Estuaries are fascinating and unique places. You can explore estuary restoration projects all around the Sound.  Visit the pages below – or plan a field trip – to see for yourself! 

Carpenter Creek Salt Marsh & Estuary in Kingston, WA

Nisqually estuary at the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Willapa Bay salt marsh

Big Quilcene River

Crescent Harbor salt marsh restoration delta

Other projects that longtime residents may be aware of have looked at the marsh from a variety of perspectives, been driven by different funding interests and goals, and with different data to work with. Coastal Engineering technology has made a lot of strides in the past ten years. Individuals in decision-making roles at the County have changed over time, and the political will was different even when Mid Sound entered the picture than it is in 2023. The latest science surrounding outmigrating juvenile salmon, nearshore habitat, coastal resilience strategies, and climate and ocean conditions all factor into why a project is ranked as highly as POint No Point for restoration and for restoration funding at a given time in history.

Yes! Juvenile Chinook use estuaries up to 34miles from their natal streams. Point No Point is 18 miles from the Snohomish and 29 miles from the Stillaguamish rivers, as well as others.

We know the juvenile salmon do not run straight to sea but travel all around the Sound after they leave the rivers, and surveys found ten times more juveniles inside estuaries than in the shorelines next to them.

Our goal is not to restore a salmon spawning run in this estuary, as there is not the flow or historic population for that here. By restoring the natural processes that support the food web, we design for a future in which system-wide efforts build stocks of wild fish. In the meantime, hatchery fish require habitat, as do forage fish and the great diversity of species salmon rely upon in the nearshore. There are also resident cutthroat trout in the Hillside stream that may use the marsh and access to the Sound once restoration is complete.

We’re happy to report, there is no IF. There really is no question: juvenile salmon do find other (non-natal) estuarine habitats once they leave their natal stream/river; wild and hatchery fish do this all the time during their outmigration to the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Hayes et al. 2019.  https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10098).  

 Outmigrating Juvenile salmon operate differently than adults seeking a natal stream: they aren’t looking for a particular estuary. Any sheltered, brackish nearshore place with lots of food will do. We know that entering estuaries is worth the risk to juvenile salmon because they continue to use them. If it didn’t work we’d only see a few misguided individuals using these habitats, and there is a large body of evidence that the opposite is true.

The Marine Survival Project is the best resource we know for data about the use of estuaries in the Salish Sea.

Scientists are also monitoring the biological responses to dike removal in the restored Nisqually Delta. Fish diversity is sampled using beach seining and fyke trapping, and otolith (i.e. fish ear bones) sampling is used to measure salmonid growth and residence times. Early indications are that the resilience of the historic ecosystem is returning. The removal of dikes and reconnection of more than 35 km of tidal slough systems and floodplains has increased salt marsh habitat in the southern reach of Puget Sound by 55%. And the studies indicate that juvenile salmon have benefitted from the dike removal. Continued monitoring will allow managers and scientists to detect subtle changes within the delta as the system acclimates to tidal flows.

For more about wild fish, see Beamer et al 2003.  For more about hatchery fish, James et al 2023 another good place to start. 

The point of estuary restoration is that more estuary habitat equals more places for juvenile salmon to shelter and grow, meaning that more will get big enough to avoid predation as juveniles, more will end up in the ocean, and more will return to spawn as adults. There is no scenario in which less estuarine habitat increases survivorship of Puget Sound salmon as a whole.

The data supporting ecosystem-wide benefits when natural processes are restored is strong, too. With regard to fish, specifically:

   (1) Outmigrating juvenile fish will be able to enter and make use of the habitat if the estuary is reconnected to tidal exchange. The usage of the interior of pocket estuaries being more heavily used then the exterior beach by juvenile salmon has been well documented at existing pocket estuaries in Island County and Skagit County (Beamer et al 2006). The full restoration design scenario is based on existing intact estuaries within Puget Sound and based on measurements and some new research by WDFW (in draft and will be available in early 2024) showing most of the fish move during tidal exchange. Stranding in existing pocket estuaries has not been identified as a concern by fisheries biologists in Puget Sound.

   (2) Current conditions prevent all but a nominal percentage of fish, primarily cutthroat trout which have been documented in the stream that enter the marsh to return to the Sound via the tide gate and continue their life cycle.

       The few fish that do enter the marsh via the tide gate currently have one shallow ditched channel in which to “be”, in which to seek food, and shelter. There is one super-highway that predators use for stalking their prey. And there is one temperature and salinity level available to any and all fish species, throughout the four seasons.

        With reconnection of the historic estuary to Puget Sound the cutthroat trout population will be able to move freely into and out of the estuary.

        Restoration will introduce complexity to the salt marsh in terms of depth, sinuosity, shade, and the large woody debris that creates hiding places. Channels in restored estuaries are engineered based on research of sizing tidal channels to be large enough to prevent scour and empty with the tide in areas reached by the incoming tide. Fish adapted to natural tide cycles seek water of appropriate depth and temperature.

        Fish and other animals do now and will continue to end their life cycles in the marsh, but whether they are eaten by a predator, or they die and become nutrients for other fish, or they make it out to sea and return to spawn in rivers to the South of Point No Point this is a natural process.

        If the marsh is restored to tidal influence, cool clear water will flush the marsh twice a day, This will invite healthy dissolved oxygen, a diverse food web, and variable topography and salinity which are protective factors not present in the existing marsh condition. In these systems there is also a gradual slow inflow of cool groundwater so there is shallow water constantly seeping into the interior channels and out through the primary tidal channel during all phases of the tides in these systems, but particularly important at low tides.

According to the biologists monitoring the restored estuary at Carpenter Creek, Juvenile chinook will definitely turn up in a restored PNP estuary. They have in Kingston. And, data from Paul Dorn’s beach seining with Stillwaters in the very early post-restoration period suggested that many were hatchery stock from Miller Bay. Providing habitat for these fish, in particular, supports the industry. And to the extent that scientists agree their presence in the system is relieving predation pressure on wild fish (sufficiently to overcome any downside from competition with wild fish) their use of a restored Point No Point Estuary will support orcas and non-native human fisheries.

Residents can visit Kitsap County’s website to view the critical areas included on their properties or within Point No Point. This is done by clicking on the link below, then going to Parcel Viewer. Under “Choose a theme”, select “Critical areas”, then look at the legend tab to see what each color and pattern represents..  You can select your own parcel in real time to view critical areas, and move the map with your cursor to view nearby properties including Point No Point Park.

This phase of design – specifically looking at groundwater and surface water data, and modeling existing condition – is showing us how a restored salt marsh that actually drains twice a day may also address the unrelated flooding residents experience along Point No Point Road. Data collection continues to model water movement above and below ground, inside and outside of the marsh, in present and potential future scenarios. We will continue to share what we find.

As for septic systems, this is both a groundwater and surface water issue. The groundwater model will show us if there are any increases in the groundwater table as a result of restoration. At this point the hydrogeologists have indicated the groundwater table should be lower after restoration, but we are modeling it to confirm this understanding. While we hope to decrease the volume of the surface water and groundwater on the North side of the road, our primary responsibility is to not increase it above the existing condition.  As long as we are not increasing the groundwater or increasing the surface water conditions,  we will not change the conditions for the septic systems.  Our responsibility to not negatively impact any septic systems above existing conditions. 

Our engineer is bound by a professional code of ethics to do no harm. From the County’s perspective, the chosen Preferred Alternative design will need to take into account not only flooding concerns, but impacts to the county’s infrastructure and long term maintenance obligations. If the Preferred Alternative improves conditions on the N side of the project footprint (outside of the scope of the project), this will of course be viewed as an asset.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have prepared Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (2017a) and a Kitsap County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) (2017b) that provide flood elevation return intervals for the eastern Kitsap Peninsula. The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood) along Point No Point is mapped as elevation 13 feet NAVD88 (14.8 feet MLLW). If a property falls within the BFE then they are required to pay into NFIP.

The property owners along Point No Point Road whose homes sit at or below this elevation will continue to pay into the National Flood Insurance Program. None of the restoration design alternatives change the elevation of homes north of the estuary, and the proposed alternatives will be designed according to permitting standards.

If the tide gate is removed and salt water inundation is restored at the site, the predicted flooding for the FEMA BFE extends further inland, approximately 1.5 ft higher than the 100-year extreme water levels calculated based on the Seattle tide gauge because it also includes wave run-up. Permitting standards require the proposed levee be designed 2 ft higher than even this high Base Flood elevation.

Wave run-up does not penetrate into the marsh as far as Hillview Lane. And Hillview residents are protected by their elevation. Restoration does not change that, but it will address flooding by draining the marsh twice a day once the estuary mouth on the Eastern boundary is open to tidal exchange.

Our engineer conducted a review of the potential FEMA flood map changes the project could incur for the homes in the uphill area of Hillview Lane and found that the project will not change the flood risk or maps for these homes.

The flooding that users of Hillview Lane currently experience will not be increased with restoration; the County will not sign off on a design that increases flooding, and our Engineer is bound by a code of ethics to do no harm. In the spring of 2023, the process of choosing a Preferred Alternative – the size, shape, and elements of the design – will help determine how integral Hillview becomes to the overall final design.

Mid Sound, Blue Coast, and the County will be in conversation with the Hillview community as we explore these steps. For instance, several Hillview residents have expressed an interest in taking care of the wetland –  an interest, too, in protecting fish in the fresh water system, and concern for the Clean Water Act. Any Preferred Alternative that is chosen will include best practices to protect habitat and abide by the Clean Water Act as enforced at the County level for critical areas. Critical areas within the project site include wetlands currently degraded by invasives, and a creek currently degraded by multiple barriers to fish passage, and lacking the connectivity that could allow for flushing. Depending upon the footprint included in the chosen Preferred Alternative, the design may or may not be funded to raise Hillview Lane, addressing long-term maintenance of the road, and providing free-flowing water for the wetland and any fish that may pass through it from Hillview properties. Time and continued analysis will tell.