Coord. Comm. (CC) Observations – Overall Charge to the CC

• what the current projects are achieving that will benefit observatory design

• which needs might be better addressed if the current projects could be modified

• what further "test-bedding" would be valuable but will not be addressed by the current studies as they seem to be going

• what are the priority needs that should be addressed in a second round of test-bed projects?

– CC Charge for this Meeting

• major challenges seen in the statements

• thoughts on what the workshop can do to overcome them

Suggestions for addressing challenges

Breakout Groups to discuss defined issues

1st session

Group 1: Portal Performance (Graham)

Group 2: Legacy Data (Welty)

Group 3: Digital Watersheds (Bales)

Group 6: Model Support (Duffy)

2nd session

Group 4: Sensor Selection (Hondzo)

Group 5: Field Deployment (Stevens)

Group 7: Science Achievements (Moore)

Group 8: Impact & Auth. Issues (Reed)

– Specific requests for breakout groups in each of these areas highlighted in the challenges section

On the Positive Side

– Legacy Data

• Via project and HIS see organized archival of both legacy date and, research project data that might otherwise be made available to only a small number of future investigators

– Value added fundamental research

• By focusing on the long-term a better understanding of “system function” under changing management and climatic variability will likely be achieved

– Cyberinfrastructure

• Initiated a national dialogue on data transmission, storage, inter-model communication (proprietary and open source)

Transformative Knowledge Developing

Transformative Knowledge Developing

Sensor selection and evaluation

• Identifying gaps and sensor issues can provide direct feedback to private sector and for transitioning of academic sensor research to the private sector

• Consider more proactive communication on this topic

Major Challenges from Statements – Testbeds were asked to do more than called for in RFP and for the budgets

awarded

– Carrying out extensive field observations & research

• Greater effort and more expensive than envisioned

• Many sensors require lots of attention, tech time

• Building trust with local stakeholders and agencies is time intensive

• Legacy data often difficult to obtain and process

• Key lessons for NSF envisioned joint infrastructure / research observatories – how do you do both well

– What science can only be achieved with an observatory infrastructure?

– What compels the community to make the extra effort noted above?

Major Challenges from Statements

– Portal Performance

• Learning portal, ODM and HIS is a non-trivial task

• Staff with high level IT / GIS / DB skills likely to be required in the near and long-term

• DASH requires improvements on a number of fronts

• Several question the need for real-time data and high-frequency data and the extra overhead it requires versus near-real time data (~12 to 24 hour lag) –

• More precisely define the need for real-time data (tradeoffs between real-time access versus greater sensor density, etc?)

• How do you deliver the support effectively to train the testbeds in use of the portal?

• How does the portal evolve and develop?

Major Challenges from Statements

– Legacy Data

• Real detective work often required

• Costly and time consuming sort out, reformat, and enter

• Metadata often missing or vague (what is good data, what should be entered into HIS or local DB?)

• Can criteria be developed to define “good” legacy data?

• What legacy data did you need for your research (is there an emerging set of common core data)?

Major Challenges from Statements

– Digital Watersheds (DW)

• Apparent that DW concept means a number of different things to different groups – digital watershed vision must be clarified

• Develop a clear concept of what a DW is?

• Is comprehensive collection of legacy data essential for a truly digital watershed (for your science questions, for the community)?

Major Challenges from Statements

– Sensor Selection and Issues

• Many of the sensors being deployed are location and science question dependent reducing cross testbed learning

• Several noted difficulties with soil moisture sensors

• A fair amount of trial and error

• Should there be a community supported sensor evaluation laboratory?

• Should the community develop sets of specific sensor requirements and help fund development of these sensors?

Major Challenges from Statements

– Field Deployment

• WQ sensors on market are really not designed for long-term deployment and require lots of attention and $$

• Due to budget limitations typically don’t have enough sensors to form a network and consider optimal design

• How much does deployment vary with another science question?

• Have analyses / models been used / developed to guide sensor deployment (core data)?

• What existing sensors (reliable, inexpensive) can be deployed in sufficient numbers to attack the network optimization issue?

Major Challenges from Statements

– Model Support – limited progress

• Most modeling activities are being conducted fairly independently of functions provided through the HIS portal.

• What are the barriers to using web services in modeling applications?

– Science Achievements

• Generally on track or ready to tackle in second year

• Question: What are the difficulties in achieving your goals in the context of a testbed

Major Challenges from Statements

– Authorization and Impact Issues

• Building trust with land owners, organizations, and agencies is very important and time intensive but essential for

– Acquiring legacy data and its metadata

– Access to sites and expedited permitting

– Likely difficult if local stakeholder does not benefit

• Must pay attention to safety and provide resources for it (e.g. extra person – buddy system)

• Who else do we need to reach out to for comprehensive access and EIS issues (legal, Fish and Wildlife, etc.)?

Major Challenges from Statements

– General Comments

• For sensor based projects HIS primarily used to upload data as mandated versus using HIS to immediately benefit the project

• Test Beds tend to focus either on sensor development and deployment or on aspects of cyberinfrastructure / digital watersheds. The CEOP cyberinfrastructure projects have little to say about sensors and sensor networks and then sensor focused projects

• Not yet thinking like a national testbed network as networking across testbeds has not yet occurred

• HIS is common theme/glue to helping bridge across testbeds

Major Challenges from Statements

– Are there other key challenges / issues ?

Suggestions for addressing challenges

General discussion on what can be done to address the defined problems and how best to institutionalize continuing information exchange in a truly collaborative collective effort. Each Breakout Session Lead is to e-mail a written report to CUAHSI before leaving for home.

Show of hands for those attending breakout groups

1st session

Group 1: Portal Performance (Graham)

Group 2: Legacy Data (Welty)

Group 3: Digital Watersheds (Bales)

Group 6: Model Support (Duffy)

Suggestions for addressing challenges

– Show of hands for those attending breakout groups

2nd session

Group 4: Sensor Selection (Hondzo)

Group 5: Field Deployment (Stevens)

Group 7: Science Achievements (Moore)

Group 8: Auth. Issues (Reed)

For the next round is the science advanced by requiring cross multiple location science?