!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> ITAC Arkansas District Meeting, 11/16-18/04 ITAC Internal Home Page

ITAC Agenda and Meeting -- November 16-18, 2004
Arkansas District Office -- Little Rock, Arkansas
_____________________________________________

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

arrow icon Constituent Reports:

arrow icon Senior Staff Report
arrow icon Data Chiefs Report
arrow icon District Chiefs Report
arrow icon AO Report
arrow icon Study Chiefs Report
arrow icon Attendee Information

Following is a list of ITAC meeting attendees/invitees who plan on attending or delegating an alternate:

Brian McCallum

Data Chief -- Atlanta, GA

Attending

Greg Allord

Chief, CAPP -- Madison, WI

Attending
Tuesday and Wednesday

Joel Johnson

Data Base Management Systems -- Sacramento, CA

Attending 

Sonya Jones, Chair

Assistant Program Officer -- Norcross, GA

Attending

Katherine Lins

Chief, OWI -- Reston, VA

Attending

Jeff Stoner

District Chief -- MN

Attending

Susan Trapanese

Chief, NWIS -- Reston, VA

Attending

Sonja Sebree

World Wide Web Development -- Lincoln, NE

Attending

Sandy Williamson

WRD Technical Offices -- Tacoma, WA

Attending

Marilyn Billone

ITAC Executive Secretary -- Reston, VA

Attending

Margaret Bunch

 Attending

Tim McElhone

Acting, NR Regional Computer Specialist -- Lansing Michigan

Attending

Donna Hector-Sabin

Administrative Officer, CAPP -- Madison, WI

Attending

Scott McEwen

CR Regional Computer Specialist -- Denver, CO

Attending
Ken Lanfear  Chief, WICAS -- Reston, VA
Attending

arrow icon Invited Guests:

Terri Moore

Western Region Computer Specialist -- Sacramento, California

Attending

Cheryl Morris

Central Region, GIO -- Denver, Colorado

Attending

Kevin Gallagher

GIO -- Reston, Virginia

Attending
Paul Exter GIO -- Reston, Virginia
Attending (by telecon?)

News Items

Audio Bridge Information -- Dial in number (703) 648-4848

Conference Date: 11/16/04
Conference Time (ET)*: 9:00 AM - 6:30 PM
Confirmation #: 3684
# of Ports/Lines: 5
Conference Code #: 43866

Dial in instructions: You can not dial into your conference before the scheduled start time. At the appropriate time, call the dial in number listed above. There will be a voice prompt asking for the conference code followed by the # sign. Please wait for the beep tone following this recording before entering your conference access code. You will hear a single beep tone after you enter the # key, confirming that you have joined the conference call successfully. If you hear no other voices at this time, then you are the first caller to join the conference call. If you weren't successful, you will hear another voice prompt with instructions.

If you have any questions regarding the Reston Audio Bridge or if you experience any difficulties during your audio conference, please call the Telecommunications Center at 703-648-7110.

Agenda and Meeting Notes

Monday, November 15, 2004     --     ITAC travels to Arkansas District Office
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Time Agenda Item, Presenter(s), & Expected Outcome
8:00 am

Welcome and Introductions/Agenda Review
Presented by: Sonya Jones (Chair)

  • Reference ITAC Chair Letter to the USGS Arkansas District Chief of November 3, 2004
  • Introductions around the table

(Will be last meeting for Sonya Jones, Brian McCallum, and Joel Johnson.)
John Terry welcomed ITAC members.

8:15 am

Arkansas District Overview
Presented by: John Terry (Dist. Chief), Dave Freiwald (Asst. DC), Mark Farmer (IT/NWIS Program), Barry Jackson and Randall Cole

John Terry: [Reference PowerPoint presentation.]

  • Organization chart of Arkansas District Office on 2nd slide.
  • Hard to come by partnerships; need more coop dollars to match.
  • Loss of about 90 non-continuous crest stage gages supported previously by coop with AR Dept. of Transportation.
  • Some water issues: Declining water levels in Mississippi Alluvial aquifer, nutrient enrichment, local water-use database; Water Use Program has grown considerably.
  • Arkansas gets about 48 inches of rain/year.
  • Nutrient Enrichment from cattle and chicken farming is an issue between AR and OK.

Dave Friewald: Went over some activities of District Office. 2.6 M people in whole state (not populous); 350,000 in Metro area. Eastern AR is cropland. Northern/Western AR – Ozark and Ouachita Mtns. and pastures sprinkled with forestland. Southern AR – many trees. Northwestern AR is underlain by karst formations.

Sparta Aquifer Recovery Study – Water levels have declined significantly. EPA grant, working with Union County Water Conservation Board, and Burns & McDonnell as consultant. Real-time water-level data available via the Internet at http://ar.water.usgs.gov .

Discussion:

  • FTE ceiling is 47; they’re just about there. 6-7 students. Two students in Ft. Smith; one is in Fayetteville. IT people – 3 + 2 students.
  • Most reimbursable work is Federal. 2/5 is coop; mostly State coops. Much of the money is unmatched.
  • Biggest cooperators work on 50-50 match (37.5% unmatched funds). AR DO leverages as much as they can.
8:45 am

Arkansas District IT Overview
Presented by: Mark Farmer (Supv. IT Specialist/NWIS Program)
Expected Outcomes: Overview of IT issues in the Arkansas District

USGS Arkansas District IT Infrastructure

  • Mark is Supervisor/IT Specialist, but just got selected to be ADAPS team leader for NWIS, while stationed in Little Rock.
    Randall Cole – IT Specialist; Scott Davidson – IT Specialist (NWIS; resident Apache expert); Barry Jackson – IT Specialist (programmer & Webmaster for District); two STEP students (Jason Hilgendorff and Matthew Smith). Troy Brossett (Bubba) – Surface-Water Field Support Unit Chief.
  • Still have a Sun Ultra 5 (hosts Web services and NWISWeb Web side software).
  • Desktops: Have a combination of Dells, Gateways, and Compaqs (51 desktops; backups are done twice a week for power users; once a week for other PC users); 40 Laptops/Notebooks. [Nice map layout of IT systems for District helps with overall hardware/software management.]
  • They have T1 line from Little Rock to/from Atlanta/T1 line from Little Rock to/from Reston.
  • Not using Citrix yet; maybe in the future (can move to Dell server).
  • AR has its own LRGS and is a primary backup for other district sites (MO, IA, NE, KS).

2005 goals:

  • Complete migration to Windows XP, plus to Active Directory (AD); compliant off-site storage service/facility; meet challenges of C&A requirement process, plus IT security in general. Need to move District servers to NatWeb. Employ reverse proxy scenario for AR State Water Use system (via DMZ waiver or NetContinuum). Improve communication between IT Support Staff and District users.
  • “The calibrated model is only as good as the data.”—John Terry

IT issues:

  • They lost an excellent support person (“Jay”)—12/03. They’ve redistributed his responsibilities.
  • Until Mark’s vacancy is permanently filled, it will be filled by someone in an acting capacity.
  • Jason, one of the students, is transferring to Ohio State University, fall 2005.

(No questions.)
9:45 am BREAK
10:00 am

Town Hall Meeting
Presented by: ITAC/District Staff

Approximately 20 employees from the District Office attended this meeting.

Bureau IT Issues (10 min.) (Kevin Gallagher) [Reference PowerPoint presentation.]

Sits on IT Management Council for DOI; he oversees Bureau infrastructure.

External drivers affecting us all:

  • Federal IT Reform
  • FY04 Budget Cuts
  • DOI Secretarial Order
  • Enterprise Initiatives
  • IT Management Reform Study
  • DOI IT Transformation Strategy
  • Latest DOI CIO Directives

Major budget cuts. DOI - $166 M cut (associated with not meeting requirements). USGS was cut $12.2M in funding. Generally, a 16% cut for DOI and a 12% cut for USGS. DOI Secretarial Order – Gives authority to Dept. CIO (Hord Tipton); standardizes DOI CIO organizations and functions; mandates that all Bureaus develop an IT Capital Planning Process. Cellular services moratorium: Not against cell phones; against any new umbrella contracts, to buy self-services in bulk. Working on a big acquisition now. FY04/05 Annual IT Plan: DOI reaches out to field a lot (i.e. ITAC). Tactical plan put together; lists enterprise initiatives, defined in terms of timelines; put into one document in prioritized manner.

Available at http://internal.usgs.gov/gio/ito/itplan .

Questions:
Q: Wireless prohibition?
A: Regarding wireless cards in PCs; waiver process in place. This has not affected critical business.

Q: Is chance of getting home wireless network okay?
A: They’re working on this. Guidance came out in last Info Tech update. Tim Quinn working with Kevin on this. Use charter team, take wireless spec (how to secure it at work and at home), and issue it. It’s a bit slow to happen. He knows that people are using it; there are guidelines on how to use it. Officially, not allowed to use it to connect to the USGS network. All applications for waivers have been approved, so far (hasn’t been many—12). 16-item checklist. Need to make sure you’ve followed every step first, before applying for waiver.

Q: A WR application hasn’t been approved yet; applied ~ 9 months ago, for a Conference Room in CA DO.
A: Kevin will check on this, as it was one of the first submissions.

Q: Integrated Projects is a long list! New stuff to comply with new regulations?
A: It’s a mix—new and old. Looks at all requirements. They’re building in notion that we’re all going to work together. Networking, messaging, delivery—Not new, but just looking at doing them a different way, more as an Enterprise.

Q: You have a bullet—data warehouse—Is the data warehouse imminent? What does this mean to the USGS?
A: This is a placeholder. Nothing has been discussed as of now. In DOI Transformation Strategy. We’ll share data in a common way, among different Bureaus. Difficult project. A long-term effort. Goal is inner operability.
A: Watch project real closely; go in there with a pre-emptive move…highly recommended.

Q: Lotus Notes, changing?
A: Yes! Enterprise messaging; came up 2 years ago. Dept. wanted everyone to switch to Exchange. We were at the beginning of 5-year cycle for Lotus Notes; didn’t make sense to switch to another software package. Lotus – No upgrades beyond Revision 6.0. We’ve pushed ourselves to end of migration schedule to Exchange; not until at least a year from now.

Q: What’s better about it?
A: There are benefits to Exchange that Lotus doesn’t have, and vice versa. Across entire DOI, other messaging packages; need to look at having one system that is well-integrated. Some people will love Exchange; some will dislike it. Won’t be painless to convert.

Office of Information update (5 min) Lins (No PowerPoint.)

Ken Lanfear discussed status of handhelds: Meeting this week in San Diego on field computing. Mostly members of BRD were there. BRD – project-specific applications. May result in some kind of consolidation across the disciplines. Information exchange. Guidance to Water is to make field computing more mainstream and focused in Water.

Q: When will there be streamgaging software on PDAs?
A: It’s been working on the Palm, for 6 months; easier to program. But we do need it on Pocket PC.

Question related to how this works. Ken explained, in general. Entering data, then checking the data, are two major things you want to capture in PDA. Can have GPS to help with gathering well locations.

Q: Some offices will go different directions. Going a single way for procurement?
A: Yes, that’s where they’re going, like HIF.

Q: What about BRD?
A: BRD is very interested in what we do with HIF. Watch for developments; potential consolidation of program. Burl Goree leading for Water from Louisiana District. (See http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/nwis/FCIG/fcig_index.html for any details.)

Discussion: Should we be concentrating on the Acoustics instead of the meters? Vendors are very much in tune with this technology. Wading rod acoustic meter already has “stuff” in it. We’re trying to mimic this for a triple-A price meter. Hardware is cheapest part of whole operation. Digital converter, etc., is more expensive. All vendors are going Windows CE. Hydroacoustics has everything self-contained now. They want to go to a site, download the data …Georgia District is already downloading data into PDA’s. (Bubba will talk with Brian McCallum about this.)

Follow results of PDA meeting in San Diego. (Ken Lanfear will ask Burl Goree to get the word out; see Action Item within notes for 11/17/04.) [Reference PDA Workshop Notes]

NWIS update (5 min) Trapanese

  • Susan described three NWIS units (Design & Development Unit, National Internet Data Systems Unit, and Systems Operational Support Unit).
  • NWISWeb user group having first meeting this week. Kip Bossong is the lead.
  • Memo: Status note on what NWIS will try to release for 2005; will be released this week.
  • Standardized aquifer codes.

Priority HDR sites

Q&A with District Staff:

Q: What’s the status of real-time data?
A: NWISWeb is constrained to 31 days of real-time data now.

Q: Will 31-Day barrier come down?
A: Needs to be decided as to what is best number of days to be served; how NWISWeb integrates with annual data report. Hard to architect a solution now without requirements. Need to think about all of our different products, and how they impact the public. They know it’s more than 31 days, but by how many? IT issue. Has to do with refreshing and updating. Daily values will automatically get transmitted to the Web. They want the best value.

Q: Automatically computed value will go to Web?
A: Yes! [31 to 60 to 90?]

Q: Real-time data updated once a year now. Are there plans to increase the frequency of updating this data?
A: Yes; it will be the number 1 thing to work on.

Q: Is there a target date for getting data approval time shortened?
A: Will come out this FY (August-September), for data aging. Enhance Data Remark Codes. A flag is if the unit value is approved now.

Colleen Babcock is retiring; she’ll be replaced and the vacancy will be advertised to be filled in Reston.
11:45 am LUNCH
12:45 pm

AR staff presentations

Scientific visualization

  • GW models (Dr. John Czarnecki)
    (If you have any questions about Dr. Czarnecki's presentation, please contact him directly at jczarnec@usgs.gov .)

    Discussion/Questions:
    Q: Will there be a write-up of pros and cons of these model packages?
    A: No…no time.

    Q: What’s the horsepower needed for running these programs?
    A: 1 GHZ; two processors (small by today’s standards). All on PCs.

    Q: Is there an increase in programming now, since being able to visualize results?
    A: No, but there has been an increase in the interest in this work. Models were finished more than a year ago, and a State agency has funded at $100 K/year. They can then go to State legislature to get laws to protect these aquifers. Sparta Recovery Project is a direct result of use of MODFLOW, to tell them how much water is needed.

    Q: Do you have to drill deeper when well runs dry?
    A: No. In the past, this was the answer. Now, we have to get water from another source.

    Q: What is used to illustrate these model results?
    A: AVIs are used; can be dumped onto the Web. QuickTime not needed to be run. Windows Media plays AVIs. On AR pubs page, there are six different GW modeling reports. There are different CDs that you can use.

  • Reservoir models (Dr. William Green) [Reference PowerPoint presentation.]

    Discussion:
    Animations are not within any report on AR Web site. Dr. Green said that they need to do this though.

  • Water-use database and Web-accessible hydrogeologic framework (Terry Holland, Water-use Project Chief)/Barry Jackson [Reference PowerPoint presentation.]

    Altitude, range, and longitude & latitude are pulled from map.

    Analog: Barry Jackson made some changes, to help track the users of their system. He has Web server statistics.

    Barry Jackson demonstrated Add Measurement Point Information. Can enter well depth; grid based.

    This can be great model for well information, not only water use.

  • Mapping Project Office (William Sneed, Geography)
    [Reference PowerPoint presentation.]
    • Geography restructure of field representative position “On hold—awaiting Restructure of the National Geospatial Program Office—Vacancy announcements had gone out for State liaisons, prior to Chip’s 8/17/04 memo. Are evaluating what will be done in “foreseeable future.” People still like to see paper maps. The plan is still to expand partnership offices.
    • Report referred to will come out of 90-day study period; by first of the year, it will be given to Chip for review.
    • Mountain of work still ahead as far as determining compatibility, i.e. between databases.
  • What’s new with surface water? (Troy Brossett)
    • Imminent Use of Handheld Computers in the Arkansas District
      [See PowerPoint presentation #1.]
    • Arkansas is ahead in hydroacoustics; they’ve been doing it for years. Have been on cutting edge of technology—now more so with PDAs.
    • Each AR hydrotechnician has a FlowTracker (~11 in District).
      Discussion: GA District has 16 FlowTrackers. [See PowerPoint Presentation #2.]
4:00 pm

Publishing software training: Example using Microsoft Word templates
Presented by: Greg Allord
Expected Outcome: Training Technology

  • In Design training done; over 100 so far.
  • All three modules up and running now. Will be ready this month.

Discussion:
Q: Considered Webex?
A: Talked about it; this but this allows for presentation at anytime and accommodates the user's pace and schedule. We feel it is less of an impact on the instructors if multiple sessions are required. We agree Webex is valuable but for somewhat different types of information transfer. It can be well used as a refresher course. This is a good tool, especially if you don’t use what you’ve learned right away; learning decay is instantaneous these days. Can use for implementation of Data Report, for scripts, etc.

Q: Does Flash plug-in constitute a security risk?
A: No, because it’s operating on a browser level, but Kevin Gallagher will check on it. Issue would be associated with the port—which ones should be open and not open.

Q: Breeze Technology (for OED)…Has Greg seen this yet?
A: No. CAPP will compare Flash to Breeze; Alan Ward is the point of contact.
4:30 pm

Web-based map interface for Annual Water Data Reports and NWIS
Presented by: Greg Allord

Greg Allord demonstrated a conceptual map interface for a variety of hydrologic and wetlands data. The purpose of the discussion was to demonstrate the immediate concern there is to have a Web-based map interface allowing easy, clear navigation to NWIS stations. At this point the goal is to define an immediate set of navigation and cartographic display functions and get this interface developed in a matter of weeks. The demonstrated interface was put online by CAPP using Geocortex software from Latitude Geographics, Canada. This supports WMS map layers. Extensive discussion involved the need for immediate results, quick completion, and incremental improvements to come later. The goal is to have map display capability rather than GIS functionality. This builds on a set of design criteria provided by Ken Lanfear. Ken could be the one responsible for extracting data from NWIS and providing to CAPP. A similar concept will be presented to the Future Annual Water Data Committee in Denver on Wednesday, November 17, 2004. OWI will provide funds to CAPP for software needed for expanded testing. Several URLs used during the demonstration were:
4:50 pm Meeting adjourned
5:00 pm Diamond Bear Brewing Company (invitation from John Czarnecki, part owner)
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Time Agenda Item, Presenter(s), & Expected Outcome
7:55 am

Bubba's 3rd presentation (Decodes Lite Agenda)
Presented by: Bubba Brossett

Bubba outlined his DECODES “Lite” (for field personnel without much theory) training course.
The idea of the “Lite” course is to foster appreciation for important features of this data transfer program. QA DECODES expert is still critically needed in each District.
8:00 am

Updates on...
Presented by: Kevin Gallagher and Paul Exter
Expected Outcome: Information Exchange

  • Bureau AD Deployment Status - Paul Exter (by phone)
    • Enterprise Active Directory Project
    • Deadline is now December 2005 for AD deployment.
    • Interim guidance to offices
    • Deployment Plan is in draft mode now (six phases).
    • Will start in Water offices in Reston – December 2004 and January 2005; majority of districts by September next year.
    • Over 30 districts have already installed AD in local setting.
  • Windows 2000 and XP
    • Windows 2000 and XP Mandate: Deadline for 100% compliance: December 31, 2004.
    • Example: 2 weeks from start to finish (to “do” an office like AR DO—about 40-50 users).
      Employee will see some name changes, but functions will be in same locations. Mail, user IDs, and applications will stay the same. Remote access may change a bit.

    Nov.2004.AR.17: GIO Action Item—Paul Exter; ITAC member to track: Will get Nelson to compile list of things that’ll change regarding the Windows 2000 and XP mandate.

    12/31/04—Department’s deadline for 100% compliance to Windows 2000 and XP
    Mandate is more a security issue than an AD issue.

    • AD will be configured for Mac users to authenticate to it. Mac and UNIX won’t get changes.

Discussion:

  • New tools out now to allow AD to authenticate everyone. Higher costs for those users with multiple PCs; they will have to pay licensing costs.
  • Next year, Microsoft agreement is up for renewal; they will probably ask for hard data on where the licenses are.
  • $6M in purchases from Dell last FY. $5,000 per license. We’re licensed for ~9,500 now.
  • Senior Managers need to get this “dollar message.”
  • The GIO has covered the cost of the Microsoft licenses for the Bureau based on an estimated number of desktops (9,500). Once Active Directory is implemented, the actual numbers are likely to come in higher. Because the costs absorbed by the GIO were based on the estimated number, the cost of additional licenses ($200 for each additional license) may be passed on to cost centers in FY06. More on this will be coming from the GIO for FY06. Districts should consider minimizing the numbers of laptops and desktops to those necessary to conduct business. (Districts should plan on software license cost per employee of $200 Microsoft (MS) Exchange, and $300 per PC (this includes laptops as well as desktops) for MS office suite in FY06.)
  • The costs to districts for implementing MS Exchange are unknown. The per-seat license may be $300; however, how much of this cost will be covered by the GIO or should be passed on to the districts is unknown. USGS has asked to be the last bureau in Interior to implement (so more on this later).

    [See memorandum draft on interim guidance for AD Deployment; set up link.]

    Nov2004.AR.3 – Re: Future increases in IT costs: Paul will e-mail to ITAC all the expected new costs for Enterprise agreements, e.g. Microsoft license true up costs, MS Exchange. ITAC members to send comments to Paul Exter on his memorandum draft by the end of the week received. Paul Exter can put into memo form about cost reduction suggestions for the field. Paul will give ITAC the data and we’ll highlight in the ITAC meeting minutes; ITAC members should share with their constituent groups as appropriate.

  • E-Authentication/SmartCard Deployment
    • As part of its IT plan, DOI will be moving toward SmartCard technology. As part of this plan, all employees will be getting new ID card, with two computer chips on it. It’ll replace everyone’s current card.
    • Information (e-mail) on risk assessment will be going out in December; reports will be due by beginning of 2005. Deadline is October 2005 to be using SmartCards. Kevin Gallagher proposed to Paul to move up sending out the e-mail and getting the reports in.

      If you lose your card, someone would have to have your password in order to use it.

9:30 am

Enterprise Web — Update
Presented by: Karen Klima (by phone)
Expected Outcome: Information Exchange
Attendees: Karen Klima, Nancy Spriggs, Pat Kelly, Raju Prasanappa, and Lorna Schmid (all by phone)

  • Developing a registration process on all of Web infrastructure in coordination with Regions and Disciplines. Sonya and Ken Lanfear will be the ITAC point of contact.
  • Ken's Web team will put call out there for Web Master lists, to send to Sonya; she’ll send out the data call and “roll it up.”

Discussion:
One issue in reporting is whether to “lump” or “split” Web sites. The feeling among ITAC was that a District should have one Web site. For the current reporting effort, however, a district may report as many Web sites as it feels are appropriate (can later report as consolidated). Kevin said ITAC can send this guidance down.

Two issues: Registration requirement, and our issue to have only one Web site for each District.

  • Registration process: Based on unique IP address. What is a Web site? A Web site that has separate IP address. ITAC can say we only want ONE IP where all content goes in and out of. We provide a baseline now. Implement a policy before the data call; still need clarification.
  • If there is a different IP address, then it is a separate Web site.

Nov2004.AR.4 – Re: USGS Web Presence and the E-Web team’s data call for a baseline of Web sites: Sonja Sebree will get list of Water aliases to E-Web Team and will attend cyber seminar, with Ken Lanfear, Mon., 11/22/04. (Sonja can review and comment on the draft recommendations and the process of registering a Web site.)
10:20 am BREAK
10:45 am

Bureau Messaging
Presented by: Patty Damon (by phone) (No PowerPoint)
Expected Outcome: Information Exchange

Overview:

  • This is DOI’s initiative; not a lot has changed.
  • DOI went out and solicited to two vendors, for a solution.
  • Proposal was due back 11/8; extended to 11/15. Haven’t heard back yet. Two vendors: TKC and NBC with IBM. USGS involved (130 comments of what we wanted to put in). Waiting for return of evaluations. Starting in February, moving forward for a test lab; bring Exchange in, and pull out pieces and parts, make sure all still works.
  • FY06 – Goal for complete integration.

Q: When do we stop paying Lotus for Notes?
A: When paid for FY05. Not moving to version R7. Stopping at R6.

Q: Would we continue to use some pieces of Lotus?
A: Yes…under APS, Web Forms—those applications will still be supported. Sametime/QuickPlace – vendor had to include a product & price.

Q: What additional costs will this entail, to keep pieces of Lotus and still go on to new messaging system?
A: Have to go with Dept. messaging system, then will move forward to Web Conferencing, etc.
11:00 am

Structured Webex discussion (with projector)
Presented by: Kevin Gallagher (Reference Word Document)

Webinar software (for example, RainDance, Webex, Sametime, etc.):

  • Webinars support the mission of the Bureau and our customers. We need to measure our usage and need a business case as to why we use it. We need customer feedback along the way.
  • Should do with best capability for lowest life-cycle cost. USGS is still building a business case for this software.
  • ITO is open to evaluating multiple software solutions. Life-cycle costs should include all Federal IT reforms issues.
  • Propose FY05 – Evaluate two sources of Webinar capability: Sametime and Webex. Eventually need one enterprise solution that we all share.
    Proposal – the ITO will fund up to $50K, and Sandy Williamson will negotiate contract with Webex. Lotus Team will maintain contract relationship with Webex.

Price point discussion: (1) Different price-point breaks: Pay as you go, 35 concurrent seats or less. (2) Registration support question. Amount of setup/support required for Webex—as an alternative Bureau-wide software used for cyber seminars (an Internet, not Lotus tool).

Discussion: Frequency of Webinar:

  • Peak of RainDance – 3-4/week; Sametime – 2 a day now.
  • Around 35 is the breakpoint; less than 1 a week. We’re not close to breakpoint yet. We’re way over 35 number now; shouldn’t be considering this as a decision.
  • Webex is way out front, compared to Sametime. Sametime is slower, harder to follow, and its biggest problem is requiring admin rights to install the plug-in.
    Some training folks have been using Sametime for a while and are happy with it. Sametime is an improvement over RainDance. Multi-Science centers have used Sametime for meetings; sometimes it does not perform well. Sametime is sluggish; speaker gets ahead of the slides, causing frustration to audience participation.
  • Bulk price breakpoint is at 25 and 51 concurrent seats. How many seminars have more than 25 people? Largest has been 180 people with 90 connections. Attendees are sometimes close to over 100 for Hdqtrs. meetings. WR meeting – 28 largest one; most use 18-20 connections. Partly this is smaller now because of past performance problems with larger groups.
  • Need to pick one number – maximum number of concurrent seats. Can always hold another seminar, for those over the number.

Q: Cost issues with phone side?
A: No phone have been included in the past, nor are they planned for Webex procurement as phone charges at $.05 to $.08/min/attendee can be pretty costly. It's suggested to require one connection per office. Primary time is Noon-3:00, Eastern time; can have one-two seminars during the same time.

  • Stats on Webex: Sandy Williamson had 20 sessions in last 6 weeks
  • Kevin offered to pay for base model. Should be up to cost center to justify rest of cost.
  • RestonTalk only connects a maximum of 24 callers per current policy. Couldn't this be changed?
  • 50 is “workable.” Just have multiple repeats for over 50.

Q: Where on the Webex side of the house will people get support on training, setting it up, etc.?
A: Russ Smith handling training for Sametime. OWI has hands-on support for Sametime. (Can do same thing for Webex?) Update from Sandy: Webex offers training to all our employees fro their whole suite of classes for free (included in contract price -- neither Sametime nor Raindance offered this). There's Webex support with 1-800 number. They have a Web site with all the usage instructions and registration - all we have to do is build a link to usgs.webex.com .

  • Evaluation of two systems, now testing another system against them. Need to get word out, to give it a test.
  • Sandy is willing to help with training. Can do same thing with Sametime—Have Russ Smith help out, etc.

Nov2004.AR.5 – Re: Webex cyber technology: Sandy Williamson will negotiate the Webex contract, and train some trainers. He’ll also find out if Russell Smith and Diane Jeffries (OED) can train, as well as some Lotus staff. He’ll also help with the branding of the Web site—send a logo for it, etc., as well as prepare pointers for using Webex, and then help set them up on USGS Web pages. The Lotus Team can help Sandy with the task of developing the USGS Webex Web site, as well as develop a mechanism to begin tracking usage, usability, and customer satisfaction of both Webex and Sametime (per Kevin Gallagher).
11:00 am

Security C&A (Reference C&A e-mail)
Presented by: Cindy Myers (by phone)
Expected Outcome: What's next?

Intro (Kevin Gallagher)– How do you C&A desktop environment, etc.? Create enclaves.
[Reference memo of 11/30/04]

Two enclaves:
(1) Office automation general
(2) Office specialized mission

  • Both issues will be addressed.
    Aggressive experience. First two documents need to be completed as an evaluation guide. Required before collecting info for delimited vulnerability scan. Memo in final review; follows Kevin’s first memo.
  • Next steps for process. Risk Assessment + Security Plan due by 12/23/04.
  • Linda Peng (IT OAS Security Manager) & Cindy developed a few more tools (on C&A Web site) to assist asset owners.
  • Contract in place to conduct cyber seminars. All are worksheets from DOI; one is a template layout on how to write a System Security Plan (SSP) and a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA); reference guides and checklist.
  • PIA is in final review by Bureau by Privacy Information officer; it will be put on QuickPlace.
  • All asset owners have access to QuickPlace.

Q: What would Patty Damon like ITAC to do for her?
A: Need big push to get documents done, initially. Need some commitment to make attempt to make resources available to work on these in a timely fashion.

  • Every single site at USGS will have to have these documents in place.
  • Every Water district office needs to complete a risk assessment, a security plan, contingency plan, a PIA, an asset evaluation guide, and asset inventory—six things for every site. Each site is unique. Make this a priority in workload the next 6 months. July 2005 is timeframe.
  • First memo went to cost-center chiefs, SAs, each identified asset owner, CTOs, etc. Will go to them again. Not hearing anything from asset owners yet.
  • Will be doing cyber seminars.

Kevin Gallagher asked ITAC to consider this issue. ITAC does not enforce guidance; it’s a communications group, mostly. But each member can e-mail their own constituent group and give them a heads-up this is coming down the road, and that it is important.

Nov2004.AR.6 – Re: Certification and Accreditation: Individual members of ITAC will send to their constituents (via e-mail) an explanation as to why the certification and accreditation (C&A) of the office automation general (OAG) and office automation specialized mission (OAS) enclaves are important.

Q: What happens if they choose not to do it?
A: At some point, Kevin will give list of who has completed this and give to ELT. Two-page memo went out, saying templates will come down the line.

  • SSP template is complete. PIA one is being reviewed now.
  • Have to be available for deadlines! Delivery date for each of the six things to do for each site sprinkled throughout the year. Cyber seminars will track this.
  • Info needs to go to ELT to let them know where we are in the process.

Suggestions: Instructions need to be given to senior managers, continuing feedback loop – include cybers for SAs, etc. – Need to find out if further assistance is needed. Need more peer-to-peer discussions among similar sites for asset owners. (Hard for ITAC to provide guidance that each site needs.)

  • Patty and Linda have developed FAQs/tools. Only have been working on this since 2/04.
  • ITAC still needs to remind their constituents about the C&A requirements.

Q: Is there a spreadsheet to see who has turned in what?
A: Patty can send link for this to each RCSer.

  • Web site for project milestones will be in next memo coming out.
12:00 am LUNCH
12:30 pm

Portfolio Management
Presented by: Kevin Gallagher

GIO Investment Portfolio Management (Internal GIO presentation)

  • Kevin volunteered to be on agenda at Hydrology Senior Staff meeting in January. Hopes to have first version ready by then. Can be used for strategic financial planning. Kevin wants to show investments we’ve made and why we’re making them.

Discussion:

  • Project management big goal of OMB right now. Project Management Institute (PMI) – extensive classes, combined with experience, needed to pass certification. For every 300 in gov’t, one project manager must be PMI certified.
  • Total of 7 full-blown 300’s – Project manager leads for each must be PMI certified by September. (Susan Trapanese will get certified; NWIS is not expected to be changed.)
  • Kevin is getting user input. Other offices would be well served to follow this. (Office of Communications is under review right now. Close to completion.)
  • Need to be “on the fringe,” to do experimental stuff, but to do it with transparency, and just be open and up front about it.
  • Hard to grasp the benefit side. Need to present in dollars and quantify the benefits side as much as you can: Come up with some metrics. Fact sheet was developed: “GIO Benefits the USGS.” It contains some hard metrics that show benefits to our programs. It was suggested to Kevin to send this info out in Info Tech Office Updates.
1:15 pm

Enterprise Secure Network
Presented by: Elaine Stout + Skip Dutrow (by phone)

Telecom Discussion Points

Cost-center impact: None for FY05.

ESN - Phases (1 & 2)

  • We've been on forefront in pushing ESN
  • NIPT - Network Integrated Project Team (recertified bureau requirements 7/04).
  • USGS is the ordering arm for DOI.
  • Firewalls are between each layer.
  • No best efforts - All locations will be under Managed Network Services (MNS).
  • By March 2005 we will know if we've been "successful" as far as Internet and Intranet acceptance of service.
  • Potentially, with Phase 2, no cost impact for FY05; maybe some with FY06.

Discussion:

  • Addresses won't be changed externally in USGS Internet? (IPs)
  • Can't expand the number of ports for RestonTalk; it's maxed out.
  • Call Jeffrey Scott, or Kathy Shawbacker, for big conferences.

Cellular Contract/Wireless:

  • Found that much money was going toward cellular services—“Moratorium” not meant for all cell phones/Blackberry purchases; meant for putting a hold on “major” purchases that require a contract commitment of more than 12 months or termination fees. Therefore, individual purchases can continue as long as they stay in these particular parameters. They plan to have a contract in place by the 2nd quarter of FY 05. (Refer to Slide #13 regarding extensions to existing contracts.)
  • Cell phones are needed for fieldwork. Specific requirements should be given to Skip Dutrow; he can factor that in. Specific needs will be taken into consideration. There will be a waiver process.
  • Will there be a letter for input from fields, asking what they’re using? Not thinking about doing this. Skip was asked to take it to the team (requirements from the field). Need polling of our offices on which companies have best coverages for specific portions of the country. Need to come up with vendor that comes up with best coverage with best value, first. ITAC would like to provide some thoughts that could be of value to the team. Only Skip is representing Water.

Nov2004.AR.7 – Re: Possible consolidation of Cell phone contracts: Brian McCallum– Will send an e-mail to all Data Chiefs in Water, requesting response for Water cellular requirements. Brian McCallum will compile the responses and send to Skip Dutrow.
[Reference e-mail thread on cell phone requirements.]

Need to make sure other disciplines are consulted too.

Nov2004.AR.8 - Cheryl Morris will work with other RGIOs to get input from other disciplines for input regarding cellular requirements (and provide to Skip).

  • Need satellite phones.
  • It’s not just a low bidder; it’s meeting the requirements.
  • USGS spent several hundred thousand dollars on cell phones last year; need to find where costs are hidden (APS was doing this). At National meeting, $453,000 was reported; taken from billing statements, phone calls.
  • Maybe they will have a multiple award; not just to one vendor.

WAN 24x7 status (continued from PowerPoint)

  • Not as easy as it sounds.

Discussion:
Speculation as far as Network Notes – By 2006, will we be able to look at routers and dispatch Sprint, etc., to check out services? That’s how it’s supposed to work, and they may get more calls than they have staff to answer. Recommendation: Take five field sites to see how it works.

Phasing was a compromise: Consolidate “pops”, etc., as Phase 1, then they’d consider what to do with Tier 1 connections. Entire NPS sites will soon be fully connected. Bureau of CTOs will vote (~Feb.) to see if we move to Phase 2. There will be no new services or locations. Phase 2 not in effect yet. If we can afford to do upgrades, then they will go ahead. Cost distribution is still being determined.

 
2:20 pm BREAK
2:40 pm

Agenda for ITEM 2005
Presented by: Ken Lanfear
Expected Outcome: Information Exchange

  • In Portland,Oregon, week of 16th of May 2005; every 2 years, ITEM.
  • Will ask for something like $350 for meeting.
  • Some instruction in-house; some from outside.
  • Four tracks: Security; Operating Systems; Lotus; and General
  • Much interest in Security/AD.
  • May add some courses on content on the Web.
  • Main purpose of meeting is software and hardware; mostly computer support people.
  • Windows “NT” should be “2003”
  • Will have some Oracle courses.
  • Field trip to Mount St. Helens.
  • Meeting will run all week, with Fri. being a lighter day. ITAC could possibly have a meeting there.

Discussion:
What about WebEx? Ken will get this on the list.

Nov2004.AR.9 - Re: Courses for ITEM: Ken Lanfear will ask Jacque Coles, Idaho, about offering ARC IMS course at ITEM 2005.

  • Registration will start 12/15/04; can sign up for meeting by January, then finalize schedule.
  • Anyone who has a suggested topic, as well as a speaker, contact Ken.

Who was contact Charlie used for PDAs? Harry House talked about synching software package with Lotus. They’re looking at this.

2:50 pm

Federal Business Management System (FBMS)
Presented by: Donna Hector-Sabin
Expected Outcome: Information Exchange

  • Will be implemented October 2007 (FY08).
  • Still may keep BASIS+; not definite. Getting information for this was difficult.
  • There is PRISM and BASIS+—two different systems.
  • Issue - New software may conflict when payrolls are in different accounts. It’s an issue.

Why do all this if they’re doing SmartCards? May not do with FFS.
3:00 pm

Review of Outstanding/Pending Action Items
3:30 pm

Townhall Meeting Feedback

  • High-data rate conversion process; high-rate DCPs. Additional funding is an issue.
    May be an OSW issue; not ITAC. Districts expected to absorb these kinds of costs. Discipline offices not likely to come up with funding. District Chiefs maybe should discuss this. Can send out to constituents.
  • Room was full, but not many questions.

Nov2004.AR.10 – Re: USGS PDA workshop: Ken Lanfear will e-mail Burl Gorlee about summarizing on a Web page the San Diego meeting about PDAs.
[Reference PDA Workshop Notes]

  • DMZs raised as an issue.
  • Implications with Flash was a concern.
  • Changing from Lotus Notes was a concern.

Discussion:
Howard Perlman, GA DO, is writing a program on real-time thresholds for scour where you can enter when a threshold has been exceeded. Should be communicated that this is “out there.” Can use GS-W Help ADAPS to ask general question on who is using this program (a threshold e-mail notification using ADAPS screening threshold).
3:45 pm

Discussion about Recovery Costs
Presented by: Kevin Gallagher

  • Team was chartered to collect information on these costs. Some costs were deemed chargeable back to other offices. It was inconsistently applied as to which offices get charged. “What am I paying for?” is a valid question.
  • The team is identifying who is paying these costs. Kevin Gallagher has a meeting with Pat Dunham to talk about the results.
  • Goal – To only charge those receiving that service.
  • Water will still have to be charged for software licensing.
    [Reference cost-recovery e-mail from Scott McEwen, sent out in 2004, for FY05.]
  • When negotiating the contract, Paul Exter asked for credits to offset cost recovery within price agreements. What became of this? Terri Moore will ask Paul Exter.
    [Reference e-mails forwarded from Katherine Lins on 11/17/04—Subject: Update: WRD FY 2004 Cost Recovery. Possible Refund.]

Nov2004.AR.11 – Re: Next ITAC RCS member: Katherine Lins will take the nomination of Terri Moore (to replace Jessie Alvarez as ITAC RCSer representative) to WRD Senior Staff for endorsement.

  • Sandy showed listing of past ITAC meetings (Excel spreadsheet). We’ll try to figure where to meet in future. (SR - Georgia or Mississippi?)
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Time Agenda Item, Presenter(s), & Expected Outcome
8:00 am

Annual Data Report update
Presented by: Brian McCallum and Robert Swanson
Expected Outcome: Information Exchange

Bob Swanson (DC, NE DO), Brian Reece (TX DO), Greg Allord (CAPP, Madison, WI), Jim Kolva (OSW, Reston); Rob Baskin (UT DO)—All on phone

Bob presented the current status of the ADR working group. The team met in Reston in early October and was given goals and basic premises as defined by WRD Senior Staff. Initial directions were determined and presented by Bob Swanson to WRD Senior Staff late in October. The team was meeting in Denver November 18 and 19 to move to the final decisions and next steps. Bob walked through the presentation as given to WRD Senior Staff (reference PowerPoint Presentation).

The working team addressed: public interface and ease of finding data for the Annual Data Reports, fundamental concepts of what is appropriate to include in the ADR; requirements for NWIS to move the ADR in a future delivery of data than can be cited; and the need for a nationally consistent approach to creating the ADRs available and usable by all Districts. The Senior Staff was "pleasantly surprised". A technical team for developing and supporting scripts will meet at CAPP the week of January 10, 2005. A final report is due to the WRD Senior Staff at their next meeting in late January 2005.

Discussion: Hydrologic conditions would be standalone report referencing data report. Water-quality data GA District is putting better wrappers around data to explain/enhance it.

Hydrologic conditions would be standalone report referencing data report. Water-quality data – There’s no graphic summary of data; emphasis needs to be on this. Effort needs to be to get database configured to build data pages more accurately.

  • National funds pay for Web interface, scripts, etc. (They will present this to Senior staff.)
  • Proposing making more fundamental changes behind the scenes. Not ready to advocate to districts they have to make choice to go to “IL-GA-TX-UT” format, when 2010 is right around the corner (when it will be fundamentally different).
  • Goal is to take best approach to each piece nationally.
  • As database gets better, the product will change. Tasked with doing much more than what report will look like; need to also improve the processes by which data became the report.
  • Data Chiefs need to know what the plans are for 2004 and 2005 reports.
9:10 am

Departing ITAC Members and New Members
Presented by: Sonya Jones

(Reference 9/2/04 e-mail to ITAC from Sonya Jones)

  • Change in ITAC Chair and Vice Chair
  • Letters of commendation from Bob Hirsch and plaques were given to Sonya Jones (Chair – Studies Section Chief representative, SR); Brian McCallum (former Chair – Data Section Chief representative, GA DO), and Joel Johnson (Database Management representative, CA DO).

Brian said, “ITAC is the voice from the field.”
10:15 am

Discussion of next meeting location and dates
Presented by: Sonya Jones

GA DO was suggested for next ITAC meeting, February 2005.

Nov2004.AR.12 – Re: Next ITAC meeting: ITAC has suggested Atlanta. GA. Sonya Jones will ask the SR Regional Hydrologist about possible alternatives within SR, for the site of ITAC’s next meeting.

Nov2004.AR.13 – Brian McCallum will check on the feasibility of having the next ITAC meeting the week of 2/7/05 at the Georgia District Office.

  • Maybe ITAC can meet 1 ½ days at end of ITEM (meeting in Portland, OR, May 2005), as at least half of the members would be there already. Ken Lanfear can reserve a meeting room in the hotel, or we can meet in the Oregon District Office (may not have time for town hall meeting).

Nov2004.AR.14 – Sonja Sebree will communicate with GIS employees, as well as Webmasters, about the need for a Web/GIS representative within ITAC.

Nov2004.AR.15 – Re: Webex use and evaluation: ITAC members will support the evaluation and possible implementation of Webex. ITAC will be “part of the team” behind Webex and will encourage offices to use and evaluate it.

  • Next ITAC Conference call will be Friday, 1/7/05, 11:00 a.m., EST.

Nov2004.AR.16 – Re: Next ITAC conference call 1/7/05: Marilyn Billone will set up the audio bridge for the next ITAC teleconference, 11:00 EST, Friday, 1/7/05.

  • 2nd teleconference call will be Friday, 1/28/05, 11:00 a.m. EST.
10:00 am BREAK
10:15 am

Start discussion of ITAC Goals for 2005
Presented by: ITAC Members

Reviewed from ITAC Web site
10:30 am Wrap-up
Presented by: Sonya Jones
11:15 am Meeting Adjourns

[an error occurred while processing this directive]