Grants and funding

Category: Grants and funding

New NSF grant supports toxics research

Researchers at our affiliate organization the Center for Urban Waters have received a $797,107 National Science Foundation grant for the purchase of new equipment to identify toxic contaminants in Puget Sound. Ed Kolodziej is the project’s principal investigator. Co-principal investigators include David Beck, Allison Gardell, Jessica Ray, and Andy James.
The funds were awarded on July 8th and will cover the cost of a new Liquid Chromatograph-High Resolution Mass Spectrometer, an ultra-sensitive device that identifies molecules by their atomic weight. The spectrometer can measure the presence of chemical compounds at amounts in the parts per trillion and is a critical tool for finding what scientists refer to as contaminants of emerging concern. Those contaminants include compounds such as pharmaceuticals or industrial byproducts that enter Puget Sound through wastewater or stormwater. Some may occur in only trace amounts but have potentially significant effects on wildlife and humans.
The new spectrometer will replace an older model of the instrument that has been in use at the lab for the past seven years. That model contributed to several high-profile discoveries at the Center*, including last year’s identification, led by Kolodziej, of a previously unknown chemical from tire wear particles called 6-PPD-quinone. That compound has now been implicated in the deaths of large numbers of spawning coho salmon in Puget Sound and was the subject of congressional hearings earlier this month in Washington D.C.
The scientists anticipate that the new device will continue to support extensive collaborations with other groups working to unravel chemical mysteries in the region. Over the past several years, scientists at the lab have identified thousands of contaminants in Puget Sound waters ranging from opioids to birth control pills and flame retardants.
“This project will use advanced instrumentation to characterize contaminants in the environment and biological systems, enabling the design of appropriate mitigation strategies,” reads the grant’s project summary. The equipment will also “support undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and training in environmental and analytical chemistry, environmental engineering, environmental health, and data science.”
More details about the grant are available at the National Science Foundation website.
*The Center for Urban Waters is the Puget Sound Institute’s parent group and is housed at the University of Washington Tacoma.
Project summary (published as part of the NSF award)
Pollution discharged by industrial processes impacts human health and the health of ecosystems, and mitigating their effects requires considerable cost in time, effort, and dollars. This project will use advanced instrumentation to characterize contaminants in the environment and biological systems, enabling the design of appropriate mitigation strategies. It will support undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and training in environmental and analytical chemistry, environmental engineering, environmental health, and data science; and (3) foster new collaboration and community engagement opportunities, especially with the regional Native American communities, local and state government agencies, and industries impacting stormwater quality. UW-Tacoma is a primarily undergraduate institution, a non-PhD granting institution, an urban serving, a Carnegie community engaged, and an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution. It has a student body comprised of many underrepresented minorities, veterans, and first-generation college students.
The system to be acquired is a Liquid Chromatograph-High Resolution Mass Spectrometer, specifically an Agilent 6546 UPLC-QTOF-HRMS instrument. The instrument will be used to understand and improve management of various forms of pollution, especially for stormwater and roadway systems, innovative treatment materials development, ecotoxicology and bioassay development, and water disinfection. For example, the instrument will be used to identify toxic transformation products from stormwater and quantify sources. Another use is to study the oxidation of persistent organic compounds in urban stormwater using ferrate-coated sand media and PFAS defluorination. Yet another study focuses on the fate of organic pollutants in the aquatic environment and their occurrence and impacts in the marine environment. With so many potential environmental pollutants, high throughput, analytical capacity, and reliability are critical limiting factors to research effectiveness. Because of the richness, depth and breadth of the data generated, screening techniques employing high resolution mass spectrometry have now become key methodologies for environmental chemistry and engineering studies.

Rep. Derek Kilmer expresses optimism about future funding for Puget Sound recovery

Federal support for Puget Sound recovery is on the rise, and there is growing hope that the Sound’s ecological problems will receive increased consideration and funding, according to U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor.
“With a (Democratic) majority in the House and the new Senate majority, and the White House, I think that we are going to see some progress,” Kilmer said, speaking Friday at the annual “Puget Sound Days on the Hill.”
In support of his optimism, Kilmer pointed out that his PUGET SOS bill, which would create a new office for Puget Sound within the Environmental Protection Agency, has already moved out of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where it passed with strong bipartisan support, a vote of 54-3.

Federal spending, as proposed by the Puget Sound recovery community, made of concerned organizations and individuals (click to enlarge) // Graphic: Puget Sound Partnership

