Strategic Restoration Planning for Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystems. Curtis D. Tanner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Olympia, WA

Transcription

1 Strategic Restoration Planning for Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystems Curtis D. Tanner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Olympia, WA

2 Acknowledgements Paul Cereghino (NOAA) Si Simenstad (UW) Bethany Craig (UW) Jen Burke (UW/NPS) Scott Campbell (Corps) Chris Behrens (Corps) Paul Schlenger(Anchor QEA) Erin Iverson (Anchor QEA) Bernie Hargrave (Corps) PSNERP Nearshore Science Team

3 Nearshore Ecosystems: Interrelated complex of diverse shoreforms and associated biota. River Deltas Embayments Beaches Bluffs 3

4 Strategic Nearshore Restoration & Protection Methods Problems Objectives Strategies Projects Results Change Analysis Nearshore Problems Planning Objectives Restoration & Protection Strategies Candidate Actions Implementation & Assessment 4

5 Nearshore Change Analysis Assembled Nearshore Geodatabase Data Consistent across Puget Sound Organized for analysis at multiple scales Detect and Describe Changes Between the Past (c.a. 1850) & Present Available on-line: 5

6 Science based problem #1: Barriers in large river deltas restrict the movement of fresh water and tides. Scientific evidence - 63% of the area of large deltas classified as developed land - Shoreline length has declined 25% Significance Shorebirds need large river deltas and nearshore wetlands to rest and fuel up as they migrate from the Puget Sound to their breeding grounds. 6

7 Science based problem #2: Small coastal inlets have been blocked off and filled in. Scientific evidence small embayments have been eliminated, especially closed marsh/lagoons - Historically embayments accounted for 23% of the shoreline, currently they are 15%. Significance Salmon need large river deltas, small coastal inlets, and shallow water areas to rest, feed, and hide from predators. 7

8 Science based problem #3: Armoring along beaches and bluffs prevents sand and gravel from replenishing beaches and intertidal areas. Scientific evidence km (out of 1600km) of bluff backed beach has been lost. 33% of the remainder has been armored - 60 km of barrier beach has been lost. 27% of the remainder has been armored Significance Bulkheads can prevent sediment from coastal bluffs from reaching the shoreline, resulting in fewer and smaller beaches. 8

9 Science based problem #4: Nearshore wetlands have been eliminated. Scientific evidence - Overall, 60% of nearshore wetlands have been lost. - Over 90% of tidal freshwater and oligohaline wetlands have been lost. Significance Loss of nearshore wetlands makes our shorelines more vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise because wetlands help absorb energy from storms, waves, and high flows. 9

10 Science based problem #5: The shoreline has become shorter, simpler, and more artificial. Scientific evidence - The shoreline has been shortened by 15% - 1,062 km of natural shoreline lost and 370 km of artificial shoreline added Significance The loss of nearshore habitat has ecological, economic, recreational, and cultural effects: there are fewer salmon to catch, fewer clams to harvest, and fewer sandy beaches to enjoy. 10

11 Science based problem #6: Many places are affected by multiple types of changes. Scientific evidence - Only 7% of shoreline segments have not been altered - 81% of shoreline segments have multiple stressors Significance While small scale alterations may be insignificant by themselves, cumulative impacts build over time, compounding the adverse effects. 11

12 Restoration objectives 1. Restore connectivity and size of large river deltas 2. Restore sediment input, transport and accretion processes 3. Restore shoreline complexity and length 4. Enhance landscape heterogeneity and connectivity 12

13 Restoration objectives 1. Restore connectivity and size of large river deltas a. Restore tidal flow in river deltas b. Restore wetland quality and quantity with emphasis on oligohaline and tidal freshwater c. Improve connectivity between the nearshore and adjacent uplands/watershed d. Increase the shoreline length of large river deltas 13

14 Protection objectives 5. Protect relatively undegraded processes in large river deltas 6. Protect relatively undegraded sources of sediment 7. Protect relatively undegraded embayments 14

15 Learning objective 8. Increase understanding of natural process restoration to improve effectiveness of project actions 15

16 Restoration and Protection Strategies Define the places where we can best meet our restoration and protection objectives. 16

17 Coastal Embayments Strategy Description: Protect and restore tidal flow processes in coastal inlets, and protect and restore freshwater input and detritus transport processes therein. Sites: open coastal inlet or drowned stream channel bays 266 Potential Sites Dike Removal Topographic Restoration Tidal Flow Processes Freshwater Input Processes Management Measures Target Processes 17

18 18 Background Problems Objectives Strategies Projects Conclusion Coastal Embayment Attributes Potential Potential wetlands Potential swamp Barrier beach prevalence Shoreline length Degradation Risk Sediment Supply Degradation Tidal Flow Degradation Nearshore impervious Loss of shoreline length Loss of wetlands Watershed impervious Future Nearshore Impervious Future Watershed Impervious Active Railroad Marina Development Intensity

19 Cluster Analysis 266 Coastal Embayment Sites 12 Groups w/ Similar Attributes 19

20 Assessment Conservation Description Very low degradation primary project actions are likely to be protection: Sites with high future risk could be prioritized. High Potential Restoration High potential, low/moderate simple degradation Noteworthy opportunities to restore ecosystem processes at potentially important sites with relatively low risk. Potential Restoration Low /moderate degradation Likely opportunities to restore ecosystem processes at sites with relatively low risk. Caution High/moderate and/or complex degradation and risk these sites provide difficult environments for process restoration with higher uncertainty and risk. 20

21 Assessment of South Puget Sound Coastal Embayments 21

22 Nearshore Project Database Site Name: Chambers Bay 1801 Chambers Bay Estuarine and Riparian Enhancement Description: Restore and enhance the estuarine habitat structure within Chambers Bay; as well as, to restore marine riparian corridor in and around Chambers Bay and increase salt marsh and estuarine area inside the Bay. Restoration/Enhancement activities would include:-removal of the dam-removal of shoreline armor and fill on the old mill site, including day lighting of Garrison Springs-Removal of shoreline armor-installation of wood as habitat structure along the shoreline-removal of invasive plant species-installation of native riparian and salt marsh vegetation. Project Proponent: South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group Strategies: Open Coastal Inlet Photos courtesy of Al Schmauder, Clover Cr. Watershed Council 22

23 Chuckanut Bay Deer Harbor Nooksack River Delta Discovery Bay Twin Rivers Dugualla Bay Livingston Bay Skagit River Delta Snohomish River Delta Big Beef Creek Estuary Black Point Lagoon Cattail Creek and Devil's Hole Estuaries Duckabush River Delta Dungeness River Delta Hamma Hamma River Delta Lilliwaup River Estuary Point Whitney Lagoon Quilcene River Delta Tahuya River Estuary Twanoh Drift Cell Oak Bay Normandy Park Shoreline Budd Inlet Chambers Bay Oakland Bay Sequalitchew Creek Estuary 23

24 Strategic Restoration Project List Determine which project ideas meet identified needs Create ecosystem restoration designs Evaluate cost effectiveness Submit a Preferred Alternative to Congress 24

25 Conclusions Understanding of historic change can provide scientific basis for defining objectives Site attributes provide a context for evaluating potential actions All sites present opportunities for restoration and/or protection Protection and adaptive management is an intrinsic component of any site work 25

26 PSNERP Local Project Manager Curtis D. Tanner (360)