EPA Water Quality Exchange Oregon s Lessons Learning Curtis

EPA Water Quality Exchange: Oregon’s Lessons Learning Curtis Cude Information Services Manager Oregon DEQ (503) 229 -6086 November 28, 2007 1

This presentation focuses on lessons Oregon DEQ continues to learn implementing WQX. Past experience with water data flows Struggles faced implementing WQX Scouting report and recommendations 2

Oregon’s LASAR came online in 1998 to house all (air, land, and water) monitoring data. We cracked the STORET parameter code to enable backfilling of LASAR. 3

Metadata from one STORET parameter code was separated into many LASAR fields. STORET Parameter Code 49042 ID Name 1430 Lead 4 Name LEAD TCLP SED TOT MG/L Modifier Analytical Sample (x 4) Method Media Total TCLP Units External ID Sediment mg/L 49042

The current web application to access LASAR was introduced in 2005 Parameter names were simplified for display. Station types were introduced from PNW WQX. 5

PNW WQX, completed early 2005, demonstrated the feasibility of many important EN concepts. The challenges we didn’t tackle included standard lists for characteristics, taxa, or units; little QA/QC. 6

OW WQX Pilot (late 2005) demonstrated the feasibility of sending WQ xml to EPA OW Central Data Warehouse. OW WQX This was a successful utilization of existing infrastructure on a subset of DEQ WQ data. 7

Coinciding with the OW WQX Pilot, DEQ engaged with SRS for web services and naming. EPA SRS Kudos to SRS for initially mapping DEQ Analytes to SRS Substances. 8

One year later, approaching WQX Test, Oregon Node Workshop faced multiple struggles. Technical infrastructure changed with new versions of. NET, SQL Server, and node configuration. Key personnel reassigned or faced extended leave. 9

The greatest challenge, still unmet, lies in resolving mapping analytical characteristics. 10

Native LASAR Parameter table is too flexible and includes multiple analyte lists, e. g. , NELAC, etc. Prefix 1 Prefix 2 Total Parameter Suffix 1 Lead Total Lead 11 Suffix 2 Total

Lasar. Web tables combine Parameter and 4 Modifiers into Analyte name, but still need to map all 4719 analyte name/unit combinations Analyte Name Units Total Lead mg/Kg Dry WQX Sample Weight Name Fraction Basis Lead 12 Total Dry Units mg/Kg

The path forward for Oregon will require a focus on mapping characteristics. Need staff dedicated to mapping LASAR parameters & modifiers to WQX characteristics, fractions, and bases. Consider reprioritizing effort to standardize Oregon DEQ systems to SRS. 13

Early implementers of the WQX flow should be prepared for challenges and stay on the path. Organizations with a great variety of “characteristic” and associated metadata significantly different from STORET/WQX should carefully approach alignment with EPA standards. 14

There are other challenges that the WQX team are aware of, and so should you. Data validation services (Schematron) are needed. Primary keys for domain value lists delivered by web services are needed. Continued support for and from the WQX team is critical. 15

The WQX data flow will require even closer coordination between the Lab and IS. Need to bridge the data standards gap (content and process). Need to develop processes to continually align bilaterally changing taxonomies. Questions? 16 Curtis Cude (503) 229 -6086