Meeting Guidelines

Meeting Notes

Klamath Basin Water Quality Monitoring Coordination Group (KBWQMCG)

April 8-9, 2008

Greenhorn Grange, Yreka, CA

Decision Record

Vision and Mission: A subset of the Steering Committee (Jason Cameron, Melenee Emanuel, Gail Louis and Vera Williams) will work on another draft of the vision statement, based on input from the January and April 2008 Coordination Group meetings and the initial draft that the Steering Committee put forward. (See Attachment .)
Decision Making Process: Reached a decision rule for reaching consensus of 80% of persons present for making a decision indicating their level of agreement as 1’s or 2’s, but no Zeros. Trial period in subcommittees until December 2008. (Gradients of agreement poll: all participants were 1s, 2s or 3s.) (Ctrl + click here to see details)
Next meeting of the KBWQMCG will be the first week of December in Ashland, OR.

Subcommittee Decision Records

Database Subcommittee

User Needs Assessment – survey to be done via U.S. Mail by KWIP team.
Database interface should be custom tailored to extract data from agency databases according to needs assessment.
Demonstration model to be complete for next meeting.
Subcommittee participants agreed to “meet” via e-mail exchange.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan Subcommittee

(Ctrl + click here to see attachment)

Planning and Administration Subcommittee

Will generally meet the first Thursday of the month, 2:00-3:30 p.m., unless otherwise arranged. The meeting schedule for the summer will be:

May 1, 2008
June 5, 2008
July 1, 2008 (a Tuesday before July 4^th holiday)

Prioritized work plan tasks to discuss at May 1 subcommittee meeting:

Draft mission & vision statements
Discuss Coordination Group newsletter
Follow-up on speakers lined up to talk about watershed monitoring coordination for the December meeting
Prioritize rest of work plan tasks

Recommendations for a standard format for Meeting Notes for all subcommittees were made. At a minimum, they should note:

Attendance
Topics discussed
Decisions made
Parking Lot items

Recommendations for improving internal communication:

Use a phone tree method for high priority incidences of need to contact people (if abused, could be ineffective)
Research automated phone message tools
Send out a test e-mail and request responses to see who is actually receiving our e-mail

Requested agenda item for the December Coordination Group meeting: Presentations by other groups implementing a coordinated water quality monitoring program to educate members about Best Practices already coordinating their monitoring efforts.

Next steps

Action	Responsible party
Subcommittees meet to take action on the plans set during their meetings on April 9.	Each subcommittee.
Make arrangements for meeting room for December meeting.	KWIP Team

Tasks assigned

Task

Assigned to / volunteers

Follow up and obtain new monitoring site locations.

Chantell Royer

Share digitized maps from World Café 1 and map images from World Café 2

KWIP Team

Meeting Summary

The purpose of the meeting held April 8-9, 2008, was to convene the KBWQM Coordination Group to:

Share 2007 monitoring data.
Review compiled 2008 monitoring plans, and identify gaps and redundancies in monitoring.
Start identifying driving factors affecting water quality issues in the Klamath River basin and sub-basins, and questions to pose/postulate regarding water quality issues/trends that would inform both short-term needs and the long-term monitoring plan.
Solicit ideas for what information the Coordination Group website could provide and how it could function.
Finalize CG structure (mission, vision, proposed meeting schedule) and processes (decision-making).

During the meeting, Coordination Group participants:

Introduced themselves and got acquainted with other participants.
Reviewed meeting objectives within context of the Coordination Group project objectives.
Reviewed next three meeting content within context of the Coordination Group project objectives.
Discussed reactions to a draft vision and mission statement, offering suggestions for better tuning it to the focus of the Coordination Group.
Worked together on an analysis of gaps and redundancies in monitoring activities for 2008.
Listened to presentations and viewed posters of results from past monitoring activities from several Coordination Group participants.
Brainstormed list of decisions the Coordination Group may make.
Set a decision rule.
Conducted preliminary sub-basin map analysis of watershed factors affecting water quality issues and related water quality questions that need to be answered.
Brainstormed possible functionality of the Web site that will serve as a tool to assist in coordinating water quality monitoring efforts and compiling monitoring data.
Volunteered for and then met in the three subcommittees planned for during the January 2008 Coordination Group meeting: Database Subcommittee, Monitoring Plan Subcommittee, Planning and Administration Subcommittee.

Agenda item summary

Review of future meetings in context of KWIP objectives

Terry Uyeki presented the possible focus of meeting agendas for the next three Coordination Group meetings in the context of the KWIP objectives. (Ctrl +_click here to see attachment)

Vision and Mission for the KBWQMCG

The Coordination Group Steering Committee put forth draft vision and mission statements (Ctrl + click here to see attachment) building on the work started at the January 2008 Coordination Group meeting. Participants provided their reaction to the draft statements. A subset of the Steering Committee (Jason Cameron, Melenee Emanuel, Gail Louis and Vera Williams) will take into account the group’s input in crafting another set of draft statements.

Group’s input

Idealized: (This is defined differently by members)

The Klamath River Basin looks like:

Improving water quality – human uses: watershed health & 3^rd bullet in mission statement [fishable, swimmable, drinkable; supporting beneficial uses, e.g., fisheries, human health; communities & economic stability: serving and involving people in communities]

By coordinating monitoring, will more funding (long-term monitoring and short term?) be freed up? The Coordination Group could help to sustain funding.
Coordination, collaboration is good, but want to depend on the science to minimize debate driven by political agendas.
It’s all good.
Cooperative effort and the monitoring effort by individual groups are sustained via funding… Cooperative effort SUSTAINS individual monitoring efforts… The vision isn’t just sustaining this group, but sustaining the monitoring efforts that are being performed and need to be performed in the Klamath.
AND political support (our managers above us) = $$
General support for monitoring efforts.
Possibly this group advocates for funding that this group identifies for sustainable monitoring?
Credible data collection backed by QA/QC – analysis?
Nothing in here says we’re doing this for water quality issues.
Maybe we could add language about the ideal state of the river for everyone.
Providing the data to inform policy + credible, good science leads to both health of the river and viability of communities.
Vision very long … But it is precise
Vision should be boiled down to something smaller – with the mission giving the detail of how we go towards that vision.
Other concerns:

§ Monitoring to measure water quality to obtain baseline information to understand changes over time (This is basically the Clean Water Act).

§ Understandable and accessible data.

§ Accessible and useful to people who need this data to make information decisions.

Gap Analysis Exercise: Sharing 2008 monitoring plans

Working together, Coordination Group participants developed a comprehensive map of the water quality sampling locations within the Klamath Basin for the 2008 season. Through the use of sub-basin maps and parameter tables, Coordination Group participants added to the sampling information that the KWIP Team had collected prior to the meeting. Following the map analysis, one representative from each sub-basin reported to the large group the gaps and redundancies in monitoring activities they and others working in the sub-basin had identified.

(Ctrl + click here to see mapping exercise attachment)

(Ctrl + click here to see parameter gap Excel attachment)

(Ctrl + click here to see maps produced for this exercise)

Presentations on Klamath Basin Monitoring Data

Six Coordination Group participants presented results from their monitoring work; several participants presented posters.

· Continuous Monitoring Data for the Mainstem Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam, 2001 to 2006, Paul Zedonis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

· 2007 Water Quality Results, Ken Fetcho, Yurok Tribe Environmental Program.

· Nutrient effects on phytoplankton growth in Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs, Pia Moisander, University of California - Santa Cruz.

· 2007 Toxic Algae Monitoring in the Klamath River, Dr. Jacob Kann, Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences - LLC, for Susan Corum, Karuk Tribe of California.

· Water Quality Monitoring in the Mid-Klamath and Major Tributaries, Susan Corum, Karuk Tribe.

· PacifiCorp's 2007 Water Quality Monitoring on the Klamath River, Linda Prendergast, Pacificorp.

Posters

· Scott River Watershed Water Quality and Fish Population/Habitat Monitoring, Erich Yokel, Siskiyou RCD

· Salmon River, Temperature Monitoring, Lyra Cressey, Salmon River Restoration Council

Klamath River Water Quality and Acoustic Doppler Data - Link River to Keno Dam, Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey, Watercourse Engineering Inc., and Bureau of Reclamation

Watershed Factors Exercise

The Coordination Group conducted a preliminary sub-basin map analysis of watershed factors affecting water quality issues and related water quality questions that need to be answered. Participants selected one or more sub-basins to address and discussed the following questions:

Considering the major water quality issues in this sub-basin, what are the top three water quality issues?
What watershed factors impact those water quality questions?
What types of water quality parameters are currently monitored? What else should be monitored?
What water quality questions need to be answered?

The exercise was shortened from two hours to one hour, and the reporting out from each of the sub-basins was omitted, in order to provide more meeting time for the subcommittee meetings. This initial large group work was to provide beginning discussion for the work of the Monitoring Plan Subcommittee.

(Ctrl + click here to see maps and images from this exercise)

Decision-making process

The Coordination Group continued the discussion from the January 2008 meeting regarding a decision-making process. First, the group brainstormed a list of potential decisions they may make, in order to illustrate the function of a decision-making process.

Potential decisions

In addition to the list of potential decisions handed out during the meeting (Ctrl + click here to see attachment) the Coordination Group brainstormed to extend that list:

QA/QC

Endorse existing?
Develop new?
Tiered?
Money source determines?
Forum for discussing and improving methodologies each uses

Mission
Key water quality/management questions
Funding distribution

Which gaps do we fill/questions do we address

Priority list
Monitoring plan

Structure
Content
Research questions or management questions?

Decision-making process

The Coordination Group Steering Committee put forward a proposed decision-making process:

Define the decision rule for consensus as 80% of those present and participating in the discussion indicate a level of agreement as a “1” or a “2,” using the gradients of agreement scale.

Gradients of Agreement:

0 = Want more information; I’m confused; more discussion

1 = I like it!

2 = I like it, but with reservations.

3 = I could go either way.

4 = I disagree, but will go along with the majority.

5 = I cannot support and will register a minority opinion.

Group’s input

Two levels – formal (use gradients of agreement) and informal (Go for simple process: agree or disagree) (Mike Deas)
Consider gradients of agreement nuanced: a way to flush out variances, needs for more discussion. (Terry Uyeki)
VOTE is only a fallback (Lyra)
Gradients of agreement = a quick poll, not a formal vote (Terry Uyeki)
Intent is not to push to formality: avoid fallback vote (Gail)
Can change later if not workable (Vera)

Quick poll, using gradients of agreement:

Go with proposed decision-making process?

Two participants = 0

Three participants = 3

Remaining participants = 1 or 2

Group’s input

How vote/poll what not present? (Scott and Sue)
Decision point (80% 1s and 2s) is too low. Discuss Zeros 4s and 5s, can’t get those to 1s or 2s - go to a vote. (Jason Cameron)
Frame this as a trial: change later. (Paul Z.)
3s count in 80%? (Because this is not a vote against), so 80% 1s, 2s and 3s. (Ric Costales)
Redefine: 80% 1s and 2s, but no 5s or Zeros (Gail)
CAREFUL! This nearly 100% consensus – always someone against; so hard to reach 100%. (Andy Stubblefield)
With a 100% consensus rule, will go to fallback option more often, which are trying to avoid. (Terry Uyeki)
Use until December 2008 in subcommittees for trial period. (Steve S.)

Poll again, using gradients of agreement

Go with redefined rule – 80% 1s and 2s, but no Zeros.

RESULT:

Decision rule: 80% 1s and 2s, and no Zeros.

Trial period in subcommittees until December 2008.

(Gradients of agreement poll: all participants were 1s, 2s or 3s.)

Coordination Group Website brainstorm

The group brainstormed possible functionality of the Web site that will serve as a tool to assist in coordinating water quality monitoring efforts and compiling monitoring data. The focus of the brainstorm was on the questions: What would you like to see? What would like the Web site to do for you?

Group’s input

How do we get our data into it? Formats? Metadata – searchable?

What is this data?
What is it not?

Query by location or parameter?
Defining the station names? Finding the right station.

Protocol for naming scheme?
Find by a map AND search by name – zoomable

Image files that are downloadable.
Thresholds? Chart types?
Who is the user?
Appropriate maps for different users.
Map – (don’t need GIS software) – data sources go into reports and databases
Also like feature of being able to manipulate and input data and produce maps.
Kinds of analysis?

Display raw vs. corrected data
Display raw data, password protected? (provisional)

Permission scheme: level 1, 2, 3: relate to status of QA and analysis.

How is data stored?
Maps and links = portal VS. integrating data into a common database & being able to define the range of your search. (And make sure it works!)
Good QA and QA in uploading data – Access, Excel, Tribal databases (POSTGREB?)
Data sitting on servers: set up server to server automated communication or user manually controlled.

Menu of options.

Locations, towns, water bodies on maps
Sustainability of Website maintenance
BOR Website done – not sure about access policy

Querying data in
Graphing
Library (downloadable files)

Graphical interface: see what’s available in the database
Relational database, not hierarchical
Upload reports by users references by GIS map
USGS sites, restoration sites, etc. – dredged by subcommittee.
SB1070 – information on WQ readily available to and findable by public.

Parking Lot

Item	Action
Communication subcommittee: How get input from those not present Maintain decision list	Planning and Administration Subcommittee
Accessible and understandable data in “transformation”	No action assigned
Investigate Butte sub-basin and inclusion in Klamath Basin, re: water quality impacts	KWIP Team
Inclusion of Mid-Klamath sub-basin and all designations of Klamath sub-basins Lower = Weitchpec – Mouth Mid = Weitchpec – OR border Upper = Oregon	KWIP Team
Figure out way to compile, share, use data in timely way – real time? E.g., 2007 ready in 2008.

Proposed Agenda Items for December 2008 meeting

Discussed holding the next meeting in Ashland, OR during the first week of December 2008.

Ruled out first week of Feb and second or third week of January – any time after Thanksgiving and into late winter poses potential weather problems, so December is fine.
May have problems approving travel out of state, but can stay in Yreka, CA.
December meeting timing intended to occur so there is ample time to coordinate monitoring plans for 2009 and preparing grant applications.
Suggestions for a two-day meeting: 10 a.m. – 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Appendix – Sub-basin Maps from Gap Analysis & Watershed

Factors Exercise

Maps produced for mapping exercises (Ctrl + click to access)

Exercise 1

Trinity & South Fork Trinity

Upper Klamath