PNAMP Workshop Notes

Watershed/Stream Status and Trend IntegratedMonitoring Program

Aug 23, 2006

See below for list of workshop participants.

The overall feeling of workshop participants was that an integrated monitoring program is conceptually a good idea, but people want to know more about the “details,” and how their programs would be affected. Therefore, weare proposing to set up a pilot effort to demonstrate the concept.

Next Steps:

  • Convene a small workgroup to develop a “pilot” effort to integrate monitoring programs.
  • Brainstorm what a “pilot” would look like
  • Discuss impediments, and how to resolve them.
  • What products would result.
  • Develop timeline.

Synopsis of 10 year vision

Within 10 years, an integrated interagency, aquatic status and trends monitoring program will provide annual, statistically sound information on a set of agreed upon key stream, riparian, and upslope indicators of the condition of aquatic/riparian resources across the Pacific Northwest at statewide and finer scales of spatial resolution.

Workshop goal

Get a sense whether the group represented by the participants (and key invited agency executives) could support such a vision, and if so, what were the major advantages of such a vision, and what were the impediments to achieving such a vision in 10 year time frame.

Workshop structure

  • Steve Lanigan (USFS/BLM) provided an overview of workshop goals and structure.
  • An agency executive panel provided insights with respect to the vision and agency specific needs for information that could be provided by such a program.
  • To guide discussions, agency executives were provided three core questions covering: 1) how regional scale status and trends information is used in decision making; 2) extent to which your agency funds status and trends monitoring programs, and 3) how important is across-agency data sharing.
  • Jim Golden (USForest Service Deputy Regional Forester for OR and WA)
  • Doug Marker (Northwest Power & Conservation CouncilDirector of the Fish and Wildlife Division)
  • Bruce Crawford (Washington Salmon Recovery and Watershed Health Lead)
  • Chris Jordan (NOAAFisheriesResearchCenter Scientist)
  • Phil Larsen (EPA) presented“the vision.”
  • Three breakout groups were assigned a specific set of questions related to achieving the vision.
  • The breakout workgroups were given 8 questions that addressed various aspects of such a monitoring program, summarized below, along with key responses.

Agency Executive summary

How is status and trends information used?

  • Guides allocation of scarce resources to develop work for region
  • Guides subbasin planning
  • Need info of this type to report to Congress re: program performance
  • Informs state action plans, the blueprint for current activities
  • Informs adaptive management
  • Informs ‘lump sum’ effect of impacts (positive, negative) on populations
  • Informs Biological Review of status assessments (NOAA Biological Opinions)
  • Informs limiting factor assessments and cause effect evaluations
  • Provides environmental baseline information
  • Provides information about how I’m doing relative to other agencies

How is your agency supporting regional scale monitoring?

  • USFS: Financial support to AREMP/PIBO.
  • NPCC:require monitoring to assess hydrosystem survival, hatchery performance, some habitat effect, moving from supporting project scale monitoring to broad scale monitoring.
  • WA SRFB: funding for statewide sampling design; funding for project effectiveness evaluation; funding for “intensively monitored watersheds”.
  • NOAA: Direct/indirect support for various coordinating agencies; financial support for “standardization efforts”; financial support for various RME and adaptive management projects (data collection, analysis, interpretation).

Importance of data sharing:

  • Across the board agreement that data sharing is important.

Breakout group summary by Question

Synthesis of breakout group responses to the 8 questions is provided below. As might be expected, discussions were wide-ranging. Facilitators guided the discussions along the track indicated by the questions; note takers recorded the theme of the discussions. What follows is a general synthesis of the collective responses to the questions.

Is this a reasonable vision?

  • Collectively a qualified yes; however, there are many questions regarding details that need to be addressed before fully endorsing such a concept. One key issue is how to integrate various programs’ differing, sometimes contradictory, mandates into a unified monitoring program.

Strengths?

  • Can provide statistically sound answers re: getting better or worse
  • Can obtain cumulative impacts
  • Can focus goals under time/$ limitations
  • Can answer new questions/old questions differently

Weaknesses?

  • Overcoming institutional inertia: why should I change? My priorities differ. My questions/objective differ.
  • Difficult to explain. Still uncertainty about what “it” is.
  • Costs uncertain.
  • What do I get from such a program?
  • Could all agencies agree on a core set of indicators?

What are “within agency” impediments?

  • Who would lead such an integrated program? What agency?
  • Making and keeping long term funding commitments
  • Diversion of funding to other important agency needs.
  • Agency not sold on idea yet; need examples, case studies; pilot studies
  • Questions other than status and trends take priority in funding
  • Not clear how data would be distilled into common analyses and inferences.

How might impediments be overcome?

  • Provide a prototype of what different agency contributions might be and cost/savings estimates
  • Core indicators and protocol/information standardization
  • Demonstration/case examples of what this might look like, what it could provide
  • Continued education; what do I get out of a program like this?
  • Develop transitional tools
  • Get top execs involved

Assistance needed to help management/execs move forward

  • Project costs, cost savings, FTE, and when an answer
  • What are the alternatives
  • Commitments to RME
  • Litigation
  • Demonstration results
  • Illustrations of how it will answer their questions; what will they get from this that is better than what they have
  • Financial savings
  • Consequences of not doing this

Missing elements from vision?

  • How to transition from current to vision
  • What are the tradeoffs and how to work through them
  • Discussion of role of remote sensing
  • Upland characterization
  • Non-wadeable systems

What can PNAMP do to coordinate/facilitate empowering this vision?

  • Facilitate the development of a demonstration pilot
  • Continue to educate
  • Stimulate decision/policy makers involvement with monitoring questions—add some policy types to PNAMP steering committee?
  • Coordinate a hands on/how to technical workshop for technical staff
  • Refine expectations; identify appropriate questions to this scale of monitoring

Workshop Participants

Name / Affiliation
Al Doelker / BLM
Alan Christensen / USFS
Amy Braatz / USGS
Bob Cusimano / WDE
Brian Staab / USFS
Bruce Crawford / WA IAC
Chris Jordan / NOAA
Cynthia Tait / USFS
Darcy Pickard / ESSA
Deb Konnoff / USFS
Derek Poon / EPA
Doug Marker / NPPC
Eric Archer / USFS
Erin Gilbert / ODFW
Glenn Merritt / WDE
Gretchen Hayslip / EPA
Gwynne Chandler / USFS
Ian Waite / USGS
Jen Bayer / USGS
Jim Geiselman / BPA
Jim Golden / USFS
Jon Martin / USFS
Keith Wolf / KWA/CCT
Kerry Overton / USFS
Kim Titus / BLM
Mike Banach / PSMFC
Phil Larsen / EPA
Phil Roger / CRITFC
Rick Haefele / ODEQ
Russell Scranton / NOAA
Steve Lanigan / USFS
Steve Waste / NWPCC
Tim Counihan / USGS
Tracy Hillman / BioAnalysts