Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Community Based Wetland and Watershed Management


Published on

Community-Based Watershed Management and Wetland Mitigation

Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition
Community Training
October 17, 2011

Published in: Technology
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Community Based Wetland and Watershed Management

  1. 1. Community BasedWetland Mitigation and Watershed Planning Nolan Center, 10/17/11
  2. 2. Objectives—  Introduce the Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition and what we do—  Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources- 2008 Final Rule—  Our work to support Wetland Management on the local level—  Watershed Assessments and Planning for Mitigation
  3. 3. Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition(SAWC) •  Focuses on the watershedWe advocate on the local, state and •  Uses science, local federal level for knowledge and research Community-based to inform decision-making Watershed •  Emphasizes collaborative Management problem solving, and (CBWM) •  Local citizens, institutions and organizations are the primary stakeholders
  4. 4. Why Community-Based WatershedManagement? —  The health of our communities and economies depend on the health of our watersheds. —  The concerns of the community and the benefits derived from the opportunities within our watersheds should be central to natural resources and land management planning and decision making.
  5. 5. How SAWC Supports CBWM in SEAK—  Sharing knowledge and resources—  Building economies of scale—  Building a regional voice for Community Based Watershed Management
  6. 6. Why is wetland mitigation management on the local, state and federal level important to us?—  Watershed practitioners on the local level are mitigators.—  The majority of the projects these groups develop and carry-out support the development of community-based mitigation priorities and/or are forms of mitigation
  7. 7. Mitigation is Defined as: — The act of restoring, enhancing, creating, stewarding/ preserving prioritized and/or critical habitat in a watershed.
  8. 8. Compensatory Mitigation-2008Federal Rule— Mitigation projects were not achieving functional lift of habitat and the nation was failing to reach its goal of “no net loss”— State to state and within states there were vast discrepancies in how wetland mitigation was being carried out
  9. 9. What is the Intention of the New Rule? —  Provided a standard “outlined” process for federal, state and local agencies to utilize in developing management strategies for wetland mitigation —  Use of best available science —  Predictability and efficient —  Improves the planning, implementation and management of compensatory mitigation projects —  Clarifies the Watershed Approach
  10. 10. SAWC’S Role in Locally Based WetlandPlanning and ManagementCoordinating trainings on wetland mitigation processes for community professionals: —  Wetland delineations —  Watershed Planning—  Developing a third-party mitigation program —  Mitigation Banks —  In-lieu Fee Programs —  Ad hoc
  11. 11. SAWC’S Role in Locally Based WetlandPlanning and Management—  Working with communities to identify mitigation opportunities —  Mitigation Programs —  Mitigation Projects—  Working with state and federal agencies to shape policy strategies that respond to the unique characteristics of SE communities
  12. 12. Who/What Benefits from Wetland MitigationManagement and ProgramsCommunity Economy —  Jobs—  Developers —  Less money, resources, time wasted—  Landowners   during permitting and constructing —  Improve recreational/tourist sites—  Local citizens   —   Mitigate important habitat for—  Local governments   commercial species —   Flood prevention—  Tribes   —  Water quality—  Subsistence users  —    Subsistence
  13. 13. Who/What benefits from wetland mitigationmanagement and programsWatersheds—  Sustainable development: strategically planned development—  Conservation and restoration  —  Water quality—  Water quantity  —  Subsistence resources 
  14. 14. Questions or Comments?
  15. 15. Juneau Watershed Partnership—  Formed in 1998, local citizen and agency stakeholder group—  Non-profit organization that works to promote sustainable use and community stewardship of Juneau’s watersheds—  Raised over $1 million in grant and individual donations since 1998
  16. 16. Objectives—  Community Based Wetland Mitigation and Watershed Planning in Juneau—  Benefits of Community Based Watershed Planning—  Case Study: Auke Lake Watershed Assessment—  Identifying and Prioritizing Restoration and Enhancement Activities for Mitigation
  17. 17. Juneau’s Community Based WetlandMitigation and Watershed Management—  Watershed Assessments and Management Plans—  Community Events and Community Meetings—  Support Local Restoration, Enhancement and Mitigation Trainings—  Evaluating Past Restoration, Enhancement and Mitigation Projects (REM Report)—  Prioritizing and Digitizing Restoration, Enhancement and Mitigation Opportunities. (REM Part 2)—  Partnering with SAWC on regional efforts
  18. 18. Benefits of Watershed Assessments—  Engaging Community/ Stakeholders Proactively—  Participation and Collaboration—  Ecological/ Landscape Approach—  Baseline “Snapshot of Time” = Documenting Existing Conditions—  Framework for grant opportunities, planning priorities, mitigation
  19. 19. Case Study- Auke Lake—  Identified Problem—  Recommendations for Sustainable Use and Development, Restoration and Enhancement—  Agency, Landowners and Community Collaboration—  Compile Existing Data to Inform Development
  20. 20. First Steps—  Identified Goals and —  Assembled an Advisory Objectives Group—  Key Stakeholders —  Hosted meeting, - GIS maps, Outline, Past—  Project Scope Research—  Baseline Maps
  21. 21. Project Partners—  Municipalities —  Non-Profits—  US Forest Service —  University of Alaska—  AK Fish and Game —  Wetland Review—  AK DEC Board—  NRCS —  User Groups—  Tribal Governments —  Neighbors
  22. 22. Components of a Watershed AssessmentWatershed Delineation Hydrology/ Hydrological and Description Function—  Land Ownership —  Contributing Water Sources—  Land Use Planning —  Rivers, Stream, Tribs, Lakes, Wetlands
  23. 23. Components of a Watershed Assessment (Cont.)Water Quality Landforms/ Geology Habitat Conditions—  Water Use Designations —  Channel Alterations—  Water Rights —  Bank/Riparian Disturbances—  Known Pollutants- Point Source —  Fish Passage—  Other Pollutants- Non-Point Source
  24. 24. Components of a Watershed Assessment(Cont.)Fish and Fish Habitat Geology, Plants, Wildlife—  Species Present —  Invasive Plants—  Seasonal Distribution —  Wildlife Corridors and—  Studies, Counts, Habitat Hatchery Stocking
  25. 25. Components of a Watershed Assessment(Cont.)Cultural, Historical and Management, Recovery, Current Human Use Stewardship—  Land Use/ —  Goals and Action Development Items—  Recreational/ —  Restoration, Commercial Use Enhancement
  26. 26. Community InvolvementNeighborhood Survey—  Activities (Use), Values, Concerns, Suggestions for ChangeCommunity Meeting—  Feedback on draft plan and maps—  Concerns, Uses (Past and Present), Values
  27. 27. Project Outcomes—  Distributed to municipality, local agencies, community groups—  Posted online on our Electronic Watershed Resource Library—  Auke Lake Action Plan—  Mitigation Planning
  28. 28. Other Forms of Watershed Plans—  Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)—  Watershed Assessments—  Watershed Management Plans—  Watershed Conservation Plans—  Watershed Action Plans—  Wetland Function and Values Analysis—  Comprehensive Plans
  29. 29. Documenting and Prioritizing PotentialRestoration and Enhancement Projects—  Geographic Footprint—  Identifying Problems by Watershed—  Landownership—  Land Use Designations—  Impacted/ Impaired Function—  Expected Outcomes—  Recommended Action
  30. 30. Documenting and Prioritizing PotentialRestoration and Enhancement Projects—  Agency, Landowner, Stakeholder, Tribal Entity, and Native Corporation Collaboration Opportunities—  Constraints/ Complications—  Budgets—  Permits—  Potential Partners
  31. 31. Questions or Comments? Thank you!