The purpose of effectiveness monitoring is to determine the extent to which on-the-ground actions meet their biological and ecological objectives. With the listing of several salmonid species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), fiscal investments made by state, federal, tribal and others involved in watershed health and salmon recovery are considerable. They range from small-scale habitat protection and restoration projects to large programs that manage land, water, or other resources within and across various jurisdictions and sectors. In nearly every case it is assumed that these programs and projects have the desired effect, but this assumption is rarely evaluated by project scale effectiveness monitoring, and even less so by complementary validation (cause-effect) monitoring. There is a need understand the effectiveness of watershed health and salmon recovery investments in terms of their stated outcomes and the resulting effect on salmon populations, water quality, water quantity, and habitat.
What We Do
PNAMP works to coordinate initiatives begun by various state, federal, and tribal organizations in their efforts to monitor whether restoration and management actions ongoing in the Pacific Northwest are effective in restoring watershed health and their associated salmonid populations. The attention has been focused on effectiveness of habitat actions funded by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council through Bonneville Power Administration in the Columbia River and the associated pilot watersheds, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) restoration actions, Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) restoration actions and the restoration actions and effectiveness strategy of the California Department of Fish and Game for northern California. An important component has been the initial development and coordination of reporting metrics for entities receiving Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds, and those receiving Bonneville Power Administration funding. The intent has been to avoid duplication of efforts, coordinating monitoring designs and protocols, and improving efficiency of data collection and accessibility to enable local information to be rolled-up for reports to Congress and state Legislatures on progress made.