“I’m really psyched about that early action,” Kilmer told an online audience of more than 160 people, “because it gives us the best shot of seeing that bill actually cross the finish line.”
The bill, HB 1144, would bring together all federal agencies involved in Puget Sound restoration. With a proposed appropriation of $50 million a year, the new Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office is expected to strengthen the existing partnership — known as the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force — and lead to stronger ties with state, local and tribal leaders. Check out Kilmer’s news release.
Kilmer said he hopes that the PUGET SOS bill will come to the House floor for a vote before the August recess, thanks to its early committee action.
Puget Sound Days on the Hill, sponsored by the Puget Sound Partnership and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, brings together Puget Sound supporters and federal lawmakers. It is normally held in Washington, D.C, but was moved online for the second year in a row because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Olympia, joined Kilmer in co-sponsoring PUGET SOS, which stands for Promoting United Government Efforts To Save Our Sound. Strickland was elected in November and appointed to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where her testimony on the PUGET SOS bill can be seen in the first video at 11:30, with U.S. Rep. Rick Larson, D-Everett, at 9:30.
After coming into office, Strickland picked up right where her predecessor, Denny Heck, left off — by serving as co-chair of the congressional Puget Sound Recovery Caucus. Heck, a Democratic from Olympia, was active on Puget Sound issues in Congress and now serves as Washington’s lieutenant governor. (See caucus membership.)
Strickland, who spoke after Kilmer during last week’s Days on the Hill meeting, said she understands that Puget Sound is linked to the identity of people of the region, especially Native Americans whose culture is embedded in federally recognized treaty rights. She said her vision “is to elevate Puget Sound the same way we talk about Chesapeake Bay or the Great Lakes.” Having a national office for Puget Sound within the EPA will help make that happen, she said.
Strickland, who grew up in the south part of Tacoma, said she never visited Tacoma’s waterfront until she was in college. “That seems so bizarre when you think about it,” she explained, “but for many communities that are underserved and communities of color, we still don’t think of the water as something that belongs to all of us.”
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/j3IgnDa2LK4″%5D
As people plan for an economy based on a variety of water-related jobs, Strickland said she wants to make sure that the opportunities are inclusive and that the discussion “brings in audiences who normally would not participate in this or, like me, simply didn’t know that this thing existed.”
Puget Sound has been diagnosed with poor water quality, damaged habitat and declining species. While some conditions are improving, others are not, despite restoration projects in every corner of Puget Sound. Stormwater runoff remains a major obstacle to clean water. See specifics in “Puget Sound Vital Signs.”
“It is an interesting thing that we are up against,” Strickland noted, “because this is one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States. As our population gets larger, we know that Puget Sound is at more risk of becoming polluted.” And climate change brings even more potential perils, she added.
The third speaker of the day was U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Medina, who said she has been encouraged with President Joe Biden’s focus on the future.
“It has been so hard under the past administration, when science and data were not valued,” she said, adding that the result was lost time in addressing the country’s problems, including disintegrating infrastructure.
“Investments in infrastructure aren’t for a year or two; we’re looking at investments that are 50-plus years,” DelBene said. “As we look at restoration, I think we need to be thinking about that too — how individual projects come together for a long-term plan.”
Kilmer said congressional leaders from both parties have understood the importance of Puget Sound and were willing to maintain and even increase funding, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate spending for the waterway. The Biden administration has not yet proposed a budget for Puget Sound, but a 22 percent increase has been proposed for EPA’s overall budget, “which offers a real opportunity for Puget Sound,” he said.
During a hearing of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Kilmer told the new EPA administrator, Michael Regan, about the needs of Puget Sound. Kilmer said Regan understands EPA’s vital role in Puget Sound recovery, and there is every reason to believe the agency will be a “willing and active partner” in addressing the difficult issues ahead. See video, with Kilmer’s remarks at 28:30, or read his news release.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Uflswn5YEck”%5D
“On the appropriations front, I’m excited to finally start playing some offense instead of just defending this program from proposals, as we saw in the last administration, to eliminate funding for this program entirely,” he said.
The Puget Sound recovery community, including concerned organizations and individuals, has proposed a funding increase for the Puget Sound Geographic Program from $34 million to $50 million; for the National Estuary Program from $32 million to $50 million; and for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund from $65 million to $70 million. Nearly 100 groups and individuals signed letters of support to the congressional subcommittees involved in appropriations. See one of six letters to Congress for the general sentiment and list of supporters.
Kilmer said Biden’s major infrastructure package — the “American Jobs Plan” — could also help with funding for Puget Sound, as the nation works to recover from the pandemic.
“It is clear that we’re going to need to see major federal investments to help our economy and get folks back to work,” Kilmer said. “I see Puget Sound restoration … as key components.”
Problems with flooding, stormwater runoff, shoreline structures and road culverts could be addressed with infrastructure improvements, he said. “These projects can get people back to work and promote economic activity, but they also accomplish long-term goals of recovering the Sound…
“Infrastructure is not just about building roads and bridges — which are important, don’t get me wrong,” Kilmer said, “but addressing issues related to salmon recovery and Puget Sound restoration and climate change, I think those are wise investments that are not just a win-win, they’re like a quadruple win.”
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Kilmer said his goal is to put federal grant programs for Puget Sound “on steroids.” Existing programs need increased funding, he said. At the same time, he added, new programs are needed to face the challenges of an unprecedented public health and economic crisis.
Kilmer is well known in Congress for pushing Puget Sound issues, like his predecessor former Rep. Norm Dicks who retired in 2012. In fact, Kilmer tells the story of his first meeting with the House Appropriations Committee, when new members were introduced to the rest of the panel.
“The introduction I received was, ‘This is Derek Kilmer, and he’s here for the fish.’” Kilmer recalled. “That is certainly my focus, particularly on the Interior and Environment Subcommittee.”
Kilmer said he is working on a jobs bill involving the Army Corps of Engineers that would involve “coastal resilience design and construction.” Grants would be provided to state, local and tribal governments for projects that mitigate for climate change and ecosystem losses, with an emphasis on “nature-based infrastructure.”
Innovative ideas are needed that will work tomorrow as well as today, Kilmer said. Solutions must not leave people or communities behind.
“Our economic-recovery strategy must prioritize our climate and environment,” he said, “and the only way we can succeed is to do it together.”
Puget Sound Days on the Hill: future meetings
Puget Sound Days on the Hill is scheduled to run each Friday through May 21. The next meeting on Friday will include Sen. Patty Murray, U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Issaquah, and possibly one other speaker. Anyone can register to attend the online conference free of charge on the Puget Sound Partnership’s webpage. Questions can be submitted in writing in advance of the each meeting.

Two science and monitoring funding opportunities from the Puget Sound Partnership

From the Puget Sound Partnership:

Announcing Two Science and Monitoring Funding Opportunities from the Puget Sound Partnership 

The Partnership is pleased to announce two solicitations for collaborative proposals to inform and accelerate Puget Sound recovery: Puget Sound Scientific Research and Monitoring to Accelerate Recovery. Projects are expected to begin early fall and continue through June 30, 2023 (or September 30, 2023 for a subset of ‘Monitoring’ projects). The two solicitations are complementary in nature. In addition to advancing Puget Sound recovery, both recognize the importance of and seek to advance management-relevant science; biophysical and social sciences integration; justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion; and climate change considerations. 

Letters of Intent are due May 14th, 2021 and Full Proposals are due August 6, 2021 for both solicitations. 

The Partnership seeks proposals from those leads and team members who encompass a range of backgrounds, disciplines, and career stages. Project leads must be affiliated with an organization, agency, or tribal government that is licensed to do business in the state of Washington. The Partnership is committed to building an inclusive program that serves all people including those with unique needs, circumstances, perspectives, and ways of knowing. Eligible applicants of all ages, races, ethnicities, national origins, gender identities, sexual orientations, abilities, cultures, religions, citizenship types, marital statuses, job classifications, veteran status types, and socioeconomic statuses are encouraged to apply. 

Puget Sound Scientific Research funds will focus on advancing the Priority Science Work Actions identified in the 2020-2024 Science Work Plan, which included human-biophysical interactions, effectiveness of recovery interventions, ecological conditions and effects, and science-based decision-support topics. A total of $1.7 million will be allocated towards two project types:  

  1. Integrated Social Ecological Systems Awards are larger in scope and co-developed across disciplines—1-2 awards anticipated for a total of $600,000 to $1,200,000
  2. Targeted Research Awards should be designed to address critical gaps in knowledge or advance innovate approaches—8-12 awards anticipated for a total of $500,000 to $1,100,000   

Monitoring to Accelerate Recovery funds support the objectives of the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) Strategic Plan to increase collaboration, support adaptive management, and improve communication. Approximately $750,000 will be available to support an estimated eight to 20 projects in total, with individual project budgets ranging from a minimum of $30,000 to a maximum of $100,000. This webpage includes a summary of details including information about previously funded projects.  

Projects must address priority information needs under one or both of the following project categories and include a detailed engagement plan: 

  1. Category 1: Monitoring, assessment, and reporting of the status and trends of Vital Sign indicators — 4-10 projects totaling approximately $400,000
  2. Category 2: Synthesis and evaluation of causes behind ecosystem conditions; evaluation of cumulative effects — effectiveness assessment; 4-10 projects totaling approximately $350,000   

Please see full request for proposals for Puget Sound Scientific Research and Monitoring to Accelerate Recovery for additional details on requirements, how to apply, and contact information for solicitation questions.  

Please share this announcement and consider registering for an information session if you are interested in applying: 

  • Register here for the information session on Puget Sound Scientific Research for Thursday, April 29, 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. PST  
  • Register here for the information session on Monitoring to Accelerate Recovery for Tuesday, April 27, 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. PST  

 

This bulletin was sent to the Puget Sound Partnership Science Panel, PSEMP Steering Committee, PSEMP Work Group Leads, and PSEMP Interested Parties lists. 

Low-interest loans could help shoreline property owners finance improvements

As ongoing research confirms the importance of shoreline habitat throughout Puget Sound, experts are looking for new ways to help shoreline property owners pay for bulkhead removals.
One emerging idea, which could be established as a formal initiative within a year, consists of a special shoreline loan program that could provide low-interest loans to residential property owners. The owners could then make payments over decades with less strain on their family budgets.
A soon-to-be-released report examines the possibilities of a state-sponsored revolving-fund loan program. This type of program would begin with seed money provided through a legislative appropriation or one of the existing grant programs that provide funding for Puget Sound restoration. As the loans are repaid, the incoming money goes back out to finance new loans, so the fund becomes “revolving.” New money could be added to increase the number of loans available each year.

