1. Preliminary Results Progress Coordinated Assessments Reports from the Field

2. Data Exchange Templates AgencyData SpecialistGeographic AreasPopulationsCompletePartialNot started WDFW Wenatchee, Washington Jamie HallmanUpper Columbia186210 WDFW Vancouver, Washington Danny WarrenLower Columbia7200 ODFW Corvallis, Oregon Beth TimmonsLower Columbia4711234 ODFW La Grande, Oregon Matt BartleyMid Columbia Lower Snake River 315026 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Mission, Oregon Pete MarkosMid Columbia11470 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation Warm Springs, Oregon Joanna MilesLower Columbia Mid Columbia 10280 IDFG Boise, Idaho Martha BrabecInner Columbia Snake River 252203 Confederate Colville Tribes Omak, Washington Isaac CadienteInner Columbia Okanogan Basin 4400 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Pocatello, Idaho Isaac CadienteInner Columbia Snake River 11308 Yakama Nation Klickitat, Washington Michelle Steg-GeltnerInner Columbia11245 Nez Perce Tribe Lapwai, Idaho John WalrathInner Columbia201541 Total2607427159

3. Data Analysis Flow Diagrams AgencyData SpecialistGeographic AreasPopulationsCompletePartialNot started WDFW Wenatchee, Washington Jamie HallmanUpper Columbia185112 WDFW Vancouver, Washington Danny WarrenLower Columbia721071 ODFW Corvallis, Oregon Beth TimmonsLower Columbia4716031 ODFW La Grande, Oregon Matt BartleyMid Columbia Lower Snake River 317024 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Mission, Oregon Pete MarkosMid Columbia11803 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation Warm Springs, Oregon Joanna MilesLower Columbia Mid Columbia 10406 IDFG Boise, Idaho Martha BrabecInner Columbia Snake River 252203 Confederate Colville Tribes Omak, Washington Isaac CadienteInner Columbia Okanogan Basin 4400 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Pocatello, Idaho Isaac CadienteInner Columbia Snake River 11209 Yakama Nation Klickitat, Washington Michelle Steg-GeltnerInner Columbia11515 Nez Perce Tribe Lapwai, Idaho John WalrathInner Columbia201802 Total260922166

4. Coordinated Assessments Reports from the Field Preliminary Results Lessons Learned

5. General Lessons Learned Population (as defined by NOAA) is not a unit that data are commonly collected across the region A “population responsibility directory” is not available within agencies and questions remain around: – population & population scale – responsibility for indicator calculations – overlap of responsibility – when overlap exists, what is the official database of record? Granularity of population lists conflict with some agency/tribe management objectives – Some VSP indicators only available for population aggregates, rather than by CBFWA/TRT populations

6. Data Exchange Templates Terminology issues – smolt – natural spawner vs. natural origin spawner – recruit/spawner vs. progeny/parent Current DET version does not accommodate all agency/tribe specific indicator calculations – Complex calculations are not captured – Complexity will need to be addressed in the next version of the DET

7. Data Analysis Flow Diagrams PROS Generally speaking, well received Have been useful when discussing indicator derivations with biologists Serves multiple audiences and purposes CONS Desired level of detail inconsistent – e.g., programmer vs. biologist vs. supervisor needs – Depending on audience the diagram may not show all gaps – Data flow vs. data analysis

8. Coordinated Assessments Reports from the Field Preliminary Results Data Availability

9. Data Availability: Indicator Level Indicators are sometimes reported → but the supporting metadata is not included Not all agencies calculate all 3 of the chosen VSP indicators Natural Spawner Abundance (NSA) is the most commonly available Spawner to Adult Ratio (SAR) the least and the most variable

10. Data Components of the Indicator Highly variable – Different ways to store data – Inconsistencies even within an agency Sometimes the entire process is done in Excel while other agencies use a local or regional database Storage of the metrics is variable: Published papers and reports, internal documents, websites Sometimes the data are hard to find

11. Examples of Data Management Systems capable of sharing data: Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (IFWIS) ODFW Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Tracker Colville Tribe : Website that houses reports and formation of a database to house data from multiple sources WDFW Juvenile Migrant Exchange (JMX) NOAA Salmon Population Summary (SPS)

12. Data Availability Issues Changing methodology impacts and complicates availability Lack of funding (staffing) Inconsistent platforms and format Lack of management priority for specific indicators

13. Coordinated Assessments Reports from the Field Preliminary Results Gaps and Needs

14. Populations Need to define the populations of interest Multiple naming conventions are used Some indicators are calculated at scales larger or smaller than the actual population as formally defined

15. Resources Money/time for data personnel who can: Understand the data flow, data analysis and reporting process Calculate indicators and supporting data Perform data QA/QC Collect and enter data into database Develop metadata

16. Data Management Database infrastructure Metadata Data dictionary Data sharing, documentation, and transparency Consistent methods for internal data analysis A streamlined process for reporting data data are exchanged multiple times before reporting

17. Communication Clearer communication of project objectives e.g., “What’s in it for me?” Little coordination and communication between/among/within agency offices Concern over data ownership and potential misuse of data

18. Future of the DET The DET is a work in progress and needs further work before the region considers implementing it as a formal business practice for sharing data.