Puget Sound GMAP Assessing Implementation of the Puget Sound

Puget Sound GMAP Assessing Implementation of the 2005-07 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan September 27, 2007 1 Table of Contents Topic Approach to Today’s GMAP Overall Status of Expected Results Priority 1 – Clean up Contaminated Sites and Sediments Priority 2 – Reduce and Prevent Toxic Contamination Priority 3 – Reduce Harm from Stormwater Runoff Priority 4 – Prevent Nutrient and Pathogen Pollution Priority 5 – Habitat Protection Priority 6 – Habitat Restoration Priority 7 – Conserve and Recover Orca, Salmon, Forage Fish, and Groundfish Science in Puget Sound New Priority – Climate Change Slide(s) 3 4-5 6-8 9 - 10 11 – 12 13 – 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 22 - 23 24 2 Approach to Today’s GMAP Overview and Approach • At the last Puget Sound GMAP on March 20, 2007, the GMAP Leadership Team directed agencies to develop a comprehensive report rating the achievement of results outlined in the 2005-07 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan. The Plan identifies 140 results expected of state agencies in the 2005-07 biennium, divided into 7 priority areas. The Governor’s 2006 Puget Sound initiative identified an additional 16 results expected of agencies. $234.1 million was provided in the 05-07 budget towards these actions ($182.4 in the original budget, $51.7 million in the supplemental budget). The Puget Sound Partnership staff worked with state agencies to rate the status of each of these results using four indicators: – – – – Green = result accomplished by target date Yellow = result not accomplished completed by target date, but significant progress made Red = result not accomplished Not Ratable (NR) = result could not be rated as written – could not be quantified, or no clear milestones with dates identified (e.g. “Implement shared salmon recovery strategy”) 6. 7. 5. Priorities in the 05-07 PS Plan 1. 2. Clean up contaminated sites and sediments. Reduce continuing toxic contamination and prevent future contamination. Reduce the harm from stormwater runoff. Prevent nutrient and pathogen pollution caused by human and animal wastes. • Special Focus Area: Hood Canal Protect shorelines and other critical areas that provide important ecological functions. Restore degraded nearshore and freshwater habitats. Conserve and recover orca, salmon, forage fish and groundfish. • • • 3. 4. • Non-numbered priority: Science Program • This is the first time this type of retrospective rating has been done. 3 Overall Status of Expected Results Status of Results of the 2005-07 Puget Sound Action Plan, including Governor’s 2006 Puget Sound Initiative Overall Status of the 156 Expected Puget Sound Results in 2005-07 not ratable: 30 (19%) not accomplished: 7 (4%) What Worked in Achieving Results? • Result clearly worded and well understood. • Result could be accomplished in one biennium. • Result funded with sufficient resources. • Staff available to implement. • Data and information available. • Legislation and/or needed agreements in place. • Partners ready to proceed. (e.g. other state agencies, local government, etc.) What Didn’t Work? • Result not clearly worded or poorly understood. • Result not able to be accomplished in one biennium (i.e. those that are ongoing activities, or phased projects). • Result not funded or lacked resources. • Staff vacancies. • Data and information not available. • Partners not ready (e.g. limited capacity at local level). • Unattainable targets. Action Plan: • PSP will work with agencies to articulate clear actions with targets and performance measures that can be rated when preparing the 2020 Action Agenda. partially accomplished: 47 (30%) accomplished: 72 (47%) Data Source: Puget Sound Partnership and state agencies NOTE: TAB 3 provides detailed information on the status of each result. • PSP will work with agencies and OFM to improve consistency between the Action Agenda and agency budgets. 4 4 Overall Status of Expected Results (continued) What else did we find? • • • • • • • • Many “results” are actually tasks or projects. They reflect agency work and activities, but are not clearly linked to outcome-focused results that describe whether the action made a difference in Puget Sound. Plan priorities often do not include clear targets and due dates. The Puget Sound plan isn’t consistently aligned with budgets or performance measures reported to OFM by agencies. Some actions in the Puget Sound plan are state-wide, not regional, which masks progress on Puget Sound, and is sometimes difficult for agencies to distinguish the programs between regional and state-wide. Planning and performance reporting cycles and schedules are sometimes not aligned. A better way to track and report progress is needed, including identifying factors that contribute to successful completion of actions, and whether strategies and actions are impacting measurable outcomes. In general, monitoring resources are currently targeted to analyze a problem or what we believe to be a problem, not the general condition of the watershed or state. Most people want to know if overall Puget Sound water quality is improving, or not. Status and trends monitoring specifically designed to answer this question is needed. Action Plan: • PSP will work with OFM and agencies to address these problems when developing the 2010 Action Agenda and 2009-11 budget requests. 5 Priority 1: Clean up contaminated sites and sediments Priority 1: 12 Planned Results in 05-07 Not ratable: 2, (17%) Not accomplished:1 (8%) Partially accomplished:3 (25%) Highlights: Green: • Completed 703 cleanups state-wide. • Completed, on average, 72% of corrective actions at state high priority hazardous waste facilities. • Nearly 9,000 acres evaluated for sediment quality. • Completed and started implementing a strategy to address areas affected by accumulations of woody debris. • All contaminated lands remediated by capping on state owned aquatic lands receive proprietary use authorizations. • An additional 31 cleanups have begun on Puget Sound sites since July 2006. Yellow: • Completed inventory of contaminated aquatic sites. In process of writing report on the inventory of contaminated sediment sites. • All known contaminated sediment sites with institutional controls are identified on state owned aquatic lands. • Comprehensive presentation of known contaminated sediment sites and expected date for remediation. Red: • Source controls at cleaned sites are effective as shown in an evaluation of longer term monitoring data from a sample of sites. Action Plan: • DNR/ Ecology combine efforts to identify contamination on state owned aquatic lands (SOAL). Joint effort will allow for further prioritization and initiation of cleanup activities. • Continue site cleanups. • Reduce Puget Sound cleanup times by 12 months. • Begin 25 cleanups each year for first 2 years with 2006 6 supplemental funding. Accomplished: 6 (50%) 05-07 Strategy from PS Work Plan 1. Contamination at sites is being cleaned up. 2. Contaminated in-water sites are being managed and moved toward cleanup. 3. Sediments are evaluated for sediment quality to determine if cleanup is needed. 07-09 Strategy from PS Work Plan 1. Continue to identify and clean up contaminated sites. 2. Manage navigation dredging operations to clean up contaminated areas whenever possible and prevent contamination of unconfined disposal sites. Data Source: Puget Sound Partnership and state agencies Priority 1: Clean up contaminated sites and sediments 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jan 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 Number of Cleanups Begun in Puget Sound With 2006 Supplemental Funding Target Analysis • Contaminated sites are continually being discovered and reported. • Funding for work on state-owned aquatic lands are more complex due to the state’s cleanup law. • Liability for contamination at state-owned contaminated lands is often difficult to determine due to multiple uses of the land, historical recordkeeping and illegal dumps. Action Plan • Ecology has increased the number of cleanups of priority sites within ½ mile of Puget Sound. – Ecology is ahead of schedule on beginning cleanups on additional sites with 2006 funding. • Natural Resources is completing GIS work on state owned aquatic lands to map institutional controls, contamination, capped sites, and historical ownership records. • Natural Resources and Ecology will merge their GIS maps and findings to prioritize future cleanup actions on state owned aquatic lands. Actual Strategy: Contaminated sites are cleaned up. Measure: Number of cleanups begun on contaminated sites with 2006 supplemental funding. Target: Begin 25 cleanups each year with 2006 supplemental funding. Data Source: Department of Ecology and DNR Note: In 2006, approximately 12% of statewide sites cleaned up per year were in Puget Sound (see tab 2 Slide 10 statewide cleanup information. 7 Priority 1: Clean up contaminated sites and sediments Number of Sites on State-Owned Aquatic Land (SOAL) compared with Privately-Owned Land 2005 Sediment Cleanup Status Report 109 known contaminated sediment sites 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sites on SOAL Sites not on SOAL Unsure if sites are on SOAL Analysis Of the known 109 contaminated sediment sites: • • 34% are on State Owned Aquatic Lands (SOAL), and 24% are on private land. Remaining 42% of contaminated sites: we are uncertain if they are on SOAL. This is due to historical ownership records that are unclear and the lack of staff and GIS support to quantify. Nearly 9,000 acres were evaluated for sediment quality during the 05-07 biennium. 46 42% 37 34% 24% 26 37 46 • 26 Action Plan • • • Ecology has completed the analysis of sediment quality status in the Puget Sound area. Natural Resources is updating SOAL lands ownership. Information from these actions will provide a more comprehensive Sediment Status Report due by the end of this year. Strategy: Prioritize and clean up contaminated sediment sites around Puget Sound. Measure: Complete comprehensive report of contaminated sediment sites. Target: Complete report by the end of this year. Source: Department of Ecology and DNR 8 Priority 2: Reduce and Prevent Toxic Contamination Priority 2: 27 Planned Results for 05-07 Not ratable: 7 (26%) Partially accomplished: 7 (26%) Highlights Green • Decreased large spills to 25,952 gals. Target 30,000 gals. • Progress made on reducing diesel emissions, investigating pesticide misuse, and addressing lands with excessive wood debris. • Progress made on mass-balance model for metal and organic contaminants and timely spill response. • Responded to all spills within 24 hrs. (Target 95% within 48 hrs.) • Renewed 89% of municipal NPDES permits (target 85%). Reduced backlog to 11% (target 15%). • Completed a chemical action plan for PBDE. Accomplished: 13 (48%) • Certified 35 marinas as Clean Marinas. Yellow: • Renewed 78 of industrial NPDES permits. Backlog increased to 22% (targets are 85 & 15%, respectively). • Increasing reclaimed water. • Late start on creosote log removal due to issues with weather and fish windows (target 350 tons). 2005-07 Puget Sound Strategies: 1. Reduce the use of hazardous chemicals by implementing PBT strategy. 2. Reduce toxic loadings. 3. Prevent and respond to oil and hazardous material spills. 2007-2009 Puget Sound Strategies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • Collected approximately 20,000 pounds of unusable, canceled or suspended pesticides in the Puget Sound basin. A target has not been established. Reduce the use and generation of toxic chemicals. • Waste discharge permit backlog is higher than planned. • Collection of unused pesticides was low due to limited funding and low priority by local governments in Eastern Washington. • Oil transfer facilities are being inspected, however had to transfer vessel-inspection staff to this task until new staff hired. Reduce the release of toxic chemicals to the environment. Improve spill prevention and response. Educate residents to change behaviors to reduce toxic contamination. Study toxics in Puget Sound. 9 Priority 2: Reduce and Prevent Toxic Contamination N u m b e r o f O i l S p i lls a n d " N e a r - M i s s e s " in P ug e t S o und S p ills 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Analysis Average 3,300 vessel transits in Puget Sound per year. B o th A c c id e n ts & N e a r M is s e s To reduce the incidence of spills, in 2006, Ecology: • Hired 5 new oil transfer inspectors. • Responded in the field to 1,186 oil and hazardous material spills. • Conducted 1,587 vessel inspections. • Adopted and implemented new Oil Spill Contingency Planning and Oil Transfer rules. • Deployed pre-staged “first-response” mobile spill equipment in 47 locations (most for water response). • Conducted 434 unannounced vessel notification drills and over 80 readiness drills. Action • Exert a stronger presence on Puget Sound oil transfer activities with the 5 newly hired inspectors. • Seek federal assistance to compliment state appropriations for the Neah Bay rescue tug. • Raise inspection standards for fishing, passenger and cargo vessels. • Revise marine response plans for Strait of San Juan de Fuca and the coast. • Improve unannounced vessel and facility drills. ■ Locations of mobile “First-Response” Spill Equipment Caches 10 Priority 3: Reduce harm from stormwater runoff Priority 3: 16 Planned Results in 05-07 Not accomplished:2 (13%) Accomplished: 8 (49%) Partially accomplished: 6 (38%) Strategies for 2005-2007: 1. Expand NPDES stormwater permit coverage. 2. Increase use of low impact development (LID). 3. Develop local comprehensive stormwater programs. 4. Manage runoff from state highways. 5. Reduce the number and volume of CSO events. (strategies for 2007-2009 on next slide) Highlights: Green: • All 10 combined sewer outfalls (CSOs) are meeting or exceeding control plans. • All Phase I & II stormwater (SW) permits issued (required monitoring/reporting). • Completed 1,395 facility and site inspections (target = 1,100). • Completed one state highway retrofit and implemented 18 runoff best management practices. • Educated 7,146 individuals on stormwater issues (230% of target). • Obligated $2.5million in grants to 10 local governments for innovative stormwater projects. Yellow: • Highway construction sites assessed at 76% level of erosion control at 18 locations (Target = 90%). • 6 of 11 local governments receiving assistance revised regulations regarding Low Impact Development (LID) (75% of target). • Effectiveness monitoring in Municipal SW Permits (but not in Ph II). Red: • 7 Shellfish areas remain degraded due to lack of resources and staff. • Credits for low impact development (LID) in Stormwater Manual not updated due to lack of data. Action Plan: • Address stormwater in the 7 degraded shellfish areas. • Update LID credits and promote use. • Track compliance with permits, CSOs, and retrofits. • Continue BMPs, inspections, and effectiveness monitoring. • Obligate $17 million in local grants for stormwater control during 11 FY08-09. Priority 3: Reduce harm from stormwater runoff Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Bring permittees into compliance with requirements of NPDES general stormwater permits. Bring Puget Sound jurisdictions both inside and outside of the NPDES permit processes into conformance with the Puget Sound comprehensive stormwater management program. Increase the use of LID techniques where appropriate, and help ensure that the LID approach is the first, preferred option considered to develop land and manage stormwater. Manage runoff from state highways according to an updated highway runoff manual, retrofit existing facilities and monitor management practices. Continue to reduce the number and volume of Combined Sewer Overflow events. Develop and begin to implement a Sound-wide monitoring program to better understand the impacts of stormwater runoff on Puget Sound and the effectiveness of management practices. Increase small acreage landowner technical assistance and voluntary incentive programs. Educate and involve the public in preventing harm from stormwater runoff. 12 Priority 4: Prevent Nutrient and Pathogen Pollution Highlights: Priority 4: 20 Planned Results in 05-07 Not accomplished: 1 (5%) Partially accomplished: 7 (35%) Accomplished:12 (60%) Green: • 79 total maximum daily load studies (TMDLs) completed and submitted to EPA (target: 50). • Net gain of 1,134 commercial shellfish growing acres (target: 1,000). • Percent of swimming beaches exceeding standards dropped from 42% in 2004 to 35% in 2007. • Conservation districts and livestock producers implemented 450 best management practices (target: 400). • 89% of CAFOs and dairies in full compliance with rules (target: 90%). Yellow: • 10 of 12 counties drafted risk-based on-site sewage plans, 2 others are in development (target = all counties adopt plans by July 1, 2007). • 16 of 25 (64%) of State Parks’ Puget Sound wastewater upgrade projects are on schedule. Red: • 2007 legislation to improve regulation of large on-site sewage systems expanded requirements and extended timeline. Strategies for 2005-2007: 1. Reduce pollutant loads. 2. Improve watershed health. 3. Manage sources of human and animal wastes. 4. Focus on geographic areas. Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. Focus efforts and resources in high-risk areas most vulnerable to the effects of pathogen and nutrient pollution. 2. Improve state agency coordination and implementation. 3. Support effective and innovative regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. 4. Strengthen the capacity of local jurisdictions to design and implement effective and comprehensive programs. 5. Educate and involve residents and others to enhance stewardship activities. 