PNAMP/Sitka Data Collection Event Metadata Exchange Project Team Meeting
NOTES
April 30, 2014
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Location: phone/web
Phone Bridge: Non-DOI locations: 855.547.8255; DOI locations: 703.648.4848;
Code: 42297#
WebEx meeting link:
https://usgs.webex.com/usgs/j.php?ED=284053197&UID=1902012127&RT=MiM0
Distribution (attendees highlighted) – Brodie Cox (WDFW), Van Hare (PSMFC), Jack Janisch (WA ECY), Won Kim (ODEQ),
Pete Ruhl (USGS), Dan Wieferich (MSU), Keith Steele (Sitka), Jen Bayer (USGS), Becca Scully (PNAMP), Jacque Schei
(PNAMP), Damon Hess (Sitka Technology Group)
AGENDA
1. Introductions
2. Background
 Why are we doing this?
 Previous PNAMP/Sitka work that has led to this effort
o Monitoring Explorer: https://www.monitoringresources.org/Sites/Explorer/Index
o PNAMP Monitoring Site Manager Explorer Feature - Status Report (May 2012)
o PNAMP Monitoring Site Manager: Explorer Feature – Scoping Results (June 2012)
 PNAMP initiated in 2004 - provides forum for coordination of aquatic monitoring efforts in the region; facilitates
communication between monitoring entities; works to develop guidance and web-based tools to coordinate
monitoring efforts, support consistent monitoring design and data collection procedures, reduce redundancies
in data collection, and ultimately support data sharing.
 Who is doing what, where are they doing it and how can I find out more information – common questions heard
for many years
o inventory of current activities - quickly becomes outdated
o 2010 – PNAMP began working with Sitka Technology Group on tools that are now housed at Monitoring
Resources.org.
o In mid-2012, proposed Monitoring Explorer (ME) idea
o Provide information associated with project sites from multiple organizations in one map-based, online
resource-similar to an inventory
o Major difference - information from organizations to be continuously updated, ideally by harvesting
metadata directly from the organizations’ systems of record or getting info via automated feeds where
possible.
o ME not intended to be the system of record for monitoring location information, much less monitoring
data, but instead be a tool that has the ability to display a comprehensive list of location information
from other systems.
o Led to initial discussions about developing an exchange standard.
o ME still in development, but this type of standard would go a long way in helping us get content in the
system.
 Overall, purpose of a standard is not to feed a single tool
3. Project
 Name – MMX
o Have been using MMX: Monitoring Metadata Exchange to describe project
o Confused by metadata being used at the site level since it is actually at the feature level; add site or
location to name or better define subject in short sub-title or paragraph
o
o

Metadata is confusing; 80% of fields represent actual data
1. This can be different between fish and habitat monitoring
2. Need to define boundary between metadata and data
3. Spatial component & business tables that carry time series aspects vs. site visited once
a. We will discuss these issues when going through the details of the DET
Some people very uncomfortable with putting actual measurements in database that they don’t have
control over
1. Only way to be successful is to take out controversial pieces
2. If they don’t want to share their own data, they don’t have to
Work plan
o Will work through the tasks outlined as we develop the DET
o Intended uses
1. BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) specific - not necessarily to support Pisces, but
pressure from upper management that there be better consistency, coordination between
funded projects
2. Broad perspective – from BPA, PNAMP, other PNAMP partners – exchange will support
information sharing, coordination, and collaboration at regional scale and possibly at
national scale; will help organizations, programs meet multiple objectives, cooperate, get
better data; will provide efficiencies and cost savings in natural resource management
a. Add this information to project description paragraph to better inform people about
use and purpose of the exchange
3. At a finer scale – identify reaches, polygons, etc. – use in restoration planning, prioritization
of projects, show gaps and overlaps in monitoring
o This group should be cognizant of what the scope of MMX covers during development
1. Aquatic monitoring focus, but group should consider others that don’t get us too far off the
path
a. Ex. ODEQ – groundwater monitoring
b. WA ECY – stormwater monitoring, probabilistic data collection
o Timing might not be right for EPA grant funding
1. Funding for Sitka’s time to work through Exchange Network (EN) node setup steps will come
from BPA
2. Would still need support to get organizations connected – their own nodes developed or
non-EN connections (Keith outlined strategy, Brodie supported idea – will ask for further
refinement of details)
a. Consider applying for EPA grant for this part if tasks are eligible
4. Next steps
 Near term – focus on DET development
o Draft (link)
o Want to make it easy for people to format their data to the standard
o Orientation around scope – who, what, where, when, how
o Simple data structure – not as complicated as other templates you may have seen
o Some fields (Design URL, Protocol Name) are referring to PNAMP or BPA-specific information.
1. Makes great sense in regional view and for PNAMP & BPA
2. For those across country, a different field might be more useful
3. Tried to keep field open to other options (not limited to just PNAMP or BPA specific
information)
o Granularity of visits
1. PSMFC – annual summaries – how would this timing piece be included or would you need
finer detail from state agencies
2


2. Maybe need to ask what end user would want/need to see – BPA?
3. Consider putting something on ME viewer to denote StreamNet data vs. other (acknowledge
difference in location documentation and annual summary)
o Action Item: Group to make comments on value or limitations of each field – see Data Collection Event
tab and Geographic Location tab in DET spreadsheet
1. Bring questions/concerns to next meeting
2. Next meeting – walk through the spreadsheet, row by row, discussing comments, questions
Mid-term – look into EPA Exchange Network & grant process
Next meeting
o Action Item: Jacque will send Doodle for mid-May dates
3