PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Project No. 204-434

Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration

Project PI 1992-026-01/Contract #00020546

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Rice-Wetland Reserve Program Project # 66-0436-3-040

January 2007

End Creek Restoration Project Complex. Summer 2006 Construction viewing northeast from Grandview
Campground atop Mount Emily

Prepared by:
Allen Childs
CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration Project Leader
Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Vance McGowan
ODFW Northeast Oregon Fish Habitat Enhancement Project Leader
Fish Biologist

PROJECT PARTNERS & COOPERATORS

Dr. Joel Rice (Landowner)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Grande Ronde Model Watershed
 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Administrative Summary

Project Headquarters:
Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Program
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
PO Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801

Administrative Contact:
Julie Burke, Fish and Wildlife Administrative Manager
Phone: 541 966-2372
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: 541 966-2397

Technical Contact:
Allen B. Childs
Fish & Wildlife Biologist/Project Leader
Phone: 541 966-2391
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: 541 966-2397

Suggested Citation:
Childs, Allen, B. McGowan, Vance. 2007. End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat and Wetland
Restoration Project. Project Completion Report. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ___________________________________________________1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & EXISTING RESOURCE CONDITIONS __________________________2
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION __________________________________________________________________2
EXISTING RESOURCE CONDITIONS ______________________________________________________________6
REGIONAL STRATEGIES/OBJECTIVES ___________________________________________________________10
HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS _________________________________________________________________10
4. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIVITIES_________________________________________11
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/REGULATORY REVIEWS ____________________________________________11
CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTING, ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION, MATERIALS, & PROJECT LAYOUT ________11
RESTORATION CHANNEL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION _____________________________________________12
ROCK CROSS VANE GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES _______________________________________________21
ROOTWAD REVETMENTS & LARGE WOOD PLACEMENT _____________________________________________22
CHANNEL/DITCH RECLAMATION, FLOODPLAIN PONDS, AND BACKWATER HABITAT_______________________23
EARTHEN TERRACES _______________________________________________________________________24
CULVERT REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION ______________________________________________________25
REVEGETATION AND BIOENGINEERING _________________________________________________________25
TRAP AND HAUL/RELOCATE FISH, AMPHIBIANS, AND REPTILES PRIOR TO CHANNEL DIVERSION _____________28
RIPARIAN CONSERVATION EASEMENT FENCE CONSTRUCTION _______________________________________29
5. PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ____________________________________________________________30
6. PROJECT EXPENDITURES ____________________________________________________________34
7. REFERENCES ________________________________________________________________________35
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 END CREEK PROJECT VICINITY __________________________________________________2

FIGURE 2 RESTORATION PROJECT OVERVIEW______________________________________________3
FIGURE 3 PROJECT AREA TAX LOT MAP ___________________________________________________4
FIGURE 4 CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS & CULVERTS/HEADGATE WORK AREAS __________5
FIGURE 5 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP __________________________________________5
FIGURE 6 RIFFLE CROSS SECTION OF EXISTING END CREEK REACH__________________________7
FIGURE 7 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF LOWER END CREEK__________________________________7
FIGURE 8 END CREEK DAILY MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURES 2003-2005 __________________9
FIGURE 9 END CREEK GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS ________________________________9
FIGURE 10 GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA ____________________________________________9
FIGURE 10 TYPICAL RUN CROSS SECTION FOR THE END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL ____16
FIGURE 11 TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR THE END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL __16
FIGURE 12 TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION FOR THE END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL ___17
FIGURE 13 TYPICAL GLIDE CROSS SECTION FOR THE END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL___17
FIGURE 14 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL _______________18
FIGURE 15 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL (CONT.) _______18
FIGURE 16 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL (CONT.) _______19
FIGURE 17 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF END CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL (CONT.) _______19
FIGURE 18 CROSS VANE DIAGRAM _______________________________________________________21
FIGURE 19 ROOTWAD REVETMENT DIAGRAM _____________________________________________22
FIGURE 20 TYPICAL FLOODPLAIN POND CROSS SECTION ___________________________________23

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF END CREEK-RICE RESTORATION PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS______11

TABLE 2 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNELS
WITH GAGE STATION AND REFERENCE REACH DATA ____________________________13
1. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
The summer of 2006 culminated in the successful implementation of three consecutive phases of the End Creek
Restoration Project located in the northwest Grande Ronde Valley within the Grande Ronde Subbasin of eastern
Oregon. The project was developed and implemented by the landowners, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
(CTUIR), and several cooperating/funding agencies including the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW),
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). This report
provides an overview of the project purpose, existing conditions and limiting factors, project goals and objectives,
accomplishments, and expenditures for the project and fulfills reporting requirements for OWEB and GRMW/BPA.

The project was funded by multiple agencies through several grants and funding sources, including GRMW/BPA,
NRCS - Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), ODFW, and CTUIR. The NRCS was the lead agency for administering
the WRP with ODFW and CTUIR contributing to securing cost-share funding, planning and design, permitting,
construction contract and field administration, maintenance, and monitoring/evaluation.

The End Creek Project complex encompasses approximately 776 acres within three contiguous private land parcels,
1.13 miles of End Creek, 1.06 miles of the South Fork Willow Creek, 0.65 miles of McDonald Creek, and several
spring-fed tributaries in the Willow Creek Watershed. BPA and OWEB funding was utilized on the Rice portion of
the project involving over 500 acres, lower End Creek, South Fork Willow Creek, several spring channels, floodplain
ponds, and ditch and terrace reclamation. Project accomplishments included:

1. Construction of approximately 1.46 miles of new channel for End Creek, 1.64 miles for South Fork Willow Creek,
and 5.33 miles of spring-fed tributary channels.
2. Reclamation of 2.92 miles of existing channelized stream reaches and ditches and 1.16 miles of terraces.
3. Construction and contouring 6 floodplain ponds (10.15 acres).
4. Construction of approximately 0.68 miles of low elevation, earthen terraces to protect adjacent private land from
overland floodflow and/or to direct floodflow along End Creek restoration channel.
5. Instream placement of 20 rock grade control structures (cross vanes), 121 rootwad revetments (20 complexes),
and 200 pieces of large woody debris along the South Fork Willow Creek restoration channel.
6. Removal of 5 existing culverts to improve channel conditions and fish passage and reinstallation of 2 culverts on
access roads.
7. Initiation of native plant community restoration, including installation of 12,650 sedge/rush plugs, mechanical
installation of 60 whole shrubs and approximately 5,180 square feet of sedge/rush matts (salvaged from the
existing channelized End Creek reach) and installation of 7,800 pounds of native seed on approximately 430
acres.
8. Trap and haul (salvage) of fish, amphibians, and reptiles from existing streams reaches prior to channel diversions
and restoration channel activation.
9. Installation of an irrigation system to facilitate vegetative recovery.

Project construction was initiated in late June with major construction on the Rice portion of the project area
completed by October. During October through late November, an additional project phase involving construction of
approximately 0.5 miles of the upper End Creek restoration channel, reclamation of channelized stream reaches, and
construction of floodplain ponds was completed through a separate OWEB grant and NRCS WRP restoration fund
on the Davidson property within the project complex. The final project component, located on the Dake property in
the southern portion of the project complex, will be constructed during 2007 using NRCS WRP and GRMW/BPA
funds. Planned actions for the project in 2007 include construction of additional stream channels along McDonald
Creek, installation of two additional floodplain ponds, ditch reclamation, planting, weed control, irrigation system
operation, other maintenance needs, and monitoring/evaluation.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 1

Final Project Report January 2007
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & EXISTING RESOURCE CONDITIONS
Project Area Description

The End Creek Restoration Project is located in the upper Willow Creek watershed in the Upper Grande Ronde River
Subbasin (6th Field HUC 17060104803). The project is located in the northwest portion of the Grande Ronde Valley
about 8 miles north of LaGrande, Oregon in Union County approximately 1 mile upstream from the confluence with
Willow Creek in Township 1 South, Range 38 East, all or portions of Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, Willamette
Meridian. The project complex encompasses three contiguous private land parcels: Rice (568 acres); Davidson (108
acres); and Dake (100 acres). See Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map. In context of the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan
(NPCC, 2004), the project area is located in the Mid Grande Ronde Valley Geographic Priority Area (Lower
Willow/mid Grande Ronde). Habitat limiting factors include sediment, flow, temperature, and key habitat quantity.
Primary focal species include summer steelhead (spawning/rearing) and spring Chinook salmon (rearing habitat).
Other species include resident trout and riparian/wetland dependent wildlife.

The End Creek watershed drains an area along the eastern foothills of the Blue Mountain Range, at the base of Mt.
Emily. The drainage area includes approximately 4.9 square miles with a mean annual precipitation of 24 inches.
Approximately 75 percent of the area is forested with 25 percent in agricultural production. End Creek is about 5
miles in length with headwaters originating at an elevation of 6,000 feet and a confluence elevation at the South Fork
of Willow Creek of 2,700 feet. Based on USGS quadrangle maps, the forested headwater reaches are located on very
steep slopes with an average gradient of 28 percent. The 1.5 mile middle transitional reach, consisting of a mixture
of forest and agriculture use, has moderately steep terrain with an average 5.5 percent slope. The lower 1.5 miles,
downstream of Hunter Road, are located along a relatively flat depositional and floodplain area with agricultural
production being the primary activity. The reach averages 1.6 percent slope.

Figure 1 End Creek Project Vicinity

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 2

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 2 Restoration Project Overview

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 3

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 3 Project Area Tax Lot Map

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 4

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 4 Construction Staging Areas & Culverts/Headgate Work Areas

Figure 5 National Wetland Inventory Map

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 5

Final Project Report January 2007
Existing Resource Conditions The Willow Creek Watershed, including End
Creek, South Fork Willow, and McDonald
Private lands in the project area have a long Creek are known to provide habitat for Federally
history of agricultural cultivation, listed Snake River summer steelhead. Willow
channelization/ditching, and wetland conversion. Creek may provide rearing habitat for spring
The proposed action is to restore instream, Chinook salmon and may have historically
riparian, and wetland habitat through active provided spawning habitat. End Creek was
strategies involving restoration channel identified in the Willow Creek Coordinated
construction, floodplain improvements, and Resource Management Plan (CRMP) (Union
habitat protection through perpetual and term SWCD, 2002) and in the Union County Soil and
conservation easements. The project will Water Conservation Districts water quality
facilitate restoration of wetlands and stable monitoring program as a high contributor of
stream channel morphology with a network of sediment to Willow Creek due to aggressive
meandering stream channels, palustrine headcuts and streambank erosion.
emergent and shrub-scrub wetlands, and Channelization, channel incision, high
associated native upland habitats. Lack of cold width:depth ratios, confinement/poor floodplain
water refuge and complex instream habitat connectivity, and limited riparian-wetland
currently limits productivity and summer vegetation contributes to poor instream habitat
distribution of salmonids to upper headwater diversity and water quality throughout the
reaches. project area.

