SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
In this slide we need to talk about the different aspects of the assessment tool and what you based the information off of. I think it would be really good to bring in a few of the assessment forms so people can look at them while you are talking about them.
We could get a much more close up map of northern lynn canal. These folks will know the area
In this slide be very specific… what were the results: how many sites? What resources did you use to develop the form… Remind me to bring up the Google Earth– maybe this can be developed once the mitigation sites are under SAWC ownership… Did you produce relational data that shows the potential functional lift at each mitigation site????
Lets have a copy for people to look at
This is the database that they all the data from the assessment forms has been uploaded…
What do you want to tell this group about the sites- maybe you could talk briefly about why this is a green site and touch a bit on the idea that many sites were identified but few would be ready to go… because,….
How is this different from the assessment form? Is this the info being stored in the database or is the assessment form data being stored in the database. These are just some things you could talk about regarding this form… not sure what you were going to say
Mention FINAL RULE. What were you going to say about this… Maybe: we are trying to make this tool user friendly. Therefore we have provided key questions that the assessor can ask if they are out with a technical experty.
Once this site is owned by SAWC we plan to offer this concept up on Google Earth
Instead of using this map lets use the map created of the 8 digit hucs. It is our goal to do this in each of the 8 digit hucs represented on this map– we would like to begin with the areas that are predicted to receive most impact, and continue on prioritizing in this fashion
Mitigation Site Identification in Southeast Alaska.
Potential AquaticResource Mitigation Sites for Southeast Alaska
Goals of Project:1. Develop a tool to support SAWC to identify, rapidly assess and map potential mitigation projects in Southeast Alaska2. Create a database to store mitigation site information and data3. Utilize tool and conduct assessments in the communities of Haines, Skagway and Juneau
Outcomes of Project: Compiled a list of potential mitigation projects Developed and field tested a standardized assessment form and project vignettes Generated a template of a user-friendly map on Google Earth* Completed site assessments and project reports in Skagway, Haines and Juneau Utilized GIS layers to understand potential functions of sites
Ecological Suitability of Restoration SitesEcological Suitability: (refer to 332.2(d) Site Selection of the 2008 Final Rule) a. Hydrological conditions: The west bank of the Skagway River is predominantly gravel beds and a large dike, which is not conducive to riparian or fish habitat productivity. The river is trying to make new channels but cannot based on the location of this dike. b. Watershed scale features: Islands with vegetation increase habitat productivity. Gravel causes less productivity and has a negative impact on the diversity of riparian and fish habitat. The river has created several natural channels but the vegetation needs to be more abundant to support life. c. Size and location in relative to other hydrologic sources: This restoration site is 1500 linear feet along the Skagway River which is nearly ½ mile wide. d. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and watershed management plans: Unknown. e. Foreseeable affects this project with have on aquatic or terrestrial resources: This project would have a very positive impact on both aquatic and terrestrial resources by way of creating natural cover and restoring structural habitat. f. Other habitat relevant factors including, habitat trends, stream impact, habitat corridor for wildlife, habitat for state or federally listed threatened and endangered species, etc.; This section of the river is heavily impacted by the gravel extraction company on the west side, which has transformed the river into a gravel desert which is not amenable to wildlife habitat. g. Other human use relevant factors including, land use changes, development trends, local or regional goals for water quality and floodplain management, relative potential for chemical contamination of the aquatic resources: Gravel extraction company is creating a “desert” effect to the river, where the fish and wildlife do not thrive.
Using Google Earth as a user friendlyway for the public to view mitigation projects
Lessons learned: Best approach to identifying site: Communication with community groups to get local information is key. Asking the right questions:1. What is the history of the site?2. What functions need to be restored?3. What obstacles are involved with potential restoration? Be prepared when going out to site: Have map of site with coordinates, project assessment form (can be partially filled out ahead of time), get permission from property owners prior to site visit and know site features ahead of time.