1.
Steps to Develop
Watershed
Restoration and
Enhancement
Projects
Neil Stichert
Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office

2.
Presentation Goal and Objectives
Goal
– Offer basic information to ‘community based’
stakeholders interested in habitat enhancement
and restoration on non-federal lands in SE
Alaska.
Objectives
-Definitions
-Process
-Project Case Study
- Resources and Partners

3.
Principle: Definitions are important
Ecological Restoration
Merriam’s Dictionary- Practitioner’s Dictionary
Res.to.ra.tion <n>:
1. something that is restored;
a representation or
reconstruction of the original
form.
11.an act of restoring or the
condition of being restored.
13.The re-establishment of
the Charles II monarchy in
England in 1660.
http://www.ser.org/reading_resour
ces.asp

4.
Principle: Definitions are important
• Rehabilitation: Replacing or restructuring a degraded
ecosystem or habitat type with another productive type
• Partial Restoration (Enhancement): Restoring some
ecosystem function and some of the original, dominant
species.
• Complete Restoration: Restoring full ecological and
physical function as well as the original species
abundance and community composition.

5.
Principle: Definitions are important
• Mitigation:
A regulatory requirement to replace or enhance on-site
or off-site wetland areas destroyed or impacted by
proposed land disturbances with created or restored
wetlands.
May also involve: Avoidance of impacts
Minimization of impacts
Compensation for impacts
• Habitat Protection: The practice of acquiring real
property or protecting habitat through legal instruments
for the purpose of maintaining or restoring biodiversity.

6.
Process: Idealized restoration project pathway
• Initial Problem Recognition
• Inventory (where are the problems?)
• Assessment (what is the condition?)
• Prioritization (which should we remedy first?)
• Planning (all successful projects have a plan)
• Survey and Design (sites are specific, and design requires input)
• Permitting (structured exchange of information)
• Implementation (construction skill and detail are important)
• Inspection (is it being built per the plan?)
• Project evaluation (did we achieve the desired outcome?)
• Maintenance / Adaptive Management (it’s hard to get it just right
…or conditions change)

7.
Process: realistic restoration project pathway
1. Initial Problem Recognition • Each of the these elements are
2. Funding Procurement measured in months to years.
– Inventory
– Assessment • Almost all require interdisciplinary
– Prioritization technical skills.
– Planning
•Most elements require fiscal
3. Funding Procurement
management skills for contractual
– Survey and Design
services.
– Permitting
- Implementation • Most funders are focused on
– Inspection implementation .
4. Funding Procurement
– Project evaluation • Monitoring and evaluation rarely
– Maintenance /Management completed.

8.
Process: a useful restoration project
development guide
1. Identify the project site location and
its boundaries
3. Identify the need for ecological
restoration
5. Identify restoration goals...
21. Document the site history the led to
the need for restoration...
23. Establish the ‘reference’ system…
35. Acknowledge the role of passive
restoration…
51. Publicize and prepare written account
of project http://www.ser.org/content/guideli
nes_ecological_restoration.asp

9.
Resources: Inventory, Assessment, Plans
•Anadromous Waters Catalog-
recent updates in Juneau, Haines,
Sitka, Yakutat
•Fish Passage Assessments
•Existing- TNF, DNR,
Corporation lands
•Ongoing- ADOT road system
•Tongass National Forest Watershed
Restoration Plans
•Municipal Wetland Management
Plans
•Watershed Council products in
Yakutat, Haines, Skagway, Juneau,
Klawock, Kasaan

10.
Resources: Inventory, Assessment, Plans…
What can they help you discern?
Wetlands
Land ownership
Fish Habitat/ Channel Type
Culvert locations and barriers

11.
Resources: Inventory, Assessment, Plans

12.
Other resources- geospatial information
• State Digital Archives-
reference conditions
(http://vilda.alaska.edu/)
• SE Alaska GIS Library
(http://seakgis.alaska.edu/)
• Statewide Digital
Mapping Initiative
(SDMI)
(http://www.alaskamapped.org/)

13.
Other resources- people
• State, federal, NGO,
and tribal staff
• SE AK Fish Habitat
Partnership
• Public works directors,
engineers, planners
maintenance staff
• Landowners &
community committees

14.
Case Study- Sawmill Creek, Haines
Stream channel relocation
and culvert removal.
- Background
- Design
- Implementation
- Monitoring

15.
Case Study- Sawmill Creek Haines, AK
• Goal
– Increase aquatic habitat area, complexity, and
connectivity for cutthroat trout and coho
salmon.
• Objectives:
– Replicate pattern, profile, and pool-riffle
sequence of upstream ‘reference reach’.
– Increase spawning area and availability.
– Bypass one culvert and remove another.
– Encourage community involvement in stream
stewardship.

16.
Sawmill Creek Background
West Fork Sawmill Creek • Stream routed to ditch along road.
Site used for goat pasture.
CT
• Channel bisected by culverts, some of
which affect fish passage.
• Listed as an Impaired Waterbody by
DEC in 1996 due to sediment.
• ADFG conducts periodic foot surveys,
so some fish use information known
CO, DV, CT
• CT, CO, DV, spawn and rear
downstream
• CT only isolated above culvert

17.
Case Study - Sawmill Creek, Haines, AK
Development Phase
• Investigate background information
• Form interdisciplinary project team
• Coordinate funding and community support
• Conduct survey and design
• Conduct hydrologic analyses

18.
Case Study - Sawmill Creek, Haines, AK
Project Team
• USFWS and ADFG
– Project coordination
• Design Consultants
– Survey, design, hydrology, and layout
• Takshanuk Watershed Council
– Community liaison and outreach/education
• Construction contractors/Americorps
– Excavation, materials, and labor

19.
Design Phase
Elements of a stream relocation
design are shared with other
conventional development
projects:
•Purpose and Need
•‘User’ type
•Capacity
•Slope
•Conveyance of surface water
•Land and construction cost
•Constructability
•Surface/substrate material
•Planting plan

20.
Principle: importance of design
When basic elements of a
stream relocation plan and
design are omitted, it often
results in:
•Simplification of habitat
complexity
•Reduced species diversity
•Reduced species density
•Non-attainment of
restoration or mitigation
objective

21.
Site Survey and Design- Sawmill Cr.
• Topographic survey, cross sections, reference reach
• Longitudinal stream profile
• Habitat unit details
• Design report
• Order of operations

22.
Implementation Phase
• Staking and
excavation
• Culvert removal
• Substrate and LWD
placement
• Flow introduction
• Fish rescue
• Site maintenance

23.
Field interpretation
and design layout

24.
Equipment workpad minimized
riparian disturbance
Pools and riffles rough shaped

25.
Culvert , fill prism removed and
channel re-shaped

26.
Americorps hand-placed
streambed gravels

27.
Design provided
guidance
Grade controls defined
pool depth and shape

28.
Finished Pool-Riffle
sequence and…
Community assisted with fish rescue
opened new channel to
in abandoned channel
flow…

29.
Former ditch/creek Final reach re-alignment

30.
Project Outcomes
• Increased reach-scale habitat diversity (small pools) and
connectivity (removed/bypassed barriers).
• Decreased potential for lateral roadside sediment input.
• Increased community linkages.
– Borough-Agencies-Public-Watershed Council
• Created initiative to purchase project site for stream
protection and student education.
• Encouraged ADOT replacement of upstream culvert barrier

31.
Project Monitoring
• Seasonal fish trapping
– Roughly gauged fish use and re-colonization
• BMI sampling
– Gave insight into benthic macro-invertebrate
colonization of streambed.
• Photopoints
– Documents site recovery and stream channel
migration.

32.
Principle: Restoration projects cost a lot more
than you think (not including project management costs)
Stream simulation culvert
replacement
= $60,000-$100,000
(no utility conflicts or pavement)
Wetland enhancement
= $20,000-$60,000 acre
(+ land and/or easement cost)
Removal of infrastructure
from acquired lands
= $20,000-$30,000
(+ appraisal and
contaminants abatement cost)
Invasive Plant Control
= Annual $ Cost x Years Viability of Seed Bank

33.
Principle: Restoration projects generally
take more time than you think
2000 post construction
2006 “IPR”
2009 wetland maturation
2009 ‘AFTER’

34.
Limiting Factors Governing
Partnerships and Restoration Projects
• Issue/problem recognition
• Agency priority/jurisdiction
• “Not my job…”
• Staff availability and attrition
• Money/Match

35.
Resources-
Federal- State-
• USFWS- Habitat • ACWA Program
Restoration Program, • ADFG AKSSF Program
Tribal Wildlife • DNR CIAP Program
Program
• NOAA –Restoration NGO-
Center
• National Forest
• USFS- RAC Program Foundation
• NRCS- WHIP/EQIP • National Fish and
• EPA- multiple Wildlife Foundation
programs
• Trout Unlimited