1. Storing, Maintaining, Discovering, and Sharing
Geospatial Information over a Common Geography
Roger L. Gauthier, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, MI
Ian Gillespie, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Presented at Coastal GeoTools ‘03
Charleston, SC
January 7, 2003

2. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Overview
International Joint Commission five-year $27M bi-national study
Objectives
Improve lake level control strategies to:
reduce economic losses due to high/low water levels episodes;
protect/restore nearshore habitats;
reduce disruptions to recreational boating;
while:
maintaining economic viability of hydropower generation;
maintaining stable levels and flows for commercial navigation;
maintaining suitable conditions for municipal water systems.

3. 14,000 miles of shoreline 95,000 square miles of water
Lake Ontario
Ontario and New York
1,150 kilometers of shoreline
19,000 square miles of water
95,000 square kilometers of land
14,000 miles of shoreline
95,000 square miles of water
200,000 square miles of land
Upper St. Lawrence River Ontario and New York 170 kilometers in length 1,050 kilometers of shoreline
Lower St. Lawrence River Mostly in Quebec 700 kilometers to Gulf of St. Lawrence Montreal downstream to Trois Riviere affected by tributary inflows; tides influence downstream of Trois Riviere

4. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Study Background
The International Joint Commission (IJC) established the LOSLRS to address public interests in modifying criteria used to determine outflow controls from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River.
The LOSLRS is examining differing regulatory strategies affecting level and flow regimes and their effects on: hydropower, environment/ wetlands, coastal processes, recreational boating, tourism, municipal/ and industrial water supplies, commercial navigation, and others.
Technical Working Groups (TWGs) are formed for each user sector  leading to definition of Performance Indicators by each  and user specific models.
Two special groups are included: Public Interest Advisory Group and Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group.

5. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Study Background
Models are heavily dependent on geospatial information as inputs (e.g., elevations, cultural data) and outputs (change in wetlands, shoreline erosion).
Information Management TWG was established to provide for consistency, and easy access to information by Study participants and other parties-at-interest (e.g., public, research community, media).
High priority has been placed on transparency of Study process (models & inputs) and results (outputs and decision-making framework).
IM Needs Assessment and Strategy Development was commissioned to evaluate benefit/costs for different system configurations.
Participation in NSDI & CGDI was promoted for data discovery, and implementation of distributed storage/access/maintenance system

6. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Primary Data Acquisition

7. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
NOAA/ CHS Lake Ontario Composite Bathymetry

8. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study

9. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study

10. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Irondequoit Bay
Harbor Entrance
Rochester Harbor Entrance
Braddock Point
Land m m –9 m –12 m –15 m

11. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
DEM Derived from SHOALS and FDRP Mapping

12. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Detailed Wetland Study Sites

13. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Color IR Digital Orthophotography of Wetlands

14. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Wetlands Elevation Points and Derived DEM

15. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Montreal Area DEM with Co-Registered IKONOS imagery

16. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Parcel Data Overlay at Maximum Flood Extent

17. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Time Series Data on Levels, Outflows and Supplies

18. Information Management Strategy
Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
Information Management Strategy
Data Discovery (how to find the data, including metadata)
Data Storage, Maintenance, Access and Distribution (how the data is stored and maintained)
Document and general information management

19. The IM TWG noticed a tight coupling of the LOSLRS goals with that of the FGDC Cooperative Agreements Program
The LOSLRS applied for the 2002 CAP Category 4 grant for a “Joint U.S. and Canadian Spatial Data Infrastructure Project”

20. Project Purpose
The Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River (LOSLR) Framework Data Project will integrate, afford discovery of, and begin to provide for the long-term storage, maintenance, and flexible accessibility of a number of “framework data” layers.
The project is designed to provide a scalable system with respect to new participants, data types, geographies, and data uses, and to augment the growing knowledge base by documenting all procedures, policies, and lessons learned, and making these widely available.

