Account Creation Issues: We have received reports of issues with creating new user accounts and linking accounts to CAM, and are currently investigating the root cause. In the meantime: - If you're experiencing errors creating new users, please use the "Quick Add" feature instead (click the "Quick Add" button on the Manage Users page). - If you're experiencing errors linking CAM accoun...
View All
Search Help Show/Hide Menu
This is a deprecated version of the NOAA Data Management Plan template.
InPort now supports a dedicated Data Management Plan Catalog Item type, which is up-to-date with the latest NOAA DMP template. The ability to generate Data Management Plans from Data Sets will be discontinued in a future release. For more information, consult the help guides on the new Data Management Plan as well as how to convert this Legacy DMP to the new format.

Data Management Plan

DMP Template v2.0.1 (2015-01-01)

Please provide the following information, and submit to the NOAA DM Plan Repository.

Reference to Master DM Plan (if applicable)

As stated in Section IV, Requirement 1.3, DM Plans may be hierarchical. If this DM Plan inherits provisions from a higher-level DM Plan already submitted to the Repository, then this more-specific Plan only needs to provide information that differs from what was provided in the Master DM Plan.

URL of higher-level DM Plan (if any) as submitted to DM Plan Repository:
Always left blank

1. General Description of Data to be Managed

1.1. Name of the Data, data collection Project, or data-producing Program:
Building a Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for a Changing St. Louis River Estuary - NERRS/NSC(NERRS Science Collaborative)
1.2. Summary description of the data:

Water quality monitoring experts, scientists, and estuary caretakers built a long-term collaborative monitoring strategy for estuary nutrients and phytoplankton dynamics at the headwaters of Lake Superior.

The Project

The St. Louis River Estuary, located at the headwaters of Lake Superior, is nearing a major milestone: its anticipated delisting as a Great Lakes Area of Concern by 2030. Yet even as remediation and restoration successes are celebrated, new environmental stressors, particularly harmful algal blooms, raise concerns about the estuary's long-term water quality health. In response, a group of local, state, federal, and tribal partners who have long worked in and cared for the estuary began calling for a science-based monitoring strategy that could respond to emerging threats and support ongoing stewardship beyond delisting. Together, they shaped a shared vision: a comprehensive program of observations, analyses, and public reporting that would protect remediation and restoration investments and inform future decision-making.

To advance this vision, this group of partners who had long advocated for a coordinated monitoring effort, collaborated closely with the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve to launch the project. The Reserve brought together a scientific team that included collaborators from the University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute, who contributed expertise in phytoplankton and bloom dynamics. The partners co-authored the proposal and remained actively engaged throughout the project, helping select sites, shape the study design, and review statistical analysis and draft recommendations. Together, the partners and project team developed a research approach that combined strong scientific design to build foundational understanding of phytoplankton dynamics with a focus on generating practical, actionable insights for a shared long term monitoring strategy. Eight high-priority sites were intensively sampled in 2023 and 2024, focusing on areas vulnerable to nutrient enrichment, low oxygen, and bloom formation. The study also prioritized public relevance by targeting restoration areas, heavily used public zones, and capturing rarely collected wintertime data.

The project successfully identified predictors of cyanobacteria biovolume in the estuary and actionable monitoring strategies to improve bloom detection and efficient water quality monitoring in the future. Important predictors of blooms included low nitrogen, warm temperatures, low dissolved organic carbon, and high pH. In addition, the team observed significant year-to-year differences in bloom composition and intensity suggesting bloom dynamics are highly responsive to variations in hydrology and nutrient stoichiometry which are driven by precipitation patterns. Further analysis evaluated the efficiency of different monitoring designs by assessing redundancy across space, sampling frequency, and parameters. These findings informed a science-based strategy that identified periods and locations of elevated bloom risk while accounting for the real-world capacity of agencies and partners. The resulting recommendations include a reduced set of priority sites and a tiered approach to sampling. This strategy is designed to be flexible with available funding and effort, while ensuring that high-risk bloom locations are monitored as a minimum standard. The project's result is not only a clearer picture of what drives blooms in the estuary, but also a durable and collaborative roadmap for long-term monitoring, co-created by the people who first called for a collaborative, comprehensive program.

Taken From: Item Identification | Abstract
Notes: Only a maximum of 4000 characters will be included.
1.3. Is this a one-time data collection, or an ongoing series of measurements?
One-time data collection
Taken From: Extents / Time Frames | Time Frame Type
Notes: Data collection is considered ongoing if a time frame of type "Continuous" exists.
1.4. Actual or planned temporal coverage of the data:
2022-11 to 2025-03
Taken From: Extents | Time Frame - Start, Time Frame - End
Notes: All time frames from all extent groups are included.
1.5. Actual or planned geographic coverage of the data:
W: -92.85546, E: -91.955843, N: 46.8937, S: 46.641069

Data was primarily collected either within Douglas County, WI or St. Louis County, MN within the St. Louis River Estuary and nearshore Lake Superior

Taken From: Extents | Geographic Area Bounds, Geographic Area Description
Notes: All geographic areas from all extent groups are included.
1.6. Type(s) of data:
(e.g., digital numeric data, imagery, photographs, video, audio, database, tabular data, etc.)
No information found
1.7. Data collection method(s):
(e.g., satellite, airplane, unmanned aerial system, radar, weather station, moored buoy, research vessel, autonomous underwater vehicle, animal tagging, manual surveys, enforcement activities, numerical model, etc.)
No information found
1.8. If data are from a NOAA Observing System of Record, indicate name of system:
Always left blank due to field exemption
1.8.1. If data are from another observing system, please specify:
Always left blank due to field exemption

2. Point of Contact for this Data Management Plan (author or maintainer)

2.1. Name:
Jeremy Cothran
Taken From: Support Roles (Metadata Contact) | Person
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. The support role must be in effect.
2.2. Title:
Metadata Contact
Always listed as "Metadata Contact"
2.3. Affiliation or facility:
Taken From: Support Roles (Metadata Contact) | Organization
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. This field is required if applicable.
2.4. E-mail address:
jeremy.cothran@gmail.com
Notes: The email address is taken from the address listed for the Person assigned as the Metadata Contact in Support Roles.
2.5. Phone number:
No information found
Notes: The phone number is taken from the number listed for the Person assigned as the Metadata Contact in Support Roles. If the phone number is missing or incorrect, please contact your Librarian to update the Person record.

3. Responsible Party for Data Management

Program Managers, or their designee, shall be responsible for assuring the proper management of the data produced by their Program. Please indicate the responsible party below.

3.1. Name:
No information found
Taken From: Support Roles (Data Steward) | Person
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Data Steward" is used. The support role must be in effect.
3.2. Position Title:
Data Steward
Always listed as "Data Steward"

4. Resources

Programs must identify resources within their own budget for managing the data they produce.

4.1. Have resources for management of these data been identified?
No information found
4.2. Approximate percentage of the budget for these data devoted to data management (specify percentage or "unknown"):
No information found

5. Data Lineage and Quality

NOAA has issued Information Quality Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information which it disseminates.

5.1. Processing workflow of the data from collection or acquisition to making it publicly accessible
(describe or provide URL of description):

Lineage Statement:
This information is detailed within the project links.

Process Steps:

  • N/A
5.1.1. If data at different stages of the workflow, or products derived from these data, are subject to a separate data management plan, provide reference to other plan:
Always left blank
5.2. Quality control procedures employed
(describe or provide URL of description):

This information is detailed within the project links.

6. Data Documentation

The EDMC Data Documentation Procedural Directive requires that NOAA data be well documented, specifies the use of ISO 19115 and related standards for documentation of new data, and provides links to resources and tools for metadata creation and validation.

6.1. Does metadata comply with EDMC Data Documentation directive?
No
Notes: All required DMP fields must be populated and valid to comply with the directive.
6.1.1. If metadata are non-existent or non-compliant, please explain:

Missing/invalid information:

  • 1.6. Type(s) of data
  • 1.7. Data collection method(s)
  • 3.1. Responsible Party for Data Management
  • 4.1. Have resources for management of these data been identified?
  • 4.2. Approximate percentage of the budget for these data devoted to data management
  • 7.1. Do these data comply with the Data Access directive?
  • 7.1.1. If data are not available or has limitations, has a Waiver been filed?
  • 7.1.2. If there are limitations to data access, describe how data are protected
  • 7.3. Data access methods or services offered
  • 7.4. Approximate delay between data collection and dissemination
  • 8.1. Actual or planned long-term data archive location
  • 8.2. Data storage facility prior to being sent to an archive facility
  • 8.3. Approximate delay between data collection and submission to an archive facility
  • 8.4. How will the data be protected from accidental or malicious modification or deletion prior to receipt by the archive?
Notes: Required DMP fields that are not populated or invalid are listed here.
6.2. Name of organization or facility providing metadata hosting:
NMFS Office of Science and Technology
Always listed as "NMFS Office of Science and Technology"
6.2.1. If service is needed for metadata hosting, please indicate:
Always left blank
6.3. URL of metadata folder or data catalog, if known:
Always listed as the URL to the InPort Data Set record
6.4. Process for producing and maintaining metadata
(describe or provide URL of description):
Metadata produced and maintained in accordance with the NOAA Data Documentation Procedural Directive: https://nosc.noaa.gov/EDMC/DAARWG/docs/EDMC_PD-Data_Documentation_v1.pdf
Always listed with the above statement

7. Data Access

NAO 212-15 states that access to environmental data may only be restricted when distribution is explicitly limited by law, regulation, policy (such as those applicable to personally identifiable information or protected critical infrastructure information or proprietary trade information) or by security requirements. The EDMC Data Access Procedural Directive contains specific guidance, recommends the use of open-standard, interoperable, non-proprietary web services, provides information about resources and tools to enable data access, and includes a Waiver to be submitted to justify any approach other than full, unrestricted public access.

7.1. Do these data comply with the Data Access directive?
No information found
7.1.1. If the data are not to be made available to the public at all, or with limitations, has a Waiver (Appendix A of Data Access directive) been filed?
No information found
7.1.2. If there are limitations to public data access, describe how data are protected from unauthorized access or disclosure:

None

7.2. Name of organization of facility providing data access:
Office for Coastal Management (OCM)
Taken From: Support Roles (Distributor) | Organization
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Distributor" is used. The support role must be in effect. This information is not required if an approved access waiver exists for this data.
7.2.1. If data hosting service is needed, please indicate:
Taken From: Data Management | If data hosting service is needed, please indicate
Notes: This field is required if a Distributor has not been specified.
7.2.2. URL of data access service, if known:
Taken From: Distribution Info | Download URL
Notes: All URLs listed in the Distribution Info section will be included. This field is required if applicable.
7.3. Data access methods or services offered:
No information found
7.4. Approximate delay between data collection and dissemination:
No information found
7.4.1. If delay is longer than latency of automated processing, indicate under what authority data access is delayed:

8. Data Preservation and Protection

The NOAA Procedure for Scientific Records Appraisal and Archive Approval describes how to identify, appraise and decide what scientific records are to be preserved in a NOAA archive.

8.1. Actual or planned long-term data archive location:
(Specify NCEI-MD, NCEI-CO, NCEI-NC, NCEI-MS, World Data Center (WDC) facility, Other, To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended)
No information found
8.1.1. If World Data Center or Other, specify:
Taken From: Data Management | Actual or planned long-term data archive location
Notes: This field is required if archive location is World Data Center or Other.
8.1.2. If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive or No Archiving Intended, explain:
Taken From: Data Management | If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive or No Archiving Intended, explain
Notes: This field is required if archive location is To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended.
8.2. Data storage facility prior to being sent to an archive facility (if any):
No information found
Taken From: Physical Location | Organization, City, State, Location Description
Notes: Physical Location Organization, City and State are required, or a Location Description is required.
8.3. Approximate delay between data collection and submission to an archive facility:
No information found
8.4. How will the data be protected from accidental or malicious modification or deletion prior to receipt by the archive?
Discuss data back-up, disaster recovery/contingency planning, and off-site data storage relevant to the data collection
No information found

9. Additional Line Office or Staff Office Questions

Line and Staff Offices may extend this template by inserting additional questions in this section.

Always left blank