Preliminary Results

Progress

Coordinated AssessmentsReports from the Field

Data Exchange TemplatesAgency Data Specialist Geographic Areas Populations Complete Partial Not

started

WDFW Wenatchee, Washington

Jamie Hallman Upper Columbia 18 6 2 10

WDFW Vancouver, Washington

Danny Warren Lower Columbia 72 0 0 72

ODFW Corvallis, Oregon

Beth Timmons Lower Columbia 47 11 2 34

ODFW La Grande, Oregon

Matt Bartley Mid ColumbiaLower Snake River

31 5 0 26

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationMission, Oregon

Pete Markos Mid Columbia 11 4 7 0

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs ReservationWarm Springs, Oregon

Joanna Miles Lower ColumbiaMid Columbia

10 2 8 0

IDFGBoise, Idaho

Martha Brabec Inner ColumbiaSnake River

25 22 0 3

Confederate Colville TribesOmak, Washington

Isaac Cadiente Inner ColumbiaOkanogan Basin

4 4 0 0

Shoshone-Bannock TribesPocatello, Idaho

Isaac Cadiente Inner ColumbiaSnake River

11 3 0 8

Yakama NationKlickitat, Washington

Michelle Steg-Geltner Inner Columbia 11 2 4 5

Nez Perce TribeLapwai, Idaho

John Walrath Inner Columbia 20 15 4 1

Total 260 74 27 159

Data Analysis Flow DiagramsAgency Data Specialist Geographic Areas Populations Complete Partial Not

started

WDFW Wenatchee, Washington

Jamie Hallman Upper Columbia 18 5 1 12

WDFW Vancouver, Washington

Danny Warren Lower Columbia 72 1 0 71

ODFW Corvallis, Oregon

Beth Timmons Lower Columbia 47 16 0 31

ODFW La Grande, Oregon

Matt Bartley Mid ColumbiaLower Snake River

31 7 0 24

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationMission, Oregon

Pete Markos Mid Columbia 11 8 0 3

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation Warm Springs, Oregon

Joanna Miles Lower ColumbiaMid Columbia

10 4 0 6

IDFGBoise, Idaho

Martha Brabec Inner ColumbiaSnake River

25 22 0 3

Confederate Colville TribesOmak, Washington

Isaac Cadiente Inner ColumbiaOkanogan Basin

4 4 0 0

Shoshone-Bannock TribesPocatello, Idaho

Isaac Cadiente Inner ColumbiaSnake River

11 2 0 9

Yakama NationKlickitat, Washington

Michelle Steg-Geltner Inner Columbia 11 5 1 5

Nez Perce TribeLapwai, Idaho

John Walrath Inner Columbia 20 18 0 2

Total 260 92 2 166

Coordinated AssessmentsReports from the Field

Preliminary Results

Lessons Learned

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

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

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

Coordinated AssessmentsReports from the Field

Preliminary Results

Data Availability

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

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

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)

Data Availability Issues

• Changing methodology impacts and complicates availability

• Lack of funding (staffing)

• Inconsistent platforms and format

• Lack of management priority for specific indicators

Coordinated AssessmentsReports from the Field

Preliminary Results

Gaps and Needs

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

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

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

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

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.