Puget Sound Partnership

Tag: Puget Sound Partnership

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

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

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

The five indicators that essentially reached their targets involve:

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

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

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

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

Major challenges ahead

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

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

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

Human health and well-being

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

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

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

Comparison to the pandemic

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

Ongoing support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two science and monitoring funding opportunities from the Puget Sound Partnership

From the Puget Sound Partnership:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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.

New online magazine focuses on the stories behind Puget Sound recovery efforts

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for Puget Sound projects envisioned as part of a national stimulus package

Puget Sound recovery efforts could get a boost from a newly proposed five-year, $494-billion economic stimulus package, according to U.S. Reps. Denny Heck, D-Olympia, and Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor.
The two Washington congressmen, known for their efforts to help restore the Puget Sound ecosystem, spoke online Friday to more than 160 people during the first Virtual Puget Sound Days on the Hill forum. The event was sponsored by the Puget Sound Partnership, the agency coordinating the recovery of Puget Sound.
While the bill’s future is uncertain, this so-called “Invest in America Act” would improve the nation’s eroding transportation systems and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure, according to the bill’s primary sponsor, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It would also help to lift the nation out of an economic slump brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, he said.

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

While the bill is designed around transportation, Heck and Kilmer said they expect significant amounts of money to be allocated for reducing the environmental impacts of roads, bridges and rail networks — specifically targeting dollars to stormwater improvements.
“You’ve heard me say it many times,” Heck noted, “but I don’t think it can be said often enough: Stormwater is the number-1 source of pollution to Puget Sound and for all waterways in the United States of America.”
According to Heck, 29 million jobs have been lost to the pandemic, the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression. The situation has brought to light social and structural inequities that plague our society, he said. The challenge is to “combat the virus” and “recharge the economy” in ways that address the systemic problems that harm communities of color and others, he added.
Among other efforts, he said, thousands of jobs could be created by focusing attention on Puget Sound recovery.
“I think we’re wise to suggest that infrastructure investment is a way to get more people back to work,” Heck said. “I have no doubt that we will be making substantial increases in infrastructure. I think the key is to broadly define it as more than just roads and bridges. It should include investments in Puget Sound recovery.”
House Democrats are generally supportive of the nearly $500 billion in expenditures outlined in the Invest in America Act, but the Republican-led Senate appears to be of mixed sentiment. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that further expenditures related to the pandemic should be narrowly confined.
Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader

“As Senate Republicans have made clear for weeks, future efforts must be laser-focused on helping schools reopen safely in the fall, helping American workers continue to get back on the job, and helping employers reopen and grow,” McConnell said Friday in a news release.
On Saturday, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said he was sure there would be another stimulus package, but the specifics would depend on how well jobs rebound as businesses reopen. Check out his interview with Fox News anchor Charles Payne.
Two weeks ago, some Republicans were voicing strong support for an infrastructure bill, but others had their own ideas to stimulate the economy, as reported by Manu Raju and Lauren Fox of CNN.
Meanwhile, Kilmer and Heck keep pushing for Puget Sound funding, an issue high on their list of priorities.
The two came into the House at the same time in 2013. Kilmer took over the 6th District seat of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, who was a powerful supporter of Puget Sound issues for 36 years. Heck was elected to the new 10th District in South Puget Sound, a district created as a result of the state’s population growth. Late last year, Heck announced his retirement from Congress, effective at the end of this year.
Heck and Kilmer were joint sponsors of the PUGET SOS bill, which passed the House in February. If approved by the Senate, the bill would create a new Puget Sound Recovery Office in the Environmental Protection Agency, formalize the federal Puget Sound Leadership Task Force, and authorize $50 million for federal agencies to work on Puget Sound problems. (PUGET SOS = Promoting United Government Efforts To Save Our Sound.)
“That’s a bill that will make sure the federal government is the strong partner that state, tribal and local entities need to save our sound,” Kilmer said during Friday’s forum. If the bill becomes law, he said, federal agencies will “assist regional efforts to restore salmon and orca populations and ensure that future generations can dig for clams and uphold tribal treaty rights.”
Kilmer noted that the House was able to alter the course of President Trump’s budget, which would have eliminated EPA funding from a program called the Puget Sound Geographic Fund. In fact, the congressional budget increased expenditures by $5 million, to $33 million last year. The money is used to carry out planning and restoration, as spelled out in the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda.
Reducing flooding and stormwater pollution, restoring shoreline habitat and removing culverts to improve fish passage are all part of the effort that can help recover Puget Sound and create new jobs to help the economy, Kilmer said.
Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River // Photo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Kilmer said he was excited to see that the Army Corps of Engineers will spend $3 million to begin design of a new fish-passage project at Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River. The project, requested by Washington’s entire congressional delegation, has the potential to reclaim more than 100 miles of salmon-spawning habitat. The project will take time and money, Kilmer cautioned, but the benefits will be enormous.
Kilmer said it is time to put Puget Sound funding programs “on steroids” to reverse the course of Chinook salmon and killer whale populations in Puget Sound. Both Chinook and orcas are headed toward extinction, along with several other species, if conditions don’t improve, experts say.
“As a member of the (House) Appropriations Committee, that will be my top priority,” Kilmer said. “In addition, we need to be working to create new federal programs that will help fill remaining gaps in addressing the challenges we are facing as a result of this unprecedented public health and economic crisis.”
Kilmer unveiled two new programs he is proposing:

  • A Coastal Restoration Corps, modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s.The organization would provide training for people working in the field of environmental restoration while improving coastal habitats in 28 estuaries throughout the United States, and
  • A Coastal Resilience Design and Construction Program, which would enlist the Army Corps of Engineers to work in partnership with state, local and tribal governments. The goal would be to develop coastal resilience projects and help maintain natural conditions in the face of sea-level rise and other environmental changes.

“This kind of development isn’t just good for the health of the Sound,” Kilmer said. “It has huge benefits for the health and safety of local communities as well. We cannot leave our front-line communities behind; the only way to succeed is to do it together.”
The next online meeting of Virtual Puget Sound Days on the Hill will be Friday, when U.S. Reps. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, and Pramila Jayapal, D-Seattle, will speak and answer questions. Advance registration is required at least 24 hours before the event.