Meeting Logistics    Attendees
Town Meeting
Agenda and Meeting Minutes
Tuesday Notes    Wednesday Notes    Thursday Notes
Pending Action Items
Action Items from Georgia meeting

Constituent Reports:

Senior Staff Report
Data Chiefs Report
District Chiefs Report
AO Report
Study Chiefs Report

Attendee Information

Following is a list of ITAC meeting attendees/invitees who plan on attending the meeting:

Greg Allord

Chief, CAPP -- Madison, WI

Attended Tuesday Only

Marilyn Billone

ITAC Executive Secretary -- Reston, VA

Attended 

Margaret Bunch

Site Administrators Rep -- Carson City, NV

Attended

Donna Hector-Sabin

Administrative Officer -- Madison, WI

Attended

Ken Lanfear

Chief, WICAS -- Reston, VA

Attended

Chris Leeth

Studies Section Chief -- Atlanta, GA

Attended

Katherine Lins

Chief, OWI -- Reston, VA

Attended

Jeff Stoner, Chair

District Chief -- MN

Attended

Brian Reece

Data Base Management Systems -- Austin, TX

Attended

Sonja Sebree

World Wide Web Development -- Lincoln, NE

Attended

Susan Trapanese

Chief, NWIS -- Reston, VA

Attended

Sandy Williamson

WRD Technical Offices -- Tacoma, WA

Scott McEwen

CR Regional Computer Specialist -- Denver, CO

Attended

Jim Nicholas

District Chief -- MI

Attended

Donna Schiffer

Data Chief -- Sacramento, CA

Attended

Kevin Gallagher

USGS Chief Technology Officer -- Reston, VA

Attended

Dianne Jeffries

Chief, Office of Employee Development, Denver, CO

Attended

Stephen King

Regional Geographic Information Officer (ER)

Attended

Welcome and Introductions/Agenda Review
Presented by: Jeff Stoner (Chair)

• Reference ITAC Chair Letter to the Georgia District Chief.
• Thank You for hosting ITAC.

Georgia District Office Overview
Presented by: Edward Martin, District Chief

• District Web Site
• ~110 personnel (~25 students) in Georgia District Office (GA DO)

Georgia District IT Overview
Presented by: Michelle Wilkinson, IT Specialist, GA DO
Expected Outcomes: Information exchange.

• One machine on DMZ – on the server. Will be shut down shortly.
• They use checklists for workstation installations.
• End user agreements are e-mailed to the Computer Services Unit database; they’ve also created an end user questionnaire.
• They created End User Handbooks.
• Questions/Discussion:
  • Biggest challenge? Removing admin rights from laptops.
  • Passwords are a problem.
• Discussion:
  • – Feb2005.GA.1 – Password Management Issue – Kevin Gallagher and Donna Hector-Sabin will look into a common USGS password policy, trying to match other government systems that we have no control over, including change cycle, frequency, consistency, and rules for allowable and required characters.
  • Stephen King’s notes on this discussion: The Council [ITMC] had a wide ranging discussion about smartcards and consistency in the use of passwords with several applications. Specifically, they discussed the dissimilarity in the application of IT password security policy. The Council concluded that the main topics that should be addressed are consistency with:
    • Assignment of UserIDs
    • Assignment of passwords
    • Consistent frequency in forced change of passwords.
  • It was suggested to make all passwords have special characters. Expiration frequency should be consistent too. Single sign-on is hope for AD. Password management is a huge issue. KeePass – tool to facilitate this (encrypted; one password to access all passwords). Easy to “break in.” Can’t “enforce” the policy.
    It was suggested we just have a consistent naming convention for creating passwords.
  • Smart card status? We’re still on the physical security part. Cards will be issued to employees in next year or so. Need to get AD deployed.
  • – Feb2005.GA.2 – KeePass – Terri Moore will e-mail the info on KeePass to ITAC members. She will also send out a reminder to SAs that KeePass is available for users with a link where to download the software.
  • Georgia District Office:
    • Uses a portable instrument that can store up to 20 passwords called “BlackBox". Needs combination to unlock.
    • They are working on backing up their desktop to disk; currently, the backups are to tape, which is slower.
    • NWIS server at GA DO is old.

Town Hall Meeting
Presented by: ITAC/District Staff

Good turnout; Jeff explained ITAC's purpose and mission; introductions all around.

• Bureau IT Issues (15 min.) (Kevin Gallagher, Chief Technology Officer, GIO)
  • USGS Information Technology Office (ITO) Web site: http://internal.usgs.gov/gio/ito/
  • FY04 - USGS cut $12.2M (non-specific IT cuts)
  • 11 integrated projects
  • Recommends attending ITEM 2005 in May, Portland, Oregon
    
  • Questions from GA District staff:
    Q: Status of Microsoft Exchange (ME)?
    A: Dept. could benefit from one messaging system using this new e-mail platform. Status: RFP written for multiple vendors to propose to. Kevin had to rank these proposals. Now it’s in selection process, to pick a vendor. Timing: Will know more in a few weeks; in final stages of evaluation. (There’s an issue with vendor deadlines for USGS.) Sometime in FY06, by next spring/summer, they will start to do major conversion to Exchange.

    Q: Will archived mail convert to ME?
    A: Kevin was told that all the e-mail will convert over, including archive mail.

    Q: What about viruses with Exchange?
    A: Yes, there is an issue with attachments.

    Q: Some of the DOI online training is a rehash of same material. Why do we have to do this again?
    A: 80% of the security course may be the same, but there are security changes all the time.

    Q: What about wireless?
    A: Instructions were sent out on how to secure your laptop, if you are using wireless. We’ll eventually endorse wireless, but it needs to be secured first—this is the real issue—not using it. Kevin can issue wireless waivers now. Just have to implement it securely.

    Q: Why use bureau-wide Active Directory?
    A: It’s already implemented in GA DO. It will help remote access. Everybody will be joined in the same domain.
    Discussion: It makes things easier when they have directive from DOI, and they can act on it. It will free up IT Specialist time; can devote more time to Science IT issues. For traveling scientists, it’s more supportive. There will be more “portable, permeable regions.” Able to share info more easily with field offices; they can access District file servers for getting documents. It’s better than e-mail attachments, where mailboxes fill up faster.

    Q: Status of consolidated cell phone contract?
    A: There are 77,000 cell phones in DOI—all under various contracts. There is “cost avoidance” if consolidated under single contract – not a single provider. There will be better rates, better coverage, for all employees. Moratorium is not on using cell phones but on using multiple contracts. Some may have to convert cell phone carriers after consolidated contract comes out.

    Q: Does this include Blackberries?
    A: No.
    They are shooting for “80/20” rule: If at least 80% are using a specific carrier, then they more than likely will go with that contract.

    Q: Status of “BIA business?”
    A: Kevin explained about the Cobell court case, trust management issue: We’re trying to keep out of this court case. He keeps the 75-page doc that goes to DOI, explaining how we do not have trust information in our databases

• Office of Water Information (OWI) Update (5 min.) (Katherine Lins, Chief, OWI)
  OWI holds together those IT-related things in Water that are of national scope.

• NWIS Update (5 min.) (Susan Trapanese, Chief, NWIS)
  

  Q&A with GA District:
  Q: What is the dialog status of NWIS and EPA’s STORET (STOrage RETrieval)?
  A: Jon Scott is the main coordinator. They are just beginning to scratch the surface. EPA indicated they are committed to STORET. OMB has put it into our performance metrics.

• Q&A with District Staff (All)

  Q: Sandy Williamson asked, “What is it in IT that is keeping you from doing your job better?"

  Q: Laptops are used in the field. If they don’t have admin rights, it would be a problem. Will that be an issue (until we go to PDA)?
  A: You can set up two accounts on the laptop: one you use most of the time, and one that you can use periodically with admin rights. Can use same user ID/same password, but different domain. Can go to CTO Web site and do this (http://internal.usgs.gov/gio/ito).

  Q: What about MAC users?
  A: DOI would like to be under one standard operating system. Microsoft is the standard (since 2003). If information can only be maintained by certain technology, then using a MAC is justified. But MAC desktops have to comply with the standard (MS-emulation software), and they have to be tied to a specific science need. Science Documentation Team is documenting computer requirements that are not standard. Those concerned about MAC usage can talk with their representatives. Candice Bostwick is the rep for Water; she sent out inquiries. It would be good to give them your voices on this issue.

  Q: What are the problems with VPN? (It “drops off” a lot.)
  A: It’s a big issue, as it’s another doorway into our network that can easily be penetrated. It’s a security concern, as we have 4,000+ users. A new infrastructure is being phased in. Hardware is outdated; will be replaced by end of 12 months.

  Q: Alternate Web browsers? (i.e. FireFox)
  A: Not looking at as a standard. Full functionality not fully investigated yet. DOI’s been looking into putting up walls and patching.

  Q: SPAM has increased the past month. Why?
  A: 4.2M e-mails come into USGS each month; half is SPAM. What does filter through is not bad, considering how much we do block. If we tighten the filter too much, it will eventually, will target “real” mail. Constant battle: SPAMMERS trying to get through our filter. There will always be some leakage. Can forward SPAM messages to GS SPAM Reports. Phishing is an issue now.

GA Staff presentations related to IT use/functions

• Water Basics, Georgia Water Information Network (GWIN) -- (Howard Perlman, Hydrologist, GA DO)
  • Reference Water Cycle Web site

  Dynamic Web pages

  • Web pages should be dynamic; most districts have not gone to this step.
  • Howard uses ColdFusion (CF).
  • Blackberries have normal Web browsers; can build own charts on them—simple data tables.
  • Can query specific sites.
  • Style sheets are the answer to the way the Web page “moves.”

    Discussion: A problem with CF - some obsolete pages. “The more complex the page, the more complicated to maintain.” Have to be willing to make the commitment.
    How many teams can we afford? We have to get our info out there, and choose the right tools for a long period of time; has to come from leadership. We need reliable Web pages. Ken – 48 District Web sites. We would need to put CF on NatWeb. “If we’re gonna do it, let’s do it right.” Water does not have resources it used to have. We should pool resources toward one approach.

    • A suggested plan of action: Headquarters can give NatWeb support for CF. No State would have to buy it then. Can put pressure on NatWeb to install CF.

• Topo Viewer -- (Jack Alhadeff, Hydrologist, GA DO)
  He wrote software with son Daniel, Bob Dyar, and Jonathan Musser.

Map2PDF Demonstration (Andy Skillen and Michael Bufkin)
Presented by: Layton Graphics

Andy Skillen:

• Cost: $795 (follows Adobe pricing model)
• Can download free trial versions.
• Demo-ed ARC 9 map with map2pdf plug-in; can interact with GPS devices.

Michael Bufkin:

• Demo-ed core pdf technology applied to an ADR.
• Whatever you can do to a pdf, you can do to a map2pdf file.
• Map demo was not done “with a push of a button.” It’s a prototype.
• They use Linux and offer unlimited site licenses.

Tran-Gen, Log Archive -- (Lester J. Williams, Hydrologist, GA DO)

• Log ASCII standard (LAS)
• Log Archiver Feature – All done in Visual Basic; no transcription errors/problems. Digital logs are part of the archive; can link files to site ID. The program “mines” data out into a set format. It’s taking data in bulk out of an ASCII file and putting it into another file.
• Transaction File Generator (Tran-Gen) – Data does not have to be re-entered.
• Tran-Gen supports PALM applications. You can easily hook up with Cooperator databases.

[Note: No Data Section activities presentation (McCallum); Brian had to leave early.]

Reorganization issues as related to IT
Presented by: Greg Allord, Chief, Cartography and Publishing Program (CAPP); Donna Schiffer (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Any effects on ITAC

• VI Re-engineering status

  [Reference PowerPoint for Competitive Sourcing Town Hall meetings here]

  • Re-engineering/restructuring is way to get to high-performing organization.
  • Got permission from DOI to go this route; USGS had town hall meetings on this.
  • Looking at buy-outs, early outs, by early October 2005.
  • No money appropriated for this process.
  • 9,293 Total FTE; 7,338 inherently governmental (IG)
  • These are ones they want to study (commercial figures): Visual Information: 220 Commercial and 42 IG; ST/STS (Science Techs): 425 commercial; 1,638 IG.
  • High Performing Organization (HPO)
  • It was shown that competitive sourcing was not the way to go; it’s been a discovery process.
  • Commitment to DOI – It was suggested to establish 6 hubs (employees do not necessarily have to be “physically there”).
  • We’re already 10% toward 25% goal of reducing number of FTE. We have 2 years to get from 243 to 185 FTE (or close to it); we’re already 10% of the way there.
  • Impacts:
    • Significant disruption if we go the A76 (competitive sourcing) route.
    • Also, the Most Efficient Office (MEO) would go back to a “Pubs Division”…like we had years ago.
  • Plan - 15% reduction in Year 1; additional 10% in Year 2.
  • Have to show we’re doing a true re-engineering, in order to avoid competitive sourcing process.
  • Create staffing plan (8/05)
  • Performance metrics and report quality will be considered, and how well we communicate internally and externally.

Map interface to NWIS demo
Presented by: Greg Allord and Ken Lanfear

• The primary/original intent of this project/service is to provide a map interface for NWISWeb.
• Only $14,000 for the initial map server; the map server would provide the map interface "service" for NWISWeb and could also be used by other USGS applications.
• All of the sites will link to NWISWeb; has built-in functionality.
• NWISWeb online mapper can generate a query against the data.
• Can run against entire national dataset.
• All layers available as feature service.

Discussion: We can save a lot of money by waiting for maturation of this technology. We can have 5 different map servers “turned on” to this interface.

• Putting things on a map will sometimes raise questions.
• You can e-mail parts of the image to someone.
• Going for public release this summer.
• Other features:
  • Map viewer futures (Moxie Media, ArcIMS, Dynamic Graphics)
  • Re-engineering and workflow (author templates – authors will have to use them.)
  • Reports tracking (internal requirements, OMB data requirements, data base design)
    • Greg would like ITAC’s input into making this database better.

Reorganization (Katherine Lins)

At Senior Staff meeting; topic of discussion: Do Regional Directors (RDs) realize full suite of responsibilities of Districts and how they might be reorganized?

• Chip would like four regions: Alaska; CR; ER; WR. Boundaries have not been decided yet.
• Chip wants to make reorganization happen by 10/05; RDs have to develop the timeline and the plan.
• REX restructuring will be out by 10/05; still has to go to the Hill for approval.

Fundamental Science practices

• Approving official for reports will report to RD; discipline-specific or generic?
• OMB released their own requirements regarding review. Anything significant on regulatory proceedings will have to be reviewed.
• USGS policy on internal peer review will be resolved internally; it is being discussed.
• Bob Hirsch named Science Centers within each Region at coffee staff; nothing to stop districts from using new nomenclature now.

ITAC – We shall continue as long as we’re serving a purpose, e.g. communicating Water’s needs to the GIO through Kevin Gallagher.

Discussion: How do we share talent & pool resources on this? Chip did not announce decisions on restructuring at the ELT meeting.

More discussion on password issue.

Updates on:

Bureau AD Deployment Status (slides 1-18)
Presented by: Paul Exter: call-in, Frank Sager
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

[Reference USGS AD Standard Operating Procedures document.]

• Expect a site location questionnaire (24-page document). There are 15 working days to respond to this; 45-day working period to schedule and do deployment.
• Software Action Team (SWAT) performs migrations, if needed at a site; four sites are serving as pilots.
• See PowerPoint for phased schedule for AD implementation.
• Staffing Plan is in form: For 11,000 users, total is probably around 11 (incl. Project Manager); 8 Domain Administrators (DAs).
• GIO will be the first to see a difference on their desktops (end of May); all others on 6/6/05.
• It was suggested there be a briefing for management beforehand: What will it mean to the user? What do they need to be prepared for? The plan does include presentations to Office Chief, Regions, etc.; it was just sent to Regional AD teams.
• Phase V – Field location – targeted to start 6/6/05 (Deployment Day – “D Day”).
• Deployment Coordinator (DCR) will be on Deployment Teams (there are three now).
• About 50-60% of Water offices have already met requirements. Interim guidance went out to the Regional Geospatial Information Officers (RGIOs) 12/20/04, then into the field:
  http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/itac/minutes/littlerock_0411/ad_interim_guidance.html

Requirements of WRD Offices

• Need to get a communication out to SAs—a memo after the Infrastructure is made, and then one after the pilots. Can put updates in Informant…maybe a blurb.
• Offices will see naming convention changes; DOI password policy will come into play.
• There will be Web seminars for those who will be deployed for users so they can ask questions.
• Will need SAs to help advocate the program.
  • A material pack for SAs to present to their users was suggested; however, this might not be as effective as direct training.
  • Start with a simple document SAs can give to their people.
  • Encourage SAs to just talk with their people, to relieve any potential anxiety. Info should be delivered locally (would be more effective than coming from “above”).

Discussion: SA, GA DO, said changing over to AD was not a big problem. Rapid City started this week (Feb.2005); majority of offices will be June of 2005. SWAT duties were discussed (salaries, etc.)

• It was suggested to add a beginning slide to AD presentation, showing architecture from a roles perspective.
• Q: Salary + costs?
  A: 1.45 salary + travel will be covered (of their hourly rate; includes overhead) – for the third person and beyond. The Science Center pays for this third body (and beyond).

MS Enterprise Agreement (slides 19-26) (Paul Exter: call-in)

[Reference e-mail of 2/4/05.]

• There’ll be increases in licensing – We’ll need $300,000 increase in Server license.
• Some offices don’t know we even have an agreement and buying software we already own.
• Renewal – Every other office will be included in this.
• Consolidation – We’ll work on decreasing licenses and migrate out of having so many servers with so many licenses.

Discussion: Q: What about direct costs?
A: We would have to charge it back because it would be too much. Maybe Admin can help with this. Should be cost center decision (how many computers each employee has). Paul would like some help in figuring out this. Won’t be able to determine number of users/servers/desktops until 2008, with AD. Can prorate based on existing numbers. Cost centers have to manage this.

- Feb2005.GA.3 – MS Enterprise Agreement and Desktop Cost Savings – Sandy Williamson and Jim Bettandorff will estimate and communicate, according to the MS Enterprise agreement, per server and per desktop cost, and recommend strategies for cost center consideration.

Discussion: Can ITAC issue a policy giving guidance? Needs to involve cost center chief and SA.
Q: What about redundant software in the Water offices?
A: Have to communicate better, and coordinate with RGIOs.

• Paul is meeting with Jessie Alvarez today to discuss just what E-Authentication really means, and come up with a strategy for dealing with it.
• Desktops and servers are up for renewal in June; laptops in September (may have different vendors.)

– Feb2005.GA.4 – Serial Port Information for Laptops – Donna Schiffer and Brian McCallum will review serial port information on laptops used in the field—to see if it’s needed—as requested by Paul Exter.

• Three-year award for laptops. Can do blanket ultra-light waiver (only 1100 bought on DOI contract). This still has to be definitely decided.
• Q: Network storage contract?
  A: Will get large-capacity storage contracts in place. At least 6 months.
• Q: Cell phone contract?
  A: Should have “contractor implementer exchange” by 2/18/05.
  

National cell-phone contract outcome
Presented by: Kevin Gallagher
Expected Outcome: Progress/information update

• Q: What would ITAC like to discuss on cell phone contract?
  A: See prior discussion. Kevin will let us know of further updates.

Q&A session on suggested directions for NatWeb and long-term prognosis that could affect WRD:

• Q: NatWeb: What about things like ColdFusion?
  A: Eventually NatWeb models would have Window servers.
• Q: What about the health of NatWeb?
• Discussion: $1.2M figured for NatWeb, initially. Needs to get funding for it, nationally.
• .5 billion hits between 12/26-29/04 after tsunami. Used this opportunity to ask for funding to help pay for NatWeb (huge success story, over 200 servers). Kevin looks for opportunities to work infrastructure into the budget. He will try to do this with VPN kind of issues too (?); still does not have fully funded life cycling cost for this.
• Q: What reassurance is there that if something “failed”, something will be put in place if there is a critical failure in NatWeb?
  A: That won’t happen, in next 2 years…Not done with NatWeb yet; they want to look at other technologies. Kevin’s message is more long term. He wants to get more efficient with how we go about obtaining funding and spending funds.
• Discussion: Will be more salary costs. No easy solution…

ITEM 2005 training offered
Presented by: Ken Lanfear
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

Ken has schedule. [Reference Preliminary Agenda.]

• 400 attendees expected
• Announcement for registration on 3/15/05
• ITEM is recommended mostly for SAs. GIS person? Maybe not (unless into ARC IMS). Web server? Maybe not; might be better opportunities elsewhere for training.
• Tech sessions - Tuesday afternoon. There will be sessions on Map Server; Web issues (content management); Lotus and Blackberries; and WebEx.
• Thursday – field trip to Mt. St. Helens
• AD and security sessions will more than likely be duplicated.
• Discussion: Should encourage DCs to go. What about having a session geared toward managers? Monday – Plenary session with overviews in the morning, plus Regional town meetings Monday afternoon.

– Feb2005.GA.6 – Recommend ITEM Monday sessions to District Chiefs – Jeff Stoner via ITAC summary notes.

• Discussion:
  • WebEx will not be used for every session; it’s too much and too expensive.
  • There are issues connecting from a hotel.
  • Ken will recommend using WebEx for highly selective sessions.

BREAK

Efficiency of computer-based training mandated for many employees
Presented by: Jeff Stoner, Diane Jeffries (OED) (call-in) and Bob Veltkamp (Chief, Online Learning Division, DOI University: call-in)

[Reference email of2/28/05 - IT Security Awareness Course Status Update.]

Purpose of the topic; related information, such as e-mail, reports, etc.:
DOI and Bureau requirements for implementing and tracking mandated training for many employees (some cases all Bureau employees) have led to Web-based self training for employees. This trend probably will continue or expand in the future. Some of these courses, such as the recently required series of Safety courses required of all USGS employees, are slow in response, require frequent browser refreshing, and commonly lock up for one reason or another during use. Can future computer/Web-based systems be streamlined for more efficiency, such as reduced graphics, and still be effective training tools? There are examples of Web-based training courses which do not exhibit this problem and could be models for the future. There have been numerous complaints registered from District Chiefs and higher levels on the numerous computer/Web-based required training in general and through Regional safety coordinators specifically on this issue.

ITAC session with Dianne Jeffries: Introduced Bob Veltkamp

Problems:

• Began with safety training, Spring 2003.
• Had to set firewalls to the training. Access database was underlying cause, once firewall issues were addressed.
• Training not recorded after “submit” button was hit. LAN team working with them.

Q: How was this huge effort piloted for testing, given the large number of users?
A: Some, but can’t test with large numbers of people. So for safety training example, about 50 testers in USGS plus other Bureau participants. 70,000 to be tested. Moving to SQL server has helped. Tomorrow better when going “live.” Safety training feedback via testing expected soon.

How it’s being resolved:

• Bob couldn’t get anyone to get on this call with him to answer technical questions.
• SQL server operational on 2/10/05. All servers/users will be using new system.
• Next will be training for Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWCP) Coordinators (electronic filing of injury reports).
• Q: No more screens freezing up?
  A: Yes, that is what Bob was assured of by DOI IT people. SQL server tested last week with no “freezing.” IT people did some volume testing.

Discussion: Should be Bureau-wide initiative, unit test, load test, include pilots, and then release the training.

Stephen King gave a Regional perspective. He wrote a draft memo for Suzette Kimball, to Karen Sideralis—lessons learned from online Security training. Collected feedback from Regional reps. Suggested to Karen to take to IT Management Council (ITMC); take advantage of the lessons learned. Many training initiatives are out of hands of USGS. ITMC has more ability to effect change to make SAs & scientists’ lives easier. Maybe we’re pushing this training a bit too early, before we’re really ready.

Next required training, should be tested by those folks it will affect, for feedback. Problem is with the hardware, not the content. Stoner disagrees: Graphics that do not enhance the learning should not be included. Optimization is used to compress the graphic files.

Q: What about CDs instead of online training?
A: CD alternative has been available to some offices.

DOIU expecting “a bunch” of new training modules in near future like Nondiscrimination, privacy act, and 508 compliance documents. IT security training is on a different server.

Next announcements in about 2 weeks. OWCP coordinators filing injury reports.

– Feb2005.GA.7 – Computer Performance of DOI online training – ITAC summary notes will include an announcement of reported improved system performance. If District users continue to see system performance problems, contact Bob directly Robert_J_Veltkamp@nbc.gov with a cc to your RGIO for their information. ITAC members will also review testing plans for future DOI online training, and recommend that DOI look into other media options (i.e. CDs) and best methods for testing by particular Bureau focus and ownership and (or) optimize or remove graphics/audio extraneous to learning experience.

Using WebEx for technology transfer
Presented by: Sandy Williamson
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

Demo of WebEx:

• Will have orientation session…and repeat sessions.
• Wants to make deployment 6 months instead of 2 years because of these advantages:
  • No admin rights required for viewer install.
  • Better performance
  • Instant meetings to share screens or file transfer
  • Better support for multiple platforms.
  • Easier than FTP for sharing files.
  • Easier than Sametime.
  • USGS is in good position to use this for technology transfer.
  • We should be using WebEx for actually sharing science and talking to each other (technology transfer)

Issue clarification of 24X7 coverage
Presented by: Katherine Lins and Scott McEwen (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

[Reference 24x7 support document.]
[Reference email.]

Katherine introduced the topic: Need solution as to what they should be doing when not able to serve data to user and Cooperator.

• Personnel issues? Potential solutions? Katherine raised issue it at NWIS Executive Steering Committee.
• Bill Carswell has tasked Scott to work with Jeanne Robbins to come up with recommendations how we could provide support, for 24x7 implementation.
• NWIS-RT is in place for all NWIS installations. If District goes down, real-time data can be processed and served by NWIS-RT. Basic thing is knowing if the problem is an NWIS or network problem. Once we know network is down, need to reach people.
• It was recommended that Scott talk with Linda Walker about the 24x7-manned National Center Security line.
• Today we have “best effort” 24x7 coverage. Enterprise Services Center (ESC) is now manned 24x7 in Herndon; everything is not transferred there yet. They know who you can call; they can give contact, when needed.

– Feb2005.GA.8 – 24x7 Network Support - Greg Allord, Scott McEwen, Jeanne Robbins, and Brian Reece will review the draft Web page for 24x7 network support, as requested by Kevin Gallagher. Scott McEwen will report to ITAC the recommendations from the NWIS 24x7 Adhoc Committee.

• It was suggested ITSOT SPOC list be provided to Network Staff. (Kevin Gallagher noted this.)

Q: Help Desk? Seems like there are some parallels to this, with Enterprise Services Network (ESN).
A: Help Desk is not 24x7. Need to clarify single message to people – a single source, not two.

The more we can track through the Help Desk, the better. Better to have the technology so phone rings in both places, and either one can track status.

• Would be nice to have continuous access to this Web page. Suggested to use QuickPlace.
• Can maybe get a system that handles dispatch calls – an automated system.
• Still have to be able to reach a human being.
• Scott will propose more cost-alternative solutions. Meanwhile, GIO can look for solution they can afford.

Finish up WebEx discussion:

• We should be using WebEx for actually sharing science and talking to each other (technology transfer piece). Message has to be specific to the audience. Need to convince them to share their information.
• Minimal cash awards (i.e. $200 Star Awards) were suggested for those using WebEx to share their information to encourage use of this technology.
• There will be two WebEx seminars in OSW using FlowTracker in February. It will catch on. It’s a personnel management issue.
• There has to be a benefit—an incentive— to the presenter. Sandy encouraging minimal cash awards to presenters.
• Suggestion: Can use both desktop and laptop to see how presentation is going.

Custom alerts from real-time field data
Presented by: Howard Perlman
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

• GWIN (Demo)
  • The whole Web site is a link to the NWISWeb.
  • Content is same as on NWISWeb itself (a replication), except it is data from annual data report. Suggested NWISWeb should maintain a page like this.
  • Web page is customer driven and user-friendly. Customers have been telling District Office that it cuts their time for finding data they want considerably. Can’t get this kind of service from NWISWeb now. Has made it easier for District Office inquiries.
  • Have to continue maintaining the site; not too hard to do.
  • Created hydrologic definitions/terms; can be linked to NWISWeb.
  • It would be a more reliable and portable application if it were developed for and delivered as a “NatWeb-enabled” application instead of a local ColdFusion-driven application.
• Custom alerts using real-time (RT) data
  • Real-time water alerts
    • Bridge scour
    • Monitor water-quality parameters (Gwinnett County)
    • DOT is asking for this info from GA.
    • During a sewage spill, Gwinnett County Cooperator wanted to know conductivity.
• Georgia District Daily Water Reports
  • Online, by e-mail
    • Web form to sign up
    • “Sign-up” database table
• Page scraping
  • Web services – working on prototype; they share data across the Web.
• GA DO is able to make this work for them; using data to communicate and get things done (i.e. controlling stream gages).

Uniformity and templates for District Web pages
Presented by: Sonja Sebree and Ken Lanfear
Expected Outcome: Possible recommendations

Review of 48 District Office Web sites:

• With emergence of Science Centers, the “Water Resources of …” title is disappearing: only used by 39 sites.
• 28 District Offices using the term “NWISWeb”.
• Some sites showed lack of maintenance.
• Only 4 sites used the “Contact USGS” (which is preferred). Ken discourages use of mailto; can be easy victim of SPAM when this is used.
• Issues for Discussion:
  • Wait for Enterprise Web, or provide a “Water template”?
  • More VIS ID training? (Rules being revisited.)
  • Why are only 34 using NatWeb?
  • How to handle feedback?
• Review of “Contact USGS” system for feedback. Handles ~1,400 queries/month. Keeps a record. Compiles statistics on customer service (how long it took to respond, etc.) Archive is Lotus.

Discussion:

• Contact USGS
  • Person can’t use own e-mail; filling out a form can be a hindrance.
  • NWISWeb uses Contact USGS form; pre-formatting helps them.
  • Questions and answers are going into a database. Can generate geographic data that could be useful; GIS data from phone calls—just area code. Time of day; where people are from (zip codes); etc
  • Q: What about customer?
    A: It prompts customer to ask question at top of page; has number to call. Not one customer has complained about this so far.
  • Q: Can children use it?
    A: Yes.
• District Template
  • Sonja Sebree has been asking for a template to use for a District Web page; still in development. Maybe we should develop a checklist of required terms to include standard terminology. Employees want to make sure they are doing things right; a template or guidance would help. Checklist would be of value.
• NWISWeb
  Q: Why do we need to put NWISWeb on each District Web page.
  A: Maybe “National Water Database” instead…”Watch” term. Branding thing. It’s important. It says what it is.

– Feb2005.GA.9 – District Web Page Design - Sonja Sebree will come up with checklist of content and advice on designs that work for a Water Web page.

Transition to XML based form and business process System
Presented by: Chris Leeth and Paul Exter, Acting Deputy Chief Technology Officer: call-in
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

Reference White Paper

• Chris looked at both Adobe and Microsoft products; prefers Adobe. (See p. 3.)
• Advantages of Adobe
  • Microsoft is Windows-based environment; Adobe is not.
  • Can get through firewall without breaking firewall rules.
  • Can minimize people on back end.
  • Huge savings opportunity, as far as forms…isn’t as onerous.
• Disadvantage of Microsoft
  • You have to use Microsoft—an Exchange-based system. Users only need Acrobat Reader, with Adobe.
• They have a digital signature on their form.
• GA DO created flow chart of what forms employees need on file each year, with minimal manpower and cost.
• Technology has “turned the corner.” USGS forms online now are static; information goes nowhere. (This is an HR requirement.)
• Can populate a pdf of the form.
• Can’t change form a second time; form goes directly to supervisor.
• ColdFusion used as well as PDF. Need Web-application software; easier than HTML.
• This is all predicated on XML, which is right down the road; leveraging the system we’ve got.
• Info goes into an e-mail address that goes into an archive. Can get data; can take stuff out of pdf and send it to a URL.
• Chris created better track of employee training. Recommended to ITAC for consideration – to endorse to apply across the Survey.
• Chris uses this to keep track of forms other than RTS entries; accidents; etc.
• The same data can populate multiple forms.

– Feb2005.GA.10 – Paperless Forms Data Tracking Tool – Chris Leeth and Katherine Lins, using Jeff Stoner’s District perspective, will follow up on using paperless forms as a tool for tracking data and explore whether other Districts have an interest. If they do, then Katherine will explore with Water Admin. if there is further interest.

Netcontinuum, Phase 2 enterprise FTP
Presented by: Bob Sowders (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

Netcontinuum is DOI’s preferred solution for securing http traffic. Enterprise FTP (EFTP) is a bureau solution to consolidate and secure FTP traffic.

Netcontinuum: E-mail: GS Help DMZ@usgs.gov Project Lead: Tim Brown

• Plan is to have all inbound http traffic pass through the Netcontinuum system at project completion.
• Initial testing has been completed with several Web sites on Netcontinuum hardware installed in Reston.
• The Netcontinuum project charter is being finalized and should be completed by March 2005.
• Equipment rollout should start sometime this year.
• Netcontinuum training for ITSOT and NatWeb SAs is scheduled for April 2005.
• Hardware rollout will be phased. Reston will be finalized; Menlo Park, then Denver and Sioux Falls.

Enterprise FTP: E-mail GS Help Ftp Project Lead: Tim Brown

• Phase 2 - Will double available drive space to about 750 gigabytes.
• A fail over site will be brought up in Menlo Park.
• The EFTP system was not designed to replace the larger FTP sites within USGS.
• Smaller FTP sites within USGS with data stores of less than 8 gigabytes were targeted (about 275 in all).
• Phase 3 – Is very preliminary but looking to do something similar to what NatWeb is doing with AFS, where site holders log in and upload their data for public access to a network file system that will in turn be accessible via FTP to the public.
• An anonymous upload area for USGS personnel much like the current system would be retained, specifically for e-mail attachments and passing data to other USGS personnel, but not for public access.
• Q: Have you thought this through?
  A: Yes; this is one area where real cost savings to the USGS is passed directly to cost centers. They don’t have to maintain hardware and FTE to support it. Consolidating 250 servers into 1 system by utilizing the EFTP system, the USGS would save the FTE and hardware required to support those 250 sites, with a minimal outlay of capital. EFTP is a classic example of all the good things about consolidation of services and how it can positively impact everyone’s budget.
• Q: Is the cost of maintaining the Enterprise FTP site in Cheryl’s budget for “refresh”?
  A: Cost for phase 2 will be ~$30K; 1.50 FTE to administer. Riding the 2-year mark now; looking at 3-5 years. Phase 3 studies will commence after full build out of phase 2. For now, the full cost is being taken up by ITSOT.

Central Region Information Committee (CRIC)
Presented by: Sky Bristol (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

Background:

• Created in 11/04 by the Central Region GIO.
• Sky came from USFWS (Biologist) to USGS. He builds Web applications.
• Environmental Information Science
• Communicates scientific requirements
• Interfaces [ITAC; E-Web; EGIM (Enterprise Geographic Information Management); PIG; and IIE (Integrated Information Environment]
• Q: What’s the difference with IIE and them?
  A: Making a regional effort: It’s a Central-Region focused group that wants to integrate with other groups too.

Status Briefing to ITAC

Q: How can GIO partner with Science in getting information out there? Internal science projects should be made available. Need to make products electronically available. What about metadata?
A: Putting team together looking at this will move USGS forward on this issue. This will enable us to move forward with our science.

Discussion: NRP works in a similar way as researchers in Geology and Biology; not charged with managing metadata for legacy. Applied research is supposed to build metadata into project planning and implementation with required standardize elements/procedures, so trying to capture metadata from research after-the-fact seems inefficient.

Need to normalize our data; make it more available. We give actual XML code to people in Geospatial One Stop. Sky would like to hear what Ken Lanfear is doing in this area, to make sure they are going in the right direction.

ER IT Organization Chart, IT issues and potential effects on WRD
Presented by: Stephen King
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

• Transition Earth Science Information Center (ESIC) and Library – effective 1/9/05
• 26 people from Library were added to Stephen’s staff.
• New name for Stephen’s realm – Natural Science Network
• Needs our partnership to set this up with Regional Executives.
• Interested in getting workshop together; Stephen would want ITAC enrollment.
• IT community needs to come together.
• Sales are decreasing with more and more online products.
• Launching National Library in Reston into 21^st century with “online” library.
• New ID card machines will be shipped (down the road).
• Bob Ibison – lead on Enterprise DNS
• C&A – Gary Neverdon
• ESN – Elaine Stout (Home site is across the street from National Center.)
• Peter Symmes – ER Security Manager, from ITSOT; waiting for DOI guidance – Command Center/Patch Management
• RAS/VPN –Mark Irvin is the lead; upgrade VPN client by Dec 2005.
• Enterprise Architecture (EA) – S. Doescher
• Mike McNally is lead on ESM. Requirement is going away. No longer required for security control evaluation. Discussions are still underway but most likely will be dropped.
• E-Web – About to release new State page template, middle of February. Public announcement beginning of March:
  • http://130.11.8.39 (draft of template; for every State)
• Q: How will this page relate to GA State homepage? Link to this?
  A: The link is to the District homepage. Stephen invited ITAC comments to Karen Klima’s team. Release date is scheduled for Monday, 2/14/05. Not releasing new homepage until 2/16/05.
• Karen Klima is moving forward with new search capability. They are working on it.
• Thesaurus is available; structured taxonomy for finding our science. (Need to put it in a way that they can put it into a productive environment.)
• Drafting USGS Web Handbook.
• Working with Western Region and Central Region RGIOs—Dru Banks and Cheryl Morris; keeping “The Enterprise” in mind.
• RGIO has desire to partner with us & wants ITAC’s participation.
• Some discussion followed.

Review meeting Action Items
Presented by: Jeff Stoner

Reference Action Items for Georgia Meeting, ITAC Web page:
http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/itac/minutes/atlanta_050208/GA_ai050208.html

Next Meeting Location and Dates
Presented by: Jeff Stoner, Donna Schiffer and Jim Nicholas (call-ins), Scott McEwen: Sametime

Northeast was suggested; ITAC has already been to IN, VA (Reston), PA, IL, NY, NH, and OH.

• Ken recommended the Michigan District Office; someone in Ann Arbor does Web pages.
• Usually we meet February, May/June, and October – Have ITAC meeting in fall?
• Maine (and Michigan) suggested in August. Scott said Joel Dudley (Maine’s IT person) can discuss handheld programs. (OWI is very interested in the handhelds.) Joe Nielsen could discuss surface-water activities in Maine.
• Madison, Wisconsin was recommended – Houses database for Data Warehouse; CAPP; and Harry House on Oracle it’s expensive to fly in and out of there.
• Tim McElhone will talk with Cathy Hill and let her know our recommendations.
• Kentucky District Office suggested – Big into acoustics; however, this was covered in Indiana.
• Virginia District Office suggested; West Virginia DO also a possibility.
• Proposed Date for next ITAC meeting – 8/23-25/05
• Maine is at top of the list. Jeff Stoner will ask District Chief Robert Lent if they can handle a group this large. Michigan okay to have on list too, per Jim Nicholas.

How much do Districts want to support the ITAC activity? (Katherine Lins)

• Katherine sees this as an advisory committee, and it helps in her communication with Karen Sideralis. It’s also useful to Kevin Gallagher for feedback, being liaison with DOI. Katherine envisions ITAC becoming less of a Water Committee and becoming something else. Kevin Gallagher could begin sending reps from his office to our meetings; he is very committed to ITAC. It would be good to introduce Kevin into records processing at next ITAC meeting.
• Should we reduce the size of the committee to better serve Water’s purposes?

Discussion: Communication is very important in these days of much change. It would be a mistake if we’re not a Water committee. We get results from our committee actions. “Doing less for less.” It would be worth it for RCSers and DCs to ask Regional Hydrologists how they view the worth of ITAC. Jeff Stoner has already done this with Central Region and there is no problem, but will ask Carswell his read from WR and SR. Jim Nicholas did not have any comments; he’ll talk with Cathy Hill to see how she views ITAC. Membership needs to have a small District representation, to keep that perspective. ITAC can recommend members but it’s up to Regional Hydrologists to approve.

• Does anyone hear from constituents, after sending out ITAC info? District Chief reps, AO rep, and Data Chief rep said, “not really.”
• Does ITAC need to include such a large membership? We probably do not need a rep for the NWQL.

ITAC went through the list of members on GS-W ITAC e-mail distribution list:

• Sonya Jones can be removed from list.
• NWIS leaders (3) should be on list.
• RCSers? Local RGIO is invited to each meeting. It was agreed to take Kevin Gallagher off of e-mail list and to add him specifically when appropriate.
• Sonja Sebree – GIS knowledgeable; she should stay.
• NRP? Some issues, i.e. computer waivers. Ken Lanfear can represent us for NRP. Can invite someone from NRP to each of our meetings.
• Greg Allord can stay as permanent; his attendance is agenda specific (this may change).

More discussion: Sandy gets no feedback from his constituents. We do get NWIS feedback. ITAC and ICOM have to be communicating (big issue with Burl Goree). Should handheld issue be pursued still? It’s being watched. Should recommend if you don’t use a lot of acoustics, you should use Palms and handhelds. Donna Hector-Sabin does not get much response regarding ITAC from other AOs. Katherine and ITAC members do not see it as necessary to have an AO rep; it was necessary when WRD supported AIS. AOs probably won’t miss not having a rep in ITAC. Katherine will talk to Greg Allord further about this. Jeff Stoner, in his summary notes to DCs, will ask them to send the notes to their AOs. Usually SA rep, DC rep, and Data Chief rep prepare and distribute summary notes to their constituents.

• Agenda Item for next meeting – Project Archiving
  Greg Allord is looking at electronics records archiving. Donna Schiffer and Greg Allord can look into archiving and Records Management issues. Records Management has been reviewed in Water; it looks satisfactory. They don’t know how to handle Electronic Records yet.

Can go over (old) Outstanding Action Items during teleconference calls.

Next teleconference calls: Tuesday, 3/15/05 (11:00 a.m. EST); Friday, 4/15/05 (11:00 a.m. EST)

Teleconference calls are every third Friday at (11:00 a.m. EST).