city of bellingham habitat restoration master plan - cob … · city of bellingham habitat...
TRANSCRIPT
City of Bellingham
Habitat Restoration
Master Plan
TAG MeetingTAG MeetingFebruary 26, 2013
ESA | VEDA Environmental | Northwest Ecological Services
Existing Conditions Assessment ResultsRIVERINE 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 LowerFEVER 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• 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• 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•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
Measures
�Data availability
�Data analysis protocol�Data analysis protocol
�Direct Measure
�Repeatable
�Sensitive
• Proposed draft relationships for habitat groups
Changes to Habitat Groups
Revised Habitat Groups
•Wetland
•Meadow/shrub
•Nearshore/ estuarine •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•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 screening
�Flow variation
�Surface storage�Surface storage
�Biodiversity maintenance
�Habitat creation and maintenance
�Chemical regulation
�Thermo-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-•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 Name
Biodiversity 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 8CONNELLY 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
SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.663 16
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)
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
Function Score
Biodiversity Maintenance Function Riverine Habitat Group
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0 5 10 15 20 25
Function Score
Subwatershed Number
Other Riparian Function Distributions
(Sheets E-6 and E-7)
0.800
1.000
Function Score
Flow Variation Function - Riverine Habitat Group
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0 5 10 15 20 25
Function Score
Subwatershed Number
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
Function Score
Surface Storage Function - Riverine Habitat Group
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Function Score
Subwatershed Number
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000Function Score
Habitat Creation and Maintenance Function - Riverine Habitat Group
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0 10 20 30
Function Score
Subwatershed Number
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000Function Score
Chemical Regulation Function -Riverine Habitat Group
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Function Score
Subwatershed Number
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000Function Score
Thermoregulation Function - Riverine Habitat Group
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Function Score
Sub-watershed Number
How Should Results Be Grouped?
(Sheet E-4)
Subwatershed Name
Biodiversity 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 8CONNELLY 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
SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.663 16
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 prioritizationuseful 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 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 0.5659 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
16 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.663
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)
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
16 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.663
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
Quintiles - Five Even Categories
(Sheet E-10)
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 0.5487 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
16 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.663
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
Adjusted Quintiles Were Selected as
Preferred Method (Sheet E-11)
Subwatershed
Number Subwatershed Name
Habitat Creation
and Maintenance
Score
1 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 0.090
2 LOST CREEK 0.199
3 ALDERWOOD CREEK 0.202
4 LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK 0.218
5 FORT BELLINGHAM 0.225
6 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.227
7 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY 0.229
8 FEVER CREEK 0.238
9 BEAR CREEK 0.240
10 LOWER WHATCOM CREEK 0.249
11 LOWER BAKER CREEK 0.259
12 LOWER SPRING CREEK 0.283
13 HANNAH CREEK 0.289
14 LINCOLN CREEK 0.313
15 LOWER PADDEN CREEK 0.316
16 LOWER TOAD CREEK 0.340
17 LOWER SQUALICUM 0.341
18 CONNELLY CREEK 0.344
19 LAKE PADDEN 0.380
20 SPOKANE CREEK 0.401
21 CHUCKANUT CREEK 0.418
22 CEMETERY CREEK 0.451
23 UPPER PADDEN CREEK 0.523
24 UPPER WHATCOM CREEK 0.587
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:
�Highest�Highest
�Higher
�Median
�Lower
�Lowest
Results Color Coded to Relative
Condition Score (Sheet E-12)
Subwatershed
Number Subwatershed Name
Habitat Creation
and Maintenance
Score Functional Score Category
1 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2 0.090
Lowest2 LOST CREEK 0.199
3 ALDERWOOD CREEK 0.202
4 LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK 0.218
5 FORT BELLINGHAM 0.225
Lower
6 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1 0.227
7 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY 0.229
8 FEVER CREEK 0.238
9 BEAR CREEK 0.2409 BEAR CREEK 0.240
10 LOWER WHATCOM CREEK 0.249
Median
11 LOWER BAKER CREEK 0.259
12 LOWER SPRING CREEK 0.283
13 HANNAH CREEK 0.289
14 LINCOLN CREEK 0.313
15 LOWER PADDEN CREEK 0.316
16 LOWER TOAD CREEK 0.340
Higher
17 LOWER SQUALICUM 0.341
18 CONNELLY CREEK 0.344
19 LAKE PADDEN 0.380
20 SPOKANE CREEK 0.401
21 CHUCKANUT CREEK 0.418
Highest22 CEMETERY CREEK 0.451
23 UPPER PADDEN CREEK 0.523
24 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
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
Questions on Existing Conditions
Analysis Example?Analysis Example?
Repeated Process for all Habitat Groups
- Wetland
• Analysis units were 28 sub-watersheds
• Seven functions advanced
�Surface water storage
�Nitrogen removal�Nitrogen removal
�Pathogen removal
�Organic matter export/contribution
�Sediment/phosphorus removal
�Wildlife habitat
�Carbon 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:•Relative condition categories as follows:
�Lowest and Highest = 5 sub-watsh. each
�Lower and Higher = 6 sub-watsh. each
�Median = 6 sub-watersheds
Forest Habitat Group Analysis
• Analysis units were 85 forested habitat blocks
based on Nahkeeta NW report
• Two functions were advanced
� Biodiversity Maintenance
�Habitat Creation and Maintenance�Habitat 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 each�Lowest and Highest = 14 habitat blocks each
�Lower and Higher = 16 habitat blocks each
�Median = 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 Maintenance
�Habitat Creation and Maintenance�Habitat 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 each�Lowest and Highest = 7 habitat blocks each
�Lower and Higher = 9 habitat blocks each
�Median = 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 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 • 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 functiondetermine 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?