1 / 16

EPA Water Quality Exchange: Oregon’s Lessons Learning

Explore Oregon DEQ's journey with WQX, challenges faced, and strategies for mapping parameters to WQX characteristics. Learn about data flows, web applications, and the importance of alignment with EPA standards. For questions, contact Curtis Cude at (503) 229-6086.

mrael
Download Presentation

EPA Water Quality Exchange: Oregon’s Lessons Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EPA Water Quality Exchange: Oregon’s Lessons Learning Curtis Cude Data Exchange Specialist (503) 229-6086 Information Services Oregon DEQ April 25, 2007

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. Metadata from one STORET parameter code was separated into many LASAR fields.

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

  6. 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.

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

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

  9. 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.

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

  11. Native LASAR Parameter table is too flexible and includes multiple analyte lists, e.g., NELAC, etc.

  12. LasarWeb tables combine Parameter and 4 Modifiers into Analyte name, but still need to map all 4719analyte name/unit combinations

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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? Curtis Cude (503) 229-6086

More Related