CRAVe: Climate Registry for the Assessment of Vulnerability

Video Transcript
Download Video
Right-click and save to download

Detailed Description

This webinar was conducted as a a part of the Climate Change Science and Management Webinar Series, hosted by the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and the FWS National Conservation Training Center. The Climate Registry for the Assessment of Vulnerability (CRAVe) is a new web-based community resource that houses information on assessments of the vulnerability of various natural and human resources to a changing climate. Vulnerability assessments are important for identifying resources that are most likely to be affected by climate change and providing insights on why certain resources are vulnerable. Consequently, they provide valuable information for informing climate change adaptation planning. CRAVe allows users to enter information about their vulnerability assessments and includes a public search of existing assessments for specific geographic regions, assessment targets or endpoints, managing entities, and other factors. CRAVe is hosted by the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and a non-profit partner, EcoAdapt (through the Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange).

Details

Image Dimensions: 480 x 360

Date Taken:

Length: 00:42:18

Location Taken: Reston, VA, US

Transcript

Ashley Isham:  Good afternoon, or good morning
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's

National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown,
West Virginia.

My name is Ashley Fortune Isham.

I would like to welcome to our webinar series,
that's held in partnership with the U.S. Geological

Survey's National Climate Change and Wildlife
Science Center, otherwise known as NCCWSC.

They're located in Reston, Virginia.

The "NCCWSC climate change, science, and management
webinar series" highlights their sponsored

science projects related to climate change
impacts and adaptation.

It aims to increase awareness, and inform
participants like you about potential and

predicted climate change impacts on fish and
on wildlife.

I would like to introduce a senior scientist
at the NCCWSC, and that's Dr. Shawn Carter.

Shawn, welcome.

Shawn Carter:  Thanks, Ashley.

Thank you to everyone joining us today.

It's my privilege to introduce a couple of
my esteemed colleagues here at the NCCWSC.

Robin O'Malley's our policy and partnership
coordinator here at our center, and he, which

manages the Department of Interior climate
science centers.

Prior to joining our team here, Robin was
the Director of Program Development and Environmental

Reporting at the Heinz Center.

He's also worked at the Department of Interior
at different levels, both on policy staff

and also Chief of Staff when the National
Biological Survey was around.

Also, a special assistant to Interior Secretary
Bruce Babbitt.

He's also been Deputy Science Advisor within
Interior, Associate Director of Natural Resources

at the White House CEQ, and has also been
Senior Environmental advisor to Governor Thomas

Kean of New Jersey.

He holds a Master's from Harvard's Kennedy
School of Government and a Bachelor's from

SUNY New York.

Also, with us today, is Laura Thompson.

She's a biologist here at our center.

Her work includes gathering information on
climate change vulnerability assessments for

natural systems and understand progress towards
climate change adaptation planning.

Her research interests are to help understand
impacts of climate variables on genetic variation

of wild populations and the potential to adapt
evolutionarily to future climate change.

Laura just recently finished her PhD at Trent
University in Petersborough, Ontario, and

that was focusing on landscape and climate
factors contributing to genetic structure

of woodland caribou.

She also holds a B.S and M.S from the University
of Tennessee Knoxville in Wildlife.

We're going to be starting today with Laura,
so it's my privilege to introduce Laura and

you have it.

Laura Thompson:  Thank you, Shawn.

Thank you, everyone, for joining.

I'm going to start out this presentation by
giving you a little bit of an overview of

what to expect during the next hour.

First, we're going to provide a brief introduction
on vulnerability assessments and why they

are important, and then provide an understanding
on the need for this particular tool that

we call "CRAVe."

Then provide an overview of the CRAVe features
and how you can help you and your partners,

then end up with some highlights on CRAVe.

To start to give you a little bit of background
on vulnerability assessments, so there's a

number of resources that are of particular
interest to many of us, whether it be fish

and wildlife CCs or habitat, ecosystems, or
for some may be more interested in infrastructure

or crop resources or cultural resources.

However, climate change has the potential
to affect those different resources in a variety

of ways.

It's important to assess vulnerability, which
is defined as the likelihood that a particular

resource of interest will have adverse affects
to particular climate changes, whether it

be changes of precipitation or temperature.

This graph shows, this was actually taken
from the National Wildlife Federation's publication

Scanning the Conservation Horizon that explains
the components of vulnerability, and how to

go about assessing vulnerability.

This is also a similar framework that was
provided in the 2007 IPCC report.

Some of the key components are exposure, which
is the likelihood that, or the potential climate

change the particular resource of interest
might be exposed to, whether it be changes

in temperature or even associated climate
changes, such as altered fire regimes.

Then also, sensitivity, which is how particular
climate changes might affect your particular

resource of interest.

Then those two components can be assessed
to understand the overall impacts of climate

change on your resource.

But it's also important to assess whether
your resource might be able to ameliorate

those impacts through adaptive capacity.

By following those steps, you can get an understanding
of vulnerability.

Vulnerability assessments are really important
for prioritizing resources of concern as a

result of climate change.

But they also help us to understand why particular
resources might be vulnerable, which is really

important in adaptation planning.

This framework, also taken from Scanning the
Conservation Horizon, shows how vulnerability

assessments fit into the adaptation planning
framework.

In the upper left hand corner, you start with
a framework by identifying a conservation

target, whether it be a species, ecosystem
or some type of infrastructure resource.

Then you assess vulnerability to climate change
by assessing sensitivity, exposure and adaptive

capacity.

Then you can identify management options to
reduce sensitivity exposure and increase adaptive

capacity and then implement those management
options on the ground through changes in policy,

practice or institutional changes.

A more recent publication, also by the National
Wildlife Federation, went into more detail

about the adaptation process.

I just put this in because it shows multiple
steps of adaptation planning.

But I wanted to point out that one of the
first and critical steps is assessing vulnerability

to climate change.

It's really an important step for identifying
meaningful adaptation strategies.

However, there's a lot of issues for somewhat
of a daunting task for many resource managers

just being able to collect the necessary information,
and using the relevant science that may be

needed.

I'm going to pass it over to Robin, who will
describe some of the issues that came about

because of some, developing this tool.

Robin O'Malley's: Thank you.

Again, thanks, everybody, for being on the
phone.

As people, as we've been moving along through
the past few years, these are the kinds of

questions that we get it from folks who are
faced with the challenge of adapting or planning

for adaptation to climate change.

"What are the impacts?

How do I do this?

Where do I get the data?"

Those kinds of questions.

That's some of the motivation for what we've
been thinking about and what we're going to

talk to you about.

We have worried about some things in terms
of the "Thousand flowers blooming strategy,"

which is good for coming up with interesting
ideas.

But we can almost guarantee that, certainly
within the federal government and probably

within any other large body of folks that
we're duplicating some work or we're duplicating

similar work being redundant and we simply
don't have enough money to be able to afford

that.

Maybe more importantly, we're all at the forefront
of a really new and evolving area of science

and conservation practice and we have to have
mechanisms to learn from each other.

We've got to be able to move the information
around quickly, we've got to be able to learn

lessons from other similar studies about similar
resources.

We've got to aggregate over broader areas.

We've got to learn about different methods
of doing things.

The notion that we needed a place to look
for information about methods and outcomes

and resources for vulnerability assessment
became clear over the past few years.

That's what drove us to where we are now.

This is the simple goal of the CRAVe project.

I want to unpack this statement a little bit
to give you a sense of a little bit more granularity

for what we're talking about.

This is a project that provides descriptions
and contact information, it's not a full database

of all the monitoring data and the graphic
material and maps, et cetera.

It's really a phone book, a metadata record,
essentially, for vulnerability assessments.

It's about studies that attempt to answer
the question, "What is the impact of climate

change on X?"

It's not a database of downscaling methods
or a database of monitoring data sets, even

though those may be really important components
and are often really important components

of vulnerability assessments.

This is about things that draw on that kind
of information and move it towards answering

a question about impacts.

Resources of interest, our organization, the
National Climate Change and Wildlife Science

Center and eight climate science centers,
focus essentially on natural and cultural

resources.

There's some spill over and overlap with the
built environment and maybe less, although

a growing amount, with social and economic
and health kinds of studies.

We've designed this, and you'll see some examples,
where other communities that are knowledgeable

about some of these end points have helped
us build the capacity to incorporate vulnerability

assessments of those kinds of end points into
this.

It's essentially and I'll make this point
later a community effort.

If it's not capable of handling studies about
the points of interest you have, then we should

talk.

I said it's a registry.

These are not deep files of lots of data and
graphs, et cetera.

We've divided it into some pretty basic core
project information and then some additional

details.

I'll say a little bit more, there's even a
smaller list of things that you have to fill

out for a basic registry entry.

But you see, where is it, who's doing it.

I'll say more about the target and cost and
status.

"How do I get in touch?

What scale is it at?

Why is it being done?"

These kinds of things.

We have worked with a number of partners and
partner organizations, both who are doing

studies and who are interested in studying
the outcome of this process to identify these

minimum components that allow you to find
the kinds of work you want to find.

The fewest items that you have to put in is
this list.

Our philosophy is we'd rather have more entries
with less information but enough basic information

for people to find their way around rather
than requiring an answer to every one of the

questions.

We've managed to narrow it down to where is
it, who's doing it, what's the target, how

big is this project, some sense of scale,
and how do I get in touch with the folks.

This is the bare minimum for an element.

If that's all you have, it's worth putting
the entry in to allow people to track, follow

that down.

Want to talk a little bit about the types
of assessment targets, and this is both a

sense of what we've captured as the kinds
of targets we think are relevant, and a little

bit about how we've tried to make it easy
for people to do the entry and capture the

right information.

These are the types of assessment targets
that it's currently possible to easily enter

into the system.

I'm going to go through and give you some
examples of where the data comes from and

how it's linked, and, again, a little bit
about how you manage the system.

For individual species, we're tied into the
federal Integrated Taxonomic Information System.

If you start to type a species name in the
box, it will fill out with species that are

live directly from the ITIS system.

That is the federal standard for taxonomic
names, and so we figured we'd just draw directly

from that.

But there's also studies that do, that focus
on larger numbers of species and you probably

didn't want to add the individual species'
names for all the salamanders and newts in

individually, so we put together a list of
species groups at a larger level.

This is, obviously, the beginning of the list,
but this is a drop down list that you can

pick from that enables you to say, "OK, we're
going to do all the water birds," or what

have you and pick from that kind of a drop
down list, so you can capture larger groups.

There's both plants and animals on this list.

For habitat types, again, we've provided a
list.

There's always an "Other" option that you
can fill in, but we've provided a moderately

detailed list.

There's obviously much more finely divided
lists of ecosystem or habitat types.

But we've gotten one that's got a moderate
level.

This, again, is a screenshot of the first
part of it.

But it scrolls down past the Ms for a few
more different types.

The last one, I'll show an example of is a
case where we worked with a partner to develop

the taxonomy here.

This is a National Park Service Taxonomy.

We at USGS are not the cultural resource experts,
but we were happy to work with the Park Service

to find a taxonomy of types of cultural resources
that were the standards around which the community

could...people would understand those.

We did the same with the built environments.

I don't have a slide here, but we worked with
the Environmental Protection Agency and the

Bureau of Reclamation to capture the kinds
of built environment categories that would

be relevant and understandable to folks working
in those arenas.

This is the other category that I want to
highlight right now is this sort of project

status and time frame.

We were encouraged to do this, and this was
the benefit of working with a fairly large

group of advisors.

We were particularly encouraged by some folks
outside the federal circle who may not have

the kind of budgets that federal agencies
often have and wanted to be able to find the

ones that were a little bit more within their
reach.

We provide some information on what does this
project cost, how long did it take, is it

done or not.

We're just trying to, again, enable people
to find the kinds of studies that are relevant

for their uses.

I really want to make a point about this project
that this is not a done and ready to use,

nobody needs to use it, just sign on and begin
to work with it.

This is a partnership that we need to build
and a community resource we need to build.

I'm going to go through some of the tasks
that are relevant for this and show who's

had their hand in the process so far and where
you all fit in.

We at NCCWSC and at the USGS Fort Collins
Science Center have done the coding and design

work.

Mostly the funding has come from USGS with
contributions from both the Fish and Wildlife

Service and the Forest Service, and we are
certainly open to additional ones.

The ideas and the design for this were really
shaped by this...arose out of the Interagency

Land Management Adaptation Group, which has
both federal agencies and folks from outside

the federal circle.

We created a steering committee with folks
from that.

We've had input from people on the USGCRP
Adaptation Science Working group, so a pretty

broad set of both management practitioners
and science practitioners giving us some sense

about what we needed to cover.

Quality assurance is a legal mandate for federal
agencies, and so any entry that is attributed

to being managed by a federal agency will
be reviewed by someone who's designated by

that agency to make sure that the information
is appropriate to be published about them

and about a project that they are ostensibly
funding.

We're partnering with EcoAdapt to provide
a similar level, although obviously some slightly

different criteria for nonfederal vulnerability
assessments, that we make sure that it's a

real project, that it's reasonably informative,
that we're not getting spammed, and those

kind of things.

Again, a partnership between USGS and a number
of federal agencies and the nongovernmental

sector.

We're going to maintain this infrastructure
over time and think about designing it.

We've already got a short list of things,
since we did the release a few weeks ago,

of changes we'll want to make to the basic
coding and choices and things like that.

Again, I encourage people to think about helping
us out on that.

Most importantly though, is that we've entered
into the registry, vulnerability assessments

that have been funded by the National Climate
Change and Wildlife Science Center.

We're moving to add content for all of the
vulnerability assessments conducted by USGS.

We can't enter vulnerability assessments done
by your organization unless we know about

them and you know most about them.

Everyone's on this call.

Your partners, collaborators, and staff, know
about where these vulnerability assessments

are.

As I hoped you started to see and you'll see
some more, we've made it as easy possible

to make an entry into this registry, so we
encourage you to take the time to do that,

again, knowing that there's some quality assurance
that gets done on the back end.

Another feature of the system is that we're
working with EcoAdapt, both on the QA that

I mentioned.

But also where we started was that they published
the climate adaption knowledge exchange, which

has a different audience, reaches a different
set of folks, than a federal government website

would.

So the information will be mirrored on EcoAdapt
and USGS sites, so that you'll be able to

find it either way and we'll reach some different
audiences that way.

We'll also be linking up, not clear exactly
how, with the Federal Climate Resilience Toolkit,

which, again, will reach a different kind
of audience and bring different people to

the table.

What I want to do now is go through some of
the features, both of the CRAVe system as

a user, if you will, a searcher, who wants
to find information, and then a couple more

examples about what it's like to enter a registry
entry onto the system.

First thing, this is a landing page.

On this page and on some subsequent pages,
a basic search bar with full text entry, a

state or large marine ecosystem, managing
entity, et cetera.

The basic kinds of things, "I want to find
out all of the vulnerability assessments in

Colorado."

You can go straight there and enter that.

But let me give you a little bit of an example.

I entered trout in the "Full text search."

A couple things to note is that as soon as
you enter something and get some results back,

you get a choice of filters.

Right now there's only five results, so it's
not really a problem to filter, but when we

get a lot of content and you get 300 results
back, you may want to filter it by some finer

criteria.

So we've built in some filters that enable
you to find a little bit more about what you

want.

Each one of these entries that you see two
of, you'll see, has a little bit of information,

a couple bits of data, and each one of these
titles is a clickable link.

If you click that link, you get a full registry
entry.

Each one of these points on this list, these
are the things that we ask information about

for the registry.

A full registry entry would have a response
to every one of these.

You'll see, in several cases, there's a "Notsupplied."

That's, again, perfectly all right.

Anything past the minimum is good.

But again, at least there's a few minimums.

You'll see that in addition to this being
a trout oriented project, it's also focused

on freshwater streams.

There's an opportunity to provide a web link
for a project.

If the project has its own website or a page
on your website that provides information

about it, you can make that link.

Again, giving people the window to find what
they want.

Because entries are coming from lots of different
folks and we're concerned about people getting

spammed, we don't actually publish the email
address of the contact person.

But in this case if you click on Jason Dunham's
name here, it'll open up an email window and

you can send him an email.

He'll get your email address and can respond.

But we haven't published his information there.

Finally, there's an opportunity for a full
abstract summary kind of document that can

give a pretty full description of what the
study's about.

Again, full range of question, but this is
the full set of information about any particular

vulnerability assessment.

You can go further than this either through
the contact or through the URL or reading

the summary, but again, this is a metadata
registry, not a data set kind of system.

If you log on and wish to enter a vulnerability
assessment, so here I've created an account

with my Gmail address, you'll get into a page
that looks like this.

Again, you still have the search access, but
it'll allow you to add the vulnerability assessment

and once you have assessments, so you can
save them in draft or submit them, you can

go back and manage them, see where they are.

If you click on the "Add new vulnerability
assessment," you start to get in and I'll

just step back to the full questionnaire.

It's a two page questionnaire, again, that
goes back and asks you something about each

one of these data elements.

In as many cases as we could, we made that
as quick and painless and consistent as possible.

In the list of states in most cases, if you
start to type something, it will pick up the

items that have that string of characters
in it.

I started typing ALA and I got Alabama, Alaska,
and the Republic of Palau, this happens to

be the state list, but the territories in
with the states.

Again, making it as easy as possible.

In many cases we have drop down lists.

So for large marine ecosystems, we have a
pretty pure drop down list.

If your item isn't in any of the drop down
lists, we, in almost all cases, have an other

information box that you can add some additional
information in.

We've enabled consistency and ease of entry,
but we've also added flexibility if what we

have doesn't fit what you need.

Again, another example of where we've tried
to provide as much facility in entering and,

again, for consistency, there's a question
about managing entity, who actually does this

project.

There's a selection for tribal, federal, state,
NGO, academic institution, et cetera.

In this case I picked the tribal one and immediately
below it appeared a drop down box that has

the entire list of federally recognized tribes.

You can go down and select one or more tribes
for managing entity select one tribe that's

conducting the project.

But for example, if you're working with a
tribe that's a state recognized tribe or a

selfrecognized tribe, you can always add in
an other.

We haven't limited you to the selections that
we've got.

Want to call attention to...again, both the
other, as I've mentioned, and the not sure.

We've provided a lot of these opt outs so
that you can get through the questionnaire

and not answer.

Again, we would rather have an entry that
gives the basic information, and a where to

go for more information than have people forced
to answer things they might not have information

about or not able to provide the entry.

That's the basic outline.

Again, a metadata registry that we need to
build together to help and enable the learning

that we need to do across the community as
we figure out how to assess vulnerability

and figure out how to link that information
to adaptation actions.

Encourage you to go to take a look at it and
am happy to open the floor for questions.

Ashley:  Thank you Robin and thank you Laura.

Our first question comes in through the chat
box.

It's from Sara and it says, "Vulnerability
assessments that were collaborative among

numerous federal agencies and NGOs, how would
those be reviewed for quality?"

We have a second part of that question afterward.

Robin:  We are thinking very hard about how
to make sure...Well, you're raising an interesting

aspect, but we know there will be projects
that are funded by and supported by and conducted

by multiple agencies.

We have a challenge in making sure we don't
have duplicate entries and we have the challenge

that you mentioned.

I would say that the primary federal agency,
the lead federal agency, maybe in this case,

the one that has the most dollars in the pot,
would be the one that would be selected as

the lead agency, the implementing agency.

We have options for the managing entity and
partners and we'd certainly encourage all

of those agencies to be listed as partners.

But at this point we need to pick a primary
agency.

Ashley:  Also, another question coming in
and it says does the USGS version worked better

with Internet Explorer or Google Chrome or
in some other browser?

Robin:  We think that it will work best in
Chrome or Firefox and higher versions of Internet

Explorer.

Ashley:  Thank you.

Also, are you looking for assessments of a
broad range of climate change impacts or also

assessments of specific impacts such as sea
level rise?

Robin:  I think we're looking for both of
those.

If by broad range you mean multiple kinds
of impacts, sea level rise and heat and other

things together, yes.

Then, very targeted ones, either way.

Either of those are likely to be of interest
to other people in the community.

Ashley:  Thank you.

Another question.

They were just searching on the Internet and
when they went to work for tribal agencies

only one popped up.

Is that correct?

Robin:  I'm not sure where their search was.

There may only be a few vulnerability assessments
that deal with tribal agencies that have been

listed so far.

Some of the lists are only populated with
things that have actually been entered.

The list I showed should come up, if you want
to enter a new one.

But if you're searching for existing vulnerability
assessments, the list that will show up to

you only includes those items for which there
already is an assessment.

There may only be that one that's been registered
so far.

Ashley:  Thank you.

Robin or Laura, if you guys have questions
from your group, please feel free to chime

in.

Robin:  We're good here.

Ashley:  OK.

We have some more coming in through the chat.

This one says, "May have missed this in the
presentation, but can you insert a link to

the vulnerability assessment if they are on
a publicly accessible site versus obtaining

through a lead agency?"

So that's just a create website, right Robin?

Robin:  Yes, although I can also interpret
the question, if someone knows about a vulnerability

assessment that's posted on an accessible
website they could enter that.

They'll have to pick, at some point, who did
that study.

So that, again, there'll have to be some entity
identified as a managing entity for it.

Ashley:  Thank you.

You started touching on this, at least saying
they're interconnected.

But it says, "How are CRAVe and CAKE related?"

Robin:  CAKE is an existing resource that
is essentially also a metadata registry of

projects, publications, people, many different
resources that are relevant to climate change

adaptation.

EcoAdapt and the CAKE staff are now building
a mechanism to incorporate all of the vulnerability

assessments that come in through CRAVe into
their system.

But also to enable you to search, essentially,
as if you're searching CRAVe.

On CAKE, you'll be able to get anything on
CRAVe plus anything that's already on the

CAKE registry.

That's the relationship, CAKE is a larger
resource and we'll be integrated into that.

Ashley:  Thank you.

One more question.

It says, "Is the CRAVe team going to systematically
comb through the Climate Science Centers and

the Landscape Conservation Cooperative projects
and enter vulnerability assessments into CRAVe

or should CSC and LCC staff enter their projects?

Robin:  That's a half and half answer.

We have entered all of the projects through
fiscal year '14 that we're aware of that are

funded that are vulnerability assessments
at Climate Science Centers.

We have not done so at the LCCs.

We have distributed this information to the
LCC through the LCC network and we hope that

they enter those projects.

We've, in fact, had some discussions, and
when I mentioned there was one of the modifications,

it's not currently possible to choose a type
of entity right now that is an LCC as a managing

entity.

We realized that's a mistake, so we're going
to work on doing that.

But we encourage the LCCs to enter the projects
that they have as vulnerability assessments

into the system.

We have not done that.

We've done it for the CSC side of the house.

Ashley:  Thank you.

A somewhat related question, it says, "The
US Fish and Wildlife Service has comprehensive

conservation plans associated with its refuges.

Some of these have "mini" vulnerability assessments
incorporated in the Pacific Northwest.

Are you looking to include these types of
assessments that are part of the broader planning

effort?"

Robin:  I would say yes and I believe we
had that very same discussion with Kirk Johnson,

who is the Fish and Wildlife Service lead
reviewer.

We agreed that if it asks the question or
tries to probe the question as what is the

effect of climate change on fill in the blank,
it fits our definition of a vulnerability

assessment.

We don't think we should be really strict
about the definition having to have adaptive

capacity and sensitivity in those particular
elements that Laura talked about.

But really, something that asks that question.

From what I know of those planning documents,
those, again, probe that question and try

to provide some feedback for that.

I would say yes to that.

Ashley:  Thank you.

Then just touching back on the LCC's Tom who
had asked that question, said that he's going

to bring it up with the LCC coordinators and
some of the science coordinators and try to

come up with a systematic approach to enter
the ones that have been completed by the LCCs

as well.

Robin:  Thank you.

Again, I would just say, we've tried to make
it be quick and easy to do.

This a not a lot of free writing, there are
a lot radio boxes and check boxes and selections

and drop down menus that make this an easy
form to fill out and to provide an entry.

Then knowing that there'll be a second set
of eyes to make sure they're...it should be

relatively easy.

I appreciate you taking that time.

Ashley:  Then we have another question.

It says, "What about experimental research
projects?"

I'm sorry, it's popping all over the place,
excuse me.

"An example is Effects of Ocean Acidification
and Plant Productivity Response to Carbon

Dioxide Enrichment, are they of interest?"

Robin:  I don't see why not.

That fits into the category of what is the
effect of a climate change component on a

resource?

Ashley:  Another question says that we have
just started a twoyear comprehensive region

wide vulnerability assessment.

Should we wait until we are complete with
our assessment or should we enter it now?

Robin:  Enter it now.

If you'll recall, and I might be able to get
back to it, but the system asks whether it's

planned, in progress, or completed.

We will do, for all of the entries that are
in the system, a periodic, probably annual

call out to everybody, email out to the contacts,
saying, "Has this changed?

Have you completed this?

Or what have you?"

Put it in as an in progress project.

You'll be able to say when it's expected to
be completed.

Then, at some point, we'll prompt you to go
back and review the entry and turn it into

a completed one.

So do it now.

Ashley:  Then, it just says one recommendation
was that maybe you change your project timeframe

choices.

The way that it is currently set up seems
to leave gaps in time.

Their project’s about two and a half years.

[laughter]
Robin:  Yep, fair enough.

I can't argue with that.

There may be some logic that's missing in
some of those numbers, don't disagree.

Yep, that was good.

As we're getting to the end, if you have more
questions or you get in and have questions,

first of all, there's a user help that you
can always call on that's in the system.

But please let us know and if there are things
that make it hard for you to enter your project,

because it doesn't fit in the way we've done
it, we'd like to hear that, rather than going

away mad, as it were.

Let us know that that doesn't work or it's
unsatisfactory the way you have characterize

it.

I'm actually listening to the discussions
about multiple agencies and thinking about

how we might make it clearer that...we all
know that in some cases there really isn't

a lead agency, everybody's got a bunch of
money in the pot and it's moving forward.

At this point, we have to pick.

We're going to think about how to handle that
in the future.

Let us know, this is a community resource.

We got a lot of input on designing it, but
as people use it we'll certainly find out

more interesting things that you either want
to characterize your project or search for

things.

Keep the dialogue open, contact us.

There's a contact form on the page, couple
emails here.

I encourage you to go ahead and test it out
and see what works and doesn't work.

Ashley:  Thank you.