Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Project Number:
Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Federal, state, tribal, local, and private aquatic monitoring programs in the Pacific Northwest have evolved independently in response to different organizational mandates, jurisdictional needs, issues and questions. Planning and coordination of federal, state and tribal monitoring activities have evolved slowly but steadily over the past ten years. In 2004, the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) emerged from an ad hoc effort to become a formal institution charged with providing a forum for coordination of aquatic monitoring efforts in the region. The geographic area of this coordination includes the Pacific Northwest region from Northern California to Canada where participating entities are implementing monitoring efforts. As of 2008, 20 state, tribal, federal, and regional entities signed the PNAMP Charter (Appendix A).

The basis of PNAMP is that monitoring will be improved if: all programs use consistent monitoring approaches and protocols; follow a scientific foundation; support monitoring policy and management objectives; and collect and present information in a manner that can be shared. These goals will require considerable effort and commitment to collaboration by many entities and individuals. PNAMP strives to provide the forum where this collaboration can occur and to facilitate the exchange among technical experts and between technical and policy staff that is necessary to accomplish these goals.

Although we are eager for more participation, we believe PNAMP has the right combination of types of participants to address these goals. PNAMP’s organizational structure includes a Steering Committee, Coordination Team (Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator, and Data Steward) and a number of technical workgroups and subcommittees that focus on specific projects and tasks. The Steering Committee is composed of representatives from all entities that are signatory to the Charter and leaders of the technical workgroups, a combination which allows the interface of technical and policy interests. The agency representatives are responsible for communication to PNAMP regarding their respective agencies’ work and needs, as well as delivering PNAMP progress and challenges to their agencies.

Recently, PNAMP has developed a better understanding of how the goals and tasks of each technical workgroup, subcommittee, and individual partners are inherently interdependent. PNAMP has identified and been working on a number of concepts important to establishing a regional partnership for aquatic resource monitoring that bridge technical focus areas and individual agencies. These are critical elements of a large scale, efficient, coordinated effort to monitor resources. We refer to these as “cross cut tasks”:
• Protocols: what to measure and how to measure it
• Survey design: how to decide where and when to monitor
• Data management: what are our data needs; what must we do before, during, and after data collection to facilitate data sharing
• Monitoring inventory: better facilitate coordination by describing ‘who is doing what monitoring where’
• High level indicators: seek agreement on a set of indicators (and metrics necessary to determine indicators) to describe landscape level changes in the region
• Regional network of monitoring efforts: explore ways to continuously improve our efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring on a regional scale

Each of these tasks is complex and resolution involves collaboration with other regional and national organizations, as well as many individual participants. However, successful coordination and collaboration on these fundamentals could be a first step in the creation of a regional monitoring effort.

The PNAMP Steering Committee, Workgroup Leaders and Coordination Team share the responsibility to work across PNAMP to accomplish our goals efficiently and consistently. We encourage those in the region who seek assistance with aquatic resource monitoring issues to contribute to PNAMP. Coordination on complex topics with many partners takes time and hard work. Since PNAMP is a voluntary organization, our progress is directly correlated to participation. Support and open communication are essential for PNAMP to be able to respond to needs of the region; we need to hear from both technical and policy staff what is needed for better coordinated aquatic resource monitoring.
Proponent Orgs:
US Geological Survey (USGS) (Govt - Federal)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Regional Coordination
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Shad, American
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $429,933 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $520,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY21 SOY Remaining SOY Budgets 06/18/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 $190,000 (Draft) 31% (Draft)
2019 $115,404 21%
2018 $295,315 40%
2017 $313,742 42%
2016 $181,182 19%
2015 $77,270 9%
2014 $129,781 10%
2013 $75,000 10%
2012 $150,000 20%
2011 $150,000 21%
2010 $150,000 21%
2009 $277,000 33%
2008 $206,000 51%
2007 $140,000 57%


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
73883 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2004-002-00 EXP USGS PNAMP FUNDING Issued $435,000 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
80481 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2004-002-00 EXP PNAMP FUNDING Issued $429,933 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
83224 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2004-002-00 EXP PNAMP FUNDING Issued $429,933 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
86007 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2004-002-00 EXP PNAMP FUNDING Issued $520,000 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):30
On time:24
Status Reports
On time:45
Avg Days Late:33

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
22680 26477, 29881, 35113, 40087, 44308, 51486, 56296, 60237, 64211, 68050, 71562, 73883, 77231, 80481, 83224, 86007 200400200 PACIFIC NW AQUATIC MONITORING PARTNERSHIP COORDINATION US Geological Survey (USGS) 05/2005 05/2005 Issued 61 118 1 0 4 123 96.75% 0
28571 200400200 EXP PNAMP/STREAMNET FUNDING Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 08/2006 08/2006 Closed 1 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
41039 200400200 EXP PNAMP FUNDING (K. WOLF) KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc. 12/2008 12/2008 Closed 1 0 0 0 2 2 0.00% 1
42697 200400200 EXP OSU ANALYTICAL SUPPORT & WEB TOOLS FOR PNAMP ISTM Oregon State University 07/2009 07/2009 Closed 8 12 0 0 0 12 100.00% 0
44161 49186 200400200EXP SALMON-STEELHD MONITORING PRGM FOR PNAMP ISTM (ODFW) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 09/2009 09/2009 Closed 7 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
44906 47290, 52949 200400200 EXP SALMON-STEELHD MONITORING PRGM FOR PNAMP ISTM-WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 09/2009 09/2009 Closed 10 10 0 0 8 18 55.56% 0
59509 63629, 67236, 70905 2004-002-00 EXP SITKA PNAMP FUNDING Sitka Technology Group 11/2012 11/2012 Closed 21 55 0 0 11 66 83.33% 0
Project Totals 109 207 1 0 25 233 89.27% 1

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2004-002-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

Response requested comment:

A response is requested to provide the following:

1.      Development of quantitative objectives/deliverables and metrics that can be used to measure and evaluate project accomplishments and outcomes.

2.      Description of a more formal process for adaptive management. This is particularly important for long term project success given PNAMP'S expanding geographic scope and increased user base.

3.      A strategic vision for PNAMP outlining where the project is headed in the next 5 years. This should include a brief description of how the collection of current activities help move the project towards that vision. Also, it would be helpful to see how these activities are part of broader, long term thinking about future PNAMP contributions, especially given expansion to the national arena.

4.      An explanation of the reasons behind the lags in publishing methods and protocols, and how the issue will be remedied in the very near future (i.e., 1-2 years).


This project has a long history of impressive accomplishments. It continues to provide a wide range of technical tools and services, and it acts as a forum to bring a wide range of agencies, tribes, and other entities together for improved coordination, consistency, and collaboration in aquatic monitoring. There are project areas where improvements are desirable, and they are primarily included in the categories where a response is requested. They include developing quantitative objectives; gauging user needs and satisfaction/project effectiveness; developing metrics for measuring the impact of the PNAMP program, including major accomplishments and outcomes and the development of long-term project goals for PNAMP and a strategic framework to help move towards them. The number of reports and workshops, while impressive, is not a clear measure of whether the program is actually increasing the quality or efficiency of monitoring or producing new knowledge to support decision making. Finally, it should be noted that the topics, where a response is requested, are all discussed in the programmatic section of this ISRP report and apply to most data management projects reviewed.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The PNAMP project plays an important role in coordinating aquatic monitoring efforts in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), from Canada to Northern California. It has broad significance to regional programs and has provided sustained leadership to support effective monitoring and data sharing efforts across the Pacific Northwest. The PNAMP group has the technical expertise to guide a successful endeavor.

The project has four primary objectives; all are qualitative and broadly stated with no dates for accomplishment. This makes it very difficult to evaluate actual accomplishments and outcomes. Some additional details were provided under each of the 11 deliverables, but many are still vague. Current descriptions leave many questions unanswered. Some include: How do the proponents know if the workshops and coordination are having an impact? Being able to describe more quantitative results would help answer this question. The proposal discusses workshop reports, white papers, annual reports, website and tools, etc., but is there some way to track the impact of these activities? Or are they just available online but underutilized? The ISRP recognizes that the impacts of coordination can be hard to measure. However, the objectives and deliverables could be written to be more specific to facilitate quantitative evaluation to determine if an objective was met or a deliverable was produced and what the associated outcomes were.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

Overall results appear to be outstanding. The number of activities reported in the proposal is admirable. PNAMP has provided regular annual reports describing an impressive array of products and accomplishments. Some of these include assistance in development of study and sample designs for charter members' monitoring projects; outreach and training including workshops to webinars; assistance in the development of regional high-level habitat indicators; coordination of effectiveness monitoring and data management; sharing of "best practices"; and operation and maintenance of the website. It is apparent that impressive and important enhancements have been made to, despite the relatively low number of protocols and methods that have been published.

Although the project does not appear to have a formal adaptive management (AM) process, it can point to several changes in work and organization that are a result of past lessons learned. Proponents describe PNAMP collaboration and coordination functions as responsive to the needs of partners. This is an indication of the adaptive management philosophy of PNAMP, and it seems to be implementing it reasonably well with numerous meetings and information feedback loops. Currently, the primary tool for assessment of overall project effectiveness is the PNAMP Steering Committee (SC). The proponents note that there are also periodic strategic planning retreats and annual user surveys. A summary of findings/results of these efforts and how they informed decisions on project design and operation was not provided and would have been helpful.

There are no metrics provided that can be used to gauge project outcomes/impacts for key activities nor is there any strategic vision or framework to guide longer term program development. In a 2007-2009 solicitation review, it was noted in discussing PNAMP'S effectiveness that, "To assess the effectiveness of this facilitation an audit or poll of participating agencies should be conducted within two years. Adaptive management and course corrections within the PNAMP framework could be realized if direct feedback from the participating agencies were obtained." The proposal would be improved by documentation of this feedback as well as by a better description of whether a particular model of coordination is being used." Although user feedback is provided by the Executive Committee, it does not appear that a formal audit or poll has been completed or has there been a summary of findings and description of how they have been incorporated into the current project. This feedback information would clarify, for example, how practitioners in the basin become aware of PNAMP and its resources, the effectiveness of dissemination of information about various training opportunities,, and such. Articulating a strategic dissemination plan, if it does not already exist, could be useful in informing this audit and increasing the impact of the program.

Another ISRP concern, especially with the expansion of PNAMP activities outside the Pacific Northwest, is that there continues to be prioritization of activities to ensure continued service to the Fish and Wildlife Program and Tribes. While expansion can bring great opportunities, there is a need to remain focused on the important tasks within the region. The ISRP assumes that the expansion will enhance programmatic functions and analyses, but, if so, the proponents need to describe in what ways this will happen and what the possible positive outcomes might be.

A final concern relates to publishing monitoring protocols (p. 22). Only 219 of the 1,166 are published. Methods have a better rate of publication, but there are still several hundred waiting. Please explain why the lags are occurring. The ISRP hopes that the efforts expended toward project expansion are not delaying the publications.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

There is a wide range of work types and services provided by the project. These range from data management, operation and maintenance of a website, public outreach, and user training sessions and webinars. A general description of project methods, in key project areas, is provided. All provide good examples of how a project should function and how to prepare a well written proposal.

There are 11 deliverables listed. They are described in some detail but do not provide quantitative measures or metrics to measure activity completion or effectiveness. An example would be tracking the activities organized under the fourth objective of "develop and maintain web resources." This type of description is very general and makes the actual assessment of what activities were completed and their outcomes nearly impossible to evaluate. Also, while the proposal indicates that PNAMP participants and administrators will show responsiveness to the needs of partners by identifying the tools that are most technically appropriate and durable over the long term, it would have been particularly helpful to have a strategic vision and framework for the future that establishes the broad project direction and provide a general description of expected results. Given the changes in project scope, this vision is particularly relevant. Having this information will assist the ISRP and the Council/BPA to understand how needs will be met in the future. It is acknowledged that the proponents have reported that such a strategic document is in preparation and a review draft ready soon. The ISRP is interested in participating in a review of this document to provide feedback on PNAMP's vision and strategy going forward.

198810804 - StreamNet - Coordinated Information System (CIS)/ Northwest Environmental Database (NED)

Documentation Links:
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-NPCC-20130807
Project: 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2004-002-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: PNAMP receives program funding to provide a forum to coordinate monitoring activities and develop common monitoring approaches in the Pacific Northwest including the Columbia River Basin. PNAMP was established in 2003 as an alliance of federal, state, tribal, local, and private aquatic monitoring programs in the Pacific Northwest in response to a need to coordinate as needed the different organizational mandates, jurisdictional needs, issues and questions related to fish and habitat monitoring.

Council recommendation:
Fund as proposed with the following caveat through FY 2013:

As necessary, prioritization tasks funded by Bonneville should be informed by Bonneville and Council’s evaluation and reporting needs for the program (e.g., ISRP retrospective reports, Report to Congress, and HLI reports), and Bonneville FCRPS BiOp reports. Furthermore, if the PERC moves forward, it would be expected that the council recommendations based on the guidance from this committee would be incorporated in this work. Sponsor to participate on the PERC as requested by the Council to assist in developing recommendations of the PERC.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2004-002-00
Completed Date: 4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

The issues raised in this review can be addressed during contracting. No response to the ISRP is required.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The continuation of PNAMP activities, particularly web-based coordination and standardization of study protocols and field methods, is beneficial to the region. 

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The sponsors effectively describe the evolving history of PNAMP and provide an effective summary of accomplishments. The proposal describes PNAMP collaboration and coordination functions as reactionary processes that are responsive to the needs of partners. This is one indication of the adaptive management philosophy of PNAMP. The proposal focuses on shifting more PNAMP effort to web-based resources and tools as another indication of adapting to new information from changing situations. 

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The proposal summarizes project relationships by stating that, "PNAMP provides a voluntary forum for coordination and collaboration for new and existing monitoring programs and projects in the Pacific Northwest." The relationships are additionally documented by having 20 signatories to the PNAMP charter. The proposal identifies how involvement with PNAMP varies among signatories depending on the activity.

PNAMP's approach to limiting factors is reactionary to the needs of partners as new information about threats to focal species arises. There may be a valuable role for PNAMP to identify limiting factors for discussion among partners before threats arise.

PNAMP has developed the web-based resource,, to support data management and sharing. Feedback from users of should be actively solicited and used to improve the resource. Other web-based tools have been developed or are proposed. The ISRP supports these efforts. 

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are mostly clearly identified and linked to project objectives. One exception is that the utility of the geodatabase mentioned in Deliverable 16 is not clear. More explanation of how integrating the geodatabase with other web resources will be beneficial. This should be specified during contracting.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in

The ISRP supports the continued development of the standardized protocols and methods in

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:47:58 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending further Council consideration of regional monitoring and evaluation framework.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2004-002-00 - Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Coordination
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is a well-written proposal to fund a coordinator for PNAMP. It appears to be a very cost-effective project performing a necessary and valuable function for PNAMP. The largest PNAMP costs are covered in-kind by six partner agencies, but a coordinator is needed. Twenty entities are signatories to the PNAMP charter. The background section makes a convincing case for why a coordinator is needed and how it will contribute to PNAMP objectives.

The PNAMP aquatic monitoring efforts are tied to the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOps, recovery plans and subbasin plans. The proposal extensively documents relationships to ongoing and proposed projects. A figure illustrates 14 monitoring programs being coordinated. Two detailed tables provide excellent comparisons and differentiations among three large monitoring programs (PNAMP, CSMEP, and FRMEP) and among regional data projects (PNAMP, NED, CSMAP, PNW RGIC, StreamNet, PNWQDX).

PNAMP was formed in 2004. A project history focuses on accomplishments in the ensuing two years. PNAMP appears to be making good contributions to the region's monitoring coordination, having facilitated numerous meetings and information exchanges about monitoring protocols. To assess the effectiveness of this facilitation an audit or poll of participating agencies should be conducted within 2 years. Adaptive management and course corrections within the PNAMP framework could be realized if direct feedback from the participating agencies were obtained. The proposal would be improved by documentation of this feedback as well as by a better description of whether a particular model of coordination is being used.

Biological objectives are brief but appropriate. Two are quite qualitative ("help advance" and "provide guidance") and would be improved by greater specificity. The project would be improved by giving more thought about how it would establish performance metrics for itself; for example, what method would be used to measure facilitation success?

The PNAMP facilitator has a daunting task, and it is not clear from the proposal if objectives are being reached. The proposal would be improved by a more detailed description of key coordination protocols and incentives, such as the role of the coordinator in peer review of PNAMP products and the consequences for a signatory to PNAMP of not adhering to Charter principles (e.g. what are the incentives for compliance?)

The proposal would also be improved by more background on the events, problems and crises that stimulated the creation of PNAMP. Was there evidence of decreasing quality or quantity of RME in the Columbia Basin? A table of acronyms would also be helpful.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2004-002-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Funding part of coordinator for PNAMP; other entities authorized to participate. Cost share appears reasonable if confirmed.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2004-002-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2004-002-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Jennifer Bayer Project Lead US Geological Survey (USGS)
Khanida Mote Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Amy Puls Technical Contact US Geological Survey (USGS)
Rebecca Scully Interested Party US Geological Survey (USGS)
Scott Donahue Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Samuel Cimino Interested Party US Geological Survey (USGS)
Tara Hawksley Administrative Contact US Geological Survey (USGS)