Held on 26th August 2021, by DELWP ICM Team, via Microsoft Teams Video Conference.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Put data standard review that I've just mentioned before.

And the fact that we now have a version three of a DELWP wide output data standard.

essentially with the key messages today will be.

To give you a sense of what's different, what's new, what, how that structured. It's a seminar and overview introduction, and in the future very near future will be running specific training type seminars where.

people who are using this standard can in fact be asking specific questions about how do I do this and how do I do that? So today is really a kind of a helicopter in have how it works and what's different, what's new, and it's a strong recognition of the fact that range of us have been arranged. If you have been involved in it and it's a bit of a chance to just show the great value that's come out of the new, the new standard.

so I should suggest also that because it's we've held this as a very open teams meeting, and as you can see.

We were originally there was a time when we're going to just have this as a broadcast storytelling exercise, but we think it's important that people can engage and interact with us as the time comes. But I what I might ask as if if you don't mind as we go into the presentation part of this, which is very shortly after that. If you can keep your microphones off.

And your camera is off until we get to specific question times and then in those question times I'll ask that people can come.

raise their hand if they want to ask a question which they can turn on the camera, raise their hand and will point to you for asking so that we don't or trip over each other and the other. The other option, of course, is to just put your self, put some words into the chat a question into the chat and.

Some, uh, Jeanette and I will help with that. Jeanette routes on the line with us today from my team.

So Chris, if you want to put the so Chris Jackson then people can see him for the rest of you can help by turning off your camera's then that will help a bit with us. Spotlighting ourselves and just being the focus, that's great. Thank you.

I'm I think I've covered off on all the housekeeping for the minutes. If you just want to share the slides, Chris and Chris and I'll just run through a slide deck. Which and some specific interactive stuff and I just want to say thanks everybody for coming along today and hope that we can give you the right kind of intro that you need to understand where we're at. And I should say one thing, there will be another one of these seminars in a in a few weeks.

Get to that at the end of this, which will focus on the actual tool that you can use, which is a geodatabase which will help actually collect the data and the information that you need into a Geo system so.

So that's why we're here. I don't think we need to labor that Adam Hoods my name and Chris Jackson from my team and he'll be talking. He's a lead person who basically ran this over last couple of years.

Go next slide is good Chris I think.

OK, so I look, I've said that I'm from an integrated catchment management team. I just want to point out this is our kind of wheel of life from an integrated catch management perspective that DELWP output data standard and DELWP delivery standards will get to that in a minute, are cut across all of the themes. If you like that that are in this this wheel from water, biodiversity, coastal marine land, and obviously communities in terms of how we engage.

Sorry, I might have to get turn off Katie's Mike. Someone can do that.

Ah yeah, thank you.

Yeah, so essentially. That's the reason why we've held onto this. This is some something that we look across these. All of these themes in a fairly equal and an integrated way go for it. Chris Highway labor. This too much.

OK, So what are the drivers? Why did we need to review such a thing? There's DELWP standard Dell power, put out a standard version, two was there seem to be operating all or finding well please. Thank you very much, but one of the key things that happened in the last period, particularly this this this this term. These two terms of government that we're in right now is that key policy directions were added to the portfolio's water for Victoria. Massive piece of work on guiding water.

Management in Victoria for the next period. Biodiversity 2037. A key policy document for this government, aiming to stretch this out to key directions and strategy for 2037, had new and innovation new innovations that needed to be re think the way and how we do stuff. Marine and coastal policy. You know, there's an act, there's policy, and now there's a strategy being developed.

Something that a lot of you might know, but anyway, there's different funding streams that have landed, and those funding streams have attached to them. Those new policy settings and will demand and are demanding that we take a slightly different focus or improve and add value to how we report on what we what we do and where we do it from BP3 obviously. We've talked about budgets, our budget papers.

Uh, required by Treasury and finance and the budget reporting that we have as a link back to those policy settings, CMA's are in the process of developing new regional catchment strategies and likewise the roll up of what we do on the ground and how that contributes to the outcomes that we've identified in these other policies and strategies are important. Whoops, I've lost that. No, I haven't.

Yeah so. This government has a strong interest in traditional owners self determination and inclusion and the previous standard mentioned but didn't really have a consistent approach to that. And we've made some changes towards that. Changes to reporting needs demanded updates.

and one of the key things we've done a delta wide approach to this is that we we had to make changes across these different areas Waterland biodiversity, but we've held onto a departmental wide approach to that so that at least there's a DELWP standard, so the process across the other side of that slide is really important. Uh, a range of directors within the department that focus on NRM, the NRM space from Biodiversity forest fire.

Regions order and catchments. Land economics all come together on a regular basis and as well as this cover other things, but I have certainly overseen the governance of this. There's a technical working group that's been involved with this for over 2 years with representatives from DELWP. Significant wide ranging representatives from DELWP catchment management authorities Parks, Victoria Trust for Nature, Agriculture Victoria a range of.

Uh, players that have direct kind of interest and influence on how we deliver what we deliver, how we measure what we deliver, and what we do, and where we do it. It's about two years. I can't Chris normally talks about the hundreds of meetings that he's been involved with over those two years.

And it's got us to this point. As I said, maintaining one standard. Keep going Chris. Thanks. So I'll just I. I'm gonna finish shortly and let people ask some questions, but the really crucial bit is that there's a. There's a logic around how me, our framework and this is.

Been in place for a while under the Delta and departmental settings, but it's it's nothing more than a pretty standard kind of logical approach. A program logic where you have significant condition change at one end, which is connected right down to the fact that we did some stuff somewhere and the the boxes in between kind of represent the idea that policy and programs come aim from long term outcomes management level outcomes.

Outputs and activities. We won't, we could, and we probably will at different times. Having lots of arguments about this terminology, but this is the terminology that's we've set up as our log frame for this our, our program logic, and today I should just point out. Today we're focused on that second bottom box, which is the output data standard. The others will be addressed in different settings, but you will see this kind of logic come to play as Chris starts to talk about the structure of the output data standard.

And I should say that the app data standards set up as the minimum information required for reporting on outputs according to the DELWP standards.

Come as my simplest way of putting that is, It maps and adds information around, not only maps but maps and adds information around what we did and where we did it and how it links. If you like to those management outcomes. So I think uh, go on to the next slide. Thanks, Chris.

I'm happy for people to.

Uh, do a couple of things. They can check and tell me that. Tell me if they're in there. If you're in the right room, that's a very important thing. I'll check in here and let people ask some questions, just reminding us. Put your hand up and Chuck. Throw something into the chat on the side and very happily. Have a couple of couple of questions if people want to do that. Otherwise, we'll keep moving along.

OK, well uhm I can't see anyone's hand up. Is there something that I've missed?

Uh, none. OK, that's great, thanks. There's plenty of time to reflect on that.

A nice picture Chris. It's Skull Creek as people gather, but OK, I'll hand over to Chris Jackson who really deserves this time in the sun. He's been doing an amazing bit of work over the last couple of years in my team, but a lot of the people around this table. Big table, we'll know. Chris and he's been.

Yeah, steadfast, it's the best way to put it. And just keeping moving along with this. This train to get us where we are now. Thanks, Chris. Take it away.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
As Adam alluded to on the senior project, officer for me are within the integrated catchment steam.

So yes, I started on this project is the primary project that I was. Given when I started with the department two years ago. Prior to COVID and.

Bushfires and floods and all manner of other things. Some messing with our lives.

So I'm going to deal with a bit more of the technical detail and walk people through some of the specifics of the changes and a little bit about the, UM, the logic behind those changes. And then there'll be a few breaks in here too for you to ask questions.

I'm also going to, as Adam alluded to before.

we're going to refer any sort of detailed questions about the reporting requirements for specific themes will actually take note of them, but we're going to park those for the theme specific seminars that will run down the track a little bit. I'm just so that we don't get bogged down into too much technical detail here.

So the big question why is the output data standard important? Adam covered it from a very high level.

Come and I'm just gonna refer back to the original documentation, which was the.

As it was called back then, the DSE MER framework, which was a monitoring evaluation and reporting framework upon which the standards were built and they were used to coordinate the various. monitoring and evaluation frameworks that were developing across DELWP and its agencies. independent of one another and therefore there was inconsistent language and it made it very difficult for people to correlate information across the state.

So that was the reason behind setting up standards.

this standard, the output data standard.

it specifies what and how data must be spatially reported. There are other minor specifics that are covered in funding agreements, and they are specific to those programs, but this data standard.

sets the minimums.

Would it be used the data for we use it for analysis and modelling, and adaptive management. Many of you will know that DELWP hasn't been fantastic at that in the past, and improvements to this data standards are aimed at.

It's, uh, fixing some of the technical problems that were preventing that data from being used for the deeper analysis that we know that we can do with it.

the account review took two years and it involved.

From all of our reporting major reporting partners and some technical experts as required.

So document structure. We've changed up the look of the book. I'm not sure how many of you have actually had a copy posted outside my team.

Come help me out by posting outs. Quite a big grouping of the of the printed copies of the standards, but at the bottom of this page you can see there's a web location and also in the meeting invite that we sent around earlier today. I've included the link there. So as we go further you can follow along on your own if you want to actually look at the changes in the book.

One of the significant changes was a lot more guidance in it's about literally how to use the standards. The key part of that is that we've broken the standard up into five parts. Part One is an overview, and as you can see, includes an introduction and the features of the book, and then it refers to some of the other related documents that you'll need on a program specific basis.

