1. City of Bellingham Habitat Restoration Technical Assessment TAG Meeting September 26, 2014 ESA | VEDA Environmental | Northwest Ecological Services

2. Overview of Today’s Presentation Brief summary of project developments since last meeting - Technical Assessment vs. Master Plan Discuss project applications and usefulness Quick review of previous project analysis Overview of secondary and primary prioritizations Discuss technical expert input and final prioritizations Overview of recommended restoration areas Discussion/comments with TAG

3. Goals of Today’s Presentation To refresh TAG members on the analysis methods Provide one more opportunity for TAG review of the assessment document Please ask questions if anything is not clear, you want more specific information, or if we are moving to fast!!

4. Project Developments Since Last TAG Meeting City Council presentation (April 2013) Conducted open house (September 2013) Internal City discussions Determined project current project end-point is a Technical Assessment vs. a Master Plan Current will support future City habitat restoration efforts

5. Technical Assessment Benefits and Applications Serves as a science-based foundation for current and future restoration efforts Can be used to prioritize restoration and protection efforts within the City and its UGA the following ways:  Priority focus areas across the project area  Priority project types within a specific area – e.g., project for local watershed group  Priority for a given project type – e.g. – tied to grant funding

6. Public Works Planning and implementing discreet habitat restoration projects Planning and Community Development Inform land use decisions, development review and mitigation decisions Parks Department Planning and including habitat restoration elements into parks and open space projects Community Information on local conditions and guidance on trade-offs with development impacts All Departments Transparency and consistency for habitat restoration, stormwater, decisions; support for grant funding requests Benefits of the Habitat Technical Assessment City Council Predictable budgeting

7. Review of Conceptual Model

8. Conceptual Model: Relationships between Functions and Attribute Measures

9. Existing Functional Assessment: Riverine and Wetlands

10. Existing Functional Assessment: Forest and Meadow/Shrub

11. Existing Functional Assessment: Calculation of Function Scores

12. Existing Functional Assessment: Assign Relative Condition Score for Function Subwatershed NumberSubwatershed Name Habitat Creation and Maintenance Score 1SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.090 2LOST CREEK0.199 3ALDERWOOD CREEK0.202 4LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.218 5FORT BELLINGHAM0.225 6SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.227 7BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.229 8FEVER CREEK0.238 9BEAR CREEK0.240 10LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.249 11LOWER BAKER CREEK0.259 12LOWER SPRING CREEK0.283 13HANNAH CREEK0.289 14LINCOLN CREEK0.313 15LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.316 16LOWER TOAD CREEK0.340 17LOWER SQUALICUM0.341 18CONNELLY CREEK0.344 19LAKE PADDEN0.380 20SPOKANE CREEK0.401 21CHUCKANUT CREEK0.418 22CEMETERY CREEK0.451 23UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.523 24UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.587

13. Existing Functional Assessment: Assign Function Scores for All Habitat Units RIVERINE FUNCTION Subwatershed Flow Variation Function Surface Storage Function Biodiversity Maintenance Habitat Creation and Maintenance Chemical Regulation Thermo- regulation ALDERWOOD CREEKLowerMedianLowerLowestLowerMedian BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARYMedian LowestLowerLowestMedian BEAR CREEKLowerHighestMedianLowerMedianHigher CEMETERY CREEKHigherLowerHigherHighestMedianLower CHUCKANUT CREEKHighestLowerHigherHighest CONNELLY CREEKLowerMedianLowerHigherLowerLowest FEVER CREEKLowestMedianLower LowestLower FORT BELLINGHAMMedianHighest LowerMedianLowest HANNAH CREEKHigherLowestMedian Higher LAKE PADDENHighest LowestHigher LINCOLN CREEKLowestHigherLowerMedianLower LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEKLowestMedianLowest Higher LOST CREEKHigherHighestHigherLowestHigherLower LOWER BAKER CREEKMedianLowerMedian LowestMedian LOWER PADDEN CREEKMedianLower MedianLowerMedian LOWER SPRING CREEKLower HighestMedianLowerHigher LOWER SQUALICUMMedianHigher MedianLowest LOWER TOAD CREEKHigherLowestMedianHigher Median LOWER WHATCOM CREEKLowest HighestMedianLowest SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1MedianHigher LowerHigherMedian SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2LowerMedianLowest MedianLower SPOKANE CREEKHighestHigherMedianHigherHighest UPPER PADDEN CREEKHigherLowestMedianHighest UPPER WHATCOM CREEKHighestHigherHighest

14. General Questions Existing Conditions Methodology?

15. Initial Prioritization: Summary Determine list of restoration actions Assign effectiveness scores for each combination of action and function For each Analysis Unit, sum the individual function/attribute scores to produce a single combined potential uplift score Summarize list of scores as the basis of initial prioritization

16. Initial Prioritization: Restoration Actions Actions grouped into two groups  Restorative (enhancement/creation)  Protective (not exclusion) Restoration action effectiveness ratings based on potential functional uplift  High  Medium  Low

17. Initial Prioritization: Restoration Actions Increase In-channel Habitat Quantity Reconnect Stream to Floodplain Restore Depressional Wetlands Install Instream Complexity and Increase Habitat Quality Remove or Modify Streamside Armor Restore/enhance Vegetated Riparian Buffer Retrofit Stormwater Facilities and Existing Development Permanent Protection of Stream Buffer

18. Initial Prioritization: Restoration Actions Increase In-channel Habitat Quantity - Meander Stream, create side channels/oxbows/blind channels Implement LID Program - Install rain gardens, soil amended lawns, tree planting, green roofs, infiltration trenches, and/or create City incentives/funding Create Wetland and Wetland Buffer - Create wetland and wetland buffer through grading, planting, invasive species removal, and hydrologic alterations

19. Initial Prioritization: Calculating Results Changed function scores to numerical scores (1- 5) Took product of function scores and restoration effectiveness scores Used weighted attributes for forest and meadow/shrub Underlying assumption that lower function = higher potential for uplift and that higher function = higher potential for preservation

20. Initial Prioritization: Calculating Results Across Habitat Units (wetland example) Wetland Habitat Restoration Action Subwatershed Restore Wetland and Buffer Enhance Wetland and Buffer Permanent Protection Regulatory Protection Alderwood Creek 4826188 Baker Creek Tributary 2211.54420 Bear Creek 2010.54621 Cemetery Creek 20114622 Central Bellingham 5128155 Chuckanut Creek 158.55123 Connelly Creek 3921.52713 Fever Creek 34193215 Spokane Creek 1485224 Squalicum Harbor 5329136 Upper Padden Creek 35193115 Upper Whatcom Creek 18104823

21. Initial Prioritization: Calculating Results By Action (stream example)

22. Initial Prioritization: Calculating Results For A Singe Unit (wetland example) Wetland Habitat Restoration Action Subwatershed Restore Wetland and Buffer Enhance Wetland and Buffer Permanent Protection Regulatory Protection Alderwood Creek 4826188 Baker Creek Tributary 2211.54420 Bear Creek 2010.54621 Cemetery Creek 20114622 Central Bellingham 5128155 Chuckanut Creek 158.55123 Connelly Creek 3921.52713 Fever Creek 34193215 Spokane Creek 1485224 Squalicum Harbor 5329136 Upper Padden Creek 35193115 Upper Whatcom Creek 18104823

23. Secondary Prioritization: Overview Restoration philosophy ignored practicalities of restoration scale/costs Secondary prioritization recognizes that multiple severely degraded functions = little practical chance of uplift Used function scores to separate habitat units with low-scoring functions across the board Recalculated restoration priorities with units separate

24. Secondary Prioritization: Wetland Results Sum of Wetland Function ScoresSubwatershed Functions Rated Lower or Lowest Functions Rated Higher or Highest Functions Rated Median 32CHUCKANUT CREEK070 32SPOKANE CREEK061 30BEAR CREEK061 30LOWER SQUALICUM061 16CONNELLY CREEK403 16LINCOLN CREEK502 15LOWER PADDEN CREEK502 14NORTH LOWER SQUALICUM610 14SOUTH BELLINGHAM610 12ALDERWOOD CREEK700 11CENTRAL BELLINGHAM610 10LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK700 8LOWER WHATCOM CREEK700 8SQUALICUM HARBOR700

25. Secondary Prioritization: Stream Results

26. Final Prioritization - Overview Attempted to combine habitat groups into similar geographic areas for final recommendations Compared/combined riverine and wetland by sub- watershed Incorporated fish use and watershed importance scores to assist in final selection Incorporated local experts opinions on list of priority areas

27. Final Prioritization – Combined Riverine and Wetland Restoration Priorities Subwatershed Combined Riverine and Wetland Restorative Priority – Ordered From Highest to Lowest Scores* Lower Padden CreekHighest Baker Creek TributaryHighest Lower Toad CreekHighest Lower Baker CreekHighest Lower Spring CreekHigh Fort BellinghamHigh Hannah CreekHigh Lost CreekHigh Little Squalicum CreekHigh Lincoln CreekLower Connelly CreekLower Fever CreekLower

28. Final Prioritization – Other Factors Priority Sub- watershed Analyzed Riverine Component Priority Ranking Wetland Component Priority Ranking Fish Use Ranking Flow Importance Ranking Include in Final Prioritization List? Chuckanut CreekHighest High Low- ModerateYes Upper Whatcom CreekHighest HighLowYes Cemetery CreekHighHighestHighModerateYes Bear CreekModerateHighModerate Low ModerateYes Lower Squalicum Creek Moderate- LowHigh High- ModerateYes Spokane CreekHighHighestLowModerate NO

29. Final Prioritization – Forest Habitat Originally combined forest scores into priorities for watersheds, to geographically concentrate restoration area Results evaluated by project team, City, and local experts Consensus that approach underestimated importance of forest connectivity Used results, but supplemented with qualitative connectivity evaluation Used sub-watersheds versus watersheds

30. Final Prioritization – Forest Habitat Watershed Priority Block for Restorative Actions (forested patch area) Priority Watershed for Forest Restorative Actions Priority Block for Protective Actions (forested patch area) Priority Watershed for Forest Protective Actions Bellingham BayBlock 007 (9 acres)NoBlock 178 (130 acres)No Chuckanut CreekNoneNo Block 4 (4,201 acres) Yes Block 6 (264 acres) Little Squalicum CreekNoneNoNoneNo Padden Creek Blocks 12 (7acres) Yes Block 2 (682 acres) No Block 32 (13 acres)Block 011B (41 acres) Block 37 (7 acres) Squalicum Creek Block 78 (12 acres) Yes Block 134 (1,092 acres) Yes Block 90 (6 acres)Block 142 (2,147 acres) Block 100 (14 acres)Block 143 (347 acres) Block 150 (17 acres) Block 157 (45 acres) Block 192 (6 acres) Whatcom Creek Block 69 (17 acres) Yes Block 11 (704 acres) Yes Block 165 (22 acres)Block 52 (3,644 acres) Block 60 (207 acres) Block 148 (72 acres)

31. Final Prioritization – Meadow/Shrub Habitat Assessment tool deemed insufficient to identify existing meadow shrub areas or to identify priority areas Likely based on lack of data or proven functional linkages in model Used best professional judgment to determine high priority areas for restoration

32. Habitat Recommendations By Sub- Watershed- Overview A total of 9 sub-watersheds were advanced as priority for the Technical Assessment Includes a mix of restorative and protective actions for all habitat groups Focus on those significant action and locations e.g., not every wetland or riparian reach. Added some actions that were not taken directly from analysis (e.g., opportunistic site-specific restoration actions) In some cases, added actions immediately outside project area

33. Habitat Recommendations By Sub- Watershed- Overview R= Restorative Action; P = Protective Action

34. Habitat Recommendations – Priority Sub-Watersheds Lower Padden Creek Baker Creek Tributary Lower Baker Creek Lower Spring Creek Chuckanut Creek Upper Whatcom Creek Cemetery Creek Bear Creek Lower Squalicum

35. Priority Sub-Watersheds ADD MAP

36. Lower Squalicum Sub-Watershed Important area for salmonids (ESA listed species) Irongate development contributes to degraded water quality - 303(d) listed Existing restoration efforts underway Primarily protective actions for wetlands, riverine, and forest Recommendations also include a mix of restoration actions

37. Lower Squalicum Sub-Watershed ADD MAP

38. Lower Padden Creek Sub-watershed Summer low flow problems associated with the lake outlet Much of the drainage to Lower Lake Padden occurs via storm drains – 303(d) listed Important area for salmonids (ESA listed species) The Padden Creek floodplain has been severely restricted Mix of protective/restorative actions for wetlands, riverine, and forest Additional actions proposed in Connelly Creek (outside sub-watershed)

39. Lower Padden Creek Sub-watershed ADD MAP

40. Chuckanut Sub-Watershed Majority of sub-watershed is heavily forested and has low impervious surface Multiple species of salmonids and PHS wildlife species Instream habitat conditions generally properly functioning Some development pressure, but relatively low Suggest protective actions for wetlands, riverine, and forest

41. Chuckanut Creek Sub-Watershed ADD MAP

42. Meadow/Shrub Habitat Recommendations Did not use assessment tool to prioritize Currently limited to native bald enhancement and preservation in Chuckanut Bay Seeking more information on prospective priority sites

44. Questions for TAG to Consider / Answer When Reviewing Draft Report Did the screening approach achieve the goal of prioritizing top areas for restoration/protection? Are the recommended types and locations of proposed actions appropriate for maximum ecological uplift? Are there additional specific actions, particularly for the riverine habitat types, you would recommend? Are there specific locations for meadow/shrub restoration or protection you would recommend?

45. Next Steps You will receive the complete Draft Habitat Restoration Technical Assessment Please review and provide comments (with a focus on the questions above) Following incorporation of City and TAG comments, the City will issue the Final Assessment Document

46. Questions?