In response to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s June 7, 2013 request, the ISAB reviewed the Bonneville Power Administration’s document A Framework for the Fish and Wildlife Program Data Management: Issues and Policy Direction for Development of a Data Management Strategy and Action Plan (June 04, 2013). As described in the framework’s executive summary, the framework is a living document that was developed with the support of the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership based on the Regional Monitoring and Data Management Structure.
The framework document provides a vision for a data management structure that can be integrated with other Federal, state, and tribal data systems. The goal of this structure is first, to support progress reports on Biological Opinions and other programs in a timely manner and second, to manage and provide relevant data for future programs. Two current projects (the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) and the Coordinated Assessments Projects for Salmon and Steelhead) have shown the value of coherent data management with common data protocols, data exchange templates and standards, and regional data management.
The document identifies several strategies needed for successful Program data management: (a) identify the management questions and the data required to answer these questions; (b) require development and documentation of standardized protocols with standardized data entry mechanisms; (c) develop improved data entry methods using digital data collection methods where appropriate; (d) use distributed, structured regional data repositories such as CHaMP, PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS), Regional Mark Information System (RMIS), Genetic Analysis of Pacific Salmon (GAPS); and (e) develop standardized reporting mechanisms. A key strategy is that data will be publically available. In general, the strategies proposed are coherent and well designed. Appendix B is particularly helpful in providing an overview of where data are currently stored for projects in the Columbia Basin. While Figure 3 provides a conceptual framework for regional data management, a master index (similar to Table B.2) will be needed to help guide users to the relevant data and show them how the different sources for the same (apparent) data differ.
See the full memo for details.