Part 2 is the common attributes.

The name somewhat speaks for itself, but I'll just reiterate that the common attributes, the expectation, is that those attributes will be collected for all outputs unless otherwise stipulated in your funding agreement, so that's why they're common. They're designed to be collected across all outputs.

Why do we have them come? The first point is that you can't compare things if you don't have a common attribute. If you don't have one single defining factor that's common to all, then you can't compare them. It's very difficult to do so, so that's why we have the common attributes, and we've made a few changes to those to make them more appropriate for user needs based on feedback in the workshops.

The upward data, so the collection and reporting requirements. That's the bulk of the book.

that's the data standard as you would previously nodes and it describes the terminology, the rationale, and the scope of each of the various reporting areas.

governance arrangements in Section 4 and this was a key point of contention when I first started and so we set up a comprehensive governance framework and there's a generic email address that gets distributed to a small group within the ICM team that monitors requests for changes to the standards, and we get oversight from the NRM directors group that Adam was talking about earlier.

And then part five is appendices that includes a whole manner of things from. Terminology and definitions to expected management outcomes and also units of measure table.

And that helps those that are part of the VWPIF reporting program one of DELWPs programs.

Uh, helps people come reports consistently. Against that those investments streams.

Uh, so throughout the book you'll see that there are light blue or.

Uhm, throughout the book you'll find that there's a hyperlinks, and they're highlighted in bold blue basically, so that's how you navigate your way around.

Uhm, if it's highlighted bold and blue, you can click on it and it'll take you to that section or it'll take you external. For example, the integrated reporting page, which is where.

The documents are currently hosted.

OK, and overview of the changes.

So one of the key changes was updated Aboriginal outputs terminology. We spent a few meetings discussing this because there is a whole bunch of nuance across the various regions regarding Aboriginal outputs terminology. We sought input from the Aboriginal self-determination reform branch, and we aligned to the language that we've used throughout the documents with their advice. We also aligned a range of outputs via an environment type attributes. I'll demonstrate some of that.

Some further on in the presentation, but ostensibly it was a method for aligning.

Outputs that were previously a bounce products or services.

Without a reference to the landscape, it made it very difficult to compare those outputs when we receive them either via a spatial file or in a tabular format. It made it very difficult to compare.

Physical items with elements of the environments. So to get around the technical arguments that we were having for once again a few technical working group meetings were spent on trying to solve this issue and the solution that we came up with was to include an employment type attribute to those outputs that didn't have a specific environment type in involved in their description.

I improved common attributes to understand agency involvement better, so I'll show the exact meaning of that, but we included an on ground works agent too.

The UM demonstrate the difference between the people who are being paid to manage the project and the people who are actually doing the work.

Uh, we improved the linking of the data standard to the delivery standards.

And this was a light bulb moment in about the middle of the seminar series of the workshop series that we held over last two years that are.

A lot of people didn't actually realize that there were delivery standards that were associated with the data standard, so we've included in the common attributes a direct link, and we've got an ongoing project at the moment to one to try and fill gaps where some of those delivery standards are missing.

We developed a unique site ID code that is a.

Uhm, quality control measure for some of the spatial.

Over reporting, I'll explain it when I when I get into the common attributes shortly, but it's basically a way of assessing whether.

A series of outputs are a new outputs, or whether they're related to an old project code.

We added volunteer data attributes to a majority of key outputs. That's partly due to policy input.

There were, there's more interest in knowing just how much volunteer effort is being put into our programs across the board.

A new chapter in management outcomes for marine and coastal policy.

And they were originally incorporated into a lot of the waterway structure.

A chapter, but after some nuanced discussion was decided rather than trying to demarcate.

in legalistic language at a line in landscape where marine and coastal environment finishes and.

Riparian or other landscapes starts. We would Simply put the a separate chapter in and allow people to be directed by the program. That's funding the works.

we as I mentioned before we added in a lot more how to use the standard, so you'll find there's there's sections of guidance through what is now about double the size, the thickness of the book.

apologies for making the book fatter, but I think it's far more functional. Intern for those that weren't. Overly familiar with its use and or confused about some elements.

And then the overall outcome of changing these things is a better relationship with the standard output data to user needs and also the evidence basis so.

And believe me, that's every possible point of contention was hotly contested and resolved to the best of our ability.

There are still some outstanding technical things, but by and large they were ones that were fringe issues that will get addressed overtime, but they weren't the burning issues that affect the structure or run the.

The main function of the standards, so that's where we focused our with it.

OK, I think yeah. I think we'll go to a check in. I will jump into the output ID.

And the common attributes as soon as we've had a chance for a checking.

Any questions hands up.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
OK yeah, let's see.

Put your hand up or put something in the chat. Come and know that there is no such thing as a silly question.

I'm giving you a lot of kind of technical detail about to land on you, so ask any question now.

Uh, you like, but otherwise we can know.

Continue Chris, you can keep moving on, so there's no one wants to.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)

Let's just get this one running. That's if it'll let me.

There it goes.

OK, so you can see here that some that hyperlink that I had inserted has just taken us through to page #13 in the booklet. If you're following along yourselves, this is the common attributes.

00:26:02.100 --> 00:26:04.620
Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Adam has a limited edition copy there in the office.
So in each of the chapters, the structure is going to be very similar. The common attributes is slightly different. It doesn't have a program logic at the top of it, but it has very similar layout, so you've got your attribute data descriptions you've got.

From where if this was an output chapter, it would have the terminology, but in the case of the common attributes I've just noted some of the terminology variations, so I'll let you guys. I won't read that out to you, but basically we'll find some minor variations between the contexts.

So in terms of, uh. Common attributes the one of the key changes that we made aren't to enable the breadth of spatial sophistication across the various systems that use these standards was to modify the output ID to include a reference to the year. And that was to ensure that. There is some flexibility in the numbering system.

At the front, the front Tom several digits. There is some flexibility and some of the CMA's in particular already have systems that generate this number for them, but we didn't set up rules or my predecessors didn't set up rules that would prevent a clash of.

Uh, either the re use of a number in future accidentally, or two independent systems generating the same number.

So this time rounds we stipulated that we would add a dash.

Catch up with the financial year in the code to guarantee that if you followed this Convention, there would be no chance that you would reuse the codes in a subsequent financial year, for example, and that gave us the ability to use the same code.

across multiple years and in an automated system that could do some of what in the previous version of the standard was a very manual based process where we cross check this stuff by I.

the others. The output standard data standard version. We included that and the output delivery standard version.

You'll see that we have level 1-2 and three in there. Those are we. We inserted that as a recommendation and that's just to give our program areas some flexibility about the level of detail that they wanted to go into with the delivery standards. And so if you're unsure, just.

Version, it's required level 1.

Project ID I think I'm just bringing up make sure I'm not missing one of those lists.

Unique Site ID are the delivery agent. Sorry, yes.

OK, so in the previous version of the standards and there was a common attribute referred to as delivery agent and and that was to stipulate the person who was ostensibly managing the project.

You'll note that this time around I actually included DELWP and government government agencies in there because there are circumstances where one program area might seconde assistance from another program area to deliver or another dog portfolio to deliver.

and we also needed to make the differentiation between those that are managing the contracts, which is typically.

From one of the Land Management agencies, DELWP included. Versus the people who are actually doing the work on the ground. And that's an important difference that we needed to be able to bring out of the data because.

Come in particular, we it one of the policy imperatives was to be able to provide more nuanced information about how much we're supporting regional business and regional investments.

And so this this allows you to see that you've got a a management level and you've also got a works level within the investment.

Further down the unique site ID, this is another big one.

So the next site ID, it's we developed it in response to some detailed work that was done by some spatial experts on Delts behalf are several years back.

We were looking at Assessing the quality and the usability of historical data. In this case, it was specific to the riparian programs.

and one of the things that was raised as an issue was the double counting, or the overestimation of works undertaken because of the scale. At which the sites were drawn or estimated via the map.

And the solution that was suggested to solve this as an issue which to assign where you are going to return to a site more than once. So if it's not a one off job you should apply a unique site ID to that site so that you're not double, triple, or quadruple counting the same. For example, hectare measure of improved riparian zone.

So that's extensively in in greater detail. What's written in here? The description we put a fair bit of detail into, but I'm happy to go with examples for individuals in the more the theme specific sessions that will run later if need be.

In sum, Yup, so that's the common attributes, and so we're now into the changes to the.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Chris, I might just. Grab you there before you go into that, there's a question.

From David in the chat, and I think it's David might have his hand up as well. So David, do you wanna just ask your question? That might be as good as anything. We've it's good, it's in the side chat as well. It's about.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Oh yes.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Uh, unique identifiers for outputs.

David Rohrlach
Yeah, so I'm a data analyst. The UM, the unique ID that it sounds good, but it in.

It sounds like the unique ID is used.

To link some outputs together and therefore it's no longer unique. For instance, the fence has a line and then the secondary output. The defenses of Polygon states that it must use the same ID. Therefore it's no longer unique 'cause you want to use it for indexing purposes, so that's kind of got me a bit worried that it's classed as a unique ID, but it's not.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yeah, so and we went into great detail on this particular question with Some experts from spatial vision who ostensibly built the geodatabase that the previous iterations of the Geodatabase and the current geodatabase too.

Raid and resolve this issue.

A man in the current version where we have two spatial elements for fence line. We have a line feature and we have an area feature.

They are related to each other via the same output ID code. However the spatial feature has no other attributes associated with it.

Went at the DELWP end of the system we intend to design the Dell vendor the system to take that data and reconcile it as a relational table or related entity as opposed to individual items.

Does that mean for now?

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Uh, because the because they are actually related. So the the fence Polygon is actually a an S and an area statement around what that fence is actually impacting on is that correct, Chris?

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yes. So all of the attribute data is on the line feature, which is historically accurate. That's the way it was before. But we're relating a spatial and area of Polygon feature to that line feature to make sure that we're capturing area protected.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Yeah, so that's.

So excellent question. Thanks David, and we'll take that as everything that's asked today gives us a bit of a sense of some focus that we need to have as we go forward in trying to explain the where we're at. So please others if you've got any questions like this, just throw them in the chat, even if you don't want to actually ask them. We very helpful for us going forward. Get you to keep moving along. Chris, 'cause we're in the good half an hour plus of our of our time, so thank you, Dave.

Thanks Chris.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
OK, so I'm going to get into some examples of some of the changes.

On that we've made in the actual attributes to be collected and will go to pest animal control. First, let's see if it lets me.

To be able to.

Zoom in for you. Sorry yeah, it's dumb. Civil engineering.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
It's alright, I if I'll just give people a if if people are wanting to zoom you hold down your control key and use your roller scroller on your mouse. You can't do it Chris, but we can. It'll just increase the size of the inline document that's been shown control plus the scroll of your mouse everyone.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
You can read it.

Apologies for that then.

OK, so this is, uh, output within the new data standards you'll notice that it's follows the.

Yeah, the regular structure that you would have seen before it's got the scope the related outputs and the terminology in there.

however, you'll notice that under the scope we've included on a bit more how to and in in particular in pest animal control, we've included the species buffer distances.

As a middle ground towards the pending improvements to the delivery standard in that space.

Rather than put the impulse dollars, including.

this level of detail in the actual outputs themselves in in the collectible data, we decided that we put it in the description.

And you'll find that this the scope and terminology for most of the outputs has been expanded to try and help people with understanding the logic behind why and how things have been collected.

So I'll just move down, you'll see.

The terminology the standard stuff is there are but the new stuff that you may not have seen before is the environment type. So this allows you to define.

Uhm, where in the landscape? Otherwise non environmental descriptions would have been.

You'll also find that for some of the crossover areas. So for example wetlands.

Stream and River Dell it relevant to different outputs. There will be slight nuances in the language just to make sure that it's aligns with the language that's relevant to that program, and also relevant to the best practice terminology for that particular focal area.

And then you'll find the program logic.

Which describes the expected management outcomes. So as with the previous version of the standards, you can have your own expected management outcome and describe that in your project documentation, but we've provided a list for you in Section 5 of the documents in the appendices, and you can just follow the logic diagram here to see.

From what your management outcome is and what the PEST animal control is contributing to.

And then the next or the final section for each of the outputs is the table itself of the specific attributes.

So these are the bits that you will collect in the field and then report back to to DELWP. And it describes your spatial objects as well.

Alright, let's close that one off. Then we jump into the next one.

Jeanette Rout (DELWP)
Uh, Chris, we've got a question in the chat from Andrew Morrison.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)

Jeanette Rout (DELWP)
Andrew you wanna ask Chris your question?

And then followed by Darren quickly.

Andrew Morrison

Yeah thanks yeah so Chris. Obviously like it's a bit dependent on where your funding stream and what the objective or the target species that you're delivering. A feral cat program for example.

Which might be predominantly funded out of a Rams are wetland program, but obviously the majority of work benefits that terrestrial landscape two. So what's the guidance there?

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yeah, so where you've got a crossover like that and overlap the guidance in this document states that are the two elements the two separately funded elements are to be described as separate outputs.

If they funded by the same group or program, it is the majority rules. So if the majority of the investment is on one.

Error if the lane Skype versus the other. That's the one that rules.

Uh, apart from that we have to leave some flexibility in there because there is still some Gray area and it really is up to the project manager to choose at that point. If you've gone through those other selections and it's a single funding source and it's exactly 50% over either side of what you would consider to be a threshold, then it's pretty much best informed guests of who the project manager is.

Andrew Morrison
OK, no worries, and that's articulated in the in the guidance notes there. Beautiful, great thanks, Chris.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yes it is, yeah.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Yeah, and then and just really importantly there that these are the, you know, one of the things here is that both that we're all adults doing this work and that your guidance will come from your direct funding regime so that you're getting clarity from that. It's a good checking, but there's guidance in there. The other one, sorry, can you select from multiple environment types out is that? Is that what you asked as well, Andrew?

Andrew Morrison

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yeah, that was Andrews, the promise?

Andrew Morrison
Yeah, that is yeah.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
OK, that's it. So that's fine.

Andrew Morrison
High scores.

Jeanette Rout (DELWP)
Now we have Darren with a question as well. Darren, do you want to go next?

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Darren yeah.

Darren Baldyga
Sure, I guess if I just bring it the level up a bit higher, we're given a lot more detail around the spatial reporting guidance. You know, like buffering track logs.

Darren Baldyga
Uh, calesia virus for rabbits is 2 kilometres, albeit all baiting is 1 kilometre.

Are we still able to use that or we just taking? I think maybe adding you answer with my son we take guidance from the fund source itself.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yeah, the default in those scenarios where there's competing with us.

Uh, you know is don't bite the hand that feeds you. The funding source is the place that defines the specifics.

Uh, we will try and help align those things as best we can, but remembering that this standard is the base minimum that is to be applied across the board, so it's not going to have the same nuance as you would get from your Funding Agency.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Yeah, and I think I'll just start quickly. Grab it. I. I also think that the sum of the essence in here is starting to get into guidance of delivery and I really need to stress that they sometimes these things get a bit confounded, so measuring what we did and where we did it is a little bit different to the rules about how we're going to do our work. So just stress that now.

And I'll just stress also that for us to be able to get through today we will have many more workshops that focus on individual elements of this and keep putting your questions in the chat. But we might not be able to get to the detailed answer of all of them, but just recognize that if it's if it's about how you're going to collect data and then send it back to us.

Go for it. 'cause that's really what we're trying to get to here today. So Laura is got a question in before I, I do wanna let Chris move on a bit since we've nearly an hour into the thing. But Laura, did you wanna just? A question that.

Laura Chant
Yeah, so it's just a quick question with the specific activities. Can you select multiple? So obviously with foxers bait and shoot or with rabbits harbor destruction fumigate.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yes, we're shifting that way there is.

8 outputs that I've allowed multiple inputs to off the top of my head. I can't list them in that level of detail, but I think we'll actually covered that in probably the biodiversity themed.

Meeting 'cause I'll have all of the details for each of those ones there, but there are in terms of the design of the geodatabase. I had the new GEODATABASE modified a little bit to allow some multiple attributes which adds complexity for us, but we're setting up tools to help us with that.

Laura Chant

Adam G Hood (DELWP)

Excellent questions keep going Chris Pixel.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
OK, I'll jump into another example of a chapter waterways structure. It's got some unique bits that were added.

OK, so once again follows the standard layout, the title and the output number, and then the related outputs. The terminology once again, it's got those environments types in it, and it's the standard terminology that you would come to expect.

Some of those terms will have changed if you're an absolute standards nerd, you'll notice that we've actually tided up some of the terminology in there, but the biggest change to our waterways structure is that we've incorporated some advice from ARI fact sheet with regard to The complexity of our instream habitat.

And and that is reflected in the outputs that are listed in the table as well. So we've given you a decent description there and also the hyperlink to jump to the ARI Guidance note itself.

And then we've included it in the specific attributes as well, so you'll see.

Large wood ABC and D that relates to specific categories that are in that guidance note from our right and we've also.

Where previously we would have just had an error measurements, there was some.

Ah, really valuable input from the marine and coastal team that.

ended up changing the way that we viewed this particular attribute, and for both this and a marine and coastal, we changed to an area and or size measurements and.

that allows us where there are line object and it's more appropriate to be aligned objects that can look at it that way. Otherwise if it's less than these terms here you know more than 20 meters squared or 10 to 20 meters squared. You can refer to it as a point object or an area object so that just gives us the ability to interrogate the data where it's in a more accurate representation.

Jumped out of that one again and keep cracking.

Marine coastal structure I better jump in there 'cause it's brand new.

So you're probably getting the idea of the structure of the thing again.

Type is at the top related outputs and then terminology and of course there's the environment types listed in there and then some of the specifics.

revetment, for those who are into the detail of the differences there, there are two versions of revetments.

and their relevant one is relevant to land based earthworks, and one is relevant to marine and coastal. So I'll let you look up the detail there that we've referred to Ah, the program logic.

So this was a really good collaborative work. This one I'll have to pay some credit to RMCG who slaved away for a few weeks with the marine and coastal team to come up with these expected management outcomes and this design.

So I have a lot of hair pulling up at early seminars.

And then that's the outputs, so you'll notice that in particular the marine and coastal guys opted to go with a Polygon structure they thought saw that as more valuable than the error in line feature.

OK, I believe for into another. Yes, we are into another check in.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Really good, some comments or just say Adrian Kitchen. Thank you very much. There's some great work done on the waterway structures and the teams that have supported Chris. Uh, across someone who can say who they are a bit later on. But and but yeah, some really good work done from waterway programs or any coastal areas. Biodiversity in DELWP, as well as CMA's. So great stuff.

Any questions?

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
OK, I'll keep going if it's the case.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Are there we go or do we got one just now? So Geodatabase has it been distributed to stakeholders as well. I can answer that. No it hasn't. But if you come to the workshop next week, put your name onto the workshop next week. When is the date of their workshop just.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
16th of September. It's another Thursday. Yeah, I haven't sent out invite yet, so yeah.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
16th of September.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Sorry Chris. 16th of September, if you come to that, put your name on that and it'll be in the well. You're basically get that on the day that we kind of go through it. That's the way we'll do it.

Just so that it's final, we're going through final kind of confirmation of the checking and control quality control of that. And on the day when we present or will provide it, and it's good. It's a good step forward, great.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
OK, so the next new element we've covered the overview guidance, so I'm not going to jump in there. I think you get the drift.

Uh, maybe it's the overview. Guidance shows you just gives you an easy step into the document. If you haven't used it before and guides you around. So if you're a practitioner or a program officer, the difference of importance for you in the various areas.

And the bit that is, uh, has kind of fat and the document a bit, but I think adds a lot of value to the document. Is the chapter specific guidance, and so I'm just going to click on, click into that and I'll show you one that's fairly important.

So under environmental works, which is Chapter 2.

Here you can see the headline of each of the main chapters. It shows you the outputs and the output types that fit under there.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
All notes, UM, just because I didn't do so earlier. I'm under vegetation. We've included EVC structure and diversity, so it is in terms of the level of detail collectors. It follows the same alignments, the same level of granularity and detail as the waterway structure. So the instream habitat follows classes like this, which is why we included EVC, because for the bio guys.

EVC adds a lot of value to the data set for them for a fairly simple change.

And so, at the head of each, each of the main chapters you see you get an overview. You can click on these. These are also hyperlinks so you can click on these and all jump to that. That area of the book.

But immediately following that at the head of most chapters, I've included guidance from various areas of the Old spatial guidance nodes, the Mer framework, and various different places. So I've included that in the headline to the chapter to help you understand.

How we want you to collect the data. Why it's done in a particular way and to try and undo some of the technical elements of the terminology use so one of the specific cases that we worked on is.

We trialed various very detailed diagrams in this space. I'm trying to explain this difference and in the end we ended up back with a green fields with orange clouds in the.

Which I found a bit funny after it took weeks to get back to this it took weeks of backwards and forwards with a graphic designer, but we came back to this and I think it tells the story pretty clearly.

Uhm, so this was one of the biggest error areas of arrow in the returned data, and that was the overreporting of areas. So if someone had a project area they were reporting that the whole project area had been treated and all surveyed for weeds when in actual fact the area is much closer to what's shown on the left hand side here. So we've included the advice. We've shown some percentages both visually and in words.

Like really hoping to help new users dispose of the standards, understand that that's what we're after So there's a bit of that chapter guidance at the head of each of the primary chapters I'm I won't spend anymore time on that. They'll just jump into the next bit.

OK, now into the extra nerdy bit that I like, so the spatial and technical.

Some elements of the standards are. These are some pretty big steps forward. There are only small in terms of.

Uh, changes to the, UM, the programming, but they they're huge steps in terms of what it allows us to do with the data and how it allows us to manage it in moving forward. So we're taking small steps towards our relational Database.

Essentially, from a flat file database, which was the old version, we still have to account for the fact that a good percentage of our reporting partners.

Uhm, don't have sophisticated enough systems to deal with anything but flat, either flat files or flat spatial files. They're very geodatabase design. That they're right. It's a very simplistic ends, but we also have our reporting partners who have very complex and sophisticated systems, and where we're not trying to jump all the way to the right hand end of the spectrum. What we're attempting to do is to incrementally improve the ability of DELWP to work with this data and the ability of both ends of the spectrum to be able to do more complex analysis and then the other projects that that Adam has me working on is.

to help build, build the tools that will be able to consume that information and turn it into the best practice data that we have where you can fully interrogated and we're part way there where we're working towards that at the moment.

So the way this works out two spatial features as Andrew. Sorry no.

Uh, it wasn't there was asking before it was David. Sorry as David mentioned before, there's two spatial features for some objects. Now we have an either or relationship and both of our relationship. So in 1.9 output fence we have a line feature showing the location of the structure and we have a Polygon showing the area protected by the structure. So those two things are linked by the unique ID code.

The other dual spatial feature that we have is 4.2 management agreement and it's an either or relationship, so that is a point feature showing the relation, the location of the head office or a Polygon feature showing the area of the agreement and the details of which one of those two you should use are described in detail in the chapter with improved that advice.

In terms of relational tables, are specific attributes numbers 1,2 and three, so we were attained the familiar flat file structure where you've got a simplistic.

Geo database you can come in some of the records. You can record 3 species in the same output.

Uhm, and then we've also in the current geodatabase that I'm reviewing. In the moments we have the ability to use relational tables in there. Where are more sophisticated system can put as many records. Species records, for example as they want and just link it through the output ID. So that's one of the value adds that we've got in the current version, but neither side is required to use.

They just need to pick one or the other and the design of the DELWP system will read the information and figure out which one is the most appropriate and then pull it across into our side of the fence.

Jeanette Rout (DELWP)
Uh, Chris, we've got another question from Andrew and then one from Angus.

Andrew, do you want to go first?

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Uh, I think Andrews question was around the geodatabase, which is what we ain't. I answered that before, so again, just remember that the tease there is that you come to that workshop and we will distribute it straight after that.

I think Angus is next, yeah.

Jeanette Rout (DELWP)

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Thanks Jeanette, sorry.

Angus Donaldson
My questions is relating to the fencing object on that previous slide.

Come with the additional Polygon feature. Does that remove the need to report additional features like crazy exclusion on a project site? If we do a Polygon?

Area showing this the area which the fences protecting? Or is that an additional feature?

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
No, it's additional. So this was a really another groundbreaking discovery through the workshops that we held with the technical working group. So the the logic of the standards is and the interpretation that we want you to use is that if you're expected management outcome, if the activity you're doing is grazing, then it should be recorded as a grating output.

If the, uh, expected management outcome is fencing, then fencing should be the outputs. What you shouldn't do is overlap the two. They need to be kept completely separate.

Does that answer that question well enough, Angus.

Angus Donaldson
Uh, it's sort of because sort of things that I work in riparian sort of areas and you know, do fencing? Revenge is a standard and you know you could exclude stock so.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
It does.

Angus Donaldson
From my understanding.

Angus Donaldson
Can't you just explain that?

You would only put the line feature and the fencing Polygon feature.

And not the grazing exclusion.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yeah, so if the intention was.

Is, uh, a change in grazing regime? Then you would record it as a grazing.

Uh, outputs if the intention is riparian vegetation. Then you would put it as a fencing output and show the area protected.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
I'll, uh.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
There is a nuance in there. It sounds like I'm saying the same thing, but there's a new customer.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Yeah, I'll just I'll just. I'll just starve in 'cause? Uh, thanks Shana, you've, uh, yes, grazing will be covered in a future workshop for sure, because it was a very significant part of our conversations. And it's probably, uh, from what I what. What came out of that was probably grazing is used in a little more than perhaps a lot of programs intended to be used inside there inside there.

Program investments so that one is one that we will definitely cover, particularly where we're at. And I I do. Even just heard it now that there's exclusion and a range of other things that are kind of embedded in that and it it, even in our conversations at the workshops that grazing.

Uhm, as a tool was asked to be used a little bit differently to the way some people were reporting that they were using it, so it was a bit of an eye opener, but that's a gain as much to do with reporting data as it is really. It's about how we deliver, so there's a whole bunch of kind of conversations that will confound the conversation about how we do our work and what we and what we do and where we do it.

Which is a data reporting kind of mechanism. Anyway, I won't interfere with that too much, but yes, we'll cover it in in workshops would question.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Yeah, we'll bring some good case studies to that to give you specific examples as well.

OK, that's us.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
OK well. Unless there are other questions and I'm happy to take a sort of more general questions.

Uh, uh, beyond that, but I wanna just say thanks everybody.

Uh, for coming along today I wanna thank Chris Jackson very particularly personally for his contribution to this over the next. The last few. Well, it's nearly a few years and I'll put that in the side and hopefully people will agree.

And A and I also want to thank everybody who is sitting around this big table with us today and I'm all their names. There are hundreds, right? We put this. This has been a very strongly recognized and a solid piece of work. The Secretary of the department has mentioned it quite solidly in his.

In his missives that you know, this is well done for hanging on to this framework and make getting it through to the keeper. It's a really significant piece of work, so I'm happy to take any other questions if people have them. We can also take them offline. I'll give you a Christmas personal home number. You can contact him if you like. No, I'm joking, I'm out, but it is 507 and it's for a lot of people. That's home time.

I'm for others, it's time to get on with your rest of your work that you couldn't get online with while you're at in all the meetings today.

And yeah, don't forget to turn up on the 16th. I appreciate your time. Thanks very much guys. Thanks Jeanette for helping out with this too. But I'm Chris.

Angus Donaldson
Thank you.

Zuzanna Lelito
Thank you.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Thanks very much guys.

Laura Chant

Zuzanna Lelito
Hey guys.

Andrew Morrison
Thanks very much.

Katie Warner
Thank you.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
OK, thanks for your help.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Thanks everyone for discipline. That was wonderful.

Chris Jackson (DELWP)
Adam I will jump out and see you guys on the other side.

Adam G Hood (DELWP)
Thanks everyone bye bye.

Page last updated: 19/10/21