Recent papers

Category: Recent papers

Scientists look for answers in methane bubbles rising from bottom of Puget Sound

In 2011, sonar operators aboard the ocean-going Research Vessel Thomas G. Thompson inadvertently recorded a surprising natural phenomenon, as the 274-foot ship traversed through Puget Sound while returning to port at the University of Washington.
At the time, researchers on board were focused on a host of other projects. They might not have known that the ship’s multi-beam sonar was even turned on. They certainly didn’t realize that the sonar was picking up images that would later be interpreted as multiple plumes of methane bubbles rising from the bottom of Puget Sound.

Methane bubble plumes (yellow and white circles) are shown along the ship paths (purple). Black lines depict fault zones. Major sewer outfalls, shown as black squares, do not line up with the plumes so were ruled out as a source. (From article by Johnson et al, UW)

“Nobody looked at the data until about three years ago, when a former student of mine was working on a project looking at bubble plumes out on the Washington (Coast) margins,” said Paul Johnson, a UW professor of oceanography. “What she found was astonishing.”
The initial discovery of the methane plumes, by Susan Merle of Oregon State University, would lead to further discoveries of methane bubbles throughout most of Puget Sound. The findings have raised many interesting questions while providing implications related to the Puget Sound food web, studies of earthquake faults and even worldwide climate-change research. Johnson, Merle and other collaborators just published their first report on Puget Sound’s methane bubbles in the journal “Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems.”
Nobody was even looking for plumes of bubbles in Puget Sound when Merle, a senior research assistant at OSU’s Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies, began looking at eight-year-old archived sonar data from the RV Thompson. Following the ship’s tracklines, she observed the data as the sonar picked up images of methane bubble plumes along the coast. The sonar was still on when the ship entered Puget Sound. Merle kept following the data, not realizing that the surprising bubble plumes being revealed by the recorded sonar were all the way into Central Puget Sound, off Kingston on the Kitsap Peninsula.
“Nobody knew that there were methane bubble plumes there,” Johnson said after confirming her findings. “I said, ‘This is incredible. I wonder if there are other data out there to verify this.’”
The UW’s smaller 72-foot Research Vessel Rachel Carson operates with a less sophisticated single-beam sonar, but the ship travels all over Puget Sound, carrying student as well as professional researchers, generally on short trips. Like the RV Thompson, the RV Carson records sonar soundings wherever it goes, and those data records are kept on file.
Johnson retrieved the data from 35 cruises and found much more evidence of bubble plumes.
“There were these bubble plumes all over the place,” Johnson said, “so I said, ‘Let me have a day with the Carson,’ and we went up to Kingston in 2019.”
An instrument package was dropped to the bottom to pick up samples of water and gas around the plumes. “Sure enough, it was methane,” Johnson noted.
Thanks to a grant from the National Science Foundation for “speculative” research that might lead to breakthroughs, Johnson and his colleagues began to map bubble plumes throughout Puget Sound. They found bubbles from the Tacoma Narrows to Everett and also in Hood Canal, some 350 plumes in all.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/MpcjTh98u6k”%5D
Besides Kingston, the deep water off Seattle’s Alki Point contained a surprising number of the plumes, which are described as clusters of holes in the sea bed through which the bubbles pass. Johnson said one can get a general idea of the effect by turning a kitchen colander upside down and submerging it in a sink full of water to see bubbles emerging through the holes.
By using remotely operated vehicles, the researchers can record video of the bubbles emerging out of sharp, well-defined holes, 3 to 5 inches in diameter and roughly 3 feet apart. More than a few holes appeared to be abandoned, not producing any bubbles. Others intermittently released a series of bubbles that rose to the surface.
“You can tell which are active because of bacteria mats,” Johnson said, explaining that the bubble plumes can be a rich feeding ground for methane-loving bacteria, which grow around the holes.
In mapping the bubble plumes, it became clear that large numbers were aligned along geologic fault zones, primarily the ones running east and west, known as the Seattle, Tacoma and South Whidbey faults. Others lined up with smaller north-south faults, but the greatest number of bubble plumes occurred where the faults intersected, such as off Alki Point in West Seattle.
Much of this phenomenon has yet to be explained, Johnson said. One idea is that the methane gas is largely confined beneath a layer of clay and compressed sediments laid down during the last glacial period. If so, the methane may be rising up through cracks in the confining layer, cracks created through tectonic activity.
Methane gas is produced naturally during the breakdown of organic compounds found in all living things. Biogenic methane is produced during digestion by certain types of bacteria. Thermogenic methane occurs at higher temperatures, especially under pressure. (See discussion in Science Direct.)
Because of the lower temperatures in Puget Sound, Johnson said he suspects that the methane is from biological processes. Off the Washington and Oregon coasts, both biogenic and thermogenic methane are being released from thousands of bubble plumes, with pronounced clusters in a north-south band some 30 miles off the coast. This region is along the tectonic boundary where the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate collides with the North American continental plate.
High temperatures and pressures in this subduction zone leads to the release of fluids and methane gas. The vast majority of plumes are seen on the seaward side of the continental shelf in waters about 500 feet deep. Faults in this region, created by powerful subduction earthquakes, appear to be the routes for methane gas and fluids to escape to the surface.
An early hypothesis suggested that the bubbles in Puget Sound might be coming up from this underlying subduction zone, but that has not panned out. The chemical signature of the methane in Puget Sound, as revealed through isotope analysis, does not match that from sources deep underground, where samples can be obtained from terrestrial hot springs and water wells.
Because the methane feeds bacteria at the base of the food web, bubble plumes off the coast have been found to flourish with biological activity, including large populations of krill and fish, Johnson said.
“Fishermen know where these areas are, because they are biological hotspots,” he said.
How this methane may affect the Puget Sound ecosystem is yet to be studied in detail, Johnson said. The answer may depend on the location and specific physical and chemical conditions. While the methane is likely to increase biological productivity, it may also play a role in the low-oxygen conditions that can affect sea life and create other problems.
Because the bubble plumes seem to be coming up through faults underlying Puget Sound, seismologists might be able to use them to locate unknown geological features, identify changes over time, or determine which faults are active.
These findings also are relevant to climate change, as scientists search to find other natural sources of methane. Since methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, climatologists are challenged to identify all natural as well as human-caused sources in order to predict the effects of reduced emissions. (See “Methane Budget,” Global Carbon Project.)
Globally, between 35 and 50 percent of methane emissions are believed to come from natural sources, including wetlands, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide, but methane is more efficient at trapping radiation. That’s why this gas raises major concerns. Pound for pound, the impact of methane is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2019, methane was said to account for about 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
The total amount of methane released from Puget Sound is relatively small when considering the total methane from many natural and human sources — including natural-gas leaks, raising livestock and garbage dumps. Still, Johnson hopes to launch a project that would estimate the total atmospheric emissions from the bubble plumes, while continuing to examine what is venting from all these holes. These new findings also point to ways to search for other natural methane sources around the world.
Related work by Shima Abadi, an associate professor at UW Bothell, involves analyzing the sound that the bubbles make and determining how that might relate to the amount of gas being released and other factors.
Other authors of the new paper are Tor Bjorklund, an engineer in UW oceanography; Chenyu (Fiona) Wang, a former UW undergraduate; Susan Hautala, a UW associate professor of oceanography; Jerry (Junzhe) Liu, a senior in oceanography; Tamara Baumberger, assistant professor at OSU; Nicholas D. Ward, affiliate assistant professor in UW Oceanography; and Sharon L. Walker of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.

Mathematical tools to aid in the interpretation of coronavirus testing

New mathematical equations co-developed by Puget Sound Institute affiliate research professor Marc Mangel are designed to help health officials interpret coronavirus test results for better risk assessments. 
As more people in the U.S. are vaccinated and mask restrictions loosen, public health officials hope that the coronavirus pandemic has reached a turning point. Even so, the virus continues to rage around the world and concerns remain for people who are unvaccinated or may have compromised immune systems. Testing for new infections continues to be a critical tool in the fight against the virus.
One of the most common coronavirus tests is the rapid antigen test, which can be done without laboratory analysis in as few as 15 minutes. Its speed and convenience are a big plus when dealing with a quickly spreading virus, but the test is prone to errors, sometimes showing false negative or positive results, especially when it is conducted in the early stages of the disease. As a result, just based on testing, it is often difficult to know the true rate of infection in a community.
That’s a challenge for health officials and it can have big impacts on policy decisions. The number of coronavirus cases in a community can help determine when a county allows public gatherings. It can help hospitals assess the need for critical resources like respirators and medical staff. Now, a new mathematical tool developed by Puget Sound Institute affiliate research professor Marc Mangel in collaboration with Alan Brown of Johns Hopkins University is available to help health officials better gauge case rates, and to calculate the risk of exposure to the virus in groups of different sizes.
The method is outlined in a paper released by Johns Hopkins University and describes a series of equations “that can be implemented in a spreadsheet or using a handheld calculator,” Mangel and Brown write, making them accessible to non-mathematicians. Public officials can use the equations to correct for the testing errors and then advise policymakers on where to prioritize resources.
“Suppose a group of people go to a wedding and the next day learn that someone tested positive, so they all go out to get tested,” Mangel says. “Most tests are not as accurate early in the infection,” he says. “Our equation is a way of better interpreting the results of those tests — what the true risk is.”
While the equation itself does not give an exact case count, Mangel says, it allows officials to get closer to the true number of infections by providing reasonable upper and lower bounds for the estimate. The result can be visualized as a curve on a graph. Users can draw horizontal and vertical lines that intersect with the curve based on risk percentage and group size (see the graph labeled “Figure 2” from the paper), although the curve becomes less useful as case rates approach zero.

A figure and text from the paper ‘Operational analysis for coronavirus testing: Recommendations for practice’ published by Johns Hopkins University.

The equation involves math similar to that used in the fishery sciences, says Mangel, who specializes in mathematical biology and applies mathematics to Puget Sound recovery work. Mangel’s work often spans across disciplines, from cybersecurity to social networks, and now epidemiology. He compares the current equation to one used in juvenile rockfish surveys in the California Current. In that case, for example, there will be a certain number of false positives or negatives when counting fish, and scientists can use similar math to account for identification errors.
“One of the great things about mathematics is that it allows you to see commonalities in systems that on the surface look completely different,” says Mangel who hopes the same equation could be used in the event of other outbreaks of infectious diseases beyond Covid-19. “Next time, we would like to be more prepared.”

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

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.

Discovery of toxic chemical in tires spurs scientific and regulatory interest

The discovery of a mysterious chemical that kills coho salmon in urban streams is expected to spawn new research throughout the world while possibly inspiring new demands for protective regulations.
The deadly chemical, associated with automobile tires, was identified by researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Waters, which is affiliated with the Puget Sound Institute. The findings were published yesterday in the journal “Science.” I wrote about this discovery and more than 20 years of related scientific investigations in PSI’s online magazine “Salish Sea Currents.”
“This is an important finding,” said Erik Neatherlin, executive coordinator of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. “We have known that stormwater is an issue. Now we can talk about the specific culprit (affecting coho).”

A dying female coho salmon in the Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter
A dying female coho salmon in the Duwamish River, 2017 // Photo: Kathy Peter

A chemical known as 6-PPD is often added to tires to extend their useful life. The additive works by reacting with ground-level ozone before the ozone can damage the tire’s rubber. The chemical reaction produces 6-PPD-quinone, a compound apparently never studied until now. The newly discovered compound is estimated to be more than 100 times as toxic as the parent compound, 6-PPD.
Neatherlin said the logical course toward solving the problem for coho involves strategies to reduce stormwater pollution and finding safer alternatives to 6-PPD. State and federal agencies, Indian tribes, salmon-recovery groups and industry should work together on this, he said.
“I see this as an opportunity to work directly with industry and to find alternatives to this preservative,” Neatherlin said. “We will need to do follow-up scientific studies. I don’t think we need to pit folks against each other right now.”
The findings reported in the new scientific paper are being reviewed by chemists working for tire manufacturers, according to Sarah Amick of the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association. The tire scientists are already working with the UW researchers and regulatory agencies, she said.
“We welcome the continued opportunity to work with them,” said Amick, who is vice president of environment, health, safety and sustainability for the association. Findings from the latest study must be validated before moving forward, she said, adding that it is “premature” to discuss alternative chemicals that could protect tires from ozone.
The association, which represents 13 major tire companies, is committed to not only the safety of tires but also the protection of human health and the environment, Amick said. An industry-funded research effort, known as the Tire Industry Project, has been studying the environmental effects of tires, including tire-wear particles.
“It is our obligation to understand our products’ impacts on the environment,” she said.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxmojuC_dJE”%5D
Ed Kolodziej, a UW associate professor and a senior author of the new paper, said he expects the findings to inspire other researchers to launch investigations into numerous issues raised by the research. They range from basic questions about how long 6-PPD-quinone persists under various environmental conditions to how the chemical affects lesser-known species.
Nat Scholz, a marine zoologist with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center, said tires are used in automobiles throughout the world, and stormwater is a problem everywhere. It is important to learn what other species might be affected by tire chemicals, he said. Another big question is whether toxic compounds can accumulate in animal tissues and whether greater concentrations are found in species higher on the food web, a process called bioaccumulation.
Tire chemistry, which has been of interest in several European countries, also plays a role in human health. Artificial turf and crumb rubber used on playfields typically are made with ground-up tires, and researchers say they expect ongoing studies into the health effects of such uses on athletic fields.
Coincidentally, while the new study on tire chemicals was undergoing formal review, artificial turf containing ground-up tires was washing downstream in the Puyallup River from the Electron Dam in Pierce County. The artificial turf had been installed as part of a temporary water-diversion structure during reconstruction of the dam. During late July and August, high flows damaged a plastic liner, allowing pieces of artificial turf and tire particles to wash downstream. That unpermitted use of artificial turf has come under heavy criticism. Long-term effects of that incident remain under investigation, and the latest study reported in “Science” could raise new implications about the extent of the damage.
While 6-PPD-quinone produces dramatic and deadly effects for coho salmon, as reported yesterday, stormwater exposure seems to have little effect on chum or sockeye, based on previous studies. Steelhead and Chinook may be affected but to a lesser degree than coho.
Studies into how the toxic chemical affects the physiology of salmon are underway, and experts expect that other studies will be proposed to better understand the toxic effects of 6-PPD-quinone exposure on a variety of species, including humans.
In portions of California and Oregon, coho salmon are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The new findings on this toxic chemical in tires could bring more funding to answer questions about the threats to salmon. A need to better understand subtle effects of tire chemicals on steelhead and Chinook as well as other species could lead to increased research attention, as federal and state authorities develop recovery plans for threatened and endangered salmon along the West Coast.
Michelle Chow, who worked on the coho mortality studies as a UW graduate student, now serves as stormwater and toxics policy manager for Washington Environmental Council.
The recent identification of the deadly chemical related to tires is “a huge step forward,” Chow said, but it is essential not to lose track of the big picture.
“We know that stormwater has this effect,” she said, “but we don’t know what the other effects might be on the food web — from insects up to southern resident orcas. It is important to remember that we have found one chemical for this particular issue, but there are so many other chemicals in stormwater.”
Studies have shown that filtering stormwater through natural soils and vegetation can significantly reduce the overall toxicity. While it would be impossible to install such “green infrastructure” everywhere, things can be done in strategic locations, Chow said. Meanwhile, minimizing impervious roads and driveways throughout the region can reduce the amount of stormwater going into salmon streams.
Now that researchers have identified the chemical responsible for killing coho, Chow would like to see the Washington Department of Ecology gather all available information about tire chemistry from the tire manufacturers. The state agency can demand such information under a 2019 law that created the Safer Products for Washington program.
“We have to start thinking about the different possibilities,” she said. “We need to find out if a safer alternative exists. We are hoping that (industry officials) are thinking about how they can work quickly to start solving this problem.”
Safer Products for Washington involves designating chemicals of highest concern, determining if alternative chemicals are available and deciding if regulations are needed to protect people and the environment. Five classes of chemicals are currently in the second year of a four-year review. A new round of review for new priority chemicals will begin in 2022, and anyone can offer suggestions about what chemicals should be considered for study, said Lauren Tamboer, spokeswoman for the program.
Officials can be expected to debate whether the tire chemical 6-PPD should be considered a priority chemical under the Safer Products program. Another approach, if alternative chemicals are available, is for the Legislature to simply ban 6-PPD from tires at a future date.
That was the approach used to eliminate copper in automobile brake pads, after it was found that copper affects the sense of smell in coho salmon, potentially disrupting their ability to avoid predators and find their way home. The Washington Legislature approved the ban in 2010. California quickly followed, paving the way for new national standards. That was nine years before the Safer Products law was approved. Although it took time to implement, the ban on copper has proven successful, and several alternative brake materials are now on the market. Check out Water Ways, Nov. 6.
The 20-year effort to figure out what was killing the coho makes for a compelling story, one that has already captured the attention of news reporters across the U.S. and in Europe. Here are some of the stories published so far:

  • New York Times: “How Scientists Tracked Down a Mass Killer (of Salmon)”
  • Los Angeles Times: “Scientists solve mystery of mass coho salmon deaths. The killer? A chemical from car tires”
  • Seattle Times: “Tire dust killing coho salmon returning to Puget Sound, new research shows”
  • Marin Independent Journal: “Study finds California salmon face deadly threat from car tires”
  • CNN: “Salmon have been dying mysteriously on the West Coast for years. Scientists think a chemical in tires may be responsible”
  • UPI: “Toxic tire additive blamed for massive coho salmon die-offs”
  • The Guardian: “Pollution from car tires is killing off salmon on US west coast, study finds”
  • Science magazine: “Common tire chemical implicated in mysterious deaths of at-risk salmon”
  • The Daily Mail: “Toxic chemicals used to stop car tyres wearing out too fast are leaching into rivers and killing off salmon, researchers warn”
  • Chemistry World: “Tyre chemical drives mystery salmon deaths”

Discovery of toxic chemical in tires spurs scientific and regulatory interest

The discovery of a mysterious chemical that kills coho salmon in urban streams is expected to spawn new research throughout the world while possibly inspiring new demands for protective regulations.
The deadly chemical, associated with automobile tires, was identified by researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Waters, which is affiliated with the Puget Sound Institute. The findings were published yesterday in the journal “Science.” I wrote about this discovery and more than 20 years of related scientific investigations in PSI’s online magazine “Salish Sea Currents.”
“This is an important finding,” said Erik Neatherlin, executive coordinator of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. “We have known that stormwater is an issue. Now we can talk about the specific culprit (affecting coho).”

A dying female coho salmon in the Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter
A dying female coho salmon in the Duwamish River, 2017 // Photo: Kathy Peter

A chemical known as 6-PPD is often added to tires to extend their useful life. The additive works by reacting with ground-level ozone before the ozone can damage the tire’s rubber. The chemical reaction produces 6-PPD-quinone, a compound apparently never studied until now. The newly discovered compound is estimated to be more than 100 times as toxic as the parent compound, 6-PPD.
Neatherlin said the logical course toward solving the problem for coho involves strategies to reduce stormwater pollution and finding safer alternatives to 6-PPD. State and federal agencies, Indian tribes, salmon-recovery groups and industry should work together on this, he said.
“I see this as an opportunity to work directly with industry and to find alternatives to this preservative,” Neatherlin said. “We will need to do follow-up scientific studies. I don’t think we need to pit folks against each other right now.”
The findings reported in the new scientific paper are being reviewed by chemists working for tire manufacturers, according to Sarah Amick of the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association. The tire scientists are already working with the UW researchers and regulatory agencies, she said.
“We welcome the continued opportunity to work with them,” said Amick, who is vice president of environment, health, safety and sustainability for the association. Findings from the latest study must be validated before moving forward, she said, adding that it is “premature” to discuss alternative chemicals that could protect tires from ozone.
The association, which represents 13 major tire companies, is committed to not only the safety of tires but also the protection of human health and the environment, Amick said. An industry-funded research effort, known as the Tire Industry Project, has been studying the environmental effects of tires, including tire-wear particles.
“It is our obligation to understand our products’ impacts on the environment,” she said.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxmojuC_dJE”%5D
Ed Kolodziej, a UW associate professor and a senior author of the new paper, said he expects the findings to inspire other researchers to launch investigations into numerous issues raised by the research. They range from basic questions about how long 6-PPD-quinone persists under various environmental conditions to how the chemical affects lesser-known species.
Nat Scholz, a marine zoologist with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center, said tires are used in automobiles throughout the world, and stormwater is a problem everywhere. It is important to learn what other species might be affected by tire chemicals, he said. Another big question is whether toxic compounds can accumulate in animal tissues and whether greater concentrations are found in species higher on the food web, a process called bioaccumulation.
Tire chemistry, which has been of interest in several European countries, also plays a role in human health. Artificial turf and crumb rubber used on playfields typically are made with ground-up tires, and researchers say they expect ongoing studies into the health effects of such uses on athletic fields.
Coincidentally, while the new study on tire chemicals was undergoing formal review, artificial turf containing ground-up tires was washing downstream in the Puyallup River from the Electron Dam in Pierce County. The artificial turf had been installed as part of a temporary water-diversion structure during reconstruction of the dam. During late July and August, high flows damaged a plastic liner, allowing pieces of artificial turf and tire particles to wash downstream. That unpermitted use of artificial turf has come under heavy criticism. Long-term effects of that incident remain under investigation, and the latest study reported in “Science” could raise new implications about the extent of the damage.
While 6-PPD-quinone produces dramatic and deadly effects for coho salmon, as reported yesterday, stormwater exposure seems to have little effect on chum or sockeye, based on previous studies. Steelhead and Chinook may be affected but to a lesser degree than coho.
Studies into how the toxic chemical affects the physiology of salmon are underway, and experts expect that other studies will be proposed to better understand the toxic effects of 6-PPD-quinone exposure on a variety of species, including humans.
In portions of California and Oregon, coho salmon are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The new findings on this toxic chemical in tires could bring more funding to answer questions about the threats to salmon. A need to better understand subtle effects of tire chemicals on steelhead and Chinook as well as other species could lead to increased research attention, as federal and state authorities develop recovery plans for threatened and endangered salmon along the West Coast.
Michelle Chow, who worked on the coho mortality studies as a UW graduate student, now serves as stormwater and toxics policy manager for Washington Environmental Council.
The recent identification of the deadly chemical related to tires is “a huge step forward,” Chow said, but it is essential not to lose track of the big picture.
“We know that stormwater has this effect,” she said, “but we don’t know what the other effects might be on the food web — from insects up to southern resident orcas. It is important to remember that we have found one chemical for this particular issue, but there are so many other chemicals in stormwater.”
Studies have shown that filtering stormwater through natural soils and vegetation can significantly reduce the overall toxicity. While it would be impossible to install such “green infrastructure” everywhere, things can be done in strategic locations, Chow said. Meanwhile, minimizing impervious roads and driveways throughout the region can reduce the amount of stormwater going into salmon streams.
Now that researchers have identified the chemical responsible for killing coho, Chow would like to see the Washington Department of Ecology gather all available information about tire chemistry from the tire manufacturers. The state agency can demand such information under a 2019 law that created the Safer Products for Washington program.
“We have to start thinking about the different possibilities,” she said. “We need to find out if a safer alternative exists. We are hoping that (industry officials) are thinking about how they can work quickly to start solving this problem.”
Safer Products for Washington involves designating chemicals of highest concern, determining if alternative chemicals are available and deciding if regulations are needed to protect people and the environment. Five classes of chemicals are currently in the second year of a four-year review. A new round of review for new priority chemicals will begin in 2022, and anyone can offer suggestions about what chemicals should be considered for study, said Lauren Tamboer, spokeswoman for the program.
Officials can be expected to debate whether the tire chemical 6-PPD should be considered a priority chemical under the Safer Products program. Another approach, if alternative chemicals are available, is for the Legislature to simply ban 6-PPD from tires at a future date.
That was the approach used to eliminate copper in automobile brake pads, after it was found that copper affects the sense of smell in coho salmon, potentially disrupting their ability to avoid predators and find their way home. The Washington Legislature approved the ban in 2010. California quickly followed, paving the way for new national standards. That was nine years before the Safer Products law was approved. Although it took time to implement, the ban on copper has proven successful, and several alternative brake materials are now on the market. Check out Water Ways, Nov. 6.
The 20-year effort to figure out what was killing the coho makes for a compelling story, one that has already captured the attention of news reporters across the U.S. and in Europe. Here are some of the stories published so far:

  • New York Times: “How Scientists Tracked Down a Mass Killer (of Salmon)”
  • Los Angeles Times: “Scientists solve mystery of mass coho salmon deaths. The killer? A chemical from car tires”
  • Seattle Times: “Tire dust killing coho salmon returning to Puget Sound, new research shows”
  • Marin Independent Journal: “Study finds California salmon face deadly threat from car tires”
  • CNN: “Salmon have been dying mysteriously on the West Coast for years. Scientists think a chemical in tires may be responsible”
  • UPI: “Toxic tire additive blamed for massive coho salmon die-offs”
  • The Guardian: “Pollution from car tires is killing off salmon on US west coast, study finds”
  • Science magazine: “Common tire chemical implicated in mysterious deaths of at-risk salmon”
  • The Daily Mail: “Toxic chemicals used to stop car tyres wearing out too fast are leaching into rivers and killing off salmon, researchers warn”
  • Chemistry World: “Tyre chemical drives mystery salmon deaths”
Stormwater picks up contaminants from vehicles. Photo: Daniel Parks (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/parksdh/7014755513

Could tire discovery go beyond impacts on coho?

Scientists have suspected for several years that chemicals from tire wear particles are to blame for the deaths of thousands of coho salmon that have returned to spawn in Puget Sound’s urban streams. Sometimes referred to as “pre-spawn mortality” or “urban runoff mortality syndrome,” these deaths typically occur in streams near roads, and scientists have been analyzing a wide variety of automobile-derived chemicals to see if they produced similar toxic effects.
Now, thanks to some painstaking detective work by our partners at the University of Washington Center for Urban Waters (our groups are affiliated and share lab space) and many other collaborators, researchers can point to 6-PPD-quinone, a derivative from a preservative in tires called 6-PPD. The finding is as unexpected as it is fraught with implications. The chemical comes about only when the tire preservative is exposed to naturally occurring ground-level ozone in the environment creating a “transformation product” not previously identified. A paper outlining the discovery is published today (Dec. 3) in the journal Science and you can read more details from Christopher Dunagan in our magazine Salish Sea Currents.

A dying female coho salmon in the Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter
A dying female coho salmon in the Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter

In some ways the research on 6-PPD-quinone is just beginning. What started out as a local mystery could now catalyze studies around the world. Scientists wonder if the newly identified chemical is harming more than just coho.
“This is the first thing I’ve worked on in my career where I have no idea where the story ends,” says the paper’s co-senior author Ed Kolodziej. “It’s kind of what keeps you up at night. You’re wondering, ‘How wide is it?'”
Tires and similar rubber products are found everywhere in the world, he points out, and while 6-PPD-quinone has not been shown to kill some other species of salmon (it doesn’t appear to harm chum, for example) there is speculation that the impacts could be more widespread.
“We just have no idea,” he says. “All these questions are just totally wide open because there’s just no information out there.”
Given the potential ramifications, scientists may now begin to search for similar impacts among often vulnerable species such as stream invertebrates and amphibians, but it is also clear that humans are sometimes exposed to similar 6-PPD compounds. “We know the 6-PPD parent compound [has been documented] in house dust,” Kolodziej offers as an example. It also occurs in recycled tires that are used for crumb rubber playing fields and gym mats. “We’re generating a billion tires a year globally that need to be disposed of,” says Kolodziej. “All these things and all those recycled products likely contain some level of 6-PPD and the 6-PPD quinone as well. So, humans, I think, have a variety of exposure pathways.”
Could that endanger human health? “Again, we just have no idea,” Kolodziej says. 
What is known, however, are the implications for coho salmon. In the short term, Kolodziej hopes that the revelations in the Science paper will at least lead to more “salmon safe” tires.
“Tires need these preservative chemicals to make them last,” Kolodziej told UW News. “It’s just a question of which chemicals are a good fit for that and then carefully evaluating their safety for humans, aquatic organisms,” and other species, he says. “We’re not sure what alternative chemical we would recommend, but we do know that chemists are really smart and have many tools in their toolboxes to figure out a safer chemical alternative.”

View a video about the discovery below.

A look at future ocean conditions and how they could affect coastal communities

Scientists tell us that climate change is probably increasing the frequency of extreme events, such as hurricanes, droughts and wildfires. As time goes on, we might expect even more dramatic shifts in the ecosystem, as some species move to more suitable locations and others die out.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which oversees fishing along the West Coast, has launched an effort to become more nimble and responsive to changing conditions with regard to estimating fish populations and approving sport and commercial fisheries.

The future of West Coast fish stocks could be determined by human decisions. // Image: Center for Environmental Visualization and Robert Francis, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington

One effort is to describe how the ecosystem could change over the next 20 years and how those changes could affect coastal communities dependent on fishing. A new document titled “Scenarios for West Coast Fisheries – 2040” (PDF 1.4 mb) was recently released in draft form and will be the subject of discussions during next week’s meeting of the fishery council.
“The general idea of scenario planning is to develop descriptions of alternative plausible futures,” said Kit Dahl, staff officer who is leading the effort for the fishery council. “It’s not a prediction per se but a way of describing what we know with imagination as we look to what the future might hold.”
As Kit explained it, four scenarios were developed to represent the full range of future conditions that might be experienced. More than 80 experts participated in a series of six workshops during May and June to scope out the scenarios, based upon two fundamental uncertainties:

  1. Will the effects of climate change — including temperature and ocean acidification — come on gradually with infrequent surprises, or will we see extreme variability with ecological upheavals and uncertain weather conditions?
  2. Will ecological changes result in an increase or a decrease in fish stocks commonly harvested along the West Coast?

The four separate scenarios were developed and given interesting names. The discussion in the report, which includes future prospects for marine mammals, fish stocks and human communities, opened my eyes to a number of possibilities. Here’s just a sampling from the four scenarios:
Fortune and Favor: Gradual changes, good fish stocks
Under this most-favorable scenario, climate change is not as extreme as predicted in 2020. Fish stocks are gradually moving north to maintain favorable temperatures.
As the U.S. comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, cyber conflicts grow more intense. The fishing industry becomes less international with broad-scale efforts to promote domestically produced seafood.
A younger generation takes a long-term, ecosystem-based perspective that includes removing dams, restoring wetlands and recovering endangered species. Serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gases began in the 2030s. By 2040, the U.S. economy is on a firm path to a carbon-free future.
Coastal communities re-embrace fishing identities, as community-based fishing, processing and marketing takes hold with new technologies. Changing attitudes and advanced technologies, such as carbon-neutral propulsion, leads to a rebirth in sport fishing.
An ecosystem-based approach constrains catch for individual fisheries, which frustrates fishermen, but the overall catch increases. Technological innovations and institutional changes offer hope for solutions.
A Blue Revolution: Gradual change, but fish decline
A warming climate and ocean causes familiar fish stocks to decline, but subtropical and tropical fish find favorable conditions along the West Coast. A more open, global economy seeks inexpensive ways to supply protein, and wild-caught fish struggle under the pressure.
Throughout the 2030s, public sentiment has increased to address carbon emissions, leading to offshore energy supplies based on wind, currents and thermal properties of ocean water. Public values move away from animal protein to seafood and plant-based proteins.
Aquaculture puts competitive pressure on large-scale commercial fisheries, but coastal communities maintain some of their character with the help of federal investments in infrastructure — including rural broadband that supports remote office work. Recreational fishing sees a resurgence but with lower catch limits.
Increasing aquaculture creates conflicts with the commercial fishing industry, and fishery management councils take on new roles in regulating offshore aquaculture.
Harmful algal blooms increase in frequency; the ecosystem becomes less productive; and marine mammal populations decline. While wild salmon have less pressure from predators, lower ocean productivity reduces their numbers. Improved hatchery practices allow for continued salmon production.
Box of Chocolates: High climate variability, good fish stocks
In this scenario, we view “a world of environmental surprises and extremes, but where stock levels increase on average” with fishermen seeing “regular boom-and-bust cycles for some key stocks.”
Species rarely seen in the Northern Hemisphere show up suddenly, allowing for harvestable levels of unusual fish. New technology becomes the key to keeping up with less predictable conditions and allowing the exploitation of available fish. Seafood marketing becomes more difficult due to the high variability in seafood supplies, but consumers seek wild-caught fish for health and emotional reasons.
In some areas, salmon fishing may be good at times, but sport fishermen cannot depend on catching fish at their old reliable fishing spots.
Snowpack melts early except in the highest elevations. California enters a prolonged period of drought, which contributes to the extinction of many wild salmon stocks.
Dams on the Klamath and Snake rivers are removed, improving prospects for wild stocks. Widespread development of alternative energy supplies continues to fuel the debate about removing dams on the mainstem of the Columbia River, but the need for water storage blunts the argument as droughts become more frequent.
Hollowed Out: High climate variability, and fish decline
Unpredictable and extreme shifts in ocean conditions upsets the traditional food web along the West Coast. Only a few stocks of fish remain at harvestable levels, and commercial fisheries practically disappear except for highly specialized commodity fisheries and part-time operations. Wild-caught fish have become a high-priced delicacy.
Recreational fishing exists but continues on its long decline. Some rural fishing communities are abandoned. Others become focused on shipping, tourism or urban waterfront homes. Because of persistent, damaging storms, waterfront communities are fortified against unprecedented waves.
Economic downturns, climate change and marine pollution become more worrisome around the globe. In many ways, the market for seafood never recovers from the economic shocks of the 2020s. People worry about species extinction and ecosystem services, putting more emphasis on protecting species and producing alternative protein sources like algae, hemp and laboratory-grown “meat.”
Even aquaculture struggles to survive, as coastal areas are seen as too polluted to produce healthy foods, and struggling facilities are battered by high winds and waves. Some land-based, closed-system aquaculture facilities provide fish to a high-end market.
Salmon are devastated by the conditions. Even with a decline in marine mammals, the combination of poor freshwater conditions and poor ocean productivity have driven many salmon stocks to extinction, while others struggle to survive.
Next steps
While these scenarios can help us visualize four different options for the future, it is important to understand that the visualizations are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. We are dealing with a multitude of both natural functions and human actions, some of which can literally change the ecosystem as well as the society in which we live.
Some things are beyond human control, but a first step toward achieving a desirable future is understanding what we can control. After that, we can go about taking actions to set the stage for the world in which our great-great-grandchildren will live.
Anyone interested in these scenarios may submit comments to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The next step will be to identify specific challenges to particular communities, regions and people involved in the fishing industry. From those discussions will come proposed actions that could help people prepare for a better future.