2006 Pacific Northwest Environmental Data Workshop Summary of Day 1, 2 and Next Steps Notes Nancy Tosta, Ross & Associates

2006 Pacific Northwest Environmental Data Workshop

Summary of Day 1, 2 and Next Steps Notes

Nancy Tosta, Ross & Associates

Progress from last year (Stewart Toshach)

On-going coordination with PNAMP and RGIC Meeting of NED signatories White papers – identify issues Workgroups

– Technology for Data Discovery– Subbasin Planning Workplan– Water Quality– Temporal and Spatial – Riparian and Upland– Salmonid Monitoring and Research

Why are we here? (Phil Roger)

Make our jobs easier Recognize cross-jurisdictional issues Improve program implementation Prepare for (anticipate) the future

What needs to be done? (Joe Scordino)

Establish regional data system – Identify data management needs– Cross-walk existing systems

Monitor Involve all relevant parties Establish clear outcomes and objectives Demonstrate effectiveness

Evaluation

Status of Viability Parameters•Abundance•Productivity

•Spatial Distribution•Diversity

Status of Statutory Listing FactorsESU Viability Assessment

NMFS will determine an ESU is recovered when an ESU is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, based on an evaluation of both the ESU’s status and the extent to which the threats facing the ESU have been addressed

Major Population Group Status

ESU Status

Population Status:

Listing Factor 1: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range

Listing Factor 3: Disease

or predation

Listing Factor 4: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Listing Factor 5: Other Natural or manmade factors affecting continued existence

Listing Factor 2: Over utilization for commercial, recreational or educational purposes

Status of Harvest Threats

& Limiting Factors

Status of Disease

and PredationThreats & Limiting Factors

Status of Hatchery program’sThreats &

Limiting Factors

Status of Hydropower

Threats & Limiting Factors

Status of Natural


Compliance and Implementation Monitoring

Implement Adaptive Management Plan

Action Effectiveness Monitoring

Status of Regulatory

MechanismsThreats & Limiting Factors

Critical Uncertainty Research and Evaluation

Status of Habitat


Actions

NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework

How do we get there? (Louis Sweeny)

Networks are grown not installed EPA Exchange Network had a driver (Federal Reporting

requirements) and funding EN flow = specific data, specific format, specific service Professional and organizational altruism not enough -

Need to consider a “center” and localized incentives Centralized, de-centralized, distributed, warehoused – all Performance measurement is increasing driver Start with bi-lateral shared interests

Panel of 9 - Envisioning the “System”

Mitch West Tom Karier Dan Haug Peter Friesen Bruce Schmidt

Greg Delwiche Rich Kang Cy Smith John Stein


Consider this a constant learning environment (everything changes)

Leadership is critical and has to own it Centralization helps organization and access Integration can only go so far Infrastructure – pipes to flow data – has gaps Issue of secondary use of data for different

purposes? Trust is key and lacking


Centralized databases do work– Are they like standards – where we have so many to

choose from?

Role of standards? Need to help others do things for us Consider other structures – objects, lattice, index

unstructured data


Information utility Perverse authority infrastructure – can more

easily sell not participating Demonstrate incremental progress Mine the data System of systems?

Technology Breakout (Ernst Torsten)

No interest in detailed technology discussion now-feeling that interchange technologies could be resolved ---open standards

General Needs/Issues -Highlights:– Should there be a shared list of questions we are trying to answer?

