< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

198402100 - Mainstem, Middle Fork, John Day Rivers Fish Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW)

Budgets: FY07: $486,515 | FY08: $519,262 | FY09: $537,463

Short description: This project was initiated on July 1, 1984, (BPA) contract number DE A179-84 BP17460 and allows for initial landowner contacts, agreement development, project design, budgeting, and implementation for anadromous fish habitat on private lands.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $340,000 | FY08: $340,000 | FY09: $340,000

Comment: Sponsor should complete accomplishments report as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in FY08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council. See also programmatic recommendation on habitat m&e.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

Comment:

Three previous reviews have emphasized that future funding would be contingent upon providing analysis of project results based on quantitative monitoring of biological outcomes, specifically, habitat characteristics and presence of target species. The sponsor’s response included excerpts from both a project-specific review from 1991 and a more general study from 2002, along with some example photopoint comparisons. The sponsors have obviously conducted a locally popular program with results in re-vegetating of riparian corridors, as evidenced by the photopoint monitoring described in the response. After 22 years, the project should be showing changes in characteristics such as abundance of fishes, bank stability, and stream width-depth relationships. It is doubtful that before/after photopoint comparisons alone would be adequate for assessing some of the parameters listed in the proposal. The 1991 and 2002 citations support continued fencing, but it is noted that sites studied by Kauffman et al. 2004, may not all be John Day sites and impacts on fish summarized from that paper are inconclusive. Citing preliminary analysis from project #199801600 might suggest that it would be wise to review project plans in terms of these more specific goals. Are current project proposals and priorities in line with these goals? Several project specific measurements are cited but not in the context of the watershed as a whole. Another question is, overall, how much progress has been made toward project implementation goals? For example, what percentage of streambank miles needing rehabilitation have been rehabilitated to what extent? What changes have occurred in the watershed outside these projects that contribute to the cumulative effects of this project, both positive and negative? Project results must be assessed so that inferences can be drawn about changes observed in the John Day in the context of changes occurring in the larger region. Project 200301700, Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program, includes a John Day pilot program that should be helpful in this, but is just getting organized. Close cooperation with the M&E project and sharing of results and experiences from this long-running project will maximize the benefits from both. It is time for a comprehensive review of this project's biological results. One year of funding should provide time for this while continuing ongoing field projects. Future funding should be contingent on completion of a satisfactory document.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable when money available

Review group: OSPIT - Plateau

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: OSPIT recognizes the long and successful implementation history of the project and does not understand the ISRP rating. This project has received high priority rankings throughout its history. OSPIT suggests the project proposers answer the ISRP comments to the Council as requested in the ISRP comment period before a determination of the Not Fundable rating is accepted. Budgetary restrictions in this basin caused by de-capitalizing two screen and passage projects also preclude funding at any level unless resolved.