South Sound Strategy

1

South Sound StrategySeptember 14, 2016

2

Purpose• Update on Status of South Sound Strategy

• Seek input on:• South Sound approach to target setting & preliminary

targets• Next steps

3

South Sound Strategy – Quick Refresh• Strategy describes:

• What we care about (ecosystem focus areas)• Where we want them to be (goals/objectives)• How they are doing (status/ trends)• Pressures(what is harming them or has potential to)• Priorities (which focus areas and pressures we’re focused on

for the next 3-5 years)• Strategies (what we are doing about pressures / how we plan

to achieve our goals)• Actions (specific next steps for our priority focus areas /

pressures)

4

Focus Areas – Selected Last Year• Protection and restoration of forests for ecosystem benefits

and sustainable harvest• Protection and restoration of prairie/oak woodlands• Protection and restoration of freshwater wetlands and streams• Protection and restoration of marine nearshore habitat.• Improved freshwater water quality• Improved marine water quality• Expansion of healthy, productive shellfish populations and

harvest• Increase in abundance and distribution of native salmon

species and harvest• Human well being

5

Pressures –Identified Last Year• Remember – pressures are not all bad• Many of the things we value about the South Sound

also can, if not properly managed, threaten ecosystem process, structure, or function• Growth• Industry• Recreation• Etc.

• The goal is not to eliminate pressures – it is to manage them effectively and in a balanced way

6

• Housing & Urban Areas • Commercial & Industrial Areas

(including ports) • Tourism & Recreation Areas • Annual & Perennial Non-Timber

Crops • Wood & Pulp Plantations • Livestock Farming & Ranching • Roads & Railroads (including

culverts) • Shipping Lanes and Dredged

Waterways • Abstraction of surface water• Abstraction of ground water• Dams

• Freshwater Levees, Floodgates, Tidegates

• Marine Levees, Floodgates, Tidegates

• Freshwater shoreline infrastructure • Marine shoreline infrastructure • Domestic & Municipal Wastewater

to Sewer • Domestic and Commercial

Wastewater to Onsite Sewage Systems (OSS)

• Runoff from residential and commercial lands

• Industrial runoff • Agricultural & Forestry Effluents • Air-Borne Pollutants

7

Drilling into Focus Areas with Attributes• Attributes are: characteristics that can serve as

indicators of the process, structure, and function (i.e., health) of the ecosystems, habitats, and species

• Can tell us about the status and trends of the ecosystem focus areas (e.g., “How much is there and where is it?”, “Is the condition improving or degrading?”)

• Can measure and evaluate recovery objectives and actions aimed at specific ecosystem focus areas

• We will use attributes to set numeric recovery objectives – but we won’t set targets for all attributes this year

8

Attributes – Marine & Nearshore1. Miles of intact marine riparian habitat 2. Number and proportion of intact drift cells/feeder bluffs 3. Acres of suitable forage fish spawning habitat 4. Acres of intact small/pocket estuaries 5. Acres of intact large estuaries 6. Acres of eelgrass 7. Miles of shoreline armoring 8. Acres of harvestable shellfish 9. Marine water quality

9

Attributes – Freshwater & Upland1. Miles of intact freshwater riparian habitat 2. Miles of stream without fish impassable barriers 3. Summer low flow quantity in large rivers and smaller streams 4. Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) 5. Land cover and growth (forest cover / impervious)6. Freshwater Quality Index: Nisqually River at Nisqually or Deschutes

River at East St. Bridge & smaller stream county-level monitoring7. Salmon abundance and distribution by species (e.g., Chinook,

coho, chum, steelhead) 8. Acres of Oak Prairie Habitat

10

Selecting Attributes for Target Setting• Remember all attributes are intended to speak to

ecosystem forming or sustaining process and functions• Subset for target setting selected pragmatically based on

availability of data and South Sound historic priorities as represented by current and proposed future work

• Also considered: • Mix of ecosystem processes and functions represented• Can we make progress and/or do we have momentum• Does it also provide benefits to humans• Can we line it up with PSP Puget Sound scale goals

11

Propose Setting Numeric Local Targets:• Forest cover / impervious cover • Miles of freshwater riparian• Miles of marine riparian • Small estuaries & large estuaries• Intact drift cells • Shoreline armoring • Fish passage barriers

12

Propose Adopting Existing Local Numeric Targets:

• Summer low flows in rivers & small streams -- existing PSP targets for rivers and tribal targets for small streams

• Salmon –• Existing Chinook targets• Squaxin targets for coho (and other species?)• Nisqually targets for coho and steelhead (and other species?)

• Harvestable shellfish (acres) -- use acres developed as part of new South Sound NTA

13

Propose Not Setting Targets:• Oak woodlands & Prairies – will reference existing work and

targets to the extent they exist• Eelgrass – no target not a great conceptual model yet• Suitable forage fish habitat – no target, likely covered by drift cell

and shoreline armoring targets• FW water quality – will reference county targets where they

exist• Marine water quality – can reference PSP target or not• Macroinvertebrates – will reference county targets where they

exist• Human well being – will tackle in the future

14

Approach to Target Setting• Set at Inlet/Island group scale and aggregate for South Sound scale• Overall: focus on making the best areas better• Wherever possible used Squaxin Island Tribe Coastal Catchment Analysis &

Nearshore Project Selection Tool to aid in target setting.• Overlaid attribute (e.g., marine riparian) with areas identified as number 1 priorities

for conservation/protection and restoration/enhancement in Coastal Catchment and/or as priority nearshore habitat for salmon

• Coastal catchments are about the top 20% of South Sound nearshore habitat• Priority nearshore for salmon is about additional ___ % of shoreline• Yields both a numeric target and a starting point for where to focus projects

• Where couldn’t use this approach used a range of other approaches from adopting existing targets to other GIS-based analysis

• Projects outside these areas are fine but would not be part of the initial target.

15

Example: Marine Riparian• For this effort, intact marine riparian is mixed forest, evergreen

forest, deciduous forest, and mixed forest (from 30 meter cell size NOAA 2011 CCAP data), within 200ft of the ordinary high water mark

• Of the 400 miles of shoreline in South Sound, approximately 65% (260 miles) have marine riparian cover

• Marine riparian habitat is most intact along Totten and Little Skookum Inlets, both sides of Pickering Passage, and around Harstine Island

• The shorelines with the poorest riparian habitat cover are the northern end of Case Inlet, Budd Inlet, and the eastern shoreline near the cities of Steilacoom, University Place, and Tacoma

16

17

• Map showing intact marine riparian

18

• Map showing Squaxin protection/conservation and restoration/enhancement catchments

19

• Overlay map (or maps?)

20

21

22

Marine Riparian – Potential Target• (1) Protect all intact marine riparian habitat throughout

South Sound, 260 miles, of which 173.8 miles are in the areas identified as a priority in the Squaxin Island Tribe Coastal Catchment Assessment and/or the Nearshore Project Selection Tool for Juvenile Salmon; and

• (2) restore 38.9 miles of degraded marine riparian habitat in the areas identified as a priority in the Squaxin Island Tribe Coastal Catchment Assessment and/or the Nearshore Project Selection Tool for Juvenile Salmon.

23

Example – Fish Passage Barriers• 360 barriers that are considered total blockages to

fish passage; nearly 280 are road crossings • Totten & Little Skookum Inlet Group has the highest

concentration of total barriers (55) followed by the Hammersley Inlet & Oakland Bay Group (51)

• Harstine Island Group has the fewest total blockages (7)

24

25

26

27

Fish Passage Barriers – Potential Target• (1) Restore the [four] partial barriers in Carr Inlet,

Henderson Inlet, and Nisqually that have a WDFW Priority Index greater than 50,

• (2) Prioritize restoring both total and partial barriers that have a WDFW Priority Index between 25 and 50 [50 barriers].

• (3) Update the priority index rating for barriers.

28

Example - Flows• Adopt numeric state flow targets for the Deschutes and

Nisqually

• Adopt local flow targets for smaller streams where flow targets available• Goldsborough, Johns, and Huge Creek• [Add Nisqually basin small streams with targets]

• Use a narrative standard for smaller streams where numeric targets are not available

29

Summer Flows – Potential Target• Increase summer low flows in all basins that are

limited by flow; and • Achieve numeric flow targets where flow targets have

been set, which includes: Nisqually River, Deschutes River, Goldsborough Creek, Johns Creek, Huge Creek, and [add Nisqually small streams]; and

• In basins limited by flow which do not have numeric targets, complete groundwater models or other data gathering so numeric flow targets can be set

30

Next Steps for Strategy• Complete mapping and analysis for status and trends

Complete target setting and shop targets with Council and key project sponsor groups

• Complete narrative for each focus area / attribute including descriptions of key programs and strategies and existing South Sound actions

• Figure out cross-walk to PSP requirements and new template

31

Discussion

32

Back Up Info

33

How Were Nearshore Strategy Areas Identified• Considered level of “intactness” and degradation of

ecosystem processes at the catchment scale and in surrounding catchments

• Considered ecosystem attributes (both positive and negative) present or historically present

• Designed to identify areas where small-scale projects are likely to be successful and self-sustaining over time

34

How Were FW Priority Catchments Identified• Ecology water flow analysis• Considered the relative “intactness” of ecological

processes related to water delivery and movement and the relative degradation of those processes plus loss

• Creates a relative ranking designed to identify areas where projects are more likely to be self-sustaining over time

• Does not consider presence/absence of salmon, probably need that overlay too

35

Budd Inlet

Carr Inlet

Case Inlet

Eld Inlet

Hammersley Inlet & Oakland Bay

Harstine Island Group

Henderson Inlet

McNeil Island Group

Totten & Little Skookum Inlets

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Squaxin Nearshore Strategies for Marine Riparian Habitat by Inlet & Island Group

Restoration/Enhancement Conservation/Preservation

Squaxin Nearshore Tool - Strategies of total riparian habitat

Inlet | Island Group Conservation/Preservation Restoration/EnhancementTotal Riparian Habitat Total Miles % Riparian % Cons/Pres % Rest/Enhanc

Budd Inlet 2.6 2.6 9.8 18.9 52% 27% 27%Carr Inlet 5.8 4.4 22.8 36.6 62% 25% 19%Case Inlet 2.7 3.1 13.3 24.5 54% 20% 23%Eld Inlet 2.1 5.0 17.7 27.9 63% 12% 29%Hammersley Inlet & Oakland Bay 3.5 4.9 19.3 32.6 59% 18% 26%Harstine Island Group 22.5 11.9 81.8 103.8 79% 28% 15%Henderson Inlet 1.7 3.9 11.3 17.0 67% 15% 35%McNeil Island Group 12.2 11.7 56.7 101.0 56% 22% 21%Totten & Little Skookum Inlets 5.0 5.5 27.5 37.3 74% 18% 20%

Totals 58 53 260 400 65% 22% 20%

36

Calculations – Restore Catchments

SQUAXIN STRATEGY: RESTORE

Inlet/Island Group Total Shoreline (miles)

# of Estuaries to Restore

Miles of Estuaries to Restore

Acres of Estuaries to Restore

Budd Inlet 21 4 2 129Eld Inlet 31 4 3 200Totten / Little Skookum Inlets 41 5 3 270Oakland Bay & Hammersly Inlet 34 5 2 167Harstene Island Group 115 22 7 442Case Inlet 28 7 6 354Carr Inlet 42 9 4 287McNeil Island Group 110 13 9 776Henderson Inlet 20 4 4 246Totals 442 73 39 2872

37

Calculations – Preserve catchments

SQUAXIN STRATEGY: PRESERVE

Inlet/Island Group Total Shoreline (miles)

# of Estuaries to Preserve

Miles of Estuaries to Preserve

Acres of Estuaries to Preserve

Budd Inlet 21 2 2 149Eld Inlet 31 3 3 218Totten / Little Skookum Inlets 41 7 4 307Oakland Bay & Hammersly Inlet 34 7 3 254Harstene Island Group 115 17 9 607Case Inlet 28 6 2 150Carr Inlet 42 10 3 180McNeil Island Group 110 13 7 527Henderson Inlet 20 4 2 171Totals 442 69 34 2563

38

Propose Setting Numeric Local Targets:• Forest cover / impervious cover (GIS analysis)• Miles of freshwater riparian (still in development)• Miles of marine riparian (Squaxin tools)• Small estuaries & large estuaries (Squaxin tools)• Intact drift cells (Squaxin tools)• Shoreline armoring (Squaxin tools)• Fish passage barriers (Priority Index)

39

• Slide showing Stephen Stanley Catchments

40

• Overlay slide showing barriers in very highest and highest catchments