PNAMP Habitat Data Sharing Project – Leadership
Team Teleconference
NOTES
April 23rd, 2012
2:00 – 3:30 PDT
Participants: Karen Adams (WA DOE), Eric Archer (USFS), Jen Bayer (PNAMP), Leska Fore
(Statistical Design), Bernadette Graham Hudson (LCFRB), Tom Iverson (CBFWA), Jennifer Johnson
(WA GSRO), Glenn Merritt (WA DOE), Jennifer O'Neal (Tetra Tech), Amy Puls (PNAMP), Jina Sagar
(LCREP), Sonya Schaller (Colville Tribes), Jacque Schei (PNAMP), Russell Scranton (BPA), Louis
Sweeny (Ross & Assoc.), Kathryn Thomas (PNAMP), Jim Webster (CTUIR)
Actions Items:
X PNAMP HDS core team will continue to define regional needs for sharing of stream-scale
habitat data as part of activity A,
X PNAMP HDS core team will continue work with GSRO as part of activity B to explore data
sharing as part of the State of the Salmon reporting needs,
X The HDS workplan will be updated with revised Activity C and other minor changes to
descriptive paragraphs, as suggested earlier,
X PNAMP HDS core team will continue work with macroinvertebrate planning group to
initiate agreements on a regional standard taxonomic effort for macroinvertebrates and to
explore an issue paper on the relationship of macroinvertebrates to habitat and fish
productivity,
X The HDS Leadership Team is asked to provide comments and feedback on how to best
develop habitat data discovery with the Explorer feature of the developing Monitoring Site
Manager tool. Send your thoughts to Jacque Schei (jschei@usgs.gov) by May 25, 2012.
Supporting materials are the Monitoring Site Manager Explorer Feature Description
(available at http://www.pnamp.org/document/3829), a broadsheet that provides a
picture of how the tool might look (http://www.pnamp.org/document/3832), and the
Monitoring Site Manager Explorer Feature – Status Report, Draft
(http://www.pnamp.org/document/3845)
Activity A: Identification of a Short List of Priority Habitat Characteristics
- Review compiled list of characteristics
Today’s discussion:
 Several organizations were suggested as customers/end users for shared habitat data
including: BPA expert panels for limiting factors analysis (at both the sub-basin and full
basin scale), CHaMP, NPCC for HLI reporting, LCFRB, other regional offices, NOAA ESA 5
year recovery report
Activity B: Data Exchange Template (DET) Prototype for Selected Habitat Characteristics
- Update on GSRO as customer for habitat data
- NOAA as a potential habitat data customer
Today’s discussion:
 Q: Is the STM database publically available
A: They are working on it
Activity C: Implementing Prototype Habitat DET and Tackling Complex Data Standardization
Issues
- Review updated Activity description
- Examples (if any)
Today’s discussion:
 Many folks have mentioned the desire for overall habitat health index, but in order to share
at that level you still need common understanding of how the underlying metrics map to
one another
 Large Wood may be an example of an attribute that could be shared using an index.
 No objections to updating the work plan with the new activity description
Activity D: Needs Assessment for Habitat Data Sharing
- On Hold
Activity E: Macroinvertebrate Data as a Component of HDS
- Macroinvertebrate planning group my develop an issue paper for fish - habitat–
macroinvertebrate connection as a way to solidify their ideas and engage wider comment
and participation on the topic
- Interest from MI Planning Group on regional standard taxonomic effort agreements;
PNAMP core team is helping the group compiled and organize taxonomic listings
Today’s discussion:
 Seth White (CRITF) produced a framework illustrating linkages between habitat,
macroinvertebrates, and fish productivity that the MI planning group may use to organize
an issue paper; making MI and other habitat data available to explore this relationship is
important for progress on this topic
 Data in the Puget Sound Stream Benthos database isn’t being collected specifically for the
purpose of habitat/MI/fish, but perhaps it could be used to help get at this topic
 O/E (observe/expected) score from Hawkins is strong approach but is sometimes tough
due to difficulties defining what is expected
 PIBO and others are moving away from professional judgment in establishing indices and
are using reference sites instead
Activity F: Remote Sensing as a New/Improved Source of Habitat Characterization Data at
Multiple Scales
- Remote Sensing Forum had first webinar on April 17th with 24 participants; Dr. Ken Pierce
of WDFW presented on his work with high resolution change detection work in the Puget
Sound using NAIP imagery
Activity G: Habitat Data Discovery
- Update on the Monitoring Site Manager: Explorer Feature
Today’s discussion:
 Send Jacque Schei (jschei@usgs.gov) feedback on the Explorer feature by May 25, 2012.
 Q: How will the tool display information… points, polygons of watersheds or HUC4?
A: This is the type of feedback we’re looking for. We want to know what is most useful for
the users. We’d like to be able to show points/sites when zoomed in, but also polygons for
projects, higher level analyses, and LIDAR data.
 BPA wants to be able to map projects with protocols in MM.org linking to information on
where to get the data.
 Ken McDonald developed a similar tool a few years back –would be worth talking to him to
see what sort of feedback he received during the development process.
 This effort differs from Ken’s in that it intendeds to be a sustained web based system using
web services to keep information current (but the tool will also have the option to manually
input information).