Show new navigation
On
  • Log In
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Help
    • Help
    • Help Center
    • Data dictionary
    • EF&W Program documents
    • Request support
    • Send feedback
      • View all help topics
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Mitigation work
    Mitigation work View all mitigation work topics
  • Reporting
    Reporting View all reporting topics
  • Funding
    Funding View all funding topics
  • Search
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal NPCC19-2008-507-00 - Inter-Tribal Data Monitoring (ITMD) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal NPCC19-2008-507-00 - Inter-Tribal Data Monitoring (ITMD)

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History


Archive Date Time Type From To By
11/14/2018 8:32 PM Status Draft <System>
11/14/2018 8:32 PM Status Draft <System>
Download 1/31/2019 10:32 AM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
4/19/2019 9:24 AM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
5/28/2019 3:50 PM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending BPA Response <System>
5/30/2019 2:41 PM Status Pending BPA Response Pending Council Recommendation <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Back To Top

Basics

Proposal Number:
   NPCC19-2008-507-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending Council Recommendation
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 2
Review:
 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Portfolio:
 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Type:
 Existing Project: 2008-507-00
Primary Contact:
 Colleen Roe (Inactive)
Created:
 11/14/2018 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Nez Perce Tribe
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Tom K Iverson Natural Resource Consulting
Project Title:
 Inter-Tribal Data Monitoring (ITMD)
 
Proposal Short Description:
 The goal of the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data (ITMD) project is to assist CRITFC and its member tribes in the timely and accurate capture, storage, processing, and dissemination of data for management of fish and their habitats. By meeting this goal, the ITMD project provides decision support for implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accord Extensions, recovery planning under the ESA, and tribal co-management.
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) coordinates management policy and provides fisheries technical services for the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO), and Yakama Nation (YN). The CRITFC’s mission is “to ensure a unified voice in the overall management of the fishery resources, and as managers, to protect reserved treaty rights through the exercise of the inherent sovereign powers of the tribes.” The CRITFC hosts the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data (ITMD) project. The purpose of the ITMD project is to assist CRITFC and its member tribes in the timely and accurate capture, storage, processing, and dissemination of data for management of fish and their habitats.

The remand of 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) including 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (Revised pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE D. Oregon), in conjunction with the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, US v. Oregon, and the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST); set forth ambitious goals for the restoration of salmon and steelhead stretching from the wilderness forests of Idaho to the international waters off the Alaskan coast. The ITMD project facilitates decision support for implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, recovery planning under the ESA, tribal co-management needs with regard to US v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

The purpose of the ITMD project is to facilitate the establishment of effective and robust data management practices in the Columbia River basin for research and resource management data among CRITFC member tribes and CRITFC. Effective data management means that:
• Data is stored digitally on a platform that provides both security and redundancy to ensure data can be recovered if accidentally destroyed at the source system
• Data is stored with its corresponding metadata containing both its provenance and scientific pedigree to ensure the data’s value survives long term
• Data is subject to data quality assurance processes which cleanse, correct, or remove damaged data
• Data is catalogued to ensure it is discoverable, accessible, and sharable

To achieve these best practices, ITMD generally focuses on tasks in these essential categories:
• Infrastructure: ensuring the necessary hardware, software, and network are installed and functioning reliably and securely
• Personnel development: ensuring people have the skill sets they require through training and hands-on experience
• Tactical support: serving as a kind of help desk when problems arise, and the skills are needed to resolve them are not available within the tribes’ data steward staff
• Communication facilitation: hosting regular team meetings to discuss relevant issues and topics, and share experiences in addition to an annual hands-on workshop
• Staying abreast of innovative technologies:
o tracking the evolution of computational and field technologies
o executing proof of concepts to evaluate innovative technologies which might satisfy the needs of specific projects
o building pilot testing tasks into yearly project plans to assess technologies and their possible economic impact
o adopting the technologies into projects once we determine that they work within our IT systems and are applicable to the needs of tribal and CRITFC projects goals

Over the last five years the ITMD project has accomplished the following in support of its purpose:
• Introduced innovative technologies to improve field operations: digital pens and tablets to streamline field data capture from stream to screen
• Facilitated knowledge transfer: workshops and meetings to disseminate knowledge and facilitate intercommunication between tribes
• Deployed data management tooling: deployed and trained on CDMS (central data management system) at CRITFC and the tribes
• Provided tactical help to the tribes and CRITFC personnel: effectively a help desk for tribes and Accords projects at CRITFC
• Evaluated innovative technologies for possible relevance: cloud data storage for offsite backup, AWS (Amazon Web Services) large scale VMs (virtual machines) for faster computation and field data collection technologies
• ITMD team members have also worked on brief tactical assignments for other CRITFC Accords projects who needed their skills and knowledge
• Maintain IT systems for interactive mappers to allow users to query and map information from CRITFC and tribal projects via the internet (https://www.critfc.org/fish-and-watersheds/fishery-science/data-resources-for-scientists/)
Purpose:
 Programmatic
Emphasis:
 Data Management
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 90.0%   Resident: 10.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 Yes
Subbasin Plan:
 Asotin, Big White Salmon, Clearwater, Columbia Gorge, Deschutes, Entiat, Fifteenmile, Grande Ronde , Hood, Imnaha, John Day, Klickitat, Lower Columbia, Lower Middle Columbia, Lower Snake, Methow, Salmon, Snake Hells Canyon, Tucannon, Umatilla, Upper Middle Columbia, Walla Walla, Wenatchee, Willamette, Yakima
Biological Opinions:

Back To Top

Contacts

Contacts:

Back To Top

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
The ITMD project is a data infrastructure development project not a research project. As such, it neither creates nor collects any research data. It exists to aid CRITFC and its member tribes, whose project staff do collect research data, to better manage their data and share it with other tribes or resource management agencies in the Columbia Basin. The ITMD project serves as a resource to other projects. The ITMD project supports data flow and management within the data collection projects of the tribes and CRITFC through assistance in development of database systems and technical approaches for improving data management efficiency and data dissemination. The ITMD member tribes participate in the Coordinated Assessments (CA) project to identify regional data priorities and coordinate regional data sharing protocols. The ITMD member tribes help facilitate delivery of data to the CAX, WQX, and other regional data sharing repositories. Data in the CAX address needs to support NPCC F&W Program reporting, deliver BPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 priority data requirements, and support NOAA Fisheries ESA Biological Opinions and 5-year status assessments. The ITMD project supports and employs the Data Management Principles listed in the Adaptive Management section of the Council NPCC’s 2014 F&W Program. The ITMD project supports the Council’s 2017 Research Plan by facilitating the storage and sharing of monitoring data.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

In the Columbia Basin, the tribes, federal, and state natural resource management agencies all collect data which is critical to the management of the basin’s fisheries.  Historically, the data was collected and saved on paper media.  Starting in the 1980's up to the present, data was stored in spreadsheets or on a desktop RDB (relational database) like MS Access.  In either case, the data tended to only be available to, at best, the organization that collected it or, worst case, only the person who “owns” the collection.  This has limited researchers to using only their own data while more and, perhaps, better data existed beyond their reach.  Researchers and fishery managers across the basin have recognized this as a problem for decades, but until recently technology was not available or too expensive to solve the problem.  In the last few years, software and hardware have become cheap enough (or free) to solve most of the issues with sharing data.  So today many entities in the Columbia Basin have worked to created data sharing processes many of which are public and automated within and between data management systems of entities. This solution depends on a well maintained computer hardware, software, and network infrastructures and the use of modern data management practices.  

The ITMD project was proposed by CRITFC because it was observed that the tribes lacked resources to fully participate in data sharing:

  •        In some cases, they lacked the hardware and/or software necessary
  •            They did not have staff skilled in data management (and because of their somewhat remote locations it is hard to even recruit candidates with data management skills)

The ITMD project was designed to be a development project and is not a research project.  It has been focused on helping the tribes acquire needed hardware/software/network resources while helping tribal employees to acquire data management skills.  It was intended as an interim measure until the tribes become self sufficient in data management.

Since its inception, ITMD has touched on many aspects of data management from field collection up through final analysis.  This includes:

  •          Deploying new data collection technology into the field (Anoto digital pens and now Real Time Research (RTR) tablet data collection app)
  •          Acquiring both hardware and software for the tribes
  •          Designing and implementing database schemas for the data being collected
  •          Implementing web applications to serve up data and/or analysis of data
  •          Holding workshops to help tribal personnel build skills in data technologies like SQL
  •          Installing a central data management system at each of the four tribes and providing training 
  •          Serving as a “help desk” to provide aid in solving software related problems
  •             Advise on data managent issues as requested
  •              Providing direct funding to help pay for portion of a data steward’s salary at each of the tribes
  •                     Providing a collaboration forum for tribal data stewards to coordinate their efforts and share their experiences working on similar data problems

At the close of 2018, all the tribes and CRITFC possess the required infrastructure to be able to share data regionally.  Experiments in up- and downloading data have taken place to several regional repositories.  The expectation is that by the close of 2019 some tribal and CRITFC data will be available across the region.  Two of the tribes now have full time data stewards who are rapidly acquiring data management skills.  The remaining tribes have identified individuals for the role of a part time data steward.   We have learned that a part time data steward is not sufficient to fullly support tribal fisheries programs.  This situation is likely to persist unless funding is found to fully fund the data stewards' salary and benefits.


Back To Top

Objectives

What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Ensure the availability of accurate and timely fish and habitat data for CRITFC and its member tribes through coordination activities (OBJ-1)
Facilitate routine (e.g.; 6 times per year) ITMD coordination phone calls between tribal data stewards and attend occasional (e.g.; once per year) site visits to share information and transfer technology. Fund a fraction of the data steward positions at each of the tribes and CRITFC to support data management and best data sharing practices. Coordinate an annual workshop for the tribes' and CRITFC data stewards.
Provide the ability for the tribes and CRITFC to share data with other agencies to meet regional reporting and research requirements (OBJ-2)
Participate in regional meetings and workshops to learn and share information regarding data management priorities and protocols. Facilitate/Assist/Support tribal and CRITFC biologists in providing BPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 salmon and steelhead data and other data priorities to regional repositories.
Manage and preserve tribal data in keeping with the best practices of modern data management (OBJ-3)
Design and/or acquire, install, configure, and maintain IT infrastructure for tribal and CRITFC fish and habitat data as needed.
Enhance the tribes’ ability to make well informed resource policy management decisions based on the data collected by the tribes and CRITFC (OBJ-4)
Develop and maintain data capture and transfer technology to support tribal field biologists, data analysts, and program managers.

Back To Top

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2024 $79,724 13%
2023 $63,750 10%
2022
2021
2020
2019 $166,534 28%
2018 $166,534 27%
2017 $166,534 26%
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012 $3,000 1%
2011
2010
2009
2008

Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
At the start of the project on September 15th, 2009, the budget was largely spent on CRITFC staff salaries and data management infrastructure at CRITFC. After a Tribal Needs Assessment on Data Management was completed as part of the Coordinated Assessment project in 2011 it was apparent that most of the tribes did not have dedicated staff and infrastructure focused on data management and sharing. The BPA helped to partially fund Tribal Data Stewards at each of the tribes on one-contract trial period to begin to organize archival data missing at regional repositories. The success of the data stewards provided the incentive for CRITFC and BPA to come to an agreement to each find extra monies to continue to fund the tribal data stewards through subcontracts within the ITMD project. Due to this agreement the ITMD project budget has ranged widely from a starting budget of $331,310 to a maximum of just over $800k (which occurred in the last five years). These larger budgets have allowed the project to fund 0.75 to 1 full FTE at each of the CRITFC member tribes for a few years and to update hardware and software at CRITFC and the tribes for data management. Due to tribal contracting processes, billing can be intermittent and sporadic, and some funds were unspent. The BPA agreed that the ITMD could roll these unspent monies into the next year’s budget and also agreed that CRITFC could use other CRITFC Accords project unspent funds to subcontract with the tribes to continue the data steward positions. Although the project implementation has been steady, the financial performance of the project may not appear consistent due to the various amounts of unspent funds that could be found each year and the tribal intermittent billing. During the last few years of the Accords, due to budget constraints at BPA, BPA stopped adding funds towards the subcontracts for data stewards but did allow the ITMD project to continue to pull in other sources of unspent funds (although unspent funds were drying up) to at least fund a portion of a FTE at each of the tribes. With the recent Accord Extension, funding for this project has been reduced to near its original level and funds for the subcontracts with the tribes will fund a quarter FTE. The ITMD funding provided a portion of an FTE to each of the participating tribes to support data steward positions over the majority of the 10-year Accords and the Accords Extension. Because the positions were only partially funded, the job responsibilities fell onto existing staff with other responsibilities. Over time, the tribes have consolidated data steward FTEs within their fish and wildlife departments and began implementing data management strategies initially developed for the Coordinated Assessments project in 2011. In FY2016 this culminated with an extensive effort to update servers and establish data sharing protocols within the tribes. With the addition of an EPA Exchange Network grant beginning in FY2017, the tribes have implemented central data management systems to begin formally managing historic data sets in a central repository. Since the last ISRP review, the project has been gradually transitioning from supporting individual project data systems to more common data systems to support tribe-wide and regional data sharing and reporting.

Back To Top

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:62
On time:41
Avg Days Early:3

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
43692 49055, 54190, 58576, 63000, 66762, 70127, 73789, 77134, 73354 REL 12, 73354 REL 31, 73354 REL 47, 73354 REL 64, 73354 REL 81, 73354 REL 97, 73354 REL 113, CR-376013 2008-507-00 EXP CRITFC INTER-TRIBAL MONITORING DATA Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 09/15/2009 09/14/2026 Pending 62 150 5 0 8 163 95.09% 1
Project Totals 62 150 5 0 8 163 95.09% 1

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
70127 P: 132 Annual Progress Report to BPA for Calendar year 2015 Jan-Dec 8/15/2016 8/15/2016
70127 C: 114 Updated Inventory of selected existing data projects and assessment of tribal data needs 9/14/2016 9/14/2016
70127 S: 159 Convert digital pen technology to generation II digital pen technology 9/14/2016 9/14/2016
70127 E: 160 Update Pilot Implementations 9/14/2016 9/14/2016
70127 K: 122 Produce reviews of new technologies used in pilots to improve data management 9/14/2016 9/14/2016
73789 O: 132 Annual Progress Report to BPA for Calendar year 2016 Jan-Dec 1/16/2017 1/16/2017
73789 C: 114 Updated Inventory of selected existing data projects and assessment of tribal data needs 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 B: 189 Attend coordinated assessment meetings, workshops, and hold at least one tribal data workshop. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 L: 141 Assist tribes to develop a data management strategies 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 P: 159 Share data with other regional repositories 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 D: 160 Update Pilot Implementations 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 E: 160 Data management tools developed and/or updated to meet tribal needs 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 F: 160 Update and Maintain Accords Database (ongoing) 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 G: 160 Maintain databases and consolidate, curate and manage legacy data as opportunities arrive. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 H: 160 Exploratory development of metadata 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 I: 160 Updated tribal data network design as needed as CDMS is implemented across the member tribes. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
73789 J: 122 Produce reviews of new technologies used in pilots to improve data management 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
77134 B: 132 Annual Progress Report to BPA for Calendar year 2017 Jan-Dec 3/15/2018 3/15/2018
77134 H: 189 Description of coordination work and meetings attended and annual workshop held, to be included in the annual report 9/13/2018 9/13/2018
77134 D: 160 List of data management tools, applications, and databases developed and/or updated to meet tribal needs, to be included in the annual report 9/13/2018 9/13/2018
77134 C: 159 Assist in building conduits to nodes or other connections with regional data or information repositories for sharing 9/14/2018 9/14/2018
77134 E: 160 List of digital pen projects and the progress made to update/migrate or pilot new projects to/in the new system, to be included in the annual report 9/14/2018 9/14/2018
77134 F: 160 Description of progress made to implement and pilot cdms at tribes and CRITFC and a tribal data network design, to be included in the annual report 9/14/2018 9/14/2018

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
The project has met most of its deliverables on schedule. The red deliverables are related to submitting Annual Progress Reports to BPA for FY15 and FY16 and submitting BiOp RPA reports in Taurus for FY16 and FY17. A new project leader was hired in September 2017. In the nearly 9-month transition between the previous project leader and hiring the new project leader, these deliverables were slightly delayed in their completion. The project has had an overall slow start to regional data sharing. Initially, the project focused on individual project data sets and building tools for individual projects. As the data stewards were established within the tribes and began developing higher level data storage systems, the project evolved to support data storage and data sharing to meet BPA requirements for reporting salmon and steelhead VSP data. In FY2018, with the assistance of the EPA funding, the tribes were able to install centralized data management systems and load a few initial data sets.

Back To Top

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

 

Coordination and Communication

  • Hosted monthly conference calls involving CRITFC and member tribes to exchange ideas and experiences and discuss any issues related to the project

  • Organized annual workshops with presentations and hands on technology learning tutorials

  • Participated in StreamNet and PNAMP steering committees

Infrastructure Development

    • Deployed centralized data systems at the tribes and CRITFC  

    • Acquired, installed, and configured a Windows server at CTWSRO for CDMS work

    • Acquired, installed and configured servers and hardware at key central office locations at YN to support data storage, backup and sharing

  • Provided Central Data Management System (CDMS) training for NPT, CTWSRO, and CRITFC

  • Developed a centralized data collection system for the Kelt Reconditioning project and worked with U of Idaho IT staff to configure and maintain all the VPN (virtual private network) connections and firewall rules   

Tactical Support

  • ITMD “computer center” updated and operations/security improved:

    • moved to new servers

    • Windows and SQL Server upgraded from 2008 to 2016

    • security improved

    • computer center operations best practices implemented

  • AWS (Amazon Web Services) cloud storage proof of concept completed

  • Provided technical support at the Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility including setup/breakdown of data collection system

  • Written a number of small applications for QC (quality control), report generation, ETL (export, transform, and load) processes at CRITFC and the member tribes 

  • Provide ongoing assistance in troubleshooting various problems in the GIS software, SharePoint system, CDMS, and digital pen systems

Transfer Data

  • CDMS now actively in use for new datasets at CRITFC and member tribes

  • Yakama, Nez Perce, and Umatilla have experimentally uploaded data to WQX (water quality exchange in the EPA Exchange Network)

  • CRITFC, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs are in the process of loading historical field data into CDMS

  • Migrated legacy data from disparate sources into MS SQL Server relational database management systems on secure virtual servers

  • Submitted Kelt PIT tag data to PTAGIS - one time clean up of missing information

  • Shared sturgeon data with ODFW and WDFW via a data pull from the CRITFC database/web reports

  • Created PIT tag file preparation applications for projects to quality check and then upload data to PTAGIS

Application Development

  • Designed and implemented both Anoto and Capturx digital pen field data capture applications used in multiple field data collection tasks

    • Nez Perce harvest

    • Bonneville Stock Sampling

    • Zone 6 harvest 

    • Sturgeon Abundance

    • Sturgeon harvest

    • Warm Springs screw trap

  • Capturx digital pen applications for Bonneville, Sturgeon, Zone 6 Harvest, Nez Perce Harvest projects had to be converted to the Anoto digital pen platform when the Capturx vendor closed its doors and software developed a fatal problem after a Windows update

  • Produced the technical requirements for the Kelt Reconditioning project tablet-based field data capture application moving into the field this season (next gen technology)

  • Developed Accords Project Summary applications and Accord Habitat Retrospective/Prospective Planning Tools with online user interface

  • Built the Zone 6 Harvest web applications and reports as a resource for tribal biologists

  • Documented data collection protocols, work flows, passwords, contact information, system designs, QC procedures, and reporting requirements for all projects

  • Conversion of Capturx digital pen projects to online data entry into CDMS (centralized data management system)

 See staff resumes for addtional accomplishments.


Back To Top

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-NPCC-20210312
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal: NPCC19-2008-507-00
Proposal State: Pending Council Recommendation
Approved Date: 8/25/2019
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Continue implementation through next review cycle and respond to ISRP qualifications on (1) objectives, (2) adaptive management, and (3) mission and work-plan in the next annual project report to Bonneville. See Programmatic issue for Data Management and Information.

[Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/fish-and-wildlife-program/project-reviews-and-recommendations/mainstem-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2008-507-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

Qualifications:

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe their responses to the ISRP's comments and suggestions below in their upcoming annual report covering FY 2019 accomplishments.

1.      Objectives need to be quantitative with specific timelines for attaining clearly stated milestones and criteria for success.

2.      Provide an Adaptive Management (AM) process description for ISRP review.

3.      Provide the ISRP documentation on the project mission and out-year work plan, i.e., the plan developed to guide future activities. The documentation needs to include the strategic approach or activity list, as well as the timeline to support multi-year implementation.

4.      The proponents adequately addressed some qualifications from the previous ISRP review(2012-6), but some were not addressed. The ISRP would like to discuss Qualifications No. 1 and No. 3 (and possibly Qualifications 2 and 4) from the previous (2012-6) review in a face-to-face meeting. No. 1 relates to objectives being restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks and No. 3 relates to defining the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have been met specified milestones. The ISRP believes that these can be accomplished as long as there is a common understanding of what is expected.

Comment:

This project is challenging in that it provides support for upgrading and enhancing data management for a group of tribes with varying degrees of support and enthusiasm for the effort. It appears that there has been major progress and that it has resulted in tribal members' active participation and data sharing with broader regional efforts. The broader efforts include implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, recovery planning under the ESA, tribal co-management needs regarding U.S. v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Although designed as an interim project, funding reductions are likely to extend the time needed for full implementation. The ISRP notes that that data management is a full-time effort and requires an appropriate level of financial support.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The proposal includes a strong and clearly stated goal that centers around effective data management, and the text has a comprehensive and explicit explanation of what effective data management means. The proponents appear to have the technical expertise and appropriate leadership to execute the activities to achieve the goal. However, some objectives are not written in a way that progress toward them can be evaluated. Simple changes from words like "ensure" or "enhance" toward more measurable goals could help. With that said, some of the text beneath the objectives did provide measurable objectives, so it may just be a proposal structure issue. For instance, "Facilitate routine (e.g.; 6 times per year) ITMD coordination phone calls between tribal data stewards and attend occasional (e.g.; once per year) site visits to share information and transfer technology." Nevertheless, as stated, the objectives (p. 5) are very general and lack timelines for completion. They are really work statements rather than quantifiable objectives.

The text on significance to regional programs clearly defines that the project is a resource to help the Tribes manage and share data. The proposal does indicate that the project is responsive to some other efforts in the basin (e.g., BiOp), but (appropriately) does not attempt to extend project significance more broadly to all efforts across the basin.

Overall, the ISRP believes that the project is highly relevant to member tribes as well as to other regional data management programs. The proponents have the technical skills to be successful. Nevertheless, the ISRP is concerned whether the project is threatened by personnel issues (p. 16) without having adequate funding to acquire and retain skilled staff, to train and educate staff (continuing education and conferences), and to overcome the difficulties in recruiting skilled professionals to remote tribal locations.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The project has provided important support and encouragement for improving member Tribes' data management and information sharing capabilities. It has resulted in a wide range of deliverables ranging from increased infrastructure development, improved coordination and communication, and enhanced data transfer support. A major accomplishment occurred in 2018. With the help of an EPA grant, the tribes were able to install centralized data management systems and load a limited number of data sets.

The project has enabled data sharing for important regional projects including recovery plans and U.S. v. Oregon. Although the project is intended as an interim effort, it is limited by the need for improved data management staffing. Two tribes now have full time data stewards who are rapidly acquiring data management skills. The remaining tribes have identified individuals for the role of a part time data steward despite the proponent's observation that a part-time steward is not sufficient to fully support tribal fisheries programs.

The ISRP notes that a project mission and out-year work plan has been developed to guide future activities. However, there is no mention of any documentation of a strategic approach or activity list and timeline to support multi-year implementation. The ISRP mentions this because the proponents do not feel that this project needs an adaptive management (AM) process. The proposal states, "The ITMD project is not the type of project that requires an adaptive management plan of its own per the specific definition." It does acknowledge that the "project does adapt to ever changing policy guidance on data management from the tribes, CRITFC, and Columbia Basin fish and wildlife resource management programs." Despite lacking an AM process, there is an excellent discussion of lessons learned and recommendations for change contained in the 2018 Annual Report. Nevertheless, the ISRP feels that the project could improve efficiency by having a clearly articulated AM process for both internal and external issues.

The ISRP was pleased to see that "At the close of 2018, all the tribes and CRITFC possess the required infrastructure to be able to share data regionally. Experiments in uploading and downloading data have taken place to several regional repositories. The expectation is that by the close of 2019 some tribal and CRITFC data will be available across the region." This is a very positive development.

As well, the ISRP supports the continued efforts made toward training personnel and seeing that each tribe has the technology and skills to successfully participate in the data management project. The proponents understand that a serious threat toproject success (p. 17) is not having adequately trained personnel and have established a process for maintaining that expertise over time.

While the proponents provided honest responses to previous (2012-6) ISRP qualifications, it would be good to discuss Qualifications No. 1 and No. 3 (and perhaps Nos. 2 and 4) in a face-to-face meeting. No. 1 relates to objectives being restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks and No. 3 relates to defining the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have met specified milestones. The ISRP believes that these can be accomplished if there is a common understanding of what is expected.

The ISRP agrees only in part with the statement (p. 13) that "Good decisions are based on quality of data, quantity of data (over space and time), and on real-time data flowing quickly through data management systems (for those decisions that require a quick turn-around time)." We also believe that good decisions are based on appropriate analyses of good information and having the experience to interpret the results accurately (wisdom). The overall impression is that abundant data are being collected by each Tribe and processed through the project, but less emphasis is given to analyses and interpretations. In the future, the proponents should add analysis and interpretation to the training of skill sets.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

The project is guided by the overall data management strategies developed for each of the Tribes and CRITFC. The ISRP notes that "Since the last ISRP review, the project has been gradually transitioning from supporting individual project data systems to more common data systems to support tribe-wide and regional data sharing and reporting. This is linked to the demand for broader data sharing on a regional scale. Work types include infrastructure development, skills and technical capacity development for tribal staff, information sharing and review and application of new technical developments, most recently to support field data entry."

While the nine deliverables are quite detailed, they are generally qualitative in describing activities but not outcomes, as recommended by the 2012 ISRP review

The ISRP is concerned that several data stewards are only part-time positions. A discussion with the proponents and the Council/BPA is warranted to see if the positions can become full-time. Part-time positions, ones that have responsibilities elsewhere, do not bode well for long-term success. That said, could these positions also include responsibilities for advanced data analyses and interpretation?

The ISRP is still not completely clear on how the proposed data management activities are related to data management activities of other programs in the Basin, for example, the AEM activities proposed by the Yakama Tribe, PNAMP, StreamNet, and others. The ISRP would appreciate understanding how much database sharing and overlap occurs.