6. Improve scientific understanding of nutrient and pathogen pollution problems to guide management activities. 13 Priority 4: Prevent Nutrient and Pathogen Pollution State Parks Puget Sound Initiative Projects Highlights • • 16 of 25 (64%) projects are on schedule. 7 projects have been delayed to take advantage of partnership opportunities with local communities and to address siting problems. For example, site selection and acquisition for the Dosewallips treatment plant may cause a timing delay. 2 projects (Kopachuck and Possession Point) have been modified to a Planning and Design Phase only to allow other projects to be fully funded. Agencies are working well through permitting issues. • • Conclusion • • Community wastewater partnerships and other issues cannot be addressed within Parks’ self-imposed completion timeline (12/31/2007). Cost updates and site constraints require project changes. Action Plan • • State Parks is extending the project completion timeline to June 2009. (Based on this revised date, 96% of projects would be on schedule.) State Parks will continue working toward community solutions that provide a greater benefit to the Sound compared to stand alone projects. 14 Priority 4: Prevent Nutrient and Pathogen Pollution Special Focus Area: Hood Canal Hood Canal: 17 Planned Results in 05-07 Not ratable: 2 (12%) Not accomplished: 1 (6%) Analysis: • Hoodsport -Skokomish sewage management project is on target. Funds available for design. ~$13 million shortfall (in non-federal $) to make project affordable for residents. Belfair facilities plan completed and modified to meet county Comp plan. $24 million available for construction. Fecal coliform loading on the Skokomish River has decreased over 60% (target = 44% reduction). • • Accomplished: 6 (35%) Partially accomplished: 8 (47%) Action Plan: • Strategy for 2005-2007: 1. Reduce pollutant loads. 2. Improve watershed health. 3. Manage sources of human and animal wastes. • • Complete analysis of nitrogen loading from on-site sewage systems. Help build capacity in the county and with tribes to address failing on-site systems and construct treatment facilities. Continue to improve management of sewage, animal waste, and salmon carcasses. Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. Carry out early actions to help fix water quality problems in Hood Canal. 2. Strengthen local governments’ abilities to correct existing pollution problems and to deal effectively with the impacts of increasing populations. 3. Improve the scientific understanding of Hood Canal and apply that understanding to solutions. 4. Communicate information to the media, legislature and the public about the water quality problem and what the partnership is doing to fix it. 15 5. Educate the public about the low dissolved oxygen problem and engage them in activities to improve water quality. Priority 4: Prevent Nutrient and Pathogen Pollution Shellfish Intended 05-07 Result: Improved water quality results in less restrictive shellfish harvest classifications for 1,000 acres. Upgrade 2000 1500 Downgrade Acres 1000 500 0 -500 Data Analysis • Net gain of 1,134 acres of shellfish harvest areas due to pollution Biennial controls, exceeding the Target target. • Nine areas had harvest restrictions lifted, but seven areas had more restrictive harvest controls applied. FY 2006 FY 2007 Net Change Action Plan • Focus efforts to restore closed areas and protect threatened areas. • Identify sites and develop strategies to reopen approximately 10,000 acres by 2020. • Strengthen capacity of local jurisdictions to implement comprehensive nonpoint pollution control programs. 16 Priority 5 : Habitat Protection Priority 5: 25 Planned results in 05-07 Not ratable: 0 (0%) Not acomplished: 2 (8%) Partially accomplished: 6 (24%) Accomplished: 17 (68%) Strategy for 2005-2007: 1. Conserve habitat. 2. Improve protection of existing habitat. 3. Provide technical assistance to local governments. Highlights: Green: • Permanently protected 4,800 acres as Cypress Island conservation area. • Worked with stakeholders to recommend improvements to ballast water management. • Developed tools to help local governments conduct landscape analyses to protect shorelines and critical areas. • Monitored and reported on status of eelgrass. • 45 communities have received grants to update their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). • Expanded the wetland restoration and stewardship, and shoreline atlas websites. Yellow: • Updates to Local Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) are taking longer than anticipated to complete. During the 2007 Legislative Session, local governments received a one year extension. • 28 local governments are overdue for updating their Critical Area Ordinances. • Strategic monitoring of state-owned aquatic lands not completed. Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. Preserve functioning habitats through a variety of conservation tools. 2. Help effectively update and implement regulations that protect functioning marine and freshwater habitats. 3. Integrate and implement local watershed, salmon recovery and other plans through regulatory and voluntary approaches. 4. Prevent the introduction of new aquatic nuisance species in Puget Sound through regulatory and volunteer approaches. 17 5. Develop a network of sustainable resources to support Sound-wide landowner education and stewardship. 6. Identify and fill information needs to monitor and improve the effectiveness of protection strategies. Priority 5 : Habitat Protection Habitat Protection through Critical Area Ordinances Updated Critical Area Ordinances (CAOs) Protecting Critical Areas* Number of jurisdictions required to update CAO’s by 2005 or 2006 Number of jurisdictions that have not updated CAO’s Number of jurisdictions with updated CAO’s Adopted state wetland mitigation guidance Adopted state wetland rating system Adopted state buffer recommendations Analysis: • Updating critical ordinances is a local government action. • The state provides assistance to local governments: • Grant funding • Technical assistance • The state’s role is to develop technical guidelines and review adopted local critical area ordinances. • State guidelines are not mandatory, however cities and counties must consider them when updating their critical area ordinances. • The Growth Management Act gives broad discretion to local governments on how to designate and protect critical areas. • Local governments were given a schedule to update. Action Plan: • State staff are reviewing draft ordinances, meeting with local planning staff, and giving presentations to advisory groups, planning commissions and local elected officials. • Ecology has adopted a “Mitigation That Works” strategy to improve the success rate of mitigation projects: • Stepped up inspection of built projects • Watershed characterization tools to help local governments with mitigation and protection projects 125 22 103 (18%) (82%) 53 jurisdictions (57%) 73 jurisdictions (78%) 35 jurisdictions (38%) *only includes jurisdictions adjacent to Puget Sound, Hood Canal & Straits of Juan de Fuca 18 Priority 6 : Habitat Restoration Priority 6: 13 Planned Results in 05-07 Not ratable:1 (8%) Partially accomplished: 6 (46%) Accomplished: 6 (46%) Strategy for 2005-2007: 1. Restore habitats. 2. Create new approach for restoration through the Puget Sound Nearshore Estuarine Restoration Project (or PSNERP). Highlights: Green: • Improved the ecological function of five drift cells. • Reduced infestation of Spartina from 550 to 250 acres in biennium. • Stopped invasive tunicates from spreading from four marinas to other locations on the hulls of boats. • Puget Sound Nearshore Estuarine Restoration Project (PNERP) study is near completion. Study provides the criteria and information to develop a portfolio of restoration and conservation projects. Yellow: • Restored 106 acres of tidally and seasonally influenced wetlands (target was 3,500 acres). • Restored 734 acres of riparian habitat (target was 1,000 acres). • Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) protected approximately 500 acres (compared to 380 acres in previous biennium and a target of 1,200 acres), and approximately 30 miles of stream (target was 65 miles). Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. Restore degraded habitats by restoring habitat-forming processes. 2. Plan and undertake large-scale nearshore restoration initiatives through Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership. 3. Improve restoration projects by applying the best scientific principles and a process-based approach. 4. Improve and streamline permitting for restoration projects. 5. Control and stop aquatic nuisance species from spreading and rapidly and effectively respond when any new species are detected. 19 Priority 6 : Habitat Restoration Are we achieving a net gain in nearshore habitat acres & function? “NEARSHORE HABITAT ACCOUNTING” 67,000 estimated acres of tidal marshes & swamps in 1885 -13,000 estimated acres remaining in 1983 = 54,000 estimated acres of tidal marshes & swamps lost in Puget Sound • Analysis: • The Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Nearshore Estuary Restoration Program (PSNERP), and many other entities need better tools to apply the knowledge we have gained from restoration efforts to make better decisions. For example, we need better spatial (GIS) data to improve the Habitat Permit Management System and to track where current shoreline armoring is taking place and how is it impacting overall estuarine functions. Cumulative Tidal Wetland Protection since 2000 = 10,873 acres Cumulative Tidal Wetland Restoration since 2000 = 4431 acres Cumulative acres lost due to permitted and unpermitted activities = ??? (We don’t know.) Mitigation Effectiveness = ??? (We don’t know.) Action Plan: • Reinforce efforts and progress toward completion of the Habitat Conservation Plan* and development of a GIS layer for Hydraulic Project Approvals in Puget Sound. • Provide training for Area Habitat Biologists to collect spatial data by permit. • Align restoration and protection actions between all partners by planning strategically. • Increase restoration capacity by implementing Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program. * NOTE: The goal of the Habitat Conservation Plan is to provide federal Endangered Species Act assurances for activities conducted under WDFW’s Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPAs) – a key law that protects fish, shellfish, and their habitats. WDFW writes over 4,000 HPA's each year. 20 Priority 7 : Conserve and Recover Orca, Salmon, Forage Fish and Groundfish Priority 7: 13 Planned Results in 05-07 Partially accomplished: 4 (25%) Highlights: Yellow: • Habitat Conservation Plan for wild geoduck harvest is approximately 90% complete and ready for public comment. Not Ratable • Most expected results could not be rated or measured as written. Not ratable: 9 (56%) Accomplished: 3 (19%) Action Plan • Identify and continue to implement elements of the species recovery plans. • Integrate species recovery plans into 2020 Action Agenda. • Continue to implement previous priorities to protect and conserve these resources. Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. Achieve significant progress on all priorities for overall ecosystem and food web protection and recovery to support recovery of the at-risk species. 2. Implement the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, the Hood Canal Summer Chum Recovery Plan, the Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout and the Proposed Conservation Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). Use monitoring, coordination and adaptive management to evaluate and modify the implementation. 3. In anticipation of completion of a rockfish conservation plan, support regulatory and voluntary tools for rockfish recovery. 4. Launch a multi-agency effort to assess the relative abundance and geographic distribution of major forage fish species in Puget Sound as the basis for management and recovery strategies. 5. Identify research needs and develop management strategies for marine bird populations considered at risk. 21 6. Increase efforts to reestablish and protect Puget Sound Olympia oyster populations. Role of Science in Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Science: 10 Planned Results in 05-07 Accomplished: 1 (10%) Science Progress • Research and Monitoring – Long-term monitoring through the Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program (PSAMP) of sediments, biota, habitat and water quality. • Focused studies – Dissolved oxygen violations have led to significant comprehensive studies (Hood Canal; South Puget Sound). • Disseminate results - Research Conference, 2006 State of the Sound, 2007 Puget Sound Update report, other agency reports. • Toxic threats – PCB and PBDE contaminant levels in Puget Sound herring, salmon. Led to consumption advisories for Chinook. • Shellfish growing areas and beach closures – PSAMP and BEACH data used to classify shellfish areas and state beaches based on pathogen exposure. Not ratable: 9 (90%) • Declining species – Developing recovery plans for marine birds and groundfish. • Intensively monitoring watersheds – funded 3 complexes in Puget Sound basin. Science Challenges • Monitoring: Need stable funding for a comprehensive monitoring and modeling program that can evaluate and inform