# Presentation: 693305

## EPA Water Quality Exchange:

**Oregon’s Lessons Learning**

**Curtis Cude**
**Information Services Manager**
**Oregon DEQ**
**(503) 229-6086**
**November 28, 2007**

## 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**

## 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.  **

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

**	**

| STORET Parameter Code | Name |
| --- | --- |
| 49042 | LEAD TCLP SED TOT MG/L |

| ID | Name | Modifier (x4) | Analytical Method | Sample Media | Units | External ID |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1430 | Lead | Total | TCLP | 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.**

## 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. **

## 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. **

## 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.**

## 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.**

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

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

**	**

| Prefix 1 | Prefix 2 | Parameter | Suffix 1 | Suffix 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total |  | Lead |  |  |
|  | Total
 | Lead
 |  |  |
|  |  | Lead
 | Total
 |  |
|  |  | Lead
 |  | Total |
|  |  | Total Lead
 |  |  |

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

**	**

| WQX Name | Sample Fraction | Weight Basis | Units |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lead | Total | Dry | mg/Kg |

- LasarWeb 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 |

## 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.**

## 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.  **

## 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. **

## The WQX data flow will require even closer  coordination between the Lab and IS.

**Questions?**
**Curtis Cude (503) 229-6086**

**Need to bridge the data standards gap (content and process).**
**Need to develop processes to continually align bilaterally changing taxonomies.**