The money comes back around. Click on image to enlarge // Graphic: John Linse, UW Creative Communications

Over time, a relatively small initial investment could result in a large number of projects being completed, according to lead author Aimee Kinney of the Puget Sound Institute, who conducted the feasibility study in consultation with experts from Northern Economics and Coastal Geologic Services. The report is scheduled to be published in a few weeks in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. Aimee will discuss the project in a March 31st  webinar mentioned at the bottom of this page. The project is supported by the Habitat Strategic Initiative, which receives funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Financial modeling indicates that $4.5 million in seed money could fund $9.7 million in projects over the first 15 years of the loan program. Further incentives could be offered to property owners through existing programs, such as the successful Shore Friendly effort, which works through local entities to provide technical expertise and/or grants for shoreline improvements.
Property owners throughout the Puget Sound region have taken advantage of Shore Friendly assistance, particularly as aging bulkheads near the end of their useful life. Since 2014, more than 1,400 homeowners have consulted with Shore Friendly experts. At last count in 2018, 284 have received erosion assessments; 23 have received assistance with engineering design and permitting; and 49 have been awarded small grants for construction.
Options for shoreline owners include replacing a hard bulkhead with more natural “soft shore” protection, such as anchoring logs in the beach to attenuate wave energy. Sometimes a qualified shoreline assessment reveals that existing structures are not at risk from waves or rising waters, so the shoreline can be returned to its natural condition with minimal effort.
Shore Friendly areas showing major projects funded by the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program. Click on image (PDF 3 mb) for details and map key.
Graphic: ESRP

Given rising sea level due to climate change, some owners are opting for longer-term solutions, such as raising a house on its foundation or moving the structure farther back from the water. Those kinds of solutions could be eligible for funding through the revolving-fund loan program under review, Aimee said.
Removing a bulkhead has direct benefits for residential property owners, such as improved access to the beach, increased recreational values and a more natural esthetic. Meanwhile, the benefits to the ecosystem can be enormous, depending on the location, by alleviating the damage caused by bulkheads:

  • A narrowing of the tidelands area, thus reducing habitat for organisms that live in the substrate and for forage fish, such as surf smelt and sand lance, that spawn directly on the beach.
  • Alteration of the natural movement of gravels, sands and fine sediment that can result in a hardened, barren beach no longer suitable for the normal array of species, including forage fish, an important food for salmon.
  • Increased water depth along the shoreline, which allows for larger fish to prey on migrating juvenile salmon,
  • Loss of driftwood and natural debris in the upper tidal region where a multitude of small species play a key role in the food web, and
  • Elimination of the transition zone at the upper edge of the beach where shorebirds forage and nest among the vegetation.

(For the latest scientific information about shoreline issues, check out this week’s conference listed at the bottom of this page.)
Based on state permits for shoreline armoring, more bulkheads are being removed than constructed in terms of overall length, but about a quarter of all shorelines in Puget Sound remain in a hardened, unnatural condition.
The new feasibility report cites a 2014 survey of Puget Sound residents who own homes with shoreline armoring. A significant number expressed a willingness to remove their shoreline-stabilization structure but indicated that cost was a major barrier:

  • 18 percent said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to remove all or a portion of armor and replace it with soft-shore protection,
  • 14 percent said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to remove a portion of hard armor and let the beach naturalize, and
  • 8 percent said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to remove all hard armor and let the beach naturalize.

A related technical analysis, which considers the funding needs for various types of projects, concluded that there is a demand for six to eight loans each year. That demand is expected to increase in future years as high-tide surges overtop more bulkheads as a result of sea-level rise and the growing severity of storms.
The study goes on to consider the potential structure and administration of a revolving loan program, with an examination of six existing loan programs — including a Washington state enterprise that helps homeowners replace their failing septic systems.
If details can be worked out with the support of one or more state agencies, a proposed loan program could be introduced to the Legislature or funded through a separate grant as early as next year, Aimee said.
Meanwhile, in the current legislative session, the Senate has approved a measure (Senate Bill 5273) that would require the least-impacting, technically feasible bank protection when someone goes to replace a bulkhead or other shoreline-stabilization structure. The bill would require a site assessment to determine the least-impacting project — unless exempted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for 8 a.m. Friday before the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources.
The federal government is now playing an enhanced role in the repair and replacement of shoreline armoring, following a court determination that the Army Corps of Engineers has authority over construction up to the high-water mark. Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service has begun to require “offsets” for damage caused by shoreline construction — even when an owner is simply replacing a structure with no significant change. For details see:

These evolving regulations at both the state and federal levels provide a new impetus for bulkhead removal or soft-shore replacement, Aimee said, and the result could be a growing demand for low-interest loans to make the work more affordable for shoreline property owners.
This week’s conference and March 31 webinar

Low-interest loans could help shoreline property owners finance improvements

As ongoing research confirms the importance of shoreline habitat throughout Puget Sound, experts are looking for new ways to help shoreline property owners pay for bulkhead removals.
One emerging idea, which could be established as a formal initiative within a year, consists of a special shoreline loan program that could provide low-interest loans to residential property owners. The owners could then make payments over decades with less strain on their family budgets.
A soon-to-be-released report examines the possibilities of a state-sponsored revolving-fund loan program. This type of program would begin with seed money provided through a legislative appropriation or one of the existing grant programs that provide funding for Puget Sound restoration. As the loans are repaid, the incoming money goes back out to finance new loans, so the fund becomes “revolving.” New money could be added to increase the number of loans available each year.

The money comes back around. Click on image to enlarge // Graphic: John Linse, UW Creative Communications

Over time, a relatively small initial investment could result in a large number of projects being completed, according to lead author Aimee Kinney of the Puget Sound Institute, who conducted the feasibility study in consultation with experts from Northern Economics and Coastal Geologic Services. The report is scheduled to be published in a few weeks in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. Aimee will discuss the project in a March 31st  webinar mentioned at the bottom of this page. The project is supported by the Habitat Strategic Initiative, which receives funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Financial modeling indicates that $4.5 million in seed money could fund $9.7 million in projects over the first 15 years of the loan program. Further incentives could be offered to property owners through existing programs, such as the successful Shore Friendly effort, which works through local entities to provide technical expertise and/or grants for shoreline improvements.
Property owners throughout the Puget Sound region have taken advantage of Shore Friendly assistance, particularly as aging bulkheads near the end of their useful life. Since 2014, more than 1,400 homeowners have consulted with Shore Friendly experts. At last count in 2018, 284 have received erosion assessments; 23 have received assistance with engineering design and permitting; and 49 have been awarded small grants for construction.
Options for shoreline owners include replacing a hard bulkhead with more natural “soft shore” protection, such as anchoring logs in the beach to attenuate wave energy. Sometimes a qualified shoreline assessment reveals that existing structures are not at risk from waves or rising waters, so the shoreline can be returned to its natural condition with minimal effort.
Shore Friendly areas showing major projects funded by the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program. Click on image (PDF 3 mb) for details and map key.
Graphic: ESRP

Given rising sea level due to climate change, some owners are opting for longer-term solutions, such as raising a house on its foundation or moving the structure farther back from the water. Those kinds of solutions could be eligible for funding through the revolving-fund loan program under review, Aimee said.
Removing a bulkhead has direct benefits for residential property owners, such as improved access to the beach, increased recreational values and a more natural esthetic. Meanwhile, the benefits to the ecosystem can be enormous, depending on the location, by alleviating the damage caused by bulkheads:

  • A narrowing of the tidelands area, thus reducing habitat for organisms that live in the substrate and for forage fish, such as surf smelt and sand lance, that spawn directly on the beach.
  • Alteration of the natural movement of gravels, sands and fine sediment that can result in a hardened, barren beach no longer suitable for the normal array of species, including forage fish, an important food for salmon.
  • Increased water depth along the shoreline, which allows for larger fish to prey on migrating juvenile salmon,
  • Loss of driftwood and natural debris in the upper tidal region where a multitude of small species play a key role in the food web, and
  • Elimination of the transition zone at the upper edge of the beach where shorebirds forage and nest among the vegetation.

(For the latest scientific information about shoreline issues, check out this week’s conference listed at the bottom of this page.)
Based on state permits for shoreline armoring, more bulkheads are being removed than constructed in terms of overall length, but about a quarter of all shorelines in Puget Sound remain in a hardened, unnatural condition.
The new feasibility report cites a 2014 survey of Puget Sound residents who own homes with shoreline armoring. A significant number expressed a willingness to remove their shoreline-stabilization structure but indicated that cost was a major barrier:

  • 18 percent said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to remove all or a portion of armor and replace it with soft-shore protection,
  • 14 percent said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to remove a portion of hard armor and let the beach naturalize, and
  • 8 percent said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to remove all hard armor and let the beach naturalize.

A related technical analysis, which considers the funding needs for various types of projects, concluded that there is a demand for six to eight loans each year. That demand is expected to increase in future years as high-tide surges overtop more bulkheads as a result of sea-level rise and the growing severity of storms.
The study goes on to consider the potential structure and administration of a revolving loan program, with an examination of six existing loan programs — including a Washington state enterprise that helps homeowners replace their failing septic systems.
If details can be worked out with the support of one or more state agencies, a proposed loan program could be introduced to the Legislature or funded through a separate grant as early as next year, Aimee said.
Meanwhile, in the current legislative session, the Senate has approved a measure (Senate Bill 5273) that would require the least-impacting, technically feasible bank protection when someone goes to replace a bulkhead or other shoreline-stabilization structure. The bill would require a site assessment to determine the least-impacting project — unless exempted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for 8 a.m. Friday before the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources.
The federal government is now playing an enhanced role in the repair and replacement of shoreline armoring, following a court determination that the Army Corps of Engineers has authority over construction up to the high-water mark. Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service has begun to require “offsets” for damage caused by shoreline construction — even when an owner is simply replacing a structure with no significant change. For details see:

These evolving regulations at both the state and federal levels provide a new impetus for bulkhead removal or soft-shore replacement, Aimee said, and the result could be a growing demand for low-interest loans to make the work more affordable for shoreline property owners.
This week’s conference and March 31 webinar

Voices Unbound logo

‘Voices Unbound’ seminar looks at disenfranchised communities

Like so many things, a person’s understanding of environmental issues can depend on different factors, from economic status, to race and ethnicity, to politics and culture. An upcoming seminar hosted by the Puget Sound Institute on March 22nd at 10:00 AM will look at these perspectives and will talk about some of the ways that disenfranchised voices can be increasingly heard in environmental policy discussions. The seminar features UW Tacoma Nursing professor Dr. Robin Evans-Agnew, who will describe the ‘Voices Unbound’ project. The project surveyed more than a thousand people in Pierce County about their environmental concerns.
Voices Unbound: Amplifying Perspectives of Disenfranchised Communities to Provoke Environmental Change
What do people think about environmental challenges and what do they do every day to survive those challenges?
A considerable gap exists among the discourses of those who implement environmental policies and the underrepresented communities that disproportionately experience environmental issues. In order to address this, Voices Unbound asks people throughout Pierce County to document environmental challenges that are impacting them and their community by using enviro-postcards.
Over seven months between 2019 and 2020, we stood in the street, behind booths, in the sunshine and the rain, asking passers-by to fill out a postcard to answer these two questions. We chose places where we wouldn’t necessarily find the sorts of people who already had a voice: outside the State Fair, in senior centers, amongst those experiencing homelessness, in parks, outside an ice-skating rink, and in local outdoor markets. We collected over 1000 postcards before the coronavirus outbreak took over everyone’s consciousness. Now, we invite you to listen in as we present selections of the postcards we collected and discuss our experiences.
The project also created a podcast series to amplify community voices.
Co-Principal Investigators: Christopher J. Schell, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma; Robin A. Evans-Agnew, School of Nursing and Healthcare Leadership, UW Tacoma.
Co-Investigators: Tom Koontz and Joel Baker, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma.
When: 10:00 AM
Where: Join by Zoom
https://washington.zoom.us/j/97391827146
Meeting ID: 973 9182 7146
One tap mobile
+12063379723,,97391827146# US (Seattle)
+12532158782,,97391827146# US (Tacoma)

Voices Unbound logo

‘Voices Unbound’ seminar looks at disenfranchised communities

Like so many things, a person’s understanding of environmental issues can depend on different factors, from economic status, to race and ethnicity, to politics and culture. An upcoming seminar hosted by the Puget Sound Institute on March 22nd at 10:00 AM will look at these perspectives and will talk about some of the ways that disenfranchised voices can be increasingly heard in environmental policy discussions. The seminar features UW Tacoma Nursing professor Dr. Robin Evans-Agnew, who will describe the ‘Voices Unbound’ project. The project surveyed more than a thousand people in Pierce County about their environmental concerns.
Voices Unbound: Amplifying Perspectives of Disenfranchised Communities to Provoke Environmental Change
What do people think about environmental challenges and what do they do every day to survive those challenges?
A considerable gap exists among the discourses of those who implement environmental policies and the underrepresented communities that disproportionately experience environmental issues. In order to address this, Voices Unbound asks people throughout Pierce County to document environmental challenges that are impacting them and their community by using enviro-postcards.
Over seven months between 2019 and 2020, we stood in the street, behind booths, in the sunshine and the rain, asking passers-by to fill out a postcard to answer these two questions. We chose places where we wouldn’t necessarily find the sorts of people who already had a voice: outside the State Fair, in senior centers, amongst those experiencing homelessness, in parks, outside an ice-skating rink, and in local outdoor markets. We collected over 1000 postcards before the coronavirus outbreak took over everyone’s consciousness. Now, we invite you to listen in as we present selections of the postcards we collected and discuss our experiences.
The project also created a podcast series to amplify community voices.
Co-Principal Investigators: Christopher J. Schell, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma; Robin A. Evans-Agnew, School of Nursing and Healthcare Leadership, UW Tacoma.
Co-Investigators: Tom Koontz and Joel Baker, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma.
When: 10:00 AM
Where: Join by Zoom
https://washington.zoom.us/j/97391827146
Meeting ID: 973 9182 7146
One tap mobile
+12063379723,,97391827146# US (Seattle)
+12532158782,,97391827146# US (Tacoma)

Puget Sound Partnership proposing ‘Desired Outcomes’ for ongoing ecosystem recovery

Puget Sound Action Agenda, often referred to as Puget Sound Partnership’s blueprint for ecological recovery, continues to evolve. The next Action Agenda — scheduled to go into effect a year from now — will incorporate an expanded long-range vision for Puget Sound, complete with broad-based strategies, not just near-term actions.
“Desired Outcomes,” the first major component of the next Action Agenda, will be unveiled tomorrow (Thursday) before the Ecosystem Coordination Board, the wide-ranging, 27-member committee that advises the Leadership Council in its recovery oversight and strategic planning. A live video of the discussion can been viewed online, as described in the meeting agenda.
“Desired Outcomes are statements that describe what we intend to accomplish — the positive change we want to see in Puget Sound,” states a fact sheet describing the next Action Agenda update. The idea is that near-term actions proposed over four years should fit into a larger vision leading to “transformational change and bold progress toward Puget Sound recovery.”
The basic ecosystem-recovery guidance for the Action Agenda has always depended upon the goals spelled out in the 2007 law that established the Puget Sound Partnership:

  • Healthy water quality
  • Protected and restored habitat and abundant water
  • Thriving species and food web
  • Vibrant quality of life, and
  • Healthy human populations

One could say that desired outcomes put meat on those statutory bones. Under habitat, for example, the desired outcome is to protect existing habitat while improving degraded habitat to achieve ongoing ecological gain. On land, that would include increasing the focus on areas defined as “ecologically important,” keeping most development within urban growth areas, and maintaining low-intensity uses on so-called “working lands,” such as farms and forests.
For a more complete description of the desirable changes being discussed, check out the summary paper “Desired Recovery Outcomes.” Climate change, not explicitly mentioned in the 2007 law, has been elevated to a significant consideration.
If planners can agree on these general directions, the next step will be to develop individual strategies to improve the ecosystem in ways that improve the efficiency and reduce the ongoing costs of recovery. The final step is to identify individual actions in line with the strategies.
“We are excited to get the conversations going,” said Dan Stonington, planning manager for Puget Sound Partnership. “We’ve been through a good science-based process, drawing information from a lot of sources. We certainly want input from anybody.”
An online form has been provided to help gather opinions on the desired outcomes project.
Progress toward ecosystem recovery will still be measured with Vital Signs indicators, which were updated and expanded last year. (See also Jeff Rice blog post). Planners are calling this year a “transition year,” in which the old indicators are still being reported while new data are being compiled. The biennial State of the Sound report, scheduled for release in November, will be based largely on the previous indicators, officials say.
While the Desirable Outcomes will point arrows in the direction of progress, the Partnership has not yet begun work on new targets, which will describe how much progress needs to be made by a certain time. We’re still living with targets for the year 2020, which are out of date even if still useful. My blog post of a year ago describes the dilemma (Our Water Ways, Jan. 22).
Meanwhile, Intermediate Progress Measures are under development to track advancement or decline in the march toward Desired Outcomes, ultimately reflecting ecological conditions as measured by Vital Signs indicators. It’s a complex planning process — some say too complex — but it is all about understanding the interconnections that drive the ecosystem and the effects of various human actions.
Besides the concepts of Desired Outcomes driving Strategies and Actions (see below), we are likely to see other changes in the next Action Agenda, at least partly in response to an After-Action Review that reflects a multitude of reactions from folks reviewing the 2018-2022 Action Agenda. One idea is to improve the consideration of ongoing local, state and federal programs that help in overall ecosystem recovery. This will add an extra dimension to the short-term, grant-funded projects that have been a mainstay of past Action Agendas.
Changes to the next action agenda will follow guidance from the Leadership Council, as enunciated in the Beyond 2020 Resolution, the more recent Concept for Developing the 2022-2026 Action Agenda, and the extensive Unabridged 2022-2026 Action Agenda Concept Proposal.
In addition to tomorrow’s meeting of the Ecosystem Coordination Board, the Desired Outcomes proposal will be reviewed by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council on Jan. 28, the Puget Sound Science Panel on Feb. 3, and the Leadership Council on Feb. 18, when the LC is scheduled to adopt the list of outcomes.

Puget Sound Partnership proposing ‘Desired Outcomes’ for ongoing ecosystem recovery

Puget Sound Action Agenda, often referred to as Puget Sound Partnership’s blueprint for ecological recovery, continues to evolve. The next Action Agenda — scheduled to go into effect a year from now — will incorporate an expanded long-range vision for Puget Sound, complete with broad-based strategies, not just near-term actions.
“Desired Outcomes,” the first major component of the next Action Agenda, will be unveiled tomorrow (Thursday) before the Ecosystem Coordination Board, the wide-ranging, 27-member committee that advises the Leadership Council in its recovery oversight and strategic planning. A live video of the discussion can been viewed online, as described in the meeting agenda.
“Desired Outcomes are statements that describe what we intend to accomplish — the positive change we want to see in Puget Sound,” states a fact sheet describing the next Action Agenda update. The idea is that near-term actions proposed over four years should fit into a larger vision leading to “transformational change and bold progress toward Puget Sound recovery.”
The basic ecosystem-recovery guidance for the Action Agenda has always depended upon the goals spelled out in the 2007 law that established the Puget Sound Partnership:

  • Healthy water quality
  • Protected and restored habitat and abundant water
  • Thriving species and food web
  • Vibrant quality of life, and
  • Healthy human populations