Living list, maybe apply some technology like web/wiki Do we know this already—do we agree? Test theory of data gaps

– People keenly interested in what other technology folks are doing: Applications, tools

– Need for the data dictionary– Map of anti-patters—where have NED like efforts failed before?– Need for “open” data structures: standardized but room for unique data

Technology Breakout - Paper exercise for project to integrate and make available project data from 27 different sources:

– Identified major components (10 of them)– Which of these makes it “NED”

Trading Partner Agreement -stewardship Data Standard/Definition Metadata Web Services

– NED Portal Display Flow Configuration/API

Technology Breakout - Paper exercise for project to integrate and make available project data from 27 different sources:

– Issues deliberated: Who does the UI - is it NED? Project data overlap// who manages Sensitive data (have to provide security infrastructure) People won’t participate unless there is trust in how data will

be handled– Started to do a straw poll on proposing the project

Turns there are two groups “doing” this project now ---”you are doing what!” “I’m doing that” This is probably how most NED project will start

Content Breakout (Stewart Toshach)

Note Red Text are the priority items

How to link data to metadata How to do version control – use release notes More details needed on how measurements are made

(Collection methods) 3 types of metadata needed: what the data is how it

is collected and how it is QA/QC’d.

Content Breakout Discussion

Need to know the statistical sampling frame before deciding how to use or reuse the data

Lost most peer review – don’t publish tech reports for most fishery data

Integrated Land Management Bureau uses the ISO Standard Metadat repository “MetaStar”

Need to publish data dictionary Need to know how to roll up disparate data sets,

e.g., collected at different geographic scales or with different statistical frames


How to track “chain of custody”, who did what with the data, where and when.

Many field programs have time and resource constraints…the data must be delivered ‘ready or not’ for management decisions

Is data quality just a “trust me” issue?


Need feedback processes and tools on QA/QC How do you move data upstream? E.g., make

needed corrections back to the source? There is no mechanism or review process for

metadata records


Need an analytical tool box to check data Need rating systems and language to describe

confidence we have in the data (eg 1-10) Knowledge of data quality drives next research tasks


Relationship between quality and quantity of data: a small amount of high quality data can do the same (statistically) as large amount of low quality data

Check CSMEP data quality methodology (based on EPA EMap)

Need naming conventions for data sets and simple descriptions of data content


Responsibility for QA/QC needs to be with each agency

What is the right source for primary and derived data -when do you know you are seeing the right stuff?

Credibility issue with small variance in different data results from the same data


Location data is critical – at a minimum it allows spatial integration

A data sharing “template” agreement is needed to allow easier sharing of data between organizations

Institutional Breakout Group (Jen Bayer)

Participants: Nancy Tosta, Angelo Facchin, Molly Moreland, Audrey Hatch, Laura Gephardt, Leif Horowitz, Jennifer Pollock, Jen Bayer, Nancy Tubbs, Cedric Cooney, Dick Stone, Bruce Schmidt, John Stein, Cy Smith, Burney Hill, Helen Rueda, Peter Pacquet, Greg Sieglitz

Institutional Breakout - Discussion

What is “it?” – “It” is bigger than Columbia Basin– Smaller than ?? (Based on issue?)

Do we need to identify common goals? (50 questions?)– Communities of interest– Measuring effectiveness (e.g, PART)

Clarify the NED signatories – who do they speak for? The right people must be in the conversation (“ologists”)

Institutional Breakout - Discussion

There is a lack of infrastructure There is lack of clarity on the incentives Data must be findable Information utility? Information market place?

Institutional Breakout – Next Steps

Clarify drivers (why should people be here?)– Consider NMFS Listing Decision Framework

Craft a clear vision of the goals and benefits for Executives

Gain executive participation and commitment– Understand exec personal performance standards – and respond

to them

Clarify infrastructure – e.g., policy committee, technical committee and the agenda and activities for NED

Identify approaches to address “effectiveness” questions Clarify connectivity with PNAMP

Institutional Panel

John Stein - NWFSC Jennifer Pollock – USGS Dick Stone – WADFW Peter Paquet – NWPCC Bruce Crawford – WA IAC

Institutional Recommendations

(John and Tom? – or the NED Exec Committee) Have discussions with agency heads (e.g., fish chiefs) – clarify from them what’s being asked for

Demonstrate value-added from participation Identify who represents whom as NED signatories PNAMP, NED, ? – are they putting the list of pieces

together on what’s needed? – someone needs to identify what the questions. These groups should send out common message


NED workplan – what does it say? - is it familiar to those who are participating?

NED steering committee should craft a strategic plan – maybe include a business plan that identifies who funds NED

Rather than new Center (Tom’s proposal) – whole new infrastructure – maybe one of NED signatories should lead/oversee this??

As regional players do strategic plans – can they identify contributions to NED?

Is it possible to integrate regional portal efforts – e.g. NBII NW node and BPA NED portal?


NED MOU is not a negotiated agreement that clearly identifies what gains and pains are (WA as example – signed on behalf of 6 agencies) – so need to clarify what you get and what you pay by signing

Have to build connectivity between local, state, and federal data needs – mid-level managers (not data, but agency spokespeople – with authority to speak) – should define how to do this

Look at NED workplan


Examine existing documents that address benefits MOA?? (commit resources?) – is it time for this? Need governance structure with people with

authority to speak for the agency (at all levels) – needs to incorporate NED, RGIC, and PNAMP governance structure


Small steps – first wins? - Steering Committee identify 3 important questions that capability exists to answer – put together the systems to answer these. (e.g., place to access all TRT data, something of need to CRITFC) – maybe use PART review process to define this (esp the data question) – can NED help compile these PART needs?

Use the above to describe “value-added” and use it as marketing mechanism

Start with derived data Use “extreme programming” – start small and iterate Earmark for PISCES? Who does this?


Great benefit of going to DC and demonstrating coordinated effort and voice (states and feds) –

NED set up a policy committee – to work on benefits and vision – and help the story. This is senior execs – may be iterative to get people involved.

Consider development of matrix that shows – agencies, goals, and current and needed data – this will be done by policy committee?

Move from MOU to MOA – but still work to get full sign-on from all players even if they cannot commit resources

Technical Panel

Jimmy Kagan – Natural Resources Institute, Oregon

Tom Pansky – BPA Curtis Cude – ODEQ Mike Beatty – BOR Tom Iverson - CBFWA

Technical Recommendations

Comprehensive inventory of what data are available (NED has done some of this already) – include all the “little” projects out there

Inventory what you need (will be easier to do if the 3 top questions are defined)

Try to identify a quick win – see technology breakout discussion

NED way? – involves larger cross-section of participants – e.g., cover 85% of data in region?


Already lots of pilots (maybe these are “phase 1” vs pilots) – need to make them operational – need to demonstrate proof of concept

Use NED as forum to develop technical solutions – examine options for synergy among existing systems

Consider how to strategically move forward based on approaches taken and lessons learned

Create “one-place” report – population, limiting factors, project status – recognize living nature of the data – (being done within the Basin) – not storing the data – access to real-time. Fish & W managers are providing access to their data.


CBFWA – may contribute to creation of NED portal by getting FWM data “on” it (data may be made accessible from StreamNet)

Take simple first bite – population status and trends – more difficult questions await

First requirement – put data on the web (how make this happen?) (incentives to play very different than tools to play)

Many-one.org portal – portal technology


Examine federal directives for available tools – NED portal offers option to create a dynamic inventory Central system (Tom Karier’s vision) – to help provide

access to integrated data Adhere to international standards and protocols


Use technology and web to find better ways to collaborate – e.g., create a wiki. Before building anything – try to find out what’s there – but how to do this? Schema and field names not published – make available on a portal?

Need to create vision for big picture of technological network – show how water quality data exchange, heritage data, StreamNet, PCSRF fit together.

Get agreement on the data stewards Training? Is this a need?

Other Recommendations – Wrap up

Proceed with “pilots” using PCSRF and CBFWA Develop clear statement of benefits of participation

and description of what “NED” is NED Co-Chairs, Tom and John make contact with

other signatories and those who should sign and provide reasons for participation

Documents

2006 Pacific Northwest Environmental Data Workshop Summary of Day 1, 2 and Next Steps Notes Nancy Tosta, Ross & Associates