Agreement Process – MOU/Interagency Agreements/Contracts
There was some discussion on how some of the agencies are handling the funding of this project. USFS is handling it through a Cost Sharing Agreement, IAC with an Interagency Agreement, and Health via a contract.
It was determined that each organization will enter into formal/informal agreements with Ecology individually.
The breakdown for funding consists of:
Salmon & Watershed Information Management $25,000
WA Department of Health $15,000
Based on our estimates at this point, that leaves an unfunded balance of $7,000.
It was shared with the group that WSDOT was trying to procure funding for this shortfall. Elizabeth Lanzer is hoping to find $7,000 to help the effort.
/ TPAC have provided $7,000 for the project.
After reviewing the project work plan it was determined that the technical team will determine the order of WRIA processing. This way they can determine the best path toward completion based on the data.
Funding of the operational costs for the PNW Hydro Clearinghouse was raised. This was talked about briefly and agreed that we need to find a mechanism to do this. Jim Eby suggested that Joy talk with Jim Skulski to find out what options are open to us to have this happen
Funding for the
Joy had a conversation with Jim Skulski at OFM and there are a number of options for funding this sort of on going, shared funding. These options include:
o Formal Agreement w/ an MOU
o Decision Package
o Budget Proviso
At this point, the MOU seems to be the easiest way to proceed. If we run into stumbling blocks then we’ll consider one of the other options. I’ll working on getting something drafted in the next month. The cost sharing figures discussed and suggested include: Ecology, DNR & WDFW at $7500 each and IAC providing support at $2500.
Risk Factors & Assumptions
The risk factors outlined in the work plan were reviewed. There was a question about whether USFS has the pour points (above and below the USFS/DNR data) identified and potential schedule delays due to data availability.
The question of NHD and the potential for change in the future was raised. One of the reasons for the USFS funding this project was to make WA data available to NHD so the line work would be in sync.
· Rick assured the group that USFS data will be delivered to Ecology and will discuss this with Ken Adee. He also indicated that the USFS data would clip the data before sending it to Ecology.
· It was agreed that issues concerning NHD are out of scope for this project.
· An “Assumptions” heading and text will be added to the project work plan to reflect these and other data requirements.
Update on Progress To Date
Because two people completed WRIA 5, Dan indicated that he wanted a chance to work on another WRIA from start to finish while documenting the process and updating the BLM AML’s. He’s testing the updated, WA specific, implementation procedures against WRIA 9. The resulting data and programs will be made available to WDFW and USFS by August 20th for their review.
· During the remaining weeks in August, DNR and WDFW have agreed to draft a document outlining (in text) the QA/QC process that will be used to test the data prior to submittal to the Hydro Clearinghouse.
· It was also agreed that the QA/QC would be run against the data outside the integration process that’s being done at Ecology. This will provide another set of eyes for checking over the data.
Review of Project Schedule
We stepped through the project tasks and refined the dates and added new tasks as a result of our technical discussion (see below). It was reiterated that the time line was based on information obtained during the pilot work on WRIA5 and that adjustments to the schedule may occur as a result of what’s learned during the implementation work on WRIA 26.
· The time schedule may change as a result of WRIA 26.
Ecology is not obligated to finish all WRIA’s in
· See updated “Detailed Tasks & Deliverables” for changes and additions.
Data Verification – there was detailed discussion around the how, where, when and who will be checking each WRIA once it’s integrated. There are two types of QA/QC checks that will be preformed.
1) Spatial quality checks on the topology and routes to ensure their integrity of the data.
2) Template or domain checks. These ensure that the data structure follows the adopted clearinghouse framework standard
· That the project will meet the minimum PNW Clearinghouse rules and that all mandatory items fields will be filled. All other “optional” fields like periodicity will be address during the update process not during this project
and WDFW will draft the text outline of what the QA/QC process is. This will be
made available for everyone’s review by
Attribute Population – there was discussion and clarification attributes listed in the data dictionary are listed as mandatory or optional. There are items like periodicity and GNIS # that are listed as optional. This was due to the fact that not all organizations collected this information and to make them mandatory would have delayed or prevented the posting of needed hydro information to the clearinghouse. It was reiterated that we need to make progress and that it needs to be made in discrete chunks.
Stephen Bernath indicated that periodicity is very important and that it needs to be resolved and local government will be looking to the state to provide this information. It was agreed that the issue was out of scope but there needs to be a mechanism/group to work on the issue.
Rich Jordan indicated that the GNIS # that’s missing from the USFS data will be calculated using the DNR attribute listed just below their line work.