One could say that desired outcomes put meat on those statutory bones. Under habitat, for example, the desired outcome is to protect existing habitat while improving degraded habitat to achieve ongoing ecological gain. On land, that would include increasing the focus on areas defined as “ecologically important,” keeping most development within urban growth areas, and maintaining low-intensity uses on so-called “working lands,” such as farms and forests.
For a more complete description of the desirable changes being discussed, check out the summary paper “Desired Recovery Outcomes.” Climate change, not explicitly mentioned in the 2007 law, has been elevated to a significant consideration.
If planners can agree on these general directions, the next step will be to develop individual strategies to improve the ecosystem in ways that improve the efficiency and reduce the ongoing costs of recovery. The final step is to identify individual actions in line with the strategies.
“We are excited to get the conversations going,” said Dan Stonington, planning manager for Puget Sound Partnership. “We’ve been through a good science-based process, drawing information from a lot of sources. We certainly want input from anybody.”
An online form has been provided to help gather opinions on the desired outcomes project.
Progress toward ecosystem recovery will still be measured with Vital Signs indicators, which were updated and expanded last year. (See also Jeff Rice blog post). Planners are calling this year a “transition year,” in which the old indicators are still being reported while new data are being compiled. The biennial State of the Sound report, scheduled for release in November, will be based largely on the previous indicators, officials say.
While the Desirable Outcomes will point arrows in the direction of progress, the Partnership has not yet begun work on new targets, which will describe how much progress needs to be made by a certain time. We’re still living with targets for the year 2020, which are out of date even if still useful. My blog post of a year ago describes the dilemma (Our Water Ways, Jan. 22).
Meanwhile, Intermediate Progress Measures are under development to track advancement or decline in the march toward Desired Outcomes, ultimately reflecting ecological conditions as measured by Vital Signs indicators. It’s a complex planning process — some say too complex — but it is all about understanding the interconnections that drive the ecosystem and the effects of various human actions.
Besides the concepts of Desired Outcomes driving Strategies and Actions (see below), we are likely to see other changes in the next Action Agenda, at least partly in response to an After-Action Review that reflects a multitude of reactions from folks reviewing the 2018-2022 Action Agenda. One idea is to improve the consideration of ongoing local, state and federal programs that help in overall ecosystem recovery. This will add an extra dimension to the short-term, grant-funded projects that have been a mainstay of past Action Agendas.
Changes to the next action agenda will follow guidance from the Leadership Council, as enunciated in the Beyond 2020 Resolution, the more recent Concept for Developing the 2022-2026 Action Agenda, and the extensive Unabridged 2022-2026 Action Agenda Concept Proposal.
In addition to tomorrow’s meeting of the Ecosystem Coordination Board, the Desired Outcomes proposal will be reviewed by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council on Jan. 28, the Puget Sound Science Panel on Feb. 3, and the Leadership Council on Feb. 18, when the LC is scheduled to adopt the list of outcomes.

Minor bridge modifications could help young steelhead escape from Hood Canal

Help could be on the way for migrating steelhead and salmon in Hood Canal, where many young fish are killed each year by seals and other predators that lie in wait at the Hood Canal floating bridge.
As many as 50 percent of the steelhead migrants perish as they arrive at the bridge, where predators pick them off one by one. The bridge is supported by floating concrete pontoons, forming a nearly solid barrier across the waterway. Young steelhead generally swim near the surface, making them especially vulnerable to predation, although some fish will dive under the bridge to get to the other side.

Concrete pontoons can obstruct and slow the migration of steelhead.
Image: Jenny Paulo for Long Live the Kings

Engineers are currently designing minor modifications to a few bridge pontoons to help the fish find their way through existing gaps in the structure — one at each end of the line of floating pontoons. Those are the places where the bridge connects to the shore, and a small truss bridge carries traffic over the span.
I first learned about problems caused by the Hood Canal bridge in 2013, when researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were able to track steelhead using tiny implanted transmitters (Kitsap Sun, Oct. 13, 2014).
The researchers could track the movements of the implanted fish using receivers placed throughout Hood Canal. For many fish, their journey ended when they reached the bridge, as indicated by following their tracks recorded on receivers at the bridge. When a fish was eaten, the transmitter — now in the belly of a seal, sea lion or bird — would suddenly show a completely different travel pattern. After the fish was digested by a seal, for example, researchers might determine that an immobile transmitter was among the excrement at the bottom of Hood Canal. (See the research article led by Megan Moore in the journal PLOS One.)
Further studies showed that the movement of young steelhead — and perhaps some species of salmon — were influenced by shifting currents around the bridge. Fish would often move laterally along the bridge structure until caught in eddies formed by tidal currents through the bridge openings. Larger numbers of fish were found in those eddies.

For a more complete understanding of these findings, please check out the recently released technical report compiled by Long Live the Kings, which coordinated the recent studies, or read an illustrated summary of that report. (Full disclosure: I wrote the summary text under contract with LLTC.)
As you will see in those reports, short-term solutions involve small structures that could be attached to the bridge to reduce the eddies and hopefully move the fish more quickly along the bridge and through the existing openings in the pontoons.
According to Lucas Hall of Long Live the Kings, the goal now is to get people to understand the problem and recognize the need for a temporary solution. Designs for the bridge modifications are already under way using existing grants.
An additional $2.5 million is needed to fabricate the attachments to the bridge and begin a monitoring effort as early as 2022. Full monitoring and further modifications to improve performance could cost another $1.5 million, according to current estimates.
While that might seem like a lot of money, the benefits to salmon and steelhead could be enormous, especially when one considers all the efforts that have gone into saving Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound steelhead — all listed as threatened in Hood Canal and likely affected by the bridge in one way or another.
Harbor seals commonly haul out on Sisters Rock, about half a mile southwest of the bridge.
Photo: Hans Daubenberger, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Millions of dollars have been spent to replace culverts to improve salmon migration in the streams, not to mention improvements to freshwater rearing habitat. But those improvements are not fully realized when the young fish, after surviving many threats in freshwater, don’t live long enough to get out of Hood Canal.
“In comparison to the investments we are making in the fish-passage arena, this (bridge mitigation) would be immensely efficient and would be a huge win,” Lucas told me.
Eventually, the Hood Canal bridge will need to be replaced, and it now seems obvious that a different configuration for the floating pontoons would allow for increased fish passage with less risk. Gaps between each pontoon would be a major improvement, even if the pontoons extended well beyond the bridge. Perhaps before full bridge replacement, that kind of alteration could be considered for one or more sections of the bridge.
Photo: Hans Daubenberger, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe