Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT Washington State Enterprise Architecture Program GIT Enterprise Initiative Charter Hydrography - Surface Water and Streams Standards Charter – Straw Draft December 15, 2006 Page 1 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  2. 2. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT Document History: Date Editor Change Synopsis 12/15/06 Joy Paulus and Initial Draft Hydro Work Group Page 2 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  3. 3. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT 1.Description of the Initiative – Hydrography Initiative Staff Contacts Joy Paulus (IAC) / 360.902.2954 Tim Young (WDFW) / 360.902.2350 Dan Saul (ECY) 360. 407.6419 Deborah Naslund (WDNR) /360.902.1666 Description The Enterprise Architecture Committee chartered the GIT Documenter Team in January 2005 to launch the development of the Contextual and Conceptual GIT Architecture as Phase I of the GIT Enterprise Architecture (EA) Initiative. At a special meeting of the Information Services Board’s Sub Committee on Geographic Information Technology (ISB-GIT) the committee endorses the development of a Hydrography project proposal on July 31, 2006. This charter initiates Phase III of the GIT EA Initiative on Governance and Standards. Objectives • Review and identify a common standard logical data model for Washington State agencies use in sharing hydrography geospatial data. o Core elements (LL-ID, stream name etc.) needed to tie critical agency information to a base framework. o Core features (shoreline, streams, water bodies etc.) need to support core elements and state business needs. • Identify the business processes for managing and maintaining hydrography data including stewardship roles and responsibilities and governance structures. In Phase III, the Hydrography Initiative will focus on governance and the development of the roles and responsibilities for shared custodianship of a single statewide hydrography data set. • Currently, the State of Washington does not have a single source for surface water (hydrography) data. There are in fact three different sets being used to make regulatory decisions. As a result inconsistent and conflicting decisions are reached on cross-agency natural resource and environmental permits. The Hydrography proposal will feature a consolidated hydro data set, jointly managed by stakeholder agencies and maintained by Ecology. • Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Ecology and Department of Natural Resources (DNR), are working to bring together their operational, regulatory surface water geospatial data layers (stream typing, water quality, fish habitat) into one jointly managed and maintained enterprise data set. The dataset will be compatible with the National Hydrography Data (NHD) High Resolution Geo-database. Page 3 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  4. 4. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT In order for this to be successful, phase III needs to address governance options and renewed agreement on the hydrography data content standard. This effort will start in January 2007 and should be completed by June 2007. In Scope Out of Scope To Be Determined To Be Determined Business Case Natural resource and environmental management has shifted from an issue specific approach to an integrated landscape and watershed planning approach. This shift has increased the need for agency coordination and data sharing. At the same time, cross- organizational demands for access to surface water information have increased with the growth in watershed-based initiatives. Local watershed planning groups, citizens, tribes, and consultants make frequent data requests to multiple state agencies for separate but similar data. This is driving the need for one contiguous framework of surface water data that all organizations can tie critical information to. Core datasets (Framework or Tier 1) are defined as commonly used across state agencies – these were outlined in the Phase I GIT Information Architecture, and identify the rationale and architecture implications of managing this data and information as an enterprise asset. Hydrography data set is recognized as being a strategically important for the state and should be managed as a single state data resource. Enhancing Collaboration and Cooperation Current governance and coordination mechanisms, helpful in the past, are not sufficient to guide the operation of a statewide enterprise application of this technology. • The creation and management of framework data is a collaborative effort between state agencies and partners to create a widely available source of basic hydrography data for the state and region. The framework motto is ‘build it once -- use many times’. Reducing the Enterprise Cost of Data and Information The management, presentation and distribution of spatial hydrography data by Washington state agencies and their partners lacks a true enterprise approach to information management, access and distribution. The lack of a shareable or common data infrastructure results in duplicated update and maintenance of this critical dataset. • The hydrography framework is designed to facilitate state agencies' production and use of geographic data, to reduce operating costs, to improve service and decision making and provides: o A foundation data that is built once, maintained then used many times across the enterprise o The standards based data to which users can add or attach geographic details and attributes Page 4 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  5. 5. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT o A reference source for accurately registering and compiling participants' own data sets and for reference maps that display the locations and the results of analysis of other data Leveraging Technology State agencies struggle with the implementation of newer GIT technologies. Newer technologies may offer demonstrable efficiencies and capabilities, however the transition to new technologies can be held back by the need to invest significant budget dollars elsewhere and divert key resources. For hydrography framework to be successful we will need to leverage more collaborative technology approaches. This will mean a significant business process change for state agencies to ensure data is maintained and updated, in one place, over time. Business Rationale • Hydrography is important to many applications. As with other data themes, many users need hydrographic features as reference data or base map data. Other applications, particularly environmentally oriented analyses, need the information for analysis and modeling of water supply, pollution, flood hazard, wildlife, development and land suitability. • State agencies share attribute information tied to hydrography. A hydrography- related characteristic, monitored or managed by one state agency, often impacts those managed by other state agencies. One common system for feature identification and linear reference facilitates data exchange and integration between state agencies. • Organizations and individuals outside state government are better served with a common state hydrography layer. This common layer creates opportunities to integrate and enhance local, federal and state data. It also minimizes or eliminates variability in data formats and content. • Hydrography data include surface water features on lakes and ponds, streams and rivers, canals, oceans and shorelines. The attributes of each of these features, include a name, a linear reference and a feature identification code. Centerlines, polygons, and points encode the positions of these features. For feature identification code, the developing state framework standard uses a unique identifier (LLID) based on the geographic location of the feature or one of its components (such as, mouth location for streams and rivers, and centroid for water bodies). • Linear features incorporate an addressing or linear reference system that in combination with the LLID allows data users to tie descriptive data to a specific point or segment along a feature. State agencies must crosswalk attributes coded to the Framework LLID/linear reference system to the one federal agencies use, as well as the one implemented in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Many hydrography data users need complete information about connectivity of the hydrography network and the direction in which the water flows encoded in the data. To meet these needs, additional elements representing the flow of water and connections between features may be included in framework data. Business Implications Page 5 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  6. 6. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT With access to better data, the technology becomes more useful to government policy makers by bringing clarity to issues and providing timely access to information for decision makers and citizens. The GIT EA Information Architecture provides the framework for addressing this information gap • State agencies must agree on standards for hydrography spatial data content, feature identification, linear referencing and the business rules for implementing them. • Costs for agencies to conform or interface to the standard may exceed costs associated with an independent approach while still being offset by reduced cost to the enterprise. • Technical experts must compromise on approach. • GIT EA Phase III hydrography must identify clear lines of responsibility for the maintenance and enhancement of the data. • The state and USGS need to work collaboratively to ensure that attributes can be exchanged between the state framework standard and NHD. • Governance needs to reflect equal participation and ownership of the process that manages the hydro data theme. Key Stakeholders GIT Business Executives – ISB/GIT Committee Enterprise Architecture Program – ISB/EA Committee GIT Technical Community – WAGIC and Framework Management Group (FMG) WA Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources Regulated Community Public Enterprise Architecture Committee Stewards For this initiative, the (co)-stewards are: Steward 1 (lead) – TBD Steward 2 – TBD Business Sponsorship This Hydrography Phase III initiative is jointly sponsored by ISB/Geographic Information Technology Committee (GIT) and the ISB/Enterprise Architecture Committee (EAC). Committee roles are: • ISB/Geographic Information Technology Committee (GIT) – The Committees chartered purpose is to represent the strategic interest of a coordinated, enterprise approach to utilizing geographic information technology and, provide leadership for implementation of cost effective, collaboratively developed, spatial data management solutions. Page 6 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  7. 7. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT As co-executive sponsor of GIT Phase II the committee will ensure that proposed GIT EA Architecture supports ISB/GIT Business needs and process requirements. The ISB/GIT Committee is composed of executives from 10 agencies that are using the technology for mission critical purposes. • ISB/Enterprise Architecture Committee (EAC) – The EAC is chartered to build and maintain an enterprise architecture program that guides and optimizes state resources The Committee is composed of IT executives from 13 agencies and has been charged by the ISB to build and maintain an enterprise architecture program that guides and optimizes state IT resources. As co-executive sponsor of the GIT Phase II executive ensures that proposed GIT EA Architecture is compliant with Enterprise Architecture Program tenants and process requirements. Decision Making Process and Vetting Procedure Generally, decisions are made by consensus of participating agencies under the executive guidance of the ISB-GIT. All decisions and agreements made by the documenter teams are communicated and coordinated back to the teams’ respective agencies, the WA Framework Management Group and the ISB-GIT.. Decisions made by the Hydrography Documenter Team will be made by consensus. Consensus is achieved when: o Everyone has a chance to offer their ideas and opinions o Everyone's ideas and opinions are considered o Most are in support and no one actively opposes the decision o Everyone will support the decision If consensus is in doubt, or a critical decision is being made, then a voting procedure will be used. If anyone in the group votes against the proposal, the decision is stalled and discussion must continue until all votes indicate no opposition. It is understood that key issues and decision points will be identified during the early phases of the documenter teams’ work. These issues will be resolve during a facilitated session to maximize our time effectively and efficiently. All decisions and information will be shared with the state agencies, with the ISB-GIT, WAGIC and the Framework Management Group via monthly or quarterly reports and/or presentations. Documenter Team The following table identifies the members of the Documenter Team for this initiative. This initiative will not move forward until all of the roles above are satisfied by the team membership. Page 7 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  8. 8. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT Member Title Phone contact EAP Organization Email contact Team Role Carol Fleskes Ecology 360-407-7012 Sponsor Admin. Services cfle461@ecy.wa.gov Director Jeff Holm DIS 360-902-3447 Liason to: Senior IT jeffh@dis.wa.gov ISB-GIT, Consultant ISB-EA and WAGIC Policy Adviser Mac McKay DNR 360-902-1453 Architect Data Steward mac.mckay@wadnr.gov SME Deborah DNR 360-902-1666 Architect Naslund IT Supervisor Deborah.Naslund@wdnr.gov SME Joy Paulus IAC 360-902-2954 Project Manager SWIMTAC joyp@iac.wa.gov Architect Coordinator SME Dan Saul ECY 360-407-6419 Architect Senior Analyst dsau461@ecy.wa.gov SME Tim Young DFW 360-902-2940 Architect GIS Manager youngtay@dfw.wa.gov SME Coordination with Related Efforts GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Initiative will coordinate with related efforts through a variety of mechanisms: Other Enterprise Architecture Program (EAP) initiatives Regular and periodic consulting with EAP Director Regular (monthly) iteration updates to Enterprise Architecture Committee Page 8 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  9. 9. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT Regular discussions with Integration Architecture lead architect to stay current with developments and messaging infrastructure deliverables Review and incorporation as appropriate of mature EAP components State and Regional GIT initiatives Use WAGIC as statewide forum and PNW-RGIC as regional forum to communicate progress and stay apprised of similar initiatives National / Federal / Regional GIT initiatives Provide periodic updates and provide opportunity to review proposed components to Pacific Northwest Regional Geographic Information Council Provide continued participation and coordination with the Pacific Northwest Clearinghouse. Updated data will be provided to the regional clearinghouse for consideration and inclusion into the NHD database. Key Issues or Decisions to be addressed GIT EA Phase III – Hydrography standards and governance will address the following questions and objectives: • How will individual agencies provide updates to tier one data themes through supported web services? • What is the appropriate technology platform and infrastructure to support an integrated, cross-agency hydrography dataset? • Describe the business processes associated with managing: o Hydrography framework data and information. These include processes to support: Data Stewards, Data Recovery, Data Change Management, Data Security, Co-incident Registration, Data Retention and Archive, Data Currency, Metadata Currency and, Data Correction and Enhancement. And, data sharing agreements and selected enterprise licensing opportunities. o Hydrography will be folded into the states shared infrastructure and the PNW Clearinghouse effort. These processes potential include: Data Management, Web Services Management and Shared Repository Management. o Describe the enterprise process for funding cross–agency collaborative efforts in a way that facilitates the development of enterprise GIT solutions that meet multiple agencies needs. The hydrography documenter teams will identify key issues during the course of the governance and standards development effort. Key decision point will be identified as well while we reach decision and solutions to our desired objective and our final deliverable of this project. Potential issue and decision points could consist of: • Stewardship roles & responsibilities • Agency business process changes Page 9 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010
  10. 10. GIT EA Phase III Hydrography Charter DRAFT • Geographic stewardship responsibilities • Maintenance approaches for hydrography Deliverables • Narrative describing the business process for hydrography data updating and maintenance for a single statewide hydrography data layer • Description of an agency statewide hydrography logical data model • Description of state agency stewardship roles and responsibilities Page 10 of 10 DRAFT 6/8/2010