April 20, 2016 1.0 Delivery of Facility Data Integration Discovery and Analysis – Addresses Comments from IPT Team, Collaborative Discussion, and Luke Gentry, CGI Federal Lydia Lyshevski, CGI Federal Louis Sweeny, Ross Strategic Acknowledgements The Facility Data Integration Integrated Project Team (IPT) developed this Discovery and Analysis with the support and contributions of a number of individuals and programs within EPA and state agencies. The IPT acknowledges: State and EPA Facility Data Integration IPT Kimberly Hoke, MO DNR, Co-Chair Wayne Begin, Kentucky DEP Jim Bridgewater, New Jersey DEP Eric Brown, Colorado DPHE Dennis Burling, Nebraska DEQ Joe Carioti, EPA OSWER Scott Christian, EPA OSWER Chris Clark, EPA OEI Regina Crolley, South Carolina DHEC Leslie Cronkhite, EPA OCFO Sally Dombrowski, OAR, OAQPS Linde Dytrich, Texas CEQ Ron Evans, EPA OAR Angela Feldman, EPA Pam Galli, Rhode Island DEM Kristen Gastner, EPA OSWER Alex Geller, Vermont DEC Malcom Gentry, New Hampshire DOIT Steven Girt, Wyoming DEQ Brian Gregory, Georgia DNR Jen Gumert, Pennsylvania DEP Charles Homer, Montana DEQ Michael Hurley, Massachusetts DEP Lee Kyle, EPA OEI, Co-Chair Martin Husk, EPA OAR Matthew Kelly, EPA OEI Mike Kvitrud, Wisconsin DNR Linda Lazich, Ohio, OEPA, Air Services Jose Lopez, EPA Region 8, ENF-PJ Mike Matsko, New Jersey DEP Christopher Mentzer, Maryland DE Annie Morales, Texas CEQ David Mummert, Maryland DE Theresa Pagodin, New Jersey DEP Siobhan Perricone, Vermont ANR Ron Ryan, EPA OAR Tobias Schroeder, EPA Peter Soyka, E-Enterprise Coordinator Nadia Spice, EPA Office of Water Gayle Stewart, Texas CEQ Dalroy Ward, EPA OEI Herb Ward, Virginia DEQ Doug Waldron, Georgia DNR Ben Way, Wyoming DEQ Elisa Willard, Colorado DPHE Other Contributors
Michael Alford, SRA Lynn Capuano, Exchange Network Coordinator Alison Ferner, CGI Federal Lucas Gentry, CGI Federal Beth Graves, ECOS William LaBar, CGI Federal Lydia Lyshevski, CGI Federal Jimmy Mahady, Ross Strategic Greg McNelly, ECOS Guy Outred, Windsor Solutions Eric Snell, Linko Technologies Louis Sweeny, Ross Strategic Rob Willis, Ross Strategic
Missouri Discovery Session Materials Provided MoGEM Conceptual Solution Architecture, Technology Roadmap and Architecture Plan MoGEM Current Status – November 2015 MoGEM Governance Board Charter MoGEM Governance Operation Plan 1.3 – FINAL MoGEM Future Vision v1.2 – FINAL MoGEM Logical Data Model v1.1 FINAL MoGEM Technology Roadmap and Architecture Plan v1.2 – FINAL APPROVED Roadmap for printing – Final approved Participants Missouri Discovery Session Participants Kimberly Hoke, MO DNR Mark Finnell, MO OA ITSD Lee Kyle, EPA OEI Lucas Gentry, CGI Federal Level of Experience/History Missouri is in the planning stages of establishing master regulated entity data. Today, Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) regulated entity data is stored in numerous information silos. DNR’s Future Vision document describes their current situation as: DNR currently uses separate applications across different program areas to capture master data for a regulated entity. These program applications are built on platforms such as DB2, SQL Server, Access, and Excel. Most of these applications do not have the capability to transfer master data electronically from one program application to another program application. For example, if there is a name change for a regulated entity in one program application, this update does not automatically occur for the same regulated entity captured in another program application. Since the master data for the same regulated entity is being captured in different applications across different program areas, it has become difficult for DNR to accurately report on the number of regulated entities and specific activities occurring at a single regulated entity. In addition, the master data for these regulated entities captured in the applications are not always accurate. The need has been identified to improve the data management of the regulated entity subject area to provide clean, consistent master data to the enterprise. Missouri discovery session participants indicated that tackling the ‘facility problem’ is foundational to addressing DNR reporting requirements as well as to the need to maintain and modernize legacy applications. Missouri was aware that master data management approaches were in place and proven effective in other domain areas (such as finance), investigated approach options, and is now pursuing a master data management approach for their environmental regulated entity data. The effort is known as the Missouri Gateway for Environmental Management (MoGEM). Technical Approaches Missouri is currently in the process of a comprehensive effort to define and implement their master data management approach for MoGEM. A detailed architecture and roadmap are
Consideration: Is differentiation needed if the ‘first touch’ is the result of enforcement or compliance assistance? False start where a process that might require a record is started in a co-regulator’s system but is later determined unwarranted (ex. there is nothing to regulate or no impact to report). Pre-regulator information is generated by a municipality/others (ex. a resident may request a permit to build a deck, and in the process discovers that a wetlands permit is required as well). Facility (ex. port) that reports to multiple agencies which do not coordinate. The pain points for such facilities are expected to be different from pain points at facilities that report to a single agency. Consideration: In a future phase, potentially interview stakeholders and document their problem statements to glean insight. Pain points are expected to vary for facilities that report to a single agency vs. multiple agencies. In general, it is difficult to drive users to the same portal and then to disperse these consumers to different agencies. Similarly, from the state/EPA perspective, the following use cases were identified: A record exists somewhere. A record exists somewhere within the agency or within the enterprise but external to the agency and E-Enterprise partner notification of modified data may be beneficial. Determine how to account for the varying levels of information based on need. Public notice information that leads to a request for different kinds of information. Users typically want to search by either an address/geographic polygon location or by a ‘thing’ (ex. Facility).