Thompson's Mill Hydroelectric Project

THOMPSON’S MILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 9169

Monitoring and Maintenance Plan Sodom and Shearer Dam Removal

SODOM DAM

PROPOSED BY: With assistance from: Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. River Design Group, Inc. Calapooia Watershed Council U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Aug 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION...... 2 2. MONITORING APPROACH ...... 5

2.1 MONITORING OVERVIEW ...... 5 2.2 MONITORING PLAN DURATION AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY...... 5 2.3 MONITORING AREA ...... 6 3. MONITORING PROTOCOLS...... 6

3.1 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ...... 6 3.2 MONITORING TASKS ...... 7 3.3 BASELINE MONITORING...... 8 4. FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON MONITORING DATA...... 9

4.1 INTERPRETING MONITORING RESULTS FOR DECISION‐MAKING ...... 9 4.2 INTERPRETING MONITORING RESULTS FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE NEEDS ...... 10 5. DATA STORAGE AND ANALYSIS ...... 13

5.1 DATA STORAGE ...... 13 5.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING...... 13 6. MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN...... 14 7. REFERENCES...... 14

1. Introduction

This document presents Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s (OPRD) proposed monitoring and maintenance plan, as well as contingency actions, for the removal of the Sodom and Shearer dams and subsequent restoration of these sites. These dams are located in the Calapooia River Watershed near Shedd, Oregon (Figure 1‐ 1). The focus areas include the bifurcation of the Sodom Ditch and the Calapooia River, both channels immediately downstream of the bifurcation (Figure 1‐2), and the Calapooia River through the Shearer Dam site (figure 1‐3). Hereafter these locations are referred to collectively as the “project reach”.

The plan describes the monitoring program that OPRD will conduct to:(1) evaluate channel reconstruction effectiveness, (2) determine project maintenance needs, (3) support an adaptive management decision‐making framework to evaluate project reach response and any needed changes, and (4) determine the “endpoint” for OPRD’s FERC responsibilities. The endpoint is achieved when the project goals are achieved and the project reach proves stable after 10‐year or greater flow event. Once the endpoint has been met, OPRD’s proposes that its FERC responsibilities are completed.

The goals, objectives, and supporting project elements for the removal of the Sodom and Shearer dams and subsequent restoration are as follows:

• GOAL: Provide volitional fish passage at each restoration site at all flows. o OBJECTIVE:Allow upstream and downstream fish passage of ESA listed spring chinook and winter steelhead, as well as other native fish in the Calapooia River (at the bifurcation and Shearer Dam site) and the Sodom Ditch. ELEMENT: Engineered riffle ELEMENT: Channel reconstruction

• GOAL: Maintain split flow at the bifurcation. o OBJECTIVE: Ensure that during low flow periods that the flow split is approximately 50:50 (+/‐ 20%) between the Calapooia River and the Sodom Ditch. ELEMENT: Engineered riffle ELEMENT: Engineered log jams

• GOAL: Provide long‐term stream stability in both the Calapooia River and the Sodom Ditch with minimal maintenance. o OBJCTIVE: Maintain cross‐sectional area, mean depth, and channel slope within +/‐ 20% of as‐ built dimensions. ELEMENT: Engineered log jam ELEMENT: Engineered riffle ELEMENT: Vegetated soil lifts ELEMENT: Vegetation plantings ELEMENT: Channel reconstruction

The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address Spillway Dam located on a Calapooia River side channel downstream from Shearer Dam and near Thompson’s Mills. OPRD is currently evaluating management options for Spillway Dam.

Figure 1‐1. The Sodom Ditch – Calapooia River project reach with highlighted reference points.

Figure 1‐2. The Sodom Ditch‐Calapooia River portion of the project reach.

Figure 1‐3. The location of Shearer Dam on the Calapooia River in the project reach. Spillway Dam and the Thompson’s Mills’ Millrace are also included.

