american samoa - University of Hawaii at Manoa Botany Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The portions of the wetland selected for taro production would initially require the excavationof fill material to a minimum soil depth of about one to two feet. In terms of soil preparation,the production of talo toto i le vai (wetland taro) will require manual and/or mechanical tillingof the soil and the possible application of some limited nutrients to the soil.Taro cuttings from disease-free propagating material would be used to establish the taro. Thecuttings are part of a taro plant stem about 12 to 18 inches long that is attached to a 2 to 3-inchsection of the corm. Such cuttings would ideally be obtained from the Samoa Ministry ofAgriculture in Apia or the ASG Department of Agriculture. Before planting, selected tarocuttings should be carefully inspected, washed with potable water, soaked in a 10 percentbleach solution for 30 seconds, and stored in a dry, cool, and well-ventilated area for 3 to 5days before planting.Comparative Benefits and ImpactsPPC’s evaluation of the two alternate restoration and enhancement strategies is summarized inTable 11-2. Both options generate a comparable overall level of project benefits. However,slightly greater benefits are afforded by Option 1 (Figure 11-3).Option 1 desirably removes solid waste material from the wetland and likely restores thewetland to a coastal marsh through the planting of selected wetland plants. Theimplementation of Option 2 also would remove solid waste material as well as wetland plantsto permit some subsistence agricultural use.Despite their apparent project benefits, both options are moderately expensive to implement iflight of the extensive requirements associated with the removal and hauling of solid wastematerial. It also likely that both options may not be well received by local residents. Oneresident suggested to PPC in November 1999 that Fusi residents would likely appreciate theremoval of solid waste material. However, once this material would be removed, villageresidents would likely prefer to use the land for general residential land uses.TABLE 11-2COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONWETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIESFUSI WETLANDOptionProjectCostResidentialLand UsesSubsistenceAgricultureFish &InvertebrateHabitatWetlandVegetationHabitatStormwaterDetentionFloodHazards &PropertyDamage1 MC LB NBC NBC SB NBC NBC2 MC LB SB NBC LC NBC NBCNotes: Potential project benefits were rated by PPC as follows:SB Significant project benefitsLC Limited undesirable consequencesMB Moderate project benefitsMC Moderate undesirable consequencesLB Limited project benefitsSC Significant undesirable project impactsNBC No anticipated project benefits orundesirable consequencesSource: Pedersen Planning Consultants, 2000American Samoa Wetlands/Streams Restoration and Enhancement PlanFebruary 2001, Fusi Wetland, Page 11-9
Recommended Option and Estimated Project CostShould reasonable village support exist for Option 1, this project is recommended for projectimplementation. While costly, this wetland enhancement project is attractive because theproject could likely achieve restoration of a disturbed marsh to a coastal marsh. Removal andhauling of solid wastes, as well as the planting of coastal marsh plants is estimated to costroughly $10,224 (Table 11-3 and Table 11-4).TABLE 11-3PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATECOLLECTION, REMOVAL AND HAULING OF SOLID WASTE MATERIALFUSI WETLANDLABORPersonnel Number Hours Hourly Rate ($) Cost ($)Supervisor 1 80 15 1,200Heavy Equipment Operator 3 60 13 2,340Laborer 4 80 6 1,920All Personnel 8 580 $5,460MATERIALSItem Quantity Unit Cost ($) Cost ($)Picks 4 15 60Sledge Hammers 4 25 100Shovel 4 22 88Weed-eaters 4 300 1,200Machetes 4 20 80Garbage Bags 50 boxes 5 250Wheel Barrows 4 50 200All Materials $1,978TOTAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $7,438Notes: Preliminary estimate assumes use of existing equipment owned by the ASG Department of Public Works.Source: Pedersen Planning Consultants, 2000TABLE 11-4PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATEPROPAGATION AND PLANTING OF COASTAL MARSH VEGETATIONFUSI WETLANDLABORPersonnel Number Hours Hourly Rate ($) Cost ($)ASCC Plant Nursery Technician 1 104 10 1,040ASCC Field Crew Leader 1 20 8 160ASCC Field Crew Members 2 20 6 240All Personnel 4 164 $1,440MATERIALSItem Quantity Unit Cost ($) Cost ($)Coastal Marsh Plants 125 3 375Garbage Bags 20 boxes 5 100All Materials $475EQUIPMENTShovels 3 22 66Machetes 3 20 60Picks 3 15 45Wheel Barrows 2 50 100Weed-eaters 2 300 600All Equipment $871TOTAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $2,786Notes: Preliminary estimate assumes use of existing equipment owned by the ASG Department of Public Works.Source: Pedersen Planning Consultants, 2000American Samoa Wetlands/Streams Restoration and Enhancement PlanFebruary 2001, Fusi Wetland, Page 11-10
Page 1 and 2:
Asili StreamAMERICAN SAMOAWETLAND/S
Page 3 and 4:
American SamoaWetland/Stream Restor
Page 5 and 6:
American Samoa Wetland/Stream Resto
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1-1Location of Potential Wet
Page 13 and 14:
Onsite InvestigationsNovember 1999G
Page 15 and 16:
Where appropriate, stream cross sec
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter TwoTULA WETLANDLOCATIONTula
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 2-2Tula WetlandExisting Cond
Page 21 and 22:
Improved channelization of stormwat
Page 23 and 24:
LAND USES IN THE VICINITY OF TULA W
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 2-3Option 2: Detention of St
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 2-4Option 3: Expansion of Ta
Page 29 and 30:
Comparative Benefits and ImpactsPPC
Page 31 and 32:
TABLE 2-4PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATEP
Page 33 and 34:
TABLE 2-5LONG-TERM RESOURCE MONITOR
Page 35 and 36:
TABLE 2-6 (CONTINUED)FIELD MONITORI
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter ThreeALAO WETLANDLOCATIONAl
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 3-2Taufusi MarchExisting Con
Page 41 and 42:
Figure 3-3FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain
Page 43 and 44:
East Portion of the MarshThe impact
Page 45 and 46:
WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Page 47 and 48:
The availability of new, blight-res
Page 49 and 50:
Long-Term Monitoring and Site Maint
Page 51 and 52:
TABLE 3-7FIELD MONITORING WORKSHEET
Page 53 and 54:
Recommended monitoring stations or
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 4-1Location MapAoa Village W
Page 57 and 58:
No stream flow estimates are availa
Page 59 and 60:
Fresh-Water SwampThe fresh-water sw
Page 61 and 62:
ecome dominant if there is a nearby
Page 63 and 64:
Relative Abundance and Diversity of
Page 65 and 66:
Option 4: Restore Mangrove Forest U
Page 67 and 68:
TABLE 4-5COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONWETL
Page 69 and 70:
Long-term resource management activ
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
• begin at the Tapua Stream mouth
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 5-1Location MapSoutheast Wet
Page 77 and 78:
Tufu Stream and two stream branches
Page 79 and 80:
Mr. Whistler was part of a three-pe
Page 81 and 82:
InvertebratesCrustacean densities w
Page 83 and 84:
FIGURE 5-3OPTION 1: RESTORE RIPARIA
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 5-4COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONWETL
Page 87 and 88:
Long term monitoring of the Vatia w
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
More specific monitoring of stream
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 6-1Location MapVaipito Strea
Page 95 and 96:
Stream FlowsHistorical Stream Flows
Page 97 and 98:
California grass (Brachiaria mutica
Page 99 and 100:
FIGURE 6-3FISH AND INVERTEBRATE SUR
Page 101 and 102:
Most of lower Vaipito Stream segmen
Page 103 and 104:
Red mangrove should be planted with
Page 105 and 106:
TABLE 6-7PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATEC
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
TABLE 6-10 (Continued)FIELD MONITOR
Page 111 and 112:
Vehicular and pedestrian access to
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 7-1Location MapLeele-Papa-Ta
Page 115 and 116:
Stream flow, in some cases, is cons
Page 117 and 118:
Stormwater Discharges and Related F
Page 119 and 120:
AQUATIC FISH AND INVERTEBRATESGener
Page 121 and 122:
Opportunities and StrategiesOption
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 7-3Option 2: Reduction of Er
Page 125 and 126:
TABLE 7-8PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATEP
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
TABLE 7-10 (Continued)FIELD MONITOR
Page 131 and 132:
More specific monitoring of stream
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 8-1Location MapSauino Stream
Page 135 and 136:
Stream FlowsHistorical Stream Flows
Page 137 and 138:
AQUATIC FISH AND INVERTEBRATESGener
Page 139 and 140:
Figure 8-3Option 1: Construction of
Page 141 and 142:
FIGURE 8-5OPTION 2: PLANT NATIVE RI
Page 143 and 144:
Long-Term Monitoring and Site Maint
Page 145 and 146: TABLE 8-8FIELD MONITORING WORKSHEET
Page 147 and 148: TABLE 8-8 (Continued)FIELD MONITORI
Page 149 and 150: LOCATIONChapter NineLEAFU STREAMLea
Page 151 and 152: Figure 9-2Leone Pala and 300-Foot L
Page 153 and 154: However, during and following heavi
Page 155 and 156: Vegetation TrendsThe lower Leafu St
Page 157 and 158: LAND USES ADJACENT TOLOWER LEAFU ST
Page 159 and 160: Option 2: Construct Basaltic Wall,
Page 161 and 162: Figure 9-5:Stabilize East Stream Ba
Page 163 and 164: TABLE 9-7PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATEP
Page 165 and 166: TABLE 9-8LONG-TERM RESOURCE MONITOR
Page 167 and 168: TABLE 9-9 (Continued)FIELD MONITORI
Page 169 and 170: Chapter TenASILI STREAMLOCATIONAsil
Page 171 and 172: Figure 10-2Asili Stream SegmentExis
Page 173 and 174: Stormwater Discharges and Related F
Page 175 and 176: Further downstream, the stream chan
Page 177 and 178: TABLE 10-4SUMMARY OF MACROFAUNAL OR
Page 179 and 180: American Samoa Wetlands/Streams Res
Page 181 and 182: CLEAN-UP OF LOWER ASILI STREAMLABOR
Page 183 and 184: TABLE 10-9LONG-TERM RESOURCE MONITO
Page 185 and 186: TABLE 10-10 (Continued)FIELD MONITO
Page 187 and 188: Vehicular and pedestrian access to
Page 189 and 190: Figure 11-1Location MapFusi Wetland
Page 191 and 192: WETLAND VEGETATIONNovember 1999 Sur
Page 193 and 194: The lack of stream flow entering th
Page 195: Figure 11-3Option 1: Remove Solid W
Page 199 and 200: TABLE 11-6FIELD MONITORING WORKSHEE
Page 201 and 202: Any future monitoring stations or s
Page 203 and 204: Project ManagerRepresentatives of a
Page 205 and 206: REFERENCESBiosystems Analysis, Inc.
Page 207 and 208: APPENDIX ASUMMARY OFPLANTSOBSERVED
Page 209 and 210: Species Family EnglishNameSamoanNam
Page 213: APPENDIX CSUMMARY OFAQUATIC MACROFA
show all

american samoa - University of Hawaii at Manoa Botany Department

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?