Adaptive Monitoring and Partnerships in River Restoration: Insights from the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed, Oregon

Kasey Lauren Bliesner^1*Lauren J. Osborne²Melody J. Feden¹Ian Tattam¹Ken Fetcho³Chris E. Jordan⁴

• ¹Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Keizer, United States
• ²Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, United States
• ³Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, United States
• ⁴National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, United States

Salmon and steelhead population declines in the Columbia Basin have prompted extensive habitat restoration and long-term monitoring to evaluate biological response. Since 2008, restoration projects conducted within the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed (MFIMW) have affected 16.7% of summer steelhead distribution. These projects have been accompanied by coordinated habitat and population monitoring which evolved into a basin-scale, multi-agency effort operating across diverse land ownerships and ecological settings. This manuscript examines the collaborative processes that enabled restoration implementation to be paired with long-term monitoring across large spatial and temporal scales. Rather than presenting monitoring outcomes, which are extensively documented in a variety of publications and summary reports, we focus on how institutional stability, shared purpose, and continuous joint decision making supported a durable framework in a remote watershed. The MFIMW demonstrates that in river systems lacking a single structural barrier or straightforward solution, progress depends on incremental, community-supported restoration at a scale capable of addressing diffuse limiting factors. We highlight lessons learned and key insights including: 1) restoration success requires understanding and targeting the most critical limiting factor; 2) adaptive management and structured evaluation are essential for refining restoration and monitoring strategies; 3) durable partnerships and transparent communication support restoration implementation and foster scientific research and 4) early and intentional public communication is critical to avoid opposition and build long-term support. And, while biological responses remained muted, we have documented stabilization of thermal conditions and improved habitat complexity, underscoring that IMW success should be measured not only by fish and riparian responses but also by ecological gains, collaborative capacity, and knowledge generated. The MFIMW provides an example of how stable, collaborative partnerships can accelerate basin-scale habitat recovery efforts and offers transferable insights for watershed restoration and monitoring programs across the West Coast.