Pennsylvania District Program Overview
Presented by:   Patricia Lietman, District Chief

• Greg introduced the District IT Staff:

  Greg Shank	UNIX / NWIS (50%)
  James York	Web
  Jeff Strause	DBA
  Phil Bird	Malvern IT Specilist -- PC-based Office
  Greg Wehner	Pittsburgh IT Specialist

• Williamsport - remote IT administration/support from Harrisburg; Mostly data personnel using xterms

• Pennsylvania District has 100 employees, 170 computers, 65 Xterms, 50 desktops/PCs, 55 laptops (includes 35 hydro. techs.), has 4 times the cost of average Districts

• Major District IT Concern:

  • Backups for desktop PCs --
    Greg suggests that users
    • Map to UNIX drives for backup
    • Use designated drives on desktop for backup
      • Jeff Strause uses Ultrabac software to back up selected desktop files (about 5GB per backup)
  -- Greg would like an archiving solution (maybe near online) for District disks.
  -- Greg suggests that this would be a good task for an enterprise solution.

• Nelson Williams indicated that NC has a contractor (company name -- Iron Mountain) that has full backup capabilities.

• Discussion of data archival

• Local Lotus Server also serves WRD New York District

• Heavy duty GIS users are using PC desktops.

• Home users use the ICA Client to WinCenter boxes, Windows 2000, Citrix, MetaFrame, XP

• ITAC Overview (5 minutes) -- Brian McCallum
  Brian McCallum introduced the ITAC members and presented the ITAC overview including ITAC purpose and goals.

• Bureau IT issues (15 minutes) -- Kevin Gallagher

• DIS Office update (10 minutes) -- Tom Wood

• NWIS update (10 minutes) -- Susan Trapanese

Questions and Answers with District Staff

1. What is Active Directory (AD)and how will this affect the District? What will happen when the AD server goes down?
   Kevin Gallagher's Reply:   Active Directory is a Microsoft (MS) product. As of December 2003, the legacy domain MS structure will become unsupported. MS AD is the replacement (planned obsolescence) and will feature improved functions, such as:

   • Remote server administration
   • Remote security policy enforcement and administratio
   • Enterprise wide user authentication

   DOI single forest AD implementation will not be implemented in the near term. There is a Bureau wide implementation proposal circulating now.

   There are issues with the network going down - there are work arounds for network down time; extend the lease for software license; dial-in for license update; posting a new software image, etc.

   Jim Bettandorf's Reply:   AD is designed for a highly centralized organization - USGS is highly decentralized. The domain controller architecture has to be designed for our decentralized organization.

2. DOI Email Consolidation - Why is this a DOI Activity?
   Kevin:   Most of DOI uses Lotus Notes (there are four email packages in DOI. This is a service that will be outsourced. DOI will issue an RFI for email consolidation and outsourcing in six to eight weeks. Many organizations are focusing on web-based email and it is possible that DOI may switch from Lotus in 18-24 months.

3. Why is password expiration necessary?
   Kevin:   This helps when there is turnover in the organization. Damage comes from inside the organization in most cases.

4. (Jun2003.PA.1)  Hardware Procurment: Pricing and Technical support for delivery and warranty? --
   Kevin Gallagher's Reply:   Kevin will contact Paul Exter to see if Paul has preliminary pricing information. Technical support has been a major contract specification and requirement.

5. (Jun2003.PA.2) Does the USGS consider the cost of porting hydrologic applications when moving from Prime to Data General to Sun? There is a high cost in porting software! Note: that G2 on Data General and tkg2 on the Sun
   Katherine USGS is not able to provide continuing support for software as we move from platform to platform. Note that the HASS program office has been eliminated. Support will vary and be dependent on the application and the ability of the discipline offices to support the applications.

6. SPLUS is not a statistical package. Hopefully, USGS/WRD will not be moving away from SAS. USGS Boxplot does not work on SPLUS. Time series data does not move from NWIS to SPLUS easily (such as multiple measurements for a particular date.  
   Tom: There is no movement to drop support for SAS. Check out the new SPLUS release

7. (Jun2003.PA.3) Could a questionnaire be developed to prioritize the top software for WRD users, such as, Jon Scott's random site selection program that runs on a prior version of ESRI software?
   Katherine:   A questionnaire could be developed to determine: "What software are Districts using that should be supported from a water enterprise level?" She does not want to raise WRD user expectations.

8. (Jun2003.PA.4) HSPF (Water Quality Modeling) -- Woefully inadequate, especially the documentation.

   During the ITAC town meeting this week in PA, we had a question about the support for models like HSPF. The person felt like HSPF had some rough edges and the documentation was incomplete. I know that we do no have enough resources to support HASS. Could you describe for us a little of the plans for OSW to support some models, and specifically about HSPF? -- Reference Steve Blanchard email of 6/16/03

9. Is Adobe licensing going to expire?
   Yes, but Adobe Contractual license buy based on volume buy. The current contract ran for two years. A new contract will be let this week. All existing agreements will roll forward on June 30. The new SmartBuy GSA policy for centralizing software license buys should not affect this contract.

10. Can NWIS merge in the instantaneous discharge from QWDATA into ADAPS applications?  
    Susan/Joel: This is a known requirement (or enhancement request) and has been documented by the Surface Water user group (SWUG). The district can contact the SWUG or possibly check GNATS for further details.

11. Kudos to the NAWQA Data Warehouse and Staff -- EPA loves this database

• Very good town meeting, the majority of District staff attended and asked a lot of questions (See Above)

• Formalizing archival procedures. (Regions are aware of this)

• Disaster recovery procedures (Regions are aware of this)

• Multiple office logistics

• Discussion item: WRD enterprise software support

  • Districts continue to be concerned about the support of general applications software (G2 software). Some features are missing in SPLUS, ARC IMS software, and HASS software.

• Discussion item: Questionnaire

  • Suggested survey questions:
    • What package are you interested in?
    • What functionality in the package is most important?

(Jun2003.PA.5) Discussion ensued: Brian McCallum will wordsmith a recommendation for discipline offices to survey the Districts regarding software that needs enterprise support. Katherine will bring this recommendation to the AD TECH meeting in July.

• Real-time focus group
• Security issues
• Regional GIO status

  • Regional GIO positions report to Regional Director with matrix relationship to the GIO. These positions will have the same subset of activities as the Bureau GIO. The plan is that all three Regional GIO positions will be announced at the same time. Interviews have taken place.

• Developing a customer-focused IT office

  • There are external IT influences on Software Development Life Cycle. Generally HQ organizations lack focus on SDLC. GIO sponsored a two day offsite meeting to discuss IT issues regarding serving customers. Purpose, mission, etc.

  • Kevin distributed a GIO pamphlet that describes the GIO Mission, Purpose, Vision and Core Values (Service, Teamwork, Excellence, Values & Impact, Leadership, and Professionalism) GIO will spend a lot of time in the next eight weeks to decompose the vision. Core Values must be drilled down and then measured.

• Purpose -- Partner with science to enable discovery of our natural world and turn information into knowledge.

• Mission -- The GIO enables USGS science by:

  • Ensuring that anyone can find, get and use information in ways that are meaningful to them.
  • Providing innovative technology and methods to improve performance.
  • Advocating effective stewardship of information assets.

• Vision -- By September 30, 2005, implement an integrated information environment that supports science and decision making.

• Core Values:

  • Service: We provide timely, accurate service reposnive to customers needs.
  • Teamwork: We focus on teamwork by listening and learning from each other.
  • Excellence: We strive for excellence.
  • Value & Impact: We invest in high impact opportunities that return value to science and the community.
  • Leadership: We embrace and lead change.
  • Professionalism: We are respectful of others and behave with integrity.

• Kevin's next step is to produce performance measures based on the core values.

• ITAC concerns/suggestions:
  • Get ITAC buy in on policy.
  • Get buy in on policy from all Disciplines.
  • Get field personnel to work on GIO IT tasks.

List of Expectations follow:

• More extended discussion on ITAC and its relative role based on the IT organizations changes (Bob Hirsch has put it a discussion of the future of ITAC on the WRD Senior Staff agenda)

• Science Records Management (This task has been relegated to secretarial level in the Districts. In the Florida Integrated Science Center, clarification for the Center Directors is required. Most Districts have personnel for Data, Admin and Studies Sections.)

• Katherine reports that she is commissioning a team to work on answering three questions:

  • "What is a science record?"
  • "What is the appropriate media for records disposition?"
  • "What is the schedule for records disposition?"

• Review Action Items from previous meetings

Katherine will follow-up on action item Feb2003.PR.6 with Greg Allord.

Expected Outcome:
Approval of Charter Revisions

• ITAC Charter revisions (Technical office change)
  -- Sandy Williamson will represent NAWQA and OWQ
  -- NRP removed their representative from the ITAC
  -- ITAC members unanimously approved the above changes

• Awards for outgoing members
  -- (Jun2003.PA.6) Katherine will send non-monetary awards and letters to Grady Moore and Ruth Thornberg for their services.

• Process for selection of new members
  -- (Jun2003.PA.7) Katherine will work on replacements for the District Chief who is retiring and the WebMaster representative who is rotating off at the end of the year. Those two will send recommendations to Katherine.

Topic/Subject Matter:  

• Science Services Committee Report Discussion -- Katherine reported that IT services and functions that are unique to the water discipline should be kept in the water discipline offices. Other IT services and functions should move to the GIO Program Office. Karen Siderelis and Kevin Gallagher approached Katherine Lins to send details to the CTO Office and to move committees such as NT TAC to the GIO Program Office. Bob Hirsch, in conversations with Katherine Lins, indicated that it is a good thing to have WRD "best practices" lead the Bureaus IT activities. Funding already has gone to the Bureau. Bob Hirsch indicated that activies such as NWIS, Web Content, SPLUS, SAS, and the Field Computer Project should remain with the water discipline.

• Relevance of ITAC Discussion -- This discussion related to the relevance and existence of ITAC. Several indicated that ITAC continues to be relevant. ITAC is one of the voices of WRD field offices to Headquarters staff. Concern is that there are not receptive ears from the perspective of the field offices. WRD must insure that communications and feedback are effective. If DIS functions move to the GIO Program Office, then the DIS Chief should remain on the ITAC. Another question is "How is WRD guaranteed that WRD will get the same level of service when these DIS activities move to the GIO?"

• IT DIS Activities that may go to the GIO include:
  -- Reston Help Desk
  -- DIS System Support Unit
  -- DIS ASU activities that are not WRD specific
  -- NTTAC
  -- SAS
  

  The real driver is the funding for these IT activities. Discussion ensued around the issue that the GIO Help Desk is not responding very well. Sandy recommended to Kevin that Kevin look at the problem report tickets statistics. Kevin wants to put Service Level Agreements in place to insure adequate service.

• IT DIS Activities that need to remain in the water discipline

• NWIS recommended to Katherine that the SunTAC report to the NWIS Program Office to support the NWIS and the NWISWeb. ITAC members agreed on this.

RESOLUTION -- ITAC recognizes that in the advent of DIS reorganization, reliance on regional computer specialists (RCSers) by WRD will increase. RCSers will continue to be critical resources for the support of NWIS, as well as other office of information initiatives. Also, RCSers will become the focal points of WRD science center IT Issues.

Presented by:   Greg Allord
-- Greg Allord presented a Publications Update; including ADOBE contract status; Nationwide Publications Meeting in Lakewood, CO. during the week of Nov. 17, 2003; design document for Web Publishing; Pubs training plans (Phil Redman); reports approval policy and process; Reports Products Warehouse (55K publications online); release date June 30, 2003 internal; Reports Tracking System; and Competitive Sourcing.

Competitive Scoping studies will work thru the Regional Director's Offices rather than thru the individual cost centers.

Expected Outcome:   Communication of impact on WRD
Meeting notes follow:  

• Adobe Contractual License Program (CLP) - Final bids were received on Tuesday, June 10, 2003. Submissions have been cleared by USGS Contracting Officer and have been sent to Greg Allord for technical evaluation. A 4-year award is anticipated by the end of June 2003, with an ordering web site being developed immediately. All data from the existing Adobe CLP will be captured and stored at CAPP and form the basis for the beginning of the new CLP. Notices regarding maintenance renewal will be sent at the time of award. This contract differs from the first CLP in that there is only the award to the vendor and they sign the licensing agreement with Adobe as an Authorized Licensing Center. This streamlines our procurement process as well as allowing for an award longer than the 2-year limitation imposed by Adobe. The contract is open to all DOI agencies.

• Pubs 2003 - Planned for the week of November 17, 2003, Denver, CO. This is a training workshop and will concentrate on policy and technical advances related to USGS publishing. A coordinating team of Publishing Issues Group (PIG) members is developing a tentative agenda. A registration notice will be sent by August 29, 2003. The DOI Publishing Council has asked permission to send other agencies attendees and a qualified acceptance was given subject to space limitations. Over 250 people are expected to attend this training.

• Web publishing - A draft document was developed by Keith Kirk, WR Reports Specialist, related to proper procedure and policy for web publishing. This was supported by CAPP and sponsored by PIG. It served the purpose of getting other Disciplines to finally step up and comment on the procedures - loud and often. A working session is planned for mid-summer to move this document along.

• Structured Documents (report workflow) - A proposal is being finalized offering training by CAPP for a select number of Districts and other USGS publishing offices related to using Adobe InDesign to create documents using XML for print and Web. The training classes will be offered, by invitation, in Denver and Reston during July 2003. A copy of the proposal will be sent to ITAC by Friday, June 13, 2003.

• New USGS Report Series definitions - Completed and implemented beginning January 1, 2004. A series of announcements for internal and external use is being prepared in cooperation with the Office of Communications. Training will be done at Pubs 2003 and at regional management meeting.

• Bureau approval proves - CAPP and the WRD regional Report Specialist have reviewed a philosophy paper prepared by Bob Hirsch and Karen Siderelis regarding Bureau approval of information to be released to the public - either on paper or electronically. CAPP will assist prepare implementation plans and host a meeting, on behalf of the PIG, of Bureau approving officials before the end of FY 2003.

• Product Warehouse - Several sets of formal user testing have been conducted. This site was prepared by CAPP and the Wisconsin District Oracle Team with funding sponsorship of the GIO/Enterprise Web project. Comments have been favorable but some adjustments are being made. Total number of citations now exceeds 55,000. Biology reports need to be added. An internal USGS release is planned for June 30, 2003 and a public release before the end of CY 2003.

• RTS replacement - Recent funding issues, especially related to New Publications of the USGS, have forced a review and analysis of the WRD Reports Tracking System (RTS) with the probable outcome that this will be replaced by a Bureau system. Greg Allord and Jan Simmons (NMD) are preparing a project proposal detailing the problem; objectives; proposed solution; data elements; USGS units requiring report data (more than 20); timeline, anticipated cost; programming; and implementation and training plans. This will be completed by the end of June 2003 with an anticipated implementation data of January 1, 2004.

• Competitive Sourcing-- Visual Information (publishing) is undergoing a scoping study and a report is due to the Director by August 15, 2003. Greg Allord and Hedy Rossmeissl (GIO) are co-chairs of the Visual Information Scoping Team. This is essentially a full time job. Full competitions are scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2004. This is a detailed process that will have potentially disruptive impacts on staff and reporting science. The study is compounded by the fact that the work is complex, has many facets and is very geographically dispersed (more than 80 sites). Approximately 280 FTE and 320 individuals are involved.

Question: Link between RTS and BASIS?

Answer: Greg indicates that there are plans to communicate with the BASIS team to see how to eliminate double entry of reports information.

Question: Annual Data Report and 508 Compliance Status?

Answer: Ed Fisher (Iowa) is working on this using Framemaker and PDF and will come out with new scripts in the Winter/Spring FY04 timeframe. Only half the Districts use scripts. Greg et al is looking at a pure XML structure so as not to be tied to a software package, such as Framemaker. Brian indicates that many Data Sections think that Framemaker is too complex; Word is easier and accessible to many more employees. Greg rebuts that Districts that use Framemaker are content. Brian notes that there will be a Data Reports CD workshop in Georgia District on July 15 and 16, 2003. The issues/recommendats (e.g. one-clip printing / citable referance of annual report - this may not be a clear description of this issue) of CD Data Reports need to be discussed at National WRD data chiefs and WRD management meetings. The CD Data Report issues could be a possible topic for the WRD Senior Staff meeting.

The agenda will be available in August, 2003. Illustrators are definitely an audience to include such topics as Photoshop, GIS, etc.

(Jun2003.PA.8)  NTTAC is requested to nominate a person to work with CAPP regrading the seminar for System Administrators for issues related to publishing. This is to assist in validation of content. NTTAC is to provide name to Phil Redman, CAPP (608.238.9333, x 152) by June 23, 2003. (Reference email of 6/12/03)

(Jun2003.PA.9) Brian McCallum will add Greg Allord, Barbara Balthrop, and Ed Fisher to the CDReportWorkshop Lotus abbrev group.

• Paul Exter was a member of the technical evaluation team for this contract. Standard specs will be on the vendor's web site, so that orders can be placed. You cannot order less than the minimum specs for a product (don't want to order a NIC card); but you may add extra options. Approval at the CIO level will be required on this contract. The process for this approval are yet to be determined. Technical phone support is 24/7.

  Questions / Answers from this discussion:

  Question: Can you order just a part (keyboard, disk drive, network card, etc.)?
  Paul Exter: Dell says you can use them, but you could also use cdwg too. This really has not been addressed. Monitors and keyboards are only addressed on the contract.
  Kevin: YES

  Question: Does the standard (minimum) keyboard support smart card technology?
  Paul Exter: Standard is not smart card. Additional is and can be ordered via dell after the fact.

  Question: Does the minimum PC configuration include speakers, CD burner?
  Kevin: Yes

  Question: Can you upgrade any component?
  Kevin: Yes

  Question: How often will the specs be updated to ensure that we are buying the latest technology?
  Kevin: There is a tech refresh built into the contract.
  (Reference Brad Schulze Hardware buy email of 6/14/03)

  Question: Is the process for CIO approval defined yet?
  Kevin: Not yet. But Districts can create a web/phone order starting today June 11, 2003.

  Question: What is the IT procurement effect on Mac users?
  Kevin: Hord says that there is no room for MACS, but Kevin argues the MAC case to Hord for science project justification where needed (You can buy MS office for MAC). MAC are not an DOI enterprise desktop. XP is the standard DOI OS . so justification will be needed for MAC purchases and requests will be scrutinized. Lab equipment will not need a waiver.

  Question: What about buying a hardened laptop?
  Kevin: A hardened laptop is a scientific requirement and is not a high-volume requirement. So a hardened laptop does not need a waiver. This is not a part of the enterprise agreement.

  Question: Can you comment on the 80/20 rule for buying off the IT contract vs. waivers?
  Kevin: Will find out the answer to this question.

  Comment: Researchers/modellers need to refresh IT technology faster than the DOI-planned three-year life-cycle. Hence, their workstations could be replaced every one-to-two years, and their old computers could be handed down to other office employees for use as office desktops.
  Kevin: This is a good business practice.

  Question: Docking stations?
  Comment: This solution is good for managers.
  Kevin: Good approach. I use a docking station -- this will come with the current contract so you are able to buy this shortly.

  Comment: Kevin indicates that there is a discussion of the above questions/comments and more on the DOI IT procurement web site. This URL has been distributed to the WRD Site Administrators. http://nttac.usgs.gov/index.asp?url=Ent_Agreement_revised.html

  Comment: Paul Exter email clarifies the Federal Employee Purchase program -- indicates that the prices are available to DOI employees for their private use..

  Question: Email Outsourcing -- Will USGS keep Lotus if the DOI switches to another Email package?
  Kevin: Not for email servers. Maybe for use of TMS and for Sametime / Quicklace The time frame for a switch will take a few years to fully implement a new Email system, if the new system is not Lotus.

  Question: As DOI is outsourcing e-mail functions, why should science centers send people to the LLMA conference in August?
  Jim: There will be both LLMA and AD training in the same week.

  Question: DOI Business Practices
  Comment: Kevin indicates that OMB is requiring Departments and Bureaus to change their IT processes; otherwise funding is being withheld. As is the case in USGS; such as Seismic Program funding.

• CTO Structure as it relates to ITAC (continued from previous day)

  DISCUSSION

  ITAC has a distinct role in communicating to the WRD constituents. DIS functions that could scale to the GIO will be reviewed by the GIO/CTO offices.

  ITAC has reviewed the WRD Science Support findings and agrees, in concept, that specific DIS components be moved to the GIO office. Functions, such as Sun TAC, NWIS support, WEB content, Field computer project should remain in the water discipline. ITAC is concerned with reduced support that was provided previously by the DIS Program Office. ITAC will continue to monitor the GIO support activities. Regional Computer Specialist's roles are integral to the success of NWIS.

  ITAC RECOMMENDATION: -- ITAC supports the migration of certain functions of the WRD DIS office to the Bureau's Chief Technology Officer (CTO's) supervision that have a scope larger than WRD as outlined in the "Final Report of the Scientific Services Committee", with the documented concern of the potential drop of the level of service to WRD. ITAC strongly insists WRD-focused functions, such as NWIS support, SunTAC, field computing efforts, and WRD web projects remain under WRD supervision.

  ITAC --advocates, watchdogs

  "Is there a role for ITAC?"
  Communications to the GIO and to the WRD constituents is vital. A recommendation should come forward that a GIO office representative be a member of the ITAC.

  Recommendation -- ITAC's role of providing a feedback mechanism between the Districts and OI and the CTO becomes even more critical with the migration of several DIS functions to the CTO office, and therefore, recommends that a member of the CTO office, preferably the current DIS office chief, maintains a permanent membership on ITAC.

Presented by:   Sandy Williamson
-- Loren Kloft, Greg Allord, Livy Shreeve, Amy ? (Kentucky), Steve Blanchard ,and John Gray joined the SLEDS discussion by teleconference.

Expected Outcome:   Update for ITAC members

Background -- WRD has 7 or 8 sediment labs. 70% of samples go thru Iowa and Kentucky labs - but these two labs do not use SLEDS. Iowa has indicated that there are enough functions in SLEDS now that Iowa will switch to SLEDS - date to be determined. Understanding of SLEDS status; what has been done recently, what will be done in the remainder of this FY03, what is left to be accomplished and what are the resources for FY04. SLEDS is not a top OSW priority. OSW's FY03 goal is to get a handle on SLEDS OSW provided $15K to John Grey to understand the issues and to develop a plan. Iowa surface-water review was beneficial.

What's been done recently?
-- Email Thread regarding SLEDS progress

What remains to be done in FY03?

This task deals with programming data links among SLEDS, NWIS and GLASS. John Grey has worked with Iowa District. The California Sediment Lab Chief participated in Iowa District review. Iowa will be adopting SLEDS in the short-term.

What needs to be done in FY04?

There is a question about developing new software for WRD sediment laboratory processing. John Grey indicated that SLEDS will remain the program for WRD sediment laboratory processing. Bill Johnson, Pam (iowa) and John Grey have been communicating about SLEDS via email several times a day recently.

Questions from this discussion:

Sandy: Is there a SLEDS web page that lists the versions?
John: Yes, for five years. The URL is http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/SedLab/

There are different SLEDS versions around the WRD?
John: SLEDS was designed and implement for the CVO office. Fixes are provided by Bill Johnson based on sediment laboratory input. A formal requirements process for SLEDS is needed, if SLEDS is to be a nationally supported SLEDS system.

Brian: Does OSW oversees SLEDS?
Steve: Yes, the development of SLEDS was much different than NWIS, AIS, etc. CVO has developed SLEDS based on the CVO workflow. The FY03 statement of work (15K) is general and Kentucky/Iowa have not had input. Kentucky may need a visit by the CVO staff for switching to SLEDS, after Iowa switches. Potentially, a SLEDS users group may be needed.

Loren: Will there be sustained OSW funding for SLEDS?
Steve: Yes, $15K. There may be a consideration for a SLEDS cost recovery or a per-sample processing fee to fund SLEDS.

Sandy: All WRD sediment labs will need to have a common workflow to implement SLEDS serve as a national system.

(Jun2003.PA.10) ITAC will recommend that a SLEDS user group or a SLEDS user input process be formed and that the SLEDS web page be kept current. A direct SLEDS URL link from the main OSW Web site needs to be built.

Presented by:   Susan Trapanese and Ernest Dreyer
Ernest Dreyer, Colleen Babcock and Bill Horak participated by teleconference.

Ernest reported on the study of a backup system for the Wallops Island facility. NOAA resisted this, because GOES DCS is defined as a non-critical system. This is now changing. The working group petitioned to elevate the GOES DCS as a critical system with a statement from each agency through the STWG (Satellite Technology Working Group); of which Ernest Dreyer is a member. Tom Zembrzuski is drafting a letter using Ernest's input and the input of Biology and Geology from the USGS Director to NOAA. There will be a study on the suitability of sites and the startup and recurring costs. NWS wants the same access to the backup system as NWS has to the Wallops facility (a duplicate system). STWG will develop the user requirements for the backup system. Ernest drafted the strawman which will be reviewed at the STWG June 24 meeting. Ernest will be the USGS liaison on the committee that oversees the study.

Discussion

Brian: Many District Data Chiefs are being approached by Sutron and Viasala for a DRGS The Data Chiefs need to be notified that District not be encouraged to buy a District DRGS.
Ernest: Ernest indicated that ITAC wait for the study completion (6 months) before issuing a recommendation to the WRD Data Chief. There will be reception problems as the GOES DCS loads up due to narrow band width and concurrent transmissions (the noise will increase across the bandwidth). The Wallops Island antennae are huge.

Grady: Is there a plan for a new satellite?
Ernest: The design phase is ten years in advance. NOAA is developing the requirements right now. The committee is starting to meet now.

Bill: Comment on GOES DCS catastrophic disaster?

Ernest: There have been none. No data was lost with the recent lightning strike. There have been hurricane lock downs in the past, but no data loss. NOAA has hardened the antennae as a result of the Bureau comments. 1975 was the launch of the first GOES satellite. The GOES DCS has a single point of failure at Wallops Island.

Recommendation -- ITAC believes that the NESDIS GOES DCS, and the current DCS backup study, is critical to the WRD mission. ITAC recommends that OSW put high priority in completing the draft letter requesting that the GOES DCS be authorized as a National Critical Infrastructure (NCI) system, and that this draft letter be presented through Bob Hirsch for signature by Director Chip Groat.

Presented by:   Sandy Williamson
Patty Damon, Phil Redman, Daphne Wahl and Greg Allord attended via teleconference.

-- GIO is investigating Sametime for use as an enterprise solution. DOI and some Bureaus are using Sametime.

-- Sandy Williamson indicated that WRD pays $20K per year for the Raindance licenses. In May, 2003, severe Raindance telecom problems resurfaced. Sandy started looking at Sametime applications as an alternative. USGS upgraded to Quickplace, and as a result, now have unlimited licenses to Sametime. Raindance has plans now to allow for the installation of their software on a server inside the firewall, but USGS would have to supply servers, server maintenance, etc.

-- Sametime is envisioned a Bureau enterprise solution. Enhanced audio capabilities are needed for an enterprise solution in Menlo and Reston. Patty indicated that moderator training needs to be developed. Sandy wants to dry run another test with about 15 persons; then a larger test with about 75 persons, with some persons working from their home cable modems / DSLs. Patty's contractor is beginning to look at NetMeeting and Instant Messenger functionality. ITAC supports Sandy Williamson's plan to investigate and test Sametime as a Bureau enterprise solution. Sametime may replace Raindance. Sandy Williamson will, in conjunction with the RCSers, plan, design and execute the test. Sandy will need help for user support before and during the test from Daphne Wahl, Patty Damon and Valerie Walker. The target dates for the tests are June and July.

ITAC RECOMMENDATION -- ITAC supports the Sametime test of a large attendee group and comparison with Raindance with the goal of making suggestions to WRD and/or the USGS.

NWIS Security Issues Presented by:   Richard Hollway
Expected Outcome: ITAC briefing / possible action items

Good news: NWIS HW and SW are essentially the same.
Bad news: The facilities housing the NWIS servers are radically different.

Goal: Certification and Accreditation (C&A) by September 30, 2003

Four main documents:

1. Risk assessment (NIST SP 800-30)
   1. Questionnaire for districts: facilities, method, RT JFA's etc.
   2. Cyber Seminar to discuss details of questionnaire on June 10, 2003
   3. SAIC scan to be used for external vulnerabilities (NIST SP 800 - 42)
   4. EMS "agents" to be used for internal vulnerabilities (NIST SP 800 - 42)
2. Asset Valuation (DOI AVG 2.0) (nearly completed)
   1. Appendix I on assets
   2. Appendix L on inventory (includes NWIS server list)
3. Security Plan
   1. NWIS - HQ
   2. NWIS - Districts (template in development)
4. Contingency Plan (NIST 800 - 34)
   1. NWIS -HQ
   2. NWIS - Districts (template in development, needs buddy match up, etc.)

Discussion:

Joel: Does the DMZ have to be in place prior to August 31, 2003?
Richard: Yes

Kevin: The Bureau plan is to have DOI-compliant DMZs at four locations (for John Q. Public). The plan must address access for WRD cooperators

Action Item: Kevin will find out about CA District DMZ status.

Greg: What if all NWIS sites don't pass the certification.
Richard: OMB will put NWIS on the "at-risk" list. OMB may withhold funding or direct the funding to get NWIS certification.

Joel: Is the word questionnaire a misnomer?
Richard: Answer the questions on the questionnaires honestly.

Joel: Will the buddy system plan be required to be in place by Aug. 31?
Richard: The buddy needs a contingency plan and must be ready to go.

Presented by:   Tom Wood

The ITAC will vote on Office of Information Funding Priorities. The following table resulted from ITAC review at this meeting.

Presented by:   Nelson Williams
Expected Outcomes:   An email for WRD Site Administrators regarding IT security impacts is required.

Discussion follows:

Known Security Issues for WRD Site Administrators:

• Homeland Security Guidance
  -- What does SA have to do when Homeland Security alert levels change? Refer to Scott McEwen's

• DMZ's to protect public access.
  -- Does SSH constitute public access? Mike McNally wasn't able to answer this question.

• Contractor Security Audits and Scans Gary forwarded on May 23 a BITSM email to Site Administrators Site
  -- Administrators may mistake an auditor as a hacker. Can the Site Administrators have an email to warn them of an audit? Jessie will communicate with Garry Neverdon to get the word out.

• Continuity of Operations Plans.
  -- COOP plan Guidance will be provided to Districts by Keith Anderson, Bureau Facility Manager. Steve Hammond, for instance, is the Easter Region COOP plan representative.

• SUS Server and Microsoft Patches
  -- Sam Martinez proposed a plan for OS upgrades.

• Web resources and how to secure them
  -- Suggestion is to migrate to NATWeb. NATWeb cannot handle IIS servers.

• Risk Assessments
  -- Entire IT infrastructure guidance needed expected by the DOI.

• NWIS Security
  -- Refer to previous ITAC agenda item above.

• Wireless Networks on LAN
  -- What is the policy for wireless? Districts need to know if wireless networks are forbidden or District need wireless guidelines.

• Security responsibilities --
  -- If an SA has a security issue, Site Administrators need to know who to contact. Districts need to know names of security groups, personnel and their responsibilities

(Jun2003.PA.11) Tom Wood and Margaret Bunch will generate a correspondence to WRD Site Admin on IT Security impacts on Districts.

(Jun2003.PA.12) Nelson will prepare a recommendation from the ITAC to the CTO for a combined public ftp services (outbound) working with NATWeb staff.

(Jun2003.PA.13) Jessie will draft an email from the RCSers to the WRD Site Administrators regarding Security Requirements and DMZs.

Time

Presented by:   Susan Trapanese
-- Bill Horak joined on the telephone.

Since a status was presented at during the townhall meeting, Susan conducted a Q&A session.

Expected Outcome:   Update for ITAC members. Discussion of concerns from the field.

Discussion:

Sandy: What is the status of QW Refresh?

• This is a very complex requirement/function to design and test.
• NWIS and ESC have not determined the estimated release date since there are many other priorities for NWIS right now (like security C&A).
• Data Quality Indicator (DQI) must be displayed in NWISWeb.
• Must synchronize between NWIS and NWISWeb - adds/updates and deletes, and certain "changes in QA/flagging"
• Make sure NWIS-side utilities easy for NWIS DBAs to edit values, and to flag and unflag groups of data to send/remove from the web

Bill: (Bill missed the answer above due to phone problems)-- QW Samples and Results Question: District is getting many requests for data that are more current. NWISWeb is limited to QW results up through the "published" water year. The gap in data between the previous/published water year and the current water year should be "filled" automatically as data are reviewed for release to the web - similar to real-time data.

Susan: Susan summarized the points from the previous question (from Sandy). Susan also mentioned that the districts would need to regularly review their QW lab results and DQIs in order keep good QA of the data going to the web.

Randy: Will Rating/Shift Development GUI be in Release 5?
Susan: The content of future releases has not been determined yet. As part of improving our architecture, NWIS is doing several pilot projects. One is the use of Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) software as modules for NWIS. As part of a Cooperative Technical Agreement with HydStra, the NWIS teams are evaluating the use of their COTS package for " graphical rating/shift development. The Jeff Christman's HydroML (XML) is being used as the "data-sharing-interface" between NWIS and the Hydstra package. Our goal for this pilot is to be able to demonstrate how NWIS can use a COTS package, such as the one from Hydstra or OTHER Companies, to enhance NWIS capabilities.

Randy: What is the status of the new graphical DECODES?
Susan: The LRGS software is graphical, but the current DECODES is not as up-to-date as what the COE is using (from Mike Maloney - Ilex Engineering). NWIS has a work order is in the mill for the enhancements to DECODES.

Brian/Randy: Importing data from NWIS to other formats?
Joel: Note the RDB to Excel utility on the Phoenix User group web page. This utility is not widely known.

Randy: For NWISWeb - Users want all the unit values for streamflow; not just the current/31-days for real-time sites nor all the daily streamflow values.
Susan: Yes, your requirement is on the NWIS "list" and has a very senior-level champion. It too, presents interesting data quality issues. Also, since only "historic" streamflow daily values are available in NWISWeb, the most frequent requests for more data is usually period of record for water-levels.

Bill: Web base geo referenced water quality data indicators, meta data and then get a hot link to data
Susan: Ken Lanfear, Jon Scott and EPA STORET are working on a plan to produce this portal solution and index. An good working example of this is EPA's Window to My Environment (WME).

Sandy: Multiple databases?
Susan: NWIS has a "process improvement task" to determine why the multiple data bases exist; i.e. requirements, so that we can then determine alternatives.

(Jun2003.PA.14)  Susan will have Ernest Dreyer send an email to Randy and ITAC to describe the enhancements to DECODES that are going to be worked on. (This is because Susan wasn't sure that she understood Randy's question --so she wanted the expert to give Randy/ITAC a short summary). This summary will be added to the next official NWIS status note that is sent out (date to be determined later).

Presented by:   Nelson Williams
-- Phil Redman, Greg Allord and Bill Horak were connected by teleconference.
Expected Outcome:   ITAC recommendation of preferred editor.

Discussion notes follow:

Adobe GoLive versus Macromedia Dreamweaver

Introduction

1. Katherine asked me to head a team to evaluate GoLive 6.0 and Dreamweaver MX 6.1 such that ITAC could make a recommendation on which HTML-editor webmasters should use.

2. Sandy Williamson volunteered funds for one person and funds for software.

3. John Parks and Nelson Williams agreed to complete a comparison of the two products. Sandy paid for the software license for John, and promised to cover John's time.

4. The intent of this action item was to determine which product is better. If Dreamweaver was determined to be better, then ITAC would ask DIS or the Bureau to negotiate a contract for Dreamweaver that makes it more competitively priced with GoLive.

5. Other evaluations

   1. NOAA ran a similar evaluation and chose Dreamweaver, but they used earlier versions of these packages
   2. Most evaluations available on-line are out-of-date

The evaluation

1. Performance is very similar. Neither program overtaxed a workstation.
2. Both HTML editors create relatively clean, readable, maintainable code.
3. Functionality is very similar. Both programs do roughly the same things. In particular -
   1. Both offer a graphical editor and a source-text editor for making modifications
   2. Both allow for management of a site as well as individual web pages
   3. Both do a good job of allowing control over scripts, images, tags, etc.
   4. Both do a good job of helping the designer understand options for various objects
   5. The Dreamweaver interface is much more intuitive
   6. Dreamweaver is de facto standard HTML-editor, both in the private sector and in WRD

Conclusions

1. If the webmaster comes from a design background, and is familiar other Adobe products, they may prefer GoLive.
2. If the webmaster comes from a technical/IT background, they may prefer Dreamweaver.
3. Both products are far superior to Microsoft's FrontPage and Word documents saved as HTML.
4. Given the similarities in the two products, it may not be worth making an endorsement of Dreamweaver over GoLive, or vice versa.

(Jun2003.PA.15)  Tom Wood will find out if WRD can get a better price on Dreamweaver.

(Jun2003.PA.16)  Nelson will summarize the HTML editor issues and recommendation and send an email to WRD Site Administrators.

Presented by:   Charlie Merk
Expected Outcome:   ITAC update / possible action items.

Presented by:   Grady Moore
-- Sherry Smith attended by teleconference.
Expected Outcome:  

Discussion notes follow:

• In two years, USGS will have to move to a new DOI TMS.

• The existing TMS will become 508 compliant at the end of June 2003.

• The ITAC TMS issues will be fixed with this new 508 compliant release.

• Deletes will have to be performed by the central TMS staff - contact Sherry Smith.

• Emails go to user, vendor and certifier after the training is completed.

• A request for historic training TMS updates will no longer be needed to be certified, etc. The training officer can view the approval history form to see if evaluation has been filled out by attendee.

• A training form for many users in a training class; say for Defensive Driving; will need to be broken up into groups - one group for each approving supervisor.

• Cancelled training requests in TMS will be deleted each night in the new system.

• Drafts TMS records will be deleted after three months.

• Disapproved TMS requests will remain in the TMS.

• If payment is SV or credit card, then TMS does not need a vendor code.

• For USGS courses, use up and down arrows to find course code; or if course code is not in system; there is an option for the trainee to enter a course description.

• For TMS reports, profiles will be a new feature - to insure that only approved persons can everyone can not view training records for all employees.

• Five canned reports ( available in a future TMS versions) will be provided.

• Sherry Smith will run non-standard ad hoc TMS reports on demands.

• Sherry Smith is investigating a method to provide TMS reports output in an Excel spreadsheet.

• A TMS status email from the Bureau is forthcoming.

Presented by:   Tom Wood
Expected Outcome:   Results of ITAC Office of Information Priorities

Presented by:   Scott McEwen (not present)
Joel Johnson
Expected Outcome:   ITAC briefing / recommendation

Discussion notes follow:

• This agenda item will be tabled to the next ITAC conference call.
• There are many issues surrounding the DBTAC agenda items. The following is an ITAC brainstorm list of database concerns that need to be clarified, focused and addressed:
  • Project data bases have already exist outside of NWIS
  • Quality Assurance issues
  • Records management
  • Ground-Water Site Inventory data quality
  • Data management policy
  • Storage formats
  • Portability
  • Technical office reviews
  • Technology Database Consulting
  • Is this a WRD issue? Or a Bureau Issue?
  • White paper may be needed?
  • Encouraging use of other DB tools

Presented by:   Brian McCallum

Discussion notes follow:

• The next ITAC Meeting is planned the week of October 9 in Rapid City, South Dakota.
• The EDC leg of the trip will be postponed/cancelled to simplify things.

Future Agenda Items

• Database TAC
• Cyber Conference Call - participation, frequency

(Jun2003.PA.17)  ITAC members will send out highlights of the ITAC minutes to their constituents.

(Jun2003.PA.18)  Nelson will poll the ITAC members regarding having only one cyber meeting between now and the October meeting. This proposed meeting would be in August. Also suggested is having the ITAC vice-chair organize cyber meetings. ITAC vice-chair.

(Jun2003.PA.19)  Brian will send thanks to the PA District for sponsoring the ITAC meeting.