2. Monitoring Approach

2.1 Monitoring Overview OPRD will conduct this monitoring effort with the explicit purpose of evaluating project success. To determine if project goals have been met, the annual monitoring protocol will evaluate project objectives and element success utilizing three general approaches: visual evaluation, reconnaissance level surveys including benchmarks, and analysis of flow data. The protocol is designed to allow personnel with limited geomorphic and engineering training to evaluate components of the project reach at minimal expense.

If the project is not performing as expected based on annual monitoring results, success criteria, and performance standards, then a higher level of data collection, analysis, and review will be triggered, potentially resulting in maintenance activities and/or redesign. Project success criteria and performance standards are intended to evaluate the effectiveness of project actions based on the Sodom and Shearer Dam Removal Plan (River Design Group, Inc., in progress).

This monitoring and maintenance plan includes several metrics to enable systematic comparisons with baseline, post‐construction, and future project reach conditions. After monitoring begins, performance standards and metrics will be evaluated and modified if necessary.

2.2 Plan Duration and Financial Responsibility Monitoring and maintenance is required for a minimum of five years and until the project reach experiences a 10‐ year flood event and remains stable, as defined by adaptive management framework (table 4.2). The 10‐year flood event was selected as the benchmark because river stage, hydraulics, and shear stress, and hence the ability for the channel to adjust, do not change appreciably at events exceeding the 10‐year discharge. The following three scenarios describe the range of possible outcomes dependent upon river flow and channel response.

1. At 5 years the project has experienced a 10‐year+ flow event, the project reach remains stable, and project goals and objectives are met. o OPRD relinquishes project reach monitoring and maintenance responsibilities back to the project’s partners.

2. At5 years the site has not experienced a 10‐year+flow event. o OPRD remains responsible for site monitoring and maintenance until a 10‐year+ flow event occurs,the project reach remains stable, and project goals and objectives are met.

3. At 10 years the site has not experienced a 10‐year+flow event. o OPRD relinquishes project reach monitoring and maintenance responsibilities back to the project’s partners, provided that the partners can assume responsibility for monitoring and maintenance costs until the defined endpoint has been reached. Otherwise, OPRD remains responsible for site monitoring and maintenance until a 10‐year+ flowevent occurs and goals are achieved, or project partners can assume responsibility for monitoring and maintenance costs.

2.3 Monitoring Area

The monitoring area encompasses three river reaches on the Calapooia River and Sodom Ditch. Figure 1‐1 displays the locations of the monitoring reaches. Table 2‐1 summarizes the reaches and associated lengths.

Table 2‐1. Monitoring Area Reach Extent Sodom Dam Station 28+00 downstream to 42+00 for a total of 1,400 feet Shearer Dam 250’ upstream and downstream of the existing dam structure for a total of 500 feet Bifurcation Station 22+00 downstream to Station 28+00 for a total of 600 feet, plus one cross‐section in the Calapooia River approximately 200 feet downstream of the bifurcation

3. Monitoring Protocols

Baseline monitoring will be completed by OPRD (or its consultant), followed by annual monitoring post‐project construction until the endpoint it reached. The Technical Team, defined as OPRD, Calapooia Watershed Council, the Fish Agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife), and Oregon State University, will establish a data collection protocol manual for the monitoring. The manual will ensure data collection consistency over time. The manual will include data collection and processing methods, specific locations of data collection sites, example data sheets, and survey checklists. A project database for storing collected information will be established by OPRD. Data collection methods will be reviewed with trained personnel. Field sheets and necessary equipment (e.g. digital camera) will be provided by OPRD. OPRD will establish and maintain the two staff gages sites (may use gages already in place) and develop the flow rating curves for each gage.

The following section details project success criteria, performance standards, monitoring tasks, and baseline monitoring requirements. All monitoring metrics that will be evaluated for effectiveness monitoring are included in Table 3‐1.

