Pinnacles & Pitfalls of a Large Stream Restoration Project

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Remote, no commercial services at all, zero population other than 1 family in Security Bay

Project Overview Watershed prioritization, document review, stream

habitat surveys, establish reference conditions, field assessments w/restoration specialists Identified 2.5 miles anadromous streams 4 streams in 3 watersheds All sites

• Commercially harvested to the banks prior to 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act

• Lacked future Large Wood (LW) recruitment from floodplain to stream channels

Common restoration needs • Simplified channels, lacked pool habitat & key LW • Bank instability, channel widening

Overview Cont.

~ 4 Years Planning, 2 Years to Implement $1.1 million, 3 contracts Partners

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC) • Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund (AKSSF) • National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) • Petersburg / Wrangell / Kake Resource Allocation

Committee (RAC) • U.S. Forest Service

• Riparian area harvested from 1965-1972 • Stream “cleaning” in sections in 1965

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Tom Richards, 1965

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Norm Johnston, looking for stream, 1965, Saginaw Creek: Tonsgard logger

Presenter

Presentation Notes

“Functional wood debris” is longer than half the channel width and with a diameter greater than half the channel depth.

South Fork Kadake Creek

• Riparian area harvested in 1981 • Lacks pools & key LW • Over-widened channel due to bank erosion • Reach length ~ 0.2 miles

Josie Creek

• Harvested in 1972 • Lacks pools & key LW • Lacks floodplain wood • Martin Creek hand crew instream restoration work

completed – Needs floodplain wood/structure • Reach length ~0.4 miles

(Process), Pitfalls & Pinnacles

Project Design - Process/Potential Pitfall

Site objectives / structure design • Wood requirements

Access / wood stockpiles • Excavators = puncheon trails • Helicopter

Implications for funding (1-year, phased?) Build in flexibility Plan adequate time

NEPA – Process/Potential Pitfall

Begin early, plan adequate time Outreach project to as many stakeholders as

possible • Local native groups – ask about family responsible

for protecting the particular stream • Local government outside normal process • Commercial fishing groups

Contracting – Process/Potential Pitfall

Multiple reviews of contract from knowledgeable sources Market research, be informed Review final document prior to signatures,

and (again) prior to bringing to the job site

Wood Collection

Estimated Wood Used

Stream Name

# Log Stringers

from Bridges

# Young Growth

Rootwads

# Old Growth

Rootwads

Old Growth Cut Logs

Tree Tops / Other

( >50ft) Total

Pieces West Fork Saginaw 47 347 87 143 147 771 Mainstem Saginaw 20 0 60 111 0 191 Josie Creek 0 33 3 0 0 36 Martin Creek 24 0 0 0 0 24 South Fork Kadake 0 0 30 60 20 110

91 380 180 314 167 1,132

Contractor Time – Wood Collection

Contractor Days Worked

# of Employees

# Employee

DaysExcavator - Wood Collection

47 5 235

Excavator - Instream

46 6 276

Helicopter - Instream 6 15 90

Total 99 26 601

Identify & Paint Trees

Pinnacle • Fun, hone forestry skills

Potential Pitfall • Time consuming

• ~1 month identify & paint • 1.5 months collect & stockpile

• Wood collection can be contentious

Improvise, Adapt, Overcome

Instream Work

Helicopter or Excavator

Tradeoffs…..

Tasks

Helicopter • Decking / transport • Floodplain placements • Build structures

Excavator • All of the above • Puncheon trails

Helicopter Efficient

• Helicopter = 33.4 hours; Excavator = 1,055 hours Access difficult terrain Smaller environmental “footprint” Expensive

• Mobilization = $145K; Hourly = ~$8,500 / hour Not as precise Smaller logs (up to 10K lbs) Intense

Excavator

Still Expensive • Mobilization = $121K • Total Cost Instream = $512K; Helicopter = $410K

Work progress is slower Larger environmental “footprint” Can manipulate larger trees Allows precision wood placement Allows trenching

• Fewer pieces of wood needed • Better floodplain protection / structure at varying

elevations

Building Structures Pinnacle – but has the potential….

Hire experienced restoration specialists Art to the science Maintain flexibility

Logistics – Process/Potential Pitfall

• Flights • Fish timing windows • BMP monitoring • Other contracts / contractors • Personnel (duties, replacements) • Food in camp • COR duties • Vehicles / fuel / equipment / housing, etc.

Paperwork & Meetings - Process….

• Restoration plans • NEPA documents • Grant proposals • Budget proposals • Permit applications • Job Hazard Analysis • Contracts (3) • Reporting (Grants & Agreements) • Meetings (Open houses, govt./public/councils, budget,

partners, intra and interagency) • Miscellaneous requests….

Show Me Trips – Process….

Potential Pitfalls Insufficient attention to project design Vague contract language Procrastination – NEPA, permitting, etc. Poor communication

• NEPA, contractors / operators / other CORs Insufficient attention to logistics Propensity to panic

• Equipment breaks down, untimely bridge replacements, water in camp fuel, interesting living conditions

Time Away from Home – Personal Pitfall

“Where’s Papa?” – Gabriele (6) “Papa who?!” – Elijah (8) 37 of 40 consecutive days working remotely

Pinnacles Parts come together (NEPA, partners/funding,

contracts, logistics, etc.) Willing partners / great support Completing the first structure Gaining experience / OJT training Being the puzzle-master Camaraderie Satisfying – immediate improvement, long-lasting

benefits Completing the job

E. Castro - photo

THE Pinnacle

Final Words of Advice

Focus effort on project design • Implications for NEPA, project funding/partners,

contracts

Begin NEPA & permitting process early Write a great RFP/RFB & Contract(s)

• Spend adequate time doing market research

Commit, lean forward, be flexible

It takes a village - Pinnacle

Partners (TNC, AKSSF, NFWF, Petersburg / Wrangell / Kake RAC)

Fellow puzzle-masters (USFS Casey Baldwin, Greg Robertson, Marty Becker, Sean Claffey, Eric Castro)

Large support apparatus (Heidi Lombard, Tongass aquatics staff, resource specialists, G&A, many others)

Quality contractors

My Favorite Project-Related Quotes “How much money have you got?” - Casey, the further he walked downstream during project design “These items should be considered fatal flaws.” - Contract reviewer on the eve of release “Bummer….” - Contract CO after hearing explanation of how our contract seemed to be missing the 5 most critical pages. “I think we just pumped 11 gallons of water into this rig!” - Castro after rig dies

Favorite Quotes Cont.

“We caught 7 more last night!” - Castro referring to the # of additional mice caught in our garage “bunkhouse” “Expect an eviction notice any day now.” - USFS engineer following “bunkhouse” facilities inspection “Welcome to the Kuiu Island Resort & Spa!” - Common refrain said in jest

Favorite Quotes Cont. “The helicopter has a crack in the fuselage. So that’s on the back-burner…..” - Casey “One of our (2) refrigerators died today.” - Castro “Uh-oh……” - Greg, when told at 5:30AM on a Sunday morning our camp generator just died (no refrigerator = food spoils = people hangry)

Favorite Quotes Cont. “Shawn can’t find his dog and thinks a bear may have eaten it…..” - Operator explaining why Shawn is upset “Can you hear me now!?” - Common refrain due to poor radios “No problem.” - Contractor when told to bring his spill prevention kit because we’d be working in the stream today (he didn’t have one).