GEO-Great Lakes Past, Present, and Future 12/02/2014Co-Chairs Gail 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 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: Establish webpage: Present Process 4

5 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 Activities 2.Advisory Activities 3.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)

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

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