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 RESCAT-2008-507-00 - Tribal Data Network Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal RESCAT-2008-507-00 - Tribal Data Network

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
11/15/2011 10:03 AM Status Draft <System>
Download 11/30/2011 9:58 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
2/16/2012 3:35 PM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
4/17/2012 2:58 PM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
3/5/2014 2:14 PM Status Pending Council Recommendation Pending BPA Response <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:
   RESCAT-2008-507-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 1
Review:
 Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Portfolio:
 Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Categorical Review
Type:
 Existing Project: 2008-507-00
Primary Contact:
 Henry Franzoni (Inactive)
Created:
 11/15/2011 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Project Title:
 Tribal Data Network
 
Proposal Short Description:
 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 BiOps while also building capacity within tribes to support informed policy management decisions. The Tribal Data Network will facilitate decision support for implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, recovery planning under the ESA, and tribal co-management needs.
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 The main problem addressed by the Tribal Data Network (TDN) is that tribal programs have had no systematic data management or database support or infrastructure. Consequently, they are either stuck in the present, unsuccessful system of individual person/project data management or must implement new, more integrated, approaches from scratch and in a short period of time.
The primary goal of the TDN is to assist CRITFC and its member tribes in the production and dissemination of timely, accurate, cost effective, long term, high quality monitoring data sets. We will accomplish this goal by developing effective and efficient data management systems to support adaptive management decision making on anadromous fish populations from the Columbia River and their habitats. Pursuant to this goal, the TDN will focus on five key objectives:
1) Enable tribal participation in regional data management coordination and standardization processes, provide tribal input and coordination on regional coordination of data management and sharing best practices;
2) Assist member tribes to build internal capacity for improved data management, completing, standardizing and sharing data for the tribal gravel-to-gravel management strategy. Combine local data from tribal sources with regional and international data on mainstem, estuary and ocean impacts on salmon and salmon management decisions;
3) Providing data management services to the tribes. These take a variety of forms, but includes
a. Partial support for tribal data coordinators (in this expanded proposal),
b. Developing shared data capture, management, and reporting tools,
c. Expert advice and coordination of efforts, especially through the annual workshops;
d. Limited support for tribal infrastructure through one-time purchases of hardware and software.
4) Facilitate inter-tribal coordination to produce and disseminate high value standardized data sets;
5) Manage and share CRITFC-generated data; much of these data are used directly in various processes, primarily harvest management;
There are two 2 levels of data management addressed by the project:
1) data management that CRITFC has control of;
2) data management that CRITFC can assist tribes with;

TDN data management pilot projects are currently underway on both levels of data management. These pilots have been successful thus far, and are expected to expand, be refined, and eventually become production projects:
1) The Snake River Harvest Estimate pilot project is expanding to include Fall Chinook and Steelhead next season. The TDN plans to share this technology with other tribes, and to integrate with estuary and ocean harvest data.
2) The Grand Ronde pilot project and the Portable Anadromous Database Structure (PADS) developed for it. The PADS data structure is distributed and designed to support the management of local raw and derived metric level data at the local level, from which DETs can be populated. The PADS approach provides data transparency and metadata for the data behind population level indicators, and is complimentary to, and will facilitate, the task of populating DETs. (A priority gap identified in the Coordinated Assessment). Deliverables that can be cost effectively produced by the PADS approach include:
a. DET population level indicators
b. data sets formatted for lifecycle modeling
c. recruit to spawner ratios (BiOp – VSP)
d. egg to smolt survival improvements (Accords)
e. average number of smolts per spawner (Accords)
f. inputs for stage-based Beverton-Holt models being used or developed by a number of groups (e.g. Shiraz).
g. inputs for the Yakama Nation STAR report (Accords)
h. inputs for the AHSWG standard performance measurements
i. inputs for the NWPCC MERR HLI “Percent of hatcheries meeting PNI, NOS, and HOS recommendations under HSRG and HGMP”
j. inputs for the NWPCC MERR HLI “harvest rates for ESA listed fish” and “annual commercial, tribal, and recreational mainstem harvest number of hatchery and wild salmon, steelhead and sturgeon in the Columbia River”
3) The Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility data management pilot produces data sets used directly in various harvest management processes
4) The lamprey population estimate tool developed for the CTWSRO, and the lamprey/habitat data management tools developed for the Yakama projects
5) CRITFC data management infrastructure improvement

The TDN is coordinated with the Fish Passage Center (FPC). The Basin Wide Coordinated Assessment (Appendix A) found that 29% of the 164 populations surveyed had SAR data, and only 1% of those SARS had confidence intervals which make them useful for management decisions. Some tribes produce SAR data, however the FPC will produce SARs with confidence intervals for any set of PIT tags and any set of assumptions they are asked to do. It is standard procedure for the ISAB to review anything published by the FPC.
An initial focus of the TDN is to curate and coordinate the production of the “average number of smolts per spawner” metric among Accords tribes, leading to the production of the “egg to smolt survival” benefits written into the Accords. These metrics are focused on measuring fish response to habitat change in the tributaries. Together, the “average number of smolts per spawner” and SARs bracket the complete lifecycle of anadromous salmonids, thus laying the foundation for gravel to gravel lifecycle monitoring vision of the CRITFC. The effectiveness of the TDN project will be monitored via annual and quarterly progress reports submitted to Pisces, and an annual Tribal Data Workshop.
The current funding supports these ongoing activities and the current functionality of the TDN. Current staff of the TDN is only 1.5 FTEs, but cooperation with other projects leverages approximately 4-5 FTEs of other CRITFC staff.
The additional costs to bring CRITFC and its member tribes to a minimally functional status to participate in local and regional data management and sharing programs is identified in Table 1. Table 1 is found in the notes section of the proposal form. The Phase 1 costs total $351,000 consisting of new positions that will require ongoing support beyond FY13. Phase 2 costs total an additional $376,600 for new personnel (ongoing) and $153,000 in one-time costs to improve infrastructure and catch up on some data backlogs.
Purpose:
 Programmatic
Emphasis:
 Data Management
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:
  • Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC
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 Tribal Data Network will work closely with the CRITFC project 2009-004-00, Monitoring Recovery Trends in Key Spring Chinook Habitat, with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP), and with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) to identify and focus data management efforts on the key agreed-upon regional monitoring metrics. • The Tribal Data Network (TDN) will coordinate activities with other regional data management efforts, including: o StreamNet (198810804) o The PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS-199008000) o The Fish Passage Center (FPC- 200738800) o The Regional Mark Processing Center (RMPC) o The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) o Watershed Assessment Efforts o The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP-200400200) o Data Access in Real Time (DART-199601900) • The TDN will strive to obtain, coordinate and make available data from the large number of relevant projects funded by the accords. Data obtained from system-wide assessment projects will include: o Project 200306200 Evaluate the relative reproductive success of reconditioned kelt steelhead o Project 200701400 Stock specific run timing and upstream migration mortality of adult Chinook and sockeye salmon and steelhead through PIT tagging and genetic analyses at Bonneville Dam o Project 200709000 Effects of the marine environment on the growth and survival of Columbia basin spring Chinook and sockeye salmon stocks. o Project 200730000 Fish Passage Technical Services Project o Project 200735300 Quantitative and effective analysis of Columbia River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss) population viability. • Data obtained from system-wide and mainstem restoration efforts will include: o Project 200711700 Comprehensive Assessment of Coho Salmon Restoration Efforts in the Mid-Columbia and Mid-Snake River Basins o Project 200715500 Develop a Master Plan for a Rearing Facility to Enhance Selected Populations of White Sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin o Project 199803100 Implement Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit This project is focused on assisting the CRITFC member tribes to curate, coordinate, and produce locally controlled fish and habitat monitoring data for the reservations, ceded lands, and key co-management areas basinwide. The project is therefore basinwide and is coordinated and complementary with the Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP) and the Fish Passage Center 1994-033-00 including the Comparative Survival Study, project 1996-020-00. This project will rely on those two projects to produce SARs upon request, while assisting the tribes to locally manage data for the other half of the salmonid lifecycle which takes place in the tributaries. Also this project currently assists the Status and Trends Annual Report (STAR) project 2009-002-00 with the geospatial display of data, and acquisition and storage of Accords benefit data. This project will rely on the Adult PIT tag installation project 2001-003-00 to supply raw PIT tag data for adult salmonids. This project assists with data management for the Genetic Assessment of Columbia River Stocks project 2008-907-00. This project relies on the coded wire tag (CWT) projects 1982-013-01, 1982-013-02, 1982-013-03, and 1982-013-04 to provide data and data management for coded wire tags and provide summarized CWT data via RMIS/RMPC. Data Access in Real Time (DART) project 1996-019-00 will provide summarized PIT tag data from adult detectors, and may provide some SARs. This project is complementary with PNAMP, and uses the StreamNet library project 2008-505-00 to facilitate the review of current literature and methods. This project plans to acquire habitat data for intensively monitored watersheds from the Columbia Habitat and Monitoring Project (CHaMP-P) project 2011-006-00. This project coordinates with the StreamNet project 1988-108-004, particularly in the area of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) design, and assists the StreamNet Library 2008-505-00 with its coordination with the overall StreamNet project. The Tribal Data Network is also coordinated with the data management efforts of member tribes. Many informal meetings take place through the year, and the Tribal Data Workshop provides an annual forum for the exchange and coordinated development of tribal data management strategies and technologies.
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

The main problem addressed by the Tribal Data Network (TDN) is that tribal programs have had no systematic data management or database support or infrastructure. Consequently, they are either stuck in the present, unsuccessful system of individual person/project data management or must implement new, more integrated, approaches from scratch and in a short period of time.  The TDN seeks to assist member tribes to develop a cyberinfrastructure.

Cyberinfrastructure is a technological and sociological solution to the problem of efficiently connecting multiple entities, data, computers, and people with the goal of enabling region-wide analysis, collaborative products, and shared knowledge.   Management and dissemination of project results and data (including metadata) are as important as collecting data itself, but often receives less attention.   Columbia Basin fish managers are working to establish cyberinfrastructure that supports advanced data acquisition, data storage, data management, data integration, data mining, data visualization and other computing and information processing services distributed over the Internet beyond the scope of a single institution.

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) and its member Tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama) recognize that our fisheries are a basic and important natural resource and of vital concern to Indians and that the conservation of this resource is dependent upon effective and progressive management (Preamble to the Constitution and Bylaws of the CRITFC).  As such, the CRITFC and its member Tribes are actively involved in research, monitoring, and evaluations which generate copious amounts of data for the purpose of informing management decisions.

The need for more effective sharing of fisheries and associated natural resource information among resource managers in the Columbia Basin has been recognized at least since 1988 (CIS 1988, MEG 1990). Progress since then has been slow, but has accelerated recently through various interagency groups (NED 2004-2007; PNAMP 2004-present; NWEIS 2007-present including the Northwest Environmental Information Sharing Executive Summit of May 8th 2008). Throughout the activities and reports from these groups, the value of, and lack of access to, tribal fisheries and habitat data has been recognized as a critical information gap for informing regional resource management decisions. Additional monitoring and reporting requirements under the Endangered Species Act and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords make access to tribal natural resource data increasingly important.

There are many basin-wide data consumers who have identified the need for data, much of which is generated by the Tribes; Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP), Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp), Accord Agreements, local fish and wildlife manager harvest and management action implementation decisions, and ESA recovery planning to name a few.  Each of these benefits from data that is accessable, standardized,  accurate, persistant, and shared.  Consolidation of data from across the entire Columbia River basin is needed to populate High level Indicators (HLIs) for salmon and steelhead as established under the NPCC FWP Draft Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Reporting (MERR) Plan (NPCC 2011). The FCRPS BiOp requires efforts towards data management and sharing (RPA 51), data coordination and standardization (RPA 71), and archiving data in appropriate data management systems (RPA 72).  Fish accord agreements require data deliverables which are aligned with the 2013 and 2018 FCRPS BiOp check-ins. 

Regional data consumers and providers recently worked together in a Coordinated Assessments Workgroup.  This process resulted in a Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy (CBFWA/StreamNet/PNAMP 2011) which identified and recommend priority actions and investments to support data management business practices and infrastructures that allow for timely, reliable, and transparent data sharing of basin-wide population level indicators for salmon and steelhead.  Specifically, recommendations for improved infrastructure, development of a network of data stewards, continued coordination, and development of tools were identified to improve efficiency and fill gaps.  While a diverse suite of data management projects are ongoing and contribute to this, two ongoing projects were identified to be modified and/or expanded to fill high priority gaps; this proposal (Tribal Data Network - 200850700) and StreamNet (198810804).  These two projects will work synergistically to integrate data management and sharing across the basin consistent with the Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy. 


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
Enable Tribal Regional Participation (OBJ-1)
Enable tribal participation in regional data management coordination and standardization processes, provide tribal input and coordination on regional coordination of data management and sharing best practices. The tribes will also cover some, but not all, of these issues;
Assist member tribes to build internal capacity (OBJ-2)
Assist member tribes to build internal capacity for improved data management, completing, standardizing and sharing data for the tribal gravel-to-gravel management strategy. Combine local data from tribal sources with regional and international data on mainstem, estuary and ocean impacts on salmon and salmon management decisions;
Provide data management services to tribes (OBJ-3)
Provide data management services to the tribes. These take a variety of forms, but includes
a. Partial support for tribal data coordinators (in this expanded proposal),
b. Developing shared data capture, management, and reporting tools,
c. Expert advice and coordination of efforts, especially through the annual workshops;
d. Limited support for tribal infrastructure through one-time purchases of hardware and software.
Facilitate inter-tribal coordination to produce high quality data sets (OBJ-4)
Facilitate inter-tribal coordination to produce and disseminate high value standardized data sets;
Manage CRITFC generated data (OBJ-5)
Manage and share CRITFC-generated data; much of these data are used directly in various local, regional and international management processes, primarily harvest management;

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $425,366 $470,556
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $425,366 $470,556
FY2020 $428,315 $467,789 $422,462
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $467,789 $422,462
FY2021 $437,340 $494,769 $447,656
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $494,769 $447,656
FY2022 $442,044 $506,370 $497,289
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $506,370 $497,289
FY2023 $509,146 $567,679 $390,912
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $567,679 $390,912
FY2024 $521,875 $521,875 $516,628
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $521,875 $516,628
FY2025 $470,039 $470,039 $188,915
Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC $470,039 $188,915

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

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 recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
Project inception date was September 15th, 2009. FY 2009 expenditures that appear here appear to the total for the last two weeks of September 2009. FY 2009 for this project extends from September 15th, 2009, to Sept 14th, 2010. $10,000 for the FY 2009 total expense does not reflect actual FY 2009 project expenditures. Due to the continuation of the FY/calendar year offset for this project, FY 2010 expenditures of $263,859 should be compared to the FY 2009 $260,299 contracted amount appearing in Pisces. $48,628 was brought forward from FY 2012 and added to the FY 2011 $347,843, resulting in $396,471 of expenditures for FY 2010, which compares with the $396,009 contracted amount for FY 2010. FY 2011 expenditures began on September 15th, 2011, and are not complete.
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
In FY 2009, the initial phase of the project required the development of infrastructure, to allow management and manipulation of extremely large quantitative data sets (above 300GB each) by project staff and CRITFC analysts. A Hewlett Packard DL380 G6 virtual server host was purchased to host virtual servers for data management, and new network wiring was installed in order to build a 1GB/sec network within the larger CRITFC infrastructure,. The first phase of the project also required the acquisition of software development tools to enable staff to produce software applications supported by OS environments in use by tribal staff. Also in FY 2009, Digital pens were acquired and software written for a harvest data pilot project in the Snake River basin. In FY 2010 infrastructure development continued, a second virtual server host was purchased, and infrastructure was upgraded to facilitate the management of large sets of monitoring data, including the acquisition, dissemination, critical path redundancy, backup and recovery of that data. Space was leased on a Sharepoint Server in the cloud in order to facilitate the QA/QC, transportation, transformation, and consolidation of data from the digital pens into SQL servers hosted by CRITFC. More digital pens were purchased, and a pilot program for data management at the Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility was begun. A database project for the Grand Ronde basin was initiated with co-managers. Pilot programs begun in FY 2009 expanded throughout FY 2010. A platform for multiple virtual servers was developed to maximize cost effectiveness and flexibility for managing, disseminating storing and acquiring monitoring data.

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
43692 D: 160 Pilot Test Implementation 6/30/2010 6/30/2010
49055 D: 160 Update Pilot Test Implementations 9/14/2011 9/14/2011
49055 F: 160 Update and Maintain Accords Database (ongoing) 9/14/2011 9/14/2011
49055 H: 160 Exploratory legacy data acquisition, storage, and database maintenance. 9/14/2011 9/14/2011
49055 J: 160 Updated sections of CRITFC web site 9/14/2011 9/14/2011
49055 E: 122 Revised Tribal Data Network Design 9/14/2011 9/14/2011
49055 C: 175 Updated Tribal Data Network Design 9/14/2011 9/14/2011

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
Except for the first year (FY10), milestones and deliverables have been produced in a timely manner. In FY 2010, Project Lead had severe health issues, and as a result four deliverables were not delivered on time in FY2010. These were: B: 114. Tribal needs assessment and identification and selection of existing data projects C: 175. Draft Tribal Data Network design E: 122. Revise Tribal Data Network design based on results of Pilot Test H: 119. Administer Contract By the end of the contract period (11/14/2010) the fourth deliverable was on time. The first three deliverables were carried over into the second year’s contract (FY2011), and completed on time during contract period. Deliverable performance has been on time for all deliverables since FY2010.

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

A pilot data management system was built for the Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility, which improved the accuracy and timeliness of monitoring data.  Biologic data PIT tag data, and video data are collected using a new digital pen technology.  Genetic data samples are sent to Hagarman Genetics Lab and coordinated with PIT tag data online at PTAGIS and biologic data hosted at CRITFC.  Scanned copies of all raw data paper forms are stored online, and are made available to project staff for QA/QC via any web browser.   Data is managed end to end from raw data to a summarized format disseminated via the web in many formats including .CSV, XML, MHTML, PDF, Excel, TIFF, and MS Word. http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/BonnevilleAgeReports.aspx

A pilot data management system was built for the Nez Perce Harvest Management Dept. which improved the accuracy and timeliness of spring/summer Chinook harvest estimates across the Snake  River basin.  Using paper forms and digital pens, raw data was collected for creel, in season and post season surveys, and transmitted electronically to an SQL server hosted in the cloud, where scans of the forms were made available to project staff for QA/QC via any web browser.  Coalesced data was then transmitted to SQL servers hosted at CRITFC, and made available to tribal analysts for expansion into harvest estimates.  Summarized data was made available for co-managers on a web site http://data.critfc.org/NPHarvest/Estimates/DirectReport.aspx (contact project lead for login and password), and available for download in many formats including .CSV, XML, MHTML, PDF, Excel, TIFF, and MS Word.  Raw and derived data is made available to Nez Perce Tribal Harvest Managers via a web based application hosted at CRITFC https://data.critfc.org/Test/Estimates/Direct.aspx.  (contact project lead for login and password)  Legacy harvest data was acquired and managed and placed in the same databases developed for the pilot project.   Expansion of this pilot to Fall Chinook and Steelhead has been completed and will be piloted during the 2012 fishing season.

A pilot data management system was built for the Grand Ronde basin. Habitat data collected by the CRITFC habitat group and historic and current biologic data collected by tribal and state co-managers is acquired in multiple ways including a web based data input module found at: https://data.critfc.org/Test/GrandeRonde/Default.aspx  (contact project lead for login and password)  The database developed for this pilot project provided a large part of the basis for the Portable Anadromous Database Structure (PADS) which can be extended to other areas and types of data.

The following monitoring data were also developed. 

  • Analyzed data is available on CRITFC’s technical reports content management system found at: http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/Tech_rep.aspx, which is also part of the “update sections of CRITFC website” deliverable.
  • A pilot data management system was developed for the Yakama tribe to acquire and store lamprey and lamprey habitat data in the Klickitat basin. 
  • A lamprey population estimation tool was developed for the CTWSRO. 
  • Two pilot web based mapping applications were developed, one which displays limiting factors across the region: http://maps.critfc.org/cgi-bin/mapserv?program=mapserv&map=..%2F..%2Fmapdata%2Ffourth.map&zoomsize=2&map_subbasins_tolerance=100&mapshape=&imgshape=&imgbox=&qstring=&qlayer=&qitem=&shapeindex=&savequery= and one which displays
  • PCSRF funded projects: http://maps.critfc.org/cgi-bin/mapserv?program=mapserv&map=..%2F..%2Fmapdata%2Fpcsrfproj.map&zoomsize=2&mapshape=&imgshape=&imgbox=&qstring=&qlayer=&qitem=&shapeindex=&savequery=
  • An SQL server was built to house the upsized Accords database, and  hosting, dissemination, backup, and recovery systems were built to ensure the availability and reliability of Accords monitoring and benefit data.  This is part of a larger infrastructure project built for the TDN which contains a pair of VMWare 4.1ESX virtual hosts running approximately a half dozen virtual hosts on a Storage Area Network (SAN) to which it is connected by an 8GB/sec fiber channel fiber optic network.  A 1GB/sec ISCSI network connects the SAN to a pair of Network Accessible Storage (NAS) devices which are used for backup and recovery, achieving a 50MB/sec average backup speed which enables two Terrabytes of data to be backed up within the overnight backup window.  A 1GB/sec network connects the faster internal subnet to client machines, facilitating enough speed and capacity to work with 300GB data files without overwhelming system resources. A 10MB/sec external wireless internet connection allows data to be acquired and disseminated via the web, and is adequate for the current size of managed data sets.
  • A near real time data acquisition and dissemination pilot was developed for Adult Ladder Dam Counts at Mainstem Dams.  http://test.critfc.org:8080/damcounts/ These data are acquired every two hours from Fish Passage Center, and are currently useful to tribal harvest managers and the fish sampling effort at the Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility.  Further improvements are planned.
  • The source code for the smolt monitoring program (SMP) data entry software was acquired and turned over to the Nez Perce Tribe for modification to improve their PIT tag data management section.
  • Two Annual Tribal Data Workshops have been held to coordinate the management of tribal monitoring data.  These meetings have resulted in technology exchanges, and improved monitoring coordination and efficiencies of scale. 
  • Meetings with regional entities including PNAMP, The CBFWA/NOAA/PNAMP Coordinated Assessment, StreamNet, Ecotrust, STAR, AHSWG, BPA and NOAA have enabled project staff to stay abreast of developing regional standards and methods.

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
None

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
In season harvest management of spring/summer Chinook in the Snake River basin has been changed due to information gained from the pilot harvest data management project. Weekly estimates of tribal harvest can be shared with co-managers IDFG and NOAA for the Snake River basin, allowing co-managers to open and close the fishing season based on more accurate and timely harvest estimates. After year one of the Grand Ronde habitat survey, the pilot data structure built for project data was modified to harmonize this project with the CHAMP effort. The pilot data structure was further modified to facilitate lifecycle analysis and to take advantage of the opportunity presented by co-manager ODFW to assist in the management of legacy data for the basin.

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:

This project is focused on assisting the CRITFC member tribes to curate, coordinate, and produce locally controlled fish and habitat monitoring data for the reservations, ceded lands, and key co-management areas basinwide. The project is therefore basinwide and is coordinated and complementary with the Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP) and the Fish Passage Center 1994-033-00 including the Comparative Survival Study, project 1996-020-00.  This project will rely on those two projects to produce SARs upon request, while assisting the tribes to locally manage data for the other half of the salmonid lifecycle which takes place in the tributaries.  Also this project currently assists the Status and Trends Annual Report (STAR) project 2009-002-00 with the geospatial display of data, and acquisition and storage of Accords benefit data.
This project will rely on the Adult PIT tag installation project 2001-003-00 to supply raw PIT tag data for adult salmonids. This project assists with data management for the Genetic Assessment of Columbia River Stocks project 2008-907-00.  This project relies on the coded wire tag (CWT) projects 1982-013-01, 1982-013-02, 1982-013-03, and 1982-013-04 to provide data and data management for coded wire tags and provide summarized CWT data via RMIS/RMPC.  Data Access in Real Time (DART) project 1996-019-00 will provide summarized PIT tag data from adult detectors, and may provide some SARs.  This project is complementary with PNAMP, and uses the StreamNet library project 2008-505-00 to facilitate the review of current literature and methods. This project plans to acquire habitat data for intensively monitored watersheds from the Columbia Habitat and Monitoring Project (CHaMP-P) project 2011-006-00.  This project coordinates with the StreamNet project 1988-108-004, particularly in the area of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) design, and assists the StreamNet Library 2008-505-00 with its coordination with the overall StreamNet project.  
The Tribal Data Network is also coordinated with the data management efforts of member tribes.  Many informal meetings take place through the year, and the Tribal Data Workshop provides an annual forum for the exchange and coordinated development of tribal data management strategies and technologies.


Back To Top

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Fall ESU (Threatened)
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer (not listed)
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (Threatened)
Lamprey, Pacific (Entosphenus tridentata)
Sockeye (O. nerka) - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Sockeye (O. nerka) - Okanogan River ESU
Sockeye (O. nerka) - Snake River ESU (Endangered)
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Middle Columbia River DPS (Threatened)
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Snake River DPS (Threatened)

Secondary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
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 overall way this project addresses factors such as climate change, non-native species, predation increases, and toxics, is that the data sets produced by the project are data-request driven.  In this way, the project will respond to dynamic management needs quickly and efficiently.  Additionally, this project works closely with the CRITFC climate change project 2009-008-00 modeling efforts, as well as Oregon Health Sciences University’s (OHSU) estuary modeling effort.  Currently, this project hosts a climate change hydrosystem flow model produced by project 2009-008-00, and a entrapment model for Fall Chinook in the Hanford Reach originally built for US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Another model is being produced in collaboration with USGS/BOR for the upper Columbia basin, and the outputs of this model will be fed into the estuary model built and operated by OHSU. Key personnel conducted a toxics survey amongst CRITFC member tribal areas in the recent past, but the results are not public.

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 overarching data management paradigm used by the TDN is data requests. Data requests from management refine and drive the production of deliverables. Adaptive management data needs are dynamic. The TDN responds to data requests. Member tribes are given preference for the allocation of scarce TDN resources. Developed pilot harvest estimate system, which uses digital pen technology to transport data to the cloud and consolidate it on virtual SQL servers located at CRITFC. Data is disseminated via the web at http://data.critfc.org/NPHarvest/Estimates/DirectReport.aspx and at https://data.critfc.org/Test/Estimates/Direct.aspx. (contact project lead for login and password) Developed pilot data management system to Bonneville Dam Adult Fish Facility using digital pen, PIT tag reader, and video camera. Genetic samples are labeled with unique key and processed by Hagarman Labs. Preliminary data is shared via the web at: http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/BonnevilleAgeReports.aspx. Developed Tribal Data Needs Assessment, and developed preliminary Functional Design Document for Tribal Data Network. Developed preliminary PADS data structure. Developed CRITFC data sharing strategy document in conjunction with member tribes and the Coordinated Assessment effort. The Tribal Data Network design proposes to use the ISO 19107 geospatial protocol for sharing geospatial data amongst member tribes, co-managers, and the region. The Tribal Data Network project may expand to fill priority data gaps and plans to build a network of Data Stewards to populate the local PADS type databases and populate DETs and make raw and metric monitoring data more accessible and manageable.
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.
Many processes facilitating the receiving and sharing of data are currently on line. For Nez Perce Harvest Pilot, Creel forms are filled out with pen, and brought to tribal field offices, where pen is inserted into computer, and data is uploaded to the cloud, where scans of the original documents are recreated for QA/QC purposes via standard web browser. Approved data is transmitted to SQL servers currently hosted by the CRITFC, where it is made available via various web interfaces . For Bonneville Adult Fish Facility Data, paper forms are filled out on site with digital pen, video frames are stamped with PIT tag numbers, and PIT Tag data along with biologic data is transmitted over the Internet. Biologic data is transmitted to an SQL server in the cloud, where it is approved in a QA/QC process from any standard browser, and then transmitted to a REST endpoint hosted at CRITFC, whereas PIT tag data is transmitted directly to CRITFC and combined with biologic data, and then uploaded to PTAGIS and made available weekly via the web http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/BonnevilleAgeReports.aspx web site. PIT tag data is downloaded from PTAGIS via query, and the query itself will be stored in the PADS database format. Coded Wire Tag (CWT) data is downloaded online from the Regional Mark Processing Center. Habitat Data in the Grand Ronde basin is collected on paper forms and then re-entered into web based input forms, where it is stored in SQL servers pending analysis. Co-manager monitoring data from the Grand Ronde basin is input via a web based input form, and stored in an SQL server. Other habitat data will be obtained from CHAMP, and downloaded as it is made available on the web. Initially CHAMP data from the Grand Ronde basin will be obtained; later other CHAMP data will be downloaded and added to it. If the TDN project is expanded to fill priority gaps, it is planned that Tribal Data Stewards will coalesce and populate local PADS databases with raw and metric level data and then assist in the production and population of DETs. Data will also be shared in technical reports made available via the web: http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/Tech_rep.aspx If the TDN project is expanded to fill priority gaps, tt is planned that the Tribal Data Stewards will place whole spreadsheets, documents, and databases containing raw data into SQL Binary Large Object (BLOB) fields found in the PADS format which keeps the raw data associated with the derived metrics they generate. The spreadsheets, documents, and databases containing raw data will be copied into BLOB fields using tools developed by the TDN, and be available to reverse engineer any derived metrics if necessary.
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?
Data is currently 90% from primary sources, tribal creel surveyors, tribal fish samplers, tribal habitat surveyors, PTAGIS, and RMIS. Some derived data is obtained from co-managers and member tribes. If the local PADS database concept is implemented as planned, most data will continue to be obtained from primary sources. Primary and secondary data will be obtained from CHAMP as it becomes available. Secondary data from other Accords projects is expected to come on line as the projects are implemented.
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
The Grand Ronde pilot is collecting whole spreadsheets, scanned documents, word documents, PDFs, PIT tag queries, and RMPC queries and storing them in the PADS format. In this way, SQL is used as a file system, storing documents and spreadsheets alongside the metric level derivations that are produced by them, and thus managing the raw data to be associated with the derived data. This is accomplished by using Binary Large Object (BLOB) fields to store the whole documents and spreadsheets with the metric they provide raw data for. Disk space is inexpensive these days, and this architecture takes advantage of that fact. The PADs format stores the raw data with the metrics, which facilitates the generation of metadata when the metrics are used to populate DETs and produce indicators. The Tribal Data Network relies on the monitoring projects producing the data that is shared to supply metadata to www.monitoringmethods.org. The Tribal Data Network also uses FGDC compliant metadata when it is supplied, which is what PNAMP currently recommends. The TDN is exploring becoming a node on the Federal Metadata Clearinghouse System. The Tribal Data Network also relies on the StreamNet Library to house fisheries literature and metadata. Plans are to make metadata available via the web in conjunction with downloadable data sets.
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
Data is currently accessible via the web. Bonneville Adult Fish Facility Data is obtained at: http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/BonnevilleAgeReports.aspx This data is available to the public. Nez Perce Harvest Data is currently hosted at CRITFC, but will be hosted at the Nez Perce Fisheries site very soon. Summary Nez Perce harvest data is obtained at: http://data.critfc.org/NPHarvest/Estimates/DirectReport.aspx This data is password protected, A login and password must be obtained from the Tribal Data Network Project Lead. This access is planned to be given to co-managers and the public. Raw Nez Perce Harvest Data is found at: https://data.critfc.org/Test/Estimates/Direct.aspx This data is password protected, A login and password must be obtained from the Tribal Data Network Project Lead. This access is intended for Tribal Harvest Staff. Mainstem Adult Dam counts are found at: http://test.critfc.org:8080/damcounts/ This access is for the public. Technical Reports are available on line at: http://test.critfc.org/data_maps/Tech_rep.aspx The Grand Ronde collaborative habitat data entry web funnel is found here: https://data.critfc.org/Test/GrandeRonde/Default.aspx Please contact the TDN project lead for a login and password. 2009 program guidance aligns with the data management shown, specifically: 1) “Dissemination of data via the Internet: Efficient data management combined with easy access to the data is essential for effective reporting.” 2) “Data management: Data sets and accompanying metadata sets associated with monitoring, evaluation, and research actions conducted through the Council’s Program must remain available to the region in an agreed-upon electronic format. Data and reports developed with Bonneville funds should be considered in the public domain. Data and metadata must be compiled, analyzed, and reported annually and within six months of project completion.” 3) “High-Level Indicators (HLIs)” The tribal harvest data being coalesced by the TDN addresses key HLIs regarding harvest. 4) “Open access to results: All research funded under this Program must be readily accessible to all interested parties.” The Portable Anadromous Database Structure (PADS) contributes to the FCRPS BiOp RPA 72, in creating a distributed coordinated and standardized set of repositories for derived metrics that are immediately connectable to the raw data that generated them. This approach is complementary to and supports the population of DETs with indicator level data and metadata. The harvest pilot project also contributes to RPA 72 by encouraging the coordination and standardization of harvest calculations. The tools developed by the TDN also contribute to coordinated and standardized RME information system.

RM&E

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

Back To Top

Large Habitat Programs

The Large Habitat Program section is required because you selected one or more of the following work elements in Edit Types of Work: 114

Instructions: As applies to your project, please describe your methods to solicit, review, prioritize and select habitat projects as outlined here. You should also reference any related documents attached that further explain your methods.

Describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. Explain how the solicitation process incorporates or is consistent with other similar regional or state processes as appropriate. The following outlines the information to include:

Solicitation: Describe in detail the solicitation process and criteria. Include how the announcement is communicated and who is included in the communication, eligibility criteria for submitting proposals, types of projects funded, expressed priorities, and any other applicant requirements.

Review: Include and describe the review/scoring/prioritization criteria used to determine and select technically feasible projects. Discuss how you incorporate current scientific information and limiting factors to support the prioritization of projects. Describe feasibility factors that affect priority such as land ownership, permitting, cost, cost/benefit ratio, risk, etc. Also describe the review process, provide the resumes and qualifications of the review panel and explain how potential conflict of interest issues are avoided in regard to project prioritization.

Selection: Describe who makes funding recommendations and who makes final funding decisions. Describe all steps in this process including how potential conflicts of interest are avoided with regard to project funding.

Large Habitat Programs: View instructions
A survey of existing regional data management projects was conducted, with a goal of identifying existing regional data management projects that would be useful to the tribes. A tribal data needs assessment was conducted concurrently, which led to the identification of an preliminary set of project data deliverables and an a preliminary set of existing regional data projects, determined to be useful to the tribes. A Tribal Data Needs Assessment was produced summarizing these findings. This Assessment will be updated on an as needed basis. Projects were evaluated according to the accuracy and timeliness of the data they produced, as well as the long term nature of the data sets they managed, and whether or not they were the database of record for the data the project managed.

Location

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Columbia River Basin None
F - Middle Tidal Flood Plain Basin Estuary Estuary 1
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 1
Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 113
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
Lower Grande Ronde (17060106) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 17
Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 7
Lower Salmon (17060209) HUC 4 None
Walla Walla (17070102) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 253
Umatilla (17070103) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 275
Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 263
Middle Fork John Day (17070203) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 161
Lower Deschutes (17070306) HUC 4 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 93
Middle Lake Umatilla (1707010109) HUC 5 None
Hood River (1707010507) HUC 5 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 22
USA_WATER_USA-OREGON Ocean None

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
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1)
Contiue to produce current project deliverables and maintain infrastructure and upgrade capacities to meet the needs of continuing monitoring data management, both internally and externally.

Expand, update, and continue to move successful pilot projects to production status.
Continue to assist tribes by developing data management tools.
Continue to assist tribes with regional coordination.

Henry Franzoni
Nicole Tursich
Phil Roger
Denise Kelsey
David Graves
Holly Ballantyne
Types of Work:
Assist CTWSRO and Yakama Tribe to develop data management plan (DELV-2)
A one-time cost, assist these two tribes to develop a data management plan, details found in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy, and in Table 1 found in the notes of this proposal.

Henry Franzoni
Phil Roger
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
175. Produce Design
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
Assist tribes to fill tier 1 priority gaps identifed by coordinated assessment (DELV-3)
These are the additional costs to bring CRITFC and its member tribes to a minimally functional status to participate in local and regional data management and sharing programs is identified in Table 1 found in the notes of this proposal, and Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy.

Henry Franzoni
Nicole Tursich
Phil Roger
Denise Kelsey
David Graves
Network of Data Stewards
Types of Work:
Assist member tribes to fill tier 2 priority gaps (DELV-4)
Assist member tribes to fill priority gaps identified in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy; which are also found in Table 1 in the notes section of this proposal.

Henry Franzoni
Nicole Tursich
Phil Roger
Denise Kelsey
David Graves
Network of Data Stewards
Types of Work:
Assist member tribes to fill priority one-time infrastructure gaps (DELV-5)
Details of these priority gaps are to be found in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy, and Table 1 in the notes section of this proposal.
Types of Work:
Assist Yakama Tribe to fill one-time priority infrastructure gap (DELV-6)
Priority gaps are identified in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy, and in Table 1 found in the notes section of this proposal.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
One-time server and infrastructure replacement (DELV-7)
CRITFC internal infrastructure for data management will need to be replaced when equipment is four years old. Equipment purchased in 2010 and 2011 is expected to need replacement in 2015..
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
Develop new tools and pilot projects to assist in the data management and data flow of monitoring data (DELV-8)
As stated in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy, "Develop and maintain data entry, QA/QC and management applications and tools according to standard protocols, structures and data dictionaries" that are used regionally .
Types of Work:
Provide data for 2013 and 2018 BiOp check in, and 2013 and 12018 Accords reporting (DELV-9)
Working with Tribal managers, develop data sets for 2013 and 2018 check ins and Accords reporting. Opportunistically develop data sets for the tributaries on ceded lands, and integrate them with hydrosystem and ocean data sets. Deliverables enumerated in the Executive Summary of this proposal will be the initial target for deliverables.
Types of Work:

Back To Top

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Enable Tribal Regional Participation (OBJ-1)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1) Current project host an annual Tribal Data Workshop, and aprticipates in regional data coordination forums
Objective: Assist member tribes to build internal capacity (OBJ-2)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1) Current project develops tools for member tribes, and seeks additional funding to assist tribes in building infrastructure.
Assist CTWSRO and Yakama Tribe to develop data management plan (DELV-2) Assisting the Yakama and CTWSRO to develop a data management plan is helping them to build internal capacity.
Assist tribes to fill tier 1 priority gaps identifed by coordinated assessment (DELV-3) The high priority gaps identified in by the Coordinated Assessment include infrastructure development and building a network of tribal data stewards. Tier 1 priority gaps are identified in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy.
Assist member tribes to fill tier 2 priority gaps (DELV-4) Filling the Tier 2 priority gaps identified by the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy directly assists member tribes to build internal capacity.
Assist member tribes to fill priority one-time infrastructure gaps (DELV-5) Assisting member tribes to fill one-time infrastructure gaps directly assists member tribes to build internal capacity.
Assist Yakama Tribe to fill one-time priority infrastructure gap (DELV-6) Assisting the Yakama Tribe to fill one-time priority infrastructure gaps is directly assisting member tribes to build internal capacity.
Objective: Provide data management services to tribes (OBJ-3)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1) Current project provides data management services to member tribes, which takes many forms. See executive summary.
Develop new tools and pilot projects to assist in the data management and data flow of monitoring data (DELV-8) Developing tools for member tribes is one way that the TDN provides data management services to tribes.
Objective: Facilitate inter-tribal coordination to produce high quality data sets (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1) Continue to host annual Tribal Data Workshop, continue to attend and participate in regional data management forums. Continue to build and share tools for tribal data management.
One-time server and infrastructure replacement (DELV-7) We expect the servers and support infrastructure purchased in 2010 and 2001 for CRITFC and memer tribe data management to last until 2015, when they will need replacement.
Provide data for 2013 and 2018 BiOp check in, and 2013 and 12018 Accords reporting (DELV-9) Assisting the tribes in the production of 2013 and 2018 data sets for the BiOp check in and Accords reporting is aligned with the objective of facilitating inter-tribal coordination to produce high quality data sets.
Objective: Manage CRITFC generated data (OBJ-5)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1) Continue to operate, maintain, and upgrade when necessary CRITFC data management infrastructure. Continue to maintain, update, and expand CRITFC pilot projects for data management.
One-time server and infrastructure replacement (DELV-7) We expect servers and supporting equipment purchased in 2010 and 2011 for data management to last until 2015, when they will need replacement.
*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
Continue with current project responsibilities and expand and update existing pilot projects (DELV-1) 2013 2017 $1,755,000
Assist CTWSRO and Yakama Tribe to develop data management plan (DELV-2) 2013 2013 $30,000
Assist tribes to fill tier 1 priority gaps identifed by coordinated assessment (DELV-3) 2013 2017 $1,755,000
Assist member tribes to fill tier 2 priority gaps (DELV-4) 2013 2017 $1,883,000
Assist member tribes to fill priority one-time infrastructure gaps (DELV-5) 2013 2013 $103,000
Assist Yakama Tribe to fill one-time priority infrastructure gap (DELV-6) 2014 2014 $50,000
One-time server and infrastructure replacement (DELV-7) 2015 2015 $80,000
Develop new tools and pilot projects to assist in the data management and data flow of monitoring data (DELV-8) 2013 2017 $1,000,000
Provide data for 2013 and 2018 BiOp check in, and 2013 and 12018 Accords reporting (DELV-9) 2013 2017 $1,000,000
Total $7,656,000
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2012
2013 $1,533,751 Estimated cost
2014 $1,505,860 Estimated cost
2015 $1,564,792 Estimated cost
2016 $1,511,772 Estimated cost
2017 $1,539,825 Estimated cost
Total $0 $7,656,000
Item Notes FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Personnel $1,001,551 $1,021,582 $1,042,014 $1,062,854 $1,084,111
Travel $14,053 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
Prof. Meetings & Training $12,025 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000
Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $38,278 $38,278 $38,278 $38,278 $38,278
Rent/Utilities $20,000 $20,000 $20,500 $20,500 $20,014
Capital Equipment $103,000 $50,000 $81,000 $0 $0
Overhead/Indirect $344,844 $350,000 $357,000 $364,140 $371,422
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PIT Tags $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $1,533,751 $1,505,860 $1,564,792 $1,511,772 $1,539,825
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
Computer servers, backup, systems, internal network, external network connection, currently sufficient capacity for up to four terrabytes of monitoring data, currently have ½ terrabyte of monitoring data, expanding by > 100% every year. Anticipate four terrabytes of data to be in hand by end of 2015, therefore additional capacity is required going forward. Current Internet connection is 10MB/sec, but expect management demands to push this and require 100MB/sec by 2015. Current backup system is adequate for up to eight terrabytes, and capacity estimates are such that expansion will be needed by 2015. Disaster recovery system does not exist yet and will need to be built. SQL servers will need to be in place at all member tribal fisheries offices and some member tribal field offices. Currently twelve digital pens are deployed, with computer architecture to support them. Plans are to expand use of digital pens and double or triple the number of pens deployed as opportunities present themselves. Software and hardware will be needed to be obtained and to be maintained as needed. Rapidly advancing technologies require upgrades and replacement periodically. GIS and software development tools will have to be maintained and upgraded to be compatible with current regional standards.

Back To Top

Cost Share

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2013 $25,000 Cash Funds provided by the Tribal Data Network Project to assist the Yakama and CTWSRO develop a data management plan. This is a one time cost. The funds are in hand, so the likelyhood is above 95%.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2013 $26,644 Cash Funds available to fund a .25 FTE of a data steward position at CRITFC.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2014 $26,644 Cash Funds available to fund a .25 FTE of a data steward position at CRITFC.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2015 $26,644 Cash Funds available to fund a .25 FTE of a data steward position at CRITFC.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2016 $26,644 Cash Funds available to fund a .25 FTE of a data steward position at CRITFC.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2017 $26,644 Cash Funds available to fund a .25 FTE of a data steward position at CRITFC.

Back To Top

Project References or Citations

References (with web address if available on line) Memorandum of Agreement among the Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes, Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2008. (Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement between the Three Treaty Tribes and FCRPS Action Agencies) Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Decision Document Concerning the NOAA Fisheries’ May 5, 2008, Biological Opinion, Sept. 3, 2008. (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/final-BOs.cfm) Bruce A. Crawford & Scott Rumsey, 4/27/2009. NOAA Fisheries Service Northwest Region, Draft Guidance For Monitoring Recovery of Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) pp 4,21,25,40, and 44 NOAA Fisheries, 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation [Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(I)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program (Revised and reissued pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon)] Army Corps of Engineers' Record of Consultation and Statement of Decision: NOAA Fisheries' May 5, 2008, Biological Opinion, Aug. 1, 2008. (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/final-BOs.cfm) NOAA Fisheries Service released FINAL Endangered Species Act documents on Remand of 2004 Biological Opinion 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) (FCRPS BiOp); Operations and Maintenance of the USBR Upper Snake River Basin Projects above Brownlee Reservoir (Upper Snake BiOp) Impacts of US v OR Fisheries in the Columbia River in years 2008-2017 on ESA listed Species and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat (Harvest BiOp) Final Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem Effects of the Upper Snake and other Tributary Actions (SCA), May 5, 2008 . (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/final-BOs.cfm) Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund Spreadsheet, 2009. Phase II Data Def ver10_final.xls Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 2009 Amendments, Pre-publication copy, 2/10/2009. (Document 2009-02) (http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2009/2009-02.pdf) Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Pacific Salmon, 1/27/09. (http://www.psc.org/pubs/Treaty.pdf) US v Oregon – (http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/1983.htm)

Back To Top

Notes

Table 1. Estimated costs to bring CRITFC-member tribes to a minimally functional database management status. FY13 Ongoing/ Tier Tribe Need Cost One-Time Source 1 CTUIR 1 FTE Data Coordinator $65,000 Ongoing/ new funds NPT 1 FTE Data Technician $50,000 Ongoing/ new funds 1 FTE QA/QC Technician $43,000 Ongoing/ new funds 1 FTE Data Steward $81,000 Ongoing/ new funds CTWSRO Develop data management strategy $20,000 one-time Existing TDN contract 0.5 FTE Data Steward $40,000 Ongoing/ new funds YN Complete data management strategy $10,000 one-time Existing TDN contract 1 FTE Data Coordinator $72,000 Ongoing/ new funds 2 CRITFC 1 FTE Database Programmer $110,000 Ongoing new funds 0.67 FTE Data Technician $53,600 Ongoing new funds NPT Historical data entry 0* one-time new funds QA/QC protocol document $15,000 one-time new funds File server expansion $8,000 one-time new funds File server hard drive upgrades $5,000 one-time new funds 0.5 FTE Web Developer $60,000 Ongoing new funds CTWSRO Assess data infrastructure $15,000 one-time new funds Improve data infrastructure $25,000 one-time new funds 0.33 FTE Database Administrator $33,000 Ongoing new funds YN 1 FTE Software Developer $72,000 Ongoing new funds 1 FTE Data Technician $48,000 Ongoing new funds Infrastructure upgrades $50,000 one-time new funds Totals Tier 1 Ongoing costs $351,000 Tier 1 one-time costs $30,000 from existing TDN project funds TOTAL new money in Tier 1 $351,000 Tier 2 Ongoing costs $376,600 Tier 2 one-time costs $103,000* TOTAL new money in tier 2 $479,000* * Will need an additional one-time cost of $50,000 in FY14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- An additional note on the Nez Perce Tribe's request to fill priority gaps identified in Appendix M of the Coordinated Assessment Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy: The Nez Perce Tribe currently has four staff associated with DFRM data management. Two of these positions are supported with Tribal funds. One position is funded by the Lower Snake River Compensation Program. One position is funded by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) through the NPCC F&W program. Seven pay periods of a Data Steward’s time have been funded by BPA but the position remains unfilled while full funding secured. Four pay periods of a QA/QC technician are funded by BPA. In order to fully implement the staffing strategy the Department requires funding support for 2.60 additional staff; two full time data technicians, and a full time data steward. The DFRM data steward will be responsible for compiling, incorporation, and maintenance of geospatial information as well as raw and summarized standardized data. The DFRM data steward will coordinate all data collection efforts within DFRM. The DFRM data steward will represent the NPT in regional data management forums, discussions and efforts to establish a cyberinfrastructure that supports advanced data acquisition, data storage, data management, data integration, data mining, data visualization and other computing and information processing services distributed over the Internet beyond the scope of a single institution. The DFRM data technician positions (2) will spearhead the push to enter historical, current and future data into centralized databases. This will involve on-going QA/QC activities to ensure that the data integrity and quality is maintained. The data technicians will coordinate with field staff and project leaders pertaining to data entry of raw data and entry of summarized data to ensure data is available in timely manner.

Back To Top

Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review Assessments

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

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:
Proponent Response: