Category Archives: Puget Sound

Stream ‘bugs’ will help guide funding for future stream restoration

One of the goals established by the Puget Sound Partnership is to improve freshwater quality in 30 streams throughout the region, as measured by the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity, or B-IBI.

Benthic invertebrates range in size from those easily seen with the naked eye to those that cannot be spotted without the use of a microscope. Photo: C. Dunagan
Benthic invertebrates range in size from those easily seen with the naked eye to those that cannot be spotted without the use of a microscope. // Photo: C. Dunagan

Simply described, B-IBI is a numerical measure of stream health as determined by the number and type of bottom-dwelling creatures that live in a stream. My latest article published in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound describes in some detail how this index works. Here’s the basic idea:

“High-scoring streams tend to have a large variety of ‘bugs,’ as researchers often call them, lumping together the benthic species. Extra points are given for species that cannot survive without clean, cool water. On the other hand, low-scoring streams are generally dominated by a few species able to survive under the worst conditions.”

Because benthic invertebrates have evolved over time with salmon and other fish, many of these important “bugs” are primary prey for the fish that we value highly. Said another way, “healthy” streams — as measured by B-IBI — tend to be those that are not only cool and clean but also very good habitats for salmon.

The goal, or “target,” for freshwater quality was approved by the Puget Sound Partnership in 2011, after consultation with many experts. Many stormwater projects have been undertaken throughout Puget Sound with the goal of cleaning up the runoff going into streams. Those efforts are expected to result in improved water quality. Still, not much attention has been given to zeroing in on the B-IBI target itself or even finding 30 streams with a B-IBI rating of “fair” that could converted to “good” with some extra effort.

The entire restoration process is beginning to change under the so-called Implementation Strategies, which are designed to focus efforts on improving the indicators of ecosystem health. For background, check out the story “Implementation Strategies will target Puget Sound Vital Signs” in EoPS.

Experts are beginning to develop an Implementation Strategy for B-IBI, which is expected to prioritize funding to improve water quality in measurable ways. Details are still to come, but studies by King County have begun to pave the way by identifying ideas for restoring candidate streams. Check out “Strategies for Protecting and Restoring Puget Sound B-IBI Basins.”

It will be interesting to see what techniques rise to the top for improving 30 streams throughout the region and how future funding will be redirected to this new effort.

Report: It’s time to shift the deadlines for Puget Sound restoration

Restoring Puget Sound to a healthy condition by the year 2020 is an unrealistic goal that needs to be addressed by the Puget Sound Partnership, according to the latest performance audit by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.

Structure

It’s a issue I’ve often asked about when talking to people both inside and outside the Puget Sound Partnership. What’s the plan? Are we just going to wait until the year 2020 and say, “Ah shucks; I guess we couldn’t reach the goal.”?

Puget Sound Partnership, the organization created by the Legislature to coordinate the restoration of Puget Sound, is on the right track in many ways, according to the preliminary audit report. But the Partnership needs to address several “structural issues” — including coming up with realistic goals for restoration.

Progress in restoring Puget Sound is measured by 37 different indicators of ecological health. These are measures of water quality, fish and wildlife populations, human health and so on. For many of the indicators, an ambitious target was set — specific numbers to be reached by 2020. That’s just 13 years after the Partnership was created.

“Puget Sound recovery will not be complete by 2020,” states the preliminary report. “Compared to other large recovery efforts, the 13-year recovery timeframe and related planning cycles are short… The Partnership should submit a plan to the Legislature that identifies and addresses needed revisions to the planning and recovery timeframes.”

Puget Sound's recovery time frames are too short, according to a new report. Graphic: JLARC staff
Puget Sound’s recovery timeframes are too short, report says. // Graphic: JLARC staff

The report points out that other major ecosystem recovery efforts have longer timeframes, if they have any at all. San Francisco Bay has set goals for 35 years; Chesapeake Bay is listed at 42 years and beyond; and the Great Lakes and Florida Everglades have “ongoing” timeframes.

The problem is the timing, not the targets themselves, according to the report, which notes, “The Partnership’s Science Panel has stated that recovery goals may be achieved in a longer timeframe.”

Out of 37 indicators, four are likely to be reached by 2020, according to the 2015 State of the Sound report. Six others are at least moving in the right direction. But four indicators show mixed results, six are not changing, and five reveal that conditions are getting worse. For the remaining 12 indicators, not enough data is available to draw any conclusions.

While these trends don’t instill much confidence, some indicators have turned around since the Partnership began to lead the restoration effort. It’s interesting that habitat conditions are improving in many places, yet indicators for fish and wildlife populations are not doing so well.

I raised questions about why the targets were pegged to the year 2020 when I worked on a series of articles called “Taking the Pulse of Puget Sound” for the Kitsap Sun in 2014. My final story asked the question, “What does the future hold?”

Bill Ruckelshaus, the first chairman of the Partnership’s Leadership Council, said he always had misgivings about setting a firm date for the indicators.

“We knew almost from the beginning that those deadlines are not achievable,” Bill told me seven years into the program. “It is a problem I’ve been dealing with ever since environmental laws began flowing out of the federal government.”

Puget Sound Partnership needs to account for all restoration projects, report says. Graphic: JLARC staff
Puget Sound Partnership needs to account for all restoration projects, report says. // Graphic: JLARC staff

Ruckelshaus was the first administrator of the Environment Protection Agency in 1970. Deadlines set by Congress required that air pollution be largely cleaned up by 1975 and that water pollution be stopped by 1983, he said.

“I remember testifying that if we dropped everything we were doing in the federal government, including defense, that we still couldn’t get it done. It was dooming us to failure.”

Ruckelshaus said he feels the same way about the 2020 deadline.

“It will cause people living in Puget Sound to get discouraged,” he told me two years ago. “And I think that is a huge problem in this country, the lack of trust. We are on a path toward improvement, and we will see results over time.”

Phil Rockefeller of Bainbridge Island was a state senator when he helped craft the legislation creating the Partnership. He said the governor at the time, Chris Gregoire, insisted on the 2020 date — “to impart a sense of urgency.” Everybody knew that the work of protection and restoration can never stop, even if the 2020 targets could be met, he told me.

Sheida Sahandy, executive director of the Partnership, inherited the 2020 deadline when she took the job in 2014. Her definition of success was to get the indicators to show improvement by 2020, and she made a point that cannot be overstated:

“Just the fact that things haven’t gotten worse is the result of a lot of work,” she said. “You’re not seeing what would have happened if we had not undertaken this effort.”

Sheida appeared before the JLARC on Jan. 4, when the preliminary findings were discussed with the committee made up of both state senators and representatives. Sheida said she agreed with nearly everything presented by the JLARC staff. The Partnership’s formal response to the audit is still to come, and the report won’t be final until approved by the committee in September.

Monitoring of the Puget Sound ecosystem needs improvement, report says. Graphic: JLARC staff
Monitoring of the Puget Sound ecosystem needs improvement, report says.
Graphic: JLARC staff

Also in terms of timing, the preliminary audit recommends less frequent updates of two important reports from the Partnership. One is the Action Agenda, which spells out actions for recovery. The other is the Science Work Plan, which describes research needs to be undertaken. Both plans are now scheduled every two years, although most major ecosystem programs nationwide operate under five-year plans.

Changing the Partnership’s two-year planning cycles to four years will allow the staff to focus on specific needs and projects rather than continually planning for the next report, according to the audit report. Legislation to accomplish that has been proposed in House Bill 1121, which will be reviewed tomorrow (Thursday) by the House Environment Committee.

Other recommendations listed in the audit:

  1. Redefine the targets: In place of a final 2020 target with interim targets along the way, the Partnership should update targets with both short-term and long-term goals. JLARC staffers recommend that a plan with proposed changes be submitted to the Legislature by December, which would allow the 2020 deadline to be changed next year.
  2. Expand the list of actions: The Action Agenda focuses on so-called near-term actions, which last two to four years. It does not describe how ongoing activities by state agencies contribute to recovery, nor does it describe long-term actions by federal agencies, tribes, local government or other parties. “As a result, the full scope of actions and costs is unknown,” the report says. The Office of Financial Management should work with the Partnership to develop a plan to create an inventory of all recovery actions, according to the audit report, which recommends submitting the plan to the Legislature by December.
  3. Improve ecosystem monitoring: Without adequate monitoring, it is not possible to know whether actions had their intended effects or if progress is being made toward recovery. The Partnership’s current monitoring plan does not fully report on all actions, nor is there a link between actions and recovery goals — although this is beginning to change with Implementation Strategies. (Check out the description of Implementation Strategies in a story I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.) The audit recommends that a new monitoring plan be submitted to the Legislature by December.

One other area of concern is the carrot-and-stick approach, which remains part of the state law under which the Partnership operates — even though this provision is essentially ignored. To comply with the law, the report says the Partnership should evaluate the actions of partner organizations — which could include agencies, local governments and private organizations. Partners that make outstanding progress should be rewarded with preferential funding. Partners that fail to comply with their responsibilities should be identified and brought into compliance or else face the loss of state funding.

From talking to folks within the Partnership, I believe there is a reluctance to use either the carrot or the stick. Preferential funding could be seen as favoritism. Calling out entities that fail to do their jobs could alienate those most needed in the recovery effort.

I’m not sure how much discussion has gone into this issue. But if the Partnership is convinced that the carrot-and-stick approach would be ineffective, it seems like this provision should be removed from the law, allowing the Partnership to be in compliance.

Federal Action Plan coming together
for Puget Sound

A draft of a Federal Action Plan to protect and restore Puget Sound is scheduled for completion before Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20, according to officials involved in developing the plan.

Colvos Passage from Anderson Point on the Kitsap Peninsula Photo: Lumpytrout, Wikimedia Commons
Colvos Passage from Anderson Point on the Kitsap Peninsula // Photo: Lumpytrout, Wikimedia Commons

The plan will help demonstrate that Washington state and nine federal agencies are aligned in their efforts to recover one of the most important waterways in the nation, according to leaders involved in a new Federal Puget Sound Task Force.

The task force was created in October by President Obama, who essentially elevated Puget Sound to a high-priority ecosystem, on par with Chesapeake Bay, the Florida Everglades and the Great Lakes, according to a news release from the White House.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed among federal agencies replaces a less structured MOU that was scheduled to expire next year. The new agreement calls for a five-year action plan to be completed by June 1, but a draft should be ready by Jan. 18, according to Peter Murchie, who manages Puget Sound issues for the Environmental Protection Agency and chairs the task force.

“Part of the goal is to have something in front of the transition folks … that they can then shepherd through individual budget and prioritization processes that they’ll be doing with new leadership,” Murchie told the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council two weeks ago.

Continue reading

Congress authorizes five restoration projects throughout Puget Sound

Five major Puget Sound projects have been given the provisional go-ahead by Congress in a massive public works bill signed yesterday by President Obama.

It seems like the needed federal authorization for a $20-million restoration effort in the Skokomish River watershed has been a long time coming. This project follows an extensive, many-years study of the watershed by the Army Corps of Engineers, which winnowed down a long list of possible projects to five. See Water Ways, April 28, 2016, for details.

In contrast, while the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNRP) also involved an extensive and lengthy study, the final selection and submission to Congress of three nearshore projects came rather quickly. In fact, the Puget Sound package was a last-minute addition to the Water Resources Development Act, thanks to the efforts of U.S. Reps. Rick Larson, D-Lake Stevens, and Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, along with Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

The three PSNRP projects moving forward are:

Continue reading

Kongsgaard departs Puget Sound Partnership; Manning assumes chair

Martha Kongsgaard, chairwoman of the Puget Sound Leadership Council, has always spoken with a voice of both reason and passion while guiding the Puget Sound Partnership in its efforts to restore Puget Sound to health.

Martha Kongsgaard
Martha Kongsgaard

Yesterday and today, Martha attended her final meeting as a member of the Leadership Council, the governing body of the Partnership charged with coordinating Puget Sound ecosystem recovery.

While listening to presentations on technical and financial issues, Martha always seems to quickly focus discussions on the key issues of recovery while asking how to help average people understand the complex problems.

As a reporter, I’ve enjoyed speaking with Martha, who not only answers my questions in a direct and revealing way but also indulges my curiosity. Our discussions often take tangents onto other interesting subjects, sometimes leading to new stories or old stories told in a new way.

Nobody doubts Martha’s love of Puget Sound, expressed by her willingness to spend countless unpaid hours working for a better future.

Continue reading

Foot by foot, shoreline bulkhead removal outpaces construction

It’s always nice when I can report a little good news for Puget Sound recovery. For the second year in row, we’ve seen more shoreline bulkheads ripped out than new ones put in.

Graphic: Kris Symer, Puget Sound Institute
Graphic: Kris Symer, Puget Sound Institute / Data: WDFW

After officials with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife completed their compilation of permit data for 2015, I can say that 3,097 feet of old armoring were removed, while 2,231 feet were added.

Scientific evidence is mounting that bulkheads cause considerable harm to the shoreline environment, affecting salmon and many other species integral to the Puget Sound food web.

As I pointed out in a story published this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, we cannot say whether the armoring removed has restored more valuable habitat than what was destroyed by new structures. But we can hope that’s the case, since state and federal governments have targeted restoration funding toward high priority habitats. They include shorelines used by forage fish, such as surf smelt and sand lance, as well as feeder bluffs, which deliver sands and gravels needed for healthy beaches.

One problem with the data, which officials hope to improve in the future, is that we don’t know whether the new bulkheads being built are the standard concrete or rock bulkheads or the less-damaging “soft-shore” projects. Unlike hard armor, soft-shore projects are designed to absorb wave energy by sloping the beach and placing large rocks and logs in strategic locations. It’s not a perfect solution, but it is a reasonable compromise where armoring is truly needed.

Continue reading

Extensive floodplain restoration brings new hope to Clear Creek

A giant piece of a cedar log stands erect in a barren landscape north of Silverdale, where a new channel for Clear Creek stands ready to receive water.

An old cedar log was recovered during excavation for a new channel for Clear Creek. Photo: Dunagan
An old cedar log was recovered during excavation for a new channel for Clear Creek.
Photo: Christopher Dunagan

Well, maybe this channel won’t be entirely new. Designers working to restore this portion of Clear Creek studied old maps. They tried to align the new man-made channel to the meandering stream that existed 150 years ago, before farmers diverted the creek around their fields.

During excavation, workers uncovered buried gravel — remnants of the old streambed — along with chunks of cedar that had lain along the edge of the stream. Buried and cut off from oxygen, these pieces of wood survived for decades underground, while cattle grazed in the fields above.

Workers excavating for the new channel used their heavy equipment to pull out what remained of a great cedar log. They stood the log vertical and buried one end in the ground — a monument to the past and future of Clear Creek.

A restored Clear Creek floodplain (before plantings) north of Waaga Way in Central Kitsap. Photo: Kitsap County Public Works
A restored Clear Creek floodplain (before plantings) north of Waaga Way in Central Kitsap.
Photo: Kitsap County Public Works

Chris May, manager of Kitsap County’s stormwater program, showed me the new channel this week. He said it was rewarding to uncover some buried history and realize that the stream would be restored in roughly the same place.

“We found the old channel,” Chris told me, pointing to a deposit of gravel. “We are pretty confident that we got it right.”

This $3-million project has been conceived and designed as much more than a stream-restoration project. The elevations of the land around the stream have been carefully planned so that high flows will spill into side channels and backwater pools. That should reduce flooding in Silverdale and help stabilize the high and low flows seen in Clear Creek.

Before photo: This was the farmers field as it appeared before restoration. Photo: Kitsap County Public Works
Before photo: This was the farm field as it appeared before restoration. // Photo: Kitsap County Public Works

The engineers did not calculate the reduced frequency of flooding, but floodwater storage is calculated to be 18.4 acre-feet, the equivalent of a foot of water spread over 18.4 acres or 29,700 cubic yards or 6 million gallons.

In all, about 30,000 cubic yards of material have been removed across 21 acres, including the former Schold Farm on the west side of Silverdale Way and the Markwick property on the east side. Native wetland vegetation will be planted along the stream and in low areas throughout the property. Upland areas will be planted with natural forest vegetation.

The topsoil, which contained invasive plants such as reed canarygrass, was hauled away and buried beneath other excavated soils to form a big mound between the new floodplain and Highway 3. That area will be planted with a mixture of native trees.

Graphic showing area before restoration. Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works
Graphic showing area before restoration.
Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works

Plans call for removal of 1,500 feet of an existing road with upgrades to two aging culverts. Adding meanders to the straightened channel will create 500 feet of new streambed that should be suitable for salmon spawning.

Plans call for adding 334 pieces large woody debris, such as logs and root wads to the stream. Some of that wood will be formed into structures and engineered logjams to help form pools and gravel bars.

Graphic showing area after restoration. Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works
Graphic showing area after restoration. Notice stream meanders near beaver pond habitat
Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works

“This will be one of the first streams to meet the Fox and Bolton numbers,” Chris told me, referring to studies by Martin Fox and Susan Bolton of the University of Washington. The two researchers studied natural streams and calculated the amount of woody debris of various kinds needed to simulate natural conditions, all based on the size of a stream. (Review North American Journal of Fisheries Management.)

The elevations on the property were also designed so that high areas on opposite sides of the stream would be in close proximity in several locations.

“Beaver will pick that spot,” Chris said, pointing to one location where the stream channel was squeezed by elevated banks on each side. “We want to encourage beaver to come in here.”

Beaver ponds will increase the floodwater storage capacity of the new floodplain and provide important habitat for coho salmon, which spend a year in freshwater and need places to withstand both high and low flows. Because the county owns the flooded property, there won’t be any complaints about damage from beavers, Chris noted.

Aerial photo showing project area with Silverdale in the background, Silverdale Way to the left and Highway 3 to the right. Photo: Kitsap County Public Works
Aerial photo showing project area with Silverdale in the background, Silverdale Way to the left and Highway 3 to the right. // Photo: Kitsap County Public Works

Clear Creek Trail (PDF 390 kb), which begins on the shore of Dyes Inlet, will be routed along the higher elevations as the trail winds through the property. Three new bridges will provide vantage points to watch salmon after vegetation obscures other viewing areas from the trail. Viewing platforms, as seen along other parts of Clear Creek Trail, were not included in this project but could be subject to further discussions.

Count me among the many people — experts, volunteers and users of Clear Creek Trail — who are eager to see how nature responds when water (now diverted) returns to the new stream channel. For decades, the lack of good habitat has constrained the salmon population in Clear Creek. The stream still has problems related to its highly developed watershed. But now a series of restoration projects is providing hope for increased coho and chum salmon and possibly steelhead trout as well as numerous other aquatic species.

In a story in the Kitsap Sun, Reporter Tristan Baurick described work this week on the Markwick property, where fish were removed in preparation for final channel excavation.

Here are some details (including photos) of various Clear Creek projects, as described in the state’s Habitat Work Schedule for restoration projects:

Washington Department of Ecology provided $2 million for the project. Kitsap County’s stormwater and roads programs each provided $500,000.

Harper Estuary project nears fall construction; bridge to come later

A new Harper Estuary bridge is being planned with a trail to the water. Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works
A new Harper Estuary bridge is being planned with a trail to the water. // Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works

The Harper Estuary restoration project is finally coming together, with one contractor being hired for culvert removal, others bidding for the excavation work and engineers completing the designs for a new bridge.

Since June, the first phase of the project has been divided into two parts. The first actual construction will involve the replacement of a 24-inch culvert that carries Harper Creek under Southworth Drive. The new structure will be a three-sided, open-bottom culvert that spans 16 feet across the stream.

A larger culvert will carry Harper Creek under Southworth Drive. Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works
A larger culvert will carry Harper Creek under Southworth Drive. (Click to enlarge.)
Graphic: Kitsap County Public Works

Bids were opened, and a contractor has been preliminarily selected, said Doris Small, project coordinator for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday to iron out the final details and award the contract, she said.

The work must be completed by Oct. 15, so things will progress rapidly, she said. An announcement will be made soon regarding a temporary detour on Southworth Drive.

The remainder of the first phase involves the excavation of dirt and other debris used to fill in the estuary years ago. The project has been reduced slightly in size from the original design, reducing water contact in certain spots, Doris told me. Also, an analysis of the soils to be removed concluded that some of the fill material is contaminated at such a low level that it can be used as fill elsewhere or sent to a composting facility.

Olympiad Drive crosses Harper Estuary. Photo: Kitsap County Public Works
Olympiad Drive crosses Harper Estuary.
Photo: Kitsap County Public Works

Bids will be taken on the excavation project until Sept. 13, and the work must be done before the middle of February.

The design of a new 120-foot-long bridge on Olympiad Drive is between 60 and 90 percent complete. Applications have been submitted for several grants to complete the project, primarily construction of the new bridge. The bridge will replace a 36-inch culvert where the road crosses the estuary. The design includes access for people to walk down to the water, and it can be used to launch small hand-carried boats.

As I described in Water Ways in June, the existing makeshift boat launch must be removed to allow the restored estuary to function properly. I am told, however, that county officials are still looking for a nearby site to build a new boat launch with access for trailered boats.

If grants are approved to cover the cost, the bridge could be under construction next summer, Doris said. The total estimated cost of the entire restoration is now $7 million, with $4.1 million approved from a mitigation fund related to contamination from the Asarco smelter in Tacoma.

For information:

Hormonal studies link orca miscarriages to low chinook salmon runs

An orca mother named Calypso (L-94) nurses her young calf in this high-resolution photo
An orca mother named Calypso (L-94) nurses her young calf in this high-resolution photo taken from a drone. Lactation takes an energetic toll on orca moms. Future images may reveal whether Calypso is getting enough food to support herself and her calf.
Photo: NOAA Fisheries, Vancouver Aquarium, under NMFS permit and FAA flight authorization.

It is fairly well known that the three pods of killer whales that frequent Puget Sound are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. It is also well known that their primary prey — chinook salmon — are listed as threatened.

It can’t be good that the whales are struggling to find enough to eat, but we are just beginning to learn that the situation could be dire for orca females who become pregnant and need to support a growing fetus during times of a food shortage.

Sam Wasser, a researcher known for figuring out an animal’s condition from fecal samples, recently reported that about two-thirds of all orca pregnancies end in miscarriage. And of those miscarriages, nearly one-third take place during the last stage of pregnancy — a dangerous situation for the pregnant female.

In a story published today in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, I report on Sam’s latest studies, along with other work by a team of biologists who are using unmanned aircraft (drones) to keep track of the physical condition of the Southern Resident orcas, including pregnant moms.

Sam’s latest study involves measuring hormones in killer whales, which can tell us a lot about a whale’s condition. The story of how hormones change under varying conditions is a little complicated, but I hope I was able to explain in my article how this works. When adding the effects of toxic chemicals that mimic hormones, we begin to understand the conditions that may be critical to the whales’ long-term survival or their ultimate extinction.

One longtime assumption, which may be shot down by the hormone studies, is that the whales’ most difficult time for food comes in winter, when salmon are generally scarce. These new studies by Sam and his colleagues suggest that the greatest problem comes in the spring, when the whales return to Puget Sound to discover that spring runs of chinook salmon can no longer be found — at least not in significant numbers.

The work with a drone carrying a high-resolution camera is providing precise measurements about the length and width of each killer whale. Pregnant females are especially interesting, and it will be important to document whether physical changes observed in the drone study can be correlated with hormonal changes seen in the other study.

“We’ve moved toward some great sophisticated technology,” Lynne Barre told me. “These great technologies combined can tell us more than any one method can … such as when and where food limitations might be affecting their health and reproduction.”

Lynne heads NOAA’s Protected Resources Division in Seattle and oversees recovery efforts for the endangered Southern Residents.

By the end of this year, NOAA is expected to release its five-year status report on the Southern Resident orcas. In addition to reporting on many new findings, the document will re-examine the risk of extinction for these killer whales and consider whether actions proposed to help them have been carried out.

Last year, the Southern Residents were listed among eight endangered species across the country that are headed for extinction unless recovery actions can be successful. The eight, selected in part because of their high profiles, are known as “Species in the Spotlight.” In February, five-year action plans were released for all eight species.

The plan called “Priority Actions for Southern Resident Killer Whales” (PDF 2 mb) focuses on three primary factors affecting the whales’ survival: a shortage of food, high levels of toxic chemicals and effects of vessels and noise. The concise 15-page document describes some of the work being carried out on behalf of the whales, although new ideas are coming forth all the time.

Leadership Council adopts ‘leaner’ Action Agenda for Puget Sound

Puget Sound Partnership continues to struggle in its efforts to pull everyone together in a unified cause of protecting and restoring Puget Sound.

This week, the Puget Sound Leadership Council, which oversees the partnership, adopted the latest Puget Sound Action Agenda, which spells out the overall strategies as well as the specific research, education and restoration projects to save Puget Sound.

Some 363 projects, known as near term actions, are included in the latest Puget Sound Action Agenda. They line up with three strategic priorities. PSP graphic
Some 363 projects, known as near-term actions, are included in the latest Puget Sound Action Agenda. They line up with three strategic priorities. // PSP graphic

The goal of restoring Puget Sound to health by 2020 — a date established by former Gov. Chris Gregoire — was never actually realistic, but nobody has ever wanted to change the date. The result has been an acknowledgement that restoration work will go on long after 2020, even though restoration targets remain in place for that date just four years away.

A letter to be signed by all members of the Leadership Council begins to acknowledge the need for a new date.

“As the scope and depth of our undertaking expands along with our understanding, federal and state funding is on the decline,” the letter states. “We’re increasingly forced into a position where we’re not only competing amongst ourselves for a pool of funding wholly insufficient to accomplish what needs doing, but we are also feeling the impacts of cuts to programs supporting other societal priorities as well. If we continue at our historic pace of recovery, which is significantly underfunded, we cannot expect to achieve our 2020 recovery targets.”

The cost for the near-term actions total nearly $250 million, with most going for habitat restoration. PSP graphic
The cost for the near-term actions in the Action Agenda total nearly $250 million, with most going for habitat restoration.
PSP graphic

This is not necessarily an appeal for money to support the Puget Sound Partnership, although funds for the program have been slipping. But the partnership has always been a coordinator of projects by local, state and federal agencies, nonprofit groups and research institutions — where the on-the-ground work is done. That much larger pot of money for Puget Sound efforts also is declining.

“These are threats that compel us to action, fueled by our devotion to place,” the letter continues. “We at the Puget Sound Partnership, along with our local, tribal and regional partners, have a vision of a resilient estuary that can help moderate the increasing pressures of a changing world.

“How we aim to accomplish our vision is found in this updated Action Agenda. For the next two years, this is the focused, measurable and scientifically grounded roadmap forming the core of the region’s work between now and 2020 and beyond.”

The newly approved Action Agenda is the outcome of a greater effort to reach out to local governments and organizations involved in the restoration of Puget Sound. Priorities for restoration projects were developed at the local level with an emphasis on meeting the priorities and strategies developed in previous Action Agendas.

Who will do the projects? Most are to be done by *local groups, including cities, counties, special purpose districts, local integrating organizations and lead entities. PSP graphic
Who will do the projects? Most are proposed by *local groups, including cities, counties, special purpose districts, local integrating organizations and lead entities. // PSP graphic

The latest document is divided into two sections to separate overall planning from the work involved parties would like to accomplish over the next two years. The two parts are called the “Comprehensive Plan” and the “Implementation Plan.”

As determined several years ago, upcoming efforts known as “near-term actions” are focused on three strategic initiatives:

  • Stormwater: Prevent pollution from urban stormwater runoff, which causes serious problems for marine life and humans.
  • Habitat: Protect and restore habitat needed for species to survive and thrive.
  • Shellfish: Protect and recover shellfish beds, including areas harvested by commercial growers and recreational users.

Actions are focused on 29 specific strategies and 109 substrategies that support these ideas. Projects, which may be viewed in a list at the front of the “Implementation Plan,” are aligned with the substrategies.

“This leaner, scientifically grounded strategic recovery plan is a call to action,” the letter from the Leadership Council states. “We know that our restoration efforts are failing to compensate for the thousands of cuts we continue to inflict on the landscape as our population grows and habitat gives way to more humans.

“We know that salmon, steelhead and orcas — the magnificent beings that in many ways define this corner of the world — are struggling to persist as we alter the land and waters to which they’re adapted,” the letter concludes. “And we know that warming temperatures and acidifying seawater are moving us toward a future that we don’t fully understand and are not entirely prepared for. Hard decisions are ahead, and we’re past the point where additional delay is acceptable.”