22. Other Cooperators / Future Relationships
USGS National Mapping Division
USGS Biological Resources Division
NOAA Coastal Services Center
NY State GIS Clearinghouse
Cornell University

23. Geospatial Management Issues
(Discover / Evaluate / Access)
Framework and non-framework geodata
Metadata
Web-mapping service – for geodata evaluation and review; limited query and analysis functionality
Data access and distribution

24. CAP Grant Activities
Develop distributed web mapping service configuration to share framework and non-framework datasets between study participants and promote public distribution
Compile high resolution geospatial framework data, including:
terrain data for bathymetry and topography;
digital ortho-imagery;
shoreline characteristics; and
political units
Develop interagency relationships promoting standards and protocols for information exchange

25. Framework Data Non-Framework Data
Elevation
Bathymetry
Topography
Imagery
Hydrologic Features
Shorelines
Rivers, Lakes and Streams
Flood Zones
Transportation Features
Political Units
Control
Shoreline Characteristics
Beach Morphology
Subaqueuos Types
Historic Erosion Rates
Predicted Blufflines
Water Intakes / Outfalls / Pipelines
Protective Structures
Navigation Structures
Boat Ramps / Piers / Docks
Environmental Data
Wetlands Extent and Type
Fisheries Data
Exotic and Invasives
Contamination Areas
Economic Features
Parcel Data
Hydrologic Data
Levels, Flows, Datums
Climatic Variables
Hydraulic Characteristics
Over additional themes

26. Comparison of Framework Data Themes

27. Shoreline Characteristics
Contiguous shoreline
Standardized to chart datum (low water IGLD-1985)
Dynamic shoreline addressing changes in water levels
Developed from highest-resolution topography and bathymetry
Rivermouth complexities to be addressed in detail

28. Vertical Data Integration
(same geographic references and scale differences)
Shorelines: 1:24,000 (U.S.) / 1:10,000 (Cdn) replaced by 1:200 planimetric feature collection and/or 4-meter DEM data postings
Hydrology: connectivity between higher resolution features with adjacent lower resolution features
Elevations: Nesting of 30/10/4-meter digital elevation data
Same projections, units, spheroids and datums
Horizontal Data Integration (edge matching)
Shorelines: Inconsistent scales along various reaches / connectivity at international and provincial borders
Transportation and other cultural features: insure connectivity at international and provincial borders.

29. Suggested Coastal Geo-Tools Conference Follow-up
Wednesday, January 8, 2003
2:30-4:00 p.m. Breakout Session - Hazards: Impact Models
Integration of Geospatial Layers, Economic Data and Custom Modeling Tools to Quantify Coastal Hazards and Economic Damages on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
P. Zuzek, W.F. Baird and Associates, Madison, WI; T. Bender, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY; R. Moulton, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON

30. Suggested Coastal Geo-Tools Conference Follow-up
Wednesday, January 8, 2003
2:30-4:00 p.m. Breakout Session - Hazards: Impact Models
Integration of Geospatial Layers, Economic Data and Custom Modeling Tools to Quantify Coastal Hazards and Economic Damages on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
P. Zuzek, W.F. Baird and Associates, Madison, WI; T. Bender, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY; R. Moulton, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON

31. Regionally Distributed DBMS and Web Mapping

32. FGDC compliant metadata (1998); Shoreline Profile (2001)
Incorporation of Standards (Information) and Specifications (Applications/Services)
FGDC compliant metadata (1998); Shoreline Profile (2001)
Framework Data Models under development (transportation and others themes for 2003 completion)
Incorporate ISO and OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) specs for GLINDA Metadata Clearinghouse and Catalogs, Web Mapping Services, Style Layer Descriptors, etc.
Follow Geospatial Interoperability Reference Model (GIRM) (

33. Design Configuration

34. Project Milestones and Status
Project Website on-line:
Framework Strategy on website
Data Discovery / Metadata workshop completed
Data Integration Guidelines being developed
Web Mapping Workshop to be held in February 2003
Project reporting to be completed by May 2003

35. Next Steps
Develop and implement Web Mapping Services / Data Access Services by March 30, 2003
Document lessons learned
Evaluate and select business model – necessary for sustaining LOSLRS Framework beyond the 5-year Study [already in year 2]
Expand participation (e.g., New York State, provincial Quebec, NOAA)
Expand spatial extent to entire Great Lakes watershed

36. For Further Information Contact:
Ian Gillespie Roger Gauthier
Environment Canada Great Lakes Commission
867 Lakeshore Road South Industrial Hwy, Suite #100
Burlington,ON L7R 4A6 Ann Arbor, MI
Ph: Phone:
Fax: Fax: