P ac i f i c N o r t h w e s t C o as t C o n s e r v at i...

Pacific Northwest Coast Conservation Blueprint

CONSERVATION TARGETS, KEY ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES AND CRITERIA FOR SPATIAL DESIGN

Version 1.0

1

PACIFIC NORTHWEST COAST CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT CONSERVATION TARGETS, KEAS, AND KEY SPATIAL DESIGN CRITERIA

Drafted by: Tom Miewald, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sara Evans-Peters, Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture, and Ken Bierly

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3

Note on Version 1.0 3

Introduction 4

The Pacific Coast Ecoregion 4

Core Ecological Concepts: Diversity, Connectivity, and Resiliency 5

Social-ecological Systems 5

Landscape Conservation Design Framework 6

Approach to Developing Shared Conservation Targets 6

Defining Conservation Targets 7

Conservation Target Framework 7

Defining, Identifying, and Prioritizing Impacts to Targets 8

Pacific Coast Assessments 9

Proposed Pacific Coast Conservation Targets 11

Coastal Forests 13

Sandy Beaches and Coastal Dune 19

Intertidal Rocky Shores and Cliff 24

Freshwater Wetlands 29

Riverine 34

Estuarine 42

Oak and Prairies 47

References 51

Appendices 57

2


3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture and the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative have collaborated to identify and describe the state of conservation targets in the Pacific Coast Ecoregion in support of the Pacific Northwest Coast Conservation Blueprint (Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) project. This document presents a description of the primary ecological systems of the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion and recommends a framework for further LCD assessment and analysis.

Within this document, 7 ecological systems are identified as common conservation targets among the entities engaged in the LCD partnership. This includes coastal forest, sandy beaches and coastal dunes, rocky shores and cliff, freshwater wetland, riverine, estuarine, and oak and prairie. Each conservation target has a profile that includes a general description and recommended classification system, nested habitat targets, previous assessments and prioritizations, potential landscape-scale Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators, potential focal species, major impacts (threats), associated ecosystem services, and key spatial design criteria.

Three concepts are central to ecological function--connectivity, diversity, and resiliency. These concepts were identified as major ecosystem drivers across all 7 ecological system targets.

The assessment was conducted by Pacific Birds staff and a consultant in collaboration with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff, and presented to Pacific Northwest Coast LCD participants on two occasions. The project was funded in part by a grant from the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative and in-kind contributions from Pacific Birds staff.

Proposing a set of conservation targets based upon existing plans and literature is a first step in the planning process and needs to be reviewed and vetted by regional and local experts before finalization.

NOTE ON VERSION 1.0

This is designed to be a living document. This current version is a first attempt to synthesize a significant amount of literature towards the goal of designing a conservation blueprint across the PNW Coastal ecoregion. Version 1.0 should be considered more as a “straw dog” that is meant to solicit feedback as well as a document to structure dialogue about key aspects of the blueprint effort. What we learn from engagement with experts and the public through this process will inform “Version 2.0” of this document.

4


5


INTRODUCTION

The Pacific Northwest Coast Conservation Blueprint is a collaborative effort between conservation partners across the region, initiated by the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC) and guided by representatives of conservation organizations throughout the region. The vision is crucial to the sustainability of our landscape - healthy, connected ecosystems and working lands that can respond to a changing climate as well as other stressors. To achieve this, a multi-state, multi-entity partnership is working to identify a resilient network of conservation areas within the region. Our purpose is to define common goals and targets, and design collaborative implementation strategies that directly contribute to the conservation of those areas.

This document is intended to be a dynamic document that changes, grows, and is refined through time. This document currently describes how targets were identified, proposes a set of coarse-filter and nested targets and documents major impacts to those targets, identifies potential focal species, proposes methodologies to track progress using Key Ecological Attributes (KEAs), and identifies key spatial design criteria.

THE PACIFIC COAST ECOREGION

The Pacific Northwest coast is a diverse mix of ecosystem types with a complex set of conservation concerns. This dynamic environment includes the Pacific Ocean and estuaries where coastal rivers meet the Pacific, and the coastal mountains to the crest of the Coast Range.

The geographic scope of the LCD is focused on the outer coast of the Pacific Northwest with the eastern edge of the region determined by the Bonneville Dam and direct ocean-draining watersheds. The southern boundary was established as Cape Blanco and the northern boundary as Neah Bay on the Makah Indian Reservation. Boundaries are delimited by watershed boundaries rather than by ecoregion boundaries as defined by Omernik (1987).

6


The conservation targets include upland, aquatic, and wetland habitats that characterize the Pacific Northwest region.

CORE ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS: DIVERSITY, CONNECTIVITY, AND RESILIENCY

Though the Pacific Coast ecoregion is diverse and dynamic, and the scope of this project is large, ecological function and health are dependent on the system as whole, not individual targets. Three central ecological concepts will be a focus for this project; diversity, connectivity, and resiliency.

These concepts are inherently inter-related. Diversity refers to designing landscapes for a diversity of species, habitat types and terrestrial features, or geodiversity (Comer et al. 2015). As we plan for ecological diversity, we consider concepts in systematic conservation planning such as representativeness, adequacy and complementarity of areas to meet ecological diversity goals (Kukkala and Moilanen 2013). In other words, is the desired amount of diversity adequately conserved throughout the ecoregion? We consider diversity through the lens of coarse and fine filter conservation targets.

Increasing connectivity is the most cited design principle for adapting to climate change (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). Ecological connectivity refers to functional and structural connectivity among patches of suitable habitat for a suite of focal species that are representative of a coarse filter target. This project designs for connectivity through partnerships in Oregon and Washington as well as local habitat connectivity working groups. In November 2016, a one-day workshop on habitat connectivity was held in Portland, Oregon.

Several different meanings of “resilience” are documented in conservation literature. For this effort, ecosystem resilience refers to the ability of an ecological system, habitat or population to recover from perturbation and maintain its structure and functions (Holling 1973). In the future, as Lawler (2009) states: “Resilient systems will continue to function, albeit potentially differently, in an altered climate. Less resilient systems will likely undergo messy transitions to new states, resulting in the loss of ecosystem functioning, populations, or even species”. What then are the criteria and key ecological attributes of a resilient landscape? For each conservation target, this will be different. This effort will attempt to articulate measurable indicators (Dakos et al. 2015, Standish et al. 2015).

SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

7


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1od9Xb7XO3oSBY1AJxzwOL0oE93KlukOYO4nwQRCzTO8



Along with the the above central ecological concepts, this effort aims to develop strategies to implement these concepts that are in alignment with social-ecological systems in the region. In other words, integrating human well-being and economic needs of people working, living and recreating within the region. For this version of the document, we are focused primarily on the ecological aspects of this project, with some reference to ecosystem services. We acknowledge that human well-being elements are not fully articulated in this version. For the next version, as outlined in the Project Plan, we propose to comprehensively articulate human well-being targets and expand on the suite of ecosystem services provided by the conservation targets.

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION DESIGN FRAMEWORK

For detailed project information, please see project plan. More resources, including meeting notes, links to presentations and webinars can be found at http://columbiacoastblueprint.org/.

This project was conceptualized initially as a “Landscape Conservation Design” (LCD). LCD is a general framework for convening people throughout a landscape to develop shared measures of success and strategies. We are using the Integrated, Convening, Assessment, Spatial Design, and Strategy Design framework (iCASS, Campellone et al., to be submitted for journal review, June 2016) as the core framework for this LCD. This approach is guided by the following core elements:

1. Convene stakeholders and coordinate the project 2. Assess the current and plausible future conditions 3. Develop spatial design 4. Design a strategic action plan

This document outlines the development of information relevant to Element 2: Assessment of the Current and Plausible Future Conditions. Specifically addressing Goal 1: Assess the current and future condition of shared conservation targets, Objective 1.2: Identify shared goals and objectives for a suite of conservation and human well-being targets.

For Elements 2 and 4 specifically, we are using methods adapted from the Open Standards, an approach designed to facilitate more rigorous and effective planning and adaptive management of conservation initiatives. A key goal of this approach is to articulate shared conservation goals and objectives in a common language and demonstrate the outcomes of collective action on conservation problems (CMP 2013).

8


http://columbiacoastblueprint.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pacific-Northwest-Coast-Landscape-Conservation-Design_June15-1.pdf

http://columbiacoastblueprint.org/

http://columbiacoastblueprint.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pacific-Northwest-Coast-Landscape-Conservation-Design_June15-1.pdf

APPROACH TO DEVELOPING SHARED CONSERVATION TARGETS

This is a multi-stakeholder process, rooted in a shared vision and common goals. Because this partnership is diverse, the initial step in planning is identifying a common language and structure associated with conservation targets, identifying the regional commonalities and themes expressed in partner missions, plans, reports, and publications, and identifying and summarizing the major impacts (threats) and stressors that limit us from achieving our conservation goals. This presents several challenges. We need:

● a shared, common language (how we use the terms goal, target, feature, priority, initiative); ● to account for differences in scale and geography; ● common and widely accepted classification schemes; and ● to carefully navigate differences in missions and values among diverse groups with varied

conservation priorities.

DEFINING CONSERVATION TARGETS

Conservation planning efforts across the region have referred to targets, assets, focus and focal species, and goals and objectives as ways to focus conservation efforts (Vander Schaaf et al. 2006, Vander Schaaf et al. 2013, Koch 2015). To be consistent throughout this document, we are using the term conservation target.

Conservation targets are the basis for setting goals, implementing conservation actions, and measuring conservation effectiveness. In theory, conservation of targets will ensure the conservation of all native biodiversity associated with those targets. For landscape-scale evaluation, conservation targets are likely to include multiple habitats and species rather than single species or habitat types.

We are using methods and language adapted from the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation because a key goal of this approach is to articulate shared conservation goals and objectives in a common language (CMP 2013).

The Open Standards for Conservation define a conservation target as specific species or ecological systems/habitats that are chosen to represent and encompass the full suite of biodiversity in the project area for place-based conservation (CMP 2013). For the purposes of this LCD, conservation targets must also have a spatial component, or more simply, must be mappable.

9


CONSERVATION TARGET FRAMEWORK

There is no common convention for identifying and delineating conservation targets. Conservation targets within the LCD region have been identified at local, state, regional, national, tribal, and international scales. Synthesizing targets across geographic scales and political boundaries is one of the greatest challenges posed by landscape conservation. Fortunately, multiple states, federal agencies, tribal sovereign nations, and private entities have prioritized conservation issues and actions and selected conservation targets that are central to their missions and values.

Therefore, one of the primary goals of this effort is to compile the priorities identified by the LCD partnership and develop a recommended set of shared biological priorities. Key components of a coordinated strategy were developed to achieve the LCD’s shared vision. These foundational strategy components are:

● Shared biological priorities that capture what we are striving to conserve for achieving our shared vision, and;

● Shared strategic priorities that articulate what actions are necessary to conserve these focal systems and species, and the coordination at a landscape scale that is critical for achieving our shared vision.

We propose a semi-hierarchical framework for articulating conservation targets, nested targets, key ecological attributes, and indicators. Coarse targets are based on major ecological systems.Nested within those systems are meso-scale ecological systems, species targets, and human well-being targets.

10


DEFINING, IDENTIFYING, AND PRIORITIZING IMPACTS TO TARGETS

Many terms are used to describe how conservation targets have been and are projected to be impacted by both ecological and human-induced factors. We use the term impacts to describe both direct and indirect threats as well as climate change-related factors. Direct threats are primarily human activities that immediately affect a conservation target, such as poaching, deforestation, or wetland draining. They may also include natural phenomena that are altered by human activities, such as invasive species, or the results climate change. The drivers of direct threats are referred to as indirect threats, and may include factors such as land use, overpopulation, economic factors, and natural resource policies. Stresses are impaired aspects of habitats that result directly or indirectly from human activities and generally describe degraded attributes of ecosystems, for example, increased water temperature, erosion, or altered fire regime.

11


PACIFIC COAST ASSESSMENTS

Numerous planning efforts have identified priority species, habitats, and strategies within the LCD region. Plans have been completed at local, state, national, tribal, and regional levels by entities, by coalitions and partnerships across the region. This LCD builds upon these existing efforts, incorporating both the spatial and non-spatial data wherever possible.

Within the LCD region, landscape-level planning efforts have identified and mapped priority species and places by organizations, such as the Oregon and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon, and the Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (PMEP) (Table 1).

Table 1. Examples of Partnership Driven, Regional and State Conservation Assessments

Project Name and Link to Report Lead Entity

Date Completed

Focus

Klamath Mountains Ecoregional Assessment TNC 2004 Freshwater; Terrestrial

Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment

TNC 2004 Marine; Terrestrial

Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment TNC 2006 Freshwater; Marine; Terrestrial

East Cascades – Modoc Plateau and West Cascades Ecoregional Assessment

TNC 2007 Freshwater; Terrestrial

Coastal Connections: Assessing Oregon’s Estuaries for Conservation Planning

TNC 2008 Freshwater; Marine; Terrestrial

A Conservation Assessment for West Coast Estuaries

TNC 2011 Freshwater; Marine; Terrestrial

Pacific Northwest Marine Ecoregional Assessment Report

TNC 2013 Marine

Conserving Nature’s Stage: Identifying Resilient Terrestrial Landscapes in the Pacific Northwest

TNC 2015 Freshwater; Terrestrial

The Oregon Conservation Strategy ODFW 2016 Freshwater; Marine; Terrestrial

12


http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/PNW%20Marine%20EA%20Report%20with%208.5X11%20Maps%202013.pdf

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/PNW%20Marine%20EA%20Report%20with%208.5X11%20Maps%202013.pdf

http://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/overview/

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/28058/A%20Conservation%20Assessment%20of%20West%20Coast%20USA%20Estuaries.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/EW_Cascades_EA_Main-Report_final_COL.pdf

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/WPG_Ecoregional_Assessment.pdf

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/WPG_Ecoregional_Assessment.pdf

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/EW_Cascades_EA_Main-Report_final_COL.pdf

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/conservation_planning_1110/TNC_report.pdf

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/Klamath_Mountains_Ecoregional_Assessment_report.pdf

https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Documents/PNW%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20Resilience%20Report%20March3%202015.pdf

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/PNW-Coast-EA-Final_Main_Report_Aug21.pdf


https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Documents/PNW%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20Resilience%20Report%20March3%202015.pdf


The Oregon Nearshore Strategy ODFW 2015 Marine

Washington State Wildlife Action Plan WDFW 2015 Freshwater; Marine; Terrestrial

Pacific America’s Shorebird Conservation Plan Audubon 2016 Freshwater; Marine; Terrestrial

Pathways to Strategic Conservation in West Coast Estuaries

PMEP Ongoing Estuary

Lower Columbia River Estuary Plan LCREP 2011 Estuary

Oregon Central Coast Estuary Collaborative OCCEC Ongoing Estuary

13


http://pmep.businesscatalyst.com/#inventoryandclassification


http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/

http://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/pascs_final_medres_dec2016.pdf

http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/CCMP%20Action%20Update%20Final%200212.pdf

http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/oregon-nearshore-strategy/

PROPOSED PACIFIC COAST CONSERVATION TARGETS

These draft priorities are meant to help define where the LCD can connect and leverage each partner’s actions towards achieving the viable, well-connected system of coastal rainforest and related freshwater, and intertidal habitats we envision. They also provide a foundation for engaging partners to collaborate with others on actions and priorities.

The coarse filter targets include the major ecological systems that comprise the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Fine-scale habitats and species are representative of special habitats that have significant conservation value that occur within the matrix ecological systems.

The ecological systems proposed for analysis are listed below. The ecological targets are intended to collectively represent the biodiversity in the region, with finer-scale conservation targets, such as threatened species, considered to be “captured” in one or more coarse-scale ecosystems.

● Coastal Forest Systems – Includes the majority of the uplands across the ecoregion, including forests with various mixtures of Western Hemlock, Douglas fir, Sitka Spruce, Red Cedar, and Shore Pine. This system includes both xeric and non-forested inclusions.

● Sandy beaches and Coastal Dune Systems – Includes the area between the uplands and the low water line. The beach or shore is typically thought of as a sand-dominated system.

● Rocky Shores and Cliff Systems - Includes rocky intertidal platforms and rocks covered by the ocean at high tide but exposed at low tide, cliff headlands, and nearshore rocks and islands, and related submerged rocky reefs.

● Freshwater Wetland Systems– These systems are distinguishable from the riverine systems in that the source of water is local, and remains contained in the wetland. They include wetlands that contain open water for most of the year, or those with temporal water. Wetlands with emergent, shrub/scrub and forested cover are included as well as shallow open water areas with submerged aquatic vegetation.

● Riverine Systems – Includes all courses of running water – whether permanent or seasonal – their stream channels, floodplains and the riparian and wetland vegetation they support.

● Estuarine Systems – Includes the area of mixing of the ocean and stream subject to tidal action. In large river systems (e.g., Frasier, Columbia, Rogue, Klamath, etc.) freshwater tidal areas are prevalent. In smaller stream mouths and lagoons, saltwater tidal inundation forms the environment of the estuary.

● Oak and Prairie Systems – These systems are relatively dry environments scattered across the landscape and typically occupy a transitional zone between prairies and conifer forests. Oak-dominated habitat types are based on the amount of canopy cover and include oak savannah, open oak woodland, closed oak woodland, and oak forest. North of the Willamette Valley, Oregon,

14


Oregon white oak is the dominant oak tree species of the Pacific Northwest, but transitions as you move south to include black oak and canyon live oak.

STRUCTURE OF TARGET DESCRIPTIONS

For each conservation target described below, the following elements are included:

● Description and Classification System. Classification systems provide the building blocks for articulating the broad conservation targets. Classification systems for Pacific Coast terrestrial and aquatic habitats are based on the concept of ecoregions with geological distinctions for the uplands and water source (oceanic or freshwater), inundation depths and duration and substrate for aquatic ecosystems.

● Nested Habitat Targets. Proposes potential sub, or nested, targets based upon various classification systems.

● Previous Assessments and Prioritizations. Augments the list of assessments articulated above with more focused assessments and prioritizations based upon the target.

● Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators. Proposes a set ofKEAs for assessing the health/condition of the broader target. These KEAs and indicators represent aspects that can be readily mapped using existing data across the entire region. There are also existing reports or information that support the articulation of condition ranking (poor-very good).

● Potential Focus Species. This list will be refined and developed through workshops and working groups.

● Major Impacts. Lists the major impacts including direct and indirect threats as well as climate change effects.

● Associated Ecosystem Services. Briefly lists some of the key ecosystem services, or human well-being components, associated with the particular conservation target. This list is meant to merely outline ecosystem services, and how they may be incorporated into the blueprint in later phases.

● Key Spatial Design Criteria. This section briefly articulates key criteria for prioritizing areas on the landscape. A focus is on criteria that support ecological resiliency, connectivity and diversity. The purpose of this section is to identify key considerations for conservation design and prioritization. These criteria will help determine what is achievable for different versions of the blueprint. Potential data sources that would support these criteria are suggested.

15


COASTAL FORESTS

Description and classification: The Pacific Coast is home of the Coastal Temperate Rainforest created and maintained by the abundant precipitation coming off the ocean and trapped by the Coast Range mountains. The southern edge of the LCD is defined by the predominance of Western-Hemlock and Western Red-Cedar Ecological Systems as mapped by GAP and LandFire. In Southern Oregon, these ecological systems transition into drier Californian/Mediterranean coastal forest systems. This figure shows the spatial distribution of North Pacific Coastal Forest Types within the geographic scope of the LCD (black outline)

The latitude of the study area presents a range of moisture conditions that affects forest community composition. Approximately 350 bird and animal species, including 48 species of amphibians and reptiles, 25 tree species, hundreds of species of fungi and lichens, and thousands of insects, mites, spiders and other soil organisms are found in coastal temperate rain forests (Ecotrust 1992).Additionally, the rugged topography presents a multitude of drainage conditions and a variety of geologic formations that favor different forest types. The coarse scale targets reflect combinations of the differing forest types in the blueprint area.

In terms of classification of terrestrial ecological systems, NatureServe’s Ecological Systems classification (Comer et al. 2003) provides a comprehensive system of “meso-scale” ecological units. This system describes complexes of plant communities influenced by similar physical environments and dynamic ecological processes (such as fire or flooding). They are meant to be mappable at regional to national scales. An additional feature of the Ecological Systems classification is the semi-hierarchy within the Natural Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS). We propose that Ecological Systems can form the building block of “meso-scale” conservation targets, amid the coarse target (e.g., Coastal Forests) and fine-filter targets (particular species). An abiotic counterpart to Ecological Systems is terrestrial Land Facets (Buttrick et al. 2015).

Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Nested Habitat Targets are based upon NatureServe’s Ecological Systems classification.

● North Pacific Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest. ● North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest.

16


http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchSystemUid=ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.738966


http://archive.ecotrust.org/publications/ctrf.html

● North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock Forest ● North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest ● North Pacific Seasonal Sitka Spruce Forest ● North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland

● North Pacific Mountain Hemlock Forest

Previous Regional Assessments: See Table 1 for Pacific Coast Assessments

● Coastal Forest-Specific Assessments: o Northwest Forest Plan–the first 20 years (1994-2013): status and trends of late-successional

and old-growth forests. (Davis et al. 2015) o Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) o Integrated Landscape Assessment Project.

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 1.1. Coastal Forests Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and Indicators (for a better view of this table, go here).

KEA Rationale Indicator Source

Amount of coastal forest

Indicates the proportion historic target lost due to stressors.

% of coastal forest compared to historical

Monitoring Desired Ecological Conditions on Washington State Wildlife Areas Using an Ecological Integrity Assessment Framework

Amount of late successional

Critical for assessment of condition for late-successional obligate species

% of HUC12 watershed (or other defined planning unit) in late-successional stage

Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington

Critical for assessment of condition for late-successional obligate species

% of a HUC12 watershed with an Old Growth Structure Index (OGSI) index value > 50

Initial 2012 Version Nehalem CAP

17



http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_wdfw_eia_final.pdf

http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/Western_Conifer_Plan_new.pdf


http://unwc.nehalem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Forests.pdf

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/



http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/43424

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1You9rhTg0EHVeJuBjZN6Mlpt8g4Jg88fughBssR8VdU/edit?usp=sharing






Amount of mid-successional

Critical for assessment of condition for mid-successional obligate species

% of HUC12 watershed (or other defined planning unit) in mid-successional stage


Amount of early successional

Critical for assessment of condition for early-successional obligate species

% of HUC12 watershed (or other defined planning unit) in early-successional stage


Population Trends for late-successional obligate bird species

Bird communities are good indicators for forest health

Population trends for species Pileated woodpecker (Hylatomus pileatus), Brown creeper (Certhia americana), Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis) and/or Varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius)


Population Trends for mid-successional obligate bird species


Population trends for Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) /Townsend’s warbler (Setophaga townsendi), Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii), etc.


Population Trends for early-successional obligate bird species


Population trends for Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)


18

















Vegetation Structure

Reflects natural disturbance regimes across the landscape and affects the maintenance of biological diversity.

% natural vegetation cover


Condition Model Reflect the amount of disturbance within the region

Landscape Condition Model scores


Connectivity/Permeability

Reflects the amount of connectivity of natural land cover

Landscape Permeability Conserving Nature's Stage

Potential Focal Species: to be refined and developed through workshops and working groups.

● American marten (Martes americana) (WHCWG 2010) ● American black bear (Ursus americanus) (WHCWG 2010) ● Elk (Cervus canadensis) (WHCWG 2010) ● Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) (WHCWG 2010) ● Western toad (Anaxyrus boreas)(WHCWG 2010) ● Pacific fisher (Pekania pennanti)(Brothers et al. 2011)

Associated Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem Services that are associated with coastal forests include provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. This articulation of ecosystem services of Coastal Forests will help identify potential Human Well-Being Targets in next phases.

● Regulating Services o Carbon sequestration and climate regulation

o Purification of water and air o Plant reproduction

● Provisioning Services (verbatim from Alaska Coastal Rainforest Center) o Food Products: Salmon species Pacific halibut, deer, and agricultural products o Forest Products: Lumber, firewood, and fuelwood o Non-Timber Forest Products: mushrooms, berries, roots, resins, and natural medicines

19



http://acrc.alaska.edu/_docs/data_publications/factsheets/ecosystem.pdf



https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Pages/Resilient-Landscapes.aspx




o Fresh Water: The storage and retention of fresh water sustains watershed stability and resilience and enables power generation

o Pharmaceuticals, biochemicals, and industrial products o Energy (hydropower, biomass fuels)

● Supporting Services o Soil formation o Nutrient dispersal and cycling o Primary production

● Cultural Services o Recreation

o Spiritual o Scientific discovery o Cultural heritage o Aesthetic and passive use o Endangered species habitat

Major Impacts: Table 1.2. Pacific Northwest Coastal Forest major impacts during the next 50 years.

Category Impact Source

Forest Resources Practices Even aged, single species dominant, clearcut (< 50 years)

Nehalem

Timber Practices: Herbicides Nehalem

Forest Roads: adequately designed, built & maintained

Nehalem

Forest Roads: Inadequately designed, built & maintained

Nehalem

Even aged, single species dominant, clear cut (50-100 years, with thinning)

Nehalem

Harvesting leading to poor forest health (steep slope, inadequate, replanting, soil compaction, introduction of invasives)

Nehalem

Mixed age, mixed species, non-clearcut (with thinning)

Nehalem

20


Disease & Insects Disease & Insects Nehalem, WWETAC

Swiss Needle Cast OFRI

Root Disease OFRI

Douglas-Fir Beetle OFRI

Invasive Species: Plants Invasive Species: Plants Nehalem

Climate Change Climate Change Nehalem, OFRI, US Forest Service

Other

Development WWETAC

Recreational Use Nehalem Sources:

● Nehalem: Lower Nehalem Watershed Conservation Action Plan. ● OFRI: Oregon Forest Resources Institute Forest Threats ● WWETAC: Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center

● Devine, W., C. Aubry, A. Bower, J. Miller, and A. Maggiulli. 2012. Climate change and forest trees

in the Pacific Northwest: A vulnerability assessment and recommended actions for national

forests. Olympia, WA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

102pp.

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 1.3. Pacific Northwest Coastal Forest key spatial design criteria and data sources.

Key Spatial Design Criteria Existing Data Questions

Conserve important features across the landscape. (Thomas et al. 2006)

Element Occurrence data, LEMMA

What are the important features/species?

Identify core areas and connectivity zones. (Moola et al. 2004; Craighead et al. 2008)

TNC, Core areas for particular species: spotted owl, etc

Connectivity for what species?

Maintain a diversity of successional stages throughout the landscape

LEMMA, LandFire

21


https://ecoshare.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CCFT_Methodology.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/threat-map/TRMPNWThreats.php

http://unwc.nehalem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Freshwater.pdf




http://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/OFRI_ThreatsReport_WEB.pdf

Consider topographic diversity, Buttrick et al. 2015.

TNC Conserving Nature's Stage

Identify large intact blocks of habitat CHAT

Improving matrix quality may lead to higher conservation returns than manipulating the size and configuration of remnant patches for many of the species ( Franklin and Lindenmayer 2009)

How to assess quality?

Consider overlaps of biological/ecological targets and human well-being/ecosystem services (Brandt et al. 2014)

Need ecosystem services data

22


SANDY BEACHES AND COASTAL DUNE

Description and Classification: Sandy beaches and coastal dunes are dynamic shifting systems that support many specialized species. Coastal dunes include beaches, foredunes, sand spits, and active to stabilizing back dunes. The vegetation varies from sparse to forested, as influenced by sand scour, deposition, movement, and erosion. Species composition is also influenced by salt spray, storm tidal surges, wind abrasion, and substrate stability (Wiedeman and Pickart 2007). Beaches and sandspits are directly influenced by tidal action and are typically unvegetated. Foredunes generally have unstable sand with sparse to moderate vegetative cover. A number of plant and bird species are uniquely adapted to these shifting habitats.

The Coastal Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) was adopted by the Federal Geographic Data Committee in 2012 to provide a common classification framework and terminology to describe habitats. West Coast estuaries have been catalogued using boundaries from the National Wetland Inventory and classified using CMECS (Heady et al. 2016; see Appendix 1).

Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Nested Habitat Targets are based upon the NatureServe’s Ecological Systems and the CMECS classification system.

● Ecological Systems o North Pacific Coastal Interdunal Wetland

o North Pacific Hypermaritime Shrub and Herbaceous Headland, o North Pacific Maritime Coastal Sand Dune and Strand

Previous Regional Assessments: See Table 1 for Pacific Coast Assessments.

● ShoreZone Assessment and Classification. “ShoreZone gathers information and spatially maps the biology, geology, and habitats of coastal areas. The maps are used for oil spill preparedness and response, coastal science and planning, search and rescue, and coastal trip planning.

o Oregon

o Washington

23



http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchCommunityUid=ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.685854

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/aquatics/aquatic-science/nearshore-habitat-inventory



http://www.oregonshorezone.info/

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 2.1. Pacific Northwest Sandy Beach and Coastal Dune potential Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators (for a better view of this table, go here).


Dunes - Landscape Structure/Connectivity

“Intact areas have a continuous corridor of natural or semi-natural vegetation”

The general measure is the amount of “embeddedness” within natural or semi-natural land cover.

Vegetation structure and composition


Landscape Condition

The intensity and types of land uses in the surrounding landscape can affect ecological integrity.

Landscape Condition Model Index


Nearshore sand, mud and gravel communities - Associated wetlands coverage for embayments

Not articulated % Wetlands San Juan Islands Marine Stewardship Area Plan

Potential Focal Species: to be refined and developed through workshops and working groups.

● Shorebirds (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Waterbirds and waders (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Invertebrates (sand verbena moth (Copablepharon fuscum), Oregon silverspot (Speyeria zerene hippolyta),

Taylor’s Checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori), Acmon Blue (Plebejus acmon), Island Blue (Plebejus saepiolus insulanus), Island Marble (Euchloe ausonides insulanus), Siuslaw sand tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis))

● Marine mammals (Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus))

24


https://www.miradishare.org/reports/projectViabilityAssessment/tnc-thenatureconserva-2014-00045/















● Plants (dune grass (Leymus mollis), red fescue (Festuca rubra), pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), Wolf’s evening primrose (Oenothera wolfii))

Major Impacts: Figure 2.2. Future impacts to the Sandy Beach and Coastal Dune conservation target during the next 50 years. Impacts derived from the following documents:

● The Oregon Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 2015) ● The Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2016) ● A Conservation Assessment for West Coast Estuaries (TNC 2011) ● Washington State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015) ● Pacific America’s Shorebird Conservation Plan (Audubon 2016)

Category Impact

Disrupted sediment transport Dune stabilization

Beachgrass invasion

In-water development

Construction of jetties, breakwaters, and groins

Shoreline armoring (ex. sea walls)

Stream channelization

Tidal and floodplain disconnection

Agricultural drainage: tiling, ditching

Mining of sand

Direct mortality Nonpoint source pollution: herbicides

Nonpoint source pollution: stormwater runoff

Fuel and oil spills

Garbage

Increased disturbance and mortality OHV and vehicle use on beach

25







Shell collecting

Oil spill clean-up, dispersants

Beach nourishment and bulldozing

Recreational beach activities (dogs, kites, surfing, etc.)

Increased contaminants Oil spill

Nonpoint source pollution: fertilizers

Inadequate septic systems

Habitat loss Loss of shoreline: Conversion to agriculture

Loss of shoreline: Residential and urban development

Loss of shoreline: Roads, railroads

Altered species composition Invasive dune plants

Beachgrass invasion

Climate Change Sea level rise

Increased storm surge

Increased flood events

Increased air temperatures

Changes in snowpack and melt

Ocean acidification

Changes in upwelling

Associated Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem Services that are associated with Sandy Beach and Coastal Dune systems include:

● Regulating Services o Shoreline protection (Rao et al. 2015) o Flood protection

26


o Erosion protection o Sediment storage and transport o Wave dissipation and buffering against extreme weather events o Dynamic response to sea level rise o Breakdown of organic materials and pollutants o Nutrient mineralization and recycling o Storage of water in dune aquifers and groundwater discharge through beaches o Maintenance of biodiversity and genetic resources o

● Supporting Services o Predator/prey relationships and ecosystem resilience o Functional links between terrestrial and marine environments (land-sea connection) o Nursery area for juvenile fishes o Nesting sites and rookeries

● Provisioning Services o Food o Water filtration


o Tourism

o Aesthetics and Scenic value

o Existence values

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 2.3. Pacific Northwest Sandy Beach and Coastal Dune key spatial design criteria and data sources.


Consider relative level of stress at the site and landscape scales (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

ShoreZone What are the best available data for shoreline stress?

“identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for restoration” (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

What are the best available data for shoreline function and degradation?

“Use existing data to assess the impacts of stressors on controlling factors to indicate ecosystem degradation. Measurable stressors to controlling factors affecting nearshore ecosystem structures and processes occur at

What are the best available data for stressors?

27


a variety of scales from the watershed to the marine shoreline.” (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

Incorporate multiple scales in planning. (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

What are the scale hierarchies that are relevant for decision making.

Consider diversity of geomorphic classes. (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

ShoreZone

Consider hydrologic context (Diefenderfer et al. 2009). Need to articulate further.

“Focus on existing GIS data sets with complete coverage for the study area” (Diefenderfer et al. 2009).

ShoreZone Need to inventory which data sets are most complete

Plan for resiliency to sea level rise. (Thorner et al. 2014) NOAA Sea Level Rise data

Key elements of shoreline conservation planning (Diefenderfer et al, 2009).

28


INTERTIDAL ROCKY SHORES AND CLIFF

Description and Classification: The Pacific Northwest Coast is known for its rugged shorelines that include rocky intertidal platforms and rocks covered by the ocean at high tide but exposed at low tide, cliff headlands and nearshore rocks and islands that provide critical isolated nesting and haul-out sites for seabirds and marine mammals, and related submerged rocky reefs. Rocky intertidal areas, or tidepools, are unique marine environments that offer a glimpse into the marine realm. These areas are biologically rich and have evolved to take advantage of, as well as withstand, the environmental rigors of the edge of the sea. Submerged rocky reefs are also scattered along the coast. These areas are critical habitat for a wide variety of marine species, from encrusting corals and sponges to invertebrates, fish, marine mammals and seabirds.


Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Nested Habitat Targets are based upon the NatureServe’s Ecological Systems and the CMECS classification system. CMESC is

● Ecological Systems o North Pacific Coastal Cliff and Bluff


● ShoreZone Assessment and Classification. “ShoreZone gathers information on the biology and geology of coastal areas and makes maps of important characteristics. These maps describe coastal habitats and are used in many ways, including oil spill preparedness and response, coastal science and planning, search and rescue, and coastal trip planning.”

o Oregon

o Washington

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 3.1. Pacific Northwest Intertidal Rocky Shores and Cliffs potential Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators (For a better view of this table, go here).


Landscape Condition

The intensity and types of land uses in the surrounding

Landscape Condition Model Index

Monitoring Desired Ecological Conditions

29




http://www.oregonshorezone.info/





landscape can affect ecological integrity.

on Washington State Wildlife Areas Using an Ecological Integrity Assessment Framework

Rocky Intertidal-vegetation composition

Not articulated Mean % cover of kelp San Juan Islands Marine Stewardship Area Plan

Rocky Intertidal-species composition

Not articulated Native species richness San Juan Islands Marine Stewardship Area Plan

Potential Focal Species: to be refined and developed through workshops and working groups

● Shorebirds (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Waterbirds and waders (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Seabirds (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Fish (Black rockfish (Sebastes melanops), blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys

marmoratus), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), deacon rockfish (Sebastes diaconus), grass rockfish (Sebastes rastrelliger), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)

● Invertebrates (California mussel (Mytilus californianus), native littleneck clam (Leukoma staminea), ochre sea star (Pisaster ochraceus), Pacific giant octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini), purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), red abalone (Haliotis rufescens), red sea fan (Swiftia kofoidi), rock scallop (Crassodoma gigantea))

● Algae and plants (sea palm (Postelsia palmaeformis), surf grass (Phyllospadix scouleri)) ● Marine mammals (Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus))

Major Impacts: Figure 3.2. Future impacts to the Intertidal Rocky Shores and Cliffs conservation target during the next 50 years. Impacts derived from the following documents:

● The Oregon Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 2015) ● The Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2016) ● A Conservation Assessment for West Coast Estuaries (TNC 2011) ● Washington State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015) ● Pacific America’s Shorebird Conservation Plan (Audubon 2016)

30















Category Impact

Disrupted sediment transport Dune stabilization

Beachgrass invasion


Construction of jetties, breakwaters, and groins

Shoreline armoring (ex. sea walls)


Tidal and floodplain disconnection


Mining of sand

Direct mortality Nonpoint source pollution: herbicides

Nonpoint source pollution: stormwater runoff

Fuel and oil spills

Garbage

Increased disturbance and mortality Human trampling, tide pooling

Harvest of seaweed

Harvest of intertidal animals

Shell collecting

Oil spill clean-up, dispersants

Physical disturbance from boats

Increased contaminants Oil spill

Nonpoint source pollution: fertilizers

31








Ocean acidification


Associated Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem Services that are associated with Intertidal Rocky Shores and Cliff systems include:

● Regulating Services o Shoreline protection (Rao et al. 2015) o Flood protection

o Erosion protection

● Supporting Services o Predator/prey relationships and ecosystem resilience

● Provisioning Services o food


o Tourism

o Aesthetics and Scenic value

o Existence values

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 3.3. Pacific Northwest Intertidal Rocky Shores and Cliffs key spatial design criteria and data sources.


Consider relative level of stress at the site and What are the best available data for

32


landscape scales (Diefenderfer et al. 2009) shoreline stress?

“identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for restoration” (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

What are the best available data for shoreline function and degradation?

“Use existing data to assess the impacts of stressors on controlling factors to indicate ecosystem degradation. Measurable stressors to controlling factors affecting nearshore ecosystem structures and processes occur at a variety of scales from the watershed to the marine shoreline.” (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

Incorporate multiple scales in planning. (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

What are the scale hierarchies that are relevant for decision making?

Consider diversity of geomorphic classes. (Diefenderfer et al. 2009)

ShoreZone

Consider hydrologic context (Diefenderfer et al, 2009).

Need to articulate further.

“Focus on existing GIS data sets with complete coverage for the study area” (Diefenderfer et al. 2009).

ShoreZone Need to inventory which data sets are most complete.

Plan for resiliency to sea level rise. (Thorner et al. 2014)

NOAA Sea Level Rise data

33


FRESHWATER WETLANDS

Description and classification: Freshwater wetlands have a predominance of hydric soils, are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater, and have a prevalence of hydrophilic vegetation. Permanently wet wetland habitat includes backwater sloughs, oxbow lakes, and marshes. Seasonally wet habitats include seasonal marshes and ponds vernal pools, and wet prairies. Freshwater wetlands are important for migrating and breeding waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, songbirds, mammals, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. Strong environmental protections, such as the National policy of ‘No Net Loss of Wetlands,’ aim to minimize wetland loss. Unfortunately, more than half the wetlands in the United States have been drained, converted to agriculture, developed, and seriously degraded.

Classification Structure: The most commonly used wetland classification system is defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). It is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and is based on a hierarchical structure that includes five major wetland systems and their associated subsystems and classes.

Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Nested Habitat Targets are based on Cowardin et al. (1979) with sub bullets based on habitat descriptions by the Northwest Habitat Institute Wildlife-Habitat Types and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Oregon Conservation Strategy (2016).

● Cowardin-based

o Palustrine emergent o Palustrine scrub-shrub

o Palustrine forested (non-riparian) o Open Water

● Ecological Systems o Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh o Temperate Pacific Freshwater Mudflat

34


http://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitat/wetlands/

http://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitat/wetlands/

http://www.nwhi.org/index/habdescriptions

o Temperate Pacific Freshwater Aquatic Bed o Willamette Valley Wet Prairie o North Pacific Hardwood -Conifer Swamp o North Pacific Hardpan Vernal Pool


● Freshwater Wetland Classification: o National Wetland Inventory

● Prioritizations: o The Washington Natural Heritage Program has identified Wetlands of High Conservation

Value. o The Wetlands Conservancy has identified “Oregon's Greatest Wetlands”.

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 4.1. Pacific Northwest Freshwater Wetland potential Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators (For a better view of this table, go here).


Landscape Connectivity

“Less fragmentation increases connectivity between natural ecological systems and thus allow for natural exchange of species, nutrients, and water.”

“Landscape Connectivity metric is measured by estimating connectivity based on a fixed distance from the edge of the buffer that surrounds the assessment area”

Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012. Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Condition across Landscape Regions: A Multi-metric Approach.

Condition of surrounding landscape

“The intensity of human activity in the landscape has a proportionate impact on the ecological processes of natural ecosystems.”

“This metric measures the intensity of human dominated land uses in the surrounding landscape beyond the 100 m buffer, based on an additional 150 m with for the core landscape and an additional 250 m width for the supporting landscape.”

Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012. Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Condition across Landscape Regions: A Multi-metric Approach

Absolute Size “The role of absolute size in assessing integrity is complex.” Refer to Faber-Langendoen et

“A measure of the current absolute size (ha) of the entire wetland type polygon or patch.

Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012. Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem

35


http://oregonexplorer.info/content/oregons-greatest-wetlands


http://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cf9e5b22f584ad7a4e2aebc63c47bda

http://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cf9e5b22f584ad7a4e2aebc63c47bda

al. for a complete justification. The metric is assessed with respect to expected patch sizes for the type across its range.”

Condition across Landscape Regions: A Multi-metric Approach

Relative Size “Relative size is an indication of the amount of the wetland change caused by human-induced disturbances.”

“Relative size can be measured in GIS using aerial photographs, orthophoto quads, National Wetland Inventory maps, or other data layers.”

Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012. Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Condition across Landscape Regions: A Multi-metric Approach


● Migratory and breeding waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and landbirds (coming soon, KBO) ● Amphibians: western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta),

northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora), western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) ● Insects: Insular blue butterfly (Plebejus saepiolus littoralis) ● Plants: western lily (Lilium occidentale), Wapato (Sagittaria spp.) ● Mammals: beaver (Castor canadensis)

Major Impacts. Figure 4.2. Future impacts to the Freshwater Wetland conservation target during the next 50 years. Impacts derived from the following documents:

● The Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2016) ● Washington State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015)

Category Impact

Altered hydrology Flood protection levees/dikes


Diversion of freshwater


Groundwater pumping

Failing infrastructure: saltwater intrusion

36




Increased contaminants Nonpoint source pollution: herbicides

Non-point source pollution: stormwater runoff

Garbage

Increased nutrients Commercial fertilizers


Increased sedimentation Deforestation

Overgrazing by livestock

Habitat loss Loss of freshwater wetlands: Conversion to agriculture

Loss of freshwater wetlands: Urban development

Loss of shoreline/emergent habitat: Roads, railroads

Altered species composition Non-native plants

Non-native fish

Non-native amphibians






Associated Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services that are associated with Freshwater Wetlands include the following (adapted from Clarkson et al. 2013).

● Regulating Services o Moderation of extreme events o Regulation of water flows o Maintenance of soil fertility

● Supporting Services

37


o Food o Fresh water supply

● Provisioning Services o Food

o Freshwater supply ● Cultural Services

o Aethetic

o Recreation o Spiritual experience

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 4.3. Pacific Northwest Freshwater Wetland key spatial design criteria and data sources.


Protect a portfolio of different wetland types (representativeness)

NWI, GAP Ecological Systems How good are existing wetland maps?

Assess the vulnerability of wetlands to impacts

NWI, need to look at potential impacts layers.

What impact data is relevant to wetlands?

Consider feasibility of restoration NWI, condition models

Consider species abundance in landscape-scale models (Neimuth et al. 2008)

Existing data is scarce.

38


RIVERINE

Description and classification: This conservation target represents streams and flowing waters, from large rivers to headwater streams. Pacific coastal drainages can be distinguished by physiography, climate, biota (zoogeographic area) and stream types to distinguish ecological drainage units. This coarse-scale distinction among the riverine system can be further fine-tuned to assess watersheds associated with high priority salmonids or other species.

The rivers draining the Coast Ranges are drenched from the moist air masses coming off the Pacific Ocean, often resulting in flows significantly larger than catchments in other locations with less frequent moisture-laden air masses. Only a few of the stream systems rely on snowmelt to maintain flows, including the streams that break through the coastal mountains (Columbia, Frasier, Skagit, Rogue, Umpqua, and Klamath Rivers) and those with more substantial mountain masses (Olympic Mountains). Rivers are organized in a hierarchical manner. The largest scale is the drainage basin, such as the Columbia River basin. The basin is contributed to by a number of stream systems, which can be characterized by stream segments, reaches, etc. into smaller and smaller units. At the coarse scale, eight Ecological Drainage Units have been identified for the Pacific Coast ecoregion (Vander Schaaf et al. 2006).

Salmon populations are intimately tied to the stream systems that they inhabit. Salmon and steelhead populations are identified by the stream system they occupy as a part of a metapopulation (ODFW 2014). NOAA Fisheries has developed recovery plans for Oregon Coast coho salmon (Draft 2015), Southern Oregon and Northern California coho salmon (2014), Lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, chum, and steelhead (2013), Columbia River Estuary Recovery Plan Module for Salmon & Steelhead (2011), Chum Salmon in the Hood Canal (2007), and other populations that traverse the Columbia River and use the nearshore Pacific Ocean. These plans provide some direction for restoration and other conservation actions that would benefit the described species.

Frameworks for conservation planning of freshwater systems have been articulated in the literature. From a classification perspective, Higgens et al. (2005) propose a 4-tiered hierarchical framework that includes

39


zoogeographic, ecological drainage units, aquatic ecological systems and macrohabitats within the ecological systems.

The Ecological Drainage Units of Vander Schaaf et al. (2006) are very coarse-scale targets that can be used for the Landscape Conservation Design. There is a common mapping convention for the identification of hydrological units in the United States (USGS). The identification of hydrologic units as conservation priorities is common for aquatic species, especially fish species. For example, the Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management Plan (ODFW 2014) identifies relative salmonid ecosystem value by hydrological unit code (HUC 12). These areas include nearly all of Oregon’s estuaries north of Cape Blanco (the area south is not evaluated) and the mainstem river areas. A similar prioritization is being considered for region Coastal coho salmon recovery in the Nehalem, Siuslaw and Elk Rivers.

Finer scale riverine habitats that have been identified for biodiversity conservation purposes include tributary junctions and low gradient, unconfined reaches of streams, which are identified at the stream segment, or reach, scale. The confluence between tributaries and mainstem channels is often the site of significant aquatic diversity. The complexity of channel junctions can create a diverse array of aquatic microhabitats suitable for protection. Channel junctions with 6th order or greater channels have the greatest potential for biodiversity conservation.

Causes of river biodiversity have been connected to many factors (Ward 1998, Vannote et al. 1980). Recent research (Konar et al. 2013) has identified hydrology as a driver of aquatic biodiversity. The strong link between stream hydrology and watershed structure are critical links for the conservation of ecological targets, especially in the context of climate change. Because stream systems are networks, connectivity is a critical factor in maintaining aquatic habitats and biodiversity. Conservation actions that maintain or restore the hillslope and streamside processes that generate stream habitats will sustain aquatic diversity through time.

Ecological Drainage Units for the Pacific Coast (Vander Schaff et al. 2006).

EDU Physiography Climate Zoogeography

Stream Types

Oregon Coastal

Mid-elevation, predominantly unglaciated mountains (Coast Range) progressing to coastal lowlands

High precipitation (up to 250 in/yr)

Mid Pacific Coastal

Small to medium, deeply incised, steep dendritic systems connected to coast; small lakes occasional; predominant geology sedimentary and basalt

40


Rogue/ Umpqua/ Lower Klamath Rivers

Extensive monadnock ranges (Klamath mountains) of highly variable geology, progressing to coastal lowlands

High precipitation (~40-120 in/yr)

Mid Pacific Coastal

Many rapid flowing streams in bedrock controlled channels draining to moderately sized rivers; numerous glacial lakes above 5000’

Olympic- Chehalis

Mid-elevation predominantly unglaciated mountains

High precipitation (up to 250 in/yr)

North Pacific Coastal

Small to medium, deeply incised, steep river systems connected to coast; predominant geology greenschist and greywacke

Lower Columbia

Valley through portions of Cascade and Coastal Ranges

High variability between valley and mountains (20–150 in/yr)

Columbia unglaciated

Mainstem Columbia river from Cascades to ocean, and associated Cascadian and coastal tributaries (Cowlitz, Klickitat, Sandy)

Abell et al. (2008) provide a framework for protection of freshwater that includes a mosaic of different emphasis zones, including focal areas, critical land use, and catchment management zones (see Figure). “Protection” of freshwater systems requires different management prescriptions for each of these zones, balancing economic use of the watershed with functional requirements for habitat and species.

Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Freshwater riverine systems do not have a fully mapped analog to the terrestrial ecological systems. However, there have been a few attempts to classify and map different types of riverine systems. These include:

● TNC OR/WA Freshwater Classification. A classification was completed for major rivers in Oregon and Washington. Data not available online.

● Tim Beechie from NOAA produced a classification of stream types in the Columbia Basin (Beechie

41


and Imaki 2014). However, this does not cover the coastal watersheds outside of the basin.


● Watershed Condition: o Washington Freshwater Assessment o Northwest Forest Plan Watershed Condition Assessment o National Fish Habitat Partnership Assessment

● Multiple Species Prioritizations: o Western Governor’s Association Aquatic component o USFWS Aquatic Priorities Tool o Bureau of Land Management Aquatic Priorities

● Anadromous Fish: o Rangewide Steelhead Assessment o North American Salmon Stronghold Assessment o Lamprey Assessment

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 5.1. Pacific Northwest Riverine potential Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators.


Upslope landscape integrity

Roads are an indicator of watershed condition.

Road density (road mi/watershed area mi2 )

Lanigan et al. 2012

Upslope landscape integrity

Urban/ag an indicator of landscape condition

Urban/agriculture (mi2 /watershed area mi2 )

Lanigan et al. 2012

Upslope–landslide risk

Landslides influence aquatic function.

Difference in average landslide density [per km2 ] from an optimum forested, unroaded state

Lanigan et al. 2012

Riparian canopy An indicator of riparian condition

Canopy cover, 160-ft buffer, all species (average cover [%])

Lanigan et al. 2012

Riparian condition An indicator of riparian condition

Conifers ≥20-in QMD, 160-ft buffer (mi2 /riparian forest-capable mi2 )

Lanigan et al. 2012

42


https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/53ad8d9de4b0729c15418232

http://ecosystems.usgs.gov/fishhabitat/viewdataset.jsp?sbid=514afb90e4b0040b38150dbc

http://aquatic-priorities.apps.ecotrust.org/

http://www.tu.org/sites/default/files/Steelhead_assessment_v1_0_Nov_2014.pdf


https://databasin.org/datasets/938b98bb2f3a443ea51126d11af3541f

https://reo.gov/monitoring/reports/watershed/AREMP%2015%20yr%20report.pdf

http://www.westgovchat.org/

https://databasin.org/datasets/0aa806385ff84187ae337a29f3cdd7c9


Riparian, perennial streams condition

An indicator of riparian condition

QMD conifers ≥20-in, 300-ft buffer (mi2 /riparian forest capable mi2 )

Lanigan et al. 2012

Riparian, perennial streams

An indicator of riparian condition

Road density, 300-ft buffer (road mi/stream mi)

Lanigan et al. 2012

Hydrologic Flows Adequate flows are essential for species

Unable to find a regional indicator

WCSSP 2013

Temperature Several species are sensitive to temperature

% of monitored stream reaches meeting temperature criteria

Upper Nehalem 2012, WCSSP 2013

Sediments Excess fine sediment impact a variety of habitat requirements

Unable to find a regional indicator

WCSSP 2013

Large Wood Large wood is essential for creating diversity in habitat

# key pieces of wood >60cm diameter X > 12m long per 100 meters primary stream length


Habitat Connectivity Access to habitat % of historic aquatic habitats still connected


Habitat Complexity Miles of high quality/complex habitat

Upper Nehalem 2012

Major Impacts. Figure 5.2. Future impacts to the Riverine conservation target during the next 50 years. Impacts derived from the following documents:

● Nehalem: Upper Nehalem Conservation Action Plan. ● Coho: Final ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ● WCSSP: Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership.

Category Impact Source

Degraded Water Quality Herbicides Nehalem

43


http://www.wcssp.org/images/docs/plan/c5.pdf

http://unwc.nehalem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Freshwater.pdf

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans/final_oregon_coast_coho_recovery_plan.pdf

Nutrients Nehalem

Temperature Nehalem

Dissolved Oxygen Nehalem

Water Quality: Bacteria Nehalem

Oil Spills WCSSP

Stormwater and Wastewater WCSSP

Habitat Alteration Loss of Stream Complexity Coho

Blocked/hindered passage Nehalem, Coho, WCSSP

Dredging and Filling WCSSP

Removal of Large Woody Debris WCSSP

Roads, Culverts, Bridges, and Other Transportation Infrastructure

Nehalem, Coho, WCSSP

Shoreline modification WCSSP

Aggregate Removal Nehalem

Recreational Use Nehalem

Hydrologic Alteration Water Use Nehalem

Altered hydrologic patterns from changing climate

Coho

Watershed Land Use Even aged, single species dominant, clear cut (50-100 years, with thinning)

Nehalem

Rural Residential Developments Nehalem, WCSSP

Mixed age, mixed species, non-clear cut (with thinning)

Nehalem

Agricultural Practices WCSSP

44


Mixed age, mixed species, non-clear cut (with thinning)

Nehalem

Biological Hatcheries Practices Nehalem, Coho

Invasive Species: Plants Nehalem

Invasive Species: Animals Nehalem


● Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ● Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ● Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ● Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) ● Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii)

Associated Ecosystem Services: Later components of this project will map overlaps of conservation priorities and ecosystem services. Some ecosystem services have been mapped across the region (Brandt et al. 2014).

● Regulating Services o Maintenance of water quality

o Buffering of flood flows, erosion

● Supporting Services o Role in nutrient cycling (role in maintenance of floodplain fertility), primary production

o Predator/prey relationships and ecosystem resilience

● Provisioning Services o water for consumptive use

o water for non-consumptive use

o food ● Cultural Services

o Recreation

o Tourism

o Existence values

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 5.3. Pacific Northwest Riverine key spatial design criteria and data sources.

45



Identify areas of high biological importance for a diversity of life history stages, abundance and productivity. (Linke et al. 2011)

Element Occurrence data, StreamNet,

Salmon abundance data?

Identify areas of high intrinsic potential (IP) for habitat. (Burnett 2007)

Coastal IP models for coho and steelhead, NetMap

Is WA completely mapped?

Identify key focal areas, connectivity zones and upland management zones (Abell et al. 2007)

Areas have been identified in sub-geographies. (Key watersheds, CHAT, etc)

Identify areas that overlap biological outcomes with key aquatic ecosystem services. (Chan et al. 2011, Brandt et al. 2014)

Aquatic ecosystem services are not currently mapped

Identify refugia that will be resilient in the future. (Wade et al. 2013, Bush 2014, Isaak 2015)

Norwest Database, stream flow metrics database

Consider systematic conservation planning approaches for freshwater that include longitudinal connectivity. (Hermoso et al. 2011)

This would be a new analysis

Consider ecological representation across freshwater systems. (Linke et al. 2011, USFWS 2017)

Is there an available classification of streams for the whole region?

Integrate aquatic conservation priorities with terrestrial priorities. (Adams et al. 2014, USFWS 2017)

Key watersheds, Salmon Anchor Habitats (ODF)

Identify strategies (protection/restoration) based upon mapping of current condition (USFWS 2017)

Several watershed condition assessments (NFHP, TU, etc)

46


https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/508eccefe4b0b59cf7f5a7f8



ESTUARINE

Description and classification: Estuaries are one of the most ecologically rich and complex areas on Earth. Estuaries provide critical nesting, rearing, and feeding habitat for a diversity of fish and wildlife species, including juvenile marine fish, marine mammals, crab and other shellfish, and birds. These dynamic systems have complex exchanges of energy, water, nutrients, sediments, and organisms.

A wide variety of habitat types occur within each estuary. Typical estuarine habitats include, tidal channel/creek, seagrass (eelgrass) bed, oyster reef, mud/sand flat, tidal marsh shrubland and forest, subtidal channels and bottoms, coarse wood accumulation, etc. The distribution and types of habitats vary with the significance of stream flow, barrier development, and stream gradient.

West Coast estuaries have been catalogued using boundaries from the National Wetlands Inventory and classified using the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS). CMECS classifies the physical and biological habitats and waters ranging from the head of the tide to the limits of the economic zone, and from the spray zone to the deep ocean (Heady et al. 2014). The Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) “provides a comprehensive framework for organizing information about coasts and oceans and their living systems (FDGC 2012). This information includes the physical, biological, and chemical data that are collectively used to define coastal and marine ecosystems” (NatureServe 2017). Currently, estuaries on the Oregon coast have been mapped, and Washington estuary mapping is in progress. These classes could potentially feed into the meso-scale conservation targets for estuaries and nearshore systems.


47


Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Nested Habitat Targets are based upon the CMECS geomorphic type and assigned biotic class.

● Aquatic bed (ex. eelgrass) ● Emergent wetland

● Scrub-shrub

● Tidal forest/woodland


● Estuary Classification: o Classification of regional patterns of environmental drivers and benthic habitats in Pacific

Northwest estuaries (Lee II and Brown 2009). o An Inventory and Classification of U.S. West Coast Estuaries (Heady et al. 1014)

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 6.1. Pacific Northwest Estuary potential Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators (For a better view of this table, go here).


Size-intactness of historic

A measure of historic amount % of historic wetland habitats lost or altered

Upper Nehalem 2012

Water quality An indicator of habitat quality for fish species and humans

% of monitored Bay sites meeting bacteria criteria

Upper Nehalem 2012

Native fish species richness

Measure of biotic integrity TBD Upper Nehalem 2012

Migrating bird species, shorebirds

Measure of biotic integrity TBD Upper Nehalem 2012

Tidal Connectivity

A measure of functioning tidal systems.

Number of culverts and tide gates restricting water flow within the estuary

Upper Nehalem 2012

48




● Plants (eelgrass) ● Shorebirds (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Dabbling and diving ducks (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Waterbirds (coming soon, Klamath Bird Observatory) ● Invertebrates: Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister), bay shrimp (Crangon crangon); PMEP, Toft et al.

2015); Island Marble (Euchloe ausonides insulanus), Oregon silverspot (Speryeria zerene hippolyta), Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori), valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremnerii) (WDFW SGCN)

● Elasmobranchs (Leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), Bat ray (Myliobatis californica); PMEP, Toft et al. 2015)

● Anadromous Fish (Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss); PMEP, Toft et al. 2015)

● English sole (Parophrys vetulus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus); PMEP, Toft et al. 2015) ● Scorpaeiformes (brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus)

(PMEP, Toft et al. 2015) ● Perciformes (shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata); PMEP, Toft et al. 2015) ● Clupeiformes (Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii); PMEP, Toft et al. 2015) ● Marine mammals (killer whale (Orcinus orca) and sea otter (Enhydra lutris); WDFW SGCN)

Major Impacts: Figure 6.2. Future impacts to the Estuary conservation target during the next 50 years. Impacts derived from the following documents:

● Pathways to Strategic Conservation in West Coast Estuaries (PMEP Ongoing) ● The Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2016) ● A Conservation Assessment for West Coast Estuaries (TNC 2011) ● Coastal Connections: Assessing Oregon’s Estuaries for Conservation Planning (TNC 2015) ● The Oregon Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 2015) ● Washington State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015) ● Assessing the Impact of Human Activities on British Columbia’s Estuaries (Robb 2015) ● Oregon Central Coast Estuary Collaborative (ongoing)

Category Impact

Altered hydrology Tidal and floodplain disconnection

Flood protection levees/dikes

49





https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1c48/b0492f6f642c513b68c8a56809cd241020ee.pdf





Diversion of freshwater


Groundwater pumping

Shoreline armoring

Non-point source pollution: herbicides

Non-point source pollution: storm water run-off

Fuel and oil spills

Garbage

Increased nutrients Commercial fertilizers


Increased sedimentation Deforestation

Overgrazing by livestock

Estuary fill

Habitat loss Loss of shoreline/emergent habitat: Conversion to agriculture

Loss of shoreline/emergent habitat: Urban development

Loss of shoreline/emergent habitat: Roads, railroads

Loss of eelgrass beds: Aquaculture development

Loss of channel habitat: Dredging


Altered species composition Non-native plants

Non-native fish

50


Reduced populations: overfishing






Ocean acidification


Extreme weather events

Associated Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services that are associated with estuaries include: (from Pendleton 2009, Pinto et al. 2010, Barbier et al. 2011, Pinto and Marques 2015)

● Regulating Services o Coastal protection - attenuates and/or dissipates waves o Carbon sequestration o Improve water quality o Climate regulation o Disturbance regulation o Waste assimilation o Soil retention

● Supporting Services o Role in nutrient cycling o Supporting biodiversity o Soil formation (capture of sediments and accumulation of organic matter) o Habitat o Protection against coastal erosion/shoreline stabilization o Hydrological cycle

● Provisioning Services o Food o Water supply o Raw materials o Genetic resources o Medicinal and plant resources

51


http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/economic_and_market_valueofcoasts_and_estuaries.pdf

o Ornamental resources ● Cultural Services

o Recreation o Tourism o Aesthetic o Science and Education o Spiritual and historic

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 6.3. Pacific Northwest Estuary key spatial design criteria and data sources.


Identify areas that are high in species abundance, richness and contribute strongly to the broader population. (Turpie 1995)

Best available data?

Build from existing conservation estate and efforts in the estuary. (Turpie 1995)

GAP Protected Areas Database

Plan for hydrological connectivity (Kaufman-Axelrod 2010, Brophy 2012)


Consider ecosystem services in prioritization (Russell 2011) Best available data?

Larger tidal wetlands restoration sites are more able to become self-sustaining (Dean et al. 2001)

How to measure?

Habitat complexity and diversity are critical. (St. Pierre. 2014) Best available data?

Consider an estimate of the probability of success in conservation design ( Evans et al. 2006)

What are the appropriate criteria

Maintain habitat diversity across regional scales (representativeness, adequacy).


Consider vulnerability in estuary planning (Shokri 2013) What vulnerability assessments have been completed?

52


53


OAK AND PRAIRIES

Description and classification: Oak forests, woodlands, savannas, and prairies are iconic in the Pacific Northwest. Oaks and prairies are unique, supporting a diversity of habitat specialists, many rapidly declining. Oak ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest are relatively dry environments that occupy a transitional zone between prairies and conifer forests. The dominant oak tree species is Oregon white oak, but oak species transition to black oak and canyon live oaks in the southern portion of the region. Oak woodlands once covered almost 1 million acres in the Coast Range, but now less than 6 percent of estimated historical oak woodlands remain.

There are four oak-dominant habitat types (in which oak trees typically comprise >90% canopy cover), including oak savanna, oak woodland open, oak woodland closed, and oak forest. Oak savanna typically transitions into upland prairie. Co-dominant oak habitats include oak/fir, oak/hardwood, oak/pine, and riparian oak (taken from Bird Habitat and Populations in Oak Ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest; Altman and Stephens 2012).

Nested Habitat Targets/Ecological Systems: Nested Habitat Targets are based upon Altman and Stephens 2012.

● Upland Prairie ● Oak-Dominant

o Oak Savannah: grasslands with scattered oak trees and an open canopy (<25% cover) with approximately 1-5 larger trees or 1-10 younger trees per acre.

o Oak Woodland Open: relatively open canopy (25-50% cover) with approximately 5-10 large trees or 10-20 younger trees per acre.

o Oak Woodland Closed: relatively closed canopy (50-75% cover) with approximately 10-30 large tree or 20-40 younger trees per acre

o Oak Forest: nearly closed canopy (greater than 75% cover) with typically >30 large trees or >40 younger trees per acre.

● Oak Co-Dominant o Oak/fir: typically closed woodland or forest where there is relatively equal representation of

oak and Douglas-fir

54


https://3pktan2l5dp043gw5f49lvhc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/QuercusGuidePart1.pdf


o Oak/hardwood: typically woodlands or forests characterized by co-dominance of oak with other hardwood species such as madrone, big leaf maple, or Oregon ash.

o Oak/pine: typically woodlands or savanna characterized by co-dominance of oak and ponderosa pine

● Riparian Oak: located in riparian zones and support denser shrub and sub-canopy cover.


● Bird Habitat and Populations in Oak Ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest (Altman and Stephens 2012)

Potential Landscape-Scale KEAs and Indicators: Table 7.1. Pacific Northwest Oaks and Prairie potential Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) and indicators (For a better view of this table, go here)


Size Important for understanding remaining habitat

Acres of habitat Alverson, 2011

Vegetation structure

Important for understanding stand condition and history.

Relative dominance of oak vs. other woody veg in the canopy

Alverson, 2011

Degree of alteration of surrounding landscape.

The surrounding landscape impacts the function of the oak woodland patch

Percentage of landscape within 2 km distance of edge of habitat patch in different categories of land use

Alverson, 2011

Proximity (distance) to other target habitat patches

The degree of isolation. Number of habitat patches > 40 acres within 2 km

Alverson, 2011


● Oak Obligates: Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)

55




● Additional Oak-Associated bird species of concern: chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), Oregon vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis), Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)

● Mammals: Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama), Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus)

● Butterflies: Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori), Fender’s blue (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Mardon skipper (Polites mardon), Puget blue (Icaricia icarioides blackmorei), Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremnerii)

● Plants: Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbens), Bradshaw’s Lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii), golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus oreganus), Nelson’s checkermallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), deltoid balsamroot (Balsamorhiza deltoidea)

Major Impacts: Figure 7.2. Future impacts to the Oaks and Prairie conservation target during the next 50 years. Impacts derived from the following documents:

● The Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2016) ● Washington State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015) ● Willamette Valley Conservation Study (USFWS 2017) ● Historic Vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon circa 1850 (Christy and Alverson 2011). ● Climate Change Impacts on Western Pacific Northwest Prairies and Savannas (Bachelet et al. 2011).

Category Impact

Altered species composition Invasive shrubs, understory

Douglas-fir encroachment

Decreased fire frequency

Non-native grasses

Road, species transport

Groundwater pumping

Shoreline armoring

Acorn harvesting

Habitat loss and degradation Timber production

56



https://www.fws.gov/YourWillametteValley/Conservation_Study/WVCS_Study.pdf

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.085.0224

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.085.0202


Conversion to agriculture

Vineyard expansion

Urban development

Conversion to rural residential

Wood harvesting

Overgrazing by livestock: decreased acorn production, trampling

Climate Change Increased air temperatures (may benefit by lowering Douglas-fir survival)

Increased water temperatures


Associated Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem Services that are associated with Oaks and Prairie systems include:

● Regulating Services o Maintenance of water quality

● Supporting Services o Role in nutrient cycling

o Predator/prey relationships and ecosystem resilience

● Provisioning Services o water for consumptive use

o water for non-consumptive use


o Tourism

o Existence values

Key Spatial Design Criteria: Table 7.3. Pacific Northwest Oak and Prairies key spatial design criteria and data sources.


57


Protect the best remaining oak remnants

LandFire, WA Natural Heritage Oak dataset

Are there new oak mapping efforts in the region?

Identify and protect Oak climate refugia (EcoAdapt 2014)

TNC data What are the attributes of oak climate refugia?

Maintain and enhance landscape habitat (EcoAdapt 2014)

TNC resilience and connectivity data

How to assess key gaps in habitat connectivity?

58


REFERENCES

*For a full list of references related to The Pacific Northwest Coast Conservation Blueprint click here.

Abell, Robin, D. M. Olson, E. Dinerstein, P.T. Hurley, J.T. Diggs, W. Eichbaum, S. Walters, W. Wettengel, T. Allnutt, C.J. Loucks, and P. Hedao. 2000. Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press. Washington D.C. 319 pp.

Abell, Robin, Michele L. Thieme, Carmen Revenga, Mark Bryer, Maurice Kottelat, Nina Bogutskaya, Brian Coad, Nick Mandrak, Salvador Contreras Balderas, William Bussing, Melanie L. J. Stiassny, Paul Skelton, Gerald R. Allen, Peter Unmack, Alexander Naseka, Rebecca Ng, Nikolai Sindorf, James Robertson, Eric Armijo, Jonathan V. Higgins, Thomas J. Heibel, Eric Wikramanayake, David Olson, Hugo L. López, Roberto E. Reis, John G. Lundberg, Mark H. Sabaj Pérez, And Paulo Petry. 2008. Freshwater Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 58(5): 403-414.

Adams V.M., J. G. Álvarez-Romero, J. Carwardine, L. Cattarino, V. Hermoso, M. J. Kennard, et al. 2014. Planning Across Freshwater and Terrestrial Realms: Cobenefits and Tradeoffs Between Conservation Actions. Conservation Letters 7: 425–440.

Alverson, E., 2011. Creating a Conceptual Model for Oak Habitats in Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/oaks_workshop/Alverson_presentation.pdf

Bachelet, D., B. R. Johnson, S. D. Bridgham, P. V. Dunn, H. E. Anderson, and B. M. Rogers. 2011. Climate Change Impacts on Western Pacific Northwest Prairies and Savannas. Northwest Scientific Association 85 (2): 411-429.

Barbier, E. B,, S. D. Hacker, C. Kennedy, E. W. Koch, A. C. Stier, and B. R. Silliman. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr. Ecological Society of America 81: 169–193.

Beechie T, and H. Imaki. 2014. Predicting natural channel patterns based on landscape and geomorphic controls in the Columbia River basin, USA. Water Resour Res. 50: 39–57.

Brandt P., D. J. Abson, D. A. DellaSala, R. Feller, and H. von Wehrden. 2014. Multifunctionality and biodiversity: Ecosystem services in temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Biol Conserv. 169: 362–371.

Brophy, L.S. 2012. Tidal wetland prioritization for the Necanicum River estuary: Prepared for the North Coast Land Conservancy, Seaside, Oregon, Green Point Consulting, Corvallis, Oregon. Available: https://appliedeco.org/wp-content/uploads/Nec_ESTPRI_report_FINAL_rev1_10aug12-1.pdf

59


http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/oaks_workshop/Alverson_presentation.pdf

https://appliedeco.org/wp-content/uploads/Nec_ESTPRI_report_FINAL_rev1_10aug12-1.pdf

Burnett K.M., G. H. Reeves, D. J. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Vance-Borland, and K. Christiansen. 2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation. Ecol Appl. 17: 66–80.

Bush A., V. Hermoso, S. Linke, D. Nipperess, E. Turak, and L. Hughes. 2014. Freshwater conservation planning under climate change: demonstrating proactive approaches for Australian Odonata. J Appl Ecol. 51: 1273–1281.

Buttrick, S., K. Popper, M. Schindel, B. McRae, B. Unnasch, A. Jones, and J. Platt. 2015. Conserving Nature’s Stage: Identifying Resilient Terrestrial Landscapes in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Portland Oregon. 104 pp.

Brothers, R., C. Trudel, and C. Jacoby. 2011. Conservation Value: Focal Species and Connectivity in California's North Coast. http://legacy-tlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/p0914.pdf

Campellone et al. In press.

Chan K.M.A, L. Hoshizaki, and B. Klinkenberg. 2014. Ecosystem services in conservation planning: targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs? PLoS One 6: e24378.

Christy, J. A. and E. R. Alverson. 2011. Historical Vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, circa 1850. Northwest Science 85 (2), 93-107.

Clarkson B.R., A-GE Ausseil, P. Gerbeaux P. 2013. Wetland ecosystem services. Ecosystem services in New Zealand: conditions and trends Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln. 2013; 192–202. Available: http://www.mwpress.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/77042/1_14_Clarkson.pdf

Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC. 2014. Assessment of Trends Afffecting Planning for Oregon’s Estuaries and Shorelands. Report Prepared for the Oregon Coastal Management Program, Oregon Department of Land Conservation And Development. March 2014. 101 pp.

Comer P.J., Pressey R.L., Hunter M.L., Schloss C., Buttrick S., Heller N., Tirpak J., Faith D.P., Cross M., and Shaffer M. 2015. Incorporating environmental diversity into conservation decisions. Conservation Biology 29:692– 701.

Conservation Measures Partnership [CMP]. 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation Version 3.0. April 2013. 47 pp.

Conservation Measures Partnership [CMP]. 2016. Incorporating Social Aspects and Human Wellbeing in Biodiversity Conservation Projects. Version 2.0. July 2016. 36 pp.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program Document FWS/OBS–79/31, 131 pp.

60


http://legacy-tlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/p0914.pdf

Craighead, L., T Olenicki , B Brock , J Williams , and B Cross, 2008. A Conservation Area Design for the Inland Temperate Rainforest Based on Focal Species. http://wetbelt.unbc.ca/2008-conference-Craighead-Conservation-Area-Design.html

David, A. T., C. A. Simenstad, J. R. Cordell, J. D. Toft, C. S. Ellings, A. Gray, and H. B. Berge. 2016. Wetland Loss, Juvenile Salmon Foraging Performance, and Density Dependence in Pacific Northwest Estuaries Estuaries and Coasts (2016) 39(3): 767–780.

Davis, R. J, J. L. Ohmann, R. E. Kennedy, W. B. Cohen, M. J. Gregory, Z. Yang, H. M. Roberts, A. N. Gray, and T. A. Spies. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 20 years (1994-2013): status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-911. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 112 p.

Dean, T. et al, 2001. Identifying and Prioritizing Sites for Potential Estuarine Habitat Restoration in Puget Sound’s Skagit River Delta. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238664079_Identifying_and_Prioritizing_Sites_for_Potential_Estuarine_Habitat_Restoration_in_Puget_Sound’s_Skagit_River_Delta>

Diefenderfer H.L., K. L. Sobocinski KL, R. M. Thom, C. W. May, A. B. Borde, and S. L. Southard. 2009. Multiscale analysis of restoration priorities for marine shoreline planning. Environ Manage. 44: 712–731.

EcoAdapt, 2014. Oak Woodland Ecosystems Climate Change Vulnerability, Adaptation Strategies, and Management Implications. http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/OakWoodlandsVAASBrief_FINAL.pdf

Evans, N. R., R. M Thom, G. D. Williams, J. Vavrinec, K. L. Sobocinski, L. M. Miller, A. B. Borde, V. I. Cullinan, J. A. Ward, and C. Allen, 2006. Lower Columbia River Restoration Prioritization Framework. <http://www.estuarypartnership.org/resource/lower-columbia-river-restoration-prioritization-framework>

Faber-Langendoen D., C. Hedge, M. Kost, S. Thomas, L. Smart, and R. Smyth. 2012. Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Condition across Landscape Regions: A Multi-metric Approach. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/natureserve_eia_wetlands_epa_part_a_main_report_2012.pdf

Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC]. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Franklin J. F., and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2009. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 106: 349–350.

61


http://wetbelt.unbc.ca/2008-conference-Craighead-Conservation-Area-Design.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238664079_Identifying_and_Prioritizing_Sites_for_Potential_Estuarine_Habitat_Restoration_in_Puget_Sound%E2%80%99s_Skagit_River_Delta

http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/natureserve_eia_wetlands_epa_part_a_main_report_2012.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238664079_Identifying_and_Prioritizing_Sites_for_Potential_Estuarine_Habitat_Restoration_in_Puget_Sound%E2%80%99s_Skagit_River_Delta

http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/natureserve_eia_wetlands_epa_part_a_main_report_2012.pdf

Gleason M.G., S. Newkirk, M.S .Merrifield, J. Howard, R. Cox, M. Webb, J. Koepcke, B. Stranko, B. Taylor, M.W. Beck, R. Fuller, P. Dye, D. Vander Schaaf, and J. Carter. 2011. A Conservation Assessment of West Coast (USA) Estuaries. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington VA. 65pp.

Heady, W.N., K. O’Connor, J. Kassakian, K. Doiron, C. Endris, D. Hudgens, R. P. Clark, J. Carter, and M. G. Gleason. 2014. An Inventory and Classification of U.S. West Coast Estuaries. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 81pp.

Hermoso V., S. Linke, J. Prenda, and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Addressing longitudinal connectivity in the systematic conservation planning of fresh waters. Freshw Biol. 56: 57–70.

Higgins J.V., M. T. Bryer, M. L. Khoury, and T. W. Fitzhugh. 2005. A Freshwater Classification Approach for Biodiversity Conservation Planning. Conserv Biol. 19: 432–445.

Hughes, B. B., M. D. Levey, J. A. Brown, M. C. Fountain, A. B. Carlisle, S. Y. Litvin, C. M. Greene, W. N. Heady and M. G. Gleason. 2014. Nursery Functions of U.S. West Coast Estuaries: The State of Knowledge for Juveniles of Focal Invertebrate and Fish Species. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 168 pp.

Isaak D.J., M. K. Young, D. E. Nagel, D. L. Horan, and M. C. Groce. 2015. The cold-water climate shield: delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st century. Glob Chang Biol.

Kauffman-Axelrod J. L, and S. J. Steinberg. 2010. Development and Application of an Automated GIS Based Evaluation to Prioritize Wetland Restoration Opportunities. Wetlands 30: 437–448.

Koch, P.J. 2015. Habitat 141 Landscape Conservation Action Plan. Summary report. Unpublished Report for the Habitat 141 Alliance, Greening Australia.

Konar, M., M. J. Todd, R. Muneepeerakul, A. Rinaldo, and I. Rodriguez-Iturb. 2013. Hydrology as a driver of biodiversity: Controls on carrying capacity, niche formation, and dispersal. Advances in Water Resources 51: 317-325.

Lanigan, S. H. et al. 2012.

Lee II, H. and Brown, C.A. eds. 2009. Classification of Regional Patterns of Environmental Drivers and Benthic Habitats in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. EPA/600/R-09/140. 298 pp.

Linke S., E. Turak, and J. Nel. 2011. Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshw Biol. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 56: 6–20.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership [LCREP]. 2012., A Guide to the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Second Technical Review Draft, Prepared by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR, December 14, 2012.

62


Moola F. M., Martin D., Wareham B., Calof .J, Burda C., and Grames P. 2004. The Coastal Temperate Rainforests of Canada: The need for Ecosystem-Based Management. Biodiversity. Taylor & Francis. 5: 9–15.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. <http://explorer.natureserve.org>

Niemuth, N., R. E. Reynolds, D. A. Granfors, R. R. Johnson, B. Wangler, and M. E. Estey, 2008. Landscape-Level Planning for Conservation of Wetland Birds in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region, in Millspaugh J, Thompson FR. Models for Planning Wildlife Conservation in Large Landscapes [Internet]. Academic Press; 2011. Available: https://market.android.com/details?id=book-GLtcJs2f810C

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2014), Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management Plan. June 2014. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. 221 pp.

Pinto, R., J. Patrício, J. M. Neto, F. Salas, and J. C. Marques. 2010. Assessing estuarine quality under the ecosystem services scope: Ecological and socioeconomic aspects. Ecol Complex 7: 389–402.

Pinto, R. and J. C. Marques. 2015. Ecosystem Services in Estuarine Systems: Implications for Management. Ecosystem Services and River Basin Ecohydrology. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 319–341.

Poe, Melissa R., Karma C. Norman, & Phillip S. Levin. 2014. Cultural Dimensions of Socioecological Systems: Key Connections and Guiding Principles for Conservation in Coastal Environments. Conservation letters 7(3); 166-175.

Rao N. S., A. Ghermandi, R. Portela, and X. Wang. 2015. Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values. Ecosystem Services 11: 95–105.

Reeves G. H, J. E. Williams, K. M. Burnett, and K. Gallo. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conserv Biol. 20: 319–329.

Robb, C. K. 2014. Assessing the Impact of Human Activities on British Columbia’s Estuaries. PLoS ONE 9(6).

Russell M., J. Rogers, S. Jordan, D. Dantin, J. Harvey, J. Nestlerode J, et al. 2011. Prioritization of Ecosystem Services Research: Tampa Bay Demonstration Project. J Coast Conserv. 15: 647–658.

Shokri M. R, and W. Gladstone. 2013. Integrating Vulnerability Into Estuarine Conservation Planning: Does the Data Treatment Method Matter? Estuaries Coasts. Springer-Verlag 36: 866–880.

St. Pierre J. I, and K. E. Kovalenko. 2014. Effect of habitat complexity attributes on species richness. Ecosphere. Ecological Society of America 5: 1–10.

63


Turpie J.K. 1995. Prioritizing South African estuaries for conservation: A practical example using waterbirds. Biol Conserv. 74: 175–185.

Thomas J. W. Franklin J. E., Gordon J., and Johnson K.N. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: origins, components, implementation experience, and suggestions for change. Conserv Biol. 20: 277–287.

Thorner J., L. Kumar, and S. D. A Smith. 2014. Impacts of climate-change-driven sea level rise on intertidal rocky reef habitats will be variable and site specific. PLoS One 9: e86130.

Toft, J. D., S. H. Munsch, J. R. Cordell, K. Siitari, V. C. Hare, B. Holycross, L. A. DeBruyckere, and C. M. Green. 2015. Nursery Function of West Coast Estuaries: Data Assessment for Juveniles of 15 Focal Fish and Crustacean Species. Final Report to the Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2017. Spatial Conservation Priorities for Riverine and Riparian Systems in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion.

Vander Schaaf, D., K. Popper, D. Kelly and J. Smith. 2013. Pacific Northwest Marine Ecoregional Assessment. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon. Maps Created by A. Jones. 150 pp.

Vander Schaaf, D., G. Wilhere, Z. Ferdaña, K. Popper, M. Schindel, P. Skidmore, D. Rolph, P. Iachetti, G. Kittel, R. Crawford, D. Pickering, and J. Christy. 2006. Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregion Assessment. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon. 129 pp.

Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. & Cushing, C. W. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37: 130-137.

Wade A. A., T. J. Beechie, E. Fleishman, N. J. Mantua, H. Wu, J. S. Kimball, et al. 2013. Steelhead vulnerability to climate change in the Pacific Northwest. J Appl Ecol. 50: 1093–1104.

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group. 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, WA. 209 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Washington’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, WA.

Wiedemann, A. M. and A. J. Pickart. 2004. Temperate zone coastal dunes. Pages 53–65 in M. Martinez and N. Psuty, editors. Coastal dunes: ecology and conservation. Volume 171, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

64


65


APPENDICES

Appendix I. Classification Structure for Tidally Influenced Conservation Targets: Estuary, Sandy Beach and Costal Dune, and Rocky Shores and Cliff Systems.

This is an overview of the hierarchical structure of the Biogeographic Setting for Coastal and Marine Habitats (taken from the Oregon Nearshore Strategy; ODFW 2015). Descriptions include relevant components from the Coastal Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) for each habitat described.

SYSTEM SUBSYSTEM TIDAL RANGE COASTAL AND MARINE HABITATS

Marine:

Defined by salinity which is typically ~ 35 parts per thousand, but may vary considerably especially in areas near river mouths. Includes all non-estuarine waters from the coastline to the central oceans. The landward boundary of this system is either the linear boundary across the mouth of an estuary or the limit of the supratidal splash zone affected by breaking waves

Offshore:

Extends from the 30 meter depth contour to the continental shelf break, which generally occurs between 100 – 200 meters depth.

Subtidal:

The substrate is continuously submerged in this zone and includes those areas below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).

Neritic, Rocky Subtidal, Soft Bottom

Nearshore:

Extends from the landward limit of the Marine System to the 30 meter depth contour.

Subtidal:

The substrate is generally continuously submerged in this zone and includes those areas below MLLW.

Neritic, Rocky Subtidal, Soft Bottom

Intertidal:

The substrate is regularly and periodically exposed and flooded by tidal

Rocky Shores, Sandy Beaches

66


https://www.cmecscatalog.org/cmecs/

http://oregonconservationstrategy.org/oregon-nearshore-strategy/habitats/

action. This zone extends from MLLW to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW).

Supratidal:

This zone includes areas above MHHW that are affected by wave splash and overwash but does not include areas affected only by wind-driven spray. This zone is subjected to periodic high wave energy, exposure to air, and often to variable salinity.

Rocky Shores, Sandy Beaches

Estuarine:

The Estuarine System is defined by salinity and geomorphology. This System includes tidally influenced waters that (a) have an open-surface connection to the sea, (b) are regularly diluted by freshwater runoff from land, and (c) exhibit some degree of land enclosure. The Estuarine System

Estuarine Coastal:

The Estuarine Coastal Subsystem extends from the supratidal zone at the land margin down to the 4 meter depth contour in waters that have salinity greater than 0.5 (during the period of average annual low flow).

Estuarine Coastal Subtidal:

The substrate is generally continuously submerged in this zone and includes those areas below MLLW.

Estuaries

Estuarine Coastal Intertidal:

The substrate in this zone is regularly and

Estuaries

67


extends upstream to the head of tide and seaward to the mouth of the estuary. Head of tide is identified as the inland or upstream limit of water affected by a tide of at least 0.2 foot (0.06 meter) amplitude. The mouth of the estuary is defined by an imaginary line connecting the seaward-most points of land that enclose the estuarine water mass at MLLW. Islands are included as headlands if they contribute significantly to the enclosure.

periodically exposed and flooded by tides. This zone extends from MLLW to MHHW. The Coastal Intertidal is exposed regularly to the air by tidal action.

Estuarine Coastal Supratidal:

This zone includes areas above MHHW; areas in this zone are affected by wave splash and overwash. It does not include areas affected only by wind-driven spray, which may extend further inland.

Estuaries

68


P ac i f i c N o r t h w e s t C o as t C o n s e r v at i...

Documents

Transcript of P ac i f i c N o r t h w e s t C o as t C o n s e r v at i...