PNAMP Steering Committee Meeting Notes
April 17, 2007
Pacific Northwest
Aquatic Monitoring
Partnership
Distribution (attendees are highlighted) Al Doelker, Bruce Crawford, Bruce Schmidt, Erik Neatherlin,
Fran Wilshusen, Greg Sieglitz, Gretchen Hayslip, Jennifer O’Neal, Jim Geiselman, John Arterburn, Joy
Paulus, Keith Wolf, Ken Dzinbal, Kim Kratz, Kim Titus, Linda Ulmer, Michael Newsom, Paul Ocker, Phil
Roger, Russell Scranton, Scott Downie, Steve Lanigan, Steve Leider, Steve Waste, Stewart Toshach,
Jacque Schei, Jen Bayer, David Woodson, Ken MacDonald, Mike Banach

Decision to continue with development of PNAMP Aquatic Monitoring Activity
Inventory.

Decision to hold SC retreat the last week of June, to focus on PNAMP Strategy revision and development of regional aquatic monitoring plan.
X Jacque will send email regarding dates for Monitoring Inventory subcommittee meeting (will have meeting before next SC meeting).
X SC to review readability of the pie chart section in the Management Question report and send comments to Jen by May 1.
X SC - If your agency is interested in being a sponsor for the Regional Information
Management Forum, contact Jen.
X Jen will send out what information there is on the Regional Information Management
Forum following worksession April 19, 2007.
X SC to facilitate technical review of new sections of the Macroinvertebrate Protocol (4 weeks for a technical review—due May 21, 2007.
X Jacque will ask for feedback regarding dates and topics for PNAMP Retreat (June 26/
27 OR 27/28)
X SC will review the Management Question/Info Needs template; provide comments for discussion at May 22 SC meeting.
X Jen will contact SC individually regarding scheduling executive briefings.
1.
Introduction
Meeting Reminders: o Protocol Manager Worksession April 24 (9-4), Portland o NED Meeting May 2 (9-4), NPCC Conference Room, Portland o SRFB Meeting May 3-4, Olympia o Science to Policy Conference, May 7-9, Vancouver o FPM Workgroup Meeting May 23 or 24 (9-4), Vancouver – probably go with the
24th o SC Meeting May 22 (9-4), Olympia – Department of Ecology o Metadata Training May 22-23, Portland

2.
PNAMP Aquatic Monitoring Activity Survey and Inventory Pilot Project Review
Background: In 2006, PNAMP initiated a project to catalogue aquatic and related monitoring activities in the Pacific Northwest. We began with a short term pilot project, implemented by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) StreamNet project, which is now complete. PNAMP has solicited feedback on the results of the pilot effort as well as the concept of a regional monitoring inventory. Russell Scranton has provided a report summarizing comments and recommendations received to date
(link here ). The Inventory Subcommittee has reviewed this report. The report includes the StreamNet completion report on the Inventory pilot project as an appendix
(previously shared with the SC).
Goal Today: Discuss recommendations provided in report. See pages 7-12 for list of recommendations
Discussion:

Need to be sure about the goal and the cost of doing next steps o StreamNet, good job with limited resources, but gives us an idea of cost of doing something more and maintaining it.

Hard to control progress of others that you are collaborating with o Mike Banach has met with SoS and they are doing the work to migrate their data to StreamNet’s database o NWQMC – very different than ours, not directly compatible (could be useful for making contacts) o OWEB – not really an inventory o CSMEP – Not merged with PNAMP Inventory as CSMEP work did not include location information o Survey of Enviornmental Monitoring Programs and associated databases within WA – difficult establishing relationship with WA staff to get this done. o Have not followed up with people regarding information already entered.

Should we ask why those people who were contacted did not respond – directed not to, no data, etc.?

Tabular search output tool was not fully developed

Have not followed with review of data, follow up to responders

Pilot was successful in helping to identify challenges

See recommendations from report ( PNAMP Aquatic Monitoring Activity
Survey and Inventory Pilot Project Review ), did get a fair amount of feedback, StreamNet also proposed some recommendations

Technical people needs – say they have the information they need to meet their needs, don’t have time/want to share the information we are looking for o How do we all work together? We want to know who works where for collaboration purposes. Need to get commitment at high level that this information will be exchanged.

Stewart - Need to address business issues as well o Needs – How many people are participating and who could we add to have a sufficient understanding of monitoring work
2

o Needs – BPA identified need for this in terms of their funding, also
EPA

Jen - Need to decide: o Stop now, have this be a pilot, give info to other group o Continue on, reassess goal and potential users o Continue on by merging with another effort, need to reassess, but in light of the other group’s needs. (see PNAMP inventory collaboration webpage)

Bruce - Need to focus on one level/scale, technical or funders, then define the scope

Stewart - Should complete this pilot project and move on from there

Jim - Get subgroup back together and line out strategy, let them decide
Proposed: about finishing the pilot, revisit PNAMP objective and see if you’ve met it

Jen – Want to hear from SC about what the next steps should be

Michael – determine what data sets you want and ask for only those, not everything they are doing; people need to see long term benefit of this
Decision to continue with development of PNAMP Aquatic Monitoring Activity
Inventory. Ask subcommittee to meet in the next two or three weeks to:

Define needs

Define the questions that the data would answer, what information do you need

Define scope, scale

Define strategy/approach

Define deliverables

Estimate resources required and identify potential sources of support
X Jen or Jacque will send email proposing dates before next SC meeting
3.
Short Updates:

Salmonid field protocols handbook: copyright issue – book will be available for purchase in mid-June, will be posted on SOS website 4-5 weeks later (allowing free access)

High Level Indicators White Paper: comments due from subcommittee April 23 ; will be sent to SC for review in May

Integrated Monitoring Design Worksession: draft white paper in review

FPM WG to meet May 23 or 24 for Tagging, Telemetry, & Marking (TTM) task scoping worksession; meet in June for methods/protocols gap analysis worksession.

PNAMP Recommendation Process amended per SC request ( link here ).

PNAMP Management Question Survey Report complete (link here ). This final version includes response to all comments received to date, including new figures
( check out the pie charts ) to explain results. X Please look at the readability of the pie chart section and send comments by May 1.

Budget Update: preliminary response from NPCC Budget Oversight Group (BOG) to request for increase in FY07 funding from the Fish & Wildlife Program

Regional Information Management Forum: will share invitation when it is ready.
Looking for a few execs as sponsors to help us market the forum. Forum will be on
3

September 25, in the morning. X If this is something that you think you could get approval for and that your agency would like to do, contact Jen. X Jen will send out what information there is on the forum following worksession April 19, 2007.

Effectiveness WG meeting notes to be sent out soon (week of April 23).

Managing Expectations white paper: finishing touches – need to confirm that all concerns have been addressed before finalizing.

Jen to do briefing for execs, starting with Council in May. X Jen will contact SC individually to seek scheduling input.
4.
PNAMP Recommendation: Macroinvertebrate Protocol ( link here )
Background: Protocol has been revised to include analytical procedures. New version has been reviewed by the Northwest Bioassessment Workgroup (NBAW) (through Gretchen
Hayslip).
Goal Today: define necessary steps for review in order to advance this recommendation.
Proposed: SC to relate to Jen how much time is necessary for internal review before SC is able to make a decision regarding advancing this as a PNAMP recommendation.

Allow 4 weeks for technical review (due May 19, 2007)

Jen get update from Gretchen on who participated in review already

Jen send protocol to SC to pass on to technical people
 SC to conduct “policy review” (adoption/implementation considerations) following technical review.
5.
SC Retreat
Background: In 2005 and 2006, the SC participated in a 2-day retreat to focus on development of the organization (2005) and refinement of procedures and task planning
(2006). SC members tentatively agreed to a Retreat in 2007, dependent on needs.
Goal Today: discuss utility of holding a retreat, including potential goals & topics. If desired to proceed, discuss preliminary logistics.
Proposed: here are 2 ideas (not unrelated to one another) to consider as focus for the
Retreat.

PNAMP Strategy: the current Strategy (2005) includes language committing us to review the Strategy every 2 years.

Regional Monitoring framework/plan: considerable discussion occurred early in the development of PNAMP as to whether PNAMP should devise a regional monitoring framework/plan, resulting in the decision that PNAMP would not do so but would rather work to coordinate existing monitoring.
Recently, this concept has been proposed to PNAMP again. Is it time now to embark on this task? o SC concurs that the time is right to have this discussion

Decision to have a summer retreat the last week of June, to focus on PNAMP
Strategy revision and development of regional aquatic monitoring plan. o X request feedback on proposed dates: June 26 & 27, or 27 & 28 o In lieu of regularly scheduled SC meeting on June 19 o X request feedback on topics mentioned above & other suggestions
4

6.
Management Question/Info Needs Template
Background: In addition to attempting to identify management questions of interest to
PNAMP partners, PNAMP has been working to collate information related to these questions, such as scale of inference, indicators, metrics, etc. We have seen a number of iterations of tools to organize this information. The newest version now includes our first attempt to include definitions of indicators and metrics (data elements).
Goal Today: Discuss latest iteration of MQ/Info Needs Template ( link here ). Does this capture all items of interest? How can we proceed to vet this product and continue to seek content?
Proposed: define SC review and comment timeline to seek additional content

X SC asked to review the template and comment on the following for discussion at May 22 SC meeting: o Does the template convey the information we are looking for (anything missing?) o Suggestions to improve readability of the template o Suggestions as to how to complete the template (add content) o Suggestions as to how to vet the content (what is acceptable process to get your agency involved to the point that at the end we can say we agree that the content in this tool is good)

We could extract information from MQ survey to add to template about how
MQ’s were rated by which agencies & which agencies said they are funding work along these lines. Drawback is that not all PNAMP partners completed the survey.
5