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

2. 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

3. Why are we here? (Phil Roger) Make our jobs easier Recognize cross-jurisdictional issues Improve program implementation Prepare for (anticipate) the future

4. 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

6. 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

7. Panel of 9 - Envisioning the System Mitch West Tom Karier Dan Haug Peter Friesen Bruce Schmidt Greg Delwiche Rich Kang Cy Smith John Stein

8. Panel of 9 - Envisioning the System 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

9. Panel of 9 - Envisioning the System 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

10. Panel of 9 - Envisioning the System Information utility Perverse authority infrastructure – can more easily sell not participating Demonstrate incremental progress Mine the data System of systems?

11. 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 alreadydo 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-patterswhere have NED like efforts failed before? – Need for open data structures: standardized but room for unique data

12. 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

13. 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 wont 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! Im doing that This is probably how most NED project will start

14. 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/QCd.

15. Content Breakout Discussion Need to know the statistical sampling frame before deciding how to use or reuse the data Lost most peer review – dont 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

16. Content Breakout Discussion 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?

17. Content Breakout Discussion 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

18. Content Breakout Discussion 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

19. Content Breakout Discussion 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

20. Content Breakout Discussion 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

21. Content Breakout Discussion 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

22. 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

23. 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)

24. 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?

25. 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

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

27. Institutional Recommendations (John and Tom? – or the NED Exec Committee) Have discussions with agency heads (e.g., fish chiefs) – clarify from them whats 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 whats needed? – someone needs to identify what the questions. These groups should send out common message

28. Institutional Recommendations 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 (Toms 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?

29. Institutional Recommendations 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

30. Institutional Recommendations 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

31. Institutional Recommendations 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?

32. Institutional Recommendations 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

33. Technical Panel Jimmy Kagan – Natural Resources Institute, Oregon Tom Pansky – BPA Curtis Cude – ODEQ Mike Beatty – BOR Tom Iverson - CBFWA

34. 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?

35. Technical Recommendations 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.

36. Technical Recommendations 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

37. Technical Recommendations Examine federal directives for available tools – NED portal offers option to create a dynamic inventory Central system (Tom Kariers vision) – to help provide access to integrated data Adhere to international standards and protocols

38. Technical Recommendations Use technology and web to find better ways to collaborate – e.g., create a wiki. Before building anything – try to find out whats 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?

39. 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