3.1 Project Success Criteria and Performance Standards Data collected through OPRD’s annual monitoring will be evaluated relative to project success criteria, to determine if project objectives have been met, and performance standards, to determine if project elements are functioning as designed,to assess whether the project is in compliance with stated goals (Section 1.0). The project success criteria and performance standards included in Table 3‐1 are the measurable metrics that will be evaluated through monitoring. If metric values deviate from the success criteria and/or performance standards, the project treatments may be corrected through maintenance actions or project re‐design, depending on the severity of the deviation. OPRD, in consultation with the Technical Team, and subject to approval by the Fish Agencies, will determine the appropriate alternative to correct any identified problems.

Table 3‐1. Project Success Criteria &Performance Standards Objective / Element Success Criteria / Performance Standard Fish passage Unimpeded fish passage upstream and downstream during low flow periods. Flow depth at bifurcation and at engineered riffle crests a minimum of 1‐foot deep Split flow At low flow, 40 to 60% of flow entering the Calapooia River and 40 to 60% of the flow entering the Sodom Ditch. Channel stability Less than 1‐foot total aggradation or degradation as measured with cross‐ sections and longitudinal profiles. Less than 10% actively eroding streambanks within the project site. Engineered riffle Within ±20% as‐built dimensions

Minimum Sodom Ditch 26+50 riffle crest low flow depth of 1 foot Engineered log jams 80% of ELJs by volume remain intact after 5 years Vegetated soil lifts 80% of VSLs by total treated bank length remain intact after 5 years Vegetative plantings 90% survival rate first year and 75% survival rate aggregate of all plant communities at end of five years Channel Reconstruction Cross‐section area Within ±20% as‐built dimensions Mean depth Within ±20% as‐built dimension or <1 foot elevation change Channel slope Within ±0.25% of as‐built slope (i.e. 1% +/‐ 0.25%)

3.2 Monitoring Tasks

Monitoring tasks were established to determine whether the project achieves project objectives and element performance standards. A detailed monitoring protocol will be developed by OPRD and the Technical Team with approval by the Fish Agencies.

Annual monitoring following peak runoff to be conducted by OPRD at the project sites includes the following tasks: • Visual Evaluation: o Establish photo points during or immediately following project implementation throughout the project reach; photograph each site at a minimum of once per year at approximately the same time and flow level each year to allow for a more accurate comparison; include a tape or rod for scale. ‐ 2 photo points per engineered riffle, 1 looking upstream, 1 looking downstream ‐ 1 photo point per engineered log jam ‐ 1 photo point per vegetated soil lift at each associate engineered structure ‐ 5 Representative photo points for vegetative plantings ‐ 3 photo points at the bifurcation • Looking downstream • Looking upstream from Calapooia River below the bifurcation • Looking upstream from Sodom Ditch below the bifurcation o Complete a visual inspection checklist for the following: ‐ engineered riffles ‐ engineered log jams ‐ vegetated soil lifts ‐ vegetative plantings, including approximate percent invasive ‐ channel reconstruction, specifically noting: • areas of erosion or deposition ‐ bifurcation, specifically noting: • sediment accumulation • discontinuous flow through coarse sediment potentially resulting in a fish passage barrier • lack of flow into either of the downstream channels

• Flow Data: o Record water surface stages at a minimum of two established staff gauges on the Calapooia River upstream of the bifurcation and Sodom Ditch and/or the Calapooia River downstream of the bifurcation throughout the year. o Analyze flow data once per year based upon water year (October 1 through September 30)

• Reconnaissance Level Surveys:

o Establish survey benchmarks outside of the active channel during or immediately following project implementation, including: ‐ One benchmark per engineered riffle structure ‐ One benchmark per engineered log jam ‐ One benchmark at the bifurcation ‐ One benchmark at each cross‐section (see below) o Channel morphology ‐ Channel cross‐sections at: • each engineered riffle crest • each pool that occurs between the engineered riffle structures • upstream of the bifurcation, Station 22+00 • at the bifurcation, Station 26+00 • 200’ downstream of the bifurcation in the Calapooia River • at the Shearer Dam site ‐ Channel longitudinal profile • Sodom Ditch, Station 26+50 to 38+75

Based on the results of the annual monitoring, OPRD will conduct additional channel morphology monitoring on project sites if project objectives are not met or if individual project elements fail to meet performance standards as defined in Table 3‐1. Monitoring will be determined based on need, as determined by OPRD, in consultation with the Technical Team, and approved by the Fish Agencies.

Each year, OPRD will prepare a summary and report of the morphology monitoring results, and distribute to the Technical Team for a minimum of 30 days. The report will be delivered to the Technical Team by June 1 of each year to allow time for any maintenance decisions to be made in advance of the Calapooia River’s in‐water work window. The June 1 target date for report delivery may be adjusted depending on annual runoff conditions. OPRD will then consult with the Technical Team to determine if a course of action is necessary, and what corrective action is sufficient to return project to as‐built design standards. Any course of action will be subject to approval by the Fish Agencies. OPRD will be responsible for corrective action necessary to return site to as‐built standards during the required monitoring period, if appropriate. If significant corrective action is necessary, additional years of monitoring may be required, as determined by OPRD, in consultation with the Technical Team and subject to Fish Agencies’ approval. In the event of project element failure due to a catastrophic flood event or extraordinary naturally‐occurring conditions, OPRD is not responsible for returning the site to as‐built conditions. In such an extraordinary event, OPRD will consult with Technical Team to determine an appropriate course of action to meet the objectives, as determined necessary.

3.3 Baseline Monitoring Baseline data and information are contained in several existing documents. Ongoing surveys are adding additional information to support the final dam removal and channel reconstruction designs. These data are currently being collected by River Design Group, Inc. upstream, through, and downstream of the project reach using quantitative methods. In addition to being used for the project design, baseline data will also be used to compare future project reach conditions.

Documents that include baseline data and information include: • Calapooia River Watershed Assessment (Biosystems, Water Work Consulting, and Alsea Geospatial 2004), • Sodom Ditch Dam Conversion Project – Conceptual Design Alternatives Draft Report (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007), • Sodom Ditch Dam Conversion Project – Reconnaissance Level Geomorphic Assessment (Interfluve, Inc. 2007), • Middle Calapooia River Assessment and Project Implementation Plan (River Design Group, Inc. 2008), and • Calapooia River Geomorphic Assessment (River Design Group, Inc. 2009).

An as‐built survey will be completed by OPRD, or its consultant immediately following project implementation and will document the completed project. An as‐built survey effectively provides the post‐project baseline condition to which out‐year river conditions will be compared. During the as‐built survey, permanent benchmarks and photo points will be established for the purpose of conducting effectiveness monitoring. The exact location of permanent benchmarks and photo points will be determined during or immediately following project implementation based on field conditions and site constraints.

The following information and data will be collected as part of the as‐built documentation: • Longitudinal channel profiles and channel cross‐sections with as‐built stationing for the entire monitoring area as defined in Table 2‐1, • Real time kinetic (RTK) GPS surveys to create maps documenting revegetation treatment areas, • RTK GPS survey to create maps to document structure locations, • Photo‐documentation at established photo points, as defined in Section 3.2, to capture site conditions with photographs, and • Establishment of two staff gauges to develop rating tables and monitor flows in the project reach.

4. Framework for Making Decisions Based on Monitoring Data

Implementing river reconstruction projects, especially those associated with dam removal efforts, require building in mechanisms to address uncertainty that is inherent within river systems. To address this uncertainty, this monitoring plan includes a decision‐making framework that will allow OPRD, in consultation with the Technical Team, to interpret effectiveness monitoring data and to take corrective action as necessary and approved by the Fish Agencies.

