1. City of Bellingham Habitat Restoration Master Plan TAG Meeting December 5, 2012 ESA | VEDA Environmental | Northwest Ecological Services

2. Project Overview Project Goals Project Approach Example of End Product Conceptual Framework Questions for Advisory Group

3. Project Goals Develop scientifically defensible plan that prioritizes a wide range of restoration actions Create useful tool for multiple applications: – Development review/permitting – Capital improvement plans – Comprehensive planning – Mitigation programs, grant applications Take advantage of TAG input to date

4. Project Approach Framework is science-based analysis of ecological functions but also considers feasibility Process-based vs. species-based Functions grouped by habitat groups Restoration actions prioritized by sub- basin/watershed and by type of action Utilizes existing data and TAG input

5. Project Approach (continued) Restoration actions include capital projects, protection, education / outreach, changes in land use/environmental regulations, etc Success of Plan can be measured (adaptive management) Plan is accessible and understandable by public – City IQ website – Action sheets

6. Project Transition Original Approach New Approach Step 1. Identify Limiting Factors Create science-based analysis of ecological functions. Develop model parameters. Step 2: Determine stressors Group functions by habitat type Utilize existing data and TAG input Characterize existing ecosystem conditions Step 3: Identify restoration and regulatory constraints and opportunities Develop/analyze project actions Step 4: Habitat restoration potential and feasibility Prioritize restoration actions by ecological uplift Step 5: Prioritized actions Feasibility assessment

7. Key Similarities Both approaches are processes based Both approaches prioritize actions Both approaches evaluate constraints

8. Key Differences Our approach is function based and transparent Our approach is not explicitly species focused Our approach incorporates anthropogenic constraints at the end Our approach focused on project actions Our prioritization approach does not rank all actions against each other

9. Example of End Product Squalicum Creek Existing Condition Existing Riverine Function Rating (1 = Low, 5 = High) Subbasin Surface Water Flow Variability Thermal Regulation Biodiversity Chemical Regulation Upper Squalicum 12333 Baker Creek33444 Lower Squal44445

10. GIS Mapping

11. Baker Creek Sub-basin – Existing Riverine Function Scores FunctionScore Surfacewater Storage3 Flow Variation3 Biodiversity Maintenance4 Chemical Regulation4 Thermal Regulation4

12. Prioritizations within Sub-Basin Baker Creek Sub-basin Habitat AreaRankPriority Actions Riverine Habitat Areas 1Implementation of LID program 2Public education campaign for WQ Upland Habitat Areas 1 Restore forested cooridor between two largest exisitng forested pataches 2Protect open-field habitat Riparian/Floodplain Habitat Areas 1Restore floodplain in middle stream reach 2Implement wider riparian buffers in DS reach 3Meander channel in DS reach Wetland Habitat Areas 1Protect large wetland in southwest of basin 2Enhance wetland buffer in Wetlands 4 and 5 Marine Nearshore/Estuarine Habitat Areas 1Remove bulkhead along north shoreline 2Create pocket beach(s) along south shoreline

13. Prioritization by Restoration Action Action: Install Instream Structure (e.g., LWD, boulders) PrioritySub-basin 1Lincoln Creek 2Bear Creek 3Spring Creek 4Central Bellingham 5Cemetery Creek 6Toad Creek 7McCormick Creek

14. Conceptual Model Function based Definitions (see handout) Model relies on relationship of habitats to functions and functions to measurable attributes Model will evaluate and compare existing conditions Analysis will occur at sub-basins scale

15. Model Linkages

16. Conceptual Model Example Riverine Habitat

17. Potential Functions for Stream Habitats Surface water storage Sub/surface water transfer Flow variation Sediment continuity Substrate mobility Maintain biodiversity Sustain trophic structure Nutrient cycling Chemical regulation Thermal regulation

18. Potential Attribute Measures Surface Water Storage Function Strahler Stream Order and upstream contributing basin area Ratio of contributing basin area to total basin area Percent impervious surface within contributing basin /floodplain Condition (forested or non-forested) of upstream basin Ratio of stream bankfull width to "pre-developed" floodplain width Qualitative assessment of downstream flood frequency and magnitude for adjacent reaches and downstream basin Area of 'urban' land cover or infrastructure (bridges, utilities) in mapped floodplain Percent of downstream channel with levees, dikes, or other channel confinements

19. Potential Attribute Measures (continued) Chemical Regulation Function 303(d) listings or TMDLs for Dissolved Oxygen, pH, total dissolved gas, toxics upstream and downstream Percent impervious surface within contributing basin Percent of contributing basin consisting of industrial, commercial, or high-density residential land uses

20. Selecting Attribute Measures Not all attributes can be effectively measured Measures will be screened based on these criteria to determine suitability: 1. Relationship to function 2. Quantifiable and repeatable 3. Sensitivity to change 4. Data availability

21. Actions Relate to Habitats and Functions

22. Restoration Action Portfolio RestorativeEnhancementPrerequisiteProtective Role Exert long-lasting effects on ecosystem processes Promote structural elements (habitats) and/or mimic natural processes Remove or prevent physical and chemical disturbances Protect existing resources, limit future impairment, influence human behaviors Action Remove impervious surface Remove bank armoring Install LWD Remove Invasive Species Enhance stream substrate (for spawning) Treat stormwater runoff Control access Acquire property Educate property citizens

23. Next Steps Determine number and type of habitat groups Prepare draft list of functions for each habitat group Prepare draft list of attribute measures for each function Prepare draft list of restoration actions

24. Questions?

25. Questions for TAG Is the function-driven model proposed appropriate for achieving project goals? Suggestions for number or type of habitat types? Appropriateness of sub-basin scale for analysis?