1. Lessons Learned from DET Development and Initial Pilot

2. Why Develop a DET (Data Exchange Template)? Establish ONE common format for population estimates in order to: – Improve data availability, efficiency (e.g. one data reporting process for all customers) and comparability – Improving transparency of methods and basis data used to produce indicator estimates But not imply that estimate calculations could be reproduced solely on the basis of the information covered by the. – Improve understanding of what methods are being used across the region DET asks WHAT survey methods/protocols are used

3. DET Attempts to Strike a Balance in Level of Detail Think of level detail as a spectrum – Level 1: just a bare indicator number itself/alone with no explanatory text. – Level 10: Scientific paper, with fully documented protocols and methods and primary all data, with full metadata records, sufficient to reproduce the estimate – We are initially targeting 3-5? (Full JMX is 7ish?) More detail than a bare number, but much less than a full narrative report/paper

4. Review DET content See summary

5. Data Exchange Template - Pilot Testing The DET was distributed for testing on four populations – one each in WA, OR, ID and CRITFC. We currently have results for three of those populations. DET development team and pilot testers held call this Monday to review initial impressions: – Comments on purpose/audience for DET – Comments that applied to multiple fields – Comments on specific fields (not discussed today)

6. Tester Perceptions of Rationale and Audience We need to be more clear about purpose of DET and how it support long term vision of Coordinated Assessments DET seen as useful for: – A first cut at the information that anybody should be collecting/sharing – Could support REGIONAL sharing Questions: – Who will really use this? (e.g. do we envision NOAA eventually adopting this, or a successor? …yes) – Who would want this, vs, the full narrative report?

7. Cross-Cutting DET Observations Population level indicators Age Structure – Steelhead SAR – Definitions and variations Additional Observations

8. Cross-Cutting DET Observations: Population DET seeks Population level indicators: – this is an evolving practice – Current DET asks y/n do you make population level estimates Testers said, good to ask the question, but allow more answers than y/n Some estimates are made as “good as we can get” estimates for populations

9. Cross-Cutting DET Observations: Age Structure Age Structure – Current draft DET asks for age structure, in different ways for each of the indicators This is confusing – One alternative option is to create ONE age structure (for that population) that could be referenced by all three indicators Steelhead (maiden, repeat, skip)

10. Cross-Cutting DET Observations :SAR Variations – Significant variation in how/which SAR indicator is calculated DET now asks about a “Return” vs “Spawner” return rate – Testers recommended we keep ability to capture both SAR and additional variations – Given prominence of PTAGIS as basis of many SAR calculations, we should add in a way to reference specific PTAGIS data pulls

11. Cross-Cutting DET Observations: Additional Observations Producing data in this format will require a local DB of the information Too complex to do by hand routinely DB pull could be programmed once and run each year Need better way to reference Protocol and Methods information – Current DET asks: If/how protocol/method documented Citation/pointer