PNAMP SC Mtg February 20, 2007 AGENDA

PNAMP Inventory Subcommittee Meeting AGENDA

May 1, 2007

1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Distribution – Russell Scranton, Bruce Schmidt, Mike Banach, Keith Wolf, Jennifer O’Neal, Cathy Tortorici, Jim Geiselman, Michael Newsom, Steve Waste, Kim Kratz, Stewart Toshach, Cathy Kellon, Joy Paulus, Steve Lanigan, Steve Katz, Bruce Crawford, Dave Powers, Greg Sieglitz, Laura Gephart, Jen Bayer, Al Doelker, Linda Ulmer, John Piccininni, Phil Roger, Jacque Schei, Ken MacDonald, Cedric Cooney

Decisions

o Subcommittee decided that the pilot is complete.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:

o PNAMP needs to table this project at the scale we attempted the Pilot.

o Need to try to find very specific sponsors of this idea at a small scale, build upon knowledge gained, demonstrate success, reevaluate after this is complete.

o 3 entities identified as potential supporters of a small scale project (OWEB, SRFB, Remand) – have them identify needs and fund project, do work, bring to PNAMP for review, etc., but not necessarily for decisions. Need to: define a scope and scale to tackle, and then go through list of recommendations to show that it works.

o PNAMP needs to complete exercises underway that feed into this task (HLI work to help narrow focus; data dictionary work to better inform) before revisiting.

Action Items

X Create a standard data dictionary.

X Finalize list of HLIs.

X Identify partners (1-3) that want to participate in a small scale inventory.

Notes

1. 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. The SC has reviewed the report and provided comments.

Goal Today: Discuss the comments received on the report and plan for the completion of the report.

Proposed: Make changes to the report to reflect SC comments and finalize.

Discussion: See the recommendations that summarize the review comments. Russell will incorporate today’s comments into the report, then it will be finalized.

Stewart & Joy recommend an independent validation and evaluation (IV&E) of the pilot and then, a formal needs assessment and design. Both should be done by an Independent Information System Developer and many say the evaluation and validation should be completed by a group that is not going to do the design. These are common and conventional steps in the information system development tool kit and are used to cut through the vested positions and views and develop specifications that can be bid and delivered. An IV&E for this project would cost about $5-10K and a needs assessment about $20-30K depending on scale it could go higher or lower. This will be added to recommendations in report to be considered later.

· Made decision that the pilot is done

2. Continuation of PNAMP Aquatic Monitoring Activity Inventory

Background: In their April meeting, the SC made a decision to continue with the development of the Aquatic Monitoring Activity Inventory (see meeting notes). They asked that the Inventory Subcommittee meet to further define the project based on what we have learned thus far.

Goal today: Discussion of strategy.

Discussion/Brainstorming:

· Jen - Institutional commitment is very vague. Some folks that find this really useful and want to pursue. Some folks are unsure of what to do. Needs to be clearly articulated before progressing. Then lay out the roadmap to meet the need. Then discuss funding, etc.

· Monitoring scale– S&T and Effectiveness Monitoring for aquatic habitat – John P. questions regarding water quality side.

· Jim G. - Core element of why PNAMP exists – hard to coordinate and integrate programs without this information – does the pilot meet the need of this, if it were full – needs to be a standard business practice by participants, but would meet the need

· Michael N. - But, there is a huge scope issue as we have found out with the pilot – geographic, what you will do with data, etc.

· No one willing to go with another effort – do we need to do something separate

· Steve K. – are the elements and information in the pilot enough to do anything with it, and what will you do with it. Provide an example and look at how it would work.

· Bruce – determine if a single effort will meet all the needs we define, also need to look at getting data and how that process will work, applications needed to present output – do in layers

· Previous approach was retrospective – wasn’t directed enough; can we turn into a prospective approach – define need, then go out looking for data. Tack onto other projects – Look in terms of data pyramid (in terms of how data will be used)– top tier: Management Question, 2nd level: HLIs (performance metrics), 3rd level: Functional relationships, 4th level: Effectiveness Monitoring Data, bottom level: Project implementation and compliance, see handout from Michael Newsom.

o Need relationship between field data and HLIs, show logical steps. Use other tools PNAMP has been working on to define scope and scale of effort.

o Everyone’s MQs are different, but also overlap to some degree

o Need standardized process for reporting data

o Need a container to hold data

· Reform projects to meet more needs. How?

o If people had access to other projects, they could approach them to meet multiple needs – PNAMP’s intent with this inventory was to facilitate this exchange.

· Cathy - Develop tools and info that will exhibit success and the success will be replicated.

o Let a specific small scale client define needs – someone who is willing to put forth staff time and money to support it – Ex. State agencies - need to demonstrate how they will benefit – piggy-back with one of their needs or something they are already doing. (Example: Governor’s Forum – Master Sampling Design, Phil Larsen)

o Hard to manage information as a 3rd party – costly and time consuming

· ODFW Data Clearinghouse

o Grant came in from OWEB to do this work

o ODFW staff sat down with OWEB and filled out database

o Found out that projects didn’t actually have data, ODFW had data

o Spending – previously ~$40K mostly spent on techs, now $88K (large portion will go to templates that they will develop)

· Start with CSMEP work (fish only) and add to that

· Define needs for an Inventory, including: define the questions that the data would answer, (what information do you need); define scope, scale.

o Complete gaps in monitoring programs

o Provide links to restoration project inventory to facilitate project effectiveness monitoring design

o Provide tool to manage the master Sample design program

o Provide to locate data and reports

· Identify cost sharing

o Identify new PNAMP partners

· Define steps to do with respect to Inventory:

o Add new data

o Identify main metrics that we are looking for.

o Need to figure out why people are not making information available when we ask.

o Agree to create standard data dictionary

o Review recommendations in report and define new or existing tasks

o Improve metadata

o Improve output tools

Proposed: Start work to draft a document outlining a strategy for the continuation of the project.

CONCLUSION:

o PNAMP needs to table this project at the scale we attempted the Pilot.

o Need to try to find very specific sponsors of this idea at a small scale, build upon knowledge gained, demonstrate success, reevaluate after this is complete.

3. NPCC/BPA Innovative Project Solicitation RFP (due May 18)

Background: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration have requested Innovative fish and wildlife project proposals to be considered for funding by Bonneville during Fiscal Years 2007-09. An Innovative project should rely primarily on a method or technology that has not been used before in Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife projects or, if used before in other projects, has not been used in the proposed application. Project sponsors should propose innovative on-the-ground “demonstration” or “pilot” projects, which if successful will contribute to direct improvements in the survival or productivity of Columbia River fish or wildlife species. Investigations of basic biological and physical phenomenon are not targeted with this solicitation. Proposals are due May 18.

Proposed: Proceed with the recommendation for new funding to improve the inventory project, including consideration of this as a way to facilitate/encourage use of the PNAMP master sample design.

Goal today: Review the list of recommendations from Russell’s report and decide if we should seek funding from this RFP. If so, identify who will produce the proposal.

Discussion: Takes time to write proposal, is this what we want to do, do we have time? Is it innovative, will the Council go along with it?

o Russell to work with entities identified above to see if there is interest in pursuing a small scale demonstration project. If so, the sponsor will lead, PNAMP may partner.