# Presentation: 189271

## The National Environmental Information Exchange Network

- History and Overview
- Office of Water
- National STORET/WQX User Meeting
- November 27, 2007

**Notes:**
My background—here to learn
OR DEA and “volunteer—later on staff, and now National coordinator
To me it is “the network” please forgive if you have another in mind

No open source background, but “open standards” is key
Commonalities

## What is the Exchange Network?

- HTTP servers using SOAP messaging and a common WSDL to enable synchronous and asynchronous *blah-blah, blah-blah*..*.*

*An Internet and standards-based method for *
*exchanging environmental information between partners.*

*A common approach to sharing data that lets you use your partners’ data as if it is a part of your own systems.*

_**Principles:**_
- Each partner manages their own data, and is the steward for data they originate.
- The Network “doesn't care”  how a partner manages and stores information.
- Partners who need to store copies of data locally are responsible for the design, format, and maintenance of the copy they create.
- Network partners agree to use adopted technology and data standards.

## Why?

- High demand for access to environmental information among partners
- Multiple approaches to information exchanges are inefficient and burdensome
- States modernizing information systems and migrating away from use of EPA national systems
- Use of integrated informationtechnologies and approaches is onthe rise
- Yesterday’s Answerfor Today’s question

**Notes:**
High demand for public access to environmental information, as well as the ability to share information among partners (i.e. state-state, state-local, etc.)

Many current stove-pipe approaches to information exchanges are inefficient and are overly burdensome, especially to states with integrated systems

States are investing in the modernization and integration of information systems and migrating away from primary use of EPA national systems

Use of sophisticated integrated informationtechnologies and approaches is on the rise

Current methods of reporting to EPA are burdensome and compromise data integrity

## Business Case: Water Monitoring

- ~30% of water monitoring data ever sees the light of day . Discoverable, Searchable
- Many failed efforts had focused on data consolidation, technology standards, and (always) a big database.
- Large investments in competing technologies.
- Cost of participation was too high for small organizations.

**Notes:**
OR, WA, ID recipient of an EPA Challenge Grant in 2003

Provide access to a comprehensive collection of Water Quality data for the Pacific Northwest
Support jointly regulated watersheds such as the Columbia River

Apply Exchange Network principles
Use of Nodes

Enable participation from a wide range of data sources
List them – local, state and federal agencies, tribes, watershed councils, etc
Use of host database, metadata registry, partners without nodes.

Design data exchange flow to support partner needs and eventual upload to EPA STORET

## The “Blueprint” Adopted 2001

- Data Standards Council, 2000

- Network Grants, 2002

- Existing Agreements

- Flow Configuration Document, (FCD) 2004

- Node, 2003

- New TPAs as needed

- Governance, evolving over time

- Schema, 2002

**Notes:**
Too much time and effort delivering data that matched as spec designed for another application

Too many initiatives, and no way to manage change—EPA decisions could render state investment obsolete.

Data Standards—failures of understanding.  Can’t argue about policy while the numbers don't even match.

## Status of Network – Oct, 2004

**CA**

**OR**

**WA**

**ID**

**MT**

**WY**

**CO**

**NM**

**TX**

**AK**

**HI**

**OK**

**KS**

**SD**

**ND**

**MN**

**IA**

**WI**

**IN**

**OH**

**KY**

**TN**

**MS**

**AL**

**GA**

**FL**

**NC**

**WV**

**PA**

**NY**

**DE**

**CT**

**NH**

**RI**

**IL**

**MO**

**AR**

**LA**

**NV**

**UT**

**AZ**

**OR**

**NM**

**MS**

**WV**

**PA**

**NJ**

**MA**

**NH**

**MD**

**DC**

**VA**

**MI**

**NM**

**SC**

**NE**

**VT**

**ME**

**FL**

**Notes:**
Round 1 (1996):
Washington
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Missouri (funded in ’97)
Utah (funded in ’97)

Round 2 (1997):
Oregon
New Mexico
Texas
Minnesota
Mississippi
Georgia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania

## Status of Network– April 2006

**CA**

**OR**

**WA**

**ID**

**MT**

**WY**

**CO**

**NM**

**TX**

**AK**

**HI**

**OK**

**KS**

**SD**

**ND**

**MN**

**IA**

**WI**

**IN**

**OH**

**KY**

**TN**

**MS**

**AL**

**GA**

**FL**

**NC**

**WV**

**PA**

**NY**

**DE**

**CT**

**NH**

**RI**

**IL**

**MO**

**AR**

**LA**

**NV**

**UT**

**AZ**

**OR**

**NM**

**MS**

**WV**

**PA**

**NJ**

**MA**

**NH**

**MD**

**DC**

**VA**

**MI**

**NM**

**SC**

**NE**

**VT**

**ME**

**FL**

- St. Regis Mohawk

## Status of Network - Today

**CA**

**OR**

**WA**

**ID**

**MT**

**WY**

**CO**

**NM**

**TX**

**AK**

**HI**

**OK**

**KS**

**SD**

**ND**

**MN**

**IA**

**WI**

**IN**

**OH**

**KY**

**TN**

**MS**

**AL**

**GA**

**FL**

**NC**

**WV**

**PA**

**NY**

**DE**

**CT**

**NH**

**RI**

**IL**

**MO**

**AR**

**LA**

**NV**

**UT**

**AZ**

**OR**

**NM**

**MS**

**WV**

**PA**

**NJ**

**MA**

**NH**

**MD**

**DC**

**VA**

**MI**

**NM**

**SC**

**NE**

**VT**

**ME**

**FL**

- St. Regis Mohawk

- Cherokee Nation (OK)

- Navajo Nation (AZ)

- Samish Indian Nation

- Snohomish County

- Yurok Tribe

## States with Multiple Data Exchanges

**MT**

**WY**

**ID**

**WA**

**OR**

**NV**

**UT**

**CA**

**AZ**

**ND**

**SD**

**NE**

**CO**

**NM**

**TX**

**OK**

**KS**

**AR**

**LA**

**MO**

**IA**

**MN**

**WI**

**IL**

**IN**

**KY**

**TN**

**MS**

**AL**

**GA**

**FL**

**SC**

**NC**

**VA**

**WV**

**OH**

**MI**

**NY**

**PA**

**MD**

**DE**

**NJ**

**CT**

**RI**

**MA**

**ME**

**VT**

**NH**

**AK**

**HI**

**2**

**3**

**4**

**5+**

**1**

## Not Just Another Web Site!

- Can be “built in” to tools you use
- Send reports—or look it up.
- Build once, use many times
- Diminishing cost for new initiatives
- As protected as the owner chooses
- Shared Quality Assurance tools—before you try to load
- Data Standards—shared understanding
- Discovery Services

**Notes:**
Not highly interoperable with other web services

WSDL/UDDI have limits-find out how to call, but not what might make sense.  

Not entirely consistent with normal web services
Asynchronous methods

The BIG plus—almost everything you can learn from uddi, and lots more, you already know when you say Network Node

Common service types can be defined and enforced with a light touch.

## Finding Data

- Discovery services let you:
- Find out what is on the Network
- Learn which partners have nodes
- Find out how to access each node and how to request the needed data.
- For sensitive data, learn how to obtain permissions for data you have a need to access
- If someone has made tools that improve usability of the data, find and use those tools

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Slide 15

## Slide 16

## Slide 17

## Slide 18

## Questions?  Need Info

- _[www.exchangenetwork.net](http://www.exchangenetwork.net/)_
- Mitch.West@exchangenetwork.net