Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-216-00 - Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Design and Protocols Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-216-00 - Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Design and Protocols
Project Number:
Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Design and Protocols
The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) is a compact of twenty (20) state, federal, tribal agencies & private organizations’ Executives (see: The PNAMP steering committee has tasked the Fish Population Monitoring (FPM) committee of 156 regional scientists & agency representatives to produce a Tagging, Telemetry & Marking (TTM) compendium guide that unites disparate & individual programs, projects & research. Thus, we will produce a single technical information & guidance manual for use by the entire region. This product will assist in advancing design, analytical & decision techniques & will result in creditable improvements in the science & in decision-making. The beneficiaries will be all sectors of fish management using TTM, but who may be doing so in a costly & possibly inefficient manner, &, where an unquestionable lack of regional interagency & program continuity currently exists. Currently, we have 43 potential chapters (submitted manuscripts) identified describing expert work in progress awaiting vetting, editing, publication & distribution.

At the November 2007 meeting of the Fish Population Monitoring work group, attendees convened to refine the draft scope and focus of the tagging, telemetry and marking task. This was a necessary milestone and check in point to ensure that PNAMP is on track to provide the highest value and product to the region.

For the tagging, telemetry and marking task we formulated an approach that seeks to ensure that the information we compile and summarize comports with existing management questions. Also, we outlined a support systems approach for the technical work that will first lead to review and eventual recommendations for improvement of designs, protocols and techniques and then for making them widely accessible and updating information as necessary.

This approach is also projected to extend our regional collaboration to its long-sought target levels as we document the actual scale of current tagging, telemetry and marking work in the Pacific Northwest and examine the range of objectives. The tasks will incorporate information from the broadest base of practitioners and researchers possible and necessary to match new and developing technology with designs and implementation support.

In summary, our discussions and approach will first seek to garner reasonable assurances that the work being conducted is sufficiently addressing the regions most pressing data needs. We propose to do this by linking recommendations to existing population questions and seeking comments on which are the highest priorities. We will also continue working with researchers, universities, managers, practitioners and agencies to support recommendations from PNAMP. The protocols we recommend will be shaped to provide comparable, accurate, and repeatable data derived from consistent methods.

The June issue of the American Fisheries publication of “Fisheries” (Vol. 32 No 6) provides ample and concrete rationale to continue and expand organized efforts and ask for your contributions.

Measurement is the key component in most investigations of fish and shellfish. The ability to identify individual and groups of fishes, as well as their habits, movements, and mortality, is crucial to effective fisheries science. The methods used must be appropriate, accurate, and repeatable.

While uncertainty is an integral part of dealing with biological systems, as scientists it is crucial that we use methods that minimize uncertainty in order to improve the conservation and sustainability of fisheries and aquatic resources. In June 1988, over 400 fisheries and aquatic scientists gathered in Seattle, Washington, for the "International Symposium and Educational Workshop on Fish-Marking Techniques." This landmark event included presentations on virtually every fish tagging method in use at that time. The ultimate product was the 1990 publication Fish Marking Techniques, American Fisheries Society Symposium 7, arguably one of the most influential fisheries publications in decades. In the nearly 20 years since that symposium, the world of fisheries science has changed dramatically; the technologies and analytical
Proponent Orgs:
Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Lamprey, Pacific
Other Anadromous
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
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

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024
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
2009 $0 0%
2008 $119,028 81%
2007 $14,940 43%


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, 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
33062 SOW KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc. 2007-216-00 PNAMP REVIEW, DESIGN & PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT History $19,718 5/15/2007 - 9/30/2007
36063 SOW KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc. 200721600 EXP PNAMP RME DESIGN AND PROTOCALS History $28,718 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
40674 SOW KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc. 200721600 EXP PNAMP RME DESIGN AND PROTOCOLS History $28,718 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):1
On time:1
Status Reports
On time:0
Avg Days Late:257

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
33062 36063, 40674 200721600 EXP PNAMP RME DESIGN AND PROTOCOLS KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc. 05/15/2007 09/30/2009 History 7 5 0 0 7 12 41.67% 1
Project Totals 7 5 0 0 7 12 41.67% 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: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-216-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-216-00 - Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Design and Protocols
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: 2007-216-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-216-00 - Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP) Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Design and Protocols
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Not Applicable
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Having standardized protocols for aquatic habitat and fish population monitoring is a high priority. However, this proposal is for coordination assistance and administrative support. The ISRP therefore recommends that it be classified as an Administrative proposal.

The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership is a very widely ranging effort with partners that include state, tribal, and federal entities, as well as NGOs. The focus of PNAMP is on developing standardized protocols for monitoring status and trends in aquatic habitat and fish populations, in order to achieve greater consistency and comparability among data collected by various organizations. Artificial production, mainstem passage and survival, estuary survival, and harvest are not really included in PNAMP's scope. Overall, the technical and scientific background for this proposal is not clear. The budget only requests $77K over a 3-year period, and this is for several tasks that represent a small (but significant) subset of PNAMP activities having to do with fish population monitoring. This needed to be more adequately explained in the background section. Additionally, the proposal contains some statements that represent serious simplifications and that are not referenced, e.g., "Thirty five years ago, the abundances of juvenile and adult salmonid populations were found to be well-described using 4 variables: gradient, elevation (or stream width), temperature, and % pool. Since then, these relationships were shown to hold true throughout the nation..." Simplifications such as this completely overlook trophic considerations, water quality, and other important environmental features. Hopefully, PNAMP is not starting with this assumption.

There was insufficient specificity in the proposal to draw clear relationships between the PNAMP effort and relevant parts of the Fish and Wildlife Program, the BiOp, and other regional plans, even though it would have been possible to do this for the particular tasks for which the proposal requests funding (i.e., fish monitoring protocols and a training manual).

The Relationships to Other Projects section of the proposal began with a table that appeared to be pasted in from another document, and including a table heading would have been very helpful. Some of the projects in the table were not relevant to the objectives of this particular proposal, but instead described work that is ongoing in the greater PNAMP effort. As well, some of the linkages between the other projects and PNAMP were not explained. After the table, the proposal included a series of outcomes that seemed out of place in this section. This material was largely derived from the 2005 Strategy paper that was included as a separate file (which made for difficult reviewing). There were very few explicit links to other projects, and some of the material was out of order, e.g., Outcome D preceded Outcome C. Additionally the bullets under Outcome C (page 8) did not match this outcome at all.

It was difficult to match the specific tasks in the form of the five bulleted objectives on page 10-11 with the specific tasks identified on the following three pages. Once again it appeared that the stated objectives were general PNAMP goals, while this proposal seeks to fund a small subset of the goals. The proposal was not clear on this point throughout the submission, and adding the 2005 Strategy paper as a separate attachment instead of bring the relevant parts directly into the project narrative didn't help. Surprisingly, two of the tasks: the fish population monitoring protocols with gap analysis, and the field method training manual, are both scheduled for completion before funding for this project would have been decided, and even the third task of developing standardized tagging methods is scheduled for completion in September 2006. This left open the question of what, exactly, this proposal is for? The objectives would have been a good place to show how the PNAMP products could be applied to a real subbasin such as the Yakima or John Day. However, no examples were given.

There was little description of provisions for monitoring or evaluating success in developing the standardized fish population monitoring protocols that appear to be at the heart of the proposal. If the protocols and training manual are developed, how will we know if they are useful? This proposal would have benefited from a section that describes implementation and feedback.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-216-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-216-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Multiple entity monitoring program.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-216-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-216-00
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
Keith (KWAES) Wolf (Inactive) Project Lead KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc.
Jennifer Bayer Technical Contact US Geological Survey (USGS)
John Piccininni (Inactive) Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Jamae Hilliard (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration