
Dawn Wright
Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University
Greg McMurray, Sara Breslow
Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study
Jim Guyton, Ann Stark, Sean Allen
Tillamook Coastal Watershed Resource Center
Steve Barnett
State Service Center for GIS
Sam Doak
Ecotrust
(formerly Interrain Pacific)
![]() |
Figure 1.
|
Although much data and information are available for the Oregon coast, they are scattered in various formats among several federal, state, and local agencies, research institutes and universities. There is no central repository or access point for natural resource geographic data of the Oregon coast. Tracking down desired data and metadata remains a daunting task for managers and scientists. For the GENERAL PUBLIC the task is even more difficult. Many data sets are restricted to individual projects and then shelved, eliminating the potential for usefulness in a myriad of additional planning, management, and scientific projects. Managers, scientists, and the public have all expressed confusion over the complexity of identifying data at suitable scales, formats, and quality for designated management areas. Clearly then, there is a need for an established clearinghouse, as well as a unified, policy-driven data framework. Fortunately, the state of Oregon has an impressive history of visionary land use legislation and coastal development guidelines, initially developed during the McCall governorship over 20 years ago. Therefore, a clearinghouse effort has a much better chance of success and enduring impact in Oregon, where there is already a commitment to rational land use planning, coastal zone conservation, and citizen access to geospatial information.
Oregon State University (OSU) has a well-established and reputable GIS program, with speedy and reliable Internet access at no cost to research projects performed on its campus, as well as hardware and software maintenance contracts in place for a wide variety of computing platforms. It is therefore well-suited to house a regional node of the NSDI. A partnership of OSU with the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS, funded by the Coastal Ocean Program of NOAA and the Oregon Coastal Management Program of Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development), the State Service Center for Geographic Information Systems (SSCGIS; one of the earliest GIS groups in the entire Pacific Northwest, funded by the State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services and strongly endorsed and guided by the Oregon Geographic Information Council or OGIC), the Tillamook Bay Watershed Resource Center (formerly one of 28 National Estuary Projects established nationwide by the EPA), and Interrain Pacific (one of the largest non-profit environmental conservation organizations in the Pacific Northwest and a leader in public access GIS) holds tremendous potential for the efficient administration of a regional data clearinghouse, along with timely delivery of GIS services in support of various research and management agendas.
RELEVANCE OF PROJECT TO THE NSDI
The NSDI, with its timely focus on rethinking the methods of
spatial data delivery to users, represents a welcome change
from the centralist period in geographic information management
when federal agencies dominated decisions and data resources. The
NSDI recognizes that local empowerment will work only if there are
local groups to take up the challenge of data dissemination. The
focus of the proposed project is on localized development and
implementation of the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, in order
to increase awareness and use of geospatial data. We will
develop a geospatial clearinghouse for the Oregon coast that can be
used to disseminate natural resources data to organizations and individuals
for management, research and educational applications. It is our hope
that at some point in the future we will be able to expand to the coasts
of Washington and northern California or to partner with these clearinghouses
as they are developed. Specifically we will:
It should be noted that bathymetric, shoreline, orthophoto, cadastral,
geodetic control, hydrologic, and transportation data are FGDC Framework
data sets (Frank et al., 1995). We plan to begin our clearinghouse
efforts with FGDC Framework data sets and to use them as a
testbed for shoreline data standards currently under development
by the FGDC Bathymetry Subcommittee (see below).
In principle the above activities will help to build or strengthen
relationships among organizations in Oregon that will support digital
geographic data coordination for coastal data (see the "Data Sources
and Participants" section below). Statewide coordination of
this type may serve as an example to other coastal states, and stimulate
growth of similar clearinghouse efforts. Our project will be closely
related to ongoing projects in Washington state on the Olympic Peninsula,
(Peterson et al., 1997, "A Clearinghouse for Geographic Data on the Olympic Peninsula"), and in Florida. The Florida project is the ONLY
coastal/marine project to be funded thus far by the FGDC
(Friel, C. et al., 1997, "Establishing a National Geospatial
Clearinghouse Node at the Florida Marine Research Institute").
Our project has great merit not only because of its
relevance to the NSDI, but because it promises unparalleled collaboration
between academe, state/federal government, and private non-
profit entities. This will lead to an important institutional
framework for further regional cooperation, helping to
identify major stakeholders in coastal management, and to organize
thoughts and efforts towards jointly-identified coastal issues.
In addition, our efforts will provide a valuable
testbed for the implementation of the new FGDC Standards for
Shoreline Data (chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/ocs/text/FEDREG.HTM).
At present the standard consists of a bibliography, a glossary,
and an FGDC metadata profile for shoreline data (Lockwood, Millington.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
We will initially catalog web URLs of existing coastal geographic
data and metadata under the purview of OSU, PNCERS, TCWRC, SSCGIS, and
Interrain. Next we will determine which organizations have geographic
data for the Oregon coast. We will then: (1) identify contact
information for each organization and its GIS manager; (2) describe
what data layers are available; and (3) compile metadata for each
data layer of each organization. All submitted data will be required
to adhere to FGDC standards. Although all organizations will be
encouraged to participate fully, those with proprietary interests
(e.g., private landowners) may simply provide contact information and
some limited description of the data.
We will pay particular attention to establishing capabilities that endure
after the project ends, so that OSU will be able to maintain the
clearinghouse indefinitely. Protocols based on FGDC and Federal Spatial Data
Transfer Standards will be compiled for maintaining data stored at or
linked to from OSU and submitted by contributors. Organizations will
be provided with protocols for updating their data; information on
date of acquisition and frequency of updates will help users assess
data quality and temporal resolution.
We will establish OSU as an operational node of the National
Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and construct a web site for Oregon
coast clearinghouse data, with emphasis on user-friendly components.
The ultimate configuration of the clearinghouse will be to provide
the user with "one-stop shopping" of data from various sources,
stored either on the web server or linked to all other appropriate
sites relevant to Oregon coast natural resources.
External sites will be maintained by data contributors. Ideally,
data contributors will maintain and serve the data themselves on the
web, a task that is now quite feasible for most public agencies.
The clearinghouse web site will be developed on a Sun Ultra 10
workstation in D. Wright's Seafloor Mapping Lab at OSU. We have
chosen this Unix server over an NT machine as it provides more integrated
and stable network support, particularly
as a web server, and is still the superior operating system in terms
of handling large data sets, complex software, higher-quality graphic
output, and processing speed.
We will ensure that data layers in the Oregon coast clearinghouse have
FGDC-compliant metadata. As mentioned before, some agencies (mainly
federal and some state) will already have metadata for their layers.
We will create FGDC-compliant metadata for other layers. This will
be facilitated by metadata-collection software created by previous FGDC
grant recipients. The metadata for each data set will include
either "pointers" to on-line locations of the actual data set, an order form,
or contact information (name, phone number, address) for the owner of the
data set. We will use FGDC parsing software to ensure correct format.
To bring the clearinghouse node on-line, the metadata must be indexed using
Isite software and then loaded onto the OSU Sun Ultra 10 that
will be running as an Isite server. The Oregon coast clearinghouse will
be set up as a "mirrored" site, with identical versions resident at both
OSU in Corvallis (for best Internet connectivity) and at the SSCGIS in
Salem. After testing to ensure that the node is working as expected,
the node will be registered with the FGDC.
Once registered with the FGDC, the metadata on the node will be
available to users through the clearinghouse gateway at the FGDC web site.
We will use the prototype Java interface that FGDC has designed for
clearinghouse searches. In addition to making data and metadata available
through the search mechanism of the Clearinghouse, metadata
will be placed on-line at a standard web site for browsing. We will make
use of the FGDC-supplied metadata-parsing software that optionally creates
HTML and SGML versions of the metadata. We will provide files on the
Internet in Zip format for Windows machines, as Stuffit archives for
Macintoshes, and as tar files for Unix platforms.
The success of the proposed clearinghouse will depend on trained users
in the pool of local contributors and community groups. An outreach
effort is needed to fully realize the clearinghouse's potential.
Therefore, D. Wright and grad student Brian Ward will create a series
of web pages
(online workshops) to introduce concepts and operational aspects of
the clearinghouse to the Oregon coast community as it is developed.
Coordination with ongoing GIS training efforts at OSU or TCWRC will be
particularly valuable.
Data Sources and Participants
Initial discussions of our proposal with representatives of various
organizations have received an enthusiastic response. To date, we have
identified over 30 entities that have geographic data for the Oregon
coast. We have scores more to contact and will seek agreements
from all to participate in the clearinghouse project. Potential
contributors, in addition to the collaborating agencies
of this project (OSU, PNCERS, SSCGIS, TCWRC, and Interrain) include:
Federal
State
Counties
Confederated Tribes
Other
Expected Outcome and Potential Applications
The Oregon coast clearinghouse will provide scientists, resource
managers, educators and citizens user-friendly access to the best
available information on natural resources for the Oregon coast. Anyone
with a computer and Internet connection (now available in most public
libraries) will be able to access the clearinghouse with ease.
The clearinghouse will facilitate the role of OSU, PNCERS, TCWRC, SSCGIS,
and Interrain in synthesizing and distributing information on coastal natural
resources. It will help to integrate a wide range of data sources
and allow scientists and resource managers to analyze landscape
characteristics at large spatial and temporal scales (into
the future, or retrospectively with older data sets) across political
boundaries. We anticipate that the clearinghouse will be used as a focus for
communication and cooperation among agencies, institutions and residents of
the Oregon coast, thereby leading to a common ground for decision-making.
In addition, the clearinghouse will facilitate the analysis of coastal
natural resource data at large spatial scales. For example, landscape
patterns can be assessed with respect to vegetation type,
forest stand characteristics, geologic resources, hydrologic resources, and
potential management impacts (as in Carlson et al., 1994; Spies et al.,
1994). Temporal patterns can be quantified using RADARSAT data,
aerial photos, aerial videography, and other retrospective techniques,
thereby facilitating disaster response (Rosenfeld et al., 1996) and
analysis of changes in erosion, management practices and economic
activity on the coast (e.g., Staff, 1997). The clearinghouse could be
used to project future changes as well, by developing various scenarios for
land-use change, resource management and natural disturbance (e.g., flooding).
Finally, it may be possible to use multiple data sources to rectify
data-layer classifications at political boundaries, thereby resolving
inconsistencies and potential conflicts across different land ownerships.
Deliverables
Dawn Wright, Assistant Professor, OSU Geosciences, Project Director
Greg McMurray, Project Administrator, PNCERS
Jim Guyton, Ann Stark, and Sean Allen, TCWRC
For each metadata converted into FGDC format and posted
appropriately on the TCWRC web site, $45.00 will be paid.
In addition, $250 will be paid for the completion of the
final report documenting the process and estimating future
needs and time scales. The entire amount paid to the
contractor will not exceed $6000.
Steve Barnett, Data Adminstrator, SSCGIS
Sam Doak for Peter Schoonmaker, Vice President, Interrain Pacific
Millington Lockwood (NOAA Office of Coast Survey and Executive Secretary
of the FGDC Bathymetric Subcommittee) and Cindy Fowler (NOAA Coastal
Services Center) will conduct a 2-3 day FGDC Shoreline Data Standards Workshop
for the project team at no cost to the project. They will commit $10,000
as an in-kind match to cover labor costs for NOAA workshop presenters and
the evaluation of implementation options for the shoreline standard.
Total cost-share on the grant, including indirect cost rates, is $82,201.
We view the 1-year duration of this project as a stepping stone
towards a major initiative that MUST be maintained well into
the 21st century. Therefore, we will seek further funding
after the 1-year cooperative agreement ends, most likely from the
Office of Naval Research, Oregon Sea Grant, or the NOAA Environmental
Services Data and Information Management (ESDIM) Program, in order to
build upon the project (especially in terms of FGDC-compliant metadata
creation and development or testing of standards for coastal data).
REFERENCES
Carlson, S. A., L. Fox III, and R. L. Garrett. 1994. Virtual GIS
and ecosystem assessment in the Klamath Province, California-Oregon.
Proceedings of GIS/LIS '94. ACSM-ASPRS-AAG-URISA-AM/FM, Bethesda, Maryland,
1:133-141.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1996. FGDC Standards Reference Model.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Frank, S. M., M. F. Goodchild, H. J. Onsrud, and J. K. Pinto, 1995.
Framework Data Sets for the NSDI. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia. Also see www.fgdc.gov/Framework/RefMat/ncgia1.html.
Friel, C. et al., 1997. "Establishing a National Geospatial
Clearinghouse Node at the Florida Marine Research Institute", research proposal.
Goodchild, M. F., B. O. Parks, L. T. Steyaert, eds. 1993.
Environmental Modeling With GIS. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Goodchild, M. F. et al., eds. 1996. GIS and Environmental
Modeling: Progress and Research Issues. GIS World Books, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Michener, W., J. Brunt, and S. Stafford, eds. 1994. Environmental
Information Management and Analysis: Ecosystem to Global Scales.
Taylor & Francis, London.
Peterson, D. et al., 1997. "A Clearinghouse for Geographic Data
on the Olympic Peninsula", research proposal.
