July 25, 2012 1:30-3:00 P.M.
CRITFC
Participants: Henry Franzoni (CRITFC), David Graves (CRITFC-presenting), Anne Marshall
(WDFW), Russell Scranton (BPA), Michelle Steig-Geltner (Yakama Nation), Kathryn Thomas
(PNAMP-notetaker), Steve VanderPloeg (WDFW), Bob Woodard (WDFW)
Project developers Denise Kelsey (DK) and David Graves (DG) have responded to some of the
Focus groups suggestions post-meeting. Their comments are indicated below by either DK
NOTE or DG note.
Action items:

CRITFC continues to be interested in learning what attributes users are interested in having associated with each population unit, send comments/thoughts to Denise Kelsey
(Keld@critfc.org) or David Graves (Grad@critfc.org)

CRITFC needs feedback on how the application works with different browsers, IE appears to be the best but they need to know how it is functioning on other browsers

CRITFC will consider the next step discussion suggestions that are listed in the notes below
Agenda
Review Tasks – Tasks presented in powerpoint ( http://www.pnamp.org/document/3965 )
CRITFC – is working with NOAA to get TRT population delineations, ODFW/WDFW – soon to have their population delineations ready for review
On-line application appears to work better with internet explorer
AM: interested in run timing, whether population introduced, WDFW moving to TRT boundaries and names for listed populations, for unlisted will be using SaSi
Progress – David Graves provided a real-time demonstration of tool features
Changed platform and redesigned look since last Focus Group meeting
Fish Species Pop/Units Boundary application (only one Species - but several pop/units of the species - per region can be displayed at a time)
User enters from page with icons for fish populations for recovery areas
1

Current pop-up attributes associated with an ID tool used to query a HUC 6 within a fish unit are: Subwatershed number and name, Fish unit attribute report link; the attribute report has more information on each fish population for each agency that contributed the data.
David should have then demoed the HUC 6 map that displays HUC6s and identifies all species and fish pop/units assigned to a single HUC 6: Boundaries of pop/units are not available with this application. Same pop-up and link to reports appears.
Can user click on spot on map and get all layers associated?
Yes, if zoom in sufficiently use can get report from SQL DB entries for that species (i.e. spring Chinook), Identify tool allows choice of areas and then identify attributes of selected area organized by HUC 6
Can user export results of a search?
Yes, user can export reports in a variety of formats, can also print map
Tool discussion and next steps
CRITFC working to get updated NOAA TRT layers and incorporate into spatial data layers of tool
Need to have instruction/help available for users
Tutorial page would be good, check On-line help tutorials associated with cb.fish, and
MonitoringMethods.org
Add Puget Sound and recovery areas beyond CRB indicated on entry page, NOAA has separate layers for Puget Sound
CRITFC encouraged to get Puget Sound layers Get everything Puget sound
DK NOTE: Not in the scope of this project “Columbia River Basin Salmon
Population/Unit Crosswalk . . . “, CRITFC is aware and hopes that this project will expand into regions outside the Columbia Basin and is willing to add any data sent to us from outside the Columbia Basin. This project’s scope is to first establish the design of the current applications and database, based on Columbia River data. Any data added in the future will need to be in the format established and most likely built by other agencies.
Tool should be used by participants in Coordinated Assessments to translate agency/tribal name for population to a recommended population name – TRT/NOAA for listed species
Instead of going through map query user should be able to go directly to a SQL DB query where they can crosswalk their agency/tribal population name to TRT recommended.
DK NOTE: Unfortunately I was not here for this discussion/request, because I cannot picture how this would work without the map. The reason we are building the map is that population boundaries and names are not identical and therefore, subwatershed
2

by subwatershed populations can change by name or boundaries. The answer to a database query of a name crosswalk depends on location, without looking at where these boundaries and names are located on the earth and picking a location to query for data (online mapping application) we will not have a way to crosswalk the data by agency.
DG NOTE- RS did give a vision of this based on searching by wildcard, population name, or geographic area, but it is true that if one solely used this type of query, they would miss some of boundary differences that we are trying to highlight/resolve.
Add ability to directly search SQL DB by HUC, by unique Name, by Fish.
DK NOTE: Currently this is not in the scope of work for the project, but could be added if time and money permits as long as the search queries were kept simple.
Where are GIS layers are housed? Is CRITFC using NOAA layers through web services or storing at CRITFC?
CRITFC encouraged to look into use of web services for access to up-to-date GIS layers, cb.fish uses web service to NOAA, Matt Deniston should know the appropriate contact within NOAA
DK NOTE: We would welcome this if the data is up-to-date with national Watershed
Boundary Data Set (WBD) boundaries. Will be contacting Matt.
DG NOTE: There may be some technical issues with this because of necessary linkages from the map server to our SQL reporting database, but we can certainly try it out.
Need to have entry page
Allow users to go directly to map where they can query by species
Also allow users to go directly to queries of geodatabase
Provide access to tutorial
DK NOTE: CRITFC will be building a front page to the tools, which will explain the project, explain tool use, and have other links to other resources.
Investigate linking entry page into monitoring resources
Would be nice to us the standardized codes that correspond with code use in existing data systems; NOAA uses standardized codes in GIS layers, need to check for use of standardized codes for WDFD/Idaho/Oregon)
DK NOTE: I am not completely sure what the “code” is here that is being discussed, but the idea behind the Crosswalk is NOT to standardize anything at this point. NOAA, or anyone else, with standardized codes are encouraged to include this data as attributes with their names and population boundaries, so that anyone can crosswalk the codes
3

to their fish population/unit names and boundaries. If in the future all fish managers agree that a name and code can be used for a population because we agree that we are all describing the same fish, then the Crosswalk tools will reflect that decision.
DG NOTE: I think RS’s comments here were not that we would be able to produce a standardized set of codes for all different types of populations, but rather that we could provide linkages between the native codes from different sources, rather than try to use the full names. which are prone to error.
No standardized codes for unlisted species
Questions re use of hatchery layers
CRITFC used HSRG for hatchery layers, this has listed and unlisted populations
May be two names for same population in some cases because of hatchery origin and listing, need to check these cases
4