 |
| Agency Creek Dam Removal and Stream Restoration Project |
Klamath County, Oregon |
Primary Project Type: Fish Passage
Secondary Type: Riparian Restoration |
 |
| |
Aerial photo of Agency Creek and impoundment dam before restoration.... |
|
|
 |
Primary Problem: Dams
Secondary Problem: Channel Alteration |
| Main Restoration Action(s): Channel reconstruction, Dam removal, Riparian revegetation |
| Native Fish Focus: N/A |
Is this project part of a watershed scale restoration? No
|
| Project Dates: 2002 to 2003 |
| |
Initial Monitoring: 2000, 2002
Restoration Implementation: summer 2002 to spring 2003
Follow-up Monitoring: 2003 to 2007 |
|
Lead Agency:
Graham Matthews & Associates
Fort Klamath Properties, LLC
|
| Project Partners: |
|
| Project Location:
The project site is located along Agency Creek (Township 34S, Range 7.5E, section 13; and Township 34S, Range 7E, section 18), tributary to Crooked Creek and the Wood River, Klamath County, Oregon. Directions to the project location are as follows: From Klamath Falls take Highway 97 north, turn left onto Highway 62 in Chiloquin. Follow Highway 62 until it crosses Agency Creek at Klamath Agency. Access to the project is either down the creek channel or following the dirt road (first gate on left after crossing Agency Creek, when headed north).
Click here for a map of the project area.
|
| |
| Project Description:
The Agency Creek Dam Removal and Stream Restoration Project was developed to address degraded habitat conditions within the upper 2000 feet of Agency Creek. The overall ecological goals of the project were to restore and enhance the form, function (physical, chemical and biological), and composition of the aquatic and riparian habitat within a portion of Agency Creek between State Route 62 and its confluence with Crooked Creek. The degraded conditions in the portion of Agency Creek treated during this project included the presence of an abandoned earthen dam which served as a fish barrier; accumulation of fine sediments within the reservoir created behind the dam which, under high flows, impacted lower reaches of Agency and Crooked Creeks; lower base flows due to irrigation diversions; and the historic loss of riparian habitat and cover in portions of Agency Creek. Click here for aerial views of Agency Creek before restoration (342 kb PDF file). |
Project Goals: The overall project objective was to restore fish passage and habitat along the referenced 2,000 foot reach of Agency Creek. Seven individual objectives of restoration are as follows:
(1) Restore pre-disturbance channel geometry
(2) Create wetland fringe areas
(3) Construct new channel banks using bio-technical methods
(4) Create conditions to allow development of undercut banks
(5) Expand\create pool habitat
(6) Create substrate complexity by gravel placement
(7) Improve extent of wetland and riparian vegetation |
| Project Methods:
The project was divided into two phases: Phase One included funding for habitat enhancement on the 600 foot reach that is upstream of the impoundment along with engineering design for the dam removal and habitat restoration in the impoundment area. Phase Two involved the actual removal of the dam, accumulated sediments, re-creation of a stream channel through the impoundment, restoration of 400 feet of channel below the impoundment, and restoration of wetland fringe and riparian habitats. Initially, the project design staff determined that it would be most practical to postpone construction of the upper 600 feet of restoration funded under Phase One and conduct it at the same time as the dam removal in order to facilitate equipment access and minimize on and off-site impacts. However, due to time and funding constraints, restoration of the upper 600 feet of Agency Creek could not be conducted during Phase 2 construction and remains to be done.
Click here for more information on methods used.
|
 |
| |
This picture shows the design thalweg staking and initial cut of the drainage di... |
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
This picture shows closer detail in the construction of a riffle/run. The bottom... |
|
|
|
|
Monitoring Data and Collection
Methods: Extensive monitoring of the project site was conducted during the design phase of this project. Data collection and analyses in the design phase included topographic surveys of the channel and surrounding areas, hydrologic data collection and analyses, water temperature data collection and analyses, historic photo interpretation for channel morphology and vegetation analyses, and cross-section and profile surveys and analyses. Additional monitoring conducted prior to construction included fish surveys and photo documentation of pre-construction site conditions.
Monitoring elements already established on the Agency Creek project site include photo points, monitoring cross sections and a pre-project longitudinal profile, installation of a continuous stream stage monitoring station, installation of three continuous stream temperature monitoring stations, and detailed pre-project topographic mapping.
Over the next five years monitoring will include stream flow and water temperature data, cross-section and profile surveys, bulk sample substrate analyses, fisheries surveys, macro invertebrates data, vegetation growth and survival surveys, and photo-point monitoring.
Click here for more information on the monitoring plan.
|
| Was this project effective
and how was this determined? Based on preliminary estimates, project construction improved habitat conditions in the project site through re-vegetation of 1.0 acres of riparian habitat (on-going), creation of 0.6 acres of riparian habitat in the pre-project impoundment, creation of 0.8 acre of fringe wetland habitat, and creation of an additional 450 feet of channel (total post project channel length is approximately 2,460 feet versus approximately 2,000 feet for the pre-project channel).
Click here for more information on monitoring results.
|
 |
| |
(Before) Overlook before restoration (2000)... |
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
(After) Overlook after restoration (2003)... |
|
|
|
|
Confounding Effects/Additional
Information:
Design vs. As-Built Construction
No significant changes in the final design were made during project construction. However, due to time and funding constraints, approximately 650 feet of the upstream portion of the creek from the upstream end of the impoundment to S.R. 62 was not constructed. In terms of planned versus actual costs, contracted services and materials costs were significantly different than expected. Actual contracted services costs were approximately 11% greater than planned and materials costs were approximately 27% lower than planned. In addition, project engineer costs during construction were 30% greater than planned. Other actual project costs were approximately equal to planned costs. Overall, project construction was accomplished within the planning budget.
Lessons Learned
Several lessons were learned in implementing this project. These included issues of budgetary planning in light of grant acquisition delays and funding levels, permit acquisition and imposed implementation conditions, and flexibility in design implementation. Overall, the construction that was completed proceeded as planned and designed.
Delays in grant acquisition and funding levels created issues in relation to completing all of the planned work with the funding provided. The initial design work and grant application were completed and submitted two years prior to construction. Once awarded for construction in 2002, materials and services rates had increased. In addition, the full amount requested for construction was not available. These factors necessitated finding materials at lower cost and halting construction before all planned work was completed. Regardless of these factors, in this case the major issues in the system were addressed by construction of the project. The project planner should have contingencies for delays in grant awarding and budgetary shortfalls such as re-visiting the design work and cost estimates between grant submission cycles and having back-up plans, if possible, for partial project construction if required by budgetary or other conditions.
In terms of permit acquisition and imposed implementation conditions, the issue of a change in the policy of the Division of State Lands (DSL) caused some major issues that could have delayed or prevented project construction. As a result, permitting costs were significantly higher than expected and in order to proceed with construction in 2002 it was necessary to conduct a cursory wetland delineation and wetland mitigation plan. Planners need to be aware of forthcoming policy changes in relation to project permitting and plan accordingly.
Maintaining flexibility in design implementation to meet unexpected conditions and accomplish design objectives was found to be essential in meeting the design objectives and budgetary constraints. |
| Project
Specs (all specs are estimates): |
| |
Cost of Materials:
$34,254
Subcontracted Costs:
$104,393
Overall Estimated Cost:
$227,000 - Click here for the project budget (21 kb PDF file).
|
|
| For more information on this project
contact: |
| |
Graham Matthews , Graham Matthews & Associates, Email: graham@gmahydrology.com
Thad Keays, Project Coordinator, Fort Klamath Properties, LLC, Email:
|
| This information
was collected by: Molly Boucher |
| Project last updated on: 5/2/2007 |
|
 |
|
