No Net Loss Framework. SMP tools for measuring and maintaining ecological functions

Transcription

1 No Net Loss Framework SMP tools for measuring and maintaining ecological functions

2 What does no net loss mean? As shoreline development occurs, ecological functions stay the same (or are improved) over time Baseline condition Ecological Function Time

3 What s a framework? A support structure A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality A well defined tactic used to master the complex environment of an organization with simplicity A basic conceptual structure to allow homogenous handling of different objects

4 NNL framework Monitoring & Tracking NNL Implementation SMP Update

5 Goals of the NNL framework Provide a systematic way quantitatively relate SMP management decisions to functions Provide site- and reach-specific information to support permitting and enhance technical support Enable quantitative and spatially explicit monitoring and assessment to document NNL over time SMP Update Implementation Implementation SMP Update Monitoring SMP Update

6 Conceptual model SMP Decisions Human Actions Structure Processes Functions Key linkage *adapted from Diefenderfer et al., 2009

7 Conceptual model Beach profile SMP Regulation Shoreline stabilization Sediment supply Forage fish spawning

8 Conceptual model Incentive provision Voluntary fertilizer ban Increased dissolved oxygen Phytoplankton production Decreased noxious algae SMP restoration *adapted from PSNERP 2009 Riparian planting Wood accumulation in streams Increased primary production Enhanced salmon rearing

9 As a starting point We need a systematic, transparent and repeatable way to identify & document the connections between SMP decision and effects on functions

10 Using the framework - SMP updates 1. Document baseline ecological conditions (using indicators) 2. Evaluate potential land use changes 3. Determine risk of functional loss 4. Tailor SMP standards based on type and level of risk

11 Baseline conditions Step 1 Inherent Quality (IQ) Alterations Watershed conditions *adapted from May and Peterson 2003

12 Indicators Step 1 Inherent quality (IQ): 1. Affected by factors such as location, shore type, etc 2. Presence / absence of: eelgrass kelp forage fish wetlands feeder bluffs proximity to natal streams, etc

13 Indicators Step 1 Degree of alteration: 1. Affected by past development practices 2. Presence / absence of: loss of forest cover docks & piers armoring restricted shellfish harvest confined floodplain, etc

14 Indicators Step 1 Watershed condition: 1. Relative sub-basin rating from Ecology s characterization and/or PSNERP data

15 Baseline conditions Step 1 IQ Alterations Watershed conditions *adapted from May and Peterson 2003

16 Port Townsend Discovery Bay N Jefferson Co. Clallam Co.

17 IQ Indicator: Priority Habitats & Species Discovery Bay Jefferson County

18 Alteration Indicator: Armoring Discovery Bay Jefferson County Jefferson County

19 Results for step 1 Step 1 Reach Parcel Eelgrass IQ Indicator Feeder Bluff Wetland PHS Total score Baseline Condition A 1 # B 1 2 Alteration Indicator Reach Parcel Bulkhead Dock Lack of Forest Total score A 1 # B Poor Fair Good 2

20 Potential land use changes Step 2 Key considerations: 1. Types of use 2. Units/acre (density) 3. Age of structures 4. Infrastructure availability 5. Lot pattern & dimensions 6. Site constraints (e.g., high/low bank) 7. Consistency with planning goals

21 Parcel analysis Step 2 Developed or undeveloped? No. of units per acre? Existing no. units less than allowed by zoning? Significant constraints to future development? Infrastructure adequate to support future development? New waterfront lots likely? Existing structures likely to be expanded or redeveloped?

22 Potential Land Use Change: Un- / Under-developed Parcels Discovery Bay Jefferson County Vacant (developable) Fewer units than allowed by zoning

23 Results for step 2 Step 2 Potential Land Use Low Mod High Baseline Conditions

24 Risk of functional loss Step 3 1. Will future development occur in high function areas? No go to question 2 Yes go to question 3 2. Will future development occur in unaltered areas? No Risk of loss is low Yes go to question 3 3. Is the type of future development likely to cause impacts (clearing, armoring, septic )? No Risk of loss is low Yes Risk of loss is high Do you plan for the worse case scenario?

25 Characterizing risk Step 3 High Moderate Low Baseline conditions are Good and potential land use change is High Baseline conditions are Good or Fair and potential land use change is High or Moderate Baseline conditions are Fair or Poor and potential land use change is Low Or Baseline condition is Poor and potential land use change is High

26 Results for step 3 Step 3 Risk Baseline Conditions Potential Land Use Low Mod High

27 Tailoring SMP management Step 4 Designations, policies and regulations can address specific risks to specific functions at specific locales e.g., different dock standards for places where new docks are likely and where new docks are likely to affect eelgrass compared to other places Restoration can be more explicitly tied to expected functional losses

28 Using the framework - implementation IQ Indicator Reach Parcel Eelgrass Feeder bluff Wetland Forage fish???? Total score A 1 # B Reach A Parcel 1 Armoring Alteration Indicator Dock/pier Lack of Restricted forest SF harvest cover???? Total score # B 1 2 3

29 Putting it all together with monitoring IQ & Alteration indicators Exist. Dev. Low Mgmt tools Baseline cond. Potential LU change Risk of functional loss Mod Mgmt tools Monitor Watershed score Future Dev. High Mgmt tools

30 Benefits Creates standardized approach for relating inventory information to SMP decisions (& implementation) Based on conceptual models linking SMP decisions to shoreline functions Allows for quantitative assessment and monitoring using indicators IQ, alterations and watershed conditions Allows you to prioritize and customize management strategies based on a risk assessment approach

31 IQ Indicator: Eelgrass Discovery Bay Parcels

32 Number of Parcels that have Eelgrass Presence by Reach Reaches CONTINUOUS PATCHY Total Eelgrass Total % Eelgrass Total # Parcels GGG % 7 HHH % 210 III % 182 JJJ % 89 KKK % 6 LLL % Could create % breakouts by continuous/patchy and use this to generate a qualitative score.

33 Alteration Indicator: Shoreline modifications Discovery Bay Discovery Bay

34 Eelgrass and shoreline modifications Discovery Bay Parcels In-/ over-water structures

35 Potential Land Use Change: Un- / Under-developed Parcels Discovery Bay Undeveloped (vacant) Fewer units than allowed by zoning (1:20)

36 Areas where eelgrass is at risk due to new docks Discovery Bay Future development requesting new docks Parcels

37 Eelgrass and future armoring Discovery Bay Piano lots needing proactive strategy for shoreline protection Parcels Armoring

38 I m just a geoduck What do you think?