City of Bellingham Habitat Restoration Master Plan TAG Meeting February 26, 2013 ESA | VEDA...

City of BellinghamHabitat Restoration

Master Plan

TAG MeetingFebruary 26, 2013

ESA | VEDA Environmental | Northwest Ecological Services

Existing Conditions Assessment Results

RIVERINE FUNCTION

Subwatershed

Flow Variation Function

Surface Storage Function

Biodiversity Maintenance

Habitat Creation and Maintenance

Chemical Regulation Thermo- regulation

ALDERWOOD CREEK Lower Median Lower Lowest Lower Median

BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY Median Median Lowest Lower Lowest Median

BEAR CREEK Lower Highest Median Lower Median Higher

CEMETERY CREEK Higher Lower Higher Highest Median Lower

CHUCKANUT CREEK Highest Lower Higher Highest Highest Highest

CONNELLY CREEK Lower Median Lower Higher Lower Lowest

FEVER CREEK Lowest Median Lower Lower Lowest Lower

FORT BELLINGHAM Median Highest Highest Lower Median Lowest

HANNAH CREEK Higher Lowest Median Median Median Higher

LAKE PADDEN Highest Highest Lowest Higher Higher Higher

LINCOLN CREEK Lowest Higher Lower Median Lower Lower

LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK Lowest Median Lowest Lowest Higher Higher

LOST CREEK Higher Highest Higher Lowest Higher Lower

LOWER BAKER CREEK Median Lower Median Median Lowest Median

LOWER PADDEN CREEK Median Lower Lower Median Lower Median

LOWER SPRING CREEK Lower Lower Highest Median Lower Higher

LOWER SQUALICUM Median Higher Higher Higher Median Lowest

LOWER TOAD CREEK Higher Lowest Median Higher Higher Median

LOWER WHATCOM CREEK Lowest Lowest Highest Median Lowest Lowest

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 Median Higher Higher Lower Higher Median

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 Lower Median Lowest Lowest Median Lower

SPOKANE CREEK Highest Higher Median Higher Highest Highest

UPPER PADDEN CREEK Higher Lowest Median Highest Highest Highest

UPPER WHATCOM CREEK Highest Higher Highest Highest Highest Highest

Overview of Today’s Presentation

•Quick review of where we have been• Thorough walk-through of detailed example

explaining analysis methods• Brief summary discussion for all habitat groups• Talk about next steps and review assignments

Goals of Today’s Presentation

• For the TAG members to have an working understanding of the existing conditions analysis methods

• Facilitate review efforts by the TAG

• Please ask questions if anything is not clear, you want more specific information, or if we are moving to fast!!

Previously Presented Conceptual Model to TAG

Previously Presented Conceptual Model to TAG

Initial Habitat Groups•Riverine•Riparian•Wetland•Urban• Forest (2 categories)•Meadow/shrub•Nearshore/ estuarine

Conceptual Model Memorandum

Conceptual Model Memo Contents

• Proposed Habitat Groups and analysis scale• Screening criteria for Functions and Attribute

MeasuresData availabilityData analysis protocolDirect MeasureRepeatable Sensitive• Proposed draft relationships for habitat groups

Changes to Habitat Groups

Revised Habitat Groups•Wetland•Meadow/shrub•Nearshore/ estuarine •COMBINED Riverine and Riparian (now

Riverine)• Forest (ONE category)•REMOVED Urban

Functions and Measures Tables

Questions on Review of Past Project Work?

Existing Conditions Analysis Overview•Completed data acquisition and evaluation• Altered relationships in conceptual framework,

including some functions and numerous measures•Ran analysis of attribute measures•Reviewed attribute measure output data• Transformed/normalized data• Assigned weighting factors for functions and

measures•Determined output data categories and

distribution• Summarized results by analysis area/function

Example – Stepwise Walkthrough of Existing Conditions Analysis

•Using Riverine Habitat Group –Biodiversity Function for example

•Refer to handout Sheets 1 through 14 during walkthrough

• Again, please ask questions if anything is not clear or you want more specific information

Example – Riverine Habitat Group

• 24 Sub-watersheds• Six functions advanced through initial screeningFlow variationSurface storageBiodiversity maintenanceHabitat creation and maintenanceChemical regulationThermo-regulation• Revised some relationships based on data

availability

Riverine Habitat Group Sub-watersheds

Revised Relationships in Riverine Group – Biodiversity Function (Sheet E-1)

Biodiversity Calculations Spreadsheet (Sheet E-2)

Weighting of Functions and Attributes

•Data quality•Geographic coverage of data•Demonstrated relationships based on peer-

reviewed science• In general, assumed equal weighting unless

factors above dictate otherwise

Summary of Biodiversity Function Analysis (Sheet E-3)

Biodiversity Function Score – Ordered Results (Sheet E-4)

Subwatershed NameBiodiversity Maintenance

Function Score Ordered Biodiversity Score

LAKE PADDEN 0.432 1

BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY 0.480 2

LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK 0.500 3

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 0.503 4

FEVER CREEK 0.519 5

LINCOLN CREEK 0.545 6

ALDERWOOD CREEK 0.548 7

CONNELLY CREEK 0.561 8

LOWER PADDEN CREEK 0.565 9

HANNAH CREEK 0.570 10

SPOKANE CREEK 0.600 11

UPPER PADDEN CREEK 0.609 12

BEAR CREEK 0.627 13

LOWER BAKER CREEK 0.633 14

LOWER TOAD CREEK 0.657 15


CEMETERY CREEK 0.665 17

LOWER SQUALICUM 0.669 18

LOST CREEK 0.672 19

CHUCKANUT CREEK 0.690 20

LOWER SPRING CREEK 0.694 21

LOWER WHATCOM CREEK 0.714 22

FORT BELLINGHAM 0.718 23

UPPER WHATCOM CREEK 0.745 24

Biodiversity Function Data Distribution (E-5)

Other Riparian Function Distributions (Sheets E-6 and E-7)

How Should Results Be Grouped? (Sheet E-4)

Subwatershed NameBiodiversity Maintenance

Function Score Ordered Biodiversity Score

LAKE PADDEN 0.432 1

BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY 0.480 2

LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK 0.500 3


FEVER CREEK 0.519 5

LINCOLN CREEK 0.545 6

ALDERWOOD CREEK 0.548 7

CONNELLY CREEK 0.561 8

LOWER PADDEN CREEK 0.565 9

HANNAH CREEK 0.570 10

SPOKANE CREEK 0.600 11

UPPER PADDEN CREEK 0.609 12

BEAR CREEK 0.627 13

LOWER BAKER CREEK 0.633 14

LOWER TOAD CREEK 0.657 15


CEMETERY CREEK 0.665 17

LOWER SQUALICUM 0.669 18

LOST CREEK 0.672 19

CHUCKANUT CREEK 0.690 20

LOWER SPRING CREEK 0.694 21

LOWER WHATCOM CREEK 0.714 22

FORT BELLINGHAM 0.718 23

UPPER WHATCOM CREEK 0.745 24

Considerations for Category Break Determination

• Based on relative function scores•Need enough categories to be meaningful and

useful in prioritization•Need outliers (extreme high and low values) to be

within similar groups•Needs to be statistically-based

Category Break Options Explored

• Based on various standard deviations from the mean • Based on quartiles (four equal categories)• Based on quintiles (five equal categories)

One Standard Deviation (Sheet E-8)

Subwatershed Number Subwatershed Name

Biodiversity Maintenance Score

1 LAKE PADDEN 0.432

2 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY 0.480

3 LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK 0.500

4 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 0.503

5 FEVER CREEK 0.519

6 LINCOLN CREEK 0.545

7 ALDERWOOD CREEK 0.548

8 CONNELLY CREEK 0.561

9 LOWER PADDEN CREEK 0.565

10 HANNAH CREEK 0.570

11 SPOKANE CREEK 0.600

12 UPPER PADDEN CREEK 0.609

13 BEAR CREEK 0.627

14 LOWER BAKER CREEK 0.633

15 LOWER TOAD CREEK 0.657


17 CEMETERY CREEK 0.665

18 LOWER SQUALICUM 0.669

19 LOST CREEK 0.672

20 CHUCKANUT CREEK 0.690

21 LOWER SPRING CREEK 0.694

22 LOWER WHATCOM CREEK 0.714

23 FORT BELLINGHAM 0.718

24 UPPER WHATCOM CREEK 0.745

Quartiles - Four Even Categories (Sheet E-9)



1 LAKE PADDEN 0.432




5 FEVER CREEK 0.519








13 BEAR CREEK 0.627






19 LOST CREEK 0.672






Quintiles - Five Even Categories (Sheet E-10)



1 LAKE PADDEN 0.432




5 FEVER CREEK 0.519








13 BEAR CREEK 0.627






19 LOST CREEK 0.672






Adjusted Quintiles Were Selected as Preferred Method (Sheet E-11)



Score


2 LOST CREEK 0.199






8 FEVER CREEK 0.238

9 BEAR CREEK 0.240










19 LAKE PADDEN 0.380






Functional Category Assignment

• Should reflect that all categories are relative to other analysis units in Project Area•Names were selected to indicate relative function

and comparative to average (median) condition:HighestHigherMedianLowerLowest

Results Color Coded to Relative Condition Score (Sheet E-12)



Score Functional Score Category1 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 0.090

Lowest2 LOST CREEK 0.1993 ALDERWOOD CREEK 0.2024 LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK 0.2185 FORT BELLINGHAM 0.225

Lower6 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.2277 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY 0.2298 FEVER CREEK 0.2389 BEAR CREEK 0.240


Median

11 LOWER BAKER CREEK 0.25912 LOWER SPRING CREEK 0.28313 HANNAH CREEK 0.28914 LINCOLN CREEK 0.31315 LOWER PADDEN CREEK 0.31616 LOWER TOAD CREEK 0.340

Higher17 LOWER SQUALICUM 0.34118 CONNELLY CREEK 0.34419 LAKE PADDEN 0.38020 SPOKANE CREEK 0.40121 CHUCKANUT CREEK 0.418

Highest22 CEMETERY CREEK 0.45123 UPPER PADDEN CREEK 0.52324 UPPER WHATCOM CREEK 0.587

Biodiversity Results by Sub-watershed (Sheet E-13)

Subwatershed

Biodiversity Maintenance Relative Function Rating

ALDERWOOD CREEK Lower

BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY Lowest

BEAR CREEK Median

CEMETERY CREEK Higher

CHUCKANUT CREEK Higher

CONNELLY CREEK Lower

FEVER CREEK Lower

FORT BELLINGHAM Highest

HANNAH CREEK Median

LAKE PADDEN Lowest

LINCOLN CREEK Lower

LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK Lowest

LOST CREEK Higher

LOWER BAKER CREEK Median

LOWER PADDEN CREEK Lower

LOWER SPRING CREEK Highest

LOWER SQUALICUM Higher

LOWER TOAD CREEK Median

LOWER WHATCOM CREEK Highest

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 Higher

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 Lowest

SPOKANE CREEK Median

UPPER PADDEN CREEK Median

UPPER WHATCOM CREEK Highest

Repeated Analysis Process for All Functions in Riverine Group (Sheet E-14)

RIVERINE FUNCTION

Subwatershed

Flow Variation Function

Surface Storage Function

Biodiversity Maintenance


Chemical Regulation

Thermo- regulation

ALDERWOOD CREEK Lower Median Lower Lowest Lower Median

BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY Median Median Lowest Lower Lowest Median

BEAR CREEK Lower Highest Median Lower Median Higher

CEMETERY CREEK Higher Lower Higher Highest Median Lower

CHUCKANUT CREEK Highest Lower Higher Highest Highest Highest

CONNELLY CREEK Lower Median Lower Higher Lower Lowest

FEVER CREEK Lowest Median Lower Lower Lowest Lower

FORT BELLINGHAM Median Highest Highest Lower Median Lowest

HANNAH CREEK Higher Lowest Median Median Median Higher

LAKE PADDEN Highest Highest Lowest Higher Higher Higher

LINCOLN CREEK Lowest Higher Lower Median Lower Lower

LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK Lowest Median Lowest Lowest Higher Higher

LOST CREEK Higher Highest Higher Lowest Higher Lower

LOWER BAKER CREEK Median Lower Median Median Lowest Median

LOWER PADDEN CREEK Median Lower Lower Median Lower Median

LOWER SPRING CREEK Lower Lower Highest Median Lower Higher

LOWER SQUALICUM Median Higher Higher Higher Median Lowest

LOWER TOAD CREEK Higher Lowest Median Higher Higher Median

LOWER WHATCOM CREEK Lowest Lowest Highest Median Lowest Lowest

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 Median Higher Higher Lower Higher Median

SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 Lower Median Lowest Lowest Median Lower

SPOKANE CREEK Highest Higher Median Higher Highest Highest

UPPER PADDEN CREEK Higher Lowest Median Highest Highest Highest

UPPER WHATCOM CREEK Highest Higher Highest Highest Highest Highest

Questions on Existing Conditions Analysis Example?

Repeated Process for all Habitat Groups - Wetland

• Analysis units were 28 sub-watersheds• Seven functions advancedSurface water storageNitrogen removalPathogen removalOrganic matter export/contributionSediment/phosphorus removalWildlife habitatCarbon sequestration

Wetland Habitat Group Analysis (cont.)

•Most functions were carried forward (exception was thermo-regulation) • Altered numerous attribute measures – generally

based on data availability and duplication•Relative condition categories as follows:Lowest and Highest = 5 sub-watsh. eachLower and Higher = 6 sub-watsh. eachMedian = 6 sub-watersheds

Forest Habitat Group Analysis

• Analysis units were 85 forested habitat blocks based on Nahkeeta NW report• Two functions were advanced Biodiversity MaintenanceHabitat Creation and Maintenance•Can use attribute level metrics for next project

steps if necessary (numbering 3 and 2, respectively)

Forest Habitat Group Analysis (cont.)

• Functions were revised substantially • Altered numerous attribute measures – generally

based on data availability•Relative condition categories as follows:Lowest and Highest = 14 habitat blocks eachLower and Higher = 16 habitat blocks eachMedian = 25 habitat blocks

Meadow/Shrub Habitat Group Analysis

• Analysis units were 46 meadow/shrub habitat blocks based on Nahkeeta NW report• Two functions were advanced Biodiversity MaintenanceHabitat Creation and Maintenance•Can use attribute level metrics for next project

steps if necessary (numbering 2 and 2, respectively)

Meadow/shrub Habitat Group Analysis (cont.)

• Functions were revised substantially • Altered numerous attribute measures – generally

based on data availability•Relative condition categories as follows:Lowest and Highest = 7 habitat blocks eachLower and Higher = 9 habitat blocks eachMedian = 14 habitat blocks

Nearshore/ Estuarine Habitat Group

• Analysis used methodology in WRIA 1 nearshore assessment (CGS/Anchor 2013)• Same methods as WRIA 1 analysis, but scaled to

project area •Methodology rated stressors, analogous to

function ratings for other habitat groups• EVC (Ecological Value Criteria) scores scaled to

project area.• Existing conditions and results presented in

memorandum

Questions on Existing Conditions Analysis for Other Habitat Groups?

Questions for TAG to Consider / Answer When Reviewing Existing Conditions

• Are the results of the analyses consistent with your understanding of conditions in the study area?

• Are the attribute measures analyzed useful and weighted appropriately?

• Are all of the functions analyzed useful for restoration prioritization, or are some superfluous?

• Are there any data sources or additional metrics that would strengthen the analyses?

Next Steps

•Receive TAG comments on existing condition analysis•Refine analysis and re-run if Required• Prepare draft list of restoration actions and

determine affect on each ecological function• Prepare matrix tying existing conditions to

restoration actions to prioritize key actions • Prepare memorandum presenting results of initial

(without constraints) prioritized list of actions for each analysis unit

Questions?

City of Bellingham Habitat Restoration Master Plan TAG Meeting February 26, 2013 ESA | VEDA...

Documents

Transcript of City of Bellingham Habitat Restoration Master Plan TAG Meeting February 26, 2013 ESA | VEDA...