PNAMP Aquatic Monitoring Activity Survey and Inventory Pilot Project Review By PNAMP Inventory Subcommittee Russell Scranton & Jen Bayer

This survey was specifically created to obtain basic information on who is conducting what monitoring activities where and how. The goals are to: Facilitate coordination and efficiency of monitoring, Avoid duplication of effort, Help elucidate where monitoring may be adequate, deficient or excessive, by attaining the location of the program for a specific estuary, or at the 6th field HUC or point level Provide information to help inform planning and decisions on developing and funding monitoring programs Analyze regional monitoring methodologies and coordinate monitoring protocols Connect people to data by providing direct web links or contact information so can be obtained.

Existing Inventories Desired to Add: The Ecotrust/Wild Salmon Center "North Pacific Salmon Monitoring Data Inventory" The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (Northwest inventory) The OWEB: Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop Pre-workshop Questions The CSMEP Inventory of Fish Monitoring Data Sets Survey of Environmental Monitoring Programs & Associated Databases within Washington

Roughly 10% of 3,128 people contacted added information into the survey. It is unknown how many of the people contacted Who did not respond because they: Could not respond at the time the survey was conducted: Were directed not to respond, Were directed not to respond, Were waiting for previously inventoried information to be entered by StreamNet and for PNAMP to follow up to complete their gap analysis. Were waiting for previously inventoried information to be entered by StreamNet and for PNAMP to follow up to complete their gap analysis. Did not have any projects to contribute, or were inappropriate contacts Did not have any projects to contribute, or were inappropriate contacts Did not want to participate Did not want to participate

Results 302 individuals entered 706 records of different programs. Those records for which locations could be obtained and standardized represented 1355 different watersheds/5th Field HUCs. The 706 monitoring programs have at a minimum of 4,500 sites in different watersheds

Results Continued The pilot project is finished, although it was not completed as anticipated. Unfortunately Stream-Net was unable to enter data or obtain information from several key databases The tabular search output tool was not fully developed as anticipated by the subcommittee. PNAMP has not requested that agencies review their programs and enter additional content into the pilot project.

Conclusion: Although the pilot project has not yet been fully implemented as planned, it was successful in helping to identify challenges inherent in conducting and maintaining a regional inventory of monitoring activities and it does begin to shape a picture of scale and location of monitoring efforts. Additional recommendations to make the inventory fully functional as a regional tool follow.

Recommendations 1.Future funding of the inventory has not been secured and at this time there is no consensus regarding whether or not PNAMP should fix issues identified to complete the pilot project as intended or continue to maintain and build the inventory. - The PNAMP Steering Committee members will need to decide, if the PNAMP inventory should be continued or if PNAMP should partner with other regional inventory efforts in the future. 2.Review the survey questions and the responses generated and modify accordingly before being continued. 3.Make the PNAMP Monitoring Inventory consistent with the Northwest Environmental Data Network’s (NED) protocols for reporting program, project & site location and time.

Recommendations 4.Improve the survey output tools. - The survey input and output interfaces should be reviewed and modified as necessary. The map-based search feature should allow the user to query by geographic areas other than 5th field HUC. If possible, a combination text based and map based search should be created. (StreamNet) - Some attributes like implementing entity and estuary name are not viewable in the current format. Map Based: Can be improved in future versions Text Query Tool: The text based search tool is currently inadequate for PNAMP workgroup needs, because it does not search the full database, and it does not have advanced search capabilities. Ex. We can not query by monitoring activity & Advanced search query tool: a desired query tool to search by multiple attributes was not developed. Currently the estuary group can not select “estuary habitat” monitoring programs or “estuaries” to evaluate 32 monitoring programs entered for estuaries. Text Query Tool: The text based search tool is currently inadequate for PNAMP workgroup needs, because it does not search the full database, and it does not have advanced search capabilities. Ex. We can not query by monitoring activity & Advanced search query tool: a desired query tool to search by multiple attributes was not developed. Currently the estuary group can not select “estuary habitat” monitoring programs or “estuaries” to evaluate 32 monitoring programs entered for estuaries.

Recommendations 5.To have new information viewable on the existing inventory there is a need to identify the required attributes in the survey. (Specifically, We currently know that information entered by “Estuary” name is not viewable and no one will be able to help enter the location, but will new information be viewable in the existing inventory if the location information is entered by if location data entered by HUC, Lat and Long or UTM? ) 6.Add to the map based output by including additional GIS layers. 7.Additional GIS base layers or remote sensing data like, roads, cities, county & State boundaries and aerial photos for background would make the map based search tool easier to use. Additional background data layers may also help people interactively identify project locations 8.Add an interactive location identification feature that allows the user to click on the map to identify the monitoring programs Latitude and Longitude. Allow the user to create a new monitoring project or site, which could then import information of a program already entered in the inventory.

Recommendations 9.Add a new selection method to the map based output tool that includes the ability to select multiple HUCs or single projects. 10.Improve web based security and data quality standards: - Add password protection feature to web site. - Add agency program data quality validation signature 11.Develop new strategy to solicit validation and data entry from all PNAMP partners. 12.Develop a regional MOA to support this inventory. - It is not enough that one agency knows what information it has and where its monitoring is occurring. Current business practices make the best available science inaccessible to other scientist and decision makers. As a part of every day business practices there is a need to institutionalize the recording and reporting of the project tracking metrics identified in the PNAMP monitoring activity inventory.

Recommendations 13.Comments on steps necessary to maintain an ongoing inventory: - Acquire funds to provide staff support to facilitate data entry, and maintain security. - The long term success of this effort relies on the number of people participating, and on this number growing as quickly as possible. If those who have participated in this survey already do not realize results that benefit themselves, then the impetus for their continued participation is lost, and they will not encourage others to take part. In order to maximize participation in this effort and prevent it from failing due to lack of interest, for one to two more years technicians should be employed to continue the outreach effort begun under this pilot project. (StreamNet) - Although some amount of automation can probably be realized for people who are able to provide location information in standard formats, this effort probably can not be automated completely in the foreseeable future. There will remain a need to interpret location information provided and convert it to a standard format for use in the output interface. (StreamNet) - Based on the recommendations described in the two previous bullets and experience from the pilot project: The inventory should support a staff of one technician per state to find and contact participants, plus a project supervisor who will oversee, coordinate, and track the technicians' efforts. The project supervisor would also manage and standardize location information for all states. At some point the need for technicians essentially will end. At that time there will still be a continuing need for a single person to oversee the database, manage data standardizations and help with data updates, and direct the occasional computer programming work that will be required. Whether this would require a full time employee can be determined in the future. This person will probably require GIS software and other mapping tools. (StreamNet) - Occasional programming and GIS assistance will be required, more so in the first than in subsequent years. Funds should be made available for this need. (StreamNet) - A program should be written which will send participants an months after their latest entry, asking them to review their information and provide any updates necessary. Those who do not respond should be sent another two weeks later. Those who do not respond for several consecutive years should be sent an additional , asking for confirmation that their information is still correct. If no response is received their data should be deleted from the database. (StreamNet)

Recommendations 14.The PNAMP inventory can also be further developed to show present and potential monitoring locations. A future step may be to use the inventory web based GIS to show the point locations of the PNAMP “Master Sampling Design” project for the habitat and water quality monitoring designed by Phil Larsen. Like other online web based GIS programs, the PNAMP web application could have a check box to identify point locations of existing or potential monitoring locations identified in the master sample design. It would identify locations that are presently being monitored and locations that could be monitored to improve understanding of specific environmental or biological conditions. If the Master Sample is not properly coordinated and implemented, entities may monitor the same locations and fail to report results. If this is done, a link to an explanation of how the master sample design system applies to regional monitoring should be provided. 15.The PNAMP Steering Committee recommended that the PNAMP monitoring inventory tool should be linked to the regional restoration action project tracking databases (PCSRF, PRISM, OWEB, NWFSC, PICES etc). One recommendation is to add the restoration projects from various efforts as a selectable interactive GIS layer. This would create a tool that would identify restoration projects and monitoring programs that are linked to the project. It would also identify locations where the potential to evaluate project effectiveness is possible. To accomplish this task there needs to be agreement to enter restoration project information in a consistent manor across the Northwest. To accomplish this PNAMP recommends using the criteria identified in the PNAMP endorsed paper “Data Management Needs for Regional Project Tracking to Support Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring”.