Restoration and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitats in Alaska

308 Pages·2012·22.7 MB·English

Restoration and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitats in Alaska:
Case Study Reports, Policy Guidance, and Recommendations
By
Betsy L. Parry and Glenn A. Seaman
Technical Report No. 94-3
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Habitat and Restoration Division
I I
~......~
Copies ofthis publicationmay be obtained from the Habitatand Restoration Division, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK, 99518-1599.
Sample Citation:
Parry, B. L. and G. A. Seaman. 1994. Restorationand Enhancement of Aquatic Habitats in Alaska: Case Study
Reports, Policy Guidance, and Recommendations. Technical Report No. 94-3. Alaska Department ofFish and
Game, Habitatand Restoration Division, Anchorage.
This project was funded by a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
NOAA or any ofits sub-agencies.
The Alaska Department of Fishand Game administers all programs and activities free from discriminationon the
basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. For
information on alternative formats available for this and other department publications, contact the department
A.D.A. Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, or (TDD) 907-465-3646. Any person who believes he or she has
been discriminatedagainst should write to: ADF&G, P.O. Box25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526;or O.E.O., U.S.
Department ofthe Interior, WashingtonD.C., 20240.
The Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, has published this document to
promote wise management of Alaska's coastal resources. This document was printed in Anchorage, Alaska,
with Section 309 Enhancement Grant Funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at a
cost of$16.30 per copy.
J
Restoration and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitats in Alaska:
Case Study Reports, Policy Guidance, and Recommendations
By
Betsy L. Parry and Glenn A. Seaman
Technical Report No. 94-3
Frank Rue
Director
Habitat and Restoration Division
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
July 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List ofTables 111
List of Figures . . . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Acronyms Commonly Used in this Report iv
Acknowledgements VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
CHAPTER 2. CASE STUDIES 2-1
A) Introduction and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
B) Summary of Findings on Restoration/Enhancement in Alaska . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
C) Individual Case Study Reports 2-21
1. Independence Creek Revegetation 2-21
2. Creamer's Field Waterfowl Enhancement 2-26
3. Trapper Creek Step Pools 2-31
4. North Eagle River Interchange 2-35
5. Coastal Trail Mitigation Project 2-41
6. Westchester Lagoon Offsite Mitigation 2-46
7. Fish Creek Coastal Wetland Restoration 2-51
8. Campbell Lake Sedge Wetlands 2-54
9. Bayshore Ponds & Berms 2-57
10. Folker Street Small Tree Revetments 2-61
11. Abbott Loop School Creek Realignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-65
12. Rabbit Creek Fish Pass 2-72
13. Potter Marsh Road Removal 2-75
14. Resurrection Creek Habitat Restoration 2-78
15. Kenai Wilderness Lodge Bank Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-84
16. Bradley Lake Waterfowl Mitigation Area 2-88
17. Martin River Delta Fish Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-91
18. Box Canyon Creek Rearing Ponds 2-94
19. Fourth of July Creek Spawning Channel 2-98
20. Mile 25 Spawning Channel 2-101
21. Herman Creek Spawning Channel 2-105
22. Haines Airport Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-109
23. Juneau Airport Taxiway 2-116
D) Photo Plates following page 2-120
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER 3. POLICY GUIDANCE 3-1
A) Status of Compensatory Mitigation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
B) Applications to Coastal District Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6
C) Examples from Alaskan District Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
D) Incremental Steps for Districts to Pursue 3-23
CHAPTER 4. PROCESS-RELATED ISSUES 4-1
CHAPTER 5. REFERENCES CIT~D 5-1
APPENDIX A: Alaskan Aquatic Habitat Restoration & Enhancement Slide Show . . .. A-I
APPENDIX B: Background Information on the Effectiveness of Mitigation
Programs B-1
1) Summary Points from Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-1
2) Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-6
APPENDIX C: Examples of Post-Construction Reports: the Box Canyon
Creek Rearing Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-l
APPENDIX D: Oregon Draft Administrative Rules for Freshwater Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-l
APPENDIX E: Information on Developing a Local or Regional Wetlands
Management Plan .............................:... E-l
APPENDIX F: Examples of Special Permit Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F-l
APPENDIX G: List of Feedback Workshops and Attendees G-I
APPENDIX H: Possible Required Permits for Aquatic Habitat Restoration or Enhancement
Activities on Private, Municipal, or State-Owned Property H-I
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Case Study Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Case Study Projects 2-6
Figure 2. Planting method for dormant willow cuttings, Independence
Creek bank stabilization project 2-23
Figure 3. Creamer's Field waterfowl enhancement project 2-27
Figure 4. Construction diagrams of log weir step pool structures,
Parks Highway 2-33
Figure 5. North Eagle River highway interchange, showing the realigned
routes of Carol Creek and Fire Creek 2-37
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of small tree revetments on Campbell Creek . . . . . . 2-62
Figure 7. Previous and realigned routes of Little Campbell Creek
near Abbott Loop School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-67
Figure 8. Overall diagram of the Haines Airport mitigation
project components 2-111
OTHER EXHffiITS
Checklist A. Minimum Plan Components for an Aquatic Habitat
Mitigation Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . , . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Checklist B. Model Process to Ensure a Sound Aquatic Habitat Mitigation Project ... 3-16
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS COMMONLY USED IN THIS REPORT
ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game
ADOT/PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
AEA Alaska Energy Authority (nowa sub-agency withinAIDEA, the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority)
AWWU Anchorage Water and Wastewater Facility
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CBJ City and Borough of Juneau
CRSA Coastal Resources Service Area
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
DGC Division ofGovernmental Coordination, Office of the Governor, State of Alaska
DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MOA Commonly used for "Memorandum of Agreement" but in Alaska, MOA also
refers to the "Municipality of Anchorage"
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
tration
NSRAA Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (based in Sitka, AK)
OHW Ordinary High Water.
IV
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
PMC Plant Materials Center, a research facility within the Division of Agriculture,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
SAMP Special Areas Management Plan
USFS u.S. Forest Service
WMP Wetlands Management Plan
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was financed through the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) which is
funded by the State of Alaska and the Office of Oceans and Coastal Resource Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Specific
federal funding for this project was disbursed to the State of Alaska under Section 309 of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
During the second (and final) year of this project many interagency contacts assisted with case
study site visits and background investigations. These contacts arranged for and accompanied
project staff on field visits to the site, provided background details, and reviewed the accuracy
and thoroughness of the draft case history reports. Representatives from the following agencies
participated in thereview ofthe case study descriptions: the National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. ForestService, U.S. BureauofLandManagement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (three divisions), Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, theAlaska Energy Authority, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Plant Materials Center, the Municipality of Anchorage (three divisions-Parks, Planning, and
Public Works), the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, HDR Engineering (a
private consulting firm), and one independent contractor. Additionalinformation suchas maps,
photos, etc., were obtained from office files of agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Special thanks to Duane Peterson, Kevin Brownlee, Ron Josephson, Steve
Reifenstuhl, Phil Brna, Don McKay, Mark Wenger, and Ken Hodges for extra assistance with
case study investigations.
Our restoration guidance materials and project recommendations were developed in conjunction
with a series of feedback workshops in which various state, local, and federal agency
representatives and coastal management staff participated (see Appendix G). Additional
perspectives on Alaskan policy or procedures were obtained by contacting government
representatives directly, including Don McKay, Dennis Gnath, Carol Sanner, Van Sundberg, K
Koski, Kerry Howard, Fay Heitz, Jan Caulfield, Linda Freed, and Sam Dunaway. Late in the
project, important topical materials were also provided by Ken Bierly, Michael Scuderi, and
Steve Gordon from the states of Oregon and Washington.
Stafffrom within ADF&G's Habitat and Restoration Division also assisted in various phases of
the project. Mark Fink and Betsy McCracken participated in visits to case study locations.
Betsy McCracken also searched archived files for materials relevant to the case study projects.
For the production of this final report, Celia Rozenassisted with thetwo reference lists, Frances
Inoue and Carol Barnhill helped with figures and photo plates, and Susan Peyer re-formatted the
individual case study reports in Chapter 2.
VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The protection, restoration, and enhancement of our nation's coastal habitat resources is a
national objective of the Section 309 Enhancement Grant Program developed under the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA). For the past two years, the Habitat and Restoration Division
of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has received funding to 1) assess the
extent and status ofaquatic habitat restoration and enhancement work in Alaska, and 2) develop
guidelines and policy recommendations which will assure moreeffective and efficient restoration
and enhancement activities in the future. These activities are a policy issue because the
mitigation sequence adopted by EPA, other regulatory agencies, and Alaskan coastal districts
may at times require such actions to permit the discharge of fill into wetlands.
This technical report presents the results of the second and final year of the two-year grant
study. Our primary aim is to inform the local coastal district planners throughout the stateabout
the strengths and limitations ofrestoration and enhancement techniques in Alaska and the related
policy issues. In this report the term "coastal districts" refers to local governments recognized
under the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), which includes coastal cities,
boroughs, or designations known as Coastal Resource Service Areas in the absence of other
recognized jurisdictions. In addition to coastal district planners, this report will also benefit
those directly involved in restoration and enhancement projects in Alaska (e.g., regulatory
agency staff, related industries, researchers and other practitioners of restoration and
enhancement techniques) by presenting a synthesis of the information known on the topic in
Alaska at this time.
The first year of the grant project involved the systematic compilation of all available
information on aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement attempts within the state. This
research produced a database inventorying and describing all known projects in Alaska, sorted
by activity types and geographic areas (technical report no. 93-8). During the second year, a
select number of these restoration and enhancement projects were further developed as case
histories. The purpose was to provide a closer look at the types ofprojects ofhigh current and
future interest for the state, evaluate their effectiveness, and record the lessons learned from
these attempts. Twenty-threecase study projects were documented and analyzed using historical
records, personal interviews, and sitevisits. The resulting case history reports (presented in this
document) portray the track record of different types of restoration and enhancement work in
the state.
Based on the Alaskan case study experiences and the points emphasized by professionals during
project meetings, different typesofrestoration and enhancement activities were summarized into
practical reference categories as requested by coastal district representatives. Project typeswere
categorized according to their level ofrisk (interms ofpotential for project success), the amount
of required maintenance, and relative levels of expense.
Numerous recurring themes surfaced during our case study investigations which were not
specific to anyone type of restoration or enhancement project. These themes (e.g., common
pitfalls, recommendations for more effective approaches) echoed the frustrations commonly
Vll