Implementation strategies

Category: Implementation strategies

Puget Sound fish and wildlife populations fall short of 10-year recovery goals

A final report on the 2020 ecosystem-recovery goals for Puget Sound outlines habitat improvements for some streams, shorelines and wetlands, but it also describes ongoing declines among fish and wildlife populations that use those habitats.
The latest State of the Sound report, released this week by the Puget Sound Partnership, summarizes the status of 52 individual ecosystem indicators used to measure the health of Puget Sound.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/NPY_kF7o0oo”%5D
While 11 indicators point in a positive direction, suggesting that conditions are getting better for Puget Sound, 22 indicators tell us that things are not getting better. In fact, five of them are listed as “getting worse.” Nine indicators offer “mixed results” with measurements of both improvement and decline. Another 10 lack enough information to determine a trend.
“Some dimensions of the ecosystem are improving,” says a joint statement (PDF 168 kb) from the Partnership’s 18-member Science Panel, “but at the whole system level we have not seen the needle move as much. For that to happen, we need to make hard choices about the future we want.”
These indicators, created about a decade ago, were recommended by teams of scientists to help reveal the status of Puget Sound’s water quality, water quantity, habitat, species populations, human health and human quality of life. They were adopted by the Puget Sound Leadership Council, the body that oversees the Puget Sound Partnership and coordinates the recovery of Puget Sound.
In a similar fashion, after the indicators were established, the Leadership Council adopted ambitious goals, or “targets,” for 31 of the indicators. The hope was that these targets could be reached by the year 2020.
The latest State of the Sound report announces that five indicators were reached or came near their 2020 targets, but 23 fell short. Three others lacked data for a final conclusion. With 2020 in the rearview mirror, this will be the last report specifically describing these 31 targets.

Click on image to bring up Vital Signs wheel with links to extensive information about indicators, including key messages, strategies, background documents and other resources. Info: Puget Sound Partnership

The five indicators that essentially reached their targets involve:

  1. reductions in the rate of losing forestland to development,
  2. protections of ecologically important lands,
  3. net reduction of shoreline armoring,
  4. efforts to remove armoring from feeder bluffs that provide sands and gravels, and
  5. improvements in sediment chemistry in saltwater areas.

All of these are related to habitat conditions. Other habitat improvements were seen with the restoration of floodplains, estuarine wetlands and streamside vegetation, but these failed to meet their targets.
The five indicators that are getting measurably worse are:

  1. population of Southern Resident killer whales,
  2. populations of Pacific herring,
  3. populations of terrestrial birds,
  4. recreational harvest of Dungeness crab, and
  5. marine water quality.

Chinook salmon abundance, an indicator assessing 22 populations of wild Chinook, was listed as “not improving,” because most stocks have remained near their low baseline levels for 20 years.
The only positive sign in the category “species and food web” comes as a mixed result in the indicator for marine birds. Although populations of pigeon guillemots and rhinoceros auklets have gone up and down, they are generally considered stable and healthy. On the negative side, marbled murrelets, a threatened species, declined nearly 5 percent, and various species of scoters declined by about 2 percent, both reflecting changes from 2001 to 2020.
“This State of the Sound report shows that we are not where we need to be — not by a long shot,” said Jay Manning, chairman of the Leadership Council. “We’ve got to make some changes. We’ve got to invest more and be willing to make hard decisions and be much more focused on protecting and restoring the ecosystem.”

Major challenges ahead

While scientists have learned a great deal about the Puget Sound ecosystem and the needs of many species, there is a realization that habitat improvements don’t always help to rebuild populations of fish and wildlife.

Endangered Southern Resident killer whales // Photo: Puget Sound Partnership

“This goes to the complexity of what we are trying to do,” Jay told me in a telephone interview. “These are complicated ecosystems. You can take certain actions and think that it is going to make a difference, but I don’t think it is super-straightforward.”
Manning said some of the targets may have been unrealistic in terms of a 10-year time frame, but it is discouraging that so many of the indicators are simply not improving or are headed in the wrong direction.
“I would feel very differently if we were closing the gap,” he said, “but some of the most important measures — such as orca and Chinook salmon — are getting worse.”
He noted that a few salmon populations — including runs of Hood Canal summer chum — have been improving. But the 2020 targets for salmon are focused on Puget Sound Chinook, a threatened species that has shown no signs of recovery. Meanwhile, the recovery of Southern Resident orcas, listed as endangered, may be impaired by a shortage of Chinook, not only in Puget Sound but throughout their range in British Columbia and along the West Coast.
Even where improvements are being made in some parts of Puget Sound, forces are at work causing problems in particular areas and across the region.
“We are not sitting in a stationary position,” Jay said. “We have these growing pressures.”
Beyond historical damage, Manning is speaking of climate change and population growth. Climate change is already altering the temperature of the water, changing streamflows, increasing damage from flooding, and undermining forest ecosystems with droughts and fires. Increasing numbers of people are taking up more land, increasing stormwater flows, producing more wastes and using more chemicals.
“We can’t put down a couple million people and not think it will have an impact on the ecosystem,” Jay said, “and climate is probably an even bigger problem.”
After months of discussion, years in some cases, a new set of indicators (PDF 131 kb) has been adopted by the Leadership Council to provide better measures of ecosystem health, as well as progress. New targets are under discussion to provide a path forward for the next 10 years and beyond.

Human health and well-being

From the inception of the Puget Sound Partnership in 2007, the Legislature recognized that humans are part of the ecosystem and that human health and well-being should be measured along with other indicators of Puget Sound health.

Children of staffers for Puget Sound Partnership explore the beach at Dash Point State Park near Tacoma during a low tide. // Photo: Chase Nuuhiwa

Effects on health from Puget Sound range from the air that people breathe to the fish and shellfish that people eat, all directly affected by the quality of the environment.
State and local health authorities struggle to protect shellfish beds from pollution as some areas are closed permanently, others are closed temporarily and some, thanks to diligent efforts, are reopened to the benefit of recreational, commercial and tribal harvesters.
“Between 2007 and 2020, more acres of shellfish beds were upgraded than downgraded across all classifications,” according to the new report. “The result was a net increase of 6,659 acres of harvestable shellfish beds, a sizable fraction of the 2020 target of 10,800 acres.” (See Our Water Ways.)
Because of unacceptable levels of toxic chemicals in fish, official health advisories call for people to limit their diets of fish known to be contaminated. For communities involved in traditions dependent on fish and shellfish, such as Indian tribes, these environmental conditions have inequitable impacts on their members. This issue of environmental justice is gaining increasing attention among state agencies.
Surveys by the Puget Sound Partnership have shown that many people rely on the natural environment for their personal ways of life and feelings of well-being. For many, access to Puget Sound forests, streams and beaches are important to their personal and family lives. (Check out Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.)
“Residents with a strong sense of place are more likely to engage in stewardship behaviors,” the report says. “Over one-third of the Puget Sound population engages in stewardship behaviors that benefit the environment at least once a week.”
While the state’s relative dependence on natural resources — such as timber, fish and shellfish — has declined over time, the growth in tourism and recreation has increased steadily every year since 2010, according to the report.
While the indicators of human well-being show no improvement or mixed results, the so-called Sound Behavior Index — a measure of 28 ways that people are helping or hurting Puget Sound — has been increasing, “meaning that individuals have engaged in more environmentally friendly practices over time,” the report says.
“In 2019, SBI values for one-third of the 12 Puget Sound counties reached their highest values since surveying began (Kitsap, Mason, Pierce and Snohomish counties),” the report says. “On the other hand, two counties reported their lowest SBI values (Eastern Jefferson and San Juan counties)… Meaningful, directional change in behavior is best detected over the long-term.”

Comparison to the pandemic

In its comments (PDF 168 kb), the Science Panel says the global pandemic has provided lessons that can help researchers, decision-makers and all people in the Puget Sound region to better shape the approach to recovery. First, in response to the coronavirus, research and technology has led to vaccines and innovations to defeat the virus, just as science provides an understanding of the problems in Puget Sound and points toward reasonable answers.
“This last year, we marveled at the rigorous science that allowed for the identification of 6PPD, a chemical used in tire manufacturing, that was rapidly lethal to coho salmon once it entered the waters in which they live,” the panel stated. (See Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.) Now, the challenge is to find safer chemicals to protect tires from degradation.
In the same way that behavioral changes were needed to defeat the pandemic, people can change their ways to restore the ecosystem and build resilience to address climate change, the Science Panel says.
“It is encouraging that over 75 percent of Puget Sound residents ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that Puget Sound plays a role in their identity, pride and attachment,” the panel said, citing a study of attitudes in the Puget Sound region.
The pandemic has also revealed inequities in health care and the unequal distribution of vaccines needed to protect against the virus, just as some groups bear a greater burden in a declining ecosystem and make greater sacrifices in the tradeoffs for restoration. Leaders in the Puget Sound region should make sure that the sacrifices are not shifted to those groups already over-burdened and under-represented in society, the Science Panel says.
“Our current state is shaped by past events, and how we move forward will be shaped by unanticipated future events,” the panel states. “But we are always moving forward. Puget Sound recovery does not mean returning to a Sound that existed in 1950, in 1850, or 10,000 years ago.
“With our presence, actions and decisions, we have fundamentally changed the ecology of Puget Sound, and we need to move forward towards a healthy and sustainable ecosystem from where we find ourselves now, guided by history but not attempting to recreate the past… Though we will need to make tradeoffs, we need not think of recovery as jettisoning the things we most value regarding our quality of life.”

Ongoing support

A concluding chapter of the State of the Sound report offers hope, because of the increased attention on Puget Sound from the federal government, the Legislature, other “partners” and the people themselves.
“The leadership of the Washington congressional delegation makes us hopeful, as does the dedication of our federal partners, and we are grateful to both our delegation and our federal partners for their commitment to Puget Sound recovery,” the report says.
“Funding for the Puget Sound Geographic Program and the National Estuary Program totaled $28.5 million in 2019, increasing to $33.75 million in 2020. Over the last eight years, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund has invested $124 million statewide, including over $14 million in the last two years for projects and administration in Puget Sound.”
This year, the Washington Legislature had a “banner session,” according to the report, with transportation laws to reduce carbon emissions and other laws to support greenhouse gas reductions and adaptations to changing conditions. Other bills focused on environmental justice, shoreline restoration and endangered species.
The Legislature nearly doubled spending for Puget Sound recovery in the 2021-23 budget, the report says, with significant increases for the removal and replacement of fish barriers, such as culverts. Overall, about $1.3 billion will be spent over the next two years for some aspect of Puget Sound recovery.
The next Puget Sound Action Agenda, the blueprint for recovery, is expected to focus on higher-level strategies, actions and policies and, for the first time, “explicitly address human well-being and responses to climate change.” The next Action Agenda is scheduled for release in June.
Finally, the State of the Sound report outlines a call to action from the Puget Sound Leadership Council to each of these entities: the Legislature, state agencies, local governments, Congress, federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, Puget Sound Partnership, business, the public and the tribes.
The Leadership Council lists five “bold actions” that should be taken now:

  1. Work with the Governor’s Office to make Puget Sound and salmon recovery the cornerstone of Governor Inslee’s third term;
  2. Establish a new funding source and increase funding for habitat restoration, road retrofits that reduce polluted runoff, and wastewater treatment systems;
  3. Revise the state’s Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act with a “Net Ecological Gain” standard;
  4. Broaden the coalition demanding a healthy Puget Sound; and
  5. Implement systems of accountability to ensure our investments in Puget Sound recovery deliver the results we need.

“Each of us can, and must, do more to accelerate recovery, and we are committed to our partnership with you,” the report concludes. “We must redouble our efforts to combat climate change and the effects of a growing population that threaten ecosystems and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Together, as we look to the future, let us be bold in our intent and actions to build a healthy, resilient, and economically prosperous Puget Sound for all.”

Puget Sound meets 2020 bulkhead-removal goal; new indicators will chart the future

In a turnabout that offers hope for Puget Sound’s nearshore ecosystem, old bulkheads are now being removed faster than new bulkheads are being constructed, according to permit figures provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In fact, officials with Puget Sound Partnership recently announced that the agency’s 2020 goal for reducing shoreline armoring had been reached — just barely — by the end of last year. Specifically, the goal, or target, was to remove more bulkheads, seawalls and other armoring (measured in length) than what was added from 2011 to 2020. One caveat: Not all armoring projects were captured in the permit data.

This old bulkhead on Sinclair Inlet near Port Orchard was once part of a residential property. It was removed two years ago to improve shoreline habitat. Photo: C. Dunagan

Now that we’re past 2020, new targets are in the works along with new Vital Signs and indicators of ecosystem health. Last year, 13 revised Vital Signs along with 34 indicators were approved by the Puget Sound Leadership Council, as recommended by staffers. The Leadership Council oversees the Puget Sound Partnership, the agency responsible for coordinating dozens of public and private partners in the recovery of Puget Sound. Reporting on the new indicators is expected to begin early next year.
Targets, which will define goals for future ecosystem improvements, are currently being developed for a few of the revised indicators and should be available before the end of the year, according to a timetable set by the Leadership Council. Work on other targets will continue through next year.
As for all the old indicators and targets, a final report on progress, or lack of such, over the past 10 years will be a major part of the biennial State of the Sound report, scheduled for submission to the governor next week. The document reports on every target with a discussion about the factors that have led to current conditions.
Many experts were surprised that overall shoreline armoring was reduced enough to meet the 2020 target, given that new construction outpaced removal for five of the past 10 years, based on permit data. In fact, from 2011 to 2013, nearly 2.5 miles of new bulkhead construction was matched with barely a mile of removal. But public efforts eventually kicked in to encourage and fund bulkhead removal while discouraging new construction. Last year, total removal reached 0.71 mile, compared to only 0.18 mile of new bulkheads that were built. (Details can be seen by hovering your curser over bars in the chart.)
Among the concerns with shoreline armoring, experts point out that bulkheads often occupy areas of the beach used by forage fish, which are important food for salmon. Hard seawalls also can reduce natural erosion and concentrate wave energy, leading to a beach devoid of sands and gravels, which forage fish use for spawning. Check out article on effects and ongoing coverage of shoreline issues in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Jeff Cordell and Erin Morgan survey sea wrack on a Puget Sound beach. Photo: Megan Dethier

Bulkhead replacement, rather than removal, still dominates shoreline construction, according to the permit data. Some 1.31 miles of armoring was replaced last year. That’s nearly 50 percent more than the total amount that was removed combined with new construction. Thankfully, experts say, an undetermined amount of that replacement work involved taking out hard vertical bulkheads made of logs, rocks or concrete and replacing them with a more natural “soft shore” design. Such soft-shore construction involves reducing erosion by sloping the beach and placing individual logs and boulders in strategic locations to attenuate the wave energy.
In April, the Washington Legislature passed a law that requires shoreline owners who wish to replace a bulkhead to consider designs that reduce erosion with the least impact to the natural environment. The law went into effect in July, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife intends to involve the public in drafting rules to carry out the new law along with a separate law meant to streamline permitting for habitat-improvement projects.
The long-term goal is to replace hard bulkheads with more natural systems capable of better protecting the environment without allowing damage to shoreline houses and other structures. Where homes are built close to shore on small lots, bulkheads may be the only feasible solution, especially in areas where the sea level is rising dramatically due to climate change. Sea-level rise varies from place to place, even within Puget Sound, depending on long-term ground movement. Waterfront owners are beginning to confront these issues, as described in articles in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
In total from 2011 to 2020, the Department of Fish and Wildlife permitted the removal of 4.85 miles of shoreline armor while allowing 4.71 miles of new construction. Although that meets the target and calls for a celebration, WDFW officials are quick to point out that about 715 miles of shoreline remains hardened, so that a variety of habitat problems remain unaddressed.
These numbers also do not account for unknown shoreline modifications built illegally without permits. Such illegal construction and other compliance issues are now getting increased attention from WDFW.
New efforts seek greater compliance
As new laws and regulations come into effect, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has created a new Compliance Division to make sure people have adequate technical assistance for their projects and that they follow all legal requirements.
Four new compliance inspectors have been hired, three with state funds and a fourth with federal funding to focus on the Stillaguamish watershed in North Puget Sound. The Stillaguamish inspections are a special focus of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, because fishing in both countries has been limited by the low natural returns of salmon to the watershed.
Training for the first compliance inspectors is nearing completion, and they are expected to be in the field in early November. Their responsibilities involve working with property owners and checking on construction in both streams and saltwater shorelines. They will work in conjunction with local habitat biologists (the WDFW officials who sign off on hydraulic project approvals), as well as with uniformed enforcement officers from the agency.
Some new authorities for WDFW came out of recommendations to the Legislature by the Southern Resident Killer Whale Task Force (PDF 2.9 mb). In 2019, lawmakers strengthened civil penalties for violations of the state’s Hydraulics Code and related permits, thus moving the agency away from criminal citations for shoreline violations. The Legislature also allowed new permits to require mitigation for habitat damage caused by shoreline construction.

This year, other changes were made to require that replacement bulkheads, as well as new bulkheads, be designed to cause the least damage to the shoreline environment. The favored option is to remove a failing bulkhead and restore the beach to a more natural condition. If a shoreline structure is needed, natural (“soft”) materials are preferred over solid retaining walls. When solid walls are necessary, they should be located upland of the existing bulkhead wherever possible.
To help shoreline owners understand their options, experts have created a technical document called “Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines” along with a less technical booklet called “Your Marine Waterfront” (PDF 12.2 mb). Another change this year is to allow a streamlined process for habitat-recovery projects. A pilot program is getting underway to establish a revised permitting process for habitat improvements.
Randi Thurston, who is managing the new Compliance Division, said the incoming compliance inspectors, supported with the increased legal authorities, will provide “boots on the ground” when it comes to checking on permitted projects, investigating reported violations and launching patrols to locate and take action against construction done without permits.
At the same time, the Legislature has built upon the success of an older pilot program that provides financial and technical support to property owners who wish to remove shoreline armoring or work on other habitat-improvement projects. Originally developed in 2014 with federal funding, the Shore Friendly grant program continues to work at the local level throughout Puget Sound, operating through six county-based organizations along with the Northwest Straits Foundation, which serves six counties.
Shore Friendly is now funded by the state’s Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, which also continues to fund competitive grants for individual projects. The Legislature this year has enhanced ESRP funding with $15.7 million directed toward three dozen prioritized projects (PDF 148 kb).

For further information about efforts to protect and restore nearshore habitat, check out WDFW’s webpage on Puget Sound recovery. For technical reports about the effectiveness of grant-funded projects aimed to improve nearshore habitats and other ecosystem conditions, check out Puget Sound Institute’s synthesis reports.
Strategic planning with new shoreline indicators

As the old indicators and their 2020 targets are phased out, new indicators are being designed to better describe ecosystem conditions. For that reason, the shoreline-armoring indicator — which measures construction and removal of bulkheads rather than habitat condition — has been removed from the list of future indicators.
The old indicator — net change in permitted shoreline armoring — may still be reported as a so-called intermediate measure of progress, but other habitat measures will be used to describe changes in shoreline conditions, according to Nathalie Hamel, who heads up Puget Sound Partnership’s Vital Signs reporting program.
It is important to understand that state permits don’t capture all shoreline construction taking place, Nathalie told me. In addition, the “replacement” of shoreline armoring can represent a wide variety of habitat changes, all lumped into one category. For example, replacement of a concrete wall with the right type of “soft shore” protection could bring a major habitat improvement. But if one concrete wall is replaced with another, the result could be no improvement at all. For these reasons, the measure of armoring construction, removal and replacement should be modified in some ways if it is to be retained, Nathalie said.
Despite the measure’s shortcomings and the newly approved indicators, reduction in shoreline armoring is still considered an important goal. That’s one reason that strategies to reduce armoring were retained in an updated Shoreline Armoring Implementation Strategy (with links), completed this past July.
The revised indicators (PDF 131 kb) of shoreline habitat, now listed as a Vital Sign called “beaches and marine vegetation,” still include an indicator for the total area of eelgrass in nearshore habitats. New indicators include:

  • Extent of forest cover in nearshore marine riparian areas,
  • Floating kelp canopy area,
  • Percent of feeder bluffs in functional condition, and
  • Short and long-term eelgrass site status.

While these conditions are generally measured as part of an agency’s ongoing work, some refinements are needed to report numbers and trends. Also, definitions of “functional condition” and “site status” may need to be clarified.
Other indicators that could be helpful in describing habitat conditions but still needing considerably more work include:

  • Drift cells in functional condition,
  • Miles of intertidal beach in functional condition, and
  • Understory kelp abundance and condition.

(Drift cells, by the way, refer to sections of a shoreline where sands and gravels move naturally in the same direction.)
At the larger scale, the revision of Vital Signs has retained six Vital Signs that report on biophysical measurements: birds, estuaries, freshwater, marine water, orcas, and toxics in aquatic life.
Just as “shoreline armoring” was converted to a Vital Sign called “beaches and marine vegetation,” the Vital Sign for “land development and cover” was converted to “forests and wetlands.” New indicators were added for every Vital Sign, as described in an 87-page report titled “Revisions to Puget Sound Vital Signs and Indicators” (PDF 11.9 mb).
Since human-related Vital Signs and indicators were developed after extensive studies before the latest update, no immediate changes were proposed to the Vital Signs for the statutory goals of “Healthy Human Population” and “Vibrant Human Quality of Life.”

Puget Sound Partnership takes closer look at human well-being and environmental justice

Amid the struggle to save salmon and orcas and restore the Puget Sound ecosystem comes a renewed effort to consider not only how humans affect the environment but how the environment affects the lives of humans.
The Puget Sound Partnership, which is overseeing the recovery of Puget Sound, has been developing a series of strategies to acknowledge and enhance the cultural, economic and psychological values that can come from a healthy natural environment. These new strategies, along with related actions, are to be incorporated into the 2022-26 Puget Sound Action Agenda, scheduled for adoption next year.
When the Washington Legislature created the Partnership in 2007, lawmakers set out a series of goals for improving the conditions of water, species and habitats. But even higher on that list were goals to achieve a “healthy human population” and a “quality of human life.”

Goals for human health and well-being have long been considered foundational issues in the recovery plan for Puget Sound, said Dan Stonington, planning manager for the Partnership. But now, he says, these ideas are getting heightened attention from the Puget Sound Leadership Council, the governing board for the Partnership.
Included in the discussion are strategies for improving environmental justice. This is the principle that all people — regardless of race, ethnicity or income — should be treated fairly when it comes to environmental laws and policies and, I might add, enjoying the benefits of environmental restoration.
A new design for the Puget Sound Action Agenda includes a series of “desired outcomes,” which I described in Our Water Ways in January, as the discussion was taking place. Desired outcomes for the next Action Agenda (PDF 6 mb) have been framed for all the statutory goals related to water quality, water quantity, biological species, and human health and well-being.
Now strategies for achieving those desired outcomes are under consideration. An online workshop for information and discussion is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1:30 p.m. Registration is required.
Many of the suggested strategies for improved ecosystem health are coming out of the so-called Implementation Strategies, which were developed through in-depth, scientific analyses about the causes of problems in Puget Sound. Such analyses have focused on Chinook salmon, floodplains and estuaries, land development and cover, freshwater quality, marine water quality, shellfish beds, shoreline armoring and toxics in fish.
A list of strategies under consideration for the next Action Agenda can be reviewed on the Partnership’s webpage “Identifying Strategies for Puget Sound Recovery.”

New Action Agenda Strategies for human well-being (HWB) and climate change (CC) are being developed outside the normal analytical process for Implementation Strategies (IS). // Image: Puget Sound Partnership

So far, the Implementation-Strategy approach has not been applied to the concept of human well-being, but ideas for the Action Agenda are coming out of existing planning efforts along with special work groups in the social sciences arena. Officials are leaning on the 2015 technical memorandum titled “Human Well-being Vital Signs and Indicators for Puget Sound Recovery” (PDF 1.3 mb), which helped establish methods for measuring human well-being.
About 50 individual strategies have been proposed for addressing human well-being issues. Partnership staffers are working to combine ideas and trim the list before adoption. A few of the ideas, as shown in the PDF version:

  • Increase the number and accessibility of natural environments, including green spaces and waterways.
  • Enhance protections for areas important for many cultural practices.
  • Improve appropriate access opportunities for harvesting local foods on public lands and shorelines.
  • Increase participation of historically underrepresented communities in Puget Sound recovery governing and advisory boards.
  • Engage social scientists to work with Puget Sound communities at better understanding social relationships, connectedness, and senses of belonging in Puget Sound.
  • Increase understanding about the connections between mental health and a healthy natural environment.

Dan Stonington points out that human well-being is a two-way street in ecosystem planning. Whatever benefits that people derive from the natural world — economic, recreational, cultural or psychological — become enhanced when people take actions to improve the ecosystem. Folks who feel a strong attachment to Puget Sound — known as “sense of place” — are more likely to support actions that advance ecosystem recovery and thus enhance human enjoyment.

The bottom line, Dan says, is that people are an integral part of the ecosystem. If they see the natural world as their home, as a special place worthy of protection, then the future will be better for salmon, orcas and all the wonderful creatures — and humans will experience a stronger sense of place.
How people feel about Puget Sound and how their feelings have changed over time are measured in opinion surveys conducted for the State of the Sound report, currently being updated. At last report, more than 75 percent of Puget Sound residents “agree” or “strongly agree” that they are “very attached” to the Puget Sound region and “feel responsible for taking care of Puget Sound’s natural environment.”
While the Partnership has always understood the importance of human quality-of-life considerations in improving the ecosystem, studies and analyses have not always accounted for diverse viewpoints. A closer look at the human population reveals that different groups of people might have differing values or experiences when it comes to the natural world. Efforts to improve certain aspects of the ecosystem might affect different people in different ways.
The Partnership has launched an ongoing effort to advance environmental justice, beginning with a greater inclusion of diverse populations in recovery planning. Special attention is being given to “overburdened communities,” which are populations identified with disproportionate environmental harms or health risks compared to the general population (“Words hold power,” EJ Task Force, PDF 3.2 mb). Aspects of this new effort of inclusion are identified in Addendum 5 of the Feb. 18 Outcomes memo (PDF 5.4 mb).
Meanwhile, the state’s new HEAL Act dealing with environmental justice calls on state agencies to look for and try to reduce health and environmental disparities in their normal operations, regulations and practices. After the new law passed in April, I outlined its provisions in Our Water Ways. See also the topical section on environmental justice in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

The Puget Sound Partnership, which is covered by the new law, has received legislative funding for a full-time staffer and consultants to assess ways to improve environmental justice within the organization and in its outreach programs. That new effort will develop an action plan to advance equity and inclusion throughout the Puget Sound recovery effort, as outlined in an equity and justice policy memo (PDF 410 kb).
“As a state agency with a mission centered around protecting and restoring the socio¬ecological resilience of Puget Sound, the Partnership coordinates and leads the recovery community to develop and implement strategies and actions that benefit all Puget Sound residents,” the memo states.
“The Partnership serves as the nexus between state agencies, federal agencies, Puget Sound tribes, local jurisdictions, and many other non-governmental organizations,” the memo explains. “The Partnership is well positioned to guide the Puget Sound recovery community in a new direction that explicitly centers diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice (EJ), which have long been absent from mainstream conservation and ecosystem-recovery work in the State of Washington and nationally.
“Moving in this direction is not only a moral imperative but is also critical to fulfilling our statutory obligations and mission to coordinate Puget Sound recovery for the benefit of all Puget Sound residents.”
As ideas for improving the “quality of human life” are examined in a wider context, we may eventually see new actions proposed within existing Implementation Strategies, actions that could strengthen the bonds among humans and the species we are trying to save.

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

Issaquah Creek. Photo courtesy of Nicholas Georgiadis.

Are summer low flows increasing in Puget Sound streams?

Update: A pdf of slides from the presentation is now available.
Adequate stream flows are critical to Puget Sound’s endangered salmon and are one of the state’s ‘Vital Sign’ indicators of ecosystem health. Earlier data suggests that summer stream flows have been on the decline, but new analysis shows that gauging these flows may be more complicated than previously thought. On Monday, March 15th, Puget Sound Institute senior research scientist Nick Georgiadis will discuss statistical models that show an apparent increase in summer stream flows over the past 20 years due to climate oscillations. His talk will be presented at 10:00 AM via Zoom at the link below.
Join the Zoom meeting: https://washington.zoom.us/j/96431547752
Date: March 15, 2021
Time: 10:00 AM (Please login at 9.55 AM)
Meeting ID: 964 3154 7752
Program abstract:
For streams flowing into Puget Sound, the lowest flows of the year (‘summer low flows’) must be sufficient to sustain instream biota, including salmon, for the foreseeable future. Evidence that low flows have declined raised concerns that factors relating to human development, including anthropogenic warming (globally) and groundwater abstraction (locally), may have impacted low flows, and will further impact low flows in the future. Uncertainty about causality requires that a precautionary approach be adopted in restoration and preservation strategies currently under development. To better inform these strategies, much remains to be learned about factors affecting low flows. I will present statistical modeling results suggesting that opposing, multi-decadal oscillations in rainfall and temperature drive a pronounced oscillation in low flows. The declining phase of this oscillation in low flows spans ~1960-2000. Since then, trends in low flows appear to have switched from negative to positive. These patterns characterize how climate change and variation have affected low flows in the past, and help to shape our expectations for the future.

Winding down Puget Sound’s 2020 targets, as approved shellfish acreage keeps going up

In 2020, state health authorities upgraded six shellfish-growing areas in various parts of Puget Sound. Now, thanks to improved water quality, the harvest of clams and oysters can take place on these 309 acres for the first time in years, adding to an ongoing gain in harvestable acreage.
While efforts to upgrade shellfish growing areas will continue into the future, these new results for 2020 represent the last time that state shellfish managers will be working toward a specific acreage goal set for the year 2020. Now, with 2020 in the rearview mirror, we can expect to see an accounting of the gains and losses during the 10-year effort to achieve 2020 “targets” — not only for shellfish but also for other Vital Signs indicators. Look for the next State of the Sound report to be issued this fall by the Puget Sound Partnership.
The target set by the Partnership in 2011 called for upgrading at least 10,800 acres of shellfish beds by 2020 after subtracting areas that were downgraded. In the end, 13,838 acres were upgraded, offset by 7,179 acres downgraded, for a net improvement of 6,659 acres.

Oyster farming in southern Puget Sound // Photo: C Dunagan

These figures are reflected in the graph shown at the top of this page. To access a dynamic graph that reveals the underlying numbers, go to the Shellfish Beds webpage and place your curser on the blue line for cumulative totals or on the bars for annual results. In addition, you may access a list of all the upgrades and downgrades (PDF 173 kb) for each year going back to 2007.
In addition to the 309-acre upgrade during 2020, another 68 acres were downgraded last year, leaving a net increase of 241 acres of harvestable shellfish beds.
The six areas upgraded in 2020 are in Port Orchard Passage in Kitsap County, 137 acres; Port Madison in Kitsap County, 68 acres; Colvos Passage in Kitsap County, 24 acres; Colvos Passage in King County, 57 acres; and two Jamestown sites in Clallam County, one at 11 acres, the other at 12 acres. The two downgraded areas are in Dyes Inlet in Kitsap County, 50 acres, and Henderson Bay in Pierce County, 18 acres.
Looking back, if an unexpected downgrade of 4,037 acres in Samish Bay in northern Puget Sound could have been avoided, then the total downgrade since 2007 would have been 3,142 acres. That would raise the net increase in growing areas to 10,696 acres — just shy of the 10,800-acre target for 2020.
Of course, pointing to the water-quality problems in Samish Bay doesn’t make the problems go away or erase the 4,000 acres of shellfish beds where harvesting — or not — depends upon strict conditions related to rainfall and bacterial counts. A coalition of local organizations, called the Clean Samish Initiative, has been working hard to reduce pollution coming from a variety of sources. They have had considerable success, but the remaining bacterial pollution is proving hard to find and eliminate. Check out:

Scott Berbells, manager of the Shellfish Growing Area Section within the Washington State Department of Health, says the effort to reduce pollution and reopen shellfish beds has been successful overall. Under the program, 93 upgrades have been accomplished compared to 36 downgrades.
In many areas, the effort to improve water quality has involved a good deal of detective work, as water-quality inspectors track pollution from the beaches to upstream sources — including failing septic systems, livestock and pet waste, and sometimes wild animals.
“The easy pollution sources have been corrected,” Scott said, adding that more sophisticated techniques are being used to track down pollution, even as property owners are asked to voluntarily use tried-and-proven methods of reducing bacterial discharges.

Prime Drayton Harbor oyster. Photo: Steve Seymour
Prime oyster from Drayton Harbor, northern Puget Sound // Photo: Steve Seymour

“We are on a positive trajectory,” Scott said, “and we need to keep the momentum going.”
To that end, Scott and a host of other people are in early discussions to consider new targets for the various Puget Sound Vital Signs. Most of that work will occur next year, starting with a “scoping” effort.
“Part of the scoping is renewing the purpose of having targets, being clear about their use,” said the Partnership’s Nathalie Hamel in an email, “and also … determining for what types of measures to set targets.”
The Partnership recently completed a major revision to the Puget Sound Vital Signs and is now undergoing a transition from old to new ecosystem indicators. Check out the factsheet, report on the changes and other documents, all linked from the section titled “The new and revised Vital Signs and indicators” on the Puget Sound Vital Signs webpage. See also the Puget Sound Institute blog post on the subject by Jeff Rice.
I found it interesting to look back to a 2011 report authored by Scott Berbells and folks at the Partnership as they considered how many acres of shellfish beds might reasonably be opened to harvest. See “Setting targets of dashboard indicators” (PDF 534 kb). Downgrades were so extensive in the late 1980s and early 1990s that the need to attack the problem was clear. The authors recommended a 10,000-acre goal. They never anticipated that a 4,000-acre downgrade was just around the corner.
Based on the types of nonpoint pollution leading to shellfish restrictions and closures today, officials believe that up to around 16,000 acres of commercial growing areas could still be reopened if the right pollution-control measures are implemented.

Toxics in Fish report cover.

New guidance for cleanup of toxics in Puget Sound

An EPA-funded team of scientists and other experts has completed draft recommendations for the future cleanup of toxic chemicals in Puget Sound. The group’s Toxics in Fish Implementation Strategy addresses pollutants such as PCBs and a slew of emerging contaminants that can affect species throughout the waterway. The strategy will be available for public review until October 16th after which it may be revised and submitted to the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council for approval.
The Washington State Department of Ecology is co-developing the strategy with the Department of Commerce and the Washington Stormwater Center. [Puget Sound Institute scientist Andy James was a member of the core team that wrote the report.] The new recommendations, if approved, will address the Puget Sound Partnership’s Toxics in Fish Vital Sign which tracks contaminants in adult and juvenile Chinook salmon, English sole and Pacific herring.
Policy discussions of toxics in fish have often centered around the occurrence of cancer-causing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in the environment, particularly as they turn up in salmon. The state has been under pressure to reduce PCB levels to meet federal water quality standards and to address healthy fish consumption rates for humans. The governor’s orca task force also identified PCBs as a serious threat to Puget Sound’s endangered southern resident orcas, which feed mostly on contaminated Chinook. While PCB reduction continues to be a high priority, the new strategy will address a much wider array of chemicals that affect wildlife across the spectrum.
Among the new concerns are contaminants known as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs).  These include pharmaceuticals, pesticides and other products that can pass through wastewater treatment plants and have biological effects on species throughout the ecosystem. The strategy recommends increased monitoring and prioritization of these contaminants to overcome what it calls “key data gaps” regarding their toxicity in Puget Sound.
EDCs may have wide-ranging effects on species. Estrogenic compounds in the water, possibly from pharmaceuticals like birth control pills, are causing male species of English sole in Puget Sound to produce egg proteins not typically seen in that sex. Scientists are looking for similar impacts on juvenile Chinook salmon and Pacific herring. Thousands of chemical compounds ranging from illicit drugs and opioids to personal care products and pesticides pass into Puget Sound waters every day. Researchers say they hope to determine which of these compounds will do the most harm to species. If the strategy is approved, this will be the first time that such contaminants will be included in the state’s Vital Sign measurements.
The strategy also addresses two additional categories of toxic chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs). PAHs occur naturally in coal and crude oil and are commonly found in creosote that has been added to wood pilings or railroad ties as a wood preservative. Such chemicals can harm fish embryos in ways that mimic the effects of an oil spill. PBDEs are often used as flame retardants and can wash into Puget Sound through stormwater and wastewater or can be deposited as dust particles. Although banned from many products, PBDEs are still in circulation and can cause neurological problems in wildlife and humans. [Read more about these and other harmful “rogue chemicals” in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.] 
In addition to identifying these key concerns, the strategy proposes management solutions such as “finding and fixing toxic hotspots; incentivizing redevelopment in high loading areas to reduce toxic loading; and accelerating in-water near-water cleanup of toxics.” The report was developed as part of a series of state and federal implementation strategies designed to provide a roadmap for Puget Sound recovery efforts.
The draft strategy is available for review at the Puget Sound Partnership website.

Toxics in Fish report cover.

New guidance for cleanup of toxics in Puget Sound

An EPA-funded team of scientists and other experts has completed draft recommendations for the future cleanup of toxic chemicals in Puget Sound. The group’s Toxics in Fish Implementation Strategy addresses pollutants such as PCBs and a slew of emerging contaminants that can affect species throughout the waterway. The strategy will be available for public review until October 16th after which it may be revised and submitted to the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council for approval.
The Washington State Department of Ecology is co-developing the strategy with the Department of Commerce and the Washington Stormwater Center. [Puget Sound Institute scientist Andy James was a member of the core team that wrote the report.] The new recommendations, if approved, will address the Puget Sound Partnership’s Toxics in Fish Vital Sign which tracks contaminants in adult and juvenile Chinook salmon, English sole and Pacific herring.
Policy discussions of toxics in fish have often centered around the occurrence of cancer-causing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in the environment, particularly as they turn up in salmon. The state has been under pressure to reduce PCB levels to meet federal water quality standards and to address healthy fish consumption rates for humans. The governor’s orca task force also identified PCBs as a serious threat to Puget Sound’s endangered southern resident orcas, which feed mostly on contaminated Chinook. While PCB reduction continues to be a high priority, the new strategy will address a much wider array of chemicals that affect wildlife across the spectrum.
Among the new concerns are contaminants known as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs).  These include pharmaceuticals, pesticides and other products that can pass through wastewater treatment plants and have biological effects on species throughout the ecosystem. The strategy recommends increased monitoring and prioritization of these contaminants to overcome what it calls “key data gaps” regarding their toxicity in Puget Sound.
EDCs may have wide-ranging effects on species. Estrogenic compounds in the water, possibly from pharmaceuticals like birth control pills, are causing male species of English sole in Puget Sound to produce egg proteins not typically seen in that sex. Scientists are looking for similar impacts on juvenile Chinook salmon and Pacific herring. Thousands of chemical compounds ranging from illicit drugs and opioids to personal care products and pesticides pass into Puget Sound waters every day. Researchers say they hope to determine which of these compounds will do the most harm to species. If the strategy is approved, this will be the first time that such contaminants will be included in the state’s Vital Sign measurements.
The strategy also addresses two additional categories of toxic chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs). PAHs occur naturally in coal and crude oil and are commonly found in creosote that has been added to wood pilings or railroad ties as a wood preservative. Such chemicals can harm fish embryos in ways that mimic the effects of an oil spill. PBDEs are often used as flame retardants and can wash into Puget Sound through stormwater and wastewater or can be deposited as dust particles. Although banned from many products, PBDEs are still in circulation and can cause neurological problems in wildlife and humans. [Read more about these and other harmful “rogue chemicals” in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.] 
In addition to identifying these key concerns, the strategy proposes management solutions such as “finding and fixing toxic hotspots; incentivizing redevelopment in high loading areas to reduce toxic loading; and accelerating in-water near-water cleanup of toxics.” The report was developed as part of a series of state and federal implementation strategies designed to provide a roadmap for Puget Sound recovery efforts.
The draft strategy is available for review at the Puget Sound Partnership website.

Safe hiking and other outdoors activities could improve mental health in pandemic

Outside seems to be the answer, in more ways than one.
Virologists tell us that, aside from isolation, we are less likely to be infected with COVID-19 if we go outdoors and stay away from crowds. Psychologists have known for decades that getting out in nature can improve our mental health, something that many of us need at this time.
Taking a hike can be a great cure for cabin fever. But to maintain safety in a pandemic, we must be careful not rush out to the most popular locations where crowds are on the rise, especially on weekends.
On Saturday, for example, people were waiting in their cars for up to an hour and half just to get into Mount Rainier National Park at the Nisqually Entrance. In Olympic National Park, the parking lot at the Hurricane Ridge Visitors Center was full by 10 a.m.
The answer to the dilemma is simple: If you want to visit popular locations, go on weekdays. And, wherever and whenever you go, have an alternate location in mind should you encounter crowded conditions with parking lots at or near capacity.
For this blog post, I thought I would provide some hiking tips compiled by experts for this unusual time in our history. Then I will mention some new studies about the economic value of outdoor recreation in Washington state, based on pre-COVID sales and jobs. Finally, I will offer some information about an evolving “Human Dimensions Protocol” — the integration of people into the ecosystem, from the enjoyment of nature to the very survival of plants and animals in our region.
How to remain safe on the trail

A coalition of outdoors experts in Washington state, called the Recreate Responsibly Coalition, came together with the help of Washington Trails Association to develop suggestions for enjoying the outdoors during a pandemic. They were able to boil down their ideas to six tips for safety, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health guidelines. Visit the webpage for details about these suggestions:

  1. Know before you go: Use WTA’s Hiking Guide to plan your outing. Pick a couple backup trails in case your first choice is crowded.
  2. Plan ahead: Go to less traveled trails, have alternates in mind, and make sure you have the right gear and supplies. (See the list for details.)
  3. Stay close to home: For now, stick to trails you can get to on a single tank of gas to protect residents of smaller communities from the virus. See “WTA Hike Finder Map.”
  4. Practice physical distancing: Try to maintain a six-foot distance by stepping off the trail if necessary. If not possible, cover your face with a mask. Communicate and be kind to fellow hikers.
  5. Play it safe: Avoid risky activities, so as not to increase the risk of disease for search-and-rescue teams.
  6. Leave no trace: Take home everything, including trash, leftover food and pet waste, because most places have no trash service.
  7. Build an inclusive outdoors: Help make the trails safe for people of all identities and abilities.

Again, WTA offers a nice Hiking Guide and Hike Finder Map with instructions to find a hike that suits you.
The latest information about traffic and crowded conditions, as well as general information during the pandemic, can often be found on the Twitter feeds of national and state parks:

Health benefits of nature
Hiking, biking, walking and other outdoors activities can often improve both physical and mental health, experts say.
Even before the pandemic, nearly one-fourth of adults reported having some form of depression, and nearly 63 percent of adults were considered overweight, according to a study by two University of Washington Researchers.

If anyone needed evidence that getting outdoors is a step toward better health, Sara Perrins and Gregory Bratman of the UW College of Forest Resources compiled information from existing studies under a grant from the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office.
“Research supports an abundance of benefits from biking including improved heart and lung fitness, fewer cardiovascular risk factors, fewer deaths, and less coronary heart disease, cancer risk, and obesity,” they wrote in their report titled “Health Benefits of Contact with Nature” (PDF 1.1 mb). “Walking and hiking require minimal special equipment and skills and offer numerous health benefits including improved cholesterol levels and protection against chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity.
“While biking and walking in particular may take place off trails (for example, cycling at the gym or walking around town), research suggests that additional benefits may occur when these activities are done in nature, adding support for the benefits of trail-based physical activity,” they say.
They go on to document benefits from nature among low-income people and children, in part because of improvements in their mental state.
The researchers also found that developing a “sense of place” has emotional benefits for all people and generally increases stewardship of the land and protections for wildlife. It’s a very readable report.
Benefits to the economy
The pandemic has upset Washington state’s economy, and the current economic condition of the outdoor industry is unknown. Still, it is worth reflecting on data from last year, knowing that people may seek even more escape to nature in the future.
Two recent reports describe the economic forces related to outdoor activities.
“Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State” (PDF 10.3 mb) by Earth Economics documents a $26.5 billion industry in Washington state, the result of spending by residents and tourists on outdoor recreation trips to local parks, state parks, national forests and national parks along with spending for fishing, boating and outdoor-recreation gear.
In 2019, 264,000 jobs were involved in this outdoors industry in Washington, on par with the state’s aerospace industry (237,000 jobs in 2017). That’s 10 jobs for every $1 million spent on outdoor recreation
In this state’s diverse economy, 6 percent of all jobs are related to outdoor recreation, with an average income of $44,000 per worker. Including secondary (multiplier) effects, total spending rose to $40.3 billion, according to the report.
Another recent report, “Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits of Recreational Trails” (PDF 18.8 mb) by EcoNorthwest suggests that physical activity related to trail use results in $390 million per year in savings from potential health costs. See also RCO’s web page on the subject.
“In addition to recreational-use value, other social benefits considered in this report include increases in property values and quality of life attributable to trails,” the report states. “Quality of life improvements also attract business activity to the state that then results in additional economic activity.”
Human Dimensions Protocol

Puget Sound Partnership, which is overseeing the recovery of the Puget Sound ecosystem, has long considered the essential role of humans in the ecosystem, as required by the Legislature upon formation of the agency in 2007. The people of Washington not only benefit in many ways from a healthy Puget Sound, they also represent the strongest political force in funding the recovery effort.
A new “Human Dimensions Protocol” (PDF 1.5 mb) has been developed to help teams of experts develop and carry out “Implementation Strategies,” which are individual plans for reaching the various ecosystem-recovery targets established by the Partnership. The document also can help people understand the complex interactions between humans and the natural environment.
“For the regional recovery community, including Implementation Strategy teams and other key partners, the protocol offers a concise, yet comprehensive resource to help address many social science and human dimensions questions or needs,” lead author David Trimbach of Oregon State University says in a blog post.
“This resource,” Trimbach continues, “reflects the wealth of human dimensions work, notably social science, within the region. This resource also exemplifies the Partnership’s continued push and innovative progress within ecosystem recovery.”
The protocol begins with simple questions, such as “What is social science?” and “Why does social science matter?” The document goes on to describe how human factors can be included in ecosystem-recovery planning with specific tips for working with community members who have special interests and expertise.
For example, technical workshops focused on human dimensions can inform the recovery process “by integrating interdisciplinary experts, whether they be community outreach specialists with practical expertise, tribal community health professionals, and/or social scientists with specializations … like governance, local foods, economic vitality or sense of place.”
See also “Social Science Research and Efforts” by the Puget Sound Partnership and Trimbach’s latest paper “Whose Puget Sound?: Examining Place Attachment, Residency, and Stewardship in the Puget Sound Region” published in Geographical Review.