Nearshore strategy for the North Olympic Peninsula

Prepared by NOPLE TRG Nearshore Subcommittee

Contact: Selinda Barkhuis, Coordinator

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity

223 E. 4^th Street, #5

Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015

sbarkhuis@co.clallam.wa.us

Find this document and attachments at http://noplegroup.org/NOPLE/pages/nearshore.htm

Subcommittee contributors: J.Anne Shaffer, Randy Johnson, Ed Bowen, John Cambalik, Josey Paul, Gwen Bridge, Jeff Shellberg, Walt Blendermann, Pat Crain, Cathy Lear, Katie Krueger, Larry Ward, Jennifer Hagen, Martha Hurd, Dee McClanahan, Richard Brocksmith, Steve Todd, Ian Miller, Kevin Long, and NOPLE coordinator Selinda Barkhuis.

Last Revised May, 2005

The 2005 NOPLE Nearshore V4 Strategy consists of
2005 Nearshore V4 Strategy DRAFT last updated May, 2005 (this document)
2005 Nearshore V4 WRIA 17 through 19 Priority Actions DRAFT last updated May, 2005
2005 Nearshore V4 WRIA 20 Priority actions DRAFT last updated May, 2005

This strategy addresses nearshore processes of the NOPLE in accordance with the PSNERP Guidance for Protection and Restoration of the Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound. The goal of this strategy is synonymous with the NOPLE goal of ‘protect the best, restore the rest’. Key features, processes, and biological elements of the NOPLE nearshore are detailed below. A conceptual model articulates the relationship between each of these elements and their priority considerations to lead to effective ecosystem restoration. This strategy provides criteria to define priority actions for effective nearshore. Individual projects submitted for NOPLE funding consideration will be ranked relative to the criteria provided in the PSNERP document.

Definition of nearshore habitat: The physical features of tidal influence and light penetration delineate nearshore habitat. The nearshore is generally defined as the area that extends from tree line to minus 30 meters (90 feet) Mean Low Low Water (MLLW) and to the upstream limit of tidal influence. Marine riparian vegetation and sediment-supplying eroding bluffs (feeder bluffs) support healthy nearshore habitat and are therefore considered a part of the nearshore environment.

Key features of nearshore of the North Olympic Peninsula. The NOP is extremely variable in its physical and biological nearshore. Physical forming processes of the nearshore vary temporally and seasonally. Habitat composition varies dramatically temporally and spatially. As a result, the North Olympic Peninsula nearshore is composed of extremely diverse habitats. Sediment processes are a dominant feature in the nearshore for both the Strait and the Pacific based on different energy regimes

Defining processes of nearshore of NOPLEG:, Defining processes of the nearshore include: hydrologic processes (both marine and riverine); wind and current driven sediment processes; light, and; water quality. These define the biological and physical components of the NOPLEG nearshore. In general, nearshore morphology is a product of wave and tidal action, marine and fluvial sediment and wood supply, geology, and the influence of creeks and rivers. Eroding bluffs and river systems are important sources of sediment and wood, which are vital materials for creating and maintaining spits and low gradient sandy beaches. However, either a reduction or increase of sediment supply over natural (background) levels can alter nearshore morphology and ecosystem processes.

Key habitats of NOPLEG nearshore: Key habitats of the NOPLEG nearshore include: feeder bluffs, which define large portions of our nearshore area; riparian, intertidal and subtidal zones of river associated estuaries; embayments; sandy shorelines, and; rocky shorelines. Within these, along the Strait, nearshore vegetated habitats are dominant (occur along on average of 60 % of Strait shoreline). Overstory and understory kelp beds are the dominant vegetated habitats along the Strait (40% of shoreline and almost 80 % of all coastal kelp resource), followed by eelgrass beds and tidal estuaries. Along the Outer Coast, kelp habitats are the dominant vegetated habitats. Eelgrass and surfgrass are also present and locally abundant.

Steep beaches, rocky shorelines, eroding bluffs and depositional areas, and frequent kelp beds characterize higher wave energy environments of more exposed nearshore areas of the North Olympic Peninsula. Lower wave energy habitats – tidal marshes, eelgrass beds, expansive tide flats, large estuaries, and sandy beaches – are present in more protected reaches, including in the lee of spits. These lower energy habitats are fairly limited in extent, extremely vulnerable to human impacts, and in many cases have been severely degraded. They are therefore high priorities for protection and restoration. Where low energy nearshore habitat is dependent upon a spit for protection, maintenance of the spit’s drift cell sediment supply is of critical importance.

Key nearshore habitat function. There are significant data gaps to understanding habitat function in the nearshore of the Olympic Peninsula. Select nearshore habitats are defined as critical by WAC and federal regulation based on their documented use by juvenile salmonid for migration, smoltification, refuge, and feeding, and juvenile and adult forage fish for migration, refuge, feeding, and spawning. These include marine and estuarine riparian zones, estuarine marsh habitat, documented forage fish spawning areas, and kelp and eelgrass beds. Though not currently in state or federal regulation, feeder bluffs are also deemed by NOPLE to be significant habitat and are therefore considered additionally as priority habitats for potential restoration.

The working assumption for this model is that restoration/protection emphasis should be on the juvenile stages of salmonid development, followed by spawning habitat for prey species (forage fish), and access for returning adults. The working convention within the NOPLE TRG, Elwha-Morse Management Team and Dungeness River Management Team has been that tidally influenced estuaries, including marsh and eelgrass habitats, and their role for nursery grounds for feeding and refuge, are the top priority for fish recovery. Habitats that provide an intact migratory corridor and forage fish spawning are an important-though slightly lower-priority than estuarine/tidal marsh habitats.

Dominant anthropogenic limiting factors for processes and function of significant nearshore habitats

Restoring and protecting processes that both define nearshore habitats and influence their function are NOPLE priorities. Factors limiting nearshore process must be addressed before habitat function may be restored. Priority limiting factors for the nearshore of NOPLE are:

1. Alteration of shorelines (including armoring, filling);

2. Alterations of lower rivers (including diking, channelizing, and tidegates);

3. Alterations of water quality-Non-point, Industrial, and Catastrophic (such as oil-spills);

4. Alterations of natural sediment supply (either increase or decrease) such as increased suspended sediment loads from rivers and reduced supply from feeder bluffs;

5. Overwater and Inwater structures (including docks and piers); and

6. Alterations to freshwater quantity

Geographic element of nearshore. For discussion purposes, NOPLEG nearshore is presented in three general areas (based on general distributions and physical processes): Outer coast (Jefferson County line to Cape Flattery); Western Strait (Cape Flattery to Agate Bay), and Central Strait (Agate Bay to Clallam County line). Proposed assumption: Each of these geographic areas are of the same priority.

Within each of these, dominant anthropogenic limiting factors vary by geographic area, and are listed below (not in priority order).

Geographic area	Priority nearshore process	Priority Limiting factor	Habitats	Priority Actions to Restore Process
Outer Coast: Jefferson County line to Cape Flattery	Lower river hydrodynamics, nearshore sediment processes, tides, currents and wave erosion	Alterations to lower rivers; upland management practices; and in some areas, increased fluvial sediment supply	Lower rivers, tidal estuaries, sandy/gravel beaches, kelp beds, eelgrass and seagrass beds	Restore nearshore sediment processes, including lower river hydrodynamics and the effects on tidal marshes and kelp beds, with prior assessments where necessary.
Western Strait: Cape Flattery to Agate Bay	Nearshore and riverine sediment processes, lower river hydrodynamics, water quality & quantity	Shoreline armoring and alteration; lower river alterations; upland management practices including increased fluvial sediment supply; in and overwater structures	Lower rivers, tidal estuaries, kelp beds, sand beaches, sand gravel beaches kelp beds, eelgrass beds	Restore nearshore and riverine sediment processes, and water quality, including lower river hydrodynamics, shoreline alterations, and the effects on tidal marshes and kelp beds, with prior assessments where necessary.
Central Strait: Agate Bay to Clallam County Line*	Lower river hydrodynamics; nearshore sediment processes, water quality; light	Lower river alterations, shoreline armoring and alterations, in and over water structures; water quality degradation (non-point and point)	Lower rivers, tidal estuaries, kelp beds, sand beaches, sand gravel beaches, cobble beaches, kelp beds, eelgrass beds	Restore nearshore sediment processes, including lower river hydrodynamics, shoreline alterations, and the effects on tidal marshes and kelp beds, with prior assessments where necessary. Restore water quality

Within embayments of the Central Strait, including Port Angeles, Sequim, Dungeness and Discovery Bays, the defining nearshore processes most impacted are sediment processes, water quality, and light. Dominant limiting factors are shoreline armoring and alterations, overwater structures, and non-point and point source water quality degradation.

Geographic area	Significant Habitat	Habitat Function (species and use)*							Habitat function limiting process	Priority restoration actions
		Forage fish	Pink	Sockeye	Chinook	Chum	Coho	Bull trout
Outer Coast:Jefferson County line to Cape Flattery	Lower rivers and estuaries	unknown	unknown	Unknown. See Makah and USFW	unknown	Unknown	unknown	Unknown Actually, quite a bit of info from Sam Brenkman.	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill, loss of riparian	Address data gaps restore historic habitat function and forming process
	Vegetated habitats	unknown	unknown	Unknown	unknown	Unknown	unknown	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill, overwater structures	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process
	Sand gravel beaches	Some spawning sites documented	unknown	Unknown	unknown	Unknown	unknown	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill, loss of riparian	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process
Western Strait: Cape Flattery to Agate Bay	Lower rivers and estuaries	unknown	unknown	NA	Current, historic but large data gaps	Current but large data gaps	Current, but large data gaps	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill, loss of riparian	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process
	Vegetated habitats	Some migration documented, large data gaps	unknown	NA	unknown	Unknown	unknown	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill,, fill	Address data gaps, restore histroric habitat function and forming process
	Sand gravel beaches	Some spawning sites documented	unknown	NA	unknown	Unknown	unknown	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill, loss of riparian	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process
Central Strait: Agate Bay to Clallam County Line*	Lower rivers and estuaries	unknown	Unknown [Note: Actually pinks use the Dungeness, Morse and Elwha. Nearshore work by Joe Hiss (USF&WS) for Dungeness Bay	NA	Current & historic	Current & historic	Current & historic	Current & historic	Lower river alterations, armoring, fill, overwater structures, water quality	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process
	Vegetated habitats	Some migration documented, large data gaps	unknown	NA	unknown	Unknown	unknown	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill,, overwater structures, water quality	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process
	Sand gravel beaches	Some spawning sites documented	unknown	NA	unknown	Unknown	unknown	unknown	Alterations including diking, armoring, fill, water quality loss of riparian	Address data gaps, restore historic habitat function and forming process

Table 2. Habitat function within the North Olympic Peninsula. *Status of knowledge of use of habitat by species. Functions include migration, feeding, spawning, refuge.

Geographic area	Priority action
Outer coast	Assessments to define habitat function and limiting process is top priority
Central and Western Strait	Assessments to define habitat function and protection and restoration actions are of equal priority
Eastern Strait	Protection and restoration actions of highest priority-assessments of lower priority

Table 3. Summary of key actions by geographic area

Conceptual model for nearshore salmonid recovery strategy of the North Olympic Peninsula

This conceptual model addresses nearshore processes of the North Olympic Peninsula, which encompasses WRIA 20-18). It includes the nearshore of outer coast from the southern Jefferson County line and all of Clallam County shorelines of the outer coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is a technical tool to direct actions for nearshore restoration.

Assumptions of model:

The goal of NOPLE’s nearshore strategy is to a) protect the most important physical forming processes and functioning nearshore habitats, and; b) restore impaired habitat forming processes and function important for salmonid recovery.
The model is constructed using a precautionary approach recognizing that large data gaps exist. The model will be revised as these data gaps are addressed.
The three geographic areas listed above are of equal priority for nearshore restoration;
Within each of these areas:

Salmonid stocks, including the resources that support them, are of highest priority;
For salmonid stocks, rearing habitat is of higher priority than migration corridors
Critical habitats defined by WAC, federal regulation, as well as riparian zones and feeder bluffs contribute to higher survival of salmonid, and so are highest priority;
Restoring and preserving processes that define these critical nearshore habitats are a highest priority.

5. Restoring historic habitat function is a priority, provided processes that form the habitat are intact, and/or restored by removing limiting factor.

6. Physical Process, Ecological Scale, Temporal Scale, Spatial Scale, Habitat Function and Habitat Type are the six focus elements for restoration that will address linkages necessary for successful species recovery.

7. Restoration success of these six elements is cumulative. Therefore actions that address more of each of these elements have a higher likelihood of success.

Prioritization of nearshore actions: There is an interest to prioritize restoration actions within each of these geographic areas specific to the key limiting elements and restoration goals stated above. Action evaluation is based on restoring and/or protecting processes that define significant nearshore habitat, by addressing a limiting factor impacting, or threatening to impact, a significant nearshore process. Criteria are in four main categories: Physical process, (15) ; Ecological Scale (11 points) ; Temporal Scale (12 points) ; Spatial Scale (10 points). Habitat function and Habitat types are also prioritized, and once ecological, temporal, spatial criteria are met, may be prioritized for a maximum of 10 and 20 points respectively. Criteria for each category follow.

RESTORATION/PROTECTION ACTIONS

There are three gatekeeper criteria, all of which must be incorporated for a proposal to be considered:

1. Addresses nearshore physical habitat forming processes

2. Addresses habitat functions

3. Addresses habitat forming processes and functions using historic conditions as a guide where this information exists

If a restoration or protection actions meets the above criteria the following scoring is applied:

1. Ecological Scale: Maximum of points:

a. Restores/protects forage fish spawning habitat.

b. Addresses one or more significant habitats as identified in Table 2 (Habitat Function Table) of the Conceptual Framework.

c. Eliminates impacts to habitat forming processes and/or habitat function as identified in Table I (Nearshore Habitat Processes) and the Table 2 (Habitat Function Table) of the Conceptual Framework.

d. Provides meaningful protection/restoration for fish use on a regional scale.

2. Project connectivity: Maximum of points.:

a. Relates to other process-based restoration/preservation events in the same salmon corridor.

3. Spatial Scale – relative size

a. Large

b. Medium

c. Small

4. Temporal Scale: Maximum of points:

a. Restore and/or protect a nearshore process, which is long term by nature.

b. Project does not require a lot of maintenance.

c. If the project is time sensitive.

5. Habitat prioritization: Maximum of points

a. P1 = points

b. P2 = points

c. P3 = points

d. P4 = points

Nearshore Habitat Prioritization
Priority	Habitats*
P-1	Estuaries associated with the Tier 1 watersheds Tidal marsh complexes and eel grass meadows contiguous or within 10 miles of P-1 estuaries Tidal marshes exceeding 10 acres in size Beaches documented as being significantly used for rearing by recently outmigrating juveniles
P-2	Estuaries associated with Tier 2 watersheds All other tidal marsh complexes and eel grass meadows Kelp forests and low-gradient shorelines within 10 miles of P-1 and P-2 estuaries Forage fish spawning beaches
P-3	All other estuaries Kelp forests and low-gradient shorelines farther than 10 miles from P-1 and P-2 estuaries
P-4	Naturally unvegetated sub-tidal habitat High gradient shorelines
*Contributing Processes: physical features (e.g. feeder bluffs, riparian zones) that contribute significantly to the maintenance of nearshore habitat will receive the same priority rating as the habitat it supports.

Based on the project scoring a project may be deemed a priority. Successful projects must be designed so that information gained may be incorporated into this strategy on an annual basis.

ASSESSMENT PROJECTS

There are two gatekeeper criteria, either of which must be incorporated for a proposal to be considered: The results

1. must directly and clearly lead to identification, siting, or design of habitat protection or restoration projects or

2. fill a data gap that is identified as a priority in a lead entity strategy and is limiting project or strategy development.

If an assessment project meets the above criteria the following scoring is applied: