PNAMP Project Effectiveness Monitoring Workgroup & WA Forum on Monitoring COORDINATION WORK SESSION #3

August 30, 2010

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Location: USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory. 1300 SE Cardinal Court, Building 10, Suite 100, Vancouver, WA (link to map).

Phone Bridge: Call 712.775.7300; enter code 273804#.

WebEx meeting link

If you are a new user, please prepare your computer in advance of the meeting. This will take 2-3 minutes; you can log in 10 minutes before the meeting. If you have trouble joining the meeting, please call WebEx Tech support at 1-866-569-3239 (toll free 24/7).

Note: a significant portion of this meeting will be spent on follow-up from items identified at the first two work sessions. We want to conclude or make substantial progress on those before moving on to new items.

AGENDA

9:00Welcome and Introductions

9:10Recap of Workshops 1 and 2 (Facilitator): The first workshop in this series of three occurred on April 20, 2010; the second was on May 17, 2010. We will briefly review:

  • Topics covered
  • Outcome of those meeting – potential tasks

9:30Inventory and quality assessment (Jennifer O’Neal/Tracy Hillman): We discussed these two topics at the first two meetings. Jennifer has completed work on the gap assessment at the ecoregion level and wants to present this for final review. Tracy still needs feedback on the quality assessment criteria (he did not receive any feedback on the version that was e-mailed after the second workshop). Today’s discussion:

  • Inventory – update on status
  • Assessment criteria – review/discuss (link to latest draft)

10:00Monitoring strategy (Bruce Crawford/Ken Dzinbal): At the second workshop, it was decided that we would prepare a draft document for review by others. This will be sent to the entire workgroup prior to the third work session, and then discussed at this meeting. As discussed at the second workshop, the draft will address some or all of these topics:

  • Similarities between programs
  • Can we get better alignment and linkage between programs?
  • What are differences and can they be surmounted?
  • Identify specific technical issues
  • Link to latest draft

11:00Protocols: At the second workshop, participants agreed with the statement: “Having agencies in the region use compatible methods for habitat effectiveness monitoring is an advantage to all”. A small group discussion, lead by Ken Dzinbal, was held on May 27th and recommendations were presented to the Washington Forum on Monitoring for adoption. We will review the results of that meeting and the Forum’s work, and discuss how joint protocols would be further developed and implemented.

12:00Lunch (on your own)

1:00NEW TOPIC:

Implementation and Post-Implementation Monitoring*: In this agenda item we will focus on implementation and post-implementation monitoring in the context of effectiveness monitoring. We will build on work from our two previous Effectiveness Workgroup sessions (e.g., effectiveness monitoring inventory and assessment (9:30 agenda item), and draft Habitat Action Effectiveness Monitoring Strategy (10:00 agenda item). Our focus will continue to be on habitat project actions, while acknowledging that a much wider range of implementation monitoring topics exists, associated with salmon recovery or ecosystem plans (e.g., implementation of regulatory actions, actions associated with other H’s, high level implementation indicators).

*See attachment for more detail on this agenda item.

3:45Wrap-up/next steps

4:00Adjourn

1

ATTACHMENT

Detailed Description of afternoon agenda item:

Implementation and Post-Implementation Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring requires information on actions for which effectiveness is being evaluated. Thus, implementation and post-implementation monitoring are essential to effectiveness monitoring.Implementation monitoring tracks management actions and documents attributes like the type of action, the location, and whether the action was implemented as specified or comply with established standards. Post-implementation monitoring of implemented actionsaddresses if actions continue to function as designed or intended over a specified time (i.e., Action Agencies Implementation Plans and Updated Proposed Actions for the FCRPS BiOp).

In this agenda item we will focus on implementation and post-implementation monitoring in the context of effectiveness monitoring. We will build on work from our two previous Effectiveness Workgroup sessions (e.g., effectiveness monitoring inventory and assessment (9:30 agenda item), and draft Habitat Action Effectiveness Monitoring Strategy (10:00 agenda item). Our focus will continue to be on habitat project actions, while acknowledging that a much wider range of implementation monitoring topics exists, associated with salmon recovery or ecosystem plans (e.g., implementation of regulatory actions, actions associated with other H’s, high level implementation indicators). This wider range of topics was discussed at the Implementation Tracking workshop hosted by PNAMP on December 1-2, 2009 (link here) and will be addressed in other subsequent activities.

Short overviews:

  • Introduction (Steve Leider)
  • PCSRF/PNSHP and recovery plan tracking overview (Scott Rumsey)
  • BPA’s new effort (Russell Scranton/Jim Geiselman)
  • Puget SoundPartnership (TBD)

Discussion questions:

  • What implementation and post-implementation monitoring information is needed to support the draft Habitat Action Effectiveness Monitoring Strategy?
  • Does that information now exist and if so, where is it?
  • What work is needed to improve alignments so that needed information can be pooled and/or rolled up to support the draft Strategy?
  • How can the Effectiveness Monitoring Workgroup best utilize and contribute to broader implementation monitoring efforts and interests?
  • Next steps

1