Historic land use practices have altered the

hydrologic cycle, including the storage,
movement, and character of water resources
throughout the Subbasin (NPCC, 2001).
Changes in the hydrologic cycle are
demonstrated by excessive runoff, altered peak
flow regimes, lack of ground water recharge,
reduction in soil moisture, reduced storage
capacity, and low late-season flow. Historic and
current land use, in combination with hydrologic
changes, have resulted in stream channel
instability (channel incision, increased
width:depth ratios, vertical cut banks,
sedimentation, and loss of hydrophytic June 2003 Photos illustrate lower channelized End
vegetation). Improperly managed land uses act Creek. Extensive channelization in project area
to destabilize natural hydrologic processes and created unstable stream channels, excessive erosion,
amplify the impacts of natural events such as elevated water temperatures, loss of riparian and
floods. In an effort to enhance drainage for wetland vegetation, and poor fish habitat.
agricultural production, End Creek, South Fork
Willow, McDonald Creek and several spring-fed
tributaries were channelized in the early 1900s,
resulting in a series of linear ditches currently
lacking instream habitat complexity,
riparian/wetland vegetation, and extensive
vertical, eroding stream banks. Anthropogenic
practices were extensively successful in draining
wetlands and lowering local water tables, which
allowed farming on much of the project area. In
the existing condition, approximately 600 acres
are annually tilled and planted to various crops.
The balance of the project area is in pasture and
Idaho fescue seed production.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 6

Final Project Report January 2007
The following figure depicts a typical riffle cross section generated from survey data collected at Station
13+40 along lower End Creek. The cross section clearly illustrates the extent of channel incision and lack
of floodplain connectivity. Flood conveyance capacity of the channel is significant which contributes to
unstable stream banks shown in the above photos. Note that both the bankfull discharge and floodprone
area are contained entirely within the existing channel, limiting connectivity to the floodplain.

Figure 6 Riffle Cross Section of Existing End Creek Reach

End Cr/Rice at Station 13+40

Cross Section 2, Riffle, 11-18-2003
2713
2712

2711
2710
E l e v a ti o n (ft)

2709
2708

2707
2706

2705
2704
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
Distance (ft), LB to RB
Bed/Ground Elevation Water Surface Bankfull FPA

Figure 7 illustrates the profile of lower End Creek. Note the relation of the channel thalweg in
comparison to adjacent terraces which illustrates extensive channel entrenchment, confinement, and high
water slopes (mean of 0.67%). Also of note in the profile is the lack of large pool habitat. In the current
condition, End Creek is severely unstable and lacks stable morphology necessary to develop high quality
fish habitat.

Figure 7 Longitudinal Profile of Lower End Creek

End Creek - Rice Project

Longitudinal Profile of Existing Reach, October 2004
Mean w ater slope = 0.67%
2730
conf. w ith spring,
2725 fence crn.

2720
CS-2
2715
Elevation (ft)

w heel line
CS-1
2710 CS-3 CS-4

conf. McDonald
2705
5 ft. culvert

2700

2695
1.6% 1.04% 0.26% 0.11%
0.24%
2690
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
20+00
21+00
22+00
23+00
24+00
25+00
26+00
27+00
28+00
29+00
30+00
31+00
32+00
33+00
34+00
35+00
36+00
37+00
38+00
39+00
40+00
41+00
42+00
43+00
44+00
45+00
46+00
47+00
48+00
49+00
50+00

Station-Distance (ft)

Water Surface Bed Elevation Bankfull Terrace

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 7

Final Project Report January 2007
During early August 2005, the CTUIR surveyed observed in McDonald Creek, although a site at
15 randomized juvenile fish population index RM 1.05 was recorded at 1.8 fish/sq.m.
sites along End Creek, South Fork Willow, and
McDonald Creek. Spring-fed tributaries within The South Fork Willow and lower reaches of
the project area were also sampled to determine both McDonald Creek and End Creek showed a
fish presence/absence. distinct absence of salmonid presence due,
presumably, to summer high water temperatures.
Fish species observed included summer Sites containing O. Mykiss also showed a
steelhead/resident rainbow (O. Mykiss), sculpin, distribution of age classes from age class 0 to
dace, red-sided shiner, sucker, northern pike age class 2 indicating local spawning and rearing
minnow, pumpkinseed, and bluegill. Data of both anadromous and resident fish.
indicates that summer distribution of O. Mykiss
is limited to upper reaches of project area
streams.

O. Mykiss catch at McDonald Creek

sample site.
CTUIR fish crews conducting juvenile fish sampling
at a sampling location along McDonald Creek In addition, sampling also revealed a noted
August 2005. absence of native amphibians (particularly
spotted frogs) and a general abundance of bull
Rearing O. Mykiss densities along End Creek frog adults and juvenile tadpoles. The lower
ranged from 0.0 fish/square meter of habitat in reaches of the South Fork Willow contained a
the lower reaches (RM 0.0 to 0.5) to 0.93 substantial bull frog population with over 50
fish/sq.m. in the upper project reaches at RM individual juveniles captured.
1.2. Similar O. Mykiss rearing densities were

Water quality data is limited for the project area. Two Vemco temperature probes that record hourly
water temperatures have been deployed in End Creek by the CTUIR since 2003. Monitoring sites are
located at RM 2 approximately 0.1 miles upstream from the project area and RM 0.25 near the confluence
with the South Fork Willow. Additional water quality monitoring was initiated in 2005 with ODFW
installing Data Logger near RM 0.1 and RM 1.5 to collect year-round water temperature data.

Water temperatures recorded at the upper monitoring site have been observed to be consistently cooler
than the lower site during 2003 through 2005 with a consistent heating trend detected through the lower
channelized project reach. Observed maximum temperatures indicate that summer salmonid distribution
in lower End Creek is limited by high summer water temperatures. Figure 8 illustrates data collected
during 2003 through 2005.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 8

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 8 End Creek Daily Maximum Water Temperatures 2003-2005

End Creek Water Quality

2003-2005 Daily Maximum Water Temperature

35

30

25

Degrees Celsius 03 RM 1.4

20 03 RM 0.02
04 RM 1.4
04 RM 0.02
15 05 RM 1.4
05 RM 0.02
10

0
5/4
5/11
5/18
5/25
6/1
6/8
6/15
6/22
6/29
7/6
7/13
7/20
7/27
8/3
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/7
9/14
9/21
9/28
10/5
10/12
Date

Other water quality monitoring on the project area is being conducted by Eastern Oregon University
(EOU) through an agreement with the GRMW. Initiated in 2004, EOU is conducting annual water
chemistry monitoring to evaluate chemical properties, including temperature, dissolved oxygen,
phosphorous, nitrates, alkalinity, etc. Discussions are currently underway with EOU and the GRMW to
expand this monitoring effort to other project area streams as well as other subbasin tributaries to provide
baseline information on water quality that can be utilized for comparison over time. Water quality
analysis will continue through project development to evaluate baseline and post-project water quality
conditions.

ODFW is also monitoring groundwater Figure 10 Groundwater Monitoring Data

elevations. Baseline data collection was END CREEK GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
initiated in 2005 with installation of a FEBRUARY 17, 2005 - JANUARY 5, 2006
2703
groundwater monitoring well network (15 wells
total) along lower End Creek. Figure 9 2702

illustrates well locations and Figure 10 presents 2701

an overview of pre-project, seasonal

2700
groundwater elevations.
2699
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

Figure 9 End Creek Groundwater 2698

Monitoring Wells 2697

2696

2695

2694

2693

2692

2691

2690
1-Jan-05
15-Jan-05
29-Jan-05
12-Feb-05
26-Feb-05
12-Mar-05
26-Mar-05

7-May-05
21-May-05
4-Jun-05
18-Jun-05
2-Jul-05
16-Jul-05
30-Jul-05

8-Oct-05
22-Oct-05
5-Nov-05
19-Nov-05
3-Dec-05
17-Dec-05
31-Dec-05
14-Jan-06
10-Sep-05
24-Sep-05
9-Apr-05
23-Apr-05

13-Aug-05
27-Aug-05

W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5

W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 W-10
W-11 W-12 W-13 W-14 W-15

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 9

Final Project Report January 2007
3. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the project is to restore the natural character and function of End Creek, South Fork
Willow, McDonald Creek, and spring-fed tributaries with accompanying riparian and wetland vegetation,
well connected floodplain, and stable, natural stream channels. Water quality, fish habitat, and wetland-
riparian habitat restoration are key drivers for the project. The following project objectives have been
identified for the End Creek Restoration Project complex:

Improve channel dimension, pattern, and profile consistent with valley form, hydrology, and sediment.
Restore emergent and shrub-scrub wetlands (camas)
Reconnect floodplain and enhance groundwater/hyporheic exchange
Increase cold water refuge and increase winter water temperatures
Increase suitable steelhead spawning habitat
Increase juvenile steelhead survival/productivity by increasing habitat quantity and quality
Enhance diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrate communities

Regional Strategies/Objectives

This project is part of a region-wide effort to protect and restore anadromous fish habitat in the Grande Ronde
Subbasin. The following reference documents and plans provide guidance for prioritizing habitat and watershed
enhancement activities and provide context for the restoration project effort.
--Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan, NPCC. 2004
--Grande Ronde Subbasin Summary, NPCC 2001
--Willow Creek Watershed Assessment (GRMWP 2001)
--Willow Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) (Union SWCD 2002)
--Grande Ronde River Subbasin- Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan, Columbia Basin System Planning, ODFW, CTUIR, NPT, WDF, WDW.
1990.
--CTUIR - Columbia Basin Salmon Policy, 1995.
--Stream and Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin: A Report to the G.R. Model Watershed Board, Huntington, 1993.
--Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin Water Quality Management Plan (ODA 1990)
--Upper Grande Ronde TMDL (ODEQ 2000)
--Grande Ronde Model Watershed Action Plan (GRMWP 1994)

Watershed analysis through the EDT (NPCC, 2004a and Mobrand, 2003) and synthesis through the Management
Plan development process, identified instream habitat condition, high water temperature, sediment loads, and flow
modification as primary limiting factors for Chinook and steelhead (pg 11 NPCC 2004c, pg 3 NPCC 2004d).
Primary habitat degradation includes:

Habitat Limiting Factors

Channel Habitat Conditions Channel instability associated with removal of streamside cover and channelization has resulted in channel
incision/downcutting, increased gradient, reduced channel length, elevated erosion, increased width-to-depth ratios, and loss of channel
complexity. The quality of instream habitat has correspondingly been altered throughout much of the Subbasin.
Sediment Loss of upland and streamside vegetative cover has increased the rates of erosion. Soils lost from upland areas has overwhelmed
hydraulic processes resulting in decreased availability of large pool habitat, spawning areas, riffle food production, and hiding cover.
Riparian Function Riparian habitat degradation is the most serious habitat problem in the subbasin for fish (McIntosh 1994, ICBEMP
2000). Loss of flooplain connectivity by roads, dikes, and channel incision, and in many streams reduced habitat suitability for beaver has
altered dynamically stable floodplain environments which has contributed to degradation and limited habitat recovery. This loss leads to
secondary effects that are equally harmful and limiting, including increased water temperature, low summer flows, excessive winter runoff,
and sedimentation.
Low Flow Water resources in many streams have been over over-appropriated resulting in limited summer and fall baseflow, development
of fish passage barriers, and increased summer water temperatures.

The Willow Creek Watershed Assessment specifically identified lack of shade, large wood deficiencies,
channelization, wetland drainage, high stream temperatures, and high nutrient levels as limiting factors in the
Willow Creek watershed. Landowners identified a primary concern as lack of streamside vegetation. The
Assessment identified the opportunity to restore channelized streams to natural, stable channels. The Willow Creek
CRMP, developed by the GRMW, Union County SWCD, and participating landowners identified several goals for
the watershed including: 1) make the stream more hospitable to fish (restore streamside vegetation, reestablish
desirable cover, increase shade, reduce streambank erosion); and 2) improve fish habitat.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 10

Final Project Report January 2007
 4. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIVITIES
Table 1 illustrates project actions and metrics. Additional discussion follows the table to describe the various work
related components involved in the development and implementation of the project.

Table 1 Summary of End Creek-Rice Restoration Project Accomplishments

PROJECT ACTION PROJECT METRICS

Restoration Channel Construction
--End Creek 7,708 feet 3.1 miles
--South Fork Willow Creek 8,659 feet

Spring Channel Construction 28,142 feet 5.33 miles total

Rock Cross Vanes 20 structures (vertical grade control in restoration channel)
Rootwad Revetments 121 structures (20 complexes along approx 960 feet of outside
streambank meanders). Note: one structure is a footer log and
rootwad with tree bole.
Woody Debris Additions 200 pieces large woody debris placement on Willow Creek
restoration channel. Woody debris included 8-12 inch diameter, 10-
20 foot length pieces placed in log jam configuration to enhance
channel roughness and habitat complexity.
Channel/Ditch and Terrace Reclamation 21, 542 feet 4.08 miles
Floodplain Ponds/Backwater Habitat 6 ponds (10 acres) & 2 backwater habitats (End Creek & South Fork
Willow Creek)
Blended Earthen Terraces 3,590 feet (0.68 miles) of low elevation terraces to control floodflow
and protect adjacent private lands
Revegetation and Planting Completed site preparation and seeding on 430 acres (ground-based
and aerial application of 7,200 pounds native seed). Installed 12,650
sedge rush plugs. Mechanically installed 60 willow shrubs and
approximately 5,180 square feet of sedge/rush matts. Additional
planting and weed control planned for 07 and 08.
Culvert Removal/Relocation 5 culverts removed, two reinstalled on access roads.

Environmental Compliance/Regulatory Reviews

CTUIR, ODFW, and NRCS staff worked cooperatively to address regulatory compliance requirement and
secure necessary permits and clearances to implement the project. Project permitting was initiated concurrent
with project design development and completed prior to initiating project construction. Tasks included
developing a NEPA checklist through BPAs environmental compliance program, preparing biological
assessments, coordinating formal and informal consultations with NMFS and USFWS through BPA,
developing permit applications for ODSL and USCOE fill/removal permit processes, and coordinating
archaeological surveys and consultation with Oregon SHPO. The environmental compliance process was
conducted for the entire project complex to maximize planning and permitting efficiency. All environmental
planning documents, permits, and concurrences are on file at CTUIR DNR Fish and Wildlife Program office.

Construction Subcontracting, Administration/Inspection, Materials, & Project Layout

The CTUIR provided construction subcontracting and administrative functions for the project, including
management of project grant funds from GRMW-BPA, OWEB, and NRCS WRP, construction subcontracting,
and materials purchasing. Tasks included preparation of subcontractor solicitations, conducting site tours and
bidding processes, subcontractor selection, subcontracting document preparation and award, inspection, and
payment. ODFW and NRCS technical representatives participated with all aspects of construction subcontract
development and project implementation including development of statements of work, participating in site
tours, and providing project inspection and oversight. ODFW provided a lead role in project construction
oversight inspection and project layout. CTUIR also managed several materials purchasing needs, including
acquisition of native seed, irrigation equipment, and supplies.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 11

Final Project Report January 2007
Restoration Channel Design and Construction

Project planning and design was accomplished over an approximate 2 year period and involved
interagency and landowner meetings, coordination with adjacent private landowners, and development of
funding proposals. ODFW staff provided a leading role in pre-design surveys and development of project
designs (McGowan, 2005). Project planning was driven by landowner objectives, limiting factors,
project goals, and biological objectives. Products of the planning effort and project design process were
developed through an extensive watershed analysis conducted during 2003-04. The analysis was
undertaken to evaluate past land use history and present conditions, identify habitat limiting factors, and
develop a suite of actions to address the limiting factors. The analysis included:

Determine the drainage area

Review past & current land uses
Examine 1930s aerial photographs
Onsite inspections of various portions of the watershed by project biologists, engineers and
geomorphologists
Collect stream flow data at Hunter Road at bankfull stage
Collect channel cross sections, longitudinal profiles and pebble counts
Conduct a GPS survey of the entire work area and produce a topographic map at 1 ft. contours
Install 15 groundwater wells and document soil profiles to depths of 10 ft.

Field data collected from four channel sections in the existing End Creek channelized reach indicated
either an entrenched condition or a channel in the early stages of recovery (Rosgen G and F channels).
The areas in recovery had begun to extend (erode) laterally against steep, vertical side-slopes of ditches
that had been constructed with heavy equipment, dating back to the 1930s. Lack of maintenance of the
ditch was allowing the stream to erode the banks and redeposit sediment, essentially forming a new
floodplain. However, the severity of overall channel entrenchment, due to existing spoils piles created
from ditch excavation, was such that the channel would take decades recover, in terms of channel
aggradation, increased sinuosity, and reconnection to its former floodplain. Examination of aerial
photographs from the 1930s illustrate that End Creek had already been straightened, with little evidence
of historic channel meander scrolls evident. Analysis of local topography, however, indicated that the
historic End Creek stream channel was likely located to the south of the pre-project location. The initial
analysis indicated that an active restoration strategy would be necessary to facilitate recovery of stable
stream channel morphology and associated benefits of enhanced instream structural complexity,
floodplain connectivity, and restored hydrophytic plant communities and formed the basis from which to
base more detailed analysis and project development.

Development of restoration stream channel design criteria was based on comparison of existing
conditions measured at a selected reference site located along upper End Creek, analysis of hydrological
conditions, and professional judgment. Table 2 summarizes reference conditions and channel design
criteria developed through the analysis. Criteria presented in the table were utilized to design the End
Creek restoration channel as well restoration channels for South Fork Willow Creek and McDonald
Creek. All three tributaries approximate similar hydrology, watershed size and condition, valley form,
and geomorphology.

Bankfull discharge (channel forming streamflow) was calculated using several methods, including: 1)
collecting flow data at Hunter Road 2) Mannings N by channel type, 3) Relative roughness (R/d84) and
resistance factor, 4) Mannings N from resistance factor, 5) Regional Curve and Continuity Equation, and
6) USGS Regression Analysis. NRCS staff conducted additional modeling using HEC-RAS to evaluate
preliminary project designs. The analysis concluded that mean water velocities in the designed channel
would be acceptable. The basic channel design template for End Creek, South Willow, and McDonald
Creek was derived from reference conditions and is categorized as a Rosgen C channel (with a W/D ratio
of 14). The long-term objective for channels under this design is to facilitate vegetative recovery and
development of constructed C channels into E channels (W/D ratio <12).

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 12

Final Project Report January 2007
Table 2 Morphological Characteristics for the Existing and Proposed Channels with
Gage Station and Reference Reach Data
(Rosgen, 1996)

EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE

VARIABLES
CHANNEL* REACH REACH
1. Stream Type
B4c/G4c & F4* C4, C5, C6 E4c
2. Drainage Area
(sq. miles) 4.9 Mi.2 4.9 Mi.2 3.6 Mi.2
3. Bankfull Width 12.1 (Mean) 11.0 (Mean) 7.1 (Mean)
(Wbkf) 7.7-16.5 (Range) 8-13 (Range) (Range)
4. Bankfull Mean 0.935 (Mean) 0.79 (Mean) 0.9 (Mean)
Depth (dbkf) 0.86-1.01 (Range) (Range) (Range)
5. Width/Depth
ratio 13.4 (Mean) 14.00 (Mean) 7.9 (Mean)
(Wbkf/dbkf) 7.6-19.1 (Range) (Range) (Range)
6. Bankfull Cross-
sectional Area 10.95 (Mean) 8.65 (Mean) 6.37 (Mean)
(Abkf) 7.7-14.2 (Range) (Range) (Range)
7. Bankfull mean
Velocity (Vbkf) 4.45 4.62 5.9
8. Bankfull
Discharge (cfs)
(Qbkf) 49 40 33
9. Bankfull Maximum
depth (dmax) 1.25 1.2 0.95
10. Max driff/dbkf
ratio 1.34 1.52 1.06
11. Low bank
height to max. 3.03, 3.52 1.00 1.00
dbkf ratio
12. Width of Flood
prone area (Wfpa) 15.4 40 17.00
13. Entrenchment
ratio(Wfpa/Wbkf) 1.27 3.64 2.4
14. Meander Length
(Lm) channelized 126.5 84
15. Ratio of Meander
Length to bankfull (Mean) 11.50 (Mean) (Mean)
Width (Lm/Wbkf) N/A (Range) 9-14 (Range) 11.83 (Range)
16. Radius of (Mean) 30 (Mean) 20 (Mean)
Curvature (Rc) N/A (Range) 27-33 (Range) (Range)
17. Ratio of Radius of
Curvature to Bankfull (Mean) 2.75 (Mean) 2.82 (Mean)
Width (Rc/Wbkf) N/A (Range) 2.5-3.0 (Range) (Range)

18. Belt Width (Mean) 55 (Mean) 55 (Mean)

(Wblt) N/A (Rang) (Range) (Range)
19. Meander Width (Mean) 5.00 (Mean) 7.75 (Mean)
Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) N/A (Rang) (Range) (Range)

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 13

Final Project Report January 2007
 EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE
VARIABLES
CHANNEL* REACH REACH
20. Sinousity (stream
length/valley distance)
(k) 1.00 1.82 1.3
21. Valley Slope
(ft/ft) 0.0077 0.0091 0.0385
22. Average Slope
(Savg) = (Svalley/k) 0.0077 0.0050 0.0296
23. Pool Slope
(Spool) varies 0.001 0.0134
24. Ratio of Pool
slope to average
slope (Spool/Sbkf) varies 0.2-0.3 0.4527
25. Maximum Pool
Depth (dpool) 1.70 2.2 1.63
26. Ratio of pool depth
to average bankfull
depth (dpool/dbkf) 1.81 2.78 1.72
27. Pool Width
(Wpool) 12.45 15.0 7.8
28. Ratio of Pool Width
to bankfull width
(Wpool/Wbkf) 1.03 1.36 1.10
29. Ratio of Pool Area
to bankfull area 1.35 1.79 1.17
30. Pool to Pool
spacing (p-p) 67 63 42
31. Ratio of p-p
spacing to bankfull 5.54 4.5-7 5.92
width (p-p/Wbkf)
32. Riffle Slope
(Sriff) 0.0163 0.0088 0.0496
33. Ratio of Riffle Slope
to average slope
(Sriff/Sbkf) 1.27 1.5-2 1.68
34. Maximum Riffle
Depth (driff) 1.34 1.2 0.95
35. Ratio of maximum
riffle depth to average
depth (driff/dbkf) 1.43 1.52 1.06
MATERIALS:
1. Particle Size upper lower upper lower
distribution of mm mm See Reference mm mm
Channel Material D16 0 0 Reach Data 17 12
D35 0.5 0 34 34
D50 9 0 43 46
D84 60 0.06 96 84
D95 90 0.5 120 115
2. Particle Size
distribution of See Reference See Reference mm mm
Bar Material D16 Reach Data Reach Data 25 5
D35 27 13

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 14

Final Project Report January 2007
 EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE
VARIABLES
CHANNEL* REACH REACH
D50 37 20
D84 60 48
D95 90 76
3. Largest size particle

at the toe (lower third) See Reference Data See Reference Data 69 73
of the bar
NOTES: *Existing channel morphology are averages of 2 sample sites.

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT VALIDATION (Based on Bankfull Shear Stress)

Method Existing Proposed

Calculated value (mm) (Tc = 1.32) (Tc = 0.73)
from curve 180 7
Value from Shield Diagram 100
(lbs./ft2)
Critical Dimensionless Shear 0.053 0.05
Stress
Min. mean dbkf calculated
using critical dimensionless
Shear Stress equations 0.7
Remarks: using bedload data adjusted shields relation.

The following graphs illustrate typical stream channel cross sections and the restoration channel
longitudinal profile. Channel cross sections are presented for each of the four habitat types (e.g., run,
riffle, pool, and glide) and provide the blueprint for channel construction with details on channel
dimension (cross sectional area) and streambank slopes. Following the channel cross section
templates, a series of longitudinal profiles for the designed End Creek restoration channel are
presented to illustrate channel profile. The design profile depicts the channel thalweg (bottom of
stream channel), bankfull channel (channel forming flow) elevation, relation of bankfull channel to
adjacent floodplain elevation (both before and after project) which illustrates floodplain connectivity
and flood-prone area, and channel (water slope).

Construction specifications utilized during project implementation were generally maintained within
(+/-) 1/10th of an inch whenever possible to ensure stream channel dimension, pattern, and profile
was constructed per channel designs. Channel construction inspection was continuous with field
staff providing field staking and elevation survey throughout the construction process. Elevation
control was provided by elevation benchmarks established throughout the project area using Topcon
lazer survey equipment and direct read and/or survey rods.

Construction efforts were initiated by delivery of rock and wood materials in late June with
construction of the End Creek channel initiated by early July, beginning at the lowermost project
reach and proceeding upstream to the Davidson property. Following completion of the restoration
channel, rock cross vanes and rootwad revetments were installed and channel diversion completed.
Prior to reclamation of the existing End Creek channel, all native plant materials (shrubs and
sedges/rushes) were mechanically salvaged and installed along the restoration channel followed by
installation of a temporary irrigation system. By late August, construction was initiated on the South
Fork Willow restoration channel with continuation of channel/ditch reclamation, and pond
construction. The Rice portion of the project was largely completed by mid-October, at which time,
project managers initiated construction of the upper End Creek reach on the Davidson property and
completed large wood placement on the newly constructed South Willow restoration channel.
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 15
Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 10 Typical Run Cross Section for the End Creek Restoration Channel

End Creek Restoration Project

Typical Run Cross Section

4.0

3.0
Stage (ft.)

2.0

1.0 1.4:1

5.7:1 Wbkf = 10.0 ft

0.0 CSA =9.1ft2
Dave = 0.91
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70
Dmax = 1.4 ft
Distance (ft.) from LB to RB looking downstream W/D = 11.0

Bed/Ground Elevation Water Surface Bankfull

Figure 11 Typical Riffle Cross Section for the End Creek Restoration Channel

End Creek Restoration Project

Typical Riffle Cross Section

4.0

3.0
Stage (ft.)

2.0

1.0 2:1
8:1
0.0
Wbkf = 11.0 ft
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

CSA = 8.65 ft2

Dave = 0.8 ft
Distance (ft.) from LB to RB looking downstream Dmax = 1.2 ft
W/D = 14
Bed/Ground Elevation Water Surface Bankfull FPA C4 channel

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 16

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 12 Typical Pool Cross Section for the End Creek Restoration Channel

End Creek Restoration Project

Typical Pool Cross Section

4.0

3.0
Stage (ft.)

2.0
7:1
1.0
1.8:1 1.7:1

0.0
Wbkf = 15.0 ft
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70
CSA = 15.5 ft2
Distance (ft.) from LB to RB looking downstream Dave = 1.03 ft
Dmax = 2.2 ft
W/D = 14.5
Bed/Ground Elevation Water Surface Bankfull FPA

Figure 13 Typical Glide Cross Section for the End Creek Restoration Channel

End Creek Restoration Project

Typical Glide Cross Section

4.0

3.0
Stage (ft.)

2.0

1.0 2.5:1

7.5:1
0.0
Wbkf = 13.0 ft
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

CSA = 11.5 ft2

Distance (ft.) from LB to RB looking downstream Dave = 0.83 ft
Dmax = 1.4 ft
W/D = 15.6
Bed/Ground Elevation Water Surface Bankfull FPA

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 17

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 14 Longitudinal Profile of End Creek Restoration Channel

End Creek Longitudinal Profile of New Channel, Station 0+00 to 20+00

1.9% slope

2734 man-made terrace

2729
Elevation (ft)

2724
man

2719

2714

2709
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000
Station-Distance (ft)

Bankfull Thalweg Pre-Cut Elevation Water

Figure 15 Longitudinal Profile of End Creek Restoration Channel (Cont.)

End Creek Longitudinal Profile of New Channel, Station 20+00 to 40+00

2715

0.66% slope

2710
Begin depositional reach, anticipated
end of gravels
E levation (ft)

2705

2700

2695
2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

Station-Distance (ft)

Bankfull Thalweg Pre-Cut Elevation Water

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 18

Final Project Report January 2007
Figure 16 Longitudinal Profile of End Creek Restoration Channel (Cont.)

End Creek Longitudinal Profile of New Channel, Station 40+00 to 60+00

2705

south of center pivot

0.25% slope

2700
Elevation (ft)

2695

2690
4000

4100

4200

4300

4400

4500

4600

4700

4800

4900

5000

5100

5200

5300

5400

5500

5600

5700

5800

5900

6000
Station-Distance (ft)

Bankfull Thalweg Pre-Cut Elevation Water

Figure 17 Longitudinal Profile of End Creek Restoration Channel (Cont.)

End Creek Longitudinal Profile of New Channel, Station 60+00 to 82+50

2705

Constructed floodplain to tie into existing channel, 0.3% channel slope, minimal grade control.
0.06% slope

2700
Elevation (ft)

2695

2690
6000

6100

6200

6300

6400

6500

6600

6700

6800

6900

7000

7100

7200

7300

7400

7500

7600

7700

7800

7900

8000

8100

8200

Station-Distance (ft)

Bankfull Thalweg Pre-Cut Elevation Water

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 19

Final Project Report January 2007
 Initiation of End Creek restoration channel construction. July 2006

Channel construction was performed using a 200 series track-mounted excavator, D5 dozer, and dump
trucks. In stream channel segments requiring floodplain excavation (areas where the bankfull channel
was deeper than existing ground surface), the floodplain was excavated first, followed by the bankfull
channel and associated typical cross sections. Floodplain cuts involving extensive earth excavation were
generally cut first using a dozer to bulk material which was then loaded by track-hoe onto dump trucks
and hauled to designated locations (i.e., earthen terrace locations, backfill for channel reclamation, etc).
In other channel segments that did not require floodplain construction, a track-hoe was utilized to
sequentially excavate the channel per typical cross sectional dimensions in a downstream to upstream
manner.

D5 Dozer grading material from floodplain in preparation for bankfull channel excavation by track-hoe. July
2006

In addition to fish-bearing restoration stream channels constructed under this restoration effort,
approximately 5.33 miles of small, spring fed restoration channels were constructed throughout the
project area to replace existing ditches and facilitate wetland restoration. Typical spring channels were
designed as small, meandering, v-shaped channels with maximum depths in the center of 1.0 to 1.5 feet.
Spring channel were designed and constructed to maximize the use of existing topography and minimize
earthwork requirements.
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 20
Final Project Report January 2007
Rock Cross Vane Grade Control Structures

Typical rock cross vane designs are illustrated in Figure 18. These features are incorporated into channel
designs to provide vertical grade control and minimize potential for channel incision. The structures were
designed and installed at the junction of glides (downstream from pools) and riffles (natural grade control
features). Rock within the cross vanes will be nearly indiscernible within the structure and will serve as a
lithologic element that provides vertical channel stability. A total of 20 structures were installed in the
Rice portion of the End Creek Restoration channel with the majority of placed in the upper sections to
address higher channel slopes. Three structures were installed in the lower reaches to step down the
channel entrance to the existing South Fork Willow Creek. Each structure consisted of approximately 15
cubic yards of angular basalt boulders with material ranging in size from 18-36 inches (average diameter
(D50) of 28 inches (0.50 cubic yards each)).

Figure 18 Cross Vane Diagram

Photos below illustrate structure layout in the constructed restoration channel and an installed structure
prior to backfill. Note that the elevation (invert) of the structure is the same as the bottom (thalweg) of
the channel. August 2006.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 21

Final Project Report January 2007
Rootwad Revetments & Large Wood Placement streambed elevation in pools. Each tree
bole/root wad had a footer log placed underneath
Rootwad revetments were incorporated into the and perpendicular to the root wad bole. Root
project design to provide streambank stability on wad and bole were angled upstream at
outside meander streambanks until vegetation approximately 45 degrees to face the channel
re-colonizes the site. Additionally, the rootwads thalweg.
provide structural diversity and contribute to
complex pool habitat. Revetments consist of a Root wad diameters were 2.5 feet minimum and
tree bole with attached rootwad and a footer log up to 4.0 feet maximum. Tree bole length
which are keyed (excavated) into the streambed minimum was 15 feet and footer logs were 10
and streambank and backfilled. feet in length and 8 inches minimum diameter
on both ends. Approximately 960 linear feet of
restoration channel streambank were stabilized
with revetments. A total of 121 revetment logs
20 sites were installed on the Rice portion of the
End Creek restoration channel.

Rootwad revetment installation. Photo illustrates

installed footer log and keyway for rootwad and tree
bole installation. August 2006

Revetments were installed in complexes along September 2006 photo illustrating rootwad revetment and
installation of sedge/rush matts.
selected meanders with radius of curvature
(<30) in order to address concerns with Approximately 200 pieces of large wood
potential for erosion associated with slightly was placed along the South Willow Creek
greater water velocities and lack of vegetative channel to enhance floodplain roughness
stability. Figure 19 illustrates a planview of a and instream habitat complexity.
typical revetment complex with a cross section
of an individual revetment.

Figure 19 Rootwad Revetment Diagram

November 2006 photo illustrating wood placement

along South Fork Willow restoration channel.

Tree boles with intact rootwad and tops

were generally placed on log debris jam
configurations at strategic locations
throughout the new channel reach.
Tree boles were generally spaced 8-10 feet apart Additional wood placement is planned to
and the footers were installed at, or below, the complete the effort pending improved
access conditions.
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 22
Final Project Report January 2007
Channel/Ditch Reclamation, Floodplain Ponds, and Backwater Habitat

Following completion of channel diversion and removal of fish and other organisms from the
channelized/abandoned stream reaches, reclamation activities along existing stream channels and ditches
wera initiated along all channelized stream channels and ditches throughout the project area. The
available quantity of excavated material from restoration channels (based on cut/fill calculations, design
channel dimensions, and cross sectional measurement of channelized reaches) was found to be sufficient
to backfill abandoned channels. Material in excess to that needed for channel reclamation was utilized to
construct terraces along the eastern project area boundary and/or blended into floodplain adjacent to
restoration channels. Reclamation work consisted of filling in and contouring soil and gravels along
approximately 4 miles of existing channel. Fill material was blended into existing ground topography and
contoured to provide a natural appearance.

Reclamation of channelized End Creek following activation of restoration channel. August 2006.

Six floodplain ponds, totaling about 10 acres were constructed on the Rice portion of the project. Ponds
were incorporated into the project design to provide open water habitat and develop associated wetland
habitat. Ponds were located along channel and/or ditch segments planned for reclamation, taking
advantage of entrenched channel segments to function as deep water habitat within the constructed pond.
Constructed ponds vary in size from 0.7 to 2.4 acres with average depths of 1.0-1.5 feet deep and
maximum depths of 6-7 feet. Existing steep side slopes along the channels were graded with a D6 dozer
at 20:1 slope at the downstream portions of each pond. Fill material generated during pond excavation
was utilized to fill upstream and downstream channel reclamation segments. Excess was utilized to
construct feathered terraces and/or to fill man-made swells adjacent to the stream channel and floodplain
pond network. The following figure illustrates a typical floodplain pond cross section.

Figure 20 Typical Floodplain Pond Cross Section

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 23

Final Project Report January 2007
Ponds were shaped into various patterns (oxbow, meander) and contoured to develop diversity of
macro topographic basins with both shallow and deep water habitat. Nearly all of the ponds filled
with groundwater upon completion. Within two months of construction, all ponds were overflowing
and activating spillways constructed to maintain connection between the pond and adjacent
floodplain and/or spring channel. Waterfowl and shorebird use was observed shortly following
construction, including long-necked stilts, avocets, mallard, American wigeon, blue winged teal,
Canada goose, and Tundra swan.

Floodplain pond construction. August 2006.

Earthen Terraces

Earthen terraces were incorporated into project designs as floodplain features to minimize potential
adverse effects from floodflow on adjacent private lands and/or to direct overland flow within the project
area. Construction activities associated with these structures included hauling and spreading excess
topsoil material generated from channel or pond construction activities. Blended terraces were
constructed to a maximum height of 1.0 foot, with a 25-30 foot top width and 10:1 side slopes. Four
blended terraces, totaling approximately 3,600 feet, were constructed on the Rice portion of the project
area.

Earthen terrace constructed along eastern project boundary to minimize potential

for flooding on adjacent private land. July 2006

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 24

Final Project Report January 2007
Culvert Removal and Reinstallation

Five existing culverts were removed and two reinstalled on access roads. Three culverts, including a
large 60 inch culvert on the existing End Creek channel (Station 9+50) was not needed for project
function. Two small, 20 inch culverts were reinstalled on an access road to service spring-fed tributaries.
will be removed and/or relocated from project area ditches and streams to address resource needs.

Revegetation and Bioengineering

The long-term vision for the project area is a diverse assemblage of native plant communities that
reflect site potential and contribute to the natural function, resiliency, and stability of a self-
sustaining environment. In effect, project landowners and sponsors are trying to recreate, to the
extent feasible, an environment similar to that which existed prior to European settlement and advent
of agriculture, channelization, and draining of wetlands.

As part of the vision, a variety of plant communities and environments will be developed including
emergent wetlands, shrub-scrub wetlands, riparian forest, and upland grassland and tree/shrub
inclusions. In general, the upper, steeper portions of the project area will be more dominated by
shrubs, trees, and upland grasses with the low gradient areas in the lower portions of the project
dominated by emergent vegetation with sedges, rushes, and camas. Beaver colonization, as suitable
habitat develops, will eventually contribute to the desired dynamic state of equilibrium.

Achieving the vision is perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of the project and demands
attention to detail and persistence. Success in revegetation efforts will be dependant on a variety of
factors including restoration of hydrology, selection of locally adapted species, and effective weed
control. Planned techniques have been refined by project sponsors through evaluation of available
research, practical application, trial and error, and persistence. Our planned approach utilizes a
combination of techniques and includes installation and maintenance of temporary irrigation systems
which has proven effective on similar projects in other portions of the basin.

Native grass seed mixes will generally consist of locally adapted Idaho fescue, bluebunch
wheatgrass, basin wildrye, tufted hairgrass, and other appropriate and available species. Native seed
mixes will be utilized throughout the project area with upland species such as Idaho fescue and blue
bunch colonizing upland inclusions and basin wildrye dominating terraces and transition zones.
Hydrophytic species such as tufted hairgrass, camas, and colonizing sedge and rush species will
dominate low lying areas subject to annual moist soil conditions.

Shrub and tree planting will be accomplished adjacent to restoration channels and in upland
inclusions distributed throughout the project area. Hydrophytic shrubs and trees planned for
propagation include but are not limited to various willow species, red osier dogwood, black
cottonwood, alder, and hawthorne while upland communities will include ponderosa pine,
hawthorne, elderberry, rosehip, and snowberry. A combination of livewhips and containerized stock
will be utilized on the project area beginning in spring 07.

During the Fall of 2006, project sponsors initiated the first steps in moving towards the vision with
completion of major project construction, site preparation, extensive seeding, and initial planting efforts.
Following is an overview of the accomplishments to date.

Site Preparation Ground disturbance created during construction efforts, accompanied by mowing and
beating residual straw from the 06 wheat crop, provided a disturbed seed bed in preparation for seed
installation. Mowing/beating was accomplished with a small tractor and mower on approximately 350
acres.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 25

Final Project Report January 2007
Native Seed Installation Initial seeding
efforts were completed along the End Creek
restoration channel and floodplain ponds
following construction using ATV mounted seed
broadcaster and/or manual spreader.

Approximately 600 pounds of native tufted

hairgrass and blue wildrye was applied on 30
acres and irrigated in late August to facilitate
germination and growth along newly disturbed
areas.

Helicopter contract preparing for aerial

seeding during December 2006

Project sponsors were planning on seeding the

remainder of the project using a rangeland drill
provided by ODFW, but delays associated with
securing the drill due to post-fire rehabilitation
efforts in other areas of the region and then
heavy moisture by late November, limited our
ability to complete project area seeding needs.

In mid December, the decision was made to

secure the services of helicopter contract and
proceed with an aerial seeding application,
which was completed during December 11-12th.
The operation consisted of CTUIR staff staging
and loading seed into a 300 pound capacity seed Aerial seeding was accomplished using an
hopper and aerially applying seed at an Enstrom helicopter.
approximate rate of 18 pounds/acre.

The custom native seed mix included: The operation included installation of
approximately 7,200 pounds of native seed
31.64% Idaho fescue on 430 acres, which covered all disturbed
18.56% Grande Ronde Basin/Trailhead Wildrye areas, including overseeding areas
18.15% Blue wildrye previously seeded during ground-based
12.6% Bluebunch wheatgrass operations.
9.18% Rosanna western wheatgrass
7.78% Sherman big bluegrass
2.09% Tufted hairgrass

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 26

Final Project Report January 2007
Plant Salvage and Installation
Following diversion of End Creek into the
restoration channel and prior to reclamation
of the channelized reach, project sponsors
directed a plant salvage effort from the
existing End Creek alignment to provide
plant materials for the restoration channel.
The salvage effort included excavation of
available shrubs (primarily salix spp.) and
native sedge/rush matts using an excavator
with hydraulic thumb and dump truck(s) to
haul plant materials to designated locations.

The following photos illustrate the basic

Dump truck hauling and stockpiling plant
process which has been found to be highly
materials at selected locations along End
efficient and effective in facilitating Creek restoration channel. September 2006.
vegetative recovery following construction
of restoration channels by project Approximately 60 shrubs and 5,180 square
managers. feet of sedge/rush matts were salvage and
reinstalled along the End Creek restoration
channel. Shrubs were generally installed in
small groups on point bars while sedge/rush
matts were planted on streambanks along
outside channel meanders in order to
facilitate development of stable banks.

Excavator prepares excavate and load sedge

matt from the channelized End Creek
alignment prior to reclamation (backfilling).
September 2006.

Salvage efforts were initiated in the

lowermost channel reach, progressing Excavator installing sedge/rush matts along
upstream. Generally, salvage of whole outside stream meander on rootwad revetment.
shrubs with rootwad was conducted September 2006
separately from sedge/rush matts in order to
minimize damage to roots and stems of the Because the salvage efforts were conducted
willows. during the summer growing season by
necessity, special provisions are
Willow material was strategically staged implemented to improve plant survival,
for later mechanical installation in the including installation of irrigation systems
upper, steeper regions of the restoration to maintain moist soil conditions. Despite
channel while sedge/rush matts were staged irrigation application, however, shrubs
along nearly every outside channel excavated outside of normal dormancy
meander. periods do not generally have high survival
rates.
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 27
Final Project Report January 2007
Sedge/Rush Plug Planting Fall planting activities were focused on native sedge/rush plug
installation along the End Creek and lower South Fork Willow Creek restoration channels. Local
source sites were utilized to cut 3 inch diameter plugs using a simple plug cutting tool which were
then hauled to planting locations and installed using a 4 inch power augur. Planting specifications
required installation at one foot centers along entire length of channel, generally within the bankfull
channel elevation in order to maximize access to moist soil conditions and improve survival.
Between late September through mid-November, approximately 12,650 plugs were installed along
approximately 10,708 feet of restoration channel. Additional sedge/rush planting is scheduled to get
underway during spring 07 and encompass the remainder of the South Willow channel, spring
channels, and floodplain ponds.

CTUIR habitat crew installing sedge/rush plugs along South Fork Willow Creek. October 2006

Trap and Haul/Relocate Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles Prior To Channel Diversion

An ODFW crew with assistance from CTUIR technicians conducted salvage operations along End Creek
during August 23, 30, 31, September 5, and October 17-18. A total of 344 O. mykiss and 1,339 non-
game species (sculpin, dace, shiner) were trapped and hauled from the End Creek channel prior diversion.
Channel diversion was completed in phases, beginning with the lower sections and progessing upstream
to the upper project reach. A total of 8 O. mykiss mortalities were recorded during the salvage operation.

Fish salvage operations were implemented under the following process, consistent with all Reasonable
and Prudent Actions outlined in the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS:

1. The upper and lower reaches of the stream were block-netted to prevent movement of fish into
the restoration reach.
2. Seine nets were be utilized first (where possible) to capture/remove fish.
3. A Smith-Root Model 12A POW electroshocker was utilized to capture remaining fish, using
NMFS protocol (Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines, NMFS June 2000 or later versions if
available).
4. Fish transport was conducted using 6-wheeled, All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) with integrated
utility beds for secured storage of fish containers.
5. Fish were transported in large, aerated coolers and secured in ATV utility beds. Fish hold times
were minimized by making multiple transport trips. Water temperatures were continuously
monitored as work progressed to avoid thermal stress.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 28

Final Project Report January 2007
 6. All encountered fish (salmonid and non-salmonid species), amphibians, and reptiles were
salvaged from the channel prior to dewatering and relocated to upstream locations; and
7. Transported fish, amphibians, and reptiles were relocated to several designated sections above the
restoration reach to avoid concentrating fish at designated release sites.

Riparian Conservation Easement Fence Construction

Approximately 776 acres were enrolled into the Federal Wetland Resource Program with about 676 acres
permanent easements and 100 acres in a 30 year conservation easement on the Rice, Davidson, and Dake
private parcels. As project development continues, a detailed management plan will be developed for
each of the three parcels to ensure that resource objectives are being achieved over time. With the cost-
share investment of BPA funds, both the CTUIR and ODFW are incorporated into the long-term
agreements to assist in planning, implementation, and maintenance of the conservation easements.
Approximately 2 miles of new fence boundary fence is planned for construction by the landowners.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 29

Final Project Report January 2007
5. PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

Upstream reach of End Creek (Rice) Restoration Channel, viewing east (downstream) towards South Fork
Willow Creek confluence. Note reclaimed channelized reach in left corner of photo and floodplain ponds
incorporated into reclamation plan. December 2006

Upstream view of upper End Creek restoration channel. December 2006

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 30

Final Project Report January 2007
 Middle reach of End Creek restoration channel viewing upstream. December 2006

Initiation of channel construction on lower End Creek. December 2006

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 31

Final Project Report January 2007
Upper reach of South Fork Willow Creek restoration channel viewing downstream towards confluence with End
Creek restoration channel. Note large woody debris placement in channel and floodplain. December 2006

Restoration spring channel paralleling End Creek Restoration Channel. December 2006

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 32

Final Project Report January 2007
 Lower End Creek Restoration Channel with floodplain pond in middle foreground. December 2006

Floodplain pond with spring channel outlet. December 2006

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 33
Final Project Report January 2007
6. PROJECT EXPENDITURES

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 34

Final Project Report January 2007
7. REFERENCES
Grande Ronde Model Watershed. 2001. Willow Creek Watershed Assessment

Meehan, William R., Editor, 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on
Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19,
Bethesda, Maryland, 1991.

McGowan, Vance. 2005. End Creek Restoration Project Design Report. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Northeast Oregon Regional Office.

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads:
stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries Bulletin, American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004. Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2001. Grande Ronde Subbasin Summary.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 1990. Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin Water Quality
Management.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2000. Upper Grande Ronde TMDL.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1990. Past and
present abundance of Snake River sockeye, Snake River chinook, and lower Columbia River
coho salmon. A report prepared for Senator Mark Hatfield, U. S. Senate.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and four other agencies. 1990. Grande Ronde River
Subbasin, salmon and steelhead production plan. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland,
Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1991. Summaries of fish sampling during 1990,
aquatic inventories project. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Rosgen, D., 1996 Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The reference reach a blueprint for natural channel design. Presented at
the ASCE, Denver, CO.

Union County Soil and Water Conservation District. 2002. Willow Creek Coordinated
Resource Management Plan.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 35

Final Project Report January 2007
 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Project No. 204-434

Grande Ronde Model Watershed/Bonneville Power Administration

Project PI 1992-026-01/Contract #00020546

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Rice-Wetland Reserve Program Project # 66-0436-3-040

June 2008

End Creek Restoration Project Complex. Spring 2007. Aerial view of lower project area viewing southwest

Prepared by:
Allen Childs
CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration Project Leader
Fish and Wildlife Biologist

PROJECT PARTNERS & COOPERATORS

Dr. Joel & Susan Rice (Landowner)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Grande Ronde Model Watershed
 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Administrative Summary

Project Headquarters:
Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Program
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
PO Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801

Administrative Contact:
Julie Burke, Fish and Wildlife Administrative Manager
Phone: 541 966-2372
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: 541 966-2397

Technical Contact:
Allen B. Childs
Fish & Wildlife Biologist/Project Leader
Phone: 541 966-2391
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: 541 966-2397

Suggested Citation:
Childs, Allen, B. 2008. End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat and Wetland Restoration Project.
Annual Monitoring Report. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................1

2. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................1
3. PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & PROJECT DESIGN........................................................................1
4. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIVITIES....................................................................................3
4.1 REVEGETATION AND WEED CONTROL ........................................................................................................3
4.2 PROJECT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................4
4.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................................4
Water Quality Monitoring....................................................................................................................................5
Fish Population Monitoring.................................................................................................................................6
5. PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ...........................................................................................................................9

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 END CREEK PROJECT VICINITY ..............................................................................................................1

FIGURE 2 END CREEK PROJECT PRIVATE LAND PARCELS ......................................................................................1
FIGURE 3 END CREEK PROJECT COMPLEX EXISTING CONDITION ..........................................................................1
FIGURE 4 END CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................2
FIGURE 5 END CREEK AVERAGE MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURE SAMPLED AT UPPER AND LOWER
MONITORING SITES (2003-2007)............................................................................................................5
FIGURE 6 END CREEK PROJECT JUVENILE FISH SAMPLING SITES ..........................................................................8

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF 2006 END CREEK-RICE RESTORATION PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..................................3

TABLE 2 UPPER AND LOWER WATER TEMPERATURE TOLERANCES FOR SALMONIDS ...............................................5
TABLE 3 2005 END CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT JUVENILE FISH INDEX SITES......................................................6
TABLE 4 2007 END CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT JUVENILE FISH INDEX SITES......................................................7
TABLE 5 END CREEK FISH POPULATION MONITORING DATA PAIRED MONITORING SITE COMPARISON ..................8
1. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

This monitoring report provides a one-year update of project development on the End Creek Fish Habitat and
Wetland Restoration Project completed during 2006. The project encompasses approximately 776 acres on three
private land parcels in the northwestern portion of the Grande Ronde Valley within the Grande Ronde Subbasin of
eastern Oregon. Primary project implementation was completed in 2006 by the the landowners, Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and several cooperating/funding agencies including the Grande Ronde Model
Watershed (GRMW), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
(OWEB). Project accomplishments included: construction of 8.43 miles of restoration channel, nearly 3 miles of
channel reclamation, earthen terraces, rock and log structural elements, planting and seeding, and weed control.

2. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The End Creek Restoration Project is located in the upper Willow Creek watershed in the Upper Grande Ronde River
Subbasin (6th Field HUC 17060104803). The project is located in the northwest portion of the Grande Ronde Valley
about 8 miles north of LaGrande, Oregon in Union County approximately 1 mile upstream from the confluence with
Willow Creek in Township 1 South, Range 38 East, all or portions of Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, Willamette
Meridian. The project complex encompasses three contiguous private land parcels: Rice (568 acres); Davidson (108
acres); and Dake (100 acres). See Figures 1 and 2. In context of the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan (NPCC, 2004),
the project area is located in the Mid Grande Ronde Valley Geographic Priority Area (Lower Willow/mid Grande
Ronde). Habitat limiting factors include sediment, flow, temperature, and key habitat quantity. Primary focal
species include summer steelhead (spawning/rearing) and spring Chinook salmon (rearing habitat). Other species
include resident trout and riparian/wetland dependent wildlife.

Figure 1 End Creek Project Vicinity

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 1

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
Private lands in the project area have a long history of agricultural cultivation, channelization/ditching, and wetland
conversion. Historic channelization created a network of linear ditches throughout the project, destroying an
estimated 300 acres of palustrine emergent and shrub-scrub wetlands, decreasing channel stability and accelerating
streambank erosion, reducing floodplain connectivity, groundwater elevations, and potential for hyporheic exchange,
elevating water temperatures, and decreasing fish and wildlife habitat availability and complexity.

Figure 2 End Creek Project Private Land Parcels

Figure 3 End Creek Project Complex Existing Condition

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 1

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
3. PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & PROJECT DESIGN

The goal of the project is to restore the natural character and function of End Creek, South Fork Willow, McDonald
Creek, and spring-fed tributaries with accompanying riparian and wetland vegetation, well connected floodplain, and
stable, natural stream channels. Water quality, fish habitat, and wetland-riparian habitat restoration are key drivers
for the project. The following project objectives have been identified for the End Creek Restoration Project complex:

Improve channel dimension, pattern, and profile consistent with valley form, hydrology, and
sediment.
Restore emergent and shrub-scrub wetlands (camas)
Reconnect floodplain and enhance groundwater/hyporheic exchange
Increase cold water refuge and increase winter water temperatures
Increase suitable steelhead spawning habitat
Increase juvenile steelhead survival/productivity by increasing habitat quantity and quality
Enhance diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrate communities

Habitat Limiting Factors

Channel Habitat Conditions Channel instability associated with removal of streamside cover and
channelization has resulted in channel incision/downcutting, increased gradient, reduced channel length, elevated
erosion, increased width-to-depth ratios, and loss of channel complexity. The quality of instream habitat has
correspondingly been altered throughout much of the Subbasin.
Sediment Loss of upland and streamside vegetative cover has increased the rates of erosion. Soils lost from
upland areas has overwhelmed hydraulic processes resulting in decreased availability of large pool habitat,
spawning areas, riffle food production, and hiding cover.
Riparian Function Riparian habitat degradation is the most serious habitat problem in the subbasin for fish
(McIntosh 1994, ICBEMP 2000). Loss of flooplain connectivity by roads, dikes, and channel incision, and in
many streams reduced habitat suitability for beaver has altered dynamically stable floodplain environments which
has contributed to degradation and limited habitat recovery. This loss leads to secondary effects that are equally
harmful and limiting, including increased water temperature, low summer flows, excessive winter runoff, and
sedimentation.
Low Flow Water resources in many streams have been over over-appropriated resulting in limited summer and
fall baseflow, development of fish passage barriers, and increased summer water temperatures.

Project planning and design was accomplished over an approximate 2 year period and involved interagency and
landowner meetings, coordination with adjacent private landowners, and development of funding proposals. ODFW
staff provided a leading role in pre-design surveys and development of project designs (McGowan, 2005). Project
planning was driven by landowner objectives, limiting factors, project goals, and biological objectives. Products of
the planning effort and project design process were developed through an extensive watershed analysis conducted
during 2003-04. The analysis was undertaken to evaluate past land use history and present conditions, identify
habitat limiting factors, and develop a suite of actions to address the limiting factors. Figure 4 illustrates the overall
project design and plan. The analysis included:

Determine the drainage area

Review past & current land uses
Examine 1930s aerial photographs
Onsite inspections of various portions of the watershed by project biologists, engineers and geomorphologists
Collect stream flow data at Hunter Road at bankfull stage
Collect channel cross sections, longitudinal profiles and pebble counts
Conduct a GPS survey of the entire work area and produce a topographic map at 1 ft. contours
Install 15 groundwater wells and document soil profiles to depths of 10 ft.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 1

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
Figure 4 End Creek Restoration Project Overview

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 2

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
4. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIVITIES

Table 1 illustrates project actions and metrics. Additional discussion follows the table to describe the various work
related components involved in the development and implementation of the project.

Table 1 Summary of 2006 End Creek-Rice Restoration Project Accomplishments

PROJECT ACTION PROJECT METRICS

Restoration Channel Construction
--End Creek 7,708 feet 3.1 miles
--South Fork Willow Creek 8,659 feet

Spring Channel Construction 28,142 feet 5.33 miles total

Rock Cross Vanes 20 structures (vertical grade control in restoration channel)
Rootwad Revetments 121 structures (20 complexes along approx 960 feet of outside
streambank meanders). Note: one structure is a footer log and
rootwad with tree bole.
Woody Debris Additions 200 pieces large woody debris placement on Willow Creek
restoration channel. Woody debris included 8-12 inch diameter, 10-
20 foot length pieces placed in log jam configuration to enhance
channel roughness and habitat complexity.
Channel/Ditch and Terrace Reclamation 21, 542 feet 4.08 miles
Floodplain Ponds/Backwater Habitat 6 ponds (10 acres) & 2 backwater habitats (End Creek & South Fork
Willow Creek)
Blended Earthen Terraces 3,590 feet (0.68 miles) of low elevation terraces to control floodflow
and protect adjacent private lands
Revegetation and Planting Completed site preparation and seeding on 430 acres (ground-based
and aerial application of 7,200 pounds native seed). Installed 12,650
sedge rush plugs. Mechanically installed 60 willow shrubs and
approximately 5,180 square feet of sedge/rush matts.
Culvert Removal/Relocation 5 culverts removed, two reinstalled on access roads.

Following completion of project construction during 2006, project landowners and agency
partners (NRCS, ODFW, and CTUIR) conducted additional planting and seeding, weed control,
maintenance, and monitoring evaluation. Following is a summary of these activities.

4.1 Revegetation and Weed Control

During October 2006, the project area was aerially seeded to facilitate native grass establishment
on 430 acres. An additional 20 acres was broadcast seeded using ATV-mounted seeders and
harrows. Additional planting was also completed during spring 2007, consisting of installation of
an additional 5,000 sedge/rush plugs, 18,000 live willow whips, and 12,500 containerized shrubs
and trees (red osier dogwood, hawthorne, willow, elder berry, and ponderosa pine). During late
spring, the landerowner initiated a series of weed treatment techniques to address Canada thistle
and non-native annual and perennial invasion of the project area with an estimated 200 acres of
treatment consisting of herbicide application completed.

Monitoring and evaluation of vegetation performance within the project area is ongoing,
including general field observations as well as establishment of vegetation sampling transects
and plots to evaluate vegetation development over time. Field surveys are scheduled by CTUIR
and Eastern Oregon University during summer 2008.

Generally, vegetation response is highly variable with generally good to excellent establishment
of native hydrophytes along restored stream channels and poor to fair establishment of native
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 3
2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
grasses in the upland areas. Success of the Fall 2006 aerial seed efforts appears to be highly
variable with highly patchy establishment of native grasses throughout the project area. The
lower elevation, low gradients areas located in the central and eastern portion of the project area
are developing at a more desirable rate compared with high elevation, higher gradient areas
located in the western portion of the project likely due to availability of persistent moist soil
conditions in the low gradient areas compared to high gradient areas. Additional treatments are
currently under development by project sponsors to address upland grass community
development, including evaluation of different site preparation and seed drilling options. A 20
acre test unit was harrowed and drilled during Fall 2007 and results are currently being
evaluated. Additional test units and treatment options will be initiated during Fall 2008.

4.2 Project Maintenance

Private landowners, ODFW, and CTUIR continue to maintain the project. During summer 2007,
approximately 600 feet of earthen terrace along the eastern project boundary was enhanced to
reduce the risk of flooding onto adjacent private land. Work included re-grading, increasing the
top invert elevation by 0.5 feet, seeding, and installation/operation of irrigation to facilitate
vegetative recovery. Additionally, ODFW and CTUIR completed minor adjustments along
several spring channel stream segments to improve floodplain connectivity and to enhance
wetland development in the central portion of the project area. Activities included construction
of several short (<50 foot) channel segments to direct water flow and enhance wetland features
developed during the first observed spring 2007 flow. Other than these minor adjustments, all
project elements are functioning as planned. Restoration stream channels are stable and
vegetation is rapidly colonizing riparian and wetland areas.

4.3 Monitoring and Evaluation

ODFW and CTUIR continue several project monitoring and evaluation activities within the
project area including water temperature, groundwater elevations, vegetation transects and plots,
photopoints, adult fish redd surveys, and juvenile fish population surveys. Following is a
summary of CTUIR monitoring results for water temperature and juvenile fish populations.
Monitoring data collected by ODFW was not available for incorporation into this report.

Additional monitoring activities are conducted on the project site by Eastern Oregon University
under agreement with the GRMW and include water chemistry, macroinvertebrates, and wetland
vegetation. Data from these activities have not been published or made available to CTUIR at
this time. Future monitoring reports will incorporate results as they become available.
Following is a summary of monitoring results from the 2007 period.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 4

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
Water Quality Monitoring

The CTUIR have conducted water quality monitoring in the Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin
since 1997 with monitoring efforts initiated at the End Creek project complex in 2003. Onset
thermographs are deployed at selected project sites to evaluate response of water temperatures in
relation to habitat enhancement activities. Water temperature analysis is evaluated in relation to
temperature tolerances for Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. Upper and lower lethal water
temperature limits for salmonids are illustrated in the following table developed by the
Independent Scientific Group (ISG, 1996).

Table 2 Upper and Lower Water Temperature Tolerances for Salmonids

WATER TEMPERATURE
LIFE STAGE Optimum Range Stressful Lethal*
o o o
Adult migration & spawning 10 C 8-13 C >15.6 C >21oC
o o o
Incubation <10 C 8-12 C >13.3 C >15.6oC
Juvenile rearing 15oC 12-17oC >18.3oC >25oC
*Based on 1 week exposure period, higher tolerances for shorter exposure period

Two water temperature monitoring sites were established along End Creek, one site located
upstream of the project and a site located on the lower reach within the project area in order to
bracket the project area and provide a basis to evaluate changes in water temperatures over
time. The upper site was originally established immediately downstream of Hunter Road
approximately 025 miles upstream from the project but was relocated in 2007 to the upper
project reach on the Davidson parcel. Baseline and recent water temperature data indicate
thermal loading (increase in water temperature) from the upstream to downstream sampling
locations. In 2003, a 7.9 oC difference (7 day average maximum) between the upper and lower
sampling locations was measured. The difference has varied between years with a minimum
difference of 3oC in 2004 to 6.3 oC in 2007. Figure 5 illustrates data from 2003 through 2007.
Post project construction data is limited to one year of data and therefore limits the ability to
provide any analysis of water temperature trends. Project sponsors anticipate an increase in the
availability of cold water refuge through the project reach and potentially an overall decrease in
summer baseflow temperature and an increase in average winter water temperatures. Ongoing
monitoring efforts will help project sponsors assess trends over time.

Figure 5 End Creek Average Maximum Water Temperature Sampled at Upper and
Lower Monitoring Sites (2003-2007)

End Creek (Upper & Lower) Average Maximum

Water Temperatures
35.0
Degrees Celsius

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

End Creek 1 (Upper Site) End Creek 2 (Lower Site)

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 5

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
Fish Population Monitoring

CTUIR staff initiated juvenile fish monitoring at the End Creek Restoration Project in 2005 to
establish a baseline from which to evaluate project goals, objectives, and biological response to
project actions designed to restore/enhance summer steelhead spawning and rearing habitat.
ODFW also initiated steelhead redd surveys in 2005 as part of the project monitoring effort.
Specific objectives of salmonid monitoring include estimating the abundance, age class, and
distribution of rainbow trout/summer steelhead (O. mykiss) within the project area. Sampling
efforts during 2007 were focused on End Creek. Presence/absence sampling for salmonids in
lower South Fork Willow was also completed during 2007 with sampling in McDonald Creek
deferred until 2008 because of limited staff availability and workload.

In late July 2005, 15 randomized sites along End Creek, South Fork Willow, and McDonald
Creek were selected. Spring-fed tributaries (pre-project ditches) were also sampled to determine
fish presence/absence as well as distribution. Site selection was stratified by lower, transitional
(middle), and headwater reaches with sampling sites located within the project area as well as
upstream of the project to provide control samples for comparison. Figure 10 illustrates sample
locations generated from a statistical randomization program for the End Creek sample sites. All
of the sites identified on the map were not sampled due to difficulties associated within securing
access to individual locations from private landowners. Tables 6 and 7 present data for 2005 and
2007 sample periods.

During the 2005 sample period, fish were observed in all sample locations, with lower project
reaches dominated by speckled dace, red-sided shiner, sculpin, sucker (mountain and bridgelip),
pumpkinseed, and blue gill. Lower reaches of End Creek, South Fork Willow, and McDonald
Creek exhibited a noted absence of salmonids likely due to elevated summer water temperatures
and low flow rates. Additionally, lower project reaches contained an apparent large bullfrog
population (over 50 tadpoles captured) with only 2 observations of native spotted frogs.

O. Mykiss juvenile rearing densities ranged from 0.0 to 3.33 fish per square meter with sites
along upper End Creek (RM 1.5) and McDonald Creek (RM 1.0) containing the highest rearing
densities observed during 2005 (See Table 6). Sample data from sites in the upper project
reaches also showed a distribution of O. Mykiss age classes from age class 0 to age class 2
indicating local spawning of adult summer steelhead.

Table 3 2005 End Creek Restoration Project Juvenile Fish Index Sites

Stream Site Mean Summer Steelhead /Rainbow Trout

reach Date length width Area Age/size

Site Rearing
name (mm/dd) (m) (m) (m2) 0+ 1+ >200mm Total Density/m2

End
Creek
END-1 7/21 60.0 3.0 180.0 0.55 11.10 0.00 12.20 0.07
END-3 7/19 60.0 1.5 90.0 84.4 13.30 0.00 93.30 1.04
END-4 7/19 60.0 1.2 72.0 23.6 11.11 0.00 34.70 0.48
END-5 7/21 85.0 0.8 70.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 6
2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
 Stream Site Mean Summer Steelhead /Rainbow Trout
reach Date length width Area Age/size

Site Rearing
name (mm/dd) (m) (m) (m2) 0+ 1+ >200mm Total Density/m2
END-7 7/19 60.0 2.0 120.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
END-9 7/19 60.0 2.6 156.0 0.00 1.2 0.00 1.20 0.01
END-24 7/18 60.0 1.5 90.0 5.55 2.2 0.00 7.70 0.09
END-29 7/18 60.0 1.9 114.0 0.00 0.877 0.00 0.88 0.01
McDonald Creek
MCD-10 7/20 60.0 1.5 90.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MCD-14 7/19 60.0 1.8 108.0 0.00 0.925 0.00 0.93 0.01
MCD-15 7/20 60.0 0.9 54.0 159.2 42.59 0.00 179.62 3.33
MCD-16 7/21 60.0 1.3 78.0 1.2 5.12 0.00 6.40 0.08
MCD-26 7/21 100.0 1.3 130.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MCD-27 7/20 60.0 3.2 192.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
South Willow
Creek
SWC-12 7/20 60.0 1.5 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00

In 2007, the CTUIR modified the sampling design to align with literature from the ISRP
regarding sampling design and methodologies. A Mark-Recapture Backpack Electrofishing
Protocol (adapted from Johnson et al. 2007; Salmonid Field Protocols Handbook) with data
collection and analysis following protocols for back-pack electrofishing, closed model Petersen
mark-recapture estimator was employed during the 2007 effort. As noted above, the 2007
sample effort was focused on the End Creek channel constructed in 2006 and data collection
from upstream control sites.

Table 4 2007 End Creek Restoration Project Juvenile Fish Index Sites

Summer steelhead/rainbow trout

Stream Site Mean
reach Date length width Area Age/size
Site Rearing
name (mm/dd) (m) (m) (m2) 0+ 1+ >200mm Total Density/m2

End
Creek
END 3 7/23 200.0 1.9 380.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
END 7 7/23 200.0 1.1 220.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
END 10 7/23 200.0 1.3 250.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
END 13 7/24 200.0 1.5 308.0 316.4 22.75 0.00 339.17 1.10
END 17 7/24 200.0 1.6 320.0 90.2 21.80 0.00 112.10 0.35
END 24 7/25 200.0 2.3 460.0 22.4 32.00 0.77 55.20 0.12

Numerical designations of sampling sites in Tables 6 and 7 do not align with each other as the
sampling locations were randomized each year and assigned a unique numerical designation.
Figure 10 illustrates sampling locations for the End Creek portion of the monitoring effort.
Sampling site 1 (2005) and site 24 (2007) are located in the same general location and provide a
control site to compare summer salmonid rearing data from sites within the project area. The
following table illustrates paired sampling sites for the 2005 and 2007 sampling periods.
End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 7
2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
Table 5 End Creek Fish Population Monitoring Data Paired Monitoring Site
Comparison

End Creek Fish Population Monitoring Data

Paired Monitoring Site Comparison
Sample Site Sample Site Description O. Mykiss Rearing Sample
Density (fish/square Year
meter)
1 Control (upstream of project area) 0.07 2005
24 Control (upstream of project area) 0.09 2007
Upper End Creek in channelized
3 reach on upper Davidson parcel 1.04 2005
Upper End Creek in restored
channel reach Davidson parcel
13 (compares w/ 2005, site 3) 1.1 2007
Upper End Creek in channelized
4 reach on middle Davidson parcel 0.48 2005
Upper End Creek in restored
channel reach middle Davidson
10 parcel (compares w/ 2005, site 4) 0 2007

Observed rearing densities during 2005 and 2007 at the control site are comparable between sampling
periods (0.07 fish/square meter of habitat in 2005 compared to 0.09 in 2007). Site 3 (2005) and site 13
(2007) and site 4 (2005) and site 10 (2007) correspond to approximately the same elevation and
watershed position along upper End Creek between sampling periods with 05 samples collected in the
pre-project channelized reach and 07 samples collected from the End Creek restoration channel
constructed in 2006. Observed fish rearing densities in the upper portions of the project area on the
Davidson parcel were similar for sites 3 and 13 with no salmonids observed in 07 at site 10, located in the
lower portion of the Davidson parcel on End Creek. During 2007, presence/absence sampling in the
lower project reaches documented similar distribution patterns when compared with the baseline survey
with a noted absence of salmonids in the mid to lower reaches of End Creek and South Fork Willow
Creek. Salmonid absence in the lower reach of End Creek is assumed to be directly related to elevated
water temperatures with salmonid presence documented only in the upper, cooler reaches of the project
area as described in the water quality monitoring section of this report.

Figure 6 End Creek Project Juvenile Fish Sampling Sites

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 8

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
 5. PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

Upper End Creek Restoration Channel (Davidson parcel), March 2007

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 9

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
 Upper End Creek Restoration Channel (Davidson parcel), March 2007

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 10

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
 Middle End Creek Restoration Channel (Rice parcel), March 2007

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 11

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
 South Fork Willow Restoration Channel (Rice parcel), March 2007

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 12

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
Lower End Creek Restoration Project, March 2007. Note floodplain activation and development of wetland habitat in central and lower
portions of project

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 13

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008
 Lower End Creek, Spring 2008. Note extensive wetland and riparian habitat development and waterfowl use.

End Creek-Rice Fish Habitat & Wetland Restoration Project Page 14

2007 Monitoring Report June 2008