QA Environment
Basics
Puget Sound Indicator Name
Floodplains habitat restoration
Progress Indicator
Acre (acres)
/

The 2030 Habitat Restoration Target for Puget Sound Salmon directs the region to fund and implement roughly 2,700 acres of floodplain habitat restoration activities. 

Topics
Floodplains (non-tidal) Management
Laura Vary
Contributing Partners
Last Updated
12/06/2024 22:59:42
Map
Related Ongoing Programs
None provided
Description

Acres of floodplain habitat improved through restoration activities

Progress Indicator Chart

No reported data available

Baseline data coming soon. 

Riparian, freshwater floodplain, and estuarine/nearshore areas are critical habitats in Puget Sound. These are boundary areas, linking the land to the sea and forests to aquatic systems. Estuaries and the nearshore create and support a diverse web of natural resources, flora and fauna and recreational opportunities.

Estuaries and the nearshore provide important feeding and resting habitat for young salmon, migratory birds, and many other species. Riparian areas border marine and freshwater systems and keep waters clean and cool, control erosion, moderate flooding events, and offer key habitat for numerous terrestrial, freshwater, and migratory species like salmon. Riparian habitats support a great diversity of wildlife and are frequently used by many different species[i]. Freshwater floodplains provide invaluable services to humans and wildlife alike, supporting agriculture, floodwater storage, and improved water quality[ii]

The majority of floodplain areas have been lost or impaired since 1900 from human activities2. Washington’s population is expected to exceed 9 million by 2050, which will put additional demands on our limited supply of lands[iii]. Given this pressure, it is important to continue protecting and restoring land while prioritizing projects that benefit both humans and wildlife.

This Progress Indicator measures the number of acres restored or in progress of restoration across the Puget Sound region in floodplain areas. The indicator can help us evaluate our success accelerating the pace of habitat restoration.


[i] Quinn, T., G. Wilhere, and K. Krueger (2020). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications, July 2020 update. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01987/wdfw01987.pdf

[ii] Habitat Strategic Initiative (2021). Floodplains and Estuaries Implementation Strategy: Restoring Puget Sound Floodplains and Estuaries; 2021 Narrative Update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Natural Resources. https://pspwa.app.box.com/file/836288644995?s=c4vjba1kffsbfb87b157c00btkfvz8tz

[iii] Washington State Office of Financial Management (2024). Forecast of the State Population; November 2023 Forecast. Forecasting & Research Division, Office of Financial Management. https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/pop/stfc/stfc_2023.pdf

Key Progress Indicator Results

Observations of the baseline period are coming soon. 

Methods
Monitoring Program

Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office owns and manages the PRISM database. Lead Entities are local community groups, established by Washington state law, which establish and implement watershed and salmon recovery plans. These plans identify key restoration projects through unique approaches that balance what salmon need to recover and what is feasible to implement with available resources.

Data Source

PRISM Online grant management database.

The floodplain habitat restoration Progress Indicator tracks the acres of habitat restored through projects in floodplain areas across Puget Sound. Habitat restoration data is tracked through Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)’s grant management database, PRISM. This indicator relies on PRISM data to track habitat restoration in floodplains over time.

Project sponsors document habitat restoration projects in PRISM by attaching specific metrics to their projects. This indicator tracks projects tagged with PRISM metrics #55 (changes in channel morphology, sinuosity or connectivity to off-channel habitat, wetlands, or floodplains), #74 (total length of streambank riparian area treated and amount of riparian area treated or managed), #128 (total acres of wetland treated), and #136 (total acres of estuarine/nearshore area treated). Metric #128 includes specific restoration activities: planting of native wetland species in wetland areas, removal and/or control of non-native species, noxious weeds, and other plants or invasive species, and improvement, reconnection, or restoration of existing or historic wetlands. Metrics #74 and #136 also include specific activities related to riparian restoration and estuarine/nearshore restoration; these activities are described in the methods section of the riparian restoration and estuarine/nearshore restoration Progress Indicators, respectively.

Habitat restoration data for active, active completed, and closed completed projects implemented between state fiscal year 2011 through state fiscal year 2024 are extracted from the PRISM database. Any project with a project type that includes “Restoration” are included – this dataset may therefore include Planning & Restoration projects, Restoration & Development projects, etc. The data are then filtered to include only projects tagged with RCO metrics #55, #74, #128, and #136. The “Proposed” acreage value is displayed in the dataset for projects in the active stage. The “Final” acreage value is displayed in the dataset for projects in active completed or closed completed stages.

Once habitat restoration data were obtained from PRISM, data were cross-referenced with aerial imagery-derived floodplain connectivity restoration data on floodplain restoration. Data on acres of floodplains connected were manually entered from this aerial imagery dataset. Data were manually reviewed and cross-referenced with Project Snapshots to confirm the value of acreages. Data were then organized by the state fiscal year in which they began, and data visualizations were created in either Microsoft Excel or Puget Sound Partnership’s reporting platform, PS Info.

 

Limitations

The number of acres restored may change between the project’s proposal and its completion.

Data for this indicator include active projects, whose final acreages may be different from proposed acreages depending on a range of factors (land acquisition, equipment availability, site specifics, etc.). However, the Partnership reviewed a dataset of 251 completed projects with proposed and final acreage values and found that 84% of proposed values were within +/- 10 acres of the final value. There is thus a small degree of expected error as projects are completed and the final acres restored are documented. This indicator will be updated annually to include finalized acre totals as possible.  

PRISM is not entirely comprehensive.

This indicator relies on PRISM, which is known to be an incomplete record of restoration in the Puget Sound. However, PRISM is the most comprehensive database of restoration projects available at this point. The Puget Sound Partnership is invested in exploring additional data streams and including them in the dataset for this and other habitat restoration Progress Indicators (e.g., riparian restoration, estuarine/nearshore restoration).

PRISM use may vary across the region.

PRISM relies on project sponsors to personally submit data on restoration projects. Project sponsors may differ in how they apply metrics to projects. However, Lead Entity Coordinators dedicate resources to training and supporting project sponsors as they submit their project data. The Puget Sound Partnership is also committed to supporting Lead Entities in the consistent use of PRISM.

Critical Definitions

Floodplains: the floodplain extent represents the historic or geomorphic floodplain boundary. This covers the relatively level surface extending laterally from the river channel edge (Beechie et al. 2017). Within each river, the floodplain includes the upland freshwater as well as brackish estuarine, pocket estuarine, nearshore, and delta areas. 

*NOTE: PSP defines floodplain as inclusive of freshwater floodplain, estuarine, and riparian areas. We apply this definition across all PSP indicator programs, based on past workshops with LEs, Tribes, and local practitioners to develop other floodplain indicators. 

Freshwater floodplains: freshwater floodplain boundary areas, including the relatively level surface extending laterally from the river channel edge (Beechie et al. 2017) and upland freshwater areas.

Estuary/nearshore: 

  • Estuary: tidally influenced areas where fresh and marine waters mix, including protected embayments (modified from PCSRF Data Dictionary 2013 and Encyclopedia of Puget Sound). 
  • Nearshore: marine riparian, beaches, and shallow water environments of Puget Sound estuarine and marine shoreline areas representing the aquatic boundary between freshwater, air, land, and the open marine waters of Puget Sound (Nearshore Science Team 2003). 

Riparian: freshwater areas above the ordinary high-water mark of the stream and within the floodplain of the stream/waterbody (PCSRF Data Dictionary 2013). 

Interpretation of Results

To understand changes in this indicator over time, it is important to listen to the experiences of Lead Entities and project sponsors that directly face barriers to proposing and implementing restoration efforts. The decline in restored acres in this habitat could be attributed to a variety of barriers, outlined further in the “Causes for Change” section.

Nearshore environments can be challenging areas to implement restoration. Shorelines are often privately owned, and erosion is a significant concern to many nearshore property owners[i]. More environmentally friendly alternatives to armor are also perceived as ineffective and expensive2. Estuary restoration also often requires expensive construction steps[ii]. 

Riparian and freshwater floodplain areas can also be challenging areas to implement restoration. Riparian habitats often overlap with other critical natural resource industries, like forestry and agriculture1. Restoration efforts can also be highly complex, requiring experience and technical knowledge that may be difficult to access[iii].

Floodplain restoration is best achieved when communities and partners work together. Collaboration helps identify solutions that benefit all parties involved and wildlife simultaneously[iv]. Continued investments in collaborative restoration initiatives and landscape-scale planning can continue to support progress in this indicator.  


[i] Francis. T. and A. Kinney (2018). Shoreline Armoring Vital Sign State of Knowledge. Puget Sound Institute. https://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Final_SoK_Shoreline-Armoring__05.2018.pdf

[ii] Habitat Strategic Initiative (2021). Floodplains and Estuaries Implementation Strategy: Restoring Puget Sound Floodplains and Estuaries; 2021 Narrative Update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Natural Resources. https://pspwa.app.box.com/file/836288644995?s=c4vjba1kffsbfb87b157c00btkfvz8tz

[iii] Rentz, R., A. Windrope, K. Folkerts, and J. Azerrad (2020). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

[iv] Floodplains by Design (2023). Impact of the FbD Grant Program. Floodplains by Design. https://floodplainsbydesign.org/communities-in-action/impact/

Habitat restoration is possible through coordinated, integrated efforts of Lead Entities and their partners. Lead Entities must also be supported with diverse and flexible funding sources to tackle a variety of projects. Habitat restoration also requires staff knowledge and capacity to move forward with complex projects. Progress in this indicator is thus affected by:

  • Access to flexible and predictable funding sources and capacity to use allocated funds for project implementation,
  • Technical knowledge to propose and implement complex restoration projects,
  • Staff capacity to manage contracts, collaborate with communities to identify restoration opportunities, and develop project proposals,
  • Permitting processes, which can delay the implementation of projects,
  • Landowner engagement and land availability, and 
  • Leadership support to implement restoration projects. 

 

Datasets

No datasets uploaded.

Reporting Guidance
Reporting Instructions
Subcategories
Name
Floodplains and Non-tidal Floodplains
Floodplain Acres, Non-tidal Floodplain Acres, Floodplain Cumulative Acres, Non-tidal Floodplain Cumulative Acres