Steltzner budd inlet habitat conference

412 views
340 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
412
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Stress not a model
    Think strategy
    How do we prioritize based on changing needs and resources
  • -Science panel
    -Will go into more detail on analysis and how we crafted strategy from this
  • Products from the Advisory Panel
    -how Budd Inlet works
    -specific action either short (10 years) or long term
    -all of this feeds into a basic strategy- what to do where, when and why
  • -Types of projects- restore, conserve, studies, watershed groups
    nearshore focus but also uplands
  • About 120 project or actions
    O.K. but this is not a strategy
  • -focus is the nearshore
    -Other efforts
    WDNR doing tidelands for HCP
    Ecology and WDFW assessing uplands
    PSNERP assessed shoreline
    -Didn’t want to duplicate but compliment
    -Catchment has many different definitions we used SSHIAP
    -Tried to look at a more landscape level
  • -Uplands have an influence on the nearshore
    -Two catchment designations
    SHORELINE touches the Shorezone line
    UPLAND- one more catchment inland
    - Didn’t try to identify all of the processes going on just acknowledging that the exist.
  • -Added shoreline. Used PSNERP definition of 200 meters from Shorezone line.
  • -May be somewhat sophisticated modeling in rivers or streams but not in marine waters
    -Idea was to get at basic health of the catchments.
    Used NOAA coastal development data set. Bases on 30 meter squares and is one up on impervious in that breaks out wetlands, types of development, and types of forest and open space
    NOAA updates this every 5 years so should be useful for change analysis
  • -Nearshore focus but wanted to get a basic idea of contributing upland health
    -All of these plus development scores
  • -All of the above upland catchment attributes plus info pertinent to the shorelines
    -Again trying to get basic idea of health. These are recorded as present-absent within the catchment
  • Development score calculated for each catchment
    -Score also calculated for neighboring catchments
    -Old real estate saying applies. While your score matters you have to take into account your surroundings.
  • -green is indication of better health yellow has more stressors
  • -red has the most stressors green the least
  • -breaking off nearshore (200 meter zone) from uplands and re-calculate you find areas where contributing uplands are in better shape than the nearshore
  • -Not as intuitive but in quite few cases the contributing upland is in worse shape than the nearshore
  • -Rank nearshore and upland catchments
  • -Cut out the shoreline and re-run analysis
  • -Have shown GIS product and all data is located in it but the heart of the analysis is in Excel.
    -Information for each catchment, including neighboring catchment scores is included.
    -Can add or remove data as is fitting for each assessment
    -This set up id designed to facilitate group discussion and goal planning.
  • -Have shown GIS product and all data is located in it but the heart of the analysis is in Excel.
    -Called attribute filter.
    -Wanted something other than a stand alone model or assessment that was species focosed.
  • -Basic strategies are assigned to individual catchments as well as contiguous groupings of catchments.
    -Not just classic conserve or restore but in some cases very little of the desired habitat is left in which case you want to enhance or may be completely gone in which case you must create habitat.
  • -You can overlay proposed projects onto your basic strategies.
  • -Areas where all is in relatively good shape are obvious in calling for conserver and preserve but small or individual restoration projects are more likely to be successful and self maintaining.
  • -Very different strategy in areas that are not in as good shape.
    -Not saying don’t do projects here but if you do small or individual projects may not be successful and self sustaining.
    -A significant number of projects may be necessary.
    -This is an important consideration for areas that are landlocked like the cites or ports when looking at restoration for mitigation.
  • -A strength of this process is that you can overlay other assessments onto strategies.
    -In this case we used the WRIA 13 technical teams Nearshore Juvenile Salmonid Project Selection Tool.
    -It identifies Shorezone units that have the most “beneficial” habitat types relative to other units.
  • -Special thanks to Kyle Brakensiek and Ken Currens.
  • Steltzner budd inlet habitat conference

    1. 1. Budd InletBudd Inlet Landscape AnalysisLandscape Analysis Squaxin Island TribeSquaxin Island Tribe
    2. 2. MethodologyMethodology  Advisory PanelAdvisory Panel  AnalysisAnalysis  StrategyStrategy
    3. 3. Advisory PanelAdvisory Panel  Conceptual modelConceptual model  ActionsActions  StrategyStrategy
    4. 4. ProjectsProjects  PlanningPlanning  Form groupsForm groups  RestorationRestoration  ConservationConservation
    5. 5. AnalysisAnalysis  Nearshore focusNearshore focus  Unit = catchmentUnit = catchment  LandscapeLandscape
    6. 6. CatchmentsCatchments
    7. 7. Nearshore Zone- 200 MNearshore Zone- 200 M
    8. 8. DataData  NOAA C-CAPNOAA C-CAP  Shoreline SurveysShoreline Surveys  PSNERPPSNERP  WRIA 13WRIA 13
    9. 9. Upland AttributesUpland Attributes  303D303D  MTCA- cleanupMTCA- cleanup  WetlandsWetlands  StreamsStreams  Protected landProtected land
    10. 10. Shoreline AttributesShoreline Attributes  Pocket estuaryPocket estuary  Forage fishForage fish  SedimentSediment  VegetationVegetation  ArmoringArmoring  FillFill  MarinasMarinas  DocksDocks  OutfallsOutfalls
    11. 11. Landscape ScoreLandscape Score  NOAA C-CAPNOAA C-CAP  Location - Location -Location - Location - LocationLocation
    12. 12. Good NeighborhoodGood Neighborhood
    13. 13. Bad NeighborhoodBad Neighborhood
    14. 14. Good UplandsGood Uplands
    15. 15. Bad UplandsBad Uplands
    16. 16. Rank UplandsRank Uplands
    17. 17. Rank ShorelineRank Shoreline
    18. 18. Data AnalysisData Analysis  Not a modelNot a model  Excel basedExcel based
    19. 19. Identify CatchmentsIdentify Catchments
    20. 20. Attribute FilterAttribute Filter CatchmentCatchment C-CAPC-CAP ScoreScore NeighborNeighbor ScoreScore PositivesPositives NegativeNegative ## %% %% %% 1 or 01 or 0 %% 1 or 01 or 0
    21. 21. StrategyStrategy  ConserveConserve  EnhanceEnhance  RestoreRestore  CreateCreate
    22. 22. StrategyStrategy
    23. 23. Thank youThank you Kyle BrakensiekKyle Brakensiek Ken CurrensKen Currens

    ×