Puget Sound

Tag: Puget Sound

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

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

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

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

Recovery of Puget Sound species could hinge on better understanding of ecosystems

A recent report from the Puget Sound Partnership helps us understand the difficulty of restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem. What caught my attention in the State of the Sound report was that after 20 years of protecting and restoring streams, wetlands, shorelines and estuaries, we have not increased overall fish and wildlife populations, and some remain in a downward spiral. (Our Water Ways, Nov. 3).
Several reasons have been given for the disappointing findings, including ongoing habitat losses from an increasing human population in the Puget Sound region. Clearly, there is a need to find ways to accommodate growth while protecting the remaining functional habitats.

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

At the same time, I would like to focus some attention on the restoration side of the equation. It seems we may not yet understand what it takes to restore habitats in ways that allow the food web to thrive, thus allowing increasing numbers of higher predators, such as birds, salmon and killer whales.
I recently wrote about some bug-seeding experiments underway in several streams that flow through urban areas in Seattle (Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, Oct. 21). For some reason, populations of aquatic insects known to provide food for salmon were not recovered to the degree expected, given efforts to restore the stream channel, remove invasive weeds, plant native vegetation and reduce pollution to improve water quality. As a result, researchers launched a project of transplanting important insects from a healthy stream. So far, results are mixed.
Katherine Lynch, urban creeks biologist for Seattle Public Utilities, points out that restoration projects are often limited in scope and extent.
“The reality,” she told me, “is that when you go in and do restoration work, you are only doing a short reach. These projects (in Seattle) are a way of exploring what works and what doesn’t.”
To restore or improve salmon habitat in a stream, the challenge is to understand what has been broken in a complex interactive system. Factors include water quality, water flow, clean gravel, and the intricate interactions of the food web — from microscopic organisms to large fish, including predators that eat young salmon.
Emily Schwabe, left, and other members of King County’s bug-seeding team transplant rocks with attached invertebrates to Seattle’s Taylor Creek this past August. // Photo: King County

Take water quality, for example. Until recently, nobody knew what was killing adult coho salmon that found their way into urban streams. Scientists tracked the problem to stormwater entering the waterways from roads and highways. Then last year, thanks to advanced analytical tools, researchers were able to identify the killer compound, which comes from a chemical found in tires. Until then, nobody seemed to know anything about this chemical, let alone thinking that tires might have lethal properties. (EoPS, Dec. 3, 2020).
The discovery opened a lot of eyes to questions about how to identify “clean” water and the prospect that unknown chemicals may be causing unidentified problems in waterways throughout Puget Sound and across the country. The tire-related compound has been found to have lesser effects on steelhead and Chinook but no apparent effects on chum or sockeye. Work continues on varieties of species that might be exposed to road runoff, not just in urban areas but practically everywhere.
The discovery that dying coho could be linked to a tire chemical, known as 6PPD, and its deadly oxidation product, 6PPD-quinone, raises even more questions about the sublethal effects of other chemicals not yet identified. Standard water-quality tests cannot capture the toxicity of unknown chemicals in a stream. Even biological tests, such as using aquatic invertebrates (EoPS), may not reveal the toxic effects on vertebrates — such as fish, birds and humans.
Besides water quality, water flow may be a critical ingredient in stream restoration. I’ve been hearing a lot lately about hyporheic flow — the flow through gravel beneath a stream bed — and its effects on temperature (EoPS, Aug. 19) and oxygen supply, even its ability to filter contaminants.
In Seattle’s Thornton Creek, an understanding of hyporheic flow led to an engineered design in which the stream channel was dug out — up to 8 feet in some places — and replaced with gravel, according to Paul Bakke, owner of a firm called The Science of Rivers who monitored the physical functioning of the project. Rocks and logs were lodged in the streambed along with an impermeable barrier that forced the flowing water deep into the underlying gravel. The water plunges down into deep gravel, coming back up and diving down again several times in each of two reconstructed portions of the stream. The gravel helps filter fine sediments from the stream, but the configuration of the channel allows these fines to be washed on downstream during high flows, Paul explained. Organic chemicals in the water adhere to deeper gravel, where large fractions of chemicals are broken down by microbes.
A restored section of Seattle’s Thornton Creek soon after construction in 2014.
Photo: Seattle Public Utilities

A team of researchers affiliated with the Center for Urban Waters in Tacoma evaluated the fate of 83 chemicals moving downstream in Thornton Creek. Included were the toxic tire chemicals. The hyporheic flow path substantially improved water quality, according to the findings published in 2019 in the journal Water Research.
After construction of the hyporheic zone, Paul found that the vertical flow rate in the new gravel was 89 times higher than in the previous streambed, which had been impounded by a heavy sediment load. In fact, the fresh gravel produced a flow rate 17 times higher than in a forested stream in the mountains of Idaho.
The newly engineered stream also included a floodplain, created by removing flood-prone houses from the area. During high flows, sediment-containing water moves from the stream channel into the floodplain, where lower water velocities allow the sediment to settle out. That helps to protect the stream channel from excess sediment.
According to Paul, the key to success was rebuilding the stream by carefully choosing the width and depth of the channel and floodplain. The new configuration balances the forces of erosion and deposition, thus maintaining the channel in a more natural condition. In addition to Paul, the lead channel designer was Mike “Rocky” Hrachovec, owner of Natural Systems Design. For details of the design, check out the article in Research Outreach or the more technical article in the journal Water.
In October 2018, a pair of Chinook salmon spawn in a restored section of Thornton Creek. // Photo from GoPro video: Chapin Pier, Seattle Public Utilities

The ability of the restored sections of Thornton Creek to clean themselves, increase oxygen levels and mediate temperatures has led to a healthier condition, despite the urban setting in North Seattle.
In 2018, four years after construction, a female Chinook salmon swam warily upstream. With a male Chinook standing by, she deposited her eggs, which were quickly fertilized by the male.
“They spawned,” Katherine said. “We had never seen salmon spawn in the project region.”
A lack of funding and the COVID-19 pandemic have prevented further in-person monitoring of salmon movements, but new methods of testing for the presence of salmon are being developed. Seattle officials hope that salmon populations will increase in Thornton Creek, where beavers have established a new dam on the project site.
Along with new research into stream ecology come better methods of stream restoration and the chance that salmon and other species will find a suitable home. The same can be said for such “adaptive management” in relation to shoreline, wetland and estuary projects that bring us closer to a true recovery of our native species.

Recovery of Puget Sound species could hinge on better understanding of ecosystems

A recent report from the Puget Sound Partnership helps us understand the difficulty of restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem. What caught my attention in the State of the Sound report was that after 20 years of protecting and restoring streams, wetlands, shorelines and estuaries, we have not increased overall fish and wildlife populations, and some remain in a downward spiral. (Our Water Ways, Nov. 3).
Several reasons have been given for the disappointing findings, including ongoing habitat losses from an increasing human population in the Puget Sound region. Clearly, there is a need to find ways to accommodate growth while protecting the remaining functional habitats.

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

At the same time, I would like to focus some attention on the restoration side of the equation. It seems we may not yet understand what it takes to restore habitats in ways that allow the food web to thrive, thus allowing increasing numbers of higher predators, such as birds, salmon and killer whales.
I recently wrote about some bug-seeding experiments underway in several streams that flow through urban areas in Seattle (Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, Oct. 21). For some reason, populations of aquatic insects known to provide food for salmon were not recovered to the degree expected, given efforts to restore the stream channel, remove invasive weeds, plant native vegetation and reduce pollution to improve water quality. As a result, researchers launched a project of transplanting important insects from a healthy stream. So far, results are mixed.
Katherine Lynch, urban creeks biologist for Seattle Public Utilities, points out that restoration projects are often limited in scope and extent.
“The reality,” she told me, “is that when you go in and do restoration work, you are only doing a short reach. These projects (in Seattle) are a way of exploring what works and what doesn’t.”
To restore or improve salmon habitat in a stream, the challenge is to understand what has been broken in a complex interactive system. Factors include water quality, water flow, clean gravel, and the intricate interactions of the food web — from microscopic organisms to large fish, including predators that eat young salmon.
Emily Schwabe, left, and other members of King County’s bug-seeding team transplant rocks with attached invertebrates to Seattle’s Taylor Creek this past August. // Photo: King County

Take water quality, for example. Until recently, nobody knew what was killing adult coho salmon that found their way into urban streams. Scientists tracked the problem to stormwater entering the waterways from roads and highways. Then last year, thanks to advanced analytical tools, researchers were able to identify the killer compound, which comes from a chemical found in tires. Until then, nobody seemed to know anything about this chemical, let alone thinking that tires might have lethal properties. (EoPS, Dec. 3, 2020).
The discovery opened a lot of eyes to questions about how to identify “clean” water and the prospect that unknown chemicals may be causing unidentified problems in waterways throughout Puget Sound and across the country. The tire-related compound has been found to have lesser effects on steelhead and Chinook but no apparent effects on chum or sockeye. Work continues on varieties of species that might be exposed to road runoff, not just in urban areas but practically everywhere.
The discovery that dying coho could be linked to a tire chemical, known as 6PPD, and its deadly oxidation product, 6PPD-quinone, raises even more questions about the sublethal effects of other chemicals not yet identified. Standard water-quality tests cannot capture the toxicity of unknown chemicals in a stream. Even biological tests, such as using aquatic invertebrates (EoPS), may not reveal the toxic effects on vertebrates — such as fish, birds and humans.
Besides water quality, water flow may be a critical ingredient in stream restoration. I’ve been hearing a lot lately about hyporheic flow — the flow through gravel beneath a stream bed — and its effects on temperature (EoPS, Aug. 19) and oxygen supply, even its ability to filter contaminants.
In Seattle’s Thornton Creek, an understanding of hyporheic flow led to an engineered design in which the stream channel was dug out — up to 8 feet in some places — and replaced with gravel, according to Paul Bakke, owner of a firm called The Science of Rivers who monitored the physical functioning of the project. Rocks and logs were lodged in the streambed along with an impermeable barrier that forced the flowing water deep into the underlying gravel. The water plunges down into deep gravel, coming back up and diving down again several times in each of two reconstructed portions of the stream. The gravel helps filter fine sediments from the stream, but the configuration of the channel allows these fines to be washed on downstream during high flows, Paul explained. Organic chemicals in the water adhere to deeper gravel, where large fractions of chemicals are broken down by microbes.
A restored section of Seattle’s Thornton Creek soon after construction in 2014.
Photo: Seattle Public Utilities

A team of researchers affiliated with the Center for Urban Waters in Tacoma evaluated the fate of 83 chemicals moving downstream in Thornton Creek. Included were the toxic tire chemicals. The hyporheic flow path substantially improved water quality, according to the findings published in 2019 in the journal Water Research.
After construction of the hyporheic zone, Paul found that the vertical flow rate in the new gravel was 89 times higher than in the previous streambed, which had been impounded by a heavy sediment load. In fact, the fresh gravel produced a flow rate 17 times higher than in a forested stream in the mountains of Idaho.
The newly engineered stream also included a floodplain, created by removing flood-prone houses from the area. During high flows, sediment-containing water moves from the stream channel into the floodplain, where lower water velocities allow the sediment to settle out. That helps to protect the stream channel from excess sediment.
According to Paul, the key to success was rebuilding the stream by carefully choosing the width and depth of the channel and floodplain. The new configuration balances the forces of erosion and deposition, thus maintaining the channel in a more natural condition. In addition to Paul, the lead channel designer was Mike “Rocky” Hrachovec, owner of Natural Systems Design. For details of the design, check out the article in Research Outreach or the more technical article in the journal Water.
In October 2018, a pair of Chinook salmon spawn in a restored section of Thornton Creek. // Photo from GoPro video: Chapin Pier, Seattle Public Utilities

The ability of the restored sections of Thornton Creek to clean themselves, increase oxygen levels and mediate temperatures has led to a healthier condition, despite the urban setting in North Seattle.
In 2018, four years after construction, a female Chinook salmon swam warily upstream. With a male Chinook standing by, she deposited her eggs, which were quickly fertilized by the male.
“They spawned,” Katherine said. “We had never seen salmon spawn in the project region.”
A lack of funding and the COVID-19 pandemic have prevented further in-person monitoring of salmon movements, but new methods of testing for the presence of salmon are being developed. Seattle officials hope that salmon populations will increase in Thornton Creek, where beavers have established a new dam on the project site.
Along with new research into stream ecology come better methods of stream restoration and the chance that salmon and other species will find a suitable home. The same can be said for such “adaptive management” in relation to shoreline, wetland and estuary projects that bring us closer to a true recovery of our native species.

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repairs of bulkheads, docks and other structures now involve habitat assessment

In a major policy shift by federal authorities, waterfront maintenance and reconstruction projects are undergoing increased scrutiny — not only for their environmental impacts during and after construction but for effects that ripple through time.
The change, imposed by NOAA Fisheries to protect threatened and endangered species, requires compensation for environmental damage calculated over the life of a shoreline structure. So compensation comes into play even where a structure is merely replacing an old one. Previously, in most cases, the agency did not require environmental compensation for repair and replacement projects permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers — unless the projects were some type of expansion.

West Seattle’s complex shoreline exemplifies the need to find new ways to hold the line on declining habitat. // Photo: Aimee Kinney, Puget Sound Institute

This change in policy is welcomed by environmental and tribal leaders, who say ongoing reconstruction of bulkheads, docks and other shoreline structures perpetuates the well-documented habitat damage that starts when a structure is first built. Requiring compensation for maintenance and reconstruction is a way to hold the line in the face of ongoing development, they say.
“This is NOAA really standing up for the resource,” declared Fran Wilshusen, habitat services director for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “It has been a long time coming, but it is a very positive change.”
The environmental compensation, known as “offsets” by NOAA Fisheries, requires project proponents to fund habitat improvements nearby but separate from their projects, or else purchasing “credits” offered by Puget Sound Partnership or other organizations involved in habitat restoration.
Shoreline property owners, marina managers and contractors say the cost of paying for such compensation will discourage needed upgrades, many of which actually improve the environment — such as replacing creosote pilings and bulkheads with nontoxic materials.
“I’m afraid it is counterproductive if you really want people to do the right thing,” said Bob Wise, who has been waiting three years to obtain a permit to upgrade Port Hadlock Marina, near Port Townsend, with environmentally sound materials.
Adding a time element
A growing body of scientific research confirms the importance of the nearshore habitat to the survival of endangered species, including salmon and southern resident killer whales, said Jennifer Quan, branch chief for South Puget Sound in NOAA Fisheries’ West Coast Region.
Consequently, starting in 2017, regional experts at NOAA Fisheries determined that Corps permits for maintenance and reconstruction projects should no longer be allowed to bypass extensive review by way of “informal consultation” under the Endangered Species Act. Such a review requires a finding of “not likely to adversely affect” listed species — something that can no longer be justified, Quan said.
The move to “formal consultation” between the agencies requires a more rigorous investigation into the impacts of each project.
Time became a key element in the new analysis by NOAA Fisheries, which reasoned that structures all have a usable lifespan. If not rebuilt, then a structure eventually will be removed, one way or another. Work that extends the life of a structure thus creates an add-on environmental impact.
The concept of time is incorporated into a credit/debit system for estimating environmental impact. Note the condensed time scale. (Click to enlarge) // Graphic: NOAA Fisheries

To quantify environmental impacts into a common “currency,” NOAA Fisheries relied on studies such as the Habitat Equivalency Analysis, long used to estimate natural resource damages caused by oil spills and other destructive events. Subsequently, the agency developed a “debit/credit conservation calculator” to add up all the effects on shoreline habitat, good and bad, resulting from a specific project.
While rebuilding a dock would result in an environmental debit, the number would be less if built with a grated deck to allow light to penetrate to the water below, thus improving conditions for eelgrass and migrating salmon. The debit can be offset with credits for reducing the size of the structure or improving shoreline habitat elsewhere, either on-site or off-site. Credit also is given for removing the old structure before its useful life is over.
Alternatively, a project could purchase credits to erase the deficit under new programs being developed through cooperative agreements. One is with the Puget Sound Partnership, which is now selling credits and will use the money for environmental restoration. Other programs involve Hood Canal Coordinating Council for projects in Hood Canal along with Blue Heron Slough Conservation Bank for projects in an area that extends from the Snohomish River estuary.
Environmental advancement
As part of its review, NOAA Fisheries found that the overall impact of ongoing shoreline projects puts Chinook salmon in jeopardy of extinction — a so-called jeopardy finding. The result also reflects an increased risk to the survival of the endangered southern resident orcas, which rely largely on Chinook for food.
“This is huge,” said Wilshusen of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “This is the first time that we have had a jeopardy finding without a dead fish. We all know that degraded habitat is having a major effect on salmon. Now we have the science to back it up. We can’t have any more habitat loss. We really have to have some gain.
“The tribes were not involved in developing this new approach,” she added, “but we are very optimistic.”
A southern resident killer whale hunts a Chinook salmon. Photograph: NOAA Fisheries.
A southern resident killer whale hunts a Chinook salmon. // Photo: NOAA Fisheries

The extinction of Chinook salmon and killer whales is a real risk, Wilshusn said, not to mention the decline of a host of other species, all dependent on each other and the habitat where they live. Changing the present course is essential.
“Hopefully, we are coming to realize that we have run out of space to continue our lives as usual,” she continued. “We are moving into an awkward period of transition, as we go from a pollution-based economy to a life-giving economy.”
Tim Trohimovich, director of planning and law for Futurewise, an environmental organization, said he would not be surprised if the concept of adding a time element in measuring environmental impact is picked up in permitting by Washington state and by other federal offices across the country.
“One reason for doing this is the dire straits that the southern residents are in,” he said. “Other species are in deep trouble throughout the United States, and I think we are going to see more of this approach at the federal, state and local levels.”
Programmatic approach and new review
After NOAA Fisheries decided that it was legally obligated to conduct more thorough reviews of shoreline projects — including maintenance and reconstruction — the agency was confronted with a much heavier workload with limited staff.
A biological opinion groups together 39 proposed nearshore projects planned for the locations shown here. // Map: NOAA Fisheries

To smooth the approval process for new applications, officials began working on a “programmatic consultation” to be used in quantifying the impacts from all sorts of projects. Debits and credits would be based on project location and design parameters, such as length of bulkhead, number of pilings and so on. A written document spelling out “reasonable and prudent” methods of avoiding the critical jeopardy finding would require buy-in from the Army Corps of Engineers, which issues the permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
So far, officials with NOAA Fisheries and the Corps of Engineers have not come to agreement on the so-called Salish Sea Nearshore Programmatic. Letters between NOAA and the Corps reflect numerous concerns about technical issues as well as questions about measuring environmental impacts — such as how one determines the useful life of an existing structure. Negotiations continue between the two agencies.
As permit applications piled up, NOAA Fisheries grouped together 39 nearshore projects in Puget Sound for which the Army Corps of Engineers had requested consultation since May of 2018. The variety of projects ranged from commercial marinas to dredging projects, with about a third being repair or replacement of shoreline bulkheads. The resulting biological opinion (PDF 7 mb), released in November, includes an overall environmental analysis along with design details for each of the 39 projects.
After working with project proponents to reduce environmental impacts, the document shows final debits and credits, with a net “offset” needed to ensure no net loss of habitat function. It turns out that 12 of the projects provided enough environmental benefits so that no further action is needed. The other 27 projects have debits ranging from -2.1 for a small moorage project to -2,043 for an extensive bulkhead/breakwater replacement. The 27 projects have a combined deficit of -8,158.
To eliminate the deficit for an individual project, proponents may revise their plans to reduce the deficit or propose on-site or off-site habitat-restoration projects to gain the needed credits. Another option is to purchase credits outright from an approved organization that would use the money to conduct environmental restoration equivalent to the damage quantified by the debit/credit calculator.
Purchasing credits
Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency responsible for coordinating ecosystem recovery in Puget Sound, has launched a pilot project for selling conservation credits. Approved by NOAA Fisheries, the “Partnership Nearshore Credits Program” will initially conduct its restoration work by removing creosote pilings, which emit toxic chemicals that degrade water quality and damage nearby habitat. The work will be conducted in cooperation with an existing creosote-removal program being run by the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
The cost of each credit currently stands at $800, according to Ahren Stroming, special projects assistant at the Puget Sound Partnership. The cost of the credits will be re-evaluated each year, he noted.
As the program moves forward, moneys received could be directed to other restoration projects, possibly even large projects currently funded through state and federal grant programs. The state’s Recreation and Conservation Office will manage the fiscal aspects of the new credits program for Puget Sound Partnership.
Other organizations also are working to set up programs to sell credits that align with the NOAA’s debit/credit calculator. One is Hood Canal Coordinating Council, which already sells mitigation credits under a multi-agency in-lieu-fee mitigation program, which has been used by the Navy to offset environmental damage from construction work at the Bangor submarine base. Another is Blue Heron Slough Conservation Bank, which conducts restoration work in the vicinity of the Snohomish River Estuary near Everett.
Project delays and increased cost
In 2017, Bob Wise was faced with an aging Eagle Harbor Marina on Bainbridge Island. It was time for an upgrade, he said, and he went to work on a total rebuild to improve conditions for tenants while better protecting the marine habitat. Steel pilings replaced creosote, grated decks replaced solid wood, and new floats replaced Styrofoam that was chipping away.
Wise says he had no trouble obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project, and the environmental upgrade has been widely heralded. The work complements the certification of Eagle Harbor Marina as a “clean marina” under the Clean Marina Washington program.
A year later, Wise applied for another permit to do the same thing at Port Hadlock Marina, which he also owns with his wife Lisa. “We’re going to put literally the best marina in the Puget Sound in Port Hadlock,” Wise proudly told The Leader newspaper in Port Townsend.
This time, he confronted a federal roadblock, as NOAA Fisheries had shifted from informal to formal consultations for maintenance and replacement projects in the face of growing concerns about the recovery of salmon, orcas and other marine species in Puget Sound.
Port Hadlock Marina // Photo: Washington Department of Ecology

According to Wise, NOAA officials told him they would soon have a new programmatic consultation process that would calculate how much environmental compensation he would need to provide to get his project underway.
“That was three years ago,” he said. “I have been sitting here, saying there are things at this marina that are harming the environment, and I want to take them out.”
The delay has been infuriating for dozens of project proponents waiting to obtain permits for all sorts of projects.
Logan Brown, president of the company Marine Floats in Tacoma, says he is contracting with eight or nine of the 39 project proponents in the group of applications now being batch-processed. Waiting for the projects to get reviewed is one thing, he said. Now it is a matter of trying to make sense of the result.
“The fault is in the logic that if they do not permit a replacement, then (the structure) will just disappear at some point,” he said. “In fact, the impact is increased. As these structures get older, they deteriorate faster, and the materials break down and spread, causing greater environmental impact.”
Brown said the science behind the change has never been adequately explained to those affected by the outcome, and none of the findings have been subject to public review, despite potentially millions of dollars on the line.
“They are trying to roll this out on the fly with practically no oversight or meaningful input from the industry,” he said. “Nobody wants to come down on the wrong side of environmental protection, but our position is that this regulation is not only stopping upkeep but it may be creating safety concerns at some marinas. Because of this approach, some environmental improvements are not taking place.”
The increased cost and complication of permitting may cause less responsible owners to keep patching up their facilities without doing the environmentally responsible upgrades, observers say. Some worry that the program will lead to work being done without required permits.
Assuming that he can obtain the needed credits at $800 apiece, Wise says the new permit will cost him $120,000 more than he expected while planning his upgrade.
“That’s not a trivial amount of money,” he said. “We’re just a family-owned business. I don’t know how this will fit into my model.”
Financing the project is a major issue, he said, and banks loan money on tangible assets, not on credits derived from a conservation calculator.
“I thought we were all ready to go,” he said, “but now we will have to think about it.”
With concerns running high for salmon and orcas, nobody disputes the need for environmental restoration. Yet to be seen, however, is whether the new permitting approach to maintenance and repair can overcome potential legal hurdles and become a smoothly running operation.
——-
Public information
NOAA Fisheries will hold online public workshops on Jan. 26 and Jan. 28 to explain the conservation calculator that the agency developed to assess the value of nearshore habitat. Both workshops will run from 9 to 11 a.m. Details will be posted on the webpage Puget Sound Nearshore Habitat Conservation Calculator.

Repairs of bulkheads, docks and other structures now involve habitat assessment

In a major policy shift by federal authorities, waterfront maintenance and reconstruction projects are undergoing increased scrutiny — not only for their environmental impacts during and after construction but for effects that ripple through time.
The change, imposed by NOAA Fisheries to protect threatened and endangered species, requires compensation for environmental damage calculated over the life of a shoreline structure. So compensation comes into play even where a structure is merely replacing an old one. Previously, in most cases, the agency did not require environmental compensation for repair and replacement projects permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers — unless the projects were some type of expansion.

West Seattle’s complex shoreline exemplifies the need to find new ways to hold the line on declining habitat. // Photo: Aimee Kinney, Puget Sound Institute

This change in policy is welcomed by environmental and tribal leaders, who say ongoing reconstruction of bulkheads, docks and other shoreline structures perpetuates the well-documented habitat damage that starts when a structure is first built. Requiring compensation for maintenance and reconstruction is a way to hold the line in the face of ongoing development, they say.
“This is NOAA really standing up for the resource,” declared Fran Wilshusen, habitat services director for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “It has been a long time coming, but it is a very positive change.”
The environmental compensation, known as “offsets” by NOAA Fisheries, requires project proponents to fund habitat improvements nearby but separate from their projects, or else purchasing “credits” offered by Puget Sound Partnership or other organizations involved in habitat restoration.
Shoreline property owners, marina managers and contractors say the cost of paying for such compensation will discourage needed upgrades, many of which actually improve the environment — such as replacing creosote pilings and bulkheads with nontoxic materials.
“I’m afraid it is counterproductive if you really want people to do the right thing,” said Bob Wise, who has been waiting three years to obtain a permit to upgrade Port Hadlock Marina, near Port Townsend, with environmentally sound materials.
Adding a time element
A growing body of scientific research confirms the importance of the nearshore habitat to the survival of endangered species, including salmon and southern resident killer whales, said Jennifer Quan, branch chief for South Puget Sound in NOAA Fisheries’ West Coast Region.
Consequently, starting in 2017, regional experts at NOAA Fisheries determined that Corps permits for maintenance and reconstruction projects should no longer be allowed to bypass extensive review by way of “informal consultation” under the Endangered Species Act. Such a review requires a finding of “not likely to adversely affect” listed species — something that can no longer be justified, Quan said.
The move to “formal consultation” between the agencies requires a more rigorous investigation into the impacts of each project.
Time became a key element in the new analysis by NOAA Fisheries, which reasoned that structures all have a usable lifespan. If not rebuilt, then a structure eventually will be removed, one way or another. Work that extends the life of a structure thus creates an add-on environmental impact.
The concept of time is incorporated into a credit/debit system for estimating environmental impact. Note the condensed time scale. (Click to enlarge) // Graphic: NOAA Fisheries

To quantify environmental impacts into a common “currency,” NOAA Fisheries relied on studies such as the Habitat Equivalency Analysis, long used to estimate natural resource damages caused by oil spills and other destructive events. Subsequently, the agency developed a “debit/credit conservation calculator” to add up all the effects on shoreline habitat, good and bad, resulting from a specific project.
While rebuilding a dock would result in an environmental debit, the number would be less if built with a grated deck to allow light to penetrate to the water below, thus improving conditions for eelgrass and migrating salmon. The debit can be offset with credits for reducing the size of the structure or improving shoreline habitat elsewhere, either on-site or off-site. Credit also is given for removing the old structure before its useful life is over.
Alternatively, a project could purchase credits to erase the deficit under new programs being developed through cooperative agreements. One is with the Puget Sound Partnership, which is now selling credits and will use the money for environmental restoration. Other programs involve Hood Canal Coordinating Council for projects in Hood Canal along with Blue Heron Slough Conservation Bank for projects in an area that extends from the Snohomish River estuary.
Environmental advancement
As part of its review, NOAA Fisheries found that the overall impact of ongoing shoreline projects puts Chinook salmon in jeopardy of extinction — a so-called jeopardy finding. The result also reflects an increased risk to the survival of the endangered southern resident orcas, which rely largely on Chinook for food.
“This is huge,” said Wilshusen of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “This is the first time that we have had a jeopardy finding without a dead fish. We all know that degraded habitat is having a major effect on salmon. Now we have the science to back it up. We can’t have any more habitat loss. We really have to have some gain.
“The tribes were not involved in developing this new approach,” she added, “but we are very optimistic.”
A southern resident killer whale hunts a Chinook salmon. Photograph: NOAA Fisheries.
A southern resident killer whale hunts a Chinook salmon. // Photo: NOAA Fisheries

The extinction of Chinook salmon and killer whales is a real risk, Wilshusn said, not to mention the decline of a host of other species, all dependent on each other and the habitat where they live. Changing the present course is essential.
“Hopefully, we are coming to realize that we have run out of space to continue our lives as usual,” she continued. “We are moving into an awkward period of transition, as we go from a pollution-based economy to a life-giving economy.”
Tim Trohimovich, director of planning and law for Futurewise, an environmental organization, said he would not be surprised if the concept of adding a time element in measuring environmental impact is picked up in permitting by Washington state and by other federal offices across the country.
“One reason for doing this is the dire straits that the southern residents are in,” he said. “Other species are in deep trouble throughout the United States, and I think we are going to see more of this approach at the federal, state and local levels.”
Programmatic approach and new review
After NOAA Fisheries decided that it was legally obligated to conduct more thorough reviews of shoreline projects — including maintenance and reconstruction — the agency was confronted with a much heavier workload with limited staff.
A biological opinion groups together 39 proposed nearshore projects planned for the locations shown here. // Map: NOAA Fisheries

To smooth the approval process for new applications, officials began working on a “programmatic consultation” to be used in quantifying the impacts from all sorts of projects. Debits and credits would be based on project location and design parameters, such as length of bulkhead, number of pilings and so on. A written document spelling out “reasonable and prudent” methods of avoiding the critical jeopardy finding would require buy-in from the Army Corps of Engineers, which issues the permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
So far, officials with NOAA Fisheries and the Corps of Engineers have not come to agreement on the so-called Salish Sea Nearshore Programmatic. Letters between NOAA and the Corps reflect numerous concerns about technical issues as well as questions about measuring environmental impacts — such as how one determines the useful life of an existing structure. Negotiations continue between the two agencies.
As permit applications piled up, NOAA Fisheries grouped together 39 nearshore projects in Puget Sound for which the Army Corps of Engineers had requested consultation since May of 2018. The variety of projects ranged from commercial marinas to dredging projects, with about a third being repair or replacement of shoreline bulkheads. The resulting biological opinion (PDF 7 mb), released in November, includes an overall environmental analysis along with design details for each of the 39 projects.
After working with project proponents to reduce environmental impacts, the document shows final debits and credits, with a net “offset” needed to ensure no net loss of habitat function. It turns out that 12 of the projects provided enough environmental benefits so that no further action is needed. The other 27 projects have debits ranging from -2.1 for a small moorage project to -2,043 for an extensive bulkhead/breakwater replacement. The 27 projects have a combined deficit of -8,158.
To eliminate the deficit for an individual project, proponents may revise their plans to reduce the deficit or propose on-site or off-site habitat-restoration projects to gain the needed credits. Another option is to purchase credits outright from an approved organization that would use the money to conduct environmental restoration equivalent to the damage quantified by the debit/credit calculator.
Purchasing credits
Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency responsible for coordinating ecosystem recovery in Puget Sound, has launched a pilot project for selling conservation credits. Approved by NOAA Fisheries, the “Partnership Nearshore Credits Program” will initially conduct its restoration work by removing creosote pilings, which emit toxic chemicals that degrade water quality and damage nearby habitat. The work will be conducted in cooperation with an existing creosote-removal program being run by the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
The cost of each credit currently stands at $800, according to Ahren Stroming, special projects assistant at the Puget Sound Partnership. The cost of the credits will be re-evaluated each year, he noted.
As the program moves forward, moneys received could be directed to other restoration projects, possibly even large projects currently funded through state and federal grant programs. The state’s Recreation and Conservation Office will manage the fiscal aspects of the new credits program for Puget Sound Partnership.
Other organizations also are working to set up programs to sell credits that align with the NOAA’s debit/credit calculator. One is Hood Canal Coordinating Council, which already sells mitigation credits under a multi-agency in-lieu-fee mitigation program, which has been used by the Navy to offset environmental damage from construction work at the Bangor submarine base. Another is Blue Heron Slough Conservation Bank, which conducts restoration work in the vicinity of the Snohomish River Estuary near Everett.
Project delays and increased cost
In 2017, Bob Wise was faced with an aging Eagle Harbor Marina on Bainbridge Island. It was time for an upgrade, he said, and he went to work on a total rebuild to improve conditions for tenants while better protecting the marine habitat. Steel pilings replaced creosote, grated decks replaced solid wood, and new floats replaced Styrofoam that was chipping away.
Wise says he had no trouble obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project, and the environmental upgrade has been widely heralded. The work complements the certification of Eagle Harbor Marina as a “clean marina” under the Clean Marina Washington program.
A year later, Wise applied for another permit to do the same thing at Port Hadlock Marina, which he also owns with his wife Lisa. “We’re going to put literally the best marina in the Puget Sound in Port Hadlock,” Wise proudly told The Leader newspaper in Port Townsend.
This time, he confronted a federal roadblock, as NOAA Fisheries had shifted from informal to formal consultations for maintenance and replacement projects in the face of growing concerns about the recovery of salmon, orcas and other marine species in Puget Sound.
Port Hadlock Marina // Photo: Washington Department of Ecology

According to Wise, NOAA officials told him they would soon have a new programmatic consultation process that would calculate how much environmental compensation he would need to provide to get his project underway.
“That was three years ago,” he said. “I have been sitting here, saying there are things at this marina that are harming the environment, and I want to take them out.”
The delay has been infuriating for dozens of project proponents waiting to obtain permits for all sorts of projects.
Logan Brown, president of the company Marine Floats in Tacoma, says he is contracting with eight or nine of the 39 project proponents in the group of applications now being batch-processed. Waiting for the projects to get reviewed is one thing, he said. Now it is a matter of trying to make sense of the result.
“The fault is in the logic that if they do not permit a replacement, then (the structure) will just disappear at some point,” he said. “In fact, the impact is increased. As these structures get older, they deteriorate faster, and the materials break down and spread, causing greater environmental impact.”
Brown said the science behind the change has never been adequately explained to those affected by the outcome, and none of the findings have been subject to public review, despite potentially millions of dollars on the line.
“They are trying to roll this out on the fly with practically no oversight or meaningful input from the industry,” he said. “Nobody wants to come down on the wrong side of environmental protection, but our position is that this regulation is not only stopping upkeep but it may be creating safety concerns at some marinas. Because of this approach, some environmental improvements are not taking place.”
The increased cost and complication of permitting may cause less responsible owners to keep patching up their facilities without doing the environmentally responsible upgrades, observers say. Some worry that the program will lead to work being done without required permits.
Assuming that he can obtain the needed credits at $800 apiece, Wise says the new permit will cost him $120,000 more than he expected while planning his upgrade.
“That’s not a trivial amount of money,” he said. “We’re just a family-owned business. I don’t know how this will fit into my model.”
Financing the project is a major issue, he said, and banks loan money on tangible assets, not on credits derived from a conservation calculator.
“I thought we were all ready to go,” he said, “but now we will have to think about it.”
With concerns running high for salmon and orcas, nobody disputes the need for environmental restoration. Yet to be seen, however, is whether the new permitting approach to maintenance and repair can overcome potential legal hurdles and become a smoothly running operation.
——-
Public information
NOAA Fisheries will hold online public workshops on Jan. 26 and Jan. 28 to explain the conservation calculator that the agency developed to assess the value of nearshore habitat. Both workshops will run from 9 to 11 a.m. Details will be posted on the webpage Puget Sound Nearshore Habitat Conservation Calculator.

Orca census: One death in January, but no births were reported until September

UPDATE, Oct. 6
The newest calf among the Southern Resident killer whales was officially designated J58 after being seen alive and healthy on Sunday. The calf is the offspring of J49, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, J51 or Nova.
Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research had been withholding the official designation until CWR staffers could be sure the newborn had survived and was healthy.
In Sunday’s encounter off San Juan Island, CWR staffers Dave Ellifrit and and Katie Jones reported, “Both J41 and J51 were chasing the fish and J58 was right there in the middle of the action. After the chase, the threesome pointed down island and then inshore.”
—–
This year’s official census for the endangered killer whales that frequent Puget Sound will record one new orca death but no births from mid-2019 to mid-2020.
Because the census accounts for the southern resident orca population as of July 1 each year, this year’s report will not include the much-welcomed birth of J57, born on or around Sept. 4 to Tahlequah, or J35, according to Ken Balcomb, director of the Center for Whale Research who compiles the annual census documents.

The head of the new calf, J57, can be seen alongside its mother, Tahlequah, or J35.
Photo: Katie Jones, Center for Whale Research

Ken and his associates were able to complete the census and confirm the birth of the new orca calf after all three southern resident pods gathered together in widely dispersed groups on Sept. 5. After reviewing photos from that day, Ken has informed federal officials that this year’s census count will be 72 southern resident orcas. A formal report with photos and data about each whale is expected to be submitted by Oct. 1, as required by a federal contract for the census work.
In years past, all the whales were generally seen in and around the San Juan Islands by mid-June, so the census could be completed right after July 1. But in recent years, the whales have been coming back late and staying around for shorter visits — probably because of declines in Chinook salmon, their primary food source.
For the census, we have 22 orcas in J pod, 17 in K pod and 33 in L pod, for a total of 72. That does not count the new calf, born after this year’s census period, nor Lolita (Tokitae), the only southern resident whale still alive in captivity. For a list, see births and deaths by Orca Network or “Meet the Whales” by The Whale Museum. Last year’s census report listed four deaths and two births for the year (Water Ways, Aug. 6, 2019).
It is disappointing not to have any births to report for the annual census. The one death on the list is a male orca named Mega, or L41, said to be the prolific father of at least 20 offspring. Check out Water Ways, Jan. 30, or read the note of reflection that Ken wrote when confirming the death. Also of interest is an article from NOAA researchers discussing the breeding patterns of killer whales and what it means to lose a whale like Mega.
Even though the newest calf was not born soon enough to be counted with this year’s census, the news of the birth was happily received and widely reported. (See news release from CWR.) It was a great story, especially considering that Tahlequah is the same mom that mourned the loss of her previous calf in the summer of 2018, when she carried her dead offspring on her head for 17 days. During that time, Tahlequah, then 20 years old, traveled an estimated 1,000 miles throughout the Salish Sea in what was called the “Tour of Grief” by staffers at the Center for Whale Research.
The new calf is energetic and appears to be healthy, unlike some of the calves born in recent years, Ken told me. As many as 40 percent of young orcas in this group fail to survive their first year of life, and many more are believed to die in the womb.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/oxf9k2P2po8″%5D
Two other females appear to be pregnant at this time, based on recent aerial photos taken from a drone. Those whales are J41, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, and L72, a 34-year-old female named Racer, who also has one surviving offspring.
Sept. 5, the day the new calf was confirmed by orca researchers, was notable not just for the introduction of a young animal into the population but also for the fact that all three pods were essentially together for the first time this year.
Lodie Gilbert Budwill, community relations coordinator for CWR, posted a blog entry this morning about her personal experience on the water with Ken and the whales. She also posted a video, which I’ve shared on this page.
“Upon our arrival,” Lodie wrote, “the whales were spread across the border in social groups: some on the U.S. side, some still in Canadian waters. Ken spotted J35 and her calf from a distance and took photos with his telephoto lens. He commented while photographing, ‘Looks like a healthy and precocious baby.’ The calf was swimming next to J35’s side. It was a beautiful sight, mother and baby, both swimming…
“The female whale in the lead started vocalizing above water,” Lodie continued in her blog. “This made Ken giggle, and I couldn’t hold back an ‘Awwww!’ They stayed next to the boat positioned at the surface like this for several minutes. Ken photographed while I took video. I felt like I was witnessing a greeting ceremony between the whales and Ken!!!”
When it was time to go, the whales decided to follow Ken’s boat, according to Lodie’s vivid description. The whales were even porpoising through the water as they tried to keep up with the speeding boat.
“After several miles of breathtaking travel with escorts off both sides, Ken stopped the boat,” she said. “The whales stopped too. They moved in front of Chimo, just a short distance off the bow, and then engaged in a roly-poly, cuddle puddle.
“At this point, I was taking video with my jaw dropped to the floor! There are no words to fully describe this experience. It was like a love-fest of tactile behaviors at the surface of the water. We witnessed whales spy-hopping in unison, three and four at a time while cheek to cheek, rolling and twirling, pec-slapping, tail-lobbing. I felt like I was dreaming!”
Lodie ends her lively blog post with a very nice tribute to Ken, who is indeed a living legend.
A few final notes:
Smoke and killer whales: If the smoke from wildfires is not good for humans, then it’s not good for killer whales either. While one could hope that the whales would swim to an area with fresh air, the truth is that they are likely to stay in an area if they are finding fish to eat, Ken told me. In Alaska, a group of whales stayed in Prince William Sound after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, he said, despite the ongoing presence of irritating — and toxic — fumes coming off the oil.
Wildfire smoke can affect the human respiratory and cardiovascular systems in various ways, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is likely to do the same for air-breathing marine mammals, including killer whales.
Graphic: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Traveling whales: The southern residents should be venturing farther south into Puget Sound anytime now, as chum salmon begin to head back to their spawning streams. That’s the typical pattern of the orcas when the earlier Chinook runs decline. How long the whales remain in Central and South Puget Sound often depends on the size of the chum run.
Based on preseason forecasts by state and tribal biologists, we can expect to see one of the lowest chum runs in years. (See graph on this page.) Whether it will be enough to sustain the orcas for a while is yet to be seen.
Listen to orcas: Even when people can’t see the whales for the smoke, they can hear their calls with the help of underwater hydrophones in various places in Puget Sound. Such was the case last week, when dozens of scientists and other interested folks tuned in to Orcasound, according to a blog post by Scott Veirs, who coordinates the network. Thanks to Scott, here is a 30-second sample of what was heard near the San Juan Islands last week.

–

Orca census: One death in January, but no births were reported until September

UPDATE, Oct. 6
The newest calf among the Southern Resident killer whales was officially designated J58 after being seen alive and healthy on Sunday. The calf is the offspring of J49, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, J51 or Nova.
Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research had been withholding the official designation until CWR staffers could be sure the newborn had survived and was healthy.
In Sunday’s encounter off San Juan Island, CWR staffers Dave Ellifrit and and Katie Jones reported, “Both J41 and J51 were chasing the fish and J58 was right there in the middle of the action. After the chase, the threesome pointed down island and then inshore.”
—–
This year’s official census for the endangered killer whales that frequent Puget Sound will record one new orca death but no births from mid-2019 to mid-2020.
Because the census accounts for the southern resident orca population as of July 1 each year, this year’s report will not include the much-welcomed birth of J57, born on or around Sept. 4 to Tahlequah, or J35, according to Ken Balcomb, director of the Center for Whale Research who compiles the annual census documents.

The head of the new calf, J57, can be seen alongside its mother, Tahlequah, or J35.
Photo: Katie Jones, Center for Whale Research

Ken and his associates were able to complete the census and confirm the birth of the new orca calf after all three southern resident pods gathered together in widely dispersed groups on Sept. 5. After reviewing photos from that day, Ken has informed federal officials that this year’s census count will be 72 southern resident orcas. A formal report with photos and data about each whale is expected to be submitted by Oct. 1, as required by a federal contract for the census work.
In years past, all the whales were generally seen in and around the San Juan Islands by mid-June, so the census could be completed right after July 1. But in recent years, the whales have been coming back late and staying around for shorter visits — probably because of declines in Chinook salmon, their primary food source.
For the census, we have 22 orcas in J pod, 17 in K pod and 33 in L pod, for a total of 72. That does not count the new calf, born after this year’s census period, nor Lolita (Tokitae), the only southern resident whale still alive in captivity. For a list, see births and deaths by Orca Network or “Meet the Whales” by The Whale Museum. Last year’s census report listed four deaths and two births for the year (Water Ways, Aug. 6, 2019).
It is disappointing not to have any births to report for the annual census. The one death on the list is a male orca named Mega, or L41, said to be the prolific father of at least 20 offspring. Check out Water Ways, Jan. 30, or read the note of reflection that Ken wrote when confirming the death. Also of interest is an article from NOAA researchers discussing the breeding patterns of killer whales and what it means to lose a whale like Mega.
Even though the newest calf was not born soon enough to be counted with this year’s census, the news of the birth was happily received and widely reported. (See news release from CWR.) It was a great story, especially considering that Tahlequah is the same mom that mourned the loss of her previous calf in the summer of 2018, when she carried her dead offspring on her head for 17 days. During that time, Tahlequah, then 20 years old, traveled an estimated 1,000 miles throughout the Salish Sea in what was called the “Tour of Grief” by staffers at the Center for Whale Research.
The new calf is energetic and appears to be healthy, unlike some of the calves born in recent years, Ken told me. As many as 40 percent of young orcas in this group fail to survive their first year of life, and many more are believed to die in the womb.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/oxf9k2P2po8″%5D
Two other females appear to be pregnant at this time, based on recent aerial photos taken from a drone. Those whales are J41, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, and L72, a 34-year-old female named Racer, who also has one surviving offspring.
Sept. 5, the day the new calf was confirmed by orca researchers, was notable not just for the introduction of a young animal into the population but also for the fact that all three pods were essentially together for the first time this year.
Lodie Gilbert Budwill, community relations coordinator for CWR, posted a blog entry this morning about her personal experience on the water with Ken and the whales. She also posted a video, which I’ve shared on this page.
“Upon our arrival,” Lodie wrote, “the whales were spread across the border in social groups: some on the U.S. side, some still in Canadian waters. Ken spotted J35 and her calf from a distance and took photos with his telephoto lens. He commented while photographing, ‘Looks like a healthy and precocious baby.’ The calf was swimming next to J35’s side. It was a beautiful sight, mother and baby, both swimming…
“The female whale in the lead started vocalizing above water,” Lodie continued in her blog. “This made Ken giggle, and I couldn’t hold back an ‘Awwww!’ They stayed next to the boat positioned at the surface like this for several minutes. Ken photographed while I took video. I felt like I was witnessing a greeting ceremony between the whales and Ken!!!”
When it was time to go, the whales decided to follow Ken’s boat, according to Lodie’s vivid description. The whales were even porpoising through the water as they tried to keep up with the speeding boat.
“After several miles of breathtaking travel with escorts off both sides, Ken stopped the boat,” she said. “The whales stopped too. They moved in front of Chimo, just a short distance off the bow, and then engaged in a roly-poly, cuddle puddle.
“At this point, I was taking video with my jaw dropped to the floor! There are no words to fully describe this experience. It was like a love-fest of tactile behaviors at the surface of the water. We witnessed whales spy-hopping in unison, three and four at a time while cheek to cheek, rolling and twirling, pec-slapping, tail-lobbing. I felt like I was dreaming!”
Lodie ends her lively blog post with a very nice tribute to Ken, who is indeed a living legend.
A few final notes:
Smoke and killer whales: If the smoke from wildfires is not good for humans, then it’s not good for killer whales either. While one could hope that the whales would swim to an area with fresh air, the truth is that they are likely to stay in an area if they are finding fish to eat, Ken told me. In Alaska, a group of whales stayed in Prince William Sound after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, he said, despite the ongoing presence of irritating — and toxic — fumes coming off the oil.
Wildfire smoke can affect the human respiratory and cardiovascular systems in various ways, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is likely to do the same for air-breathing marine mammals, including killer whales.
Graphic: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Traveling whales: The southern residents should be venturing farther south into Puget Sound anytime now, as chum salmon begin to head back to their spawning streams. That’s the typical pattern of the orcas when the earlier Chinook runs decline. How long the whales remain in Central and South Puget Sound often depends on the size of the chum run.
Based on preseason forecasts by state and tribal biologists, we can expect to see one of the lowest chum runs in years. (See graph on this page.) Whether it will be enough to sustain the orcas for a while is yet to be seen.
Listen to orcas: Even when people can’t see the whales for the smoke, they can hear their calls with the help of underwater hydrophones in various places in Puget Sound. Such was the case last week, when dozens of scientists and other interested folks tuned in to Orcasound, according to a blog post by Scott Veirs, who coordinates the network. Thanks to Scott, here is a 30-second sample of what was heard near the San Juan Islands last week.

–

Does the public have a right to walk across a private beach? The answer is still unresolved

Even before Washington became a state in 1889, Puget Sound beaches had been exploited as log dumps, farmed for shellfish, occupied as homesites and enjoyed for recreation. But today, after 131 years of statehood, residents of this region still don’t know if they have a legal right to walk across a privately owned beach at low tide.
That’s because neither the Washington State Supreme Court nor the Legislature has ever clearly spelled out the limits of the Public Trust Doctrine — an ancient legal principle that provides for common citizens to retain certain rights to themselves, regardless of property ownership. For example, the right of navigation allows anyone to float a boat practically anywhere in Puget Sound, even directly over private property.
But what if someone decides to step out of the boat into shallow water and stand on the bottom? That’s where things become murky. If the underlying property is privately owned tidelands, the legality of that act remains subject to debate among legal scholars. The same reasoning applies to citizens who walk across the wet portions of a beach at low tide.
For the past 40 years, I’ve been intrigued with the nature and application of the Public Trust Doctrine, which has been invoked by a number of states to grant people the right to walk across privately owned tidelands. Josh Farley, a longtime friend and former colleague at the Kitsap Sun, recently reminded me that I haven’t written about this issue for 10 years. He wondered if anything has changed.
Let me refer you to the article I wrote for the Kitsap Sun in 2010 featuring the story of Bruce Barcott, an outdoors writer who hiked the entire shoreline of Bainbridge Island at low tide, knowing full well that some property owners would probably object.
“I only ran into one fellow who gave me a hard time about his property right,” Bruce told me at the time. “A number of homeowners I met actually believed that the shore and tideland was public property.”
The issue of public versus private rights on Puget Sound beaches continues to simmer without resolution, according to Joe Panesko, senior counsel in the Washington State Office of the Attorney General who has done extensive research on the Public Trust Doctrine, including a treatise for the Washington State Bar Association.
“It is a fascinating topic,” Joe told me. “Thousands of law review articles have been written advocating what it should mean.”
As the legal adviser to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Joe has seen conflicts over whether the public has the right to hunt for ducks on tidelands owned by a duck-hunting club and disputes about whether commercial fishers have the right to use beach seines along the shore.
When Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers are called, he said, they are often in no position to resolve the conflicts. Uncertainty over the Public Trust Doctrine is one thing, but the issues are further complicated by property lines and tidal boundaries in a dynamic environment. The same dilemma faces a sheriff’s deputy called by a property owner to arrest a “trespasser” walking on the beach.
Through the years, I’ve talked to many property owners who don’t mind people walking on their beach as long as the walker shows respect for the environment and any physical improvements above the high-tide line. Problems come into play when beach walkers push beyond any reasonable limits, such as by walking up onto people’s lawns.
WDFW recently closed the parking lot at the future Point No Point boat launch near Hansville on the Kitsap Peninsula. The number of people accessing the local beaches from that area had gotten out of hand, officials said, and some people were walking around above the high tide line. Such folks could be considered trespassers even under a liberal interpretation of the Public Trust Doctrine. Check out the story by Jessie Darland, Kitsap Sun, July 11.
It seems that little has changed since I wrote about this issue 10 years ago. The story received more than 75 comments from people fired up on both sides of the issue. As a result, I followed the story with a blog post discussing related issues.
Much of the conflict in Puget Sound grew out of the Legislature’s divesting the state of what were once public tidelands. Public lands became private under varying standards, sometimes for the purpose of shellfish farming.
In contrast, most of the tidelands in Oregon remain in public ownership. But even where the tidelands are privately owned, the Oregon Legislature has declared that the Public Trust Doctrine allows people to cross private property, provided they cause no damage. In California, the courts have extended public trust rights to include protection of natural resources.
In Washington state, either the courts or the Legislature could define the limits of the Public Trust Doctrine, Joe Panesko said. Even though the doctrine is a “common-law” principal handed down through the ages, nothing in the Washington State Constitution prohibits the Legislature from clearing up the controversy. Without action from the Legislature, however, the courts could eventually define the limits of public access.
In a 2015 case, Havens v. Cousins (PDF 5.8 mb), an Island County Superior Court Judge tried to untangle the long history of Washington state case law in a dispute about whether a commercial smelt fisherman could walk upon private tidelands — or even uplands — to manage his net in a legally licensed fishery.
“The upshot of all this,” the judge concluded in his oral ruling, “is that the plaintiffs (property owners) have the right to exclude the defendants (fishermen) from entering onto their second-class tidelands at such a time as they are not covered by the waters of the state. But when they are covered by water, the defendants may enter onto such water even though the water is located above the tidelands.
“However, the defendants may not touch the actual tidelands, that is to say the land itself, even though the land may be covered by water. Thus, for example, the defendants may not drag nets over the tidelands, nor can they drop anchor onto the plaintiffs’ tidelands. All the defendants may do is fish in navigable waters. They may not touch the actual tidelands themselves.”
The judge’s reasoning is spelled out clearly. It would seem this case might establish clear limits to the Public Trust Doctrine in favor of private property owners. But — and this is the key — the lawsuit was not appealed to a higher court, so it provides no legal application for anyone but the parties to the case.
So, when it comes to resolving any presumed public right to walk on the beach, I can’t say that we’ve gotten a whole lot closer over the past 131 years.