Rosenfeld, C. L., G. G. Gaston, and M. L. Pearson. 1996.
Integrated flood response in the Pacific Northwest. Earth
Observation Magazine 5:35-48.
Spies, T. A., W. J. Ripple, and G.A. Bradshaw. 1994. Dynamics and
pattern of a managed coniferous forest landscape in Oregon.
Ecological Applications 4:555-568.
Staff. 1997. Managing South Florida's extensive and delicate coastal
environment. ArcNews 19:15.
Stein, J. E., R. J. Bailey, A. E. Copping, and G. McMurray. 1996.
Executive Summary of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional
Study. Workshop Proceedings, NOAA Coastal Ocean Program. seagrant.orst.edu/~pncers/exec_sum.html.
Coastal Ocean Management, Planning and Assessment System (COMPAS) Project
of NOAA's Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) Division
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Yaquina Bay Project, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport
NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport
NOAA Coastal Services Center
NOAA Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT)
NOAA National Geodetic Survey
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA
NOAA National Ocean Service, particularly the Mapfinder Project (mapindex.nos.noaa.gov/)
NOAA Office of Coast Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS)
U.S. Geological Survey
Coastal Ocean Unit of the Department
of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD)
Dynamic Estuary Management Information System (DEMIS)
Department of Agriculture
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI)
Department of Forestry
Benton
Coos
Douglas
Josephine
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook
Washington
Grand Ronde
Siletz
Coos-Lower Umpqua-Siuslaw
Coquille
Chinook
Pacific Marine Conservation Council
Ralph Garono, Earth Designs Consultants, Inc.
Coastal Oregon Productivity Enhancement Program (COPE) Program ( a
cooperative effort among the College of Forestry at OSU, the USDA Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, the USDI National Biological
Service and Bureau of Land Management, other federal and state agencies,
forest industry, county and city governments, and the Oregon Small Woodlands
Association.)
BACK TO TOP
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS/COMMITMENT TO EFFORT
Provide Staffing
Provide Other Resources
Funding Support
Endorsement
DIVERSITY OF PARTNERS
Mgmt.
Tech.
Space
Equip.
Training
Data
Cash
In-kind
MOU
Letter Federal Agencies
PNCERS
NOAA
XX
X
X
X
X
X
Multi-State Consortia State Agencies SSCGIS
PNCERS
XX X X X
Regional District County/Local X Native American Tr X Private Sector Interrain
XX X X
Educational Institutions OSU
XX X X X X X Coordinating Council/Grp. TCWRC
XX X X X X X X
General Public Other X
BACK TO TOP
Receive award notification (estimated)
Jul 30 1998 NSDI Kickoff Meeting / Project begins (estimated)
Sep 15 1998 Procure hardware for OSU
Sep 30 1998 Create database & data framework
Sep - Oct 1998 Shoreline Standards workshop given by M. Lockwood & C. Fowler
Oct 1998? Deliver database design document
Oct 30 1998 Catalog existing data sets & metadata.
Query statewide for data donors
Nov 1998 to Feb 1999 Create new metadata records where needed
Jan - Mar 1999 Set up searchable clearinghouse node
Jan - May 1999 Design web interfaces
May - Jul 1999
Present beta product to regional GIS group, FGDC shoreline
standards committee and/or ESRI User conference for comment
Jul 15 1999 Revise clearinghouse as suggested by groups
Jul 16 - Aug 30 1999 Final system available online
Sep 14 1999
PI Salary for Wright (OSU), 1 month, 0.5 FTE
$2500 Graduate Student, B. Ward, hourly rate, ~3-6 months
$3048 Fringe benefits for Wright and student (OSU)
$1077 Subcontract: Research Asst. Salary for M. Mertens (Interrain), 80 hours
$4000 Subcontract: Research Asst. Salary for S. Allen (TCWRC), ~2-4 months
$6000 Domestic Travel, minimum request required for NSDI travel
$5000 Sun Ultra 10 server for NSDI node
and
serving web pages for
the project
300 Mhz, 1 MB SC,
256MB Memory,
4GB System Disk, 21" Monitor
9GB external storage, 8mm backup$7948($900 to be reclaimed from domestic travel) OSU computer usage fee for workstation
$500 Publication costs, materials & supplies
$1000 Total Direct Costs
$30,172 Total Indirect Costs
(at OSU rate of 42.5%, less equipment & subcontracts)$9828 TOTAL REQUEST
$40,000
Last updated: April 7, 1999