidelines themselves do not impact other systems, the potential impact if the guidelines are used to create good quality, consistent boundary data is significant. Users of other information systems, such as RPMIS, RMIS, CIMAS, have indicated the need for refuge boundary data. This is the reason for coordination during the reviews within Realty and Refuges offices, and with other programs.

Privacy/Security Considerations: Most of the information involved is public domain and is already available in a less accurate rendering. The better quality data will be shared freely on the Internet as created.

References: Process description for digitizing and managing Service lands boundary data (Service Lands SOP).

Estimate of Available Time and Resources: It is difficult to estimate the time and resources involved as much of the effort put forth is not related solely to this effort: the creation and refining of data automation procedures is ongoing in the Service. This is merely a more organized effort at streamlining an existing process.

The original SOP was developed by Region 5 for their use, and shared with the Service. The workgroup of 15 people spent approximately 4 days reviewing that document and working on the other items. Drafting of the SOP for AutoCAD will be done mainly by 2 AutoCAD users documenting their current procedures. Testing and review of the more polished documents will be widespread and will involve a little of many peoples' time. Incorporation of the comments will be done mainly by 2 staff members, probably for a day.

Known Constraints: There are no know constraints to the development and voluntary implementation of technical guidelines, provided the guidelines are well documented and useful. Formal adoption of the guidelines depends on demonstrating their utility.

ITM Review and Comment.

Signed: Charles A. Grymes, Chief, Branch of Standards, Policy and Planning
April 3, 1997

Signed: William Brooks, Chief, Division of Information Resources and Technology Management
April 3, 1997

Signature of System Owners:

Signed: Tony Leger Chief, Division of Refuges (Acting)
April 7, 1997

Signed: Jeffery M. Donahoe Chief, Division of Realty
April 7, 1997

For additional information regarding this Web page, contact Chris Lett, in the Division of Information Resources and Technology Management, at Chris_Lett@fws.gov

Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Data Standards IRTM Home Page
Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page

Last Modified