GEO-Great LakesPast, Present, and Future

12/02/2014

Co-ChairsGail Faveri, Environment Canada

Norm Grannemann, US Geological Survey

1

Great Lakes

•Past•Present Process

Outcomes Datasets Prioritization Workflow

Applications

•Next Steps for Tomorrow

Outline

2

Great Lakes

Started 2009 with a Testbed Charter

GLOS became a GEO-Participating Organization

GLOS GeoNetwork metadata catalogue developed and registered with GEOSS

Late 2013 GEO-Great Lakes established with USGS, EC, GLOS, NOAA, NRCan, USACE, CSA as partners

Past

The Great Lakes Testbed (GLT) will support the development of a geospatial portal for the seamless access to observational data, such as point data, bathymetry and model inputs and outputs. In conjunction with the Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS), a coordinated observing system in the Great Lakes Region, the GLT will provide institutional mechanisms for ensuring the necessary level of coordination, strengthening and supplementation of the numerous existing Great Lakes information integration efforts and reinforcing and supporting their contributions to GEOSS. Where possible, the Great Lakes Testbed will utilize, enhance, and expand existing efforts to coordinate the aggregation, integration, and communication of Great Lakes data to such a point that it can be included in the GLOS data discovery portal for interoperability and ease of acquisition and subsequently registered with GEOSS. The GLT will provide support to existing coordinated observing system goals by:

Addressing identified common user requirements; Setting standards for acquiring and processing observational data into useful products; Facilitating the exchange, disseminating, and archival of shared data, metadata, and products; & Monitoring performance against the defined requirements and intended benefits.

Great Lakes Testbed Project Plan

Need to grow the GLOS Metadata Catalog, the data management plan and publicize our existence

3

Great Lakes

Systematic process for identifying, prioritizing, and registering datasets relevant in the GEO-Great Lakes metadata catalog: http://slrfvm.glos.us/geonetwork/srv/eng/main.home.

Establish webpage: www.glos.us/geo-greatlakes

Present Process

4

Great Lakes

http://www.glos.us/geo-greatlakes/

5 Great Lakes

Great Lakes

Promote standards for accessing and processing Facilitate the exchange, dissemination, and archiving Advise on identified common user requirements Monitor performance Provide data, institutional resources and relevant

support Utilize existing mechanisms for data standardization,

management, storage and delivery.

Coordinated Observing System

Goals of GEO-Great Lakes

6

Great Lakes

GEO-Great Lakes provides institutional mechanisms for: ensuring the necessary level of coordination; strengthening and supplementing the numerous

existing Great Lakes information integration efforts; reinforcing and supporting their contributions to

GEOSS.

Specifically, the role of GEO-Great Lakes includes:1.Promotional Activities2.Advisory Activities3.Evaluation 4.Great Lakes-wide Data Management Plan Product

GEO-Great Lakes Action Plan

7

Great Lakes

Identify and engage appropriate partners; Promote existing mechanisms for data

standardization, management, storage and delivery;

Develop information management protocols to allow for data search, retrieval, dissemination and use;

Adopt the GeoNetwork Metadata Catalog and Data Portal available through GLOS.

Promotional Activities

8

Great Lakes

Advise on priority data management needs; Develop and provide expert input on project

scopes for effective bi-national data management and exchange;

Provide data, institutional resources and technical support and expertise;

Identify additional data resources; Engage in partnerships with the data

providers.

Advisory Activities

9

Great Lakes

• Monitor the accomplishments of sponsored projects against the defined scope requirements and intended benefits;

• Collect feedback from project stakeholders to improve effectiveness;

• Communicate successes

10

Evaluation

Great Lakes

• Developed and used by partners in guiding their contributions to GEO-Great Lakes including:• Information architecture requirements for

ensuring critical technology standards • Information management protocols for

allowing data search, retrieval, distribution and use

• Information management governance (e.g. data stewards) for ensuring on-going storage, maintenance and updating.

A Great Lakes-wide Data Management Plan

11

Great Lakes

Build list of candidate datasets from convenient sources GEO-Great Lakes CGLG/GLOS Foundational Hydrologic

Datasets GLOS Enterprise Architecture Report Potential IJC Indicators

Outcome: Datasets

12

Great Lakes 13

Example Datasets for Consideration

• Not intended to be an all-inclusive list!• Representation of suggested datasets or types of data to be

captured. • Some metadata has already been entered(IUGLS)

Datasets or Model Outputs for consideration Where identified Where useful

Testbed GL Compact GLOSEA IJC IUGLSIce x xSnow xWater Levels x x xGroundwater xBeach Health xNet Basin Supply components x xConnecting Channel Flows xAHPS (Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service) outputs xGreat Lakes Monthly Hydrologic Data xCanadian Water Level Data x x xCanadian National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) x xEnvironment Canada's Modélisation Environnementale—Surface et Hydrologie (MESH ) model xGreat Lakes Regional Water Use database xAmericaView (satellite data) xCoastWatch x

Datasets or Model Outputs for consideration Where identified Where useful

Testbed GL Compact GLOSEA IJC IUGLSBeachguard xFish and fisheries x xThe Nature Conservancy (TNC) ecological flow model x

USGS SPARROW model (surface/water quality modeling) xUSGS ungaged inflows model xCoastal wetlands xNutrient concentrations xNutrient loadings xPBTs in biota xAir deposition xLower food web productivity xHarmful algae xNuisance algae xInvasive species xShorelines (erosion) xImpact studies xWater use xClimatological x

14

Great Lakes

Consider five: GEOSS + 1 Beach health Ice Groundwater Water levels Nutrients

Outcome: Foundational Datasets

15

Great Lakes

Outcome: Prioritization Strategy

Strategy/Identification

• Supports :

• GL Compact, GL WQA

• IJC Indicators, Adaptive Management/Water Levels

• National Ocean Policy/ROP, GLRI

• GLOS EA (GEOSS ties & GLOS sustainability)

• Meets a requirement/mandate, serves multiple needs, etc.

• Is there an existing group of users to work with to identify/confirm?

Costs

• Cost estimate – Metadata

• Execution time – Metadata

• Cost estimate – Data

• Execution Time - Data

Effort

• Complexity/Completeness

• Execution Lead

• Data Accessibility

• Coordination

16

• As datasets are identified/prioritized a webform is used to gather metadata

• Identified metadata complies with ISO standards

• Records entered into the metadata repository are discoverable through the GLOS Data Portal as well as the metadata catalog

• When available, existing metadata will be harvested automatically, not requiring manual effort

17

Data Registration

Great Lakes

OGC Groundwater Interoperability Experiment GWIE: Delivery of features and data adequate

for schematic interoperability with “best practices”.

GWIE2: Develop and test improved description of features.

Ongoing, well-structured activity will harmonize schema – how data are described. Harmonization of observations not yet an

explicit part of effort

Application: Groundwater

18

Great Lakes

CGLG/GLOS ROP and GLRI DMAC Expansion projects look to improve access to Coordinated Lake Levels and ancillary data. Use cases include hydrology dashboard,

Cumulative Impact Assessment (don’t duplicate) Centralized access (NOAA-GLERL),

one feed (GLOS) Compare to GWIE: multiple sources,

aggregated feed, common formats

Application: Water Levels

19

Great Lakes

GLWQA, SOLEC, … call for understanding of nutrient dynamics WLEB example: Concerns include

eutrophication, algal blooms, hypoxia Discoverable, transparent and

interoperable nutrient observations are desirable … but there are many sources to consider.

Application: Nutrients

20

Great Lakes

21

Drinking Water Surveillance ProgramEssex region CA water quality samplingGLNPOGreat Lakes Intakes ProgramGreat Lakes Nutrient InitiativeGreat Lakes Surveillance NetworkHeidelberg University- National Center for Water Quality research Indiana Department of Environmental Management-Fixed Station Monitoring ProgramLake Erie Index Station Monitoringmichigan Tributary Stream gages (LaMP)Michigan water chemistry (LaMP)national coastal assessment programNiagara peninsula CANiagara River Upstream/Downstream Monitoring ProgramNY CSLAPNY LCIOhio DNR LTWQ monitoringOhio EPA-Nearshore Monitoring Program(ambient)Ontario Broadscale Monitoring ProgramPA WQNPA WQNPrecipitation Monitoring NetworkProvincial water Quality Monitoring NetworkSt. Clair Region Cawater quality samplingUniversity of ToledoUSGS Stream Gagesvarious wastewater treatment plants

Great Lakes

Find funding sources Develop the Great Lakes-wide data mgmt.

plan Incorporate nutrients as proof of concept

Continue to work through (selected) sources to prioritize Heidelberg College datasets one potentially attractive

option because of possible GLRI DMAC follow-up

Incorporate water level data Also, some other foundational hydrology datasets

Formalize and publicize efforts

Future: Next Steps

22