puget sound watershed characterization...

Information to support

watershed-based land use

decisions

Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project

1

Concerns that have been expressed regarding PS Characterization

From meetings with EPA, letters, Habitat Advisory Committee comments we have heard:

• Concern that PS Watershed Characterization is

inconsistent with and should not supplant Salmon Recovery Plans

• Tribes need to be engaged in PS Watershed Characterization - bring in local data to improve results

• Concerns with Habitat Assessments done by WDFW

Focus of this meeting

– Discuss Tribal concerns regarding the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization

– How PS Watershed Characterization might support Salmon Recovery efforts.

– Discuss the roles and potential applications of watershed characterization and salmon recovery plans in land use planning and policy.

– Initiate conversations of how WCTAT should work with tribal staff to incorporate finer scale data and assessments into local plans being developed in conjunction with the WCTAT.

Overview of PS Characterization and initial applications of assessments to local planning efforts

Who is using currently PS Characterization. Who will?

Integrating assessments and other data to provide guidance in local planning: current application – Kitsap County Nisqually integration work – initial analysis

Discussion on how to bring finer-scale tribal and local data into assessment framework – efficient and effective.

PUGET SOUND WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION

Brief Overview

The Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project

• A multi-agency effort to provide land use planners with a watershed context for decision making – Comprehensive Plan updates – Shoreline Master Program – Sub-area plans

• A resource for conservation planners and restoration practitioners across Puget Sound. – Inform mitigation or restoration design at coarse scale – TDR programs – Conservation easements

Identify Important Areas for Supporting Processes

6

Infiltration & Recharge

Storage

Groundwater discharge

Delivery of water

Longshore drift

Objectives of Characterization

Purpose of the Characterization

• Where on the landscape should planning and management efforts be focused first

• What general types of activities and actions are most appropriate at that place

• Why are those places relatively more or less important than other places

Does not model rates or quantities for: instream flows Mid & Finer Scale Modeling done by sediment Salmon Recovery Plans wood

Helps protect/restore processes that maintain healthy stream systems

Ecosystem Services:

..such as water and sediment movement at the watershed scale

..such as a stream channel or estuary delta

Mid Scale

..such as habitat for birds

Fine Scale

Broad Scale

8

Broad scale – water flow assessment

Mid & fine scale - In stream flows modeled by Salmon recovery plan

Water Flow model establishes overall land-use recommendations

Complements Salmon Recovery Efforts Broad scale – water flow assessment

Mid & fine scale - Salmon recovery plan, using finer scale data, identifies specific location & design of stream restoration

Water Flow assessment deals with upland land use that controls the delivery & movement of water to streams

Yellow colors tell planners that land-use practices should support restoration of watershed processes Green colors indicate that land-use practices should continue protecting watershed processes

Puget Sound Watershed Characterization

Assessment of: Water Flow & Water

Quality Processes – Vol.1 Terrestrial & Freshwater

habitats – Vol. 2 Marine Shoreline habitats –

Vol. 2

Currently developing a Multi Scale Framework – Integrate & Interpret

assessments and other important local data across spatial scales – Vol. 3

10

WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS Volume 1

Water Resources Assessments • Water Flow Importance and Degradation models for

– Delivery + Movement + Loss

• Water Quality Export Potential and Degradation models for

– Nitrogen – Phosphorus – Sediment – Metals – Pathogens

Model Water Flow Processes…..

Model 2 13

Model 1 - Importance

Model Water Flow Processes…..

Model 2 14

Model 2 – Degradation to Water Flow

Processes

Overall Water Flow Results Sound Wide

15 RESTORATION

Seattle

Mt. Vernon

Tacoma

Combine Importance and Degradation models for certain planning scenarios

Watershed Management Recommendations


Mid & fine scale - Salmon recovery plan, using finer scale data, identifies specific location & design of stream restoration

Water Flow assessment deals with upland land use that controls the delivery & movement of water to streams

Yellow colors tell planners that land use practices need to be changed. Green colors indicate that current practices are OK

Water Quality Models

Source – Sink Models for: • Sediment • Phosphorus • Metals • Nitrogen • Pathogens

Export Potential – how readily a given AU can deliver sediment (or N, Metals, etc.) based on landscape features.

Degradation - N-SPECT model that characterizes the degree of existing degradation to processes (sediment, N, Metals, etc.) based on land-use type.

Can combine the two models to provide guidance on which areas to prioritize

Protection or Restoration actions

Model Water Quality Processes - Sediment

Model 2

Export Potential Model

22

Export Potential for Sediment

23

Sediment export from: •surface erosion •mass wasting •channel erosion

Degradation of Sediment Processes

24

Combine Export Potential and Degradation models for Sediment

25

HABITAT RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS

Volume 2

Habitat Resources

Three Models

• Terrestrial Habitat

• Freshwater (Lotic) Habitat

• Marine Shoreline Habitat

highest relative value = last place to put new houses

lowest relative value = first place to put new houses 0

100

Relative Conservation Value

Terrestrial Assessment

Index

Priority Habitats

and Species

Landscape Integrity

Terrestrial Assessment Model

Terrestrial Assessment Model

shape impact intern proximity

impact extern

geometric mean

geometric mean

size

arithmetic mean

oak-prairie

PHS

maximum

geometric mean

maximum

SS zone

oak-grass zone

DF zone

WH zone

Index

waterfowl

swans

sandhill crane

shore birds gophers

IBA peregrine

bald eagle harlequin elk

W22 W21

W14 W15 W11 W13 W12

W31

W23

W16

W17

W18

W19

Land Uses

geometric mean

Open-space Blocks: Integrity Value

Intersection with Analysis Units

Relative Scores for Analysis Units

Freshwater Assessment

Index

Accumulative Downstream

Habitats

Salmonid Habitats

Hydro-geomorphic

Features

Freshwater Index

Upstream and Downstream

A

Index

Accumulative Downstream

Habitats

Salmonid Habitats

Hydro-geomorphic

Features

Freshwater Index

Local Habitats

Index

Accumulative Downstream Habitats

Salmonid Habitats

Hydrogeomorphic Features

Wetland Density

Floodplain Density

Habitat Quality

Stock Status

Ecological Integrity

IP models

Local IBI

Upstream IBI

Species Presence

Wetlands & Floodplains

Accumulative Downstream Habitats

Salmonid Habitats Index

Freshwater: Sum of Attributes

Seattle

Bellingham

Serves many “functions”

Freshwater: Maximum of Attributes

Seattle

Bellingham

Serves at least one one “function”

Marine Shorelines Assessment

Spatial Units

land side: 400 m

marine side: 400 m or low-low tide

INDEX clams, intertidal

abalone

crabs, Dungeness

urchins

shrimp

oyster

herring holding

herring spawning

surf smelt

sand lance

PSAMP all birds

PSAMP at-risk birds water fowl

concentration

shore birds concentration

eagle roosts

oystercatcher nests great blue

heron colonies

Laminaria

giant kelp

dune grass

bull kelp

chocolate brown

salt marsh

surf grass

bull trout

chinook

chum

cutthroat

sockeye pink

coho

steelhead

eagle nests

geoduck

clams, subtidal

haul outs

wetlands

eelgrass

Important Bird Areas

Results - Average of all Components

Results - Average of Top 5 Components

Assessment Development Process

Revision of 2nd Proposal

Final Report and “Final” Assessment Results

2nd Review by Expert Panel

Draft Report and Draft Assessment Results

Straw-man Proposal

Review of Report by subset of Expert Panel and others

Revision of Draft Methods and Report

1st Review by Expert Panel

Revision of 1st Proposal

Expert Panel Curtis Tanner U. S. Fish &Wildlife Service Paul Cereghino National Marine Fisheries Service Hugh Shipman Washington Dept of Ecology Helen Berry Washington Dept of Natural Res. Si Simenstad University of Washington Terry Wright Northwest Indian Fisheries Comm. David Fyfe Northwest Indian Fisheries Comm. Scott Pearson WDFW Dayv Lowry WDFW

Reviewers of Draft Report Ron Thom Pacific Northwest Laboratory Val Cullinan Pacific Northwest Laboratory Megan Dethier University of Washington Eric Beamer Skagit River Cooperative Paul Cereghino National Marine Fisheries Service

Marine Shoreline Assessment

Expert Panel Shallin Busch NOAA George Pess NOAA Bob Bilby Weyerhaeuser Co. Ken Currens NWIFC / PSP Mara Zimmerman WDFW Kirk Krueger WDFW Ken Warheit WDFW

Reviewers of Draft Report Shallin Busch NOAA George Pess NOAA Ken Currens NWIFC / PSP

Freshwater Assessment

Expert Panel John Pierce WDFW Joe Rocchio Washington Natural Heritage Program Rex Crawford Washington Natural Heritage Program

Reviewers of Draft Report John Gamon Washington Natural Heritage Program John Marzluff University of Washington John Withey University of Washington

Terrestrial Assessment

Peer Review Periods

Terrestrial October 14, 2011 to May 4, 2012

Marine Shorelines February 10, 2012 to May 4, 2012

Freshwater November 16, 2011 to May 4, 2012

Meeting at NWIFC for all 3 Assessments May 2, 2012

There are ways to deal with shortcomings in the models

• Appreciate tribal concerns with habitat models

• Want to bring more accurate local data into local assessments

• WCTAT could facilitate incorporation of tribal data and local priorities into land-use plans developed in conjunction with local governments.

• Tribes need to engage in local planning processes to provide their perspective and expertise

WHO IS, AND WILL BE USING THE CHARACTERIZATION?

Watershed-based information to support local land-use decisions

Comprehensive Plan updates

• Where PS Watershed Characterization may be the most effective – – integrate both shoreline and upland planning efforts – Coordinates and integrates planning by jurisdictions

within a watershed

• Examples – Sub-area plans (e.g. Gorst) – UGA adjustments (e.g. Birch Bay) – Thurston Co. Comprehensive plan update – Skagit Co. watershed planning efforts (Envision and PS

Characterization)

Research Conference 2003

Chico Watershed Planning Project

• Pilot Project for Kitsap County DCD

• Planning by Watershed

• Chico is home to Kitsap’s largest salmon run

• Alternative Futures Planning


Alternative Scenarios


Land Use

Conservation 2,600 Units

8.8% TIA

Planned Trend 5,050 Units 10.4% TIA

Current Conditions 1,300 Units

7.2% TIA

Moderate 4,900 Units

9.2% TIA

Development 25,000 Units

21.6% TIA

Shoreline Master Plan Updates

• Currently required to use a watershed-based analysis, such as PS Watershed Characterization to inform update of SMPs across Puget Sound

• Next round of updates in 6-8 years – looking to evaluate and refine the PS Watershed Characterization to better inform updates

National Estuary Program grants

• NEP rounds 1 & 2 – currently funded and encouraged to use PS Watershed Characterization or other watershed-based approach: – Skagit County – TDR program – King County – Market based tools for Land Protection and

Restoration – Nisqually Tribe – Upper Nisqually ecosystem service pilot – Whatcom Co. – Ecosystem service market pilot – Kitsap Co. – Planning by Watershed – City of Mukilteo - Regional Stormwater Master Plan – Hood Canal CC – Regional Stormwater Retrofit plan – In

Lieu Fee and Integrated Watershed Management Plan – The Nature Conservancy – Floodplains by Design

National Estuary Program grants

• Round 3 funding – upcoming

– Focus on improving watershed management including:

• Type,

• location and

• design of development (new and/or re-development)

– Result in planning tools that are integrated into:

• Local comprehensive plans, shoreline master plans, and regulatory codes

Long-term Goal – •growth is primarily focused in the appropriate areas

within UGAs •activities outside of UGAs are managed to protect and

restore watershed processes.

Eligible to receive funding – •local governments •Special purpose districts, •Federally-recognized tribal governments, •Tribal consortia

Encouraging regional approaches and partnerships to address problems at a watershed scale

Application at Local Level Gorst Creek Watershed

66

Integrating Water Flow and Habitat Assessments

67

Watershed Management Zones based on priorities within Gorst watershed .

68

PUGET SOUND WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION IN LOCAL PLANNING

Example from Kitsap County

ASSESSMENT INTEGRATION AND INTERPRETATION

Volume 3

Local Land Use Planning

Lots of Assessments

• All considered good enough to meet their needs

TNC’s Ecoregional

Assessments

• All created for specific purposes

WDFW & WDOT Habitat Connectivity

WDFW Western Governors’

Crucial Habitats

TPL’s Freshwater Priorities

WDNR Aquatic Lands Assessment

Wild Salmon Center’s Salmon Strongholds

Lead Entity Steelhead

Recovery Plans

• Many are complementary or supplementary

Ecology & WDFW Watershed

Characterization

Ecology TMDLs

Lead Entity Chinook

Recovery Plans

PSNERP Assessment

Kitsap County’s Salmon Refugia

Skagit County’s Alternative Futures

Purpose of the Characterization

• Where on the landscape should planning and management efforts be focused first

• What general types of activities and actions are most appropriate at that place

• Why are those places relatively more or less important than other places

Does not model rates or quantities for: instream flows Mid & Finer Scale Modeling done by sediment Salmon Recovery Plans wood

Sound Wide Results – Water Flow

73 RESTORATION

jSeattle

Mt. Vernon

Bellingham

Tacoma

Interpreting Assessment Results: WHERE

Step 1 – Using the importance scores, locate the most important places (i.e. assessment units) within a study area.

Upper watershed has largest area of high importance

Upper

Lower

Interpreting Assessment Results: WHAT

Step 2 – Based on degradation scores, determine what general types of activities (protection and/or restoration) that should be emphasized in the most important places.

Extensive forest road system affecting delivery processes

Interpreting Assessment Results: WHAT

Step 2 – Based on degradation scores, determine what general types of activities (protection and/or restoration) that should be emphasized in the most important places.

Storage processes degraded in lower watershed by agricultural activities

Interpreting Assessment Results: WHY

Step 3 – Construct tables that summarize results for the processes that comprise importance and degradation scores. Understanding why should lead to recommendations for more specific management actions.

Upper

Lower

Interpreting Results: WHY Examining the Components of each

assessment

78

Watershed-scale Interpretation Processes intact in upper watershed. Site or reach level restoration is less likely to fail due to upstream processes. Restoration at the site or reach level appropriate in lower watershed since upper watershed processes intact. Restoration at the site or reach level appropriate in lower watershed since upper watershed processes intact . Additional measures necessary to attenuate adjacent impact in lower watershed.

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

Restoration of watershed processes probably should occur first before undertaking habitat restoration

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

All watershed processes significantly degraded; consider alternative location for habitat restoration

Index of Watershed Condition

This index tells you the condition of the watershed above an assessment unit. If the upper watershed is not significantly degraded then the downstream assessment unit is a good place for instream restoration

Higher values indicate processes are intact and will support stream structure and function – restoration will have a higher chance of success


Mid & fine scale - Salmon recovery plan tells us this is a good location for restoration

Watershed condition index tells us that upper watershed processes are intact and will contribute to long-term success of restoration projects



Water Flow assessment also evaluates upland land use within individual AUs that control the delivery & movement of water to streams

Water Flow assessment also tells us that most of the upper watershed AUs require land-use activities that are protective of processes



In regards to water flow processes this area will have the least affect on altering in-stream structure and function. Other factors such as wildlife, water quality, and any development would be governed by finer scale information and local critical area ordinances

Water Flow assessment also evaluates upland land use within individual AUs that control the delivery & movement of water to streams

Concerns that have been expressed regarding PS Characterization

From meetings with EPA, letters, Habitat Advisory Committee comments we have heard:

• Concern that PS Watershed Characterization is

inconsistent with and should not supplant Salmon Recovery Plans

• Tribes need to be engaged in PS Watershed Characterization - bring in local data to improve results

• Concerns with Habitat Assessments done by WDFW

Next Steps – Volume 3

• Integrate, Synthesize and Apply Assessment Results – Must be in a format that helps inform planning

decisions for land use and other related actions (e.g. stormwater and restoration priorities)

– Current thinking is to use case studies to illustrate how to integrate, synthesize and apply

– Have to decide on what array of case studies

• Methods Manual

• Web Display

85

Discussion

• How do we effectively bring finer-scale tribal data into our assessment framework

• Process for reaching out to appropriate tribal participation when working on local plans

• Potential for tribal input into Phase 2 (integration) of the Characterization Project

puget sound watershed characterization...

Documents