Community-Based Watershed Management and Wetland Mitigation Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition alaskawatershedcoalition.org Community Training October 17, 2011

1. Community Based
Wetland Mitigation and
Watershed Planning
Nolan Center, 10/17/11

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. Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition
(SAWC)
• Focuses on the watershed
We 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. Why Community-Based Watershed
Management?
— 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. How SAWC Supports CBWM in SEAK
— Sharing knowledge
and resources
— Building economies of
scale
— Building a regional
voice for Community
Based Watershed
Management

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. Mitigation is Defined as:
— The act of
restoring,
enhancing,
creating,
stewarding/
preserving
prioritized and/or
critical habitat in
a watershed.

8. Compensatory Mitigation-2008
Federal 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. 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. SAWC’S Role in Locally Based Wetland
Planning and Management
Coordinating 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. SAWC’S Role in Locally Based Wetland
Planning 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. Who/What Benefits from Wetland Mitigation
Management and Programs
Community 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. Who/What benefits from wetland mitigation
management and programs
Watersheds
— Sustainable development:
strategically planned
development
— Conservation and
restoration
— Water quality
— Water quantity
— Subsistence resources

14. Questions or
Comments?

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. 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. Juneau’s Community Based Wetland
Mitigation 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. 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. 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. First Steps
— Identified Goals and — Assembled an Advisory
Objectives Group
— Key Stakeholders — Hosted meeting, - GIS
maps, Outline, Past
— Project Scope Research
— Baseline Maps

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. Components of a Watershed Assessment
Watershed Delineation Hydrology/ Hydrological
and Description Function
— Land Ownership — Contributing Water
Sources
— Land Use Planning
— Rivers, Stream, Tribs,
Lakes, Wetlands

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. 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. 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. Community Involvement
Neighborhood Survey
— Activities (Use), Values, Concerns, Suggestions
for Change
Community Meeting
— Feedback on draft plan and maps
— Concerns, Uses (Past and Present), Values

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. 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. Documenting and Prioritizing Potential
Restoration and Enhancement Projects
— Geographic Footprint
— Identifying Problems by
Watershed
— Landownership
— Land Use Designations
— Impacted/ Impaired Function
— Expected Outcomes
— Recommended Action

30. Documenting and Prioritizing Potential
Restoration and Enhancement Projects
— Agency, Landowner,
Stakeholder, Tribal Entity,
and Native Corporation
Collaboration Opportunities
— Constraints/ Complications
— Budgets
— Permits
— Potential Partners

31. Questions or
Comments?
alaskawatershedcoalition.org Thank you!