OPRD will convene and administer the Technical Team that will be able to oversee the monitoring program into the future. Potential monitoring team managers may include staff from CWC, OPRD, ODFW and Oregon State University, but ultimately the responsibility lies with OPRD if no staff from other organizations is available. The Technical Team members should be familiar with the project and understand stakeholder concerns associated with the project. The monitoring program manager will be tasked with critically reviewing monitoring data so results can be interpreted in the context of the project goals and desired project reach conditions. Through this framework, it will be possible to determine whether project goals and objectives (Section 1.0) are met, which corrective measures are necessary, and whether monitoring methods, success criteria, and/or performance standards should be modified, and ultimately implement the most appropriate corrective actions to meet project goals.

4.1 Interpreting Monitoring Results for Decision‐making The Technical Team will interpret the monitoring data and will make decisions regarding corrective actions using best available science and professional judgment in the context of this framework. The Technical Team will strive to make decisions by consensus. Once a conclusion has been reached, the Technical Team should evaluate causes and uncertainties related to data interpretation, including ensuring that the correct conclusion has been reached. The Technical Team will then identify the appropriate action related to that conclusion, and OPRD (or subsequent responsible party if one was able to take over prior to the endpoint) will implement that action. Table 4‐1 describes the four scenarios and related decisions and actions.

Table 4‐1. The monitoring program decision‐making framework. Conclusion Categories Decisions and Actions Scenario 1. Project is meeting goals based on ‐Evaluate the monitoring program for potential reduction or success criteria and performance standards. elimination of selected metrics.

Scenario 2. Project is trending towards goals based ‐Evaluate the monitoring program for retention, on success criteria and performance standards. modification, or potential elimination of selected metrics. ‐Evaluate whether rates of progress toward goals are appropriate. Scenario 3. Project is not meeting goals based on ‐Evaluate causes and then assess the monitoring program to success criteria and performance standards. determine if appropriate data are being collected. ‐Evaluate whether success criteria and/or performance standards are appropriate. ‐Develop a plan to address problems. ‐Implement the plan and monitor results. Scenario 4. Project is trending away from goals ‐Evaluate causes and determine whether success criteria based on success criteria and performance and/or performance standards are appropriate. standards. ‐Develop a plan to redesign the project. ‐Implement the plan and monitor results.

4.2 Interpreting Monitoring Results for Routine Maintenance Needs In addition to monitoring project effectiveness, monitoring will be used to determine maintenance needs for the project. Some maintenance may occur annually regardless of monitoring results (e.g. debris removal from Calapooia River bifurcation) and other maintenance may be necessary as a direct result of observations or interpreting monitoring data. Anticipated routine and monitoring‐induced maintenance needs, maintenance methods, and maintenance frequency for the project are summarized in Table 4‐2.

Table 4‐3 illustrates how the decision‐making framework would use the monitoring data to determine the need for maintenance and corrective actions. Referenced decision pathway conclusions refer to the conclusion categories in Table 4‐1.

Table 4‐2. Maintenance and corrective actions Metric No Action Maintenance Action Corrective Action Fish Passage No fish passage barriers No apparent fish passage Fish passage barriers, such as (1) barriers, but significant head cuts, (2) fish congregations Continue to monitor sediment deposition at the downstream of structures or bifurcation bifurcation, or (3) sediment deposition resulting in either Maintenance action: intermittent flow conditions or flow less than 1‐foot deep. Remove sediment to re‐ establish as‐built conditions for Requires immediate action for flow at the bifurcation prior to all scenarios, along with ESA‐listed fish migration consultation and approval by the Fish Agencies

Corrective action:

Remove sediment to re‐ establish as‐built conditions for flow at the bifurcation prior to ESA‐listed fish migration

If an upstream fish passage barrier occurs during the

Table 4‐2. Maintenance and corrective actions Metric No Action Maintenance Action Corrective Action upstream migration of ESA‐listed fish that is clearly attributable to the project elements, and the barrier cannot be mechanically removed, then OPRD in consultation with NMFS, ODFW, USFWS, will implement an emergency trap and haul operation plan within 48 hours.

Split flow 40% or more of low flow 30 ‐‐ 40% of low flow in the <30% of low flow in Calapooia R. in the Calapooia R. Calapooia R. Corrective action: Continue to monitor Maintenance action: Re‐evaluate design concept, Determine how partitioning is success criteria, and trending (e.g. sediment at performance standards mouth) Re‐design and possibly Evaluate 26+50 riffle crest reconstruct portions of the metrics and modify as project necessary,

Remove sediment to re‐ establish as‐built conditions at the bifurcation,

Evaluate Calapooia R. within 200 feet downstream of the bifurcation and modify as necessary.

Channel Less than 1‐foot of 1‐ to 2‐feet of aggradation/ >2‐feet of aggradation/ stability average aggradation or degradation, at one or two degradation at multiple cross‐ degradation at an cross‐sections sections and/or along the individual cross‐section longitudinal profile Maintenance action: Continue to monitor Corrective action: Initiate more detailed survey of the specific cross‐sections using Initiate a reach level RTK GPS RTK GPS survey equipment to survey to re‐evaluate the project evaluate the changes and to fully compare to the as‐ built conditions Repair structures and/or re‐ establish cross‐section Re‐evaluate design concept, dimensions where appropriate success criteria, and performance standards.

Engineered Within 20% of as‐built Within 20 – 40% of as‐built More than 40% outside of as‐ riffles dimensions, riffle crest dimensions, and/or 1 –2‐feet of built dimensions, and/or > then

Table 4‐2. Maintenance and corrective actions Metric No Action Maintenance Action Corrective Action within 1‐foot of as‐built as‐built crest elevation 2‐feet of as‐built crest elevation elevation or less than 1‐foot depth at riffle Maintenance action: crest Continue to monitor If structure does not meet Corrective action: performance standards (Table 3‐ 1), and channel has adjusted at Re‐evaluate design concept, key cross sections (e.g., channel success criteria, and degradation due to mobilized performance standards. Modify, engineered riffle), trigger repair, or replace structure if morphology monitoring and appropriate. repair structure Engineered log >80% of original volume 60 – 80% of original volume <60% of original volume intact jams intact intact Corrective action: Continue to monitor Maintenance action: Full ELJ evaluation to determine Full ELJ evaluation to determine structural stability. Compare to structural stability. Repair of other ELJ performance within structure as needed the project are.

Re‐evaluate design concept, success criteria, and performance standards. Modify, repair, or replace structure if appropriate. Vegetated soil >80% of treated bank 60 – 80% of treated bank length <60% of treated bank length lifts length intact intact intact

Continue to monitor Maintenance action: Corrective action:

Repairs to fabric; supplemental Re‐evaluate design concept, willow cuttings, planting or success criteria, and seeding, additional toe performance standards. Modify, protection if there is evidence of repair, or replace if lifts are still bank instability necessary for channel stability.

Repairs to fabric; supplemental willow cuttings, planting or seeding, additional toe protection if there is evidence of bank instability Vegetative ≥80% survival rate 60 – 80% survival rate <60% survival rate planting Continue to monitor Maintenance action: Corrective action:

Determine if cover is trending Evaluate plant list and plant towards desired distribution or communities to determine if adjustments in desired possible changes in species distribution should be made selection.

Table 4‐2. Maintenance and corrective actions Metric No Action Maintenance Action Corrective Action based on site conditions (i.e. species composition). Replant as necessary to meet performance standards defined Replant and/or interplant areas in Table 3‐1. as appropriate.

Channel Within 20% of as‐built 60 ‐‐ 80% of project within <60% of project within criteria reconstruction dimensions criteria ranges ranges

Continue to monitor Maintenance action: Corrective action:

Evaluate portions of project that Evaluate entire project and are out of range in terms of how determine causes if possible. those reaches affect trend and determine causes if possible Observe larger scale patterns;

Repair localized structures or Evaluate design criteria and areas within reach performance criteria thresholds.

If structure does not meet Re‐evaluate design concept and performance standards (Table 3‐ expectations related to function 1), and channel has adversely and process. adjusted, evaluate design and repair the structure. Re‐evaluate design concept, success criteria, and Modify design criteria where performance standards. Modify, necessary and retrofit project on repair, or replace if appropriate. necessary scale to address problems

5. Data Storage and Analysis

5.1 Data Storage Monitoring data will be stored and maintained by OPRD, or its contractor. Data will be maintained in standard database(s), and will be made available to any Technical Team member within 30 days of such a request. Data tables will be normalized to avoid redundant data structures and to ensure consistent data formats among sampling events. Where appropriate, data will be stored as attribute tables associated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), either as part of shape (shp) files or as geodatabases. Prior to the first sampling event, the Technical Team will work together to develop consistent data naming conventions, table structures, and other coordination items that will facilitate data transmission and analysis. Selected data sets will be made available via File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or other web‐based protocols.

5.2 Data Analysis and Reporting Visual, flow, and survey data will be analyzed annually. OPRD will prepare a monitoring report that includes: • Summary of metrics for which data were collected; • Deviations from established methods and protocols used to collect data; • Tabular and graphical summaries of results; • Narrative discussions to explain results in the context of project goals, success criteria, and performance standards; and

• Discussion section documenting Technical Team decision process and any recommended actions. These reports will be submitted to the Technical Team for a minimum of 30 days for review and comment. After the 30 day review period, OPRD will convene the Technical Team to discuss any comments, recommendation and future actions at the sites. If actions are required at any site, OPRD will prepare a plan of action for that year, with a 30 day minimum review by the Fish Agencies. Upon Fish Agencies’ approval, OPRD will implement the plan of action.

6. Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan

To ensure the quality of the monitoring program, OPRD will implement quality assurance (QA) and control (QC) procedures. QA and QC procedures will be applied to the following aspects of the monitoring plan: • Data collection • Data storage • Data analysis and reporting

The OPRD monitoring program manager will be responsible for quality assurance. Each member of the Technical Team will be responsible for ensuring that data collected within their particular discipline meets professional standards and complies with appropriate methodologies and protocols. Where data must be integrated either for analysis or reporting, the Technical Team will work together to develop consistent procedures. Specific items that will be addressed by the Technical Team include: • Exact location and documentation of monitoring locations • Training of individuals collecting data • Documentation and records management for how field data are recorded, including development of standardized monitoring forms • Data review, validation and verification requirements (i.e. cross‐checking field data sheets, looking for data gaps, checking calculations, looking for outliers, etc.) • Data management protocols • Reporting procedures

7. References

Biosystems, Water Work Consulting, and Alsea Geospatial. 2004. Calapooia River Watershed Assessment. Prepared for the Calapooia Watershed Council. Brownsville, Oregon. Inter‐fluve, Inc. 2007. Sodom Ditch Dam Conversion Project: ATA Work Order Contract #07‐255 Reconnaissance Level Geomorphic Assessment. Prepared for TetraTech. 85 p. River Design Group, Inc. 2008. Middle Calapooia River Assessment and Project Implementation Plan. Prepared for the Calapooia Watershed Council. Brownsville, Oregon. 122 p. including appendices. River Design Group, Inc. 2009. Calapooia River Geomorphic Assessment – Sodom Dam Bifurcation to Butte Creek Confluence. Prepared for the Calapooia Watershed Council. Brownsville, Oregon. 78 p. plus appendices. TetraTech. 2008. Sodom Ditch Dam Conversion Project: ATA Work Order Contract #07‐255 Conceptual Design Alternatives Draft Report. Prepared for Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 89 p.