Whether on land or in the sea, oxygen is critical for sustaining life. Healthy ecosystems depend on it, and the amount of dissolved oxygen in marine environments is one of the ways that scientists measure water quality. Both the research community and the regulatory authorities rely on complex computer models of the Salish Sea to predict dissolved oxygen levels, and key mechanistic drivers of water quality change, such as Nitrogen (N), and Net Primary Production (NPP). Now, the University of Washington Puget Sound Institute and the Salish Sea Modeling Center are developing a new tool for exploring ways to interpret and understand the massive amount of information generated by the state-of-the-science Salish Sea Model. DORA, the Dissolved Oxygen Regional Assessment Explorer, will soon be available to the general public, students, researchers, and stakeholders who wish to explore the impact of human activity on water quality in the Salish Sea. Images of the DORA prototype are shown below as well as a video presentation describing the pre-release version in more detail.
A pre-release presentation of DORA was provided on Wednesday, October 6th at 12 noon (PST) via Zoom. A recording of the presentation is available below.
Future opportunities: If you are not already registered and wish to contribute to future development, suggested function, or beta testing of products, please email Stefano Mazzilli (mazzilli at uw.edu) or Su Kyong Yun (sukong at uw.edu).
Funding: US EPA grant (cooperative agreement with the Puget Sound Partnership)
Presenters: Su Kyong Yun and Stefano Mazzilli
Acknowledgments: Adi Nugraha, Andy James, Joel Baker, and Tarang Khangaonkar
Whether on land or in the sea, oxygen is critical for sustaining life. Healthy ecosystems depend on it, and the amount of dissolved oxygen in marine environments is one of the ways that scientists measure water quality. Both the research community and the regulatory authorities rely on complex computer models of the Salish Sea to predict dissolved oxygen levels, and key mechanistic drivers of water quality change, such as Nitrogen (N), and Net Primary Production (NPP). Now, the University of Washington Puget Sound Institute and the Salish Sea Modeling Center are developing a new tool for exploring ways to interpret and understand the massive amount of information generated by the state-of-the-science Salish Sea Model. DORA, the Dissolved Oxygen Regional Assessment Explorer, will soon be available to the general public, students, researchers, and stakeholders who wish to explore the impact of human activity on water quality in the Salish Sea. Images of the DORA prototype are shown below as well as a video presentation describing the pre-release version in more detail.
A pre-release presentation of DORA was provided on Wednesday, October 6th at 12 noon (PST) via Zoom. A recording of the presentation is available below.
Future opportunities: If you are not already registered and wish to contribute to future development, suggested function, or beta testing of products, please email Stefano Mazzilli (mazzilli at uw.edu) or Su Kyong Yun (sukong at uw.edu).
Funding: US EPA grant (cooperative agreement with the Puget Sound Partnership)
Presenters: Su Kyong Yun and Stefano Mazzilli
Acknowledgments: Adi Nugraha, Andy James, Joel Baker, and Tarang Khangaonkar
“Making Waves,” a new online magazine from the Puget Sound Partnership, promises to bring us the stories behind the many efforts to protect and restore the Puget Sound ecosystem.
The first issue of “Making Waves” — published this week — contains five stories. Jon Bridgman, communications manager, conceived of the magazine format and pushed the idea forward.
“This was Jon’s brainchild; he believes in the power of storytelling,” said Laura Blackmore, executive director of the Partnership, a state agency created by the Legislature to coordinate the ongoing recovery of Puget Sound.
The idea for a new magazine grew out of the successful storytelling incorporated into last year’s “State of the Sound” document — a legally mandated status report about ecological changes throughout Puget Sound.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/27jimS0QtoI”%5D
I asked Laura about the name “Making Waves,” as I read her the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary: “To be very active so that other people notice you, often in a way that intentionally causes trouble.”
“Yes, good trouble,” Laura said, laughing. “Like John Lewis, we want to cause good trouble. We want people to think deeply about Puget Sound recovery and to get involved, pushing for the policy changes and the funding we need to accomplish the goal of Puget Sound recovery.”
“Good trouble,” of course, is the oft-quoted phrase of the late civil rights leader John Lewis, who died this year while serving as a Georgia congressman for the past 33 years.
“Making waves,” Laura said, has multiple meanings, all of which could be applied to the magazine, which is being funded by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, one of several major financial supporters of the agency.
“Making Waves: Stories from the people protecting and recovering Puget Sound” includes within its first edition stories about:
The first story was written by Carrie Byron, program manager for PSAR. The other four are by Kevin Hyde, a writer in the Communications Program at the Partnership.
Jon Bridgman, who oversaw the production, said five stories with original writing seems about the right number for each magazine. The next edition is tentatively scheduled for spring — about the time of Puget Sound Day on the Hill, in which state and local officials connect with federal lawmakers and policymakers in Washington, D.C. Kelps of Puget Sound illustration was created by Andrea Dingeldein for the new “Making Waves” magazine. Click to read the story.
The last section of the online magazine includes more than 40 links to recovery partners and issues related to Puget Sound. This is a source of information that can be updated as a quick go-to place for connections to those involved in Puget Sound recovery.
Jon, who joined the Partnership during its start-up phase in 2007, headed the Partnership’s “visual communications” for many years. He created or coordinated most of the visual elements that help us understand key data and scientific findings — including the famous Vital Signs wheel. Recently, he was promoted to “communications manager.”
Jon noted that the Partnership’s central role in ecosystem recovery has led to personal connections with a vast number of people working to recover Puget Sound.
“It’s a natural fit for us to use this position to help foster communication across the network,” he told me in an email. “We hope that allowing the recovery community to look at itself, learn more about what’s going on, will promote a tighter bond and shared vision of the work we need to do to recover Puget Sound.”
He said he hopes to bring attention to smaller organizations that don’t have the resources needed to get the word out about the work they are doing. And the online publication has the potential to use the full spectrum of media, he noted.
“We helped Allen Warren turn the footage he took of last year’s Orca Recovery Day into a promotional video (shown above) for this year’s event,” Jon said. “We featured the video as a story in ‘Making Waves,’ but the video also became the main promotion for the event.”
Jon said he is also pleased with Andrea Dingeldein’s illustration of the 22 kelp species found in Puget Sound, and he believes it could be an excellent educational tool for years to come.
“We plan on working with partners and involving them in discussions of what stories might be most important to tell,” he continued. “I’d like this to start a conversation around coming to a general consensus on what messages and stories are most effective in helping the recovery community get inspired and giving them the stories/messages to increase funding or support for their projects.” Jon can be reached by email: jon.bridgman@psp.wa.gov.
Laura Blackmore said she appreciates that Jon is open to a variety of new ideas and is willing to work with various groups to get their message out.
She also told me that she is thrilled with last week’s presidential election of Joe Biden, who has vowed to support programs to improve the environment and battle against climate change.
While Congress has been fairly successful in fighting off massive funding cuts to Puget Sound programs proposed by the Trump administration, she hopes to see increased cooperation with agencies at the national level. “Right now, we have an excellent relationship with EPA Region 10, the regional office of NOAA, and the (Army) Corps of Engineers,” she said.
One major goal, she added, is to elevate Puget Sound issues to a national priority by establishing a Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office in the EPA and making permanent the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force. Those provisions are part of the Puget SOS bill, which has passed the House but has been held up in the Senate.
I hope to share more information regarding Puget Sound politics in the coming weeks and months.
This is a reprint of an article originally published by the EPA-funded Strategic Initiative Leads for Puget Sound.
2020 NEP Funding Announcement
The Strategic Initiative Leads for Habitat, Stormwater and Shellfish are pleased to share the funding recommendations of the Strategic Initiative Advisory Teams (SIAT) and the Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs) for Federal Fiscal Year 2020 Puget Sound Geographic Funds.
Puget Sound Geographic Funds (commonly known as National Estuary Program, or NEP, funds) are invested as a result of several concurrent and coordinated funding processes that brought together local and regional partners in Puget Sound Recovery. Nine LIOs and the three SIATs (Shellfish, Stormwater, and Habitat SIATs) recommend NEP investments that support a common vision of Puget Sound recovery described in the 2018 – 2022 Action Agenda.
This is the fifth year the Strategic Initiatives have awarded NEP funds and the third year funding Near Term Actions (NTAs) from the 2018-2022 Action Agenda. Awards are made annually from EPA to the Strategic Initiatives, pending Congressional authorization, and the majority of these funds are then invested in pass-through grants based upon EPA Funding Guidance. Each funding recommendation narrative describes the relevant Strategic Initiative, the SIAT processes for selecting, deliberating, and deciding upon the recommendation, and an accompanying list of NTAs that the SIAT and LIOs recommend for funding.
Join our discussion with the Puget Sound Partnership Boards, via webinar, on June 2, 2020 from 10am-12pm. Click here to Join us! (meeting number/access code:288 451 856)
Call in phone number: 240-454-0887 (US Toll) | 855-929-3239 (Toll Free)
A comment period is open through June 10, 2020. Please email comments to the relevant Strategic Initiative Leads listed below. Additionally, we look forward to having a dialogue with the Puget Sound Partnership Boards on June 2, 2020 from 10:00am -12:00pm where we will discuss the funding recommendations within the context of each Strategic Initiative’s portfolio of work.
Please contact the Strategic Initiative Leads for more information:
The removal of shoreline armoring has become a priority for the state’s Puget Sound recovery efforts. The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) is providing details on the effectiveness of armor-removal projects at 49 study sites. Summary
In February 2019 the PSEMP Nearshore work group completed the compilation of armor-removal sites that have had restoration and monitoring occur since 2005. Sites are also included if pre-restoration monitoring has occurred, and restoration is planned to occur in the near future. Sites are not listed when monitoring has not occurred, or if restoration occurred pre-2005. Sites were compiled based on knowledge and participation within the PSEMP work group, and should be considered to cover the majority of sites where active monitoring is occurring, but likely not all sites.
The focus is on sites where shoreline armor (e.g., seawall, bulkhead, riprap) has been removed, or is planned to be removed. Other restoration techniques were included when monitoring information was available, focusing on the techniques from the Marine Shoreline Design Guidelinesand Your Marine Waterfront: (1) Removal, (2) Nourishment, (3) Logs, and (4) Vegetation.Links to photos of pre-post restoration are included when available, in addition to those included in the links to websites and literature sources.Shoretype is listed from the CGS Beach Strategies GIS data.This list is meant as an informative resource to those interested in ongoing restoration and monitoring activities. The goal is to provide this information in a single place, in order to increase communication and collaboration across groups.
The list details a total of 49 sites, 36 of which had armor removed as of January 2019, for a total length of 20,948 feet of armor removed. Key website links and literature sources for restoration actions and monitoring activities are listed for each site when available. The goal is to update this list every year, as part of ongoing PSEMP Nearshore activities.
A summary, Excel spreadsheet, and Google Earth map can be found at the Puget Sound Partnership website. You can also read a summary PDF.
The removal of shoreline armoring has become a priority for the state’s Puget Sound recovery efforts. The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) is providing details on the effectiveness of armor-removal projects at 49 study sites. Summary
In February 2019 the PSEMP Nearshore work group completed the compilation of armor-removal sites that have had restoration and monitoring occur since 2005. Sites are also included if pre-restoration monitoring has occurred, and restoration is planned to occur in the near future. Sites are not listed when monitoring has not occurred, or if restoration occurred pre-2005. Sites were compiled based on knowledge and participation within the PSEMP work group, and should be considered to cover the majority of sites where active monitoring is occurring, but likely not all sites.
The focus is on sites where shoreline armor (e.g., seawall, bulkhead, riprap) has been removed, or is planned to be removed. Other restoration techniques were included when monitoring information was available, focusing on the techniques from the Marine Shoreline Design Guidelinesand Your Marine Waterfront: (1) Removal, (2) Nourishment, (3) Logs, and (4) Vegetation.Links to photos of pre-post restoration are included when available, in addition to those included in the links to websites and literature sources.Shoretype is listed from the CGS Beach Strategies GIS data.This list is meant as an informative resource to those interested in ongoing restoration and monitoring activities. The goal is to provide this information in a single place, in order to increase communication and collaboration across groups.
The list details a total of 49 sites, 36 of which had armor removed as of January 2019, for a total length of 20,948 feet of armor removed. Key website links and literature sources for restoration actions and monitoring activities are listed for each site when available. The goal is to update this list every year, as part of ongoing PSEMP Nearshore activities.
A summary, Excel spreadsheet, and Google Earth map can be found at the Puget Sound Partnership website. You can also read a summary PDF.
Puget Sound’s ports are expected to grow rapidly in coming years, on pace with the region’s urban areas. More ships on the water could mean more accidents. Some management efforts can lessen the risk of a spill in Puget Sound. Lower speed limits for ships, more onboard monitoring, rescue tugs and double hull fuel tank protection are some of the options being proposed. But no efforts can eliminate the risk of all accidents.
In 2017, the Puget Sound Institute on behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife produced a quick guide listing some of the actions volunteers can take in the event of a spill. While response efforts are complex, one of the best things volunteers can do is to observe the extent of a spill and note the effects on wildlife. In some cases, volunteer observers for groups like the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST) run by the University of Washington and the Puget Sound Seabird Surveys (PSSS) run by Seattle Audubon are already trained in oil spill observation.
We invite you to read the guide which is now available on the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Puget Sound’s ports are expected to grow rapidly in coming years, on pace with the region’s urban areas. More ships on the water could mean more accidents. Some management efforts can lessen the risk of a spill in Puget Sound. Lower speed limits for ships, more onboard monitoring, rescue tugs and double hull fuel tank protection are some of the options being proposed. But no efforts can eliminate the risk of all accidents.
In 2017, the Puget Sound Institute on behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife produced a quick guide listing some of the actions volunteers can take in the event of a spill. While response efforts are complex, one of the best things volunteers can do is to observe the extent of a spill and note the effects on wildlife. In some cases, volunteer observers for groups like the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST) run by the University of Washington and the Puget Sound Seabird Surveys (PSSS) run by Seattle Audubon are already trained in oil spill observation.
We invite you to read the guide which is now available on the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
https://pugetsoundestuary.wa.gov/
Over the past year or so, the EPA has begun funding a new effort to speed up and prioritize Puget Sound recovery. A coalition of state agencies and other partners is developing a series of plans known as Implementation Strategies that take on some of the practical considerations and next steps for the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda.
We wrote about this last year in our magazine Salish Sea Currents, and have continued a series of stories about some of the science driving the process. We’ll be writing more stories in the coming year with funding from the EPA, and Puget Sound Institute scientists are among those collaborating in the overall effort.
In a sense, the Implementation Strategies are a prescription for Puget Sound health. While there are still many unknowns, scientists say we now understand — at least to some degree — many of the major problems facing the region. Those are being monitored as so-called “Vital Signs” established by the state, and range from the health of endangered orcas to water quality and human wellbeing. Knowing where to prioritize recovery efforts is a huge step forward, agencies and partners say. Now these groups want to apply the medicine where they can.
The leaders of the new Implementation Strategies include several state agencies. Among them are the Department of Ecology, the Department of Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources. The Puget Sound Partnership continues its role as a facilitator and organizer in the process, and other partners include regional tribes, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force and a variety of stakeholders and nonprofits.
If you want to get a better handle on just what the Implementation Strategies are and who is behind them, we recommend visiting the coalition’s new website at https://pugetsoundestuary.wa.gov/. The site launched earlier this month, and will include regular updates including blogs detailing the latest steps in the process.
The site’s most recent blog post is a great overview of the process and describes many of the priorities for the group over the next four years.
https://pugetsoundestuary.wa.gov/
Over the past year or so, the EPA has begun funding a new effort to speed up and prioritize Puget Sound recovery. A coalition of state agencies and other partners is developing a series of plans known as Implementation Strategies that take on some of the practical considerations and next steps for the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda.
We wrote about this last year in our magazine Salish Sea Currents, and have continued a series of stories about some of the science driving the process. We’ll be writing more stories in the coming year with funding from the EPA, and Puget Sound Institute scientists are among those collaborating in the overall effort.
In a sense, the Implementation Strategies are a prescription for Puget Sound health. While there are still many unknowns, scientists say we now understand — at least to some degree — many of the major problems facing the region. Those are being monitored as so-called “Vital Signs” established by the state, and range from the health of endangered orcas to water quality and human wellbeing. Knowing where to prioritize recovery efforts is a huge step forward, agencies and partners say. Now these groups want to apply the medicine where they can.
The leaders of the new Implementation Strategies include several state agencies. Among them are the Department of Ecology, the Department of Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources. The Puget Sound Partnership continues its role as a facilitator and organizer in the process, and other partners include regional tribes, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force and a variety of stakeholders and nonprofits.
If you want to get a better handle on just what the Implementation Strategies are and who is behind them, we recommend visiting the coalition’s new website at https://pugetsoundestuary.wa.gov/. The site launched earlier this month, and will include regular updates including blogs detailing the latest steps in the process.
The site’s most recent blog post is a great overview of the process and describes many of the priorities for the group over the next four years.
