National Weather- RFC Development Management

The following file contains the comments we received on the WRIM report on the Recommendations for Water Resources Internet Mapping.

The comments were all in email form. The first two, are actually my responses on behalf of the team to the initial emails. The lines without < signs are my comments for the first 2 emails. For the others, I just included the emails and any suggestions will be incorporated into the document. I've identified the respondent in bold at the beginning of the email.

Southern Region
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for
Review]]
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 14:18:31 -0400
From: "Donna.Page" <donna.page@noaa.gov>
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: Ben Weiger <Ben.Weiger@noaa.gov>
CC: George Smith <George.Smith@noaa.gov>,
Glenn Austin <Glenn.Austin@noaa.gov>,
Billy Olsen <Billy.Olsen@noaa.gov>

Ben,
Thanks for the comments!

The team did see the draft GIS business plan by Roger and I did talk to him
about it. It's a good suggestion to coordinate with Roger before the
presentation and I will do that. I do want to point out that we still have
the ability to take advantage of IMS without additional GIS software at
this time.

Responses to the other questions are below.

Thanks,
Donna

Ben Weiger wrote:

> Donna,
>
> Here are some comments we received from our field offices. It would be
> great if we could get buy-in from the Corporate Board's Operations
> sub-committee for funding this INTERNET mapping server and GIS software
> for use by our field offices on AWIPS. A draft GIS business plan has
> been drafted by OS&T by Roger Shriver. I know that there are some
> complexities (e.g., ESRI software for LINUX). If you are not aware of
> this document, I suggest you coordinate with Roger before presenting this
> to the subcommittee. I will send you a separate email on this subject.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for
Review]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:02:40 -0500
From: "Billy Olsen" <Billy.Olsen@noaa.gov>
To: Ben Weiger <Ben.Weiger@noaa.gov>
CC: Frank Bell <Frank.Bell@noaa.gov>
References: <3CBC4B32.3AA60E96@noaa.gov>
>
> Ben,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to review the WRIM Team draft report. The
> document is very comprehensive. ABRFC comments, questions and observations
> are included below.
>
> 1. General...The report basically makes a survey of available software
> and makes a recommendation based on NWS requirements. No where do we see
> any consideration of software cost. Do we assume the cost is insignificant
> for all options? Or do we assume the cost is approximately the same for
> the two front-runners?
>

We had not received cost estimate from one of the vendors but everything
we've heard is that they're comparable. I'm supposed to get that
information from a vendor "soon".

>
> 2. Internet Mapping Basics - Section B. Example...The report states the
> "power to customize a site and provide various types of information in
> various forms from multiple data sources is almost limitless." The
> nationalatlas example has a map which depicts information centered on the
> political boundary of Colorado with a bit of the surrounding area. Is it
> the intent of the team that NWS offices actually supply limitless numbers
> and types of overlays, with each office offering different selections?
> Seems like there needs to be a baseline set of overlays for all offices
> because when some folks start providing things others do not, a map based
> on political boundaries could look pretty sparse. For example, if we are
> looking at Colorado and WGRFC offers something MBRFC, ABRFC & CBRFC do
> not, the map could look very interesting. This question is most probably
> out of the scope of this team and guidelines will be developed later..
>

Agree that it is outside the scope of this team but agree coordination will
be needed.

> 3. Methodology - Section A. Survey...It seems to us it would be much more
> efficient, cost effective and reduce cost/resources required for support
> if the NWS went with one vendor. If OHD sticks with MapGuide, can we
> assume it will be able to handle input from ESRI products currently in use
> at many NWS offices? Or is the intention of this report to change the
> software used by OHD?
>

I don't believe OHD plans to stick with MapGuide (although is should be able
to handle the ESRI products).

> 4. Recommendations...We feel the recommendations would be strengthened it
> they included the endorsement that the NWS immediately go to one product
> (ArcIMS) for the Internet Mapping Server. This would help to standardize
> operations, eliminate redundant software development activity and minimize
> support issues.
>

I will make that stronger - I guess I had assumed it would just happen but
I've learned we should never assume.

> 5. Appendix B - Demo projects online...We ran into some problems
> attempting to look at the demo web sites and ended up not seeing anything.
>
> a) We bailed out of the first site after it not loading the map in
> over three minutes.
> b) For the 2nd site, when running Netscape, it recognized it needed a
> plugin but when it went to get it, Newscape said it could not find the
> plugin server web site.
> c) It took over two minutes to bring the site up to where it said it
> was retrieving a map. We bailed after another two minutes when it had
> still not returned the map.

I have also had problems bringing up the demo projects - they always seem
to work better the second time I try to load them. Don't know what it is
but they are on a demo machine and I figure it's related to that. I haven't
seen the same problems when accessing certain sites on the geography
network. We will need to address this problem before these can become truly
operational.

> Thanks,
> bgo
>
> Regarding the transition from ARCVIEW 3.1 to ArcGIS 8.1, it would be
> helpful to know if moving to ArcGIS 8.1 would be needed in view of the
> plans
> discussed by the Water Resources Internet Mapping Team (WRIMT). I noticed
>
> the the WRIMT discussed Spatial Analyst. I believe Spatial Analyst can be
> a
> purchased as a component of ArcGIS 8.1
>

A move to ArcGIS 8.1 would not be required (though it might be nice). The
team mentioned a capability of ArcIMS is shapefile data from ArcIMS sites
may be directly imported into ArcGIS clients. This would be handy for many
NWS customers who already have ArcGIS. The shapefile data could still be
made available for download for those still using ArcView 3.1 - it would
just involve an extra step. Spatial Analyst was mentioned as one of the
components needed for the FLDVIEW application which is still in beta testing
- it is being used with ArcView at this time. FLDVIEW may be ported to
ArcGIS sometime in the future.

>
> Ben Weiger wrote:
>
>> A Water Resources Internet Mapping team was formed last year to make
>> recommendations about an INTERNET mapping server that should be used in
>> the NWS to provide GIS-based water resource product access to our
>> partners and customers. The team has drafted an initial report (see
>> message below). If you have questions about the team
>> recommendations/draft report , feel free to contact our team
>> representative, Frank Bell at the WGRFC. If you have any comments that
>> you want to us to share with NWSH, please provide them to me by April
>> 29, 2002.
>>
>> Ben
>>

Western Region
Subject: Re: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for Review
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 16:47:24 -0400
From: "Donna.Page" <donna.page@noaa.gov>
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: Gregg Rishel <Gregg.Rishel@noaa.gov>

Gregg,
I was just incorporating the last comments when I got yours.
I will try to answer below and make the changes I note in
the document.
Thanks!
Donna

Gregg Rishel wrote:

> Donna,
>
> Here are some comments on the draft document. Sorry they are late.
>
> General comments -
>
> The document recommendation for a configuration is that the IMS resides on
> the Regional Web farms. While I am not in a position to say whether this
is
> a good or bad idea, I did not find a lot of factual information in the
> document that supported this decision. I believe the Corporate Board
would
> be interested in the amount of resources this configuration would require
> and what the comparison would be if the IMS resided somewhere else, i.e.,
on
> a National web server. If the Corporate Board, especially the Regional
> Directors, are to be expected to approve these recommendations, they will
> likely want to know what resource they will be required to provide to
> support this project. I would recommend that if this information is
> available it be provided in the document. If it is not available, the
exact
> location of where the IMS resides should be left to the referred to
> follow-on implementation Team who could study the options and provide the
> specific information.
>

The recommendation to put them on the Regional web servers was mainly
based on the current web serving environment - just adding on to it.
I agree that details of where to put the server(s), what will be necessary
to adminster them, etc. will have to be tackled by an Implementation
team. Given our team's charter, composition, and deadlines, this was
beyond the scope.

>
> Also, the recommendation of using the Regional Web farms does not address
> the fact that in some cases, these farms do not have someone available
24/7
> to maintain them. This could be an issue for something that was used
> operationally.

I guess that's an issue now if there are data on websites not maintained
24x7.

>
>
> Finally, in the Recommendations, section 3 -- There is a statement that
> "This activity must be fully supported." However, there is little
> information in this document that describes the fiscal and human resource
> requirements that will be required to fully support an implementation of
> IMS. I would not be comfortable making a commitment to this activity
> without knowing what the costs, in terms of money and people, of such a
> commitment was going to be.
>

You are correct again - there is little specific information about the
human
resources
required to fully support IMS - mainly because it was outside the scope of
the
team.
We did want to make the point it wasn't free in terms of human resources.
Also, at this time we just don't know what it will take- it depends
on how many applications are created and just what type they are. We make
some
mention of incremental implementation because can learn as some of these
come
on line and build from there. I did just recently obtain the actual GSA
pricing

information on the 2 software packages which I will include.

You've made some good observations about what the corporate board may
be thinking and wondering. I'll look carefully at the recommendations and
make

sure we only recommend what our charter is. I can leave the other stuff as
the
team's impressions and recommend a follow on team look at the details.

