Environmental Database Mock Workshop

November 23, 1999

1. Meeting summary. On Tuesday, November 9, 1999 the Environmental Database System (EDS) team elicited advice from the EDS Advisory Group regarding the development and final configuration of EDS. The team presented a mock version of the two main final from the first phase of development products - the so-called “Encyclopedia” and “Catalogue” - and then asked for reactions from their advisors. The advice fell into four categories:

(a) Fulfillment of design purpose. We need to sharpen our statement of functions and requirements. The final product should offer (successivelt): integration, linkage, and analysis. We need to develop a specific list of potential EDS users and questions they would ask using the program performance and environmental trends functions. We should also consider third tier (EIS or feasibility study) users, but this is a secondary design objective at this point. EDS is being designed at the same time that the Corps is just beginning to respond to Congressional and Executive directives to manage performance, rather than process. This means that the data collections systems and even the mindset necessary to fulfill the potential of EDS will take years to develop. For that reason, as the design of EDS goes forward, its primary function at times may be to identify the holes in the Corps environmental performance infrastructure.

A directory of Corps environmental programs (1103, 1135, etc.)

The keyword “ecosystems” to the list and description of sites (labeled “displayReport” in a handout).

Information from PRISM. Carol Angiers has 10 years of data.

Natural Resources (Denise White) two preformance measures - what would it take to incorporate data collection and manipulation?

Expand:

Environmental law section - Add rules, Corps regulations, manuals.

the names “catalogue” and “encyclopedia”. They don’t fit well. Suggestions: directory of Corps programs, encyclopedia of laws, catalogue of data. Where is the word performance?

(b) Compatibility with other Corps Internet data providers. The following collaborative possibilities were identified: OMBIL collects data on Natural resources and Environmental Compliance on all projects for which the Corps has O&M responsibility. EDS should access, not re-create this information. DPN provides faceplate information on most Corps projects. EDS should link to the DPN to provide EDS users this sort of information. EDS may also be able to provide this sort of information on projects constructed under the newer environmental authorities. There is also a possibility that the map interface used for EDS can be used for the DPN. EngLink is an emergency response support system developed by CRREL, with few similarities to EDS except for the implementing software. However, the ready access EDS provides to information on things like stored. PROMIS . . .

(c) Conformance to Corps Information Management regulations. We need to compare the design and intended use of EDS to determine the extent to which and LCMIS (Life Cycle Management of Information Systems) applies, and then bring EDS into compliance. We also need to determine the data collection effort required to

(d) Impact on workload. Many expressed concern that the EDS would cause more work, not less for the field. We need to exploit links to existing data entry systems. We should address this explicitly. Conversely, a small amount of work would allow us to collect essential performance information that is developed in reports (such as the costs and outputs necessary for incremental cost analysis), but is not reported into a national database.

2. Immediate tasks:

(a) PMCL will set up a NetMeeting conference for the EDS team. The meeting is scheduled for the week of December 12^th. Team members should let Bill Werick know what day that week is best for them. The purpose of the meeting is to test the next iteration of the product, including these features:

For the “Encyclopedia”, a populated Access database and a working MapObjects map interface

For the “Catalogue”, a greater selection of sites along with a refined and better documented rating system for the quality of the sites

The “test” will be based on a refined set of typical questions, which Bill Werick will provide. Post meeting note: Cory has very little data, especially outside of the 1103 and 1135 programs. IWR will try to provide more information to Cory so that he can input it and use it in the test.

(b) Program management for continuing authorities has to a large extent been delegated from Corps headquarters to Corps divisions. IWR (Meg Gaffney-Smith) will survey program managers in the divisions to ask them what kinds of environmental performance questions they are asked (and thus, what kind of EDS would do them the most good).

(c) Bill Werick will write a preliminary draft for the Strategy for Development of EDS, including an assessment of what data reporting requirement EDS will impose on the field. He will also refine and redistribute the list of “typical questions” the EDS would be asked so that we can use those questions in the December test.

(d) Germaine Hofbauer will work with Carol Angiers to determine the potential connection between EDS and PROMIS.

(e) Cory Rogers will advise us on the potential for connection between the new Regulatory system (the successor to RAMS) and EDS, and will look at LCMIS to determine what, if anything we need to do to comply.

(f) Rich Whittington will look at Natural Resources needs and let us know what it would take to address them in EDS.

(g) Meg Gaffney-Smith will assess the feasibility of incorporating efforts and funds to address Native American issues (cultural resources) into EDS.

Bill Werick, Institute for Water Resources