The Mainstem and Middle Fork John Day Rivers Fish Habitat Enhancement Project (1984-021-00) has been active since 1984. At the time of the ISRP review of this project for the 2007-2009 project solicitation, the project had been ongoing for 22 years. The ISRP commented that “after 22 years, the project should be showing changes in characteristics such as abundance of fishes, bank stability, and stream-width relationships.” The ISRP recommended that “it is time for a comprehensive review of this project’s biological results. One year of funding should provide time for this activity, while continuing ongoing field projects. Future funding should be contingent on completion of a satisfactory document.” The Council recommended to Bonneville that the “sponsor should complete [an] accomplishments report as called for in the ISRP recommendation.”
On March 6, 2007 the sponsor provided the Northwest Power and Conservation Council a document entitled Second Response to ISRP Review of BPA Project 1984-021-00: Mainstem, Middle Fork, John Day Rivers Fish Habitat Enhancement Project. This document was to serve as a comprehensive accomplishments report. The Council requested a review of this report by the ISRP. In an April 19, 2007 memo to the Council, the ISRP concluded that the sponsor made a conscientious effort to address our specific concerns, but the document did not serve the function of a comprehensive analysis of project results. The document also made it clear to the ISRP that sufficient data for a much needed review and analysis probably did not exist.
Recognizing both the limitations of the existing data and the pressing need to evaluate the effectiveness of past project actions, the ISRP recommended that a comprehensive report was still needed. The ISRP suggested that the report should at least:
- Identify locations where restoration has occurred;
- The locations of these sites relative to spawning and rearing areas for the focal species;
- Identify all the monitoring data that may exist for each of these sites;
- Analyze and interpret the data;
- Outline monitoring for the future.
The Council (May 9, 2007 email from Mark Fritsch) requested that the sponsors address the first three questions but did not seek a response to questions four and five. The Council, however, suggested that a response to ISRP M&E concerns about the project would be desirable.
On February 20, 2008 the project sponsor provided a report intended to cover the first three elements recommended by the ISRP. The ISRP was directed to review the sponsor’s response to these questions. This memo is the ISRP’s reply to the Council directive. We provide specific responses to each of the first three questions, general comments on the project as a whole based on the information that has been provided to us in the course of all ISRP reviews of this project, and a final recommendation.
