< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200400200 - PNAMP Funding

Sponsor: US Geological Survey (USGS) - Cook

Budgets: FY07: $50,000 | FY08: $50,000 | FY09: $50,000

Short description: PNAMP requires a Coordinator to serve as lead staff, liaison, point of contact, and support efforts to coordinate state, federal, and tribal monitoring efforts in the region. This proposal requests funding for a portion of total cost of Coordination only.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $50,000 | FY08: $50,000 | FY09: $50,000

Comment: Interim funding pending further Council consideration of regional monitoring and evaluation framework.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable


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.

State/province recommendation: MS: High Priority

Review group: MSRT

Recommended budgets: FY07: $50,000 | FY08: $50,000 | FY09: $50,000

Comment: PNAMP relies on CSMEP for Columbia River fish monitoring strategies and is focused more on habitat strategies for the CRB. Both projects are well coordinated and avoid duplication of effort. This project funds a portion of the coordinator for PNAMP. Although not ranked as Core Program, this project is needed to insure regional consistency in monitoring. This was considered Core Program by the federal agencies and NPCC staff. PNAMP’s workload and the expectations of its functions have increased significantly.