Objective 1 and Deliverable 2 (p. 24) are seriously hampered by current BPA funding rules for travel for meetings and conferences, which restrict access to continuing education opportunities. Additional support and funding for continuing education, information sharing, and outreach appears justified for this project.
Documentation Links:
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-NPCC-20120313
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2008-507-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 3/5/2014
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Council recommendation:
Fund as proposed through FY 2013 with the following caveat:

This work should meet the needs of CRITFC members as related to program evaluation and reporting needs, as well as exploring the potential to assist non-CRTIFC tribal members. This work should evolve to provide web-service access to tribal anadromous and resident fish and aquatic habitat data collected by CRITFC members so that these data are easily available through web-services. This data-sharing and accessibility should not be limited to raw data, but also make accessible the synthesized information, such as abundance estimates, for the Council and public users. Furthermore, if the PERC moves forward, it would be expected that the Council recommendations based on the guidance from this committee would be incorporated in this work. Sponsor to participate on the PERC as requested by the Council to assist in developing recommendations of the PERC.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2008-507-00
Completed Date: 4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Objectives should be restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
All of the objectives require planning and coordination services to at least some extent, but the project proposal addressed tailored questions only for data management. Tailored questions for planning and coordination need to be addressed.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
The sponsors need to define the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have been met at specified milestones. The proposal should include a project evaluation plan beyond providing annual reports and holding workshops and explain what metrics will be used to assess effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished.
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4
As stated in the proposal, deliverables for this project are driven by data requests, and tribal requests get priority, but the sponsors need to provide a more detailed explanation of how tribal and other requests are prioritized.
Qualification #5 - Qualification #5
The sponsors need to provide a clear description of exactly what data will be housed in the Tribal Data Network. It appears that there might be some duplication with other projects, for example DART. Will this project store and disseminate data from all tribes, that is, both CRITFC and non-CRITFC tribes, in the Columbia Basin?
Qualification #6 - Qualification #6
What are plans for checking accuracy of data? Will there be peer review of methods for analysis of data?
Qualification #7 - Qualification #7
The majority of proposed project costs (> $1 million per year) are related to staff salaries. According to the executive summary current funding covers only 1.5 FTEs, and cooperation with other projects leverages an additional 4-5 FTEs of CRITFC staff. How will the proposed shift in staff FTEs to this project affect work on other projects? The sponsors need to provide a clearer explanation of the percentages of project and individual staff time that will be devoted to each of the proposed work elements, and, if applicable, to other projects.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Project significance to regional programs and technical background were adequately addressed. Objectives are stated as tasks, for example “Providing data management services to the tribes” rather than as desired outcomes. The sponsors need to define the success criteria used to determine whether the project’s objectives have been met. The proposal uses many undefined acronyms and technical jargon, and would be improved by providing a list with definitions of acronyms and technical terminology.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The sponsors list a number of project accomplishments, but this section of the proposal would be improved by describing each result in terms of value-added, specifically with respect to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the region, results of user/member assessment of effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished, and how results of this assessment have modified previous and proposed activities over time to increase value of this work.

 The sponsors provide some useful examples of how project results are used for adaptive management.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

This is a relatively new project, initiated in FY 2009, to continue support for personnel and infrastructure to allow the CRITFC tribes to collect, house, and distribute data from the projects funded by the Accords, that is, fish and habitat monitoring data for the reservations, ceded lands, and key co-management areas.

The Tribal Data Network’s (TDN) primary goal is to ensure the availability and sharing of accurate and timely monitoring data among CRITFC member tribes and with other agencies to meet the reporting needs of the Accords and BiOp while also building capacity within tribes to support informed policy management decisions and tribal co-management needs.

Overall, the project appears to be on track to meet its objectives.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

Tribal Data Network (200850700) and StreamNet (198810804) will work synergistically to integrate data management and sharing across the Basin consistent with the Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy. What are plans for checking accuracy of data? Will there be peer review of methods for analysis of data? What are the plans for updating data, for example the CHaMP project? Will this project store and disseminate data from all tribes, that is, both CRITFC and non-CRITFC tribes, in the Columbia Basin? 

As described in the TDN 2011 workshop report, there seem to be several limiting factors related to data management, not adequately discussed in the proposal, for example, data sharing with NOAA and software/server compatibility. Although this project involves 25% coordination, tailored question for coordination were not addressed.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Is it not possible to get SARs with confidence intervals directly from DART for any set of PIT tagged fish?  The sponsors stated that DART may provide some SARs.  The sponsors need to check whether estimates are the same.

It is not clear exactly what data will be housed in this Tribal Data Network; for example, is habitat data for intensively monitored watersheds from the Columbia Habitat and Monitoring Project (CHaMP) project to be included? Is this the only place where CHaMP data are stored? Later, it is stated that CHaMP data will be downloaded.

The sponsors need to describe the percentage of project time that will be devoted to work elements, explain what metrics will be used to assess effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished, describe key personnel duties on the project, including the hours they will commit to the project, and provide a more detailed description of QA/QC procedures.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:58:41 PM.
Documentation Links:
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
Response to 3/5/2014 NPCC Recommendation:<br/> The project has evolved to provide web-service access to tribal data collected and managed by CRITFC and their member tribes. Raw and synthesized data are provided to the public through web interfaces, input into the Coordinated Assessments Exchange, PTAGIS, DART, and other regional data systems and repositories. It is important to note that each tribe is developing their own data management system and CRITFC is not serving as a central data repository for the individual tribes.<br/> <br/> Response to 4/17/2012 ISRP Review Panel Assessment:<br/> Qualification #1 - ITMD Response<br/> Objectives in the current proposal have been modified to meet this qualification, although, it is difficult to measure the desired outcomes from this project except to list accomplishments and demonstrate progress in regional data sharing.<br/> <br/> Qualification #2 - ITMD Response<br/> There were no apparent tailored questions regarding planning and coordination in the proposal form. Hopefully the proposal addresses the ISRP concerns regarding this topic.<br/> <br/> Qualification #3 - ITMD Response<br/> Due to uncertain funding, this request is difficult to address. The metric for success is improved capability to share data. The individual tribes determine what data they choose to share and when.<br/> <br/> Qualification #4 - ITMD Response<br/> We have a very small team and a large workload. The project has begun to focus on developing centralized program scale data management systems and is less focused on delivering individual project applications. Priorities are set by individual tribal data management strategies and by the Fish Program managers at each of the tribes. (See Adaptive Management)<br/> <br/> Qualification #5 - ITMD Response<br/> “Tribal Data Network” is a misnomer and the project title has been changed to better describe the project focus. The project supports program level data management for CRITFC and each of the member tribes. The first priority of the project is to support better data collection, storage, and sharing within the individual tribes and CRITFC. The second priority of the project is to support sharing between the tribes and with the larger regional community. In many cases, data that are submitted to regional data repositories like DART originate in local data systems managed by the tribes. This does not represent duplication of effort, rather efficiency of effort since data will be entered into one system at the tribe that is eventually linked to other regional systems like DART, PITAGIS, RMIS or CAX. <br/> <br/> Qualification #6 - ITMD Response<br/> The focus of the ITMD project, at CRITFC and the member tribes, is to design and build (or purchase) and implement data management systems and applications/tools to help biologists/program managers improve data collection, data flow, and data storage, and to provide faster analysis and reporting of results. The project is not responsible for providing and managing tribal repositories for the data nor facilitating transfer of data between data repositories for the tribes or CRITFC projects. This project assists the tribes and CRITFC projects to achieve data accuracy and analysis if requested by our clients. ITMD personnel ensure that data formatting is appropriate for machine transfer per individual project and data per the requests from the project leads. The field biologists that enter data and project managers per project that use the data are ultimately responsible for data accuracy and analytical methodology in common public repositories and peer review forums.<br/> <br/> Qualification #7 - ITMD Response<br/> This concern has been addressed with this current proposal. The project funds staff time at CRITFC, CTUIR, CTWSRO, YN, and NPT to develop and maintain data repositories for their individual institutions. The project provides a coordination mechanism to ensure that those repositories and systems can communicate with external systems to support regional data sharing. A small percentage of the project funds hardware and software infrastructure; but the remaining, dwindling, funding covers partial FTEs for data stewards.

Back To Top

Adaptive Management


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
The ITMD project supports the decision trees that will use updated scientific information to modify management decisions under the framework of Fish and Wildlife Programs in the Columbia Basin. Good decisions are based on quality of data, quantity of data (over space and time), and on real-time data flowing quickly through data management systems (for those decisions that require a quick turn-around time). The focus of the ITMD project, at CRITFC and the member tribes, is to design and build (or purchase) and implement data management systems and applications/tools to help biologists/program managers improve data collection, data flow, and data storage, and to provide faster analysis and reporting of results. The ITMD project is guided by the overall data management strategies developed for each of the tribes and CRITFC, and specifically per adaptive management plans created by each fish and habitat project served by ITMD and tribal data management programs. Although ITMD is not the type of project that requires an adaptive management plan of its own per the specific definition, the project does adapt to ever changing policy guidance on data management from the tribes, CRITFC, and Columbia Basin fish and wildlife resource management programs. The ITMD also conducts coordination meetings and an annual meeting/workshop with tribal and CRITFC staff funded by the project which serves to adjust priorities and adapt the project’s goals over time to best assist our resource management client’s project data management and reporting requirements. When the ITMD project began in 2009, most CRITFC and tribal data were managed on individual staff or project computers and the ability to quickly pull data together for adaptive management decisions was greatly hindered. Since 2009, one of the most significant changes or improvements that has occurred in the last 5 years has been the creation of centralized data management systems at the tribes and CRITFC. By the end of 2018, each of the tribes and CRITFC have initial centralized data management systems installed, these data systems are only managing a few data sets at this time, but over the course of the next five years, with adequate funding of data management staff, it is planned that most of the tribal data will be organized into the systems.

Back To Top

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
P119090 Tribal Data Network -- 2009 - 2010 Progress (Annual) Report 09/2009 - 09/2010 49055 12/14/2010 12:31:47 PM
P122937 Tribal Data Network Needs Assessment Other - 49055 9/14/2011 10:07:06 AM
P122938 Tribal Data Needs Assessment Attachment 1 Presentation - 49055 9/14/2011 10:13:01 AM
P122939 Memo from Eric Quempts regarding Tribal Data Network Project Other - 49055 9/14/2011 10:17:30 AM
P122940 Tribal Data Network Functional Design Document Other - 49055 9/14/2011 10:20:51 AM
P122941 Revised Harvest Pilot Computer System Diagram Other - 49055 9/14/2011 10:28:24 AM
P123949 Preliminary PADS Entity-Relationship Diagram Other - 54190 11/30/2011 12:51:11 PM
P123950 Preliminary habitat database Entity-Relationship Diagram for Grand Ronde pilot Other - 54190 11/30/2011 12:53:55 PM
P124210 Tribal Data Workshop 2011 Notes Other - 49055 12/14/2011 11:31:41 AM
P124214 Tribal Data Network 2010-2011 Annual Progress Report Progress (Annual) Report 09/2010 - 09/2011 54190 12/14/2011 12:13:17 PM
P125506 Preliminary Generalized Response to ISRP comments Other - 54190 3/7/2012 8:00:52 PM
P133652 Tribal Data Network Annual RM&E Report Progress (Annual) Report 09/2011 - 09/2012 58576 9/10/2013 12:28:42 PM
P133679 Agenda for Tribal Data Workshop Other - 58576 9/11/2013 2:47:52 PM
P140925 2014 Data Needs Assessment Updated 20141124 Other - 66762 11/23/2014 11:07:22 PM
P143189 CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project; 1/14 - 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 66762 5/19/2015 10:03:47 AM
P147257 FISMA Attestation - Low FISMA Attestation - 70127 12/28/2015 1:48:02 PM
P149506 RM&E activities for the ITMD Project; 1/15 - 12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 70127 8/19/2016 1:15:43 PM
P153543 CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 73789 3/31/2017 9:31:44 AM
P156398 2016 Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project Annual Progress Report; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 73789 9/13/2017 11:09:20 AM
P159606 2017 Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project Annual Progress Report Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2017 77134 3/8/2018 10:04:42 AM
P164469 Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project; 1/18 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 73354 REL 12 3/18/2019 11:31:01 AM
P164470 Appendices for the 2018 Annual report Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 73354 REL 12 3/18/2019 11:33:33 AM
P175958 2019 Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project; 1/19 - 12/19 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2019 - 12/2019 73354 REL 31 5/14/2020 2:29:15 PM
P178583 Tribal Data Management Maturity Model Development Report Other - 73354 REL 31 9/14/2020 11:34:34 AM
P185266 ITMD CY2020 Annual Report-Final 1/20-12/20 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2020 - 12/2020 73354 REL 47 6/23/2021 9:28:31 AM
P191422 Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Project Strategic Plan: January 2022 - December 2026 Management Plan - 73354 REL 64 4/7/2022 11:45:20 AM
P197548 2022 ITMD Annual Report 2008-507-00 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2022 - 12/2022 73354 REL 81 2/14/2023 10:51:41 AM
P201320 2022 ITMD Annual Report_Final_14June2023 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2022 - 12/2022 73354 REL 81 6/14/2023 12:04:07 PM

Other Project Documents on the Web


Back To Top

Back To Top

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

CRITFC ITMD staff are active participants in both the StreamNet and PNAMP Steering Committees, the StreamNet Executive Committee, and participate in an EPA Region 10 Exchange Network coordination group.

The StreamNet project (1988-108-04) hosts the Coordinated Assessment data exchange (CAX) and serves as the F&W Program's central repository for Trends data.  CRITFC and tribal staff participate in the Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Technical Committee, Data Exchange Work Group, and other ad-hoc work groups to coordinate data priorities, standards and exchange protocols.

The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP, 2004-002-00) project is a co-host of the Coordinated Assessments project and facilities meetings regarding data management practices.  CRITFC staff serve on the PNAMP steering committee, Data Management Leadership Team, and the Metadata Work Group and coordinate data management issues with other co-managers in the region.  

CRITFC StreamNet Library (2008-505-00) project houses reference documents for the data contained in the StreamNet database and the Coordinated Assessments data exchange (CAX). This allows researchers to access citations and project documents from the StreamNet site through links to the documents that take you to the source material in the CRITFC StreamNet library.  ITMD and library staff coordinate efforts to acquire and catalog project documents.

CRITFC and the member tribes have been awarded a significant EPA Exchange Network grant. Funding procured from the FY16 National Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN) grant is being used to improve tribal data infrastructure and data management capacity at the tribes and CRITFC. This grant aids the development of back end tribal data systems and data transfer processes to support centralized data management systems that will eventually connect to regulatory agencies through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Exchange Network. Developing these systems builds functional capacity needed to manage and share priority natural resource data and analyses for informed decision making.    

In addition to these data management projects, the ITMD data stewards coordinate closely with M&E projects at CRITFC and each of the member tribes.  Several of the data stewards work part time for the ITMD project and part time for M&E projects within their respective tribes.

Lamprey Data Management

A Lamprey Capture Efficiency Estimation tool was updated and used to assist the CTWSRO to estimate Pacific Lamprey populations and densities in the Deschutes River, Fifteen Mile Creek, Eight Mile Creek, Willamette River, Mill Creek, Shitike Creek, Warm Springs River, and Hood River.  Current or past assistance to the CTWSRO to manage these data provided support for the following BPA or other agency funded projects:

1.  BPA 2008-308-00 - Willamette Falls Lamprey Escapement Estimate
2.  BPA 2011-014-00 - Evaluate Status & Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in the lower Deschutes River, Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River subbasins

As with all monitoring data that are hosted at the CRITFC on the ITMD infrastructure, these data are backed up daily.  The CTWSRO maintain the database of record for these data.  

PIT Tag Data Management

The ITMD Project supports several projects that PIT tag fish or use PIT data.  Several systems have been developed to move PIT tag and biological data to the PTAGIS database and retrieve data collected by PTAGIS on fish survival and migration behavior from PIT antenna sites for researchers to do analysis.  

Current or past assistance to PIT tag projects to manage these data provided support for the following BPA or other agency funded projects:
1. BPA 2008-503-00 - Studies into Factors Limiting the Abundance of Okanagan and Wenatchee Sockeye Salmon;
2. BPA 2008-518-00 - Upstream Migration Timing;
3. BIA CTPOOX90105 - Indian Self Determination, PSC, Pacific Salmon Treaty (CRITFC’s Bonneville Stock Sampling Project – at Bonneville Dam);
4. BPA 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River.

GIS Data Management

The ITMD Project supports a CRITFC Geographic Information System (GIS) web server and geodatabases, which hosts spatial data and online mappers related to fish and habitat projects and efforts that have occurred over the last two decades within the Columbia River Basin. In 2017, the online mapping system was upgraded. As with all monitoring data that are hosted at the CRITFC on the ITMD infrastructure, these data are backed up daily.  

Below is a list of projects or regional efforts that use the geodatabases, GIS web servers, or online mappers hosted at CRITFC:
1. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund projects - http://map.critfc.org/flexviewers/pcsrftribal/ ;
2. BPA 2009-004-00 - Monitoring Recovery Trends in Key Spring Chinook Habitat Variables and Validation of Population Viability Indicators;
3. BPA 2009-008-00 - Climate Change Impacts  http://www.critfc.org/fish-and-watersheds/climate/climate-change-scientific-resources/ ;
4. BPA 2008-727-00 - Regional Data Management Support and Coordination - Population Crosswalk Project http://www.critfc.org/fish-and-watersheds/fishery-science/data-resources-for-scientists/columbia-basin-salmon-and-steelhead-crosswalk-project/;
5. Northwest Power & Conservation Council’s 2002-2004 Subbasin Planning http://map.critfc.org/flexviewers/limfactors/ .

Several of the above projects, or efforts, also offer downloadable spatial data on the CRITFC web page GIS Layers and Data Sets http://www.critfc.org/fish-and-watersheds/fishery-science/data-resources-for-scientists/critfc-data-download/.

Harvest Data Management

As salmon and steelhead migrate into the Columbia Basin, tribal harvest data are collected almost year-round in either Zone 6 of the Mainstem Columbia River, or in tributary fisheries such as the Yakima, Clearwater, and Salmon sub-basins.  The ITMD Project work supports coordination, data management, and annual synthesis of fish population metrics through regional data repositories and reports for the member tribes on the annual harvest and escapement. The time and effort required to produce harvest estimates has been reduced, the timeliness and accuracy of those estimates has also improved to almost real-time, and data entry and reporting for several projects is web-based so that fish managers can easily get to the raw data and estimates to help make quote decisions within hours or days of the daily harvest.  The tribes also have a harvest project with the ITMD for sturgeon within the Columbia Basin above Bonneville Dam.

Other Data Management Pilot and Production Projects

Below are a couple of projects that ITMD staff has worked on in 2017, which are currently in different stages of development.
1. BPA 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River. A sturgeon data management application for the collection of fish information from survey nets has been updated.  Data are shared with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to calculate population abundance estimates.
2. BPA 2007-401-00 – Kelt Reconditioning and Reproductive Success Evaluation Research.  The ITMD updated a kelt data management system, which involved consolidation of kelt data across the different field sites in the Columbia River Basin of this project.  Annual preparation of tools for field data entry laptops and office laptops was completed. All researchers on this project now have access to all the data for the project across different field sites, hatcheries, and laboratories.


Back To Top

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species
Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) - All Populations
Lamprey, Pacific (Entosphenus tridentata)
Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) - All Populations
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - All Populations

Secondary Focal Species
Coho (O. kisutch) - Unspecified Population
Sturgeon, White (A. transmontanus) - Lower Columbia River

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
The ITMD is a development project not a research project.  Its focus is on the operations, maintenance, and upgrading of the tribal data management systems and the education of tribal staff in the best practices of data management.  The greatest threat for program success is inadequate funding to maintain the hardware and software infrastructure required to manage complex legacy data sets and to fund tribal data stewards.

Personnel issues:
     - adequate funding to acquire skilled staff
     - adequate funding to train and educate staff (continuing education and conferences)
     - adequate funding to retain skilled staff
     - difficulty recruiting people into remote tribal locations

Software:
     - adequate funding to acquire state of the art software tools
     - adequate funding to pay yearly licensing fees for this software
     - adequate funding for training

Hardware:
     - adequate funding for timely replacement of hardware
     - adequate funding to pay maintenance on hardware
     - adequate funding to pay for remote access networking solutions (e.g., satellite dish)

Back To Top

Types of Work

Work Classes

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?
The ITMD treats data as an organizational asset -- just like capital equipment assets. The ITMD’s approach to data management can best be expressed as a lifecycle for the data. There are five stages in the lifecycle: - Planning the collection of the data - Data collection - Data cleansing - Data analysis and reporting - Data archiving – including the creation and archiving of needed metadata 1. Planning is an activity involving both data managers and researchers. The plan determines what data is to be collected, how much should be collected, and what the storage format of data needs to be. From this information we can derive an ER (entity relationship) diagram modeling the data. The next step is to design and build out a relational schema for the database. CRITFC and the tribes use MS SQL Server as our database tool and we build our schema with tools in MS SSMS (SQL Server Management System). 2. The next step is the collection of data. This topic is covered in the text box immediately below this text box. 3. The next step is data cleansing. The project has created several SQL stored procedures within the databases which we use to parse and correct incoming data. We are aware of commercial tools focused on very sophisticated data cleansing, but the project cannot afford to buy and pay yearly maintenance for such a tool. With the advent of centralized database management tools this year, this is the step in which the data is loaded into that tool. 4. The next step is data analysis and/or reporting. There are two paths through this step. In some cases, after the data is collected and cleaned, the data is exported to a flat file and turned it over to researchers who do their own analysis. The other path is that an application is built to analyze the data and report out on it. The data could be reported in a basic textual report or, if it contains significant geospatial data, in a GIS (graphical information system) map or perhaps an even interactive map. Standard reports are built on MS IIS (Internet information services) and usually delivered as a web application. ESRI's ArcGIS toolset is in use at CRITFC and CTUIR and is used to create GIS graphical reports for some projects. 5. The last, but certainly not least, step is data archiving. One goal in the ITMD project is to establish a robust data archiving process so that a) data can be found many years after it was created/collected and b) enough metadata is archived with the raw data to preserve the value of the data in the long term (i.e., “metadata is a love letter to the future”). The first step in creating a robust process was a small proof of concept using the AWS (Amazon Web Service) Glacier long term archival system. The Glacier solution proved both technically sound and economically advantageous. CRITFC is currently working on defining a set of pilot recommendations around metadata which that will be shared with the tribes and is expected to continue to evolve over the next several years. The methodology being reified by this process is based, in part, on the work the of the DAMA organization (DAMA.org). DAMA is a world-wide organization of professional data managers and has built an elaborate model for data management that attempts to address myriad aspects of this activity.
Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.
The ITMD project has sought to create a more robust data collection protocol. Robust, in this case, means helping to reduce the number of errors entered in the data and eliminate the need to hand type data on collection data sheets into the computer. The first attempt at improvement was to deploy Capturx digital pens into the field. Data was still written on collection sheets but while the person is writing, the pen translates their motions directly into digital information and all this data is stored in the pen. Upon returning from the field, the pen is placed in an electronic cradle and data are uploaded to a MySQL database. The pen’s data are then transferred to CRITFC's SQL database where an application parsed the data and loaded it into a table in the database. This approach did save time by avoiding the slow typing of input. However, Capturx went out of business and ITMD had to switch to another digital pen for the projects that followed (Anoto). Two problems were encountered with this approach. First, for some projects operating on the Columbia river in the winter, severe spray and rain made using the pens iffy. Second, in the fall of 2018 the vendor of the Anoto pens basically doubled the cost of the yearly usage license and the cost for help desk support. The ITMD project has historically paid these fees for the tribes but does not have the funds to pay for all the pens this year. So, the future of the digital pens is in question. When the field season for kelt opens this year, CRITFC will be testing a new generation of field data collections technology. The technicians will be using a data collection application running on a ruggedized computer tablet. The application has a full up GUI (graphical user interface) with drop down menus, radio buttons, check boxes, etc. The expectation is that using such an input system will eliminate many common data entry errors because the user is not typing but merely selecting from a limited set of choices. The application can connect remotely to a computer cloud hosted by the application vendor and automatically upload the data. From a desktop computer, a user can log into this cloud and review the data, make corrections, and even do a limited amount of querying or download the data into a CSV (comma separated variables) file. At the end of the season, the success of this tool will be evaluated to decide if we should proceed with similar system for the tribes. The initial approach to sharing data regionally will be by uploading data into nodes in the EPA’s EN (exchange network) including both the CAX and WQX. Data uploads and downloads are via web service invocation. EPA has published XML document schemas for the interchange of this data via these web services. CRITFC and the tribes will conform to these schemas when invoking any EN service. The XML schemas ensure that the data can be explicitly understood at both ends of the exchange.
Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?
The ITMD is a development project, not a research project. As such, we do not compile any data in this project. We solely work on data the tribes or other CRITFC projects have compiled for data management purposes.
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
As explained above, the ITMD project does not collect or distribute its own data. The project assists with the development of data management plans and QA/QC processes for other tribal projects.
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
As explained above, the ITMD project does not collect or distribute its own data. It should also be understood the data sharing is at the discretion of the tribes and CRITFC. Therefore, the decision to share data is external to ITMD.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Status and Trend Monitoring
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Back To Top

Location

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Columbia River Basin None
Methow (17020008) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 30
Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 8
Wenatchee (17020011) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 22
Upper Yakima (17030001) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 193
Naches (17030002) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 101
Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 113
Hells Canyon (17060101) HUC 4 QHA (Qualitative Habitat Assessment) 38
Imnaha (17060102) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 16
Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 3
Upper Grande Ronde (17060104) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 48
Wallowa (17060105) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 25
Lower Grande Ronde (17060106) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 17
Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 7
Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207) HUC 4 None
Lower Salmon (17060209) HUC 4 None
Little Salmon (17060210) HUC 4 None
Upper Selway (17060301) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lower Selway (17060302) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 4
Lochsa (17060303) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 9
Middle Fork Clearwater (17060304) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
South Fork Clearwater (17060305) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 12
Clearwater (17060306) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 12
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101) HUC 4 None
Walla Walla (17070102) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 253
Umatilla (17070103) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 275
Willow (17070104) HUC 4 QHA (Qualitative Habitat Assessment) 23
Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 263
Klickitat (17070106) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 122
Lower John Day (17070204) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 244
Lower Deschutes (17070306) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 93
Trout (17070307) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 59
Lower Willamette (17090012) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 312
Lower Snake (17060110) HUC 4 None
Upper Salmon (17060201) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 24
Pahsimeroi (17060202) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 4
Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 7
Lemhi (17060204) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 5
Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205) HUC 4 None
Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 4
South Fork Salmon (17060208) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 12
Upper North Fork Clearwater (17060307) HUC 4 None
Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308) HUC 4 None
Upper John Day (17070201) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 391
North Fork John Day (17070202) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 453
Middle Fork John Day (17070203) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 161
Upper Deschutes (17070301) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 58
Little Deschutes (17070302) HUC 4 QHA (Qualitative Habitat Assessment) 20
Beaver-South Fork (17070303) HUC 4 QHA (Qualitative Habitat Assessment) 20
Upper Crooked (17070304) HUC 4 QHA (Qualitative Habitat Assessment) 50
Lower Crooked (17070305) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 20

Back To Top

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Facilitate routine ITMD coordination conference calls (DELV-1)
Coordination meetings and calls are an effective way to share knowledge and lessons learned and enable tribes to implement current best data management practices in data management. Participation includes CRITFC staff and data stewards from each of the four member tribes. Guests are often invited to share new and innovative data management solutions.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
99. Outreach and Education
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
Facilitate and attend webinars and the ITMD annual workshop to learn the latest in technology and best management practices (DELV-2)
Continuing education and coordination for data stewards is imperative in an everchanging IT landscape. Current BPA funding rules for travel for meeting and conferences have recently restricted access to continuing education opportunities making webinars and tribal workshops extremely important. Webinars provide access to proven and new methods for data management and dissemination. However, ITMD staff are not experts in all areas of IT and data management systems, other avenues to training and continuing education should be opened up by the funding agencies and programs.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
99. Outreach and Education
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
Participate in Streamnet and PNAMP steering committees (DELV-3)
Participation in StreamNet and the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) allows CRITFC staff to provide visibility to other committee members of activities at CRITFC and the tribes. It also permits CRITFC to understand what other organizations in the region are doing with data management and share this information with the tribes, since travel is restricted, and tribal staff time is underfunded.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
99. Outreach and Education
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
Attend appropriate regional workshops to understand regional data priorities and requirements (DELV-4)
It is important for staff to engage in regional data standards discussions to ensure that the interests of CRITFC and the tribes is heard. These workshops include PNAMP, Coordinated Assessments, or NPCC hosted workshops. Data stewards can acquire valuable information from lessons learned by others' presentations. Current BPA funding rules for travel restricts access to these outreach and coordination opportunities.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
99. Outreach and Education
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
Facilitate delivery of data to regional data repositories (DELV-5)
The purpose for developing central data management systems and supporting data stewards is to enable delivery of data to regional data repositories. These repositories include the CAX, WQX, StreamNet, DART, PITTAGIS, state data bases, etc.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
Deploy server and infrastructure replacements as necessary, renew licenses, and provide installation and maintenance support at CRITFC and the tribes (DELV-6)
The ITMD project helps support purchase and installation of core infrastructure requirements. The key to competent data management is functional technology. The project has also assumed the role of help desk for questions or problems relating to the CDMS tool.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
Development cental data management system schemas for new and legacy data sets (DELV-7)
Create data schemas, cleanse and upload legacy data and metadata, and develop appropriate backup protocols to ensure long term survival of data.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
Provide project specific assistance for data management and related technologies (DELV-8)
Competent data management begins with data collection. Develop properly designed data acquisition technology to facilitate efficient and effective data management and reporting for resource management.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
Provide analytical and data visualization assistance to researchers and policy managers (DELV-9)
Assist with the development of data summarization reports and/or tools such as GIS maps and Web applications. This is a new and expanding role for the data stewards.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data

Back To Top

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Ensure the availability of accurate and timely fish and habitat data for CRITFC and its member tribes through coordination activities (OBJ-1)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Facilitate routine ITMD coordination conference calls (DELV-1) Coordination meetings are an effective way to share knowledge and lessons learned and enable tribes to implement the current best practices.
Facilitate and attend webinars and the ITMD annual workshop to learn the latest in technology and best management practices (DELV-2) Continuing education and coordination of resource managing entities is imperative in an everchanging IT landscape. Current BPA funding rules for travel for meeting and conferences restrict access to continuing education opportunities.
Objective: Provide the ability for the tribes and CRITFC to share data with other agencies to meet regional reporting and research requirements (OBJ-2)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Participate in Streamnet and PNAMP steering committees (DELV-3) Participation in StreamNet and PNAMP allows CRITFC staff to provide visibility to other committee members of activities at CRITFC and the tribes. It also permits CRITFC to understand what other organizations in the region are doing with data management.
Attend appropriate regional workshops to understand regional data priorities and requirements (DELV-4) It is important to engage with staff in regional data standards discussions to ensure that the interests of CRITFC and the tribes is heard. Also acquire valuable information from lessons learned from others presentations.
Facilitate delivery of data to regional data repositories (DELV-5) A purpose for developing central data management systems and supporting data stewards is to enable delivery of data to regional data repositories.
Objective: Manage and preserve tribal data in keeping with the best practices of modern data management (OBJ-3)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Deploy server and infrastructure replacements as necessary, renew licenses, and provide installation and maintenance support at CRITFC and the tribes (DELV-6) The ITMD project helps support purchase and installation of core infrastructure requirements. The key to competent data management is functional technology.
Development cental data management system schemas for new and legacy data sets (DELV-7) Create data schemas, cleanse and upload legacy data and metadata, and develop appropriate backup protocols to ensure long term survival of data.
Objective: Enhance the tribes’ ability to make well informed resource policy management decisions based on the data collected by the tribes and CRITFC (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Provide project specific assistance for data management and related technologies (DELV-8) Competent data management begins with data collection. Data stewards help projects develop properly designed data acquisition technology to facilitate efficient and effective data management and reporting for resource management.
Provide analytical and data visualization assistance to researchers and policy managers (DELV-9) Develop data summarization reports and/or tools such as GIS maps and Web applications.
*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

Back To Top

RM&E Protocols and Methods

There are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal.

Back To Top

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
Facilitate routine ITMD coordination conference calls (DELV-1) 2020 2023 $28,800
Facilitate and attend webinars and the ITMD annual workshop to learn the latest in technology and best management practices (DELV-2) 2020 2023 $62,800
Participate in Streamnet and PNAMP steering committees (DELV-3) 2020 2023 $14,400
Attend appropriate regional workshops to understand regional data priorities and requirements (DELV-4) 2020 2023 $22,400
Facilitate delivery of data to regional data repositories (DELV-5) 2020 2023 $80,000
Deploy server and infrastructure replacements as necessary, renew licenses, and provide installation and maintenance support at CRITFC and the tribes (DELV-6) 2020 2023 $372,000
Development cental data management system schemas for new and legacy data sets (DELV-7) 2020 2023 $462,400
Provide project specific assistance for data management and related technologies (DELV-8) 2020 2023 $586,404
Provide analytical and data visualization assistance to researchers and policy managers (DELV-9) 2020 2023 $336,000
Total $1,965,204
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2019
2020 $491,301 $491,301 The actual request amount was no where near this number and I have no idea how this was calced but i cannot edit the fiedl to fix the number it is read only
2021 $491,301 $491,301 The actual request of $431,941 reflects the Accord Extension agreement between BPA and CRITFC.
2022 $491,301 $491,301 The actual request of $435,598 reflects the addition of a small COLA, similar to the previous year.
2023 $491,301 $491,301 The actual request has been calculated to satisfy the total estimated need
Total $1,965,204 $1,965,204
There are no Line Item Budget entries for this proposal.
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
INSUFFICIENT SPACE TO PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION - we have a document with more information if needed. •HP DL360 G8 servers (2) - replaced aging HP DL360 G6 and HP DL380 G7 servers •HP D2700 disk Enclosure/MSA2040 G3 Array – still functioning •HP P2000 SAN – replaced DROBO SAN (2) •Fiber Optic Router - still functioning •Synology NAS DC1817 (2) - replaced aging Synology NAS DC1513 (3) •Dell Laptops (approximately 4) – replaced about every 3-4 years for staff on the project. •VMWare Software - still functioning, requires annual subscription and/or license fees •VEEAM Backup Software - still functioning, requires annual subscription and/or license fees •Visual Studio Software w/MSDN Subscription - still functioning, requires annual subscription and/or license fees •AutoMate Software – still functioning, no longer pay annual fees •MS SQL Server 2016 Standard License (2) - replaced MS SQL Server 2008 R2 Standard License software (2) versions •Watchguard Firewall Software - still functioning •Windows Server OS 2016 Standard License (2) - replaced Windows Server 2008 Standard License (multiple) versions •Field Data Integrators Anoto Digital Pen System (w 30 digital pens) and annual license fees (for 20 pens in use) – replaced out-of-business Adapx pen w/Sharepoint/SQL Cloud Interface Purchased for the Tribes (with EPA EN Grant Funding): Warm Springs *HPE; Proliant DL380 Gen9: Server (2) *HPE; Mixed use - 2 Solid State Drive 480 GB; Server Storage (10) *HPE; DDR4 - 16 GB - DIMM 288 pin; Server memory (15) *Microsoft: GSA WinSVRSTDCore2016 Single; Software (2) *Microsoft: GSA SQLSVRSTD 2017 Single MVL; Software (1) *Intel; Xeon E5-2620V4/2.1 GHZ: Server CPU (2) *HPE; Read Intensive - Solid State Drive - 240 GB; Server Storage (6) *Microsoft: GSA Win SVR Cal 2016 Single; Computer Software (10) *Microsoft: GSA SQLSVR Cal 2017 Single MVL UCal; Computer Software (10) Yakama *Poweredge R230 Server Computer (1) Facilities information is availab

Back To Top

Cost Share

None

Back To Top

Project References or Citations

Burcham, K. and C. Coiner. 2017. CRITFC - CDMS Needs Assessment Final Report, September 2017. CTUIR. 6p. (available upon request) Burcham, K. and C. Coiner. 2017. Nez Perce Tribes - CDMS Needs Assessment Final Report, September 2017. CTUIR. 7p. (available upon request) Burcham, K. and C. Coiner. 2017. Confederated Tribes of The Warm Springs - CDMS Needs Assessment Final Report, September 2017. CTUIR. 10p. (available upon request) Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy: Salmon and Steelhead Population Abundance and Productivity Indicators, November 10, 2011. Available at https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/org-pnamp-assets/prod/ca_basinwide_data_sharing_strategy_final_draft_nov_10.pdf (Includes individual tribal data sharing strategies) CTUIR. 2014. Public CDMS - Centralized Data Management System for managing Tribal Natural Resources data [Software and Documentation]. Available at https://github.com/CRITFC. Nowinski, J. SQL Advanced Demo. 2018. Workshop class at the 2018 ITMD Annual Workshop held at CRITFC offices in Portland, OR, April 10-111. Available at https://www.critfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SQLAdvancedDemo.pdf. Roe, C. Cloud Computing Tutorial. 2018. Workshop class at the 2018 ITMD Annual Workshop held at CRITFC offices in Portland, OR, April 10-111. Available at https://www.critfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CloudComputingTutorial.pdf. Salmon Coordinated Assessments Data Exchange (SCADE-CAX) Tribal Partner Needs Assessment: Delivering Data to the CAX, November 26, 2014. Link: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/org-pnamp-assets/prod/e8e232b0-dc76-11e8-bcc9-6b8327b37da0-tribalneedsassessment112614_0.docx.

Back To Top

Notes

The way the budget is handled in Deleverables/Budget does not permit the right budget numbers to be entered. The algorithm used is not really appropriate.

Back To Top

2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support Assessments

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2008-507-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

Qualifications:

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe their responses to the ISRP's comments and suggestions below in their upcoming annual report covering FY 2019 accomplishments.

1.      Objectives need to be quantitative with specific timelines for attaining clearly stated milestones and criteria for success.

2.      Provide an Adaptive Management (AM) process description for ISRP review.

3.      Provide the ISRP documentation on the project mission and out-year work plan, i.e., the plan developed to guide future activities. The documentation needs to include the strategic approach or activity list, as well as the timeline to support multi-year implementation.

4.      The proponents adequately addressed some qualifications from the previous ISRP review(2012-6), but some were not addressed. The ISRP would like to discuss Qualifications No. 1 and No. 3 (and possibly Qualifications 2 and 4) from the previous (2012-6) review in a face-to-face meeting. No. 1 relates to objectives being restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks and No. 3 relates to defining the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have been met specified milestones. The ISRP believes that these can be accomplished as long as there is a common understanding of what is expected.

Comment:

This project is challenging in that it provides support for upgrading and enhancing data management for a group of tribes with varying degrees of support and enthusiasm for the effort. It appears that there has been major progress and that it has resulted in tribal members' active participation and data sharing with broader regional efforts. The broader efforts include implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, recovery planning under the ESA, tribal co-management needs regarding U.S. v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Although designed as an interim project, funding reductions are likely to extend the time needed for full implementation. The ISRP notes that that data management is a full-time effort and requires an appropriate level of financial support.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The proposal includes a strong and clearly stated goal that centers around effective data management, and the text has a comprehensive and explicit explanation of what effective data management means. The proponents appear to have the technical expertise and appropriate leadership to execute the activities to achieve the goal. However, some objectives are not written in a way that progress toward them can be evaluated. Simple changes from words like "ensure" or "enhance" toward more measurable goals could help. With that said, some of the text beneath the objectives did provide measurable objectives, so it may just be a proposal structure issue. For instance, "Facilitate routine (e.g.; 6 times per year) ITMD coordination phone calls between tribal data stewards and attend occasional (e.g.; once per year) site visits to share information and transfer technology." Nevertheless, as stated, the objectives (p. 5) are very general and lack timelines for completion. They are really work statements rather than quantifiable objectives.

The text on significance to regional programs clearly defines that the project is a resource to help the Tribes manage and share data. The proposal does indicate that the project is responsive to some other efforts in the basin (e.g., BiOp), but (appropriately) does not attempt to extend project significance more broadly to all efforts across the basin.

Overall, the ISRP believes that the project is highly relevant to member tribes as well as to other regional data management programs. The proponents have the technical skills to be successful. Nevertheless, the ISRP is concerned whether the project is threatened by personnel issues (p. 16) without having adequate funding to acquire and retain skilled staff, to train and educate staff (continuing education and conferences), and to overcome the difficulties in recruiting skilled professionals to remote tribal locations.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The project has provided important support and encouragement for improving member Tribes' data management and information sharing capabilities. It has resulted in a wide range of deliverables ranging from increased infrastructure development, improved coordination and communication, and enhanced data transfer support. A major accomplishment occurred in 2018. With the help of an EPA grant, the tribes were able to install centralized data management systems and load a limited number of data sets.

The project has enabled data sharing for important regional projects including recovery plans and U.S. v. Oregon. Although the project is intended as an interim effort, it is limited by the need for improved data management staffing. Two tribes now have full time data stewards who are rapidly acquiring data management skills. The remaining tribes have identified individuals for the role of a part time data steward despite the proponent's observation that a part-time steward is not sufficient to fully support tribal fisheries programs.

The ISRP notes that a project mission and out-year work plan has been developed to guide future activities. However, there is no mention of any documentation of a strategic approach or activity list and timeline to support multi-year implementation. The ISRP mentions this because the proponents do not feel that this project needs an adaptive management (AM) process. The proposal states, "The ITMD project is not the type of project that requires an adaptive management plan of its own per the specific definition." It does acknowledge that the "project does adapt to ever changing policy guidance on data management from the tribes, CRITFC, and Columbia Basin fish and wildlife resource management programs." Despite lacking an AM process, there is an excellent discussion of lessons learned and recommendations for change contained in the 2018 Annual Report. Nevertheless, the ISRP feels that the project could improve efficiency by having a clearly articulated AM process for both internal and external issues.

The ISRP was pleased to see that "At the close of 2018, all the tribes and CRITFC possess the required infrastructure to be able to share data regionally. Experiments in uploading and downloading data have taken place to several regional repositories. The expectation is that by the close of 2019 some tribal and CRITFC data will be available across the region." This is a very positive development.

As well, the ISRP supports the continued efforts made toward training personnel and seeing that each tribe has the technology and skills to successfully participate in the data management project. The proponents understand that a serious threat toproject success (p. 17) is not having adequately trained personnel and have established a process for maintaining that expertise over time.

While the proponents provided honest responses to previous (2012-6) ISRP qualifications, it would be good to discuss Qualifications No. 1 and No. 3 (and perhaps Nos. 2 and 4) in a face-to-face meeting. No. 1 relates to objectives being restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks and No. 3 relates to defining the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have met specified milestones. The ISRP believes that these can be accomplished if there is a common understanding of what is expected.

The ISRP agrees only in part with the statement (p. 13) that "Good decisions are based on quality of data, quantity of data (over space and time), and on real-time data flowing quickly through data management systems (for those decisions that require a quick turn-around time)." We also believe that good decisions are based on appropriate analyses of good information and having the experience to interpret the results accurately (wisdom). The overall impression is that abundant data are being collected by each Tribe and processed through the project, but less emphasis is given to analyses and interpretations. In the future, the proponents should add analysis and interpretation to the training of skill sets.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

The project is guided by the overall data management strategies developed for each of the Tribes and CRITFC. The ISRP notes that "Since the last ISRP review, the project has been gradually transitioning from supporting individual project data systems to more common data systems to support tribe-wide and regional data sharing and reporting. This is linked to the demand for broader data sharing on a regional scale. Work types include infrastructure development, skills and technical capacity development for tribal staff, information sharing and review and application of new technical developments, most recently to support field data entry."

While the nine deliverables are quite detailed, they are generally qualitative in describing activities but not outcomes, as recommended by the 2012 ISRP review

The ISRP is concerned that several data stewards are only part-time positions. A discussion with the proponents and the Council/BPA is warranted to see if the positions can become full-time. Part-time positions, ones that have responsibilities elsewhere, do not bode well for long-term success. That said, could these positions also include responsibilities for advanced data analyses and interpretation?

The ISRP is still not completely clear on how the proposed data management activities are related to data management activities of other programs in the Basin, for example, the AEM activities proposed by the Yakama Tribe, PNAMP, StreamNet, and others. The ISRP would appreciate understanding how much database sharing and overlap occurs.

Objective 1 and Deliverable 2 (p. 24) are seriously hampered by current BPA funding rules for travel for meetings and conferences, which restrict access to continuing education opportunities. Additional support and funding for continuing education, information sharing, and outreach appears justified for this project.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response: