- The reason we called this meeting is because of the work we do and because after being invited by the ACE to develop a develop an In-Lieu Fee program partnered with the FWs to facilitateI will elaborate on these before I hand the rest of the day over to the panelist-
I am directed by the directors of community-based watershed efforts in Juneau, Skagway, Haines and Yakutat. For the past three years SAWC has been acting as a formal coalition in SE- support the capacity of SE communities watershed management efforts
Use flip charts
Community based groups partner locally regionally and nationally to restore, enhance, preserve prioritized and critical habitat
June 2010- working with the CorpsJuly 2011- develop a draft proscpectus
Over the past year and half I have been researching this topic. I have read the pre-emble I have talked personnaly with many of you in this room:What does the rule sayWhat does alaska say: agencies are delgated by congress to create managemnetstartegies under environmental laws3. Examples of programs running in the state-4. Aggregated information on restoration in SE
I have based the following information off of:Interviews with agency staffResearch of wetland mitigation management in AKStudying third party mitigation programs and management in other states in the country: NH, OR, WA, MOCountless community phone callsTrainings on wetland delineations, wetland mitigation and watershed planning
Once I realized that there is very litle info in state I began calling people out of stateI am a firm believer in not re-inventing the wheel
Wetland MItigation by Jessica Kayser
Southeast Alaska Region Scoping Discussion Wetland Mitigation: Policies, Frameworks and OpportunitiesWe inspire SE Alaskan’s and support community organizations working towards the wise management of our watersheds
Thank you to our partners The United States Fish and Wildlife Service The National Forest Foundation Heidi Firstencel from the Army Corps of Engineers, Matthew Lacroix with the Environmental Protection Agency, David D’Amore from the Forest Service and Neil Stichert with the Fish and Wildlife ServiceAlso to Michael Murphy, Francis Naglich and Steve Sego for making the trip north to share your perspectives and insights.
Introductions Why you are here and why wetland mitigation is important to SAWC Objectives of today’s meeting
NameAffiliation and FocusWhy this topic is important
Southeast Alaska Watershed CoalitionWe inspire Southeast Alaskan’s and support communityorganizations working towards the wise management of our watersheds
GoalSE Alaska is a place where a network of community-basedwatershed efforts is achieving informed management of the resources
How we support community-based watershed management efforts(CBWM)• SAWC provides resources and trainings to SE communities ✔Community-based watershed management and ✔Watershed planning• SAWC works to promote policies, management strategies and collaboration that build the capacity of community-based watershed management efforts.
Why Community-Based Watershed Management? The health of our communities and economies depend on the health of our watersheds. Central to natural resources and land management should be the concerns and priorities of the community impacted.
Why are we here? wetland mitigation is important to us We are watershed mitigation practitioners on the local level. Wetland development, mitigation and management decisions impact the health of our communities, economies and watersheds.
SAWC’s Wetland Mitigation Initiative Is a long term opportunity to provide SE communities with monies to carry out mitigation projects And A direct and pro-active response to community frustration in regards to the inconsistencies and misunderstanding around the 2008 Final Rule
In-Lieu Fee Program 1. Restoration, Enhancement, Creation Focus 2. Watershed Approach that works to prioritize the projects identified by community-based watershed management plans 3. Stewarded by community over the long term 4. Builds Economy of Scale
The Final Rule on Compensatory Mitigation: losses for aquatic habitat Final Rule Alaska Provides a standard - Few to no developed “outlined” process for strategies for wetland federal, state and local mitigation agencies to utilize in developing management - Is working to, but has not strategies for wetland yet compiled the best mitigation available science and organized it in the context Ensures the use of best of mitigation available science - Because of the above the process varies from Predictable and efficient applicant to applicant
Federal Rule Alaska Improves the Has no “example” to planning, implementat shape “best practices” ion and management in the Alaska context of compensatory for mitigation projects mitigation projects Clarifies the Lacks watershed Watershed Approach assessments and plans
Objectives Build Awareness of the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 2008 Final Rule Share information and resources that can contribute to the development of effective wetland mitigation management strategies on the federal, state and local levels.
Objectives cont. Identify resources available and resources needed to support the third-party mitigation in SE Alaska Encourage collaboration and strategic partnerships to advance credible wetland mitigation projects in SE Alaska