1. JWMP Update Draft Report Bosworth Botanical Consulting Team

2. INTRODUCTIONS Koren Bosworth Bosworth Botanical Consulting Project Manager Paul Adamus Adamus Resource Assessment Francis Naglich Ecological Land Services Teri Camery CBJ Staff

3. Purposes In selected areas chosen by the CBJ : 1. Map areas that are not wetland -- areas where construction could proceed without permit from Federal government. 2. Where wetlands are found, determine which are the least important – ones where getting a permit may be easier and require less compensation.

4. Perception Problem: Many Juneau areas don’t LOOK like wetlands

5. Key Facts: Construction in wetlands is not forbidden absolutely, but for the past 40 years most has required a Federal permit. Federal procedures for determining what is or is not a wetland has existed for almost 30 years and has withstood legal and scientific challenge. The fact that a city has few growth options other than building in wetlands does not guarantee leniency. The permitting agency (US Army Corps of Engineers) encourages regional and watershed-scale approaches to wetlands planning (Federal Rule 332.1.e). This study implemented such an approach.

6. By providing accurate wetland maps and science-based ratings as a public service, this grant to the CBJ has the potential to: reduce cost & time delays to developers increase certainty in the permitting process promote fairer & more consistent planning decisions minimize environmental damages from wetland loss

7. The parts of Juneau we were asked to survey. Public lands (mainly) or landowner permission. Priorities for study were set by CBJ based on potential for future growth.

8. What We Did: Wetland Boundary Determinations used Federal procedures (plants, soils, saturation) Wetland Functional Assessments used WESPAK-SE protocol (developed by CBJ & SEAL Trust)

9. Aerial Imagery – for initial boundary estimate Color orthophotos LiDAR topography Ground-level surveys What We Used for Boundary Determinations:

10. Orthophoto

11. LiDAR Imagery

12. Some mapped wetland boundaries were constrained artificially.

13. Divided Each Wetland into Multiple AAs We mapped 94 separate wetlands but 345 Assessment Areas. Necessary for accuracy and usefulness later. Done mainly with imagery, not in-field GPS.

14. Wetland Types Used to Delimit AAs within a Wetland

15. Subshed Boundaries Used to Delimit AAs within a Wetland

16. Assessing Wetland Functions & Values: What Makes Some Wetlands More or Less Important? One AA, with its Function Scores in Rank Order:

17. All Survey-area Wetlands Ranked by Scores for One Function: Site Function Score Function RatingValue ScoreValue Rating ND09 10.00Higher10.00Higher ND01 9.45Higher10.00Higher SV37 8.33Higher10.00Higher ND06 6.40Moderate10.00Higher SV41 5.88Moderate10.00Higher ER06 5.76Moderate3.33Lower SV40 5.53Moderate10.00Higher ER29 3.51Moderate0.00Lower ER24 2.08Lower2.67Lower SV38 1.40Lower10.00Higher ER18 1.40Lower6.67Moderate ER20 1.08Lower2.67Lower ER19 0.74Lower6.67Moderate ER32 0.47Lower2.67Lower ER25 0.00Lower2.67Lower Waterbird Feeding Habitat, Tidal AAs

18. Different Wetlands are Important for Different Things

21. WESPAK-SE Score Distributions Varied by Function Anadromous Fish Carbon Sequestration

22. Options for Categorizing AAs Bosworth team not required to categorize the AAs Future decisions: How many rating categories? How to combine function and value score? How to roll up all function-value scores into one score & rating (per AA)? Who Decides? Corps of Engineers, ultimately. Input from SEAL Trust. CBJ Assembly? Others?

23. IMPLEMENTATION

24. Backdrop for Implementation The Clean Water Act hierarchy for Corps review and permitting in wetlands/waters: Avoid Minimize Mitigate (or “replace”, “compensate”, “off-set”)

25. Backdrop for Implementation The Federal Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (33CFR Part 332) April 2008 Hierarchy of Mitigation: Restoration Enhancement Preservation (in certain circumstances)

26. Backdrop for Implementation Hierarchy of Mitigation “Vehicles” Mitigation Banks In-Lieu Fee Programs Permittee-Responsible Mitigation On-site and in-kind ranging to off-site and out-of-kind Federal Rule

27. Plan Implementation Goals 1)Use the science for land-use policy and decisions 2)Comply with the Federal Rule on Compensatory Mitigation requiring a regional/watershed approach 3)Provide certainty to regulators, applicants, mitigation providers 4)Protect the public interest

28. Proposed Options for Plan Implementation 1)Planning and Educational Tool Only 2)Corps of Engineers General Permit 3)Local Code

29. Option 1: Planning and Educational Tool Only Only Corps manages/issues wetland permits Wetland Review Board (CBJ) reviews & comments on permit applications Wetland mapping and assessments used to inform permit process

30. Option 2: Corps of Engineers General Permit CBJ acquires Corps General Permit to manage/issue wetland permits on certain types or categories of wetlands Depending on the type/category, applicants either go through Corps process or CBJ Wetland Review Board process Wetland categories, derived from inventory, would define which process The General Permit is issued for five years at a time, therefore requires renewal

31. Option 3: Local Code CBJ enacts policies/regulations for protecting/managing ALL or SOME wetlands in its jurisdiction, regardless of Corps of Engineers Applicants would be required to obtain BOTH CBJ Wetland Review Board permits and Corps permits Wetland categories, derived from inventory, used for determining permit requirements, mitigation, functional replacement

32. QUESTIONS