Nearshore Strategies for Protection and Restoration

1. Nearshore Strategies for Protection and Restoration • Landform-based conservation • on Puget Sound Shorelines • Restoration Center Northwest • May 2, 2014

2. Anniversary • Guide selection of PSNERP actions • Basis for Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) • Support Action Agenda in nearshore

3. Anniversary • Integrate with watershed assessment • Test at local jurisdictions • Learn through field experience • Revisit based on new data sources

4. Anniversary Nearshore Strategy Initial Assessment (2012) ?

5. Is all planning the same? • What are the assumptions behind the planning • Increasing cumulative impacts are inevitable. • The primary objective is to locate new injuries where they will have the least impact

6. Same but different

7. Same but different

8. Strategy for Protection and Restoration Characterization for Comparing Value This massive change, suggests that in addition to protecting against future injuries, extensive restoration is necessary to recover historical ecosystem services, and to recover nearshore dependent biota. Restoration will be challenging and expensive. … We should test our strategy for weaknesses. Because of this our strategy should be accessible, transparent, and subject to discussion and critique. A strategy should push actions to meet sound-wide outcomes and targets, while being responsive to local knowledge. The purpose of this report is to provide the first iteration of that evolving strategy for the protection and restoration of physiographic dynamics in the nearshore. The information it provides will allow local and regional governments, as well as NGOs, to base their decisions regarding land use on a systematic analytic framework that prioritizes specific geographic areas on the landscape as focus areas for protection, restoration, and conservation of our region’s natural resources, and that also identifies areas that are likely more suitable for development. Application of this method should result in future land-use patterns that protect the health of Puget Sound’s terrestrial and aquatic resources while also helping to direct limited financial resources to the highest priority areas for restoration and protection.

9. Same but different • “Develop” as a strategy for protecting resources? • Does not assume risk from threshold events. • Assumes that value is provided at the AU level • Does not consider emergent properties at larger scales.

10. What the strategy actually says • Multi-scale integration of goals • Consider process units as a critical scale • Protection is necessary for restoration • Complete rapid restoration of target processes • Respond to site degradation context • Risk management—attend to large complex sites

11. What the initial assessment was not • Not just colored maps

12. The unfinished business of importance • Wilhere et al 2012 and ShoBaz • Forage fish • Redmond et al 2005 – the nearshore chapter • Mosaic of sub-estuaries • Photic zone services

13. Revisiting the Beach Strategy • Shipman 2014 • Forage Fish • WDFW findings – some peoples beaches • Miniature beaches

14. Scale of service provision • Sub-basin • Nearshore management area • Process units • Shorezone units

15. Scale of service provision • Sub-basin • Nearshore management area • System

16. Pivot Point • We need to revise assessments • How do we adapt the strategy • Adaptive management

17. Section 4.4 – Eight recommendations • Beach Classification • Embayment Classification • Coastal Management Areas • Biogeography • Habitat Models • Sediment Budgets • Protection Assessment • Transportation Impacts

18. Pivot Point • Integrate water quality – trump card • Connect watersheds to sub-estuary matrix • Sub-estuary function is still gap. • Revisit beach systems • Protection must be resolved • Integrate EPA work