1. City of Bellingham Habitat Restoration Master Plan TAG Meeting February 26, 2013 ESA | VEDA Environmental | Northwest Ecological Services

2. Existing Conditions Assessment Results RIVERINE FUNCTION Subwatershed Flow Variation Function Surface Storage Function Biodiversity Maintenance Habitat Creation and Maintenance Chemical RegulationThermo- 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

3. 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

4. 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!!

5. Previously Presented Conceptual Model to TAG

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

7. Conceptual Model Memorandum

8. Conceptual Model Memo Contents Proposed Habitat Groups and analysis scale Screening criteria for Functions and Attribute Measures  Data availability  Data analysis protocol  Direct Measure  Repeatable  Sensitive Proposed draft relationships for habitat groups

9. Changes to Habitat Groups Revised Habitat Groups Wetland Meadow/shrub Nearshore/ estuarine COMBINED Riverine and Riparian (now Riverine) Forest (ONE category) REMOVED Urban

10. Functions and Measures Tables

11. Questions on Review of Past Project Work?

12. 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

13. 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

14. Example – Riverine Habitat Group 24 Sub-watersheds Six functions advanced through initial screening  Flow variation  Surface storage  Biodiversity maintenance  Habitat creation and maintenance  Chemical regulation  Thermo-regulation Revised some relationships based on data availability

15. Riverine Habitat Group Sub-watersheds

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

17. Biodiversity Calculations Spreadsheet (Sheet E-2)

18. 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

19. Summary of Biodiversity Function Analysis (Sheet E-3)

20. Biodiversity Function Score – Ordered Results (Sheet E-4) Subwatershed Name Biodiversity Maintenance Function ScoreOrdered Biodiversity Score LAKE PADDEN0.4321 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.4802 LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.5003 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.5034 FEVER CREEK0.5195 LINCOLN CREEK0.5456 ALDERWOOD CREEK0.5487 CONNELLY CREEK0.5618 LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.5659 HANNAH CREEK0.57010 SPOKANE CREEK0.60011 UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.60912 BEAR CREEK0.62713 LOWER BAKER CREEK0.63314 LOWER TOAD CREEK0.65715 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.66316 CEMETERY CREEK0.66517 LOWER SQUALICUM0.66918 LOST CREEK0.67219 CHUCKANUT CREEK0.69020 LOWER SPRING CREEK0.69421 LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.71422 FORT BELLINGHAM0.71823 UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.74524

21. Biodiversity Function Data Distribution (E-5)

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

27. How Should Results Be Grouped? (Sheet E-4) Subwatershed Name Biodiversity Maintenance Function ScoreOrdered Biodiversity Score LAKE PADDEN0.4321 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.4802 LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.5003 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.5034 FEVER CREEK0.5195 LINCOLN CREEK0.5456 ALDERWOOD CREEK0.5487 CONNELLY CREEK0.5618 LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.5659 HANNAH CREEK0.57010 SPOKANE CREEK0.60011 UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.60912 BEAR CREEK0.62713 LOWER BAKER CREEK0.63314 LOWER TOAD CREEK0.65715 SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.66316 CEMETERY CREEK0.66517 LOWER SQUALICUM0.66918 LOST CREEK0.67219 CHUCKANUT CREEK0.69020 LOWER SPRING CREEK0.69421 LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.71422 FORT BELLINGHAM0.71823 UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.74524

28. 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

29. Category Break Options Explored Based on various standard deviations from the mean Based on quartiles (four equal categories) Based on quintiles (five equal categories)

30. One Standard Deviation (Sheet E-8) Subwatershed NumberSubwatershed Name Biodiversity Maintenance Score 1LAKE PADDEN0.432 2BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.480 3LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.500 4SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.503 5FEVER CREEK0.519 6LINCOLN CREEK0.545 7ALDERWOOD CREEK0.548 8CONNELLY CREEK0.561 9LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.565 10HANNAH CREEK0.570 11SPOKANE CREEK0.600 12UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.609 13BEAR CREEK0.627 14LOWER BAKER CREEK0.633 15LOWER TOAD CREEK0.657 16SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.663 17CEMETERY CREEK0.665 18LOWER SQUALICUM0.669 19LOST CREEK0.672 20CHUCKANUT CREEK0.690 21LOWER SPRING CREEK0.694 22LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.714 23FORT BELLINGHAM0.718 24UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.745

31. Quartiles - Four Even Categories (Sheet E-9) Subwatershed NumberSubwatershed Name Biodiversity Maintenance Score 1LAKE PADDEN0.432 2BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.480 3LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.500 4SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.503 5FEVER CREEK0.519 6LINCOLN CREEK0.545 7ALDERWOOD CREEK0.548 8CONNELLY CREEK0.561 9LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.565 10HANNAH CREEK0.570 11SPOKANE CREEK0.600 12UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.609 13BEAR CREEK0.627 14LOWER BAKER CREEK0.633 15LOWER TOAD CREEK0.657 16SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.663 17CEMETERY CREEK0.665 18LOWER SQUALICUM0.669 19LOST CREEK0.672 20CHUCKANUT CREEK0.690 21LOWER SPRING CREEK0.694 22LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.714 23FORT BELLINGHAM0.718 24UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.745

32. Quintiles - Five Even Categories (Sheet E-10) Subwatershed NumberSubwatershed Name Biodiversity Maintenance Score 1LAKE PADDEN0.432 2BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.480 3LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.500 4SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.503 5FEVER CREEK0.519 6LINCOLN CREEK0.545 7ALDERWOOD CREEK0.548 8CONNELLY CREEK0.561 9LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.565 10HANNAH CREEK0.570 11SPOKANE CREEK0.600 12UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.609 13BEAR CREEK0.627 14LOWER BAKER CREEK0.633 15LOWER TOAD CREEK0.657 16SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.663 17CEMETERY CREEK0.665 18LOWER SQUALICUM0.669 19LOST CREEK0.672 20CHUCKANUT CREEK0.690 21LOWER SPRING CREEK0.694 22LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.714 23FORT BELLINGHAM0.718 24UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.745

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

34. 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  Higher  Median  Lower  Lowest

35. Results Color Coded to Relative Condition Score (Sheet E-12) Subwatershed NumberSubwatershed Name Habitat Creation and Maintenance ScoreFunctional Score Category 1SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #20.090 Lowest 2LOST CREEK0.199 3ALDERWOOD CREEK0.202 4LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEK0.218 5FORT BELLINGHAM0.225 Lower 6SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #10.227 7BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY0.229 8FEVER CREEK0.238 9BEAR CREEK0.240 10LOWER WHATCOM CREEK0.249 Median 11LOWER BAKER CREEK0.259 12LOWER SPRING CREEK0.283 13HANNAH CREEK0.289 14LINCOLN CREEK0.313 15LOWER PADDEN CREEK0.316 16LOWER TOAD CREEK0.340 Higher 17LOWER SQUALICUM0.341 18CONNELLY CREEK0.344 19LAKE PADDEN0.380 20SPOKANE CREEK0.401 21CHUCKANUT CREEK0.418 Highest 22CEMETERY CREEK0.451 23UPPER PADDEN CREEK0.523 24UPPER WHATCOM CREEK0.587

36. Biodiversity Results by Sub-watershed (Sheet E-13) Subwatershed Biodiversity Maintenance Relative Function Rating ALDERWOOD CREEKLower BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARYLowest BEAR CREEKMedian CEMETERY CREEKHigher CHUCKANUT CREEKHigher CONNELLY CREEKLower FEVER CREEKLower FORT BELLINGHAMHighest HANNAH CREEKMedian LAKE PADDENLowest LINCOLN CREEKLower LITTLE SQUALICUM CREEKLowest LOST CREEKHigher LOWER BAKER CREEKMedian LOWER PADDEN CREEKLower LOWER SPRING CREEKHighest LOWER SQUALICUMHigher LOWER TOAD CREEKMedian LOWER WHATCOM CREEKHighest SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #1Higher SILVER CREEK TRIBUTARY #2Lowest SPOKANE CREEKMedian UPPER PADDEN CREEKMedian UPPER WHATCOM CREEKHighest

37. 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 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

38. Questions on Existing Conditions Analysis Example?

39. Repeated Process for all Habitat Groups - Wetland Analysis units were 28 sub-watersheds Seven functions advanced  Surface water storage  Nitrogen removal  Pathogen removal  Organic matter export/contribution  Sediment/phosphorus removal  Wildlife habitat  Carbon sequestration

40. 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. each  Lower and Higher = 6 sub-watsh. each  Median = 6 sub-watersheds

41. 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 Can use attribute level metrics for next project steps if necessary (numbering 3 and 2, respectively)

42. 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  Lower and Higher = 16 habitat blocks each  Median = 25 habitat blocks

43. 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 Can use attribute level metrics for next project steps if necessary (numbering 2 and 2, respectively)

44. 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  Lower and Higher = 9 habitat blocks each  Median = 14 habitat blocks

45. 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

46. Questions on Existing Conditions Analysis for Other Habitat Groups?

47. 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?

48. 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

49. Questions?