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

Constituent Reports:

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

Scott McEwen

CR Regional Computer Specialist -- Denver, CO

Attended

Attended

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

Idaho Water Science Center/INL Overview
Presented by: Kathy Peter, Director

• Idaho Water Science Center Web Site

• Idaho WSC (ISC) building built Aug. 2003 with working capital fund dollars.
• Total funding – $8.5 - 9 M/year: 72% of funding comes from outside, with ~$.5M unmatched funds.
• Very low facility costs per person. Staff is 75 employees.
• Diverse program, with four groups. (See handout.)
• ~35,000 sites in NWIS
• They collect a lot of biological data.

Specialists

• Coeur d’Alene Lake project – Paul Woods (works with Jim Kuwabara, Geology).
• Iraqi students coming to train in ISC.

Idaho Water Science Center IT Overview
Presented by: Randy Fields, IT Specialist
Expected Outcomes: Information exchange.

IT Infrastructure and Operation in Idaho

Randy’s mission statement: “…to provide high quality, readily available computing services to the science center staff.”

Staff
Customers

• 24 registered cooperative users.
• Two networks in building that don’t “touch” – Those of USGS & Bureau of Reclamation.
• 120 machines, are Windows-based.
• C&A – Security Plan uploaded 12/04; revised since 10/05.

Discussion on C&A (time it takes and its value): – No. hours – ~3 months/12 months - ~25% of his time; the “guts” of the procedure won’t substantially change, but the vehicle changes.

Active Directory (AD)

• Local AD in progress, estimated to be completed by 3/31/06 – will include all 5 remote USGS water sites.

Discussion on AD process in WR and ISC: RGIO offices are migrating first, then going out into the field. Deployment team is working on the schedule. Staffing will be high-priority issue in ISC, when Randy retires. He’d like to do more local training but there’s not enough time. They encourage vendor-based training. Randy doesn’t have to support Idaho National Laboratory (INL) because they have a contractor. Randy provides services as one FTE per ~50 employees.

Discussion on tracking of hardware and software: This is an important issue with Randy. Scientific Management System (SMS) was recommended to him; Margaret Bunch uses this. Randy is now looking at BelManage and BelSecure software. US Fish & Wildlife Service uses these programs nationally. Reports are clear and concise. Peter Symmes is looking at Patch Management on a national level.

Dec2005.ID.1: Jim Steverson

Town Hall Meeting - Around 20 ISC employees attended.
Presented by: ITAC/Center Staff

Bureau IT Issues (25 min.) (Kevin Gallagher, Chief Technology Officer, GIO)

• FY05/06 Annual IT Plan
  • Annual tactical plan that describes projects for next 12-18 months.

Questions from Idaho WSC staff:

Q: E-mail consolidation? (LN to Exchange?)
A: TKC(?) awarded contract. Begin Spring ’07. Since then, meetings have taken place. Schedule and scope have changed now. It’s at least a year away.

Q: Wireless policy?
A: Doesn’t affect your BlackBerry. Ban was from DOI. Kevin explained System Technical Implementation Guidelines (STIG) policy. Draft policy now, where you can use wireless for hotels, etc., as long as all is installed according to security standards. Can get approved waiver to use wireless in conference rooms. (Terri Moore, WR RCS, has forms/examples.)

Q: Wireless card is acceptable?
A: Yes; as long as laptop is patched and secure.

Q: Redirected funds from LandSat project?
A: No money has been transferred yet. Those on “the Board” control the IT funds of the USGS.

Q: Data warehouse?
A: 1,400 different sites at large now, for DOI. Facilities costs go up with each server, etc. Where there is a major data center, much needs to be considered.

Q: DOI Online Training (QuickTime/Security Training)
A: Maybe a PPT presentation will be used, if online application can’t be perfected.

Q: Smart card: Lack of rights to load useful programs on own PC. Will new smart cards address this issue?
A: Not for a while. Eventually, will be given rights to just do what you have to do, instead of granting complete SA rights (“advanced privileged accounts”). This would involve a 2 nd login (separation credentials). Kevin suggested ITAC put together a letter, giving info on how to get around this issue. Randy said that most of his customers have admin. rights to laptops—not desktops. (More to be discussed at end of day’s meeting.)

Office of Water Information (OWI) Update (5 min.) (Katherine Lins, Chief, OWI)

Just an overview:

• EAP – Lloyd Woosley, Chief
• International Program
• CAPP (will not exist after this year) – Annual data report function will remain - getting ADRs online.
• WICP –Toni Johnson, Executive Secretary for DOI (Federal Advisory Committee)
• WICAS – Ken Lanfear (transferred to Bureau; GIO adopted this water model)
• NWIS/STORET issues, from a national perspective (Ken is liaison.)
• NWIS Program (substantial part of OWI).

Katherine sits on GIO ELT. She lets them know how things affect Water.

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

Q: How has NWIS fared with funding?
A: Has kept level funding. This FY we got a welcome increase Senior Staff very good at making sure they can keep NWIS “whole.”

Q: ADAPS data aging?
A: part of 4.6 release coming out in late summer.

Q: Training for the Graphical rating tool?
A: Susan will look into this with OSW (training)…maybe will have a cyber seminar.

Q: With increase of virtual applications, cumbersome connectivity. What about using commercially available software (i.e. stat programs), instead of writing programs themselves. Involves different steps. Could be more streamlined.
A: We are moving more towards Java and XML. Using/integrating commercially available software comes with risks and hidden costs too.

ID Staff presentations related to IT use/functions

Streamstats (Al Rea)

• StreamStats is a statistical, regression-based model.
• Three states implemented in FY04: ID, VT, WA (ungaged site process).
• PA WSC testing now.
• Possibility to publish Web services (w/in 6 months).
• Demos – ungaged and gage database.
• Typically done State by State.
• Uses basic navigation tools.
• Can revise boundaries on screen.
• Shows low-flow, streamflow, and peak-flow stats.
• Accessibility for people who do design work (i.e. culverts, and figures how fast reservoir sites fill) – Saves time and money for engineers around the country, as it figures regression equations for them; it’s an impetus for engineers to upgrade these regression equations.
• Calculates basin characteristics.
• Reports come up as citations—where those equations were implemented & where regression equations are documented.
• It’s in progress, almost finalized: All stream gages (nationwide, 25,000 stream gages – current and historical). Links were created to NWISWeb, for real-time data. They are using database from Massachusetts .

Discussion: What about ETNA? StreamStats advisory committee has been established - wrestling with these issues (sponsored by OSW); report to Senior staff in next couple of months. They will continue doing it State by State, getting help from local cooperators; they can’t support a national program right now.

• Sites have been running 2 years; they were down for 2 weeks – bad Gateway errors, but it’s resolved now, but it was a problem; PA WSC wanted to show site to their cooperators and they could not.

Dec2005.ID.2: Jacque Coles will find out the cause and the fix for when StreamStats Web site went down for 2 weeks, and communicate findings.

• Went from 3 states to 15 states this FY (served straight out of ISC, with a T1 line). Next FY, they plan to move servers to Denver . Short-term solution may mean expanding bandwidth.
• Greg suggested using National Atlas/Map because it has already established datasets.

Ken Lanfear suggested partnering with ASCE to help enhance the StreamStats Web site project.

Discussion:

• More like a data issue.
• Al suggested consulting with Kernell Ries.
• IT architecture being built around all IT needs.
• All data users need to come together.

Dec2005.ID3: Katherine Lins will help pursue ITAC getting on an NGTOC listening session. Maybe it can be at GIS meeting in April 2006. Would like mapping people to respond to us as a customer. Al Rea can help work on this, to present it to the Workshop Committee for the meeting.

More discussion: Katherine Lins read some information from Lorna Schmid. Karen Klima said, “We will meet our obligations.”

NAWQA Bio TDB update (Doreen MacCoy - Biologist, Williamson)

• Lab protocols were discussed.
• ISC database issues:
• No current database (db) to store bio data (taxonomic, habitat, collection & lab methods, etc.).

Discussion: Possible solutions were offered.

• Non-NAWQA data – What to do with it? Can’t reference it.
• Development team goals: Develop a blueprint…All in Water.
• Biology – bio db issues:
  • They do have clearinghouse for info.
  • NBII (several “nodes”).
  • FAR – Fishes and Aquatic Research Data.
  • Standardize lab protocols? This is a goal.
  • Funding – will only be ~$7K.

Discussion: Doreen foresees a db that uses NAWQA protocols with field protocols. Do they include State-collected data? A lot of public uses the database. They want to focus on bio criteria and bio monitoring. We should be required to make this data available to the public and cooperator. Biology doesn’t have a db because it doesn’t have a national program. Donna Meyer assembled a team to look at this problem, and then presented to Senior Staff. Has anyone gone to EPA about this? EPA has own database, with different protocols. It has own problems with STORET. USGS should put together this database. Having a database is great for customer retention. Perhaps we should think about a national biological database. Not a role for ITAC now.

• Next step is user requirements, and no funding for this. They meet in Reston 2/7/06 . May have good idea by March how much of data is “usable,” etc. Sending survey (for non-NAWQA data) to WSC Water Quality Specialists and WSC Directors on Friday; will also send to BRD offices.
  

Low-flow regression project (Al Rea, Jon Hortness)

Jon:

• Software used – Streamflow data: ADAPS, IOWDM, SWSAT, ANNIE – not ideal, but they get the job done.
• They use Statit instead of S-Plus (less steps; easy to use; Windows-based).
• Intermittent/Perennial Process – working with OSW; want to work with basin-wide area ( Columbia Basin , which includes Canada ).

Discussion: They can’t access Canada ’s data.

Al:

What’s new and different?

• Continuous parameter extraction. (Fewer perennial streams than shown on map.)
• Looking at how it plots out on ground; trying to decide best regression model for estimating this.
• Looking at how things are spatially – not just in stats “numbers” package.

[Note: Fuller presentation and field trip were cancelled.]

Publications Warehouse PPT
Presented by: Greg Allord

• Need to communicate more about this to the field.

Map Interface to NWISWeb Status/Update
Presented by: Greg Allord
Expected Outcome: Update

• ITAC Members will look at the Web site.

• Demonstrated NWISWeb Mapper Web site.
  • Map navigation tool to the stations; trying to keep as simple as possible.
  • Want to push to USGS in the next several months; end user is general public.
  
  Discussion: Was over-engineered at first. Needed to make it more for general public. Can be loaded into ArcMap. It will be expanded, once minor things are tested.

Update on High-Performance Organization for Visual Information
Presented by: Greg Allord
Expected Outcome: Heads-up information

• Will go ahead with HPO plan. Staffing plan released 12/2/05 .

• Trying to show OMB they don’t need to run an A-76.
• 10,000 pubs (info products) published last year.

New RTS

• Looked at Documentum software (EPA using; IBM loaned them software).

ITAC Discussion of Town Meeting and Issues
Presented by: ITAC Members
Expected Outcome: Ensure ID Center interests are covered during the meeting.

[Reference Word document.]

• Most of the questions were answered. Susan Trapanese sent an e-mail reply after the town hall meeting.

WRD Committee to Review Data Program Costs/Funding: ITAC may be Tapped for Guidance
Presented by: Jeff Stoner
Expected Outcomes: Heads-up information

• Providing gaging info to the public.
• Charter – Was to create a team and see what other States are doing; Katherine hasn’t seen exact charter. Jim Nicholas provided more details on this. Will look at funding; not just costs. Bob Hirsch sent out charter for the group (what Walt Aucott had prepared, with some modifications).
• Jeff just wanted ITAC to be aware of this—an information heads up.

Discussion on admin rights and laptops
Presented by: Scott McEwen

• Lock down laptops; Educate users; make sure they don’t install infected software etc. on their laptops/desktops.
• It’s a communication issue, in offering alternatives (i.e. separate user accounts, etc.) Documentation out on this? Margaret Bunch, SA NV WSC – need to work through issues on an individual basis. Can give admin rights until problem is fully resolved.
• Paul Exter sent something out a while ago, from Bureau.
• A current internal Web site with guidance would be good, such as FAQs…
• Scott sent to ITAC members, 7 questions from a survey.

This issue was addressed in Feb. 1, 2005 , ITO update from GIO, under “IT Directives”.

Dec2005.ID.4: Terri Moore and Scott McEwen will work on one-page e-mail and on guidance on setting up laptops. It will include direct link to info from GIO’s CTO Web site, as well as FAQs, and will also link to the FAQs from the field computer interest Web page. ITAC will show draft to OSW and ask them to send out to Data Chiefs, WSC Directors, Study Section Chiefs, and SAs.

• FAIR Acts Inventory for IT (Scott McEwen)
  • Katherine Lins addressed this a bit. Discussed “inherently governmental” and “commercial,” as well as “core commercial.” Three categories that become important in FY06.
  • It will be put off until at least August 2006.
  • Donna Schiffer said that everyone already got preliminary notice; can’t challenge yet until it’s officially approved. Just says “commercial”; not “core commercial.”
  • Has to be re-evaluated on an annual basis.

It was agreed to pick this topic up at a future time.

Policy or Preferred Approach - Admin. Rights at WSC and Relation To and Status Of AD Deployment
Presented by: Margaret Bunch, Paul Exter (call-in)
Expected Outcome: ITAC Suggestions

Paul Exter:

Active Directory

• DOI Charter signed 9/13/04
• All Bureaus must move to DOI.net
• Most bureaus have already migrated or are migrating; took 3 months, w/18,000 users. (Will be done by end of January 2006.)
• In progress – 43% - Reston (phased).
• They are in Phase IV of migration process; working in ER, WR, and CR GIO offices. Regional GIO Offices to assist in our AD deployment efforts.
• Using train-the-trainer program.
• AD migration plan done on 6-month timeframe.
• ER and CR – All in planning; WR – in planning stage awaiting lessons learned and plan of action from the Deployment Team before further migrations will take place.
• ITAC requested schedule to be published, as to status of migration for SAs and WSC Directors. Paul will see to this.
• Local AD means within a local office.
• Some sites may need some financial assistance with this process.
• Interim Phase 4.2
• ER – All in planning: PR, NC, FISC
• CR – CR GIO – In planning
• Office of Regional Service – In planning
• Office of Regional Executive – In planning
• WY, MN, MO Biology – In planning
• WR – GIO - To be planned
• Lessons Learned to Date
• Site preparedness and pre-deployment validation.
• Set realistic expectations.
• Improved communication.
• Redesign approach to lesson impact w/site risk assessment.
• Critical issues to be resolved jointly by the deployment team and the site before deployment commences.

Discussion: Need to have ITAC more involved. Survey that went out may not have been answered by SAs. Questionnaire was a bit difficult to complete, according to some feedback. Migration moved forward when perhaps it should have stopped and been reassessed.

• Some problems with roles and responsibilities in Menlo Park .
• Main issues:
• Individual user profiles
• Separation of credentials
• Best Practice: AD Project Plans originally architected several infrastructure services that had potential risk to AD:
• Virus/Patch management
• Change management
• Configuration management
• Governance
• SA Best Practice

Discussion/questions:

Margaret Bunch: Reiterated what Paul said. Key issues were separating of credentials caused more problems, and not following best practices.

Discussion: Paul – Approach in AD is to “give the customers what they need.”

[Reference handout on separation of credentials.]

Q: Has local environment already been transitioned to local AD?
A: No.

On separation of credentials: Point people to more specific link than what is on p. 5 of handout.

Q: Send handout to more than just ITAC?
A: It’s a draft that will go to IT people first. It was suggested it also go to WSC Directors, so that they are aware and understand this is something that has to happen.

Dec2005. ID.5: As soon as possible, WSCs to be informed by ITAC that C&A is to be done by April 14, 2006, and then stress that local AD must be established by June 30, 2006; December 31, 2006, for Bureau AD. E-mail from ITAC to be reviewed by Paul Exter before it goes out to Water REX-es, WSC Directors, and SAs. Jim Steverson will spell out benefits of C&A and Margaret Bunch will do AD (in bullets format) coming from a perspective of a WSC Director describing the benefits to their staff. It should document correct status of systems with the long-term security goals in mind rather than the bureau scorecard.

Discussion: It was suggested to let AD slide, and do C&A as best as possible. C&A has budget ramifications; it’s also important, and must get done. Greg Allord said that CAPP is on schedule with C&A. (Will be further discussed after next topic.)

Updated Waiver Process (Hardware Contracts)
Presented by: Paul Exter (call-in)
Expected Outcome: ITAC Suggestions

Paul Exter:

• They are keeping scientific waiver policy intact, as it was.
• Lightweight laptops, you need a waiver, for non-scientific use.
• 4-lb. laptop you can use on contract.
• Waiver still in draft form.
• Server – Must request a waiver.
• Printers – Mandated that all Bureaus utilize the Printer Contract.
• Monitors – On contract; request a waiver.

[See PowerPoint slide for more details.]

[Reference Paul Exter's Word document (revised 1/6/06).]

• Storage waivers will be included (at Margaret Bunch’s request).
• Waiver memo will be posted on Web site and Greg Allord will forward the link to all ITAC. -- (Reference Enterprise Hardware Information Web site)

Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Expectations
Presented by: Kevin Gallagher (Garry Neverdon/Jeff Christman – call-ins)
Expected Outcome: Progress/Information update

• Director’s memo went out on C&A.
• Challenges
• How do we structure this to achieve C&A of this huge enclave?
• Two enclaves of Office Automation – Huge and smaller.
• Training had to be done, to communicate four critical things needed (document; asset evaluation; risk assessment; security plan).
• C&A often generates a list of things you want to do to standardize and improve your infrastructure.
• Director is Designated Approval Authority for C&A.
• He needs to say all security has occurred, or he approves when it is not all done, but it’s still okay to operate.
• Pat Leahy was trained on all this and aware of his role…very engaged in the process. When he reviewed the Office Automation General (OAG), he noticed that less than 10% had achieved a C&A. He questioned this. Kevin told him about competing priorities (AD, etc.). GIO only owns 20% of infrastructure; rest is in “science land.” Pat wants Kevin to track progress and provide feedback. (This was in June 2005.) Since then, we have made progress. Scorecard was e-mailed to USGS. Pat edited and put out Director’s memo, written by the CTO, to raise attention to this. It came out ~3 weeks ago, with deadlines proposed.
• If we can get through a C&A on infrastructure, we can say we achieved C&A’s required status. Need larger percentage of infrastructure on C&A. Garry agreed to this. If we stay “in the red,” we’ll have to do this on an annual basis; otherwise, only in 3 years—good for 2 years before having to do again.
• C&A should be a high priority for SAs, second to the mission. By end of March 2006, GIO should have received most of documents.
• June 2006 – Kevin Gallagher wants to hand Pat Leahy 99.9% C&A status.
• There are six documents required (not four). Should get documents in, no matter how many POAMS they generate.
• Kevin realizes that C&A is a major effort. Kathy Peter—as a WSC Director— recognizes that this is a beneficial process.

C&A Process for WSCs, NWIS COOPs, Especially for SAs
Presented by: Margaret Bunch, Jim Steverson (WebEx), Garry Neverdon (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Status/time and effort, conflicting directions, possible note to field

Enclave C&A Challenges facing the Science Center

 Jim Steverson:

• C&A - The actions we take to protect our information systems and the data they process.
• Still an immature process; on learning curve.

Do the SAs think C&A is a valuable process? A: Most don’t.

• No such thing as a secure computer.
• Most SAs think their systems are sufficiently secure.
• Most conscientious SAs, 1 ½ years into the process, realize the value.
• 96 Water sites completed AVG (first step; one site has not).
• Can ITAC play a constructive role in getting C&A done? (Discussion to follow.)
• Past efforts to assist the SA; some were poor. It’s an estimated guess that only 50% of SAs use these resources.
  
Reference online sites for OAG and OAS Enclaves.

• GIO kept revising NWQL’s C&A documents. We are improving; with a long way to go.
• With regard to 6 C&A tasks (list), less than 50% of asset owners have completed the initial activities. Most have gone to AVG. Last update for most of them is 9 mths. off.
• Suggest ITAC reinforce these realistic dates, mentioning document does not have to be perfect.
• SA has to look over 40 documents (over 2,400 pages) of more than 45 references, to complete this process. [Reference slide.] It’s a continuous process; references keep getting updated.
• C&A is labor-intensive task. How to improve? Need automated tools that allow us to import info into appropriate databases, as well as export data. Cutting & pasting info is time-consuming.
• Continue the training; don’t think C&A is only a one-time process.
• Provide the fill with "enterprised," automated tools that allow us to scan our assets, check our patches, look at security vulnerabilities, and use info effectively. SA needs to be spending a minimum of 2 hours/day on this, but many do not have the time. BWTST & BUST have more responsibility to help with more training…a joint focus strategy: Focus on no. 1 problem.
• Funding – Contractors helped review documents. But they should have done training first (conscientious SAs did), but then the scorecard was not good.
• ITAC needs to get message out that SAs are not expected to “solve it all.”
• DOI Inspector General will come in, as part of their review, and ask for specific documents. Need to publish lessons learned.

[Reference Jim Steverson's Excel Spreadsheet on C&A References-- from 12/05/05 email.]

Margaret Bunch:

• C&A is a living process. (She showed group her C&A without appendices--about 7 inches thick).
• Need to proceed with automated tools for inventory status—across the Survey. Currently, there are none. Spreadsheets are created manually; the tools are out there.
• Need to link processes in databases together, so that there are automatic feeds (into multiple places).
• Should be able to export the AVG into the risk assessment. (She can suggest how.)

Chris Leeth mentioned this in prior ITAC meetings—that we need to automate more. Tools are out there; can be easily obtained.

Garry: Still need to move forward, even if documentation is not fully complete. (Goal should be 100%; but target at least 75%.) SAs realized they did not have contingency plans, etc.

[Reference Recommendations slide]

 Garry’s comments:

• Cyber seminars will be started again in January 2006: C&A in high-level overview.

Discussion: Would WSC Directors attend? If run through Regional Hydrologists, it would get more attention; Role of ITAC is important in this. REX must be involved in communication, with guidance from ITAC. They don’t get importance of it all…even on Senior Staff agenda. How well do Regional RGIOs communicate with Regional Directors? Communication chain/strategy is not being followed.

• Recommendation: Importance of C&A should be communicated from Pat Leahy through RDs to REXs to WSCs.

Discussion : All members don’t agree with this as the solution. It matters if your supervisor tells you that you have to do it; e-mail may not be effective.

How engaged is the ELT? There needs to be a plan; how do we emphasize this to the right people?

• Many IT Specialists feel uncomfortable telling boss “we’re not secure.” SAs have to be encouraged to communicate with their supervisors.
• Garry should work with Linda Peng and Cindy Meyer, communicating they need signed Center approval documents.

Summary of C&A issues :

• Cost Center Chief buy-in for Web seminars.
• ITAC message to water SAs: C&A should be value-added, not check-box activity; be honest on C&A for longer term security improvement rather than short-term scorecard.
• Identify long-term software tools procurement

1. Automatic-asset mgmt. for long term.
2. Document production and maintenance.

It will be difficult for GIO to evaluate tools - automated asset inventory; automated links within the documents, from one database to another.

Discussion: There is a direct relation between C&A databases. Kevin knows this. What software will help in the Fall of 2007? We need to think through the way we communicate. There needs to be some kind of metric for follow-up after message goes to Senior Management. It was suggested to put it into Cost Center performance plans; this is a practice in Western Region.

Infrastructure for Dynamic Web Page Capability Compared to NatWeb (IIS, CF)
Presented by: Chris Leeth, NatWeb rep., David Boldt (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

Tools needed:

• We don’t support any of the tools recommended by DOI.
• Much of these tools can be easily transferable, and served through NatWeb.
• Need to get NatWeb to invest in these tools.
• CF used for Kansas Web site shown.
• GA and NY also did their Web sites the same way, using CF.
• Dave – Started to make all this happen, then budget ax fell. Maybe NatWeb can be repositioned….
• Klima’s message to Katherine Lins was referenced: Next week is DOI meeting on CF for USGS products. U.S. Park Service is using it extensively. More than 8 USGS servers are using it.
• Need a group solution…can install on NatWeb, for users to use.
• It’s a per server charge now.
• Q: What’s life-cycle cost for CF cost on NatWeb (for everything)?
  A: Dave Boldt doesn’t have those numbers. Dave Leeth has a CF quote for NatWeb: ~$30K. Servers themselves are “maxed out.” All servers migrating to NatWeb…about 1/3 of sites were migrated; couldn’t continue unless server structure upgraded. New technology is a budget issue. NatWeb at budget limitation now.

• Karen Klima is learning about CF. Her summary:
• Homework done – 8 servers now in USGS providing CF service; 1 in Biology and 7 in Water programs. Growing interest to use more.
• NPS using CF quite a bit – a center of excellence. In discussion with them, to see what kind of hosting they can provide USGS. USGS contacted by DOI to discuss using CF across DOI on 12/20/05 . Karen wants ITAC to help communicate what is needed for this meeting.
• Happy with NatWeb capability service so far; to be done by April 2006.
• Looking at ways to do some kind of consolidation, at tech applications and software we need (i.e., Oracle, CF).
• Two things with DOI?
  • An investment proposal going to DOI Investment Review Board – looking at funds for common solutions to Web hosting and content management and portal. Won’t get money until FY08.
  • CTO hosting a meeting on Web Management Service ( 12/20/05 ), with DOI.
• In early discussion with NPS, seeing if they can serve our Web pages.
  • Invitation for an ITAC rep to participate in this meeting.

Dec2005.ID.6: Chris Leeth will be rep. at 12/20/05 meeting on CF. He’ll also put together a white paper stating how it would be of value to the Office of Communications.

• Looking at grouping what our needs are, including licensing, liability, security, cost efficiency. Dave said licensing would work on NatWeb.
• Could we pool our resources to buy licenses?
• NatWeb has been serving PERL for ages, so it should be able to support CF.
• 5 cost centers in WR would like to use it.
• Lorna only found 500 pages in WR using it. In total, there are thousands of pages using CF.

SA Priorities Including C&A Work
Presented by: Jim Nicholas
Expected Outcome: ITAC information to Water Science Centers?

Note: ITAC discussed seven SA priorities, per a handout from Jessica Alvarez (A draft that will not be referenced in these minutes). Charlene Fischer, WR, worked on the list with Jessie.

• Mission-related stuff should be first priority; it’s missing on list, on purpose. Should be woven in with everyday responsibilities.
• Time involved with each priority was not considered when the list was composed.
• Generation of C&A documentation: ~2,000 person hours for entire C&A, first-time through.
• Suggestion: Talk with SA and agree that it still needs to be continuous process.
• This document has a lot of potential. Need to label as “priority” tasks, which tend to get overlooked; however, you still need to keep the system running.
• Ken Lanfear will take a shot at this “preamble.” Jessie owns this document right now; it was produced for SAs and WSC Directors/Cost Center Chiefs.
• When an SA is in “fire-fighter” mode, these priorities will not take precedence over fighting fires.
• Choices have to be made by SA and the supervisor. Perhaps supervisor can explain to “customer” why a specific request did not get done because C&A is being worked on.
• Won’t be able to prioritize SA’s work, but they should feel comfortable knowing they have mgmt. support.
• Pat Leahy’s deadline for C&A completion is 4/14/06 , and should be included in the list.
• Need to present long-term advantage to the WSC, for getting into AD, etc. Show how these initiatives are advantageous to the Science Center.

Dec2005.ID.7: ITAC members to send comments to Jessie Alvarez regarding her list of SA priorities. Jim Nicholas will make sure Jessie gets this out.

Lessons Learned -- IT back-up (Buddy Site) and Communications and Other IT Issues During Hurricane Katrina (Reverse Proxy/CF)
Presented by: Scott McEwen, Jeff Christman (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Develop IT Guidance?

• A lesson learned was that BlackBerries were effective for communications; BlackBerry was key way that outsiders could communicate.
  Need a variety of communications options from the office, hoping something will work when another does not.
  Discussion(s): What do we do when we cannot communicate? Need to work on this. Buddy sites are listed on a Web site. COO plan can come in handy as to what to do under specific scenarios. Scott & Jeff (systems and operational support) can “redo” these coops, but everybody has to do their part.
• Jeff Stoner reminded the ITAC that all WSCs were asked to submit their COO plans to Region. There is the Emergency Preparedness Web site at QuickPlace. Susan Trapanese will send the URL. Need ID to access it too! COO plan should not be entirely on computer.
• Alternate strategies need to be looked at. Buddy site doesn’t make sense to Scott, if can’t get record onto Web. New sites were not operating during this period.
  Discussion: Susan Trapanese – not dependent on NWIS server; can’t add new sites, WQ lab, etc. NWIS RT – it works; NOT buddy site; independent ADAPS system. Burl wanted to add a new site. Run GWSI on buddy site? (Need ITAC member to provide summary of this issue.) Could have had Texas bring them up temporary rapid deployment gages from another State. Need to keep it simple, to address the situation. Communication was difficult during the Hurricane Katrina situation.
• Lesson learned: Some people misunderstand what RT is and they don’t turn it on beforehand. Should just turn it on when disaster is impending – do it before disaster strikes.

[Reference Scott’s list of “Action Items”.]

[Emergency QuickPlace - USGS Continuity of Operations]

 Charlie Demas: Has list of AIs

• WSC Director makes ALL calls. But Directors can delegate their authority in this kind of situation.

Discussion: In disaster situation…NWIS RT should be turned on; stay on alternate site. Decisions should be made beforehand; judgment calls should be made. We should be in a “fail-safe” mode. Have to be careful when you have two data streams going into the Web.

Issue of local Web servers: CNN saying they couldn’t get USGS server; weren’t given correct Web address. LA server was working on reverse proxy. NatWeb pointed toward nothing. Pointed to local page on NatWeb, eventually. Page should have been prepared far in advance.

Lesson learned: Design a simple page; send to NatWeb.

Summary: Where do we post these Lessons Learned? They are still in work. Whole presentation should go to Water Senior Staff. Include some recommendations as to what should be included in COO plans, working toward something they can present.

No ITAC activity at this time.

Data Transfer from Field Thru WRD Laboratories to WSC NWIS
(Groups thinking about strategies, PCFF example for NWQL)
Presented by: Sandy Williamson, Susan Trapanese, Yvonne Stoker (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Initial Information

Sandy:

• Yvonne took leadership in PHOENIX (Water-Quality Users Group).
• Results sent out in e-mail, where the user had to get into NWIS.
• No tracking by e-mail; trying to get a direct computer process that has tracking capability.
• NWIS starting group to address longer-term issues. NWQL could benefit from this and other ones (Mercury lab in Madison , for example).
• Interim transfer process used for NAWQA now.
• Model could work for a State lab. Now all USGS labs are being targeted.
• Susan Trapanese explained that NWIS, PHOENIX & NWQL are working together, coming up with a new design. Need something cheap to maintain for the lab.
• “Gang of 8” - Regional QW specialists/NWQL/BQS) and PHOENIX – Should have a common member, one that is in each group.
• PCFF issue – Jeff assumes this is related
• Field data to the lab is being addressed by subcommittees of PHOENIX.

Status of USGS and OFAs on backup of DRGS
Presented by: Susan Trapanese
Expected Outcome: Update

DRGS at EROS Data Center

• WRD will pay for half the installation cost; NESDIS will pay for the other half.
• Linking DRGS with LRGS systems…significance? LRGS will have multiple points for reception.
• EROS might be the site.
• It’s a Federal partnership.
• Susan will give URL to where these slides are in meeting. Proposal being considered again, with potential for being at EROS.

Update on Annual Data Report Process
Presented by: Donna Schiffer, Brian Reece, Steve Glodt (call-in)
Expected Outcome: Potential notice to field

Brian gave presentation in Maine .

• ADR process
  
• ~3600 sites in SIMS databases in current WSC installations

Issues:

• Pictures – Consistency with photos is hard to manage, until they can get a standard base.

Discussion: Need to start archiving photos. Used to be Library’s responsibility to keep photos. Correct, but can’t do with current staffing of Library…maybe good opportunity to "reinvent." Once they get a solid base, can just add photos.

More issues:

• Nebraska runs off of Texas server.
• Disaster recovery - database on Web server.
• Rollup to a national server.
• Update SOPs.

Discussion: Ken Lanfear – Average correction is a kilometer. Plotting capability was not there until 1980s. Need to get correct info back into NWIS. County algorithms are terrible. Not a simple task.

Planned update cyber seminar between two teams:

--NWIS telemetry flag

--Persistent URL to NWISWeb site homepage.

• For WY 05, beginning in 2006, there will be one national data report.

Discussion: ADRs can be referenced in SIRs. ADRs should contain recommended citations. Working with CAPP on this. Persistent URL will be a report for the entire Nation. Could be 90K references, with one Web site. Ken Lanfear suggested that each doc should be assigned a digital object identifier (DOI); it’s a universal way to reference something.

Further Discussion: Gary Fisher will be taking over in next month. Do Data Chiefs know this time table? Some have not seen anything official on this. SIMS & RMS will be in plenary session for WR meeting. Gary will probably send a message out near first of year. He’s coming to Reston to give a briefing. CF has common element here. Would be good to have IIS expert to fix some of this stuff. Feedback from people? IIS is better now; works pretty well. Checklist would be good for internal server, to register it, put into C&A.

IIS server specialist in CTO? No one in HQ staff that Brian knows.

Almost everything will be Web based.

Q: Up to WSC Director’s discretion to provide a related product?
A: Minimal enhanced product is site data sheet.

  Dec2005.ID.8: Brian Reece and Chris Leeth will coordinate with other IIS server applications like CF and StreamStats.

Western Region IT: status of IT activities related to support or issues for WRD
Presented by: Charlene Fischer
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

• WR GIO Organization
• Total 122 FTE, includes Survey and contractors).
• Enterprise Publishing Network (Greg Allord, Chief) is newest addition; WR gained 67 more employees.
• Still have IT and IS functions (Info Tech and Security).

Discussion: Will Karen Siderelis reassume role as GIO? Kevin Gallagher thinks she will, which will encompass all of this, with a lead to Geospatial.

Needs to be strong relationship between RGIOs and GIO CTO. Messaging has been a complete disaster. RCSers should be “hooked” with RGIOs. ITSSC has membership from Regional Security folks, plus the BITSM.

Melna primary contact for ITSSC.

• Voice Over IP – Reservations from Kevin? Elaine Stout is working on a strategy for the Bureau. Plan – Replacing phone systems with Voice Over IP device.

It was suggested to have VOIP on desktop. It’s okay as long as we’re working with Elaine’s group.

• Video conferencing – (Sandy Williamson comment -- quality just not there.)
• Can have camera for WebEx.
• ~$16,000 – price for projectors and cameras, for video conferencing.
• Good to offset our travel; can see the added value.
• FY06 Planned Activities

Discussion:

Q: Monies available for C&A?
A: Monies are provided every year to Katherine to assist NWIS, etc.

• Active Directory
• Enterprise Web
• Analyzing current Web presence for the USGS, to create a baseline.

Discussion: Maybe each Region can tackle one issue.

• Seek opportunities for improvement with stakeholder input.
• Call Center
  • To begin March 2006; to replace # used to report outages.
• Will reside in Denver , 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT.
• 50% of calls to be answered at Tier 1.
• Voice Over IP (VoIP)
• Have heard that NLT FY2008 DOI will make VoIP a standard.
• One PBX in USGS, Denver is running VoIP.
• LAN has to be resilient and redundant.

Terri Moore has book “Voice Over for Dummies”. Margaret also has PDF regarding it. Both were offered to share with ITAC.

• HSPD 12

• Smart card costs $60-120.
• At DOI level now; hasn’t gotten thumbs up yet. Paul Exter said it’s not going to happen real soon.

Use of QuickPlace for internal groups/COOP performance and WebEx process change
Presented by: Sandy Williamson
Expected Outcome: Information exchange

• Sandy took a quick survey to see how many ITAC members have used QuickPlace (QP) and if they have had trouble with it:
• Chris Leeth uses it a lot.
• ISC uses it for StreamStats.
• Jim Steverson uses for OAG and OAS.
• Sandy wants to know if QP is meeting the needs of USGS.

QP will be retained when our mail system changes

WebEx:

Two more functions:

• It’s a meeting place.
• Unlimited usage.

Review pending action items
Presented by: Jeff Stoner
Expected Outcome: Documentation

Reference Outstanding Action Items

Idaho meeting AIs:

• Al Rea already sent e-mail on finding out about shutdown for 2 weeks.
• DEC2005.ID.2: Discussed this; action revised.
• Jim Nicholas added new action item regarding SA priorities.
• Ken Lanfear to wrote “preamble” item.
• Sandy will send revised AIs to me. (Some items originally listed as AIs were changed.)

ITAC Membership and Role Changes by End of CY 2005
Presented by: ITAC Members
Expected Outcome: New vice chair

Role changes: Officers usually are picked after Jan. 1. Vice Chair helps the Chair, and serves as backup.

• Two new members: Jess Griffin , OK , replacing Margaret Bunch as SA rep, and Athena Clark, Director, Alabama WSC, as WSC Director rep.
• Marilyn Billone is now part of HPO, and Publishing is no longer part of ITAC; she will need to be replaced as ITAC Executive Secretary.
• Katherine Lins asked for ideas on replacing Marilyn.
• Katherine has two possible candidates from OWI.

Discussion:

• Is Vice Chair automatically the Chair next?
• Has advantages: provides continuity.
• Keep way it is for now; if someone feels they can’t be Chair, they can select someone else.
• Athena Clark is not sure she wants to be nominated for Vice Chair during her first year on board (2-year commitment).
• All agreed to make selection during next teleconference.

ITAC List of Goals for CY 06
Presented by: ITAC Members

• Jim Nicholas addressed committee on this issue. Would be good to spend some time discussing goals of group, especially when bringing on two new members.
• Have to think how we’re going to communicate need for changes. Who do we need to influence? Important to invite certain people to ITAC meetings. Very valuable for Katherine Lins to hear field perception, burden on SAs, etc.
• Jim wants to get with more experienced ITAC members to discuss this, before next conference call.

Q: Has the reorganization been discussed?
A: It continues to be a discussion with ITAC. Jacque wants to make sure GIS initiatives continue to be represented. Jeff reminded Jacque that ITAC has a GIS representative in Sonja Sebree, but she could not attend this meeting.

Goals discussed, audience driven:

• Influencing Bureau IT decisions
• Continuing to decide if certain issues need to be addressed.

ITAC members will send ideas for 2006 Goals to Jim Nicholas.

Dec2005.ID.9: ITAC members to send suggestions for 2006 goals to Jim Nicholas by the first week in January. Jim will compile. ITAC be ready to discuss during Jan. 27^th, ITAC conference call (Fri., 1/27/06 ).

One way to process the goals is to review the effectiveness of achieving past goals.

BREAK

Recognize Departing Members
Presented by: Jeff Stoner, Katherine Lins

• Members recognized and given plaques for serving out their terms: Jeff Stoner, Stephen Glodt, and Margaret Bunch.
• Note: Greg Allord will no longer be on ITAC, as he now is part of the HPO (Chief, Enterprise Publishing Network).

Next Meeting Agenda Items, Location, and Dates

• Second half of March good for Jim Nicholas.
• Central Region is up next and 1 ^st choice – Louisiana .
• Scott McEwen also recommended Missouri – They can relate some real-life experiences (i.e. with AD process). Iowa also may be good.
• Scott will run these options by CR RH, and he’ll check on possibilities for late March or early April (week of 3/27/06 – tentative); he’ll let ITAC know.

Next teleconference: Fri., 1/27/06 , 11:00 EST. Marilyn Billone and Jeff Stoner will be available to help with this, for transition to new ITAC Executive Secretary and chair.