The main things I want to do with the Corporate Board Subcommittee is
explain just what IMS is and how the team chose the software it did. We
want them to understand what it is so they can envision the possiblities and
get

their support for further exploration of the technology - including follow
up team(s) to figure out implementation details.

>
> Specific Comments --
>
> In the Executive Summary, second bullet item - the words "on the" are
> duplicated in the last sentence.
>

Fixed!

> Under Considerations, Section G. Development - Is ArcIMS compatible with
the
> Corporate Web Image? Also, is it compatible with Dreamweaver software?
>

Applications can be compatible with the Corporate Web Image (check out the
River Conditions web site).
I had to do some quick research on Dreamweaver but since it looks like
it does ColdFusion it would be compatible.

> Under Connection with other Agencies' Efforts, section E. Potential Uses,
> part 12) I suggest adding Precipitation to the listed streamgages as it
> could be used for both. Also, I would suggest adding that it could be
used
> as a tool to get Flash Flood information to both forecasters and to
> customers.

Thanks - I'll add them

>
>
> Under Recommendations, section 2, the third bullet under additional
factors
> -- The word public is misspelled in the next to last sentence.
>

Fixed!

>
> Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
>
> Gregg
>

Central Region - Doug Kluck
Subject: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for Review]
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:27:59 -0500
From: "Doug Kluck" <doug.kluck@noaa.gov>
To: Wendy Pearson <Wendy.Pearson@noaa.gov>,
Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>

Wendy and Donna,

This sounds like the perfect way to display the many aspects of drought
and/or water supply.

I wonder if you can add either drought or water supply to the section
"A. What is Internet Mapping?".
In the second paragraph first sentence.

thanks,

Doug Kluck

Glenn Austin - OCWWS-HSD
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for Review]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:23:01 -0400
From: "Glenn Austin" <Glenn.Austin@noaa.gov>
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>
CC: George Smith <George.Smith@noaa.gov>

Donna,

The team has done a nice job of preparing the report. It's obvious a lot of hard
work was committed. Congratulations.

Before submitting a response from HSD, I wanted Tom C's input. Since he was
on leave (and out of the country) until this week, I missed your response
deadline. I see from his message to you, he will be responding directly. Besides Tom
C. feedback, I solicited a response from Doug Marcy, our new employee at NOAA's
Coastal Service Center. (I believe you've been introduced.) Here is a summary of
his comments (with some modifications and additional notes added by me) :

Doug agrees that ARCIMS is the way to go. CSC and NESDIS already are
using it. The fact that no plug-in is required is better than other products. ESRI
has long been the industry leader in GIS and will continue to update and develop new
and better products.

OHD used Autodesk Mapguide for the Juniata River mapping application.
However, Doug recommends I feel we should follow the recommendations of your team's
report and use ArcIMS for the NC Flood Warning Enhancement Project. I'm in
agreement.

There was an issue brought up with using SDE with ArcIMS and using
Informix as the database engine. Apparently there is no version of ArcSDE available to
support Informix running under HP-UX 10.2. Also, while ESRI intends to provide
ArcSDE for Linux, at this time there do not seem to be any firm plans to support
Informix in the Linux environment. Plans may need to be put in place to upgrade HP-UX
10.2 to 11.0 or better. ArcSDE is compatible with later versions of HP-UX. (Note:
I confess, I don't know the details here. The questions I'm left with are 1)
How does this affect NWS operations? and, 2) How did this impact your team's
recommendations?

The ability to remotely set up websites is going to be invaluable if the
procedure described in this report is going to be used. Through server
farms, WFOs and RFCs should be able to update and develop IMS pages. There is going to
be a manpower demand when implementing these IMS applications in the NWS. There
needs to be people dedicated to solving problems and dealing with the technical
issues such as the applications development, and the hardware/software issues.
There may not currently be enough manpower to be able to support such technology at
NWS offices. Technical experts are going to be required to implement this
throughout the NWS. Other offices of NOAA provide technical assistance and guidance,
but investments into training and additional IT personnel may be required.

I look forward to hearing more about the team's final actions in the near
future. If you create a follow-on team, CSC may be interested in helping. As I've
been the direct contact with them, I'd be glad to facilitate you interacting with
them.

Thanks.

Glenn

Tom Carroll - OCWWS-HSD
Subject: Internet Mapping Report
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:45:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tom Carroll <tom@nws.gov>
To: Donna Page <donna.page@noaa.gov>
CC: Glenn Austin <Glenn.Austin@noaa.gov>

Donna ---

I have read the final version of the "Recommendations of
the Water Resources Internet Mapping Team" and really
have no comments. The report is vastly improved over the
version that I provided comments for about a month ago.
You have done an excellent job of capturing the major
issues associated with recommending an IMS system. And I
agree that the ESRI product is, no doubt, the way to go.
(It's tough to argue with an 800 pound gorilla.) Also,
you might be able to include some of the ESRI verbiage in
the report on the new release of ARC/IMS that I sent you
this morning. Again, job very well done. Many thanks
for your conscientious efforts to get this all pulled
together in a timely and effective fashion.

Tom Carroll

<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

Frank Richards - OCWWS-HSD
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for Review]
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:57:54 -0400
From: "Francis Richards" <Francis.Richards@noaa.gov>
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>

Donna -

I think you and the team did an excellent job. I have no substantive
suggestions. There are a few typos that I didn't take the time to document.

Frank

Donna Page wrote:

> Michael, Frank, Ira, Paula, and Roger,
>
> Please feel free to add any comments you have on this report.
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Donna
>
> P.S. It's not an exhaustive report on internet mapping but it's what we
>
> could do in our time frame.
>
Subject: Internet mapping
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:20:38 -0400
From: "Francis Richards" <Francis.Richards@noaa.gov>
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>

One concept that came to me overnight that would support NWS making a
strategic decision to move to Internet mapping: by committing to this
technology all offices and developers have a clear direction. As opposed to
the haphazard approach we now have, this decision will bring focus to
development efforts. Presumably, if managed well, sharing of ideas,
strategies and code will achieve significant efficiencies compared to the
status quo.

Frank

Tom Dietrich - OCWWS-HSD
Subject: Re: WRIM draft ready
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:51:58 -0400
From: "Tom Dietrich" <Tom.Dietrich@noaa.gov>
To: Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>

Donna,

Read it over and don't have any comments. Like the overall
recommendation(s).....

Tom

Stephen Ambrose (OCWWS), Dave Ruth (OST-MDL), and Bob Bunge (CIO) email trail
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for
Review]]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 14:40:57 -0400
From: "Stephen Ambrose" <Stephen.Ambrose@noaa.gov>
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: David Ruth <David.Ruth@noaa.gov>
CC: Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>,
Bob Bunge <Robert.Bunge@noaa.gov>

Dave,

The good thing about ArcSDE is that it is a geodatabase.. meaning a
georeferenced database. That is good for weather data since that is also
georeferenced in the way we use it. I believe ArcSDE can be provided to
users by an SQL query thus they have access to the base data, but at the
same time the unsophisiticated customer can have access to neat displays
through ArcIMS. I think the real value of the data in this form is the
ability to combine the data at the user with other layers in the same
format. Thus you can combine weather data with other real time, archived,
and geographic datasets. Since providing gridded forecasts to customers is
a new idea for NWS, and other agencies are using this application in big
ways, we should at least understand it and consider providing the ArcSDE
"format" even if we go with a standard XML format.

Once agencies like EPA, USGS, FEMA and private users hear that weather data
are available that way, they will soon come after it to combine with their
data. For example, I can picture a hurricane coming up the East Coast, FEMA
would grab the gridded data to make decisions about evacuations overlaying
the data with population centers, roads, satellite data, emergency services
so that decision makers will have the best information possible. I don't
think they can do that today. They have the GIS systems, but can't include
the forecast information in the same picture. All this will be independent
in having AWIPS workstations and be available to all with just a web
browser. I remember during the fires in Florida the decision makers were
asking for georeferenced GEOTIFF POES satellite data and fire products to
include in their GIS applications for the distribution of fire fighting
equipment. We, NESDIS, created those files manually and sent it to them
during that crises.

Steve

David Ruth wrote:

> Donna,
>
> I checked out the accuweather GIS site. It seems nice enough. However,
> the goal of the NDFD is not primarily to provide neat displays to users,
> but to provide customers and partners with the digital forecast data it
> takes to generate neat web displays of their own. In other words, we are
> not giving them fish, but providing the web services they can use to go
> fishing themselves.
>
> Steve tells me the ESRI package can do this, but it probably lies outside
> the scope of the Water Resources Internet Mapping. Am I right?
>
> DR
>
> Donna Page wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>> We discussed the NWS pattern for most hits during severe weather with
>> both Autodesk and ESRI but did not discuss actual hit rates. Both vendors
>> felt comfortable with the scaleability of their products to fit NWS needs.
>> They both emphasize that their products are scaleable. There are many design and
>> implementation decisions that affect performance of the applications
>> that would have to be considered (client vs. server side, etc.) that it's hard to
>> pin down actual performance till you have an application. You might check out
>> some examples from the www.geographynetwork.com (run by ESRI) - many of them
>> get lots of hits. A quick search found an Accuweather site:
>>
>> http://gis.accuweather.com
>>
>> Don't know what their hit rate is. If you want more information I can contact
>> the ESRI guy.
>> Let me know.
>> Donna
>>
>> P.S. Thanks for the other sites - they were interesting - WIPE looks
>> similar to
>> other IMS technology; not sure about NOMADS - haven't finished reading
>> about it.
>>
>> David Ruth wrote:
>>
>> > Donna,
>> >
>> > What kind of hit load did you estimate in your evaluation of ArcIMS?
>> >
>> > DR
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for
>> Review]
>> > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:47:56 -0400
>> > From: Bob Bunge <robert.bunge@noaa.gov>
>> > To: Stephen Ambrose <Stephen.Ambrose@noaa.gov>
>> > CC: David Ruth <David.Ruth@noaa.gov>
>> > References: <1166961184ba.1184ba116696@noaa.gov>
>> >
>> > Dave and Steve,
>> >
>> > A VERY quick concern about applications like this is scalibity... our
>> > websites are not lightly travelled, specially during weather events. In
>> > my opinion, when looking at this sort of thing, the scaling to deal with
>> > millions of hits per day needs to be an early consideration.
>> >
>> > Different sorry if we are dealing with historical datasets :-)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > Stephen Ambrose wrote:
>> >
>> > >Dave,
>> > >
>> > >The beauty with ARCIMS is that it would be compatible with other
>> > >scientific and geographic information.. meaning people could display
>> > >weather data and add layers of geographic information, roads,
>> wetlands,
>> > >climate data, and other layers.. it would thus be interoperable with
>> > >other datasets that the user could overlay without any programming
>> > >experience.
>> > >
>> > >I will see if I can get the link to my old job's ARCIMS test website
>> so
>> > >you can see how to interact with it. EPA is also using ARCIMS. They
>>
>> > >were encouraging the Fish and Wildlife Serivce to put the wetlands
>> > >shapefiles into ARCIMS to be able wetland data to be integrated with
>> EPA
>> > >data.
>> > >
>> > >http://www.epa.gov/airnow/2002online/ab-gis.htm This link has an
>> > >abstract of how the EPA is using ARCIMS and meteorological data. We
>> > >probably should ask them how they are doing this.
>> > >
>> > >Steve
>> > >
>> > >----- Original Message -----
>> > >From: "David Ruth" <David.Ruth@noaa.gov>
>> > >Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:04 pm
>> > >Subject: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for
>> Review]
>> > >
>> > >>Donna,
>> > >>
>> > >>I quickly looked over your draft report. I suppose it may be
>> > >>buried in there
>> > >>somewhere, but I thought I would be more direct. Are your
>> > >>requirements simply
>> > >>to display water resource information graphically on the web, or
>> > >>does it
>> > >>include providing digital information that a customer and
>> > >>partner's computer
>> > >>can use to run their own applications?
>> > >>
>> > >>What is the technology behind ArcIMS? Is it XML based?
>> > >>
>> > >>Thanks.
>> > >>
>> > >>DR
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>Donna Page wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>Jim and Dave
>> > >>>
>> > >>>We have discussed the Internet Mapping a
>> > >>>bit over the past few months - this report
>> > >>>should give you some more information.
>> > >>>Please feel free to comment on the report also!
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Thanks,
>> > >>>Donna Page
>> > >>>RFC Development Manager
>> > >>>Office of Hydrologic Development
>> > >>>

Meteorologist
NWS
Integrated Operations Branch

Meteorologist <Stephen.Ambrose@noaa.gov>
NWS
Integrated Operations Branch
Work: 301-713-1867 x 116
Additional Information:
Last Name Ambrose
First Name Stephen
Version 2.1

Ted Habermann - NOAA-NESDIS-National Geophysical Data Center
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Water Resources Internet Mapping Report Ready for Review]
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:42:50 -0600
From: Ted Habermann <Ted.Habermann@noaa.gov>
To: Donna Page <Donna.Page@noaa.gov>

Donna,

Thanks for sending me this link. One minor thing that we might as well fix
is to add an 'n' to the end of my name. It is Habermann like in the father
land!

I will take a look at the report for more significant comments soon!

Ted