STED Committee Teleconference
Conference Call Agenda and Notes
September 8, 9 2011 Reston, Va
(9:00-5:30 pm Eastern Time)

Notes recorded by Lynn Taylor

Dial-in Logistics   Purpose    Agenda    Attendees    Discussion Notes

Dial-In Logistics

Conference Date:	September 8th and 9th
Conference Time:	9:00am-5:30 pm ET
Bridge Call-in #:	703-648-4848
# of Ports/Lines:	??
Conference Code #:	69180#

Purpose

Attendees List:

Guest:

Agenda And Discussion Notes

Call to order, welcome, agenda review, brief introductions (Bill Hazell)
Maintaining the ruthless consistency of data collection (Bill Werkheiser)
STED review of comments from Bill Werkheiser (Peter Griffiths)
Introductions: Round II (Bill Hazell)
Committee Charter (Tony Paulson)
Training Report (Alan Ward)
Training Surveys (Alan Ward)
TEL course development and funding, OED activities (Bill Hazell and Alan Ward)
Web Page (Michael Ierardi and Steve Lipscomb)
Interaction with Data Committies (Jennifer Dansie)
Charter Revisited: Discussion and Agreement from Committee (Tony Paulson)
Coop Programs (Bill Hazell)
USGS Course Catalog Project (Alan Ward)
Establish STED goals and activities, assign action items, select new Chair (Bill Hazell)

Additional Topics brought up:

Call to order, welcome, agenda review, brief introductions (Bill Hazell):
The meeting was called to order at 0900 and attendees introduced themselves quickly to the group.
Bill Werkheiser joined the group at his scheduled time of 0910

• Bill Werkheiser addressed the STED. There are not many academic hydrological technician programs. USGS needs to train hydrological technicians in-house. USGS research and the private sector are developing cutting edge technology; USGS need to get the advanced applications out in the field quickly. USGS has a number of experts in the field, USGS needs to use their expertise in training programs as subject matter experts.
• USGS is not cheapest alternative for our cooperators. Without the high standard of national relevance with consistent methodologies at the local level, USGS will lose its edge and advantage in attracting and holding new cooperators. Bill asked Committee to look for alternative modes of training, both for efficiency of delivery and wider coverage.
• Replacing ADAPS, will be a huge training requirement in the near-future.
• BW noted that the USGS still maintains high standards for data collection. These standards are important to the USGS Mission but they create unique problems that we need to stay aware of. These standards are not cheap to maintain and may push some cooperators away. It is also difficult to maintain these high standards across the country. It is especially difficult given regional, environmental variables, and regionally delivered training.
• While National consistency is important, the local and regional presence makes the USGS unique. National streamgaging networks are maintained on the local level and can be maintained more effectively. During major events, this local, established force on the ground allows the USGS to respond quickly and efficiently. However, it is still important to maintain national standards to assure delivery of a consistent product.
• One of the best resources for the USGS is the great individuals involved. These individuals allow the USGS to not only stay on the cutting edge of technology but help drive development and manufacturing in the private industries. We need to recognize that the educational background of entry level personnel has changed and we need to adjust training and employee development accordingly.

• Regional training model works well sometimes (SW and GW), but national model works better for others (WQ). STED needs to optimize delivery model for the specific classes.
• Training needs to be national consistency, but applications might have regional applications. Mentoring programs to apply national standards in a consistent manner on the regional level might be necessary.
• Requirement that Water Centers pay for travel to annual STED meeting will lead to self-selection from Centers with a strong commitment to training. STED also needs representation from Center with limited training resources. Bill agreed to pay for travel for rotating members from Water Centers for the near-future.
• How training is tabulated in Center reviews is not handled consistency among Centers and Regions. For the best snapshot of training activities at each Center, the training matrix in Center Health Reports needs to be more specific.
• The expertise of the NPR needs to be extended out to the Centers in more efficient delivery system that the one-on-one mentoring generally taking place now.

• STED was pleased with the high level of support exhibited by BW.

• Help determine what training is better served locally or nationally
• Match ideal delivery models with courses
• Capture WSC funding spent on training
• Find ways to help supervisors understand training availability as well as their employees needs
• Develop credit or point system for training accountability
• Determine STED role in defining /supporting training needs for new ADAPS
• Encourage instructors to promote national consistency during training.
• Design training with this national consistency in mind
• Determine equipment needs and identify network issues at office that may interfere with video streaming

AI: Create a list of Job Series which STED will target to create training tracks – Start with 1-4 and expand as process develops. – Do we start with Hydrologic Technicians, or other series that might be easy to define?

AI: Create a list of different “tracks” or “specialties” for each of these job series. – How can we come up with a way to define the difference between general courses and those that would only be needed for people in specific career specialties?

AI: Create Categories for training and classify all current training classes within these categories (Computer, Ground water, Interdisciplinary, HR, Leadership, Management, Safety, Surface water, Water Quality) – are the NTC categories enough or do we need more breakdown or are their gaps? – What can we add?

AI: Create different targets for career tracking (examples: Before they start working, Annual, First Month, First Year, Emerging/Changing Technology, Role Based, First 5 years, Within Career) – Start to define a catalog – think of it like college catalog of things to choose from to graduate

AI: Fill in Gaps and come up with a plan to reach out to teams to fill gaps for future training. Encourage trainers to design courses with national consistency in mind – STED to present training plans and reach out to training developers to suggest gaps and content needs

AI: Develop a point system to assure staff reaches appropriate training per year. – Credit hours needed per year – scale to show managers and employees are invested in continues training and advancement to assure consistency in our data/product.

AI: Emphasize training options that are effective without being costly to the science centers. – With the shrinking budgets of science centers, we have to find cheap alternatives. To assure consistency in the organization, people must be trained regardless of shrinking budgets.

AI: Provide a skeleton product to management for their consideration and approval. If approved, STED to post guidance and get management approval to include guidance as part of employee development program. – Management needs to determine if training tracks are optional or mandatory. If they decide they are mandatory, then the governance lies with them to communicate this to science center managers.

AI: Determine equipment needs and identify network issues at office that may interfere with video streaming - Reach out to those involved in streaming and video conferencing options to test and plan for how to optimize these options to extend the training beyond the traditional classroom and still be effective.

AI: Tip Sheets? Field Manuals? Lecture Series?

Introductions: Round II (Bill Hazell):

• Bill Hazell asked all STED members to give a general introduction and statement of expectations from STED membership.
• Jim Kolva – Office of Surface Water representative Looking for better ways to deliver training.
• Anthony Paulson – Studies Section Chief Representative
• Peter Griffiths – National Research Program representative USGS reputation is at stake and consistency in our methods is critical
• Steve Lipscomb – WSC Director Representative (stepping down. Will be replaced by Pat Lambert) Cost of training is significant and thus we need to take advantage of available technology to help leverage our available funds.
• Mike Ierardi – STED webmaster Asked for details about the GRSAT training that Jim described.
• Alan Ward – Office of Employee Development representative Given our website and membership diversity, STED is poised to go to the next level. We need to do a better job of bringing STED to the attention of the WMA. We need to explore and take advantage of alternatives to the traditional classroom.
• Jennifer Dansie – Hydrologic Technician representative As a new member she wants to better understand STED’s priorities. Recognizes that when it comes to training, one size doesn’t fit all. Maintenance and advertisement of the website is critical. Suggested that a photo competition would help draw attention to the website.
• Nicole Bogeajis – IT Specialist representative Involvement with STED will help her understand the needs of IT-based end users so she can do a better job of supporting them.
• Franceska Wilde – Office of Water Quality Representative Website needs a better explanation of what STED is and does.
• Jerad Bales – WMA Senior Staff representative Hopes to help STED find necessary resources. It’s important that training helps our employees to maintain a sense of being a part of a larger national-level program. Some face-to-face training will always be important even during down budget years. It is important for STED to maintain connections with the Data Committees and Water Science Field Teams.
• Bill Hazell – Hydrologic Technician representative (chair. Stepping down after this meeting)

• STED’s role is to support the science
• Need to get people to the web * Best use of training dollars * More outreach on training requests
• Impact training delivery * Alternatives to classroom when appropriate * Out front on training delivery
• Update and maintain training modules
• Address national consistency vs local needs

• Anthony suggested that we consider adding a Water Science Field Specialist representative to the STED committee as a rotational member. There was some discussion on whether this should be a specialist or rather a coordinator. The general consensus seemed to lean towards a specialist.
• Anthony suggested that wording under “Membership” be revised to clarify that nominations to the STED should come from the RExs to the AD WMA for approval and eliminate statements suggesting the STED members would vote on committee membership.
• Franceska asked for clarification on substitutions if STED members weren’t available for bi-monthly conference calls. There were suggestions that this might be OK but that the substitutes would not be allowed to vote on STED decisions.
• Charter Revised.

AI: Present to Jered for review and submission to Water SR. Staff - Emails sent and Rod Sheets was added as the Northeast and Midwest area WSFT Specialist. DONE

Training Report (Alan Ward):

• Alan presented a summary of NTC trends over the past 5 years. Stated that OED was looking into the possibility of establishing a remote training center in Reston using video-conferencing technology. OED might consider a remote training facility in the West also.
• Rapid Deployment Classroom used at data conferences since 2006
• STED to provide input as to what variables they would like to see in reports. This would help define what needs to be addressed in surveys.

Training Surveys (Alan Ward):

• Water-wide training survey conducted by OED last year to illuminate unmeet training needs – sent out under Bill Werkheiser’s name. 58 % response rate from supervisors. Alan would like to run a new survey in mid-October in approximate concurrence with employee performance and training need reviews. Alan asks committee for suggestions to increase participation rate from supervisors.
• Tony: proposes an email directly to all Study Chiefs via ‘GS-W Studies Chiefs’ encouraging survey responses from supervisors in their centers
• AI: Email to be sent to all Study Chiefs via ‘GS-W Studies Chiefs’ encouraging survey responses from supervisors in their center (Tony)
• Bill: Some have asked him why their class was not on the survey (e.g. John Gray). Proposes that STED reviews the list of classes for omissions before survey is sent.
• AI: Alan to send list of classes to STED and have them review before the survey is sent (ALL) – Alan sent list to STED and asked for responses by 9/30/11 DONE
• Alan: Pretty effective Asking how much and how far people are willing to travel in the survey has been effective in highlighting whether a particular class should be presented nationally or regionally.
• General proposal from the committed that STED holds an October call before the November TEL conference so that we can review and discuss the questionnaire.
• Franceska: proposes that all data field teams and specialists receive the survey.
• Alan suggests having them review the initial survey results and comment on them.
• Alan: One strategy is to use survey to highlight potential TEL courses. Feels the more supervisors see we are making use of this data, the more willing they will be to respond to future surveys – building some momentum.
• Jennifer: Asks what response was received from remote training participants via Polycom. Alan responds that they often feel isolated, in part due to the lag time between a typed question and the response from the teacher – a problem with streaming out to computers, rather than a Polycom node. Nicole suggests possibility of purchasing Polycom desk units that OED could ship out as needed.
• Alan notes that remote typed questions from remote participants can come in fast and furious, stacking up faster than the course SME can respond. This has in part led to remote participants feeling isolated. Real-time voice connection would cut this queue. Real time voice communication would also allow each question and its answer to be heard by all participants, which could cut down on repeated queries and responses of the same question when typed. Alan notes that instructors sometimes put questions up on the board for all to see, and then respond verbally.
• Bill: A variety of needs that will be expressed in the survey - including evaluating what courses may be more popular or needed if they were updated – and it will be the STED’s responsibility to evaluate and pass recommendations on to appropriate authority.
• Franceska: What result will the WSCs see from this survey? We need to return tangible results for their effort. As a Studies Chief, Steve uses the survey as an announcement of what courses may be offered in the coming year, tipping him off to get his request in early or to see what classes likely will not occur and so he can shift his focus and resources elsewhere. This in itself is feedback to managers that their input has an effect, and STED gives them a point of contact if they have concerns. Bill suggests Alan add something to survey email text that gives feedback on how last survey was used. => ACTION ITEM – Alan
• AI: Alan to add something to the survey email text that gives feedback on how the last survey was used (Alan)
• Bill: Asks Jerad if money will still be provided in FY12 for maintenance of Adobe Breeze license that supports TEL courses. Alan feels the software has consistently improved over the past 5 years after an initial $90k investment and annual maintenance fee of about $24k – all supported by Water. Alan notes that OED tries to select courses for TEL that will have a long shelf life without requiring much future modification. There will be a total of about 25 TEL courses (USGS-wide) by the end of the year. Future costs may be offset if the decision is made to charge for TEL courses. Steve feels it is more appropriate for this to cost to be supported by the users, particularly since these courses are taken by people outside of Water.
• Jerad: How many seats does this support? Alan is not sure, but we think TJ said it supports 100 concurrent users with 19 licenses (this has changed over time). OED has good data about completion rates, etc. that can inform decision of how and how much to charge for course.
• Nicole: asks if we should ask in survey how much people would pay for a TEL course.
• Bill: we need to be careful not to ask too many questions on survey, limiting it to what your needs are and how much you are willing to pay for travel.
• Jerad asks how many TEL courses are Water courses. Alan will get that info for Jerad, though some courses are general USGS courses.
• Jerad: Water has agreed to pay the $24k for 2012 Breeze software maintenance.
• AI: Alan to draft email about this year’s training survey and STED will review (All review) – This would help define what needs to be address in survey.

TEL course development and funding, OED Activities (Bill Hazell, Alan Ward, and TJ Lane):

• TJ Lane called in to discuss TEL Terminology Defined: SME is a Subject Matter Expert TEL is Technology enabled Learning
• The TEL program is blended learning and was established in 2004 to assist in re-developing classroom based courses. These courses include video, closed caption and interactive elements to assist in learning. A training course has been developed in “Designing, Developing and Deploying Effective TEL using Adobe Connect”. This course is to instruct SME in the use of Adobe Presenter to develop their TEL courses. In order to use the software, this 4-day class is mandatory in order to issue an Adobe Connect license to a SME. There are 100 licenses that were available, with only 19 that have been issued.
• There are 14 TEL courses available and 13 more to be released in FY12. The Water Quality Principles course has been in the works for nearly 3 years and is going to be released in the near future. TEL takes quite a bit of time to develop without any course material depending on the course. About 220 hours of work to create 1 hour of basic TEL and about half that time to redevelop a classroom course for TEL. The most interactive TEL course is the MOCC training (Motorboat Operator Cert Course) has blending learning where the students complete a pre-requisite and then attend a practical’s class. This class has reduced the class from 5 days to 3.
• RFP process: OED has been fortunate enough to ask for proposals to TEL development and have been able to pay half of the SMEs time to develop the course. This has been very popular for 3 years, but we can only fund a few courses that are proposed. One of the main goals is to continue to find funding for the SMEs halftime, so that they can create excellent TEL courses. Alan, TJ and SMEs not associated with the proposals evaluate how well the course relates to the Science Strategy and USGS goals. 6 proposals were submitted and 3 were awarded. Beginning next FY, OED is asking the Scientific Strategy Panel (SSPT) to panel new proposals for TEL.
• There are a lot of services offered through the TEL program -Training SMEs in Adobe Connect, helping develop effective learning objectives, creating interactive practice sessions, capturing video, closed captioning and editing, assuring 508 guidelines, USGS branding is done correctly, finding photographs, assisting SME with designs, assisting in editing and technical reviews, loading SMEs course into the TEL server, creating course catalog entries, announcing the course, etc.
• Future- Saving money in travel expenses and hope to develop more TEL courses Learn to develop TEL for mobile devices Consistently research and learn new tools that will help the SMEs that are cost effective and timely and relevant science and tech courses for USGS employees. TEL course development and funding OED activites- Bill Hazell and Alan Ward Software for TEL was initially paid for by Water and the maintenance is about $24,000 has also been paid for by Water. This was approved to be paid by Water again, by Jerad Bales for FY12.
• STED helped by going to Jerad to get money, but a better avenue is needed.
• Money issues need to be brought up to the entire committee. Question of charging money for TEL classes for future classes Alan says it makes sense, but USGS not used to paying for TEL courses.
• IDEAS- Which courses to pay for and which ones not to charge -How to pay, ideas- credit card or account number, pay pay, e-commerce

COST IDEAS

• Spread the cost across all TEL courses and charge smaller amounts for all
• Annual amount no matter how many TEL courses you take
• Training course packages- buy 2 get one free
• Some pricing higher depending on class length.
• Accreditation tracking will be a good way for people to take additional training courses
• Con is administrative nightmare to track training and money. Also we need to be careful not to create barriers to training. We don’t want people to NOT take training because of cost… Especially when it deals with the ruthless consistency USGS and Bill W demands. I.E. levels course.
• Accreditation tracking will be a good way for people to take additional training courses.
• Decide how to handle recommended courses verses required training.

• 4 classes have been streamed; which means that while a regular class is being conducted in the NTC, there are remote users online.
• Alan would like all water courses to have streaming options.
• There has been some resistance but not much. It takes some time to redevelop courses slightly to adjust presentations to online-remote users. There have been 16 remote viewers and are required to pay full tution.
• Jim K has done 2 of the classes and said it is different mindset and must not forget the remote users.
• Problems can be users doing other work rather than the class they are attending. Classes need extra planning and extra preparation.
• It’s hard to get the story-telling aspect and there are some technology issues that inhibit 2 way conversations.
• STED question what’s the best way for online courses to grow and how to market TEL and Streaming classes?
• Advertisement ideas ... by word of mouth, emails
• Equipment discussions- Steve mentioned that ID University has online courses where the instructor can be seen as well as the student with 2-way conferencing.
• Alan says they are looking into polycom systems with Multi communication vs one to one conferencing.
• Nicole says even in you have expensive equipment T1 lines can get clogged and it would be wise to have additional line for Streaming, even WebEx takes up bandwidths.
• Steve asks if it would be a capital investment to create online classes in ER, WR at remote, but specific locations for Streaming” the training.
• Bill H says list is long and resources are limited… Time vs Money.
• AI: Create a list of current limitations to streaming and a plan for testing creative solutions to get streaming out to the field. Need actual statistics and results on how streaming is received in the field.
• Web Page (Michael Ierardi and Steve Lipscomb):
• The Goal is to have a one stop shop.
• Alan & Bill talked about a catalog and development plan. We need to sit down regularly to look at training, not just once a year at review time.
• Fransisca – How is course list developed on the front page Answer: it is links to training center
• Michael – Described that the web content is broken into 2 sections which are training and STED committee sections. Mike would like to see new technology. He would like to put movies up. Mike demonstrated the office of communications page in CA who made videos called CoreCast. Most videos were by Don Becker.
• Tony suggested listing of TEL courses on our page.
• Bill second that suggestion.
• Tony suggested a TEL tab.
• Bill asked Mike to make a draft page to send to committee for review.
• AI: Mike to make a draft web page so that edits can be sent to the STED for review.
• AI: STED members to send emails to the group with subject line “STED Web Pages” when web content is being sent to Mike to adjust (ALL).
• AI: More photos to be added to the page. Send photo’s (assure appropriate safety is being followed in photos) to Mike to add to pages (ALL) – More pictures will help the page’s appeal.
• Bill showed updated STED brochure from Omaha conference. Brochure exists in PowerPoint and PDF. This should be made available on the web site. Bill encouraged us all to download, print, and hand these brochures out to people to make them aware of STED.
• AI: Bill to give STED brochure to Mike and Nicole to Post – DONE
• Alan asked what Q/A is on the pages to assure the links are fresh and accurate.
• Bill suggested we make a policy where members check the pages for errors.
• AI: Set up schedule and assign members the monthly duty of checking web pages for errors. Find tools that can be used to scan pages for dead links (Nicole and Mike).
• Fransisca asked if we put up vendor videos or cheat sheets.
• Jen also agreed that we should have informal items like cheat sheets.
• Jim thought it should be ok if it is internal and there should be no need for editorial approval.
• Stephen suggested we be careful not to show favoritism.
• Tony was also worried about the copyright of materials
• Jen suggested we might be able to just highlight items and switch them out.
• Nicole suggested switching things out would not make for a good archival process for documentation.
• Stephen asked what STEDS role was. It is a clearing house or do we host material? We should not host material but only point to other places where material is hosted.
• Bill said we need a training site – employee development
• Mike said we have some items hosted off of our pages. These pages were from Mike Nolan and are on the Menlo Park servers.
• Bill and Jim discussed the material from Mike and it was suggested the Jim contact Mike even though he is retired and find out how to get material moved from Menlo park to Reston.
• AI: Contact Mike Nolan and find out about moving the training that was done my him and is stored in Menlo Park to Reston (Jim)
• Bill suggested that interaction with the Data Committees is key because people know them. It is a good place for Tips for Tech, but not a good training path.
• Jerad asked if STED pointed to something doesn’t that put a stamp of approval on something. Things could be old or wrong.
• Bill believes that if we point to a page that Q/A on that page is up to them.

Interaction with Data Committies (Jennifer Dansie):

• Jen (See posted Power Point Presentation from F-2-F) talked about the 3 different committees – WRTAC, CRACD, and CHIDER.
• STED should increase communication between WSC directors.
• STED could attend wrap-up meetings at data conferences.
• There seems to be a need for cheat sheets and toolbox reference materials on the website.
• There is also a need to link formal and informal training. What pages host what? STED vs Data Committee Websites and DOILearn vs Cheat sheets.
• If Data Committees will support and promote STED, the web site needs to be up to date.
• Jen mentioned that the Data Committee is interested in doing a streamgagers bootcamp that will be 2 weeks.
• Stephen – Is STED an advocate from Data Committees to OSW, etc.
• Bill – Yes that has been STEDS role before. Steve B did that.
• The Data Committees see the needs – it is a matter of defining roles.
• Franceska – Roles are overlapped.
  • Stephen – Do the Data Committees have a line of communication or are we the only resource they have?
• Jered – WC Field Team Leads are the line of communication.
• Stephen – Trying to map path/process of how things in training go up the channel.
• Franceska and Jered – Discuss the process and who is an advocate.
• Stephen – De we have a protocol?
• Jered – The communication process is informal and feels we all communicate about it to each other.
• Bill – Discussion started in June so communication process is still new. We are throwing out ideas.
• Franceska – It still seems a little fuzzy.
• Jen – Trish and Jen were just discussing these things so it was just an idea exchange in the last week. These were just ideas to start the process.
• Franceska – How do we identify boundaries?
• Tony – Is there a list of required courses/need for that?
• Bill – No – STED has asked discipline offices to put together. Each has its own culture.
• Tony – Just brought on new employee last week. Check list of things to do. STED getting on that list would be good.
• Jen – Like the idea that STED site would show what classes you have at different time in your career. All this computer stuff is required and no field stuff. Maybe ways to have new hire.
• Nicole – Why are the tech training items required like security or other items are on DOILearn need standards and consistency.
• B Will –ould like STED to be in plenary session at data conferences.
• Franceska – Do we need a tech memo for STED establishes charter and protocol? It would make it official. It would come from Bill and be an official memo - - let’s make it more formal.
• STED agreed – Bill will ask. Update charter with new Memo # and get that drafted for Bill to consider for revision etc.
• Franceska – A motion that Jen be a liason to the Data Committees STED. The motion was passed.
• Franceska and Bill – Asked Jen to write up suggestions to insert in notes/minutes.
• Jen – will ask the Data Committees to have STED on their meetings.
• Franceska – will draft tech memo for STED and sent to team for review.
• AI: Draft an official tech memo. Have STED review it and then request it be reviewed by Bill W for consideration and distribution. (Franceska – Nicole to assist as needed)

Coop Programs (Bill Hazell):

• Joyce Williamson began the Coop Program as a sub-committee of the STED. It is intended as a way to train hydrotechs locally by coordinating with available course work in local colleges. Joynce is connected with community college in North Dakota. A couple of other colleges in Washington and South Dakota participate. Bill met with them a couple of years ago in Omaha. Goal is to not have too many people doing this on their own, but coordinate nationally as it slowly expands beyond the Pacific Northwest and northern plains. Have received questions about how to get this going in the East and Joyce is working on this.
• Graduate school program has largely faded away. An expensive program to fund. STED has discussed this in the past and needs to continue considering this question, both pros and cons. Motivates people and connects them to the USGS. But also takes needed funds from elsewhere in the program. Is this something USGS should be more involved in? More immediately, is this something STED should still pursue/consider in its deliberations?
• Franceska: STED had extensive discussion about this topic and we should probably review all this to avoid covering the same ground all over again. Steve: In his view, most of the support for graduate students in Water is now administered at the WSC level through SCEPs etc. He has a couple in Idaho.
• Tony: Traditional program actually sent students away to school, not just employed students locally as SCEPs. Also , by its academic/theoretical nature, this program was geared more toward Studies sections. As a Studies Chief, Tony supports reactivating this program – too expensive for WSCs to support on their own.
• Jim: Points out that SCEPs are supported only via some salary, and perhaps books, but not tuition.
• Jerad: A good program, and expensive. Had similar program in NC where they would pay for salary and specific courses for some SCEPS. But, in years past it was much more difficult to attract people with appropriate degrees and training as hydrologists, so USGS as forced to train them. With many more qualified PhDs now responding to job openings, Jerad does not see the same need to be as proactive in getting people trained. Feels that money would be better spent on establishing USGS courses that will train multiple USGS personnel.
• Tony: Personally benefited from this program, but acknowledges that we are now attracting PhDs. Feels challenge now is to broaden perspective of new hires beyond their PhD studies, and so internal USGS training is necessary and a better use of scarce USGS dollars.
• Franceska: Past discussions included training of Hydro Techs – not just Studies people.
• Tony: Need to be clear that Hydro-Techs are hired as such, and should not expect to be Hydrologists. Jerad concurs that they have supported additional training for Hydro-Techs with Hydrologist courses, but with no specific expectation of becoming a Hydrologist.
• Franceska: Supports current model that these decisions are made at WSC level - it works. Why complicate matters now by reviving a formal graduate program. Steve: Sees value in WSCs having the freedom to nurture local talent with whatever support for training/education they think is appropriate, rather than depending on a National program.
• Bill: Does there need to be a formal statement that this will not be a STED concern/activity? Statement 3 in Future Activities is in reference to Coop program, so it should be retained. Proposes STED officially vote not to pursue Graduate Program any further in its discussions.

• We recognize the ability of WSC to support graduate work as they deem necessary and choose to do so with their own resources, but do not recommend that this activity be directly supported by Water. – Seconded and agreed to by all present.

USGS Course Catalog Project (Alan Ward):

• Constant complaints about difficulty using the search engine embedded in the DOI Learn course catalog. The Director of Human Capital has made it a priority to create a new in-house search engine that will filter only USGS courses out of DOI Learn. Goal is to have this on line by mid-winter.
• Also points out that there is a List-serv that we can subscribe to – somewhat customizable by subscribers – that will notify users of available courses.
• AI: Alan to send information to STED on List-Serv and have Mike post this on the STED web pages.
• Jim: OED needs to push Technical Offices to schedule their courses as far in advance as possible, rather than have them pop up at the last minute.
• Alan: Suggests that STED issue an email to the tech. offices and SMES to make this point so that it has more authority.
• AI: Jim to send email to tech offices and Subject Matter Experts to request they schedule their courses as far in advance as possible.

• Bill: How will this Course Catalog work with STED web page?
• Alan: Suggests a link from STED page.
• Alan: New catalog will link only to classes that have been scheduled.
• Bill: We just need to make sure we keep communicating so we keep links up to date.

Establish STED goals and activities, assign action items, select new Chair (Bill Hazell):

• Bill: Nicole has graciously volunteered to serve as the new Chair of the Committee.
• MOTION by Franceska Wilde: Nomination of Nicole Bogeajis as new Chair of the STED Committee. Tony Paulson seconds the motion. All present vote in the affirmative.
• Bill will work with Nicole to review meeting results and send an email to the committee with action items and assignments next week. Bill requests that all meeting notes be submitted to him and Nicole by COB next Tuesday (9/13).

Wrap Up (Nicole Bogeajis):

• Bill: Nicole has graciously volunteered to serve as the new Chair of the Committee.
• MOTION by Franceska Wilde: Nomination of Nicole Bogeajis as new Chair of the STED Committee.
• Tony Paulson seconds the motion.
• All present vote in the affirmative.
• Bill will work with Nicole to review meeting results and send an email to the committee with action items and assignments next week.
• Bill requests that all meeting notes be submitted to him and Nicole by COB next Tuesday (9/13).

General Comments and Action Items (ALL):

• AI: (ALL) Send electronic copies of handouts, documents, and PowerPoint documents to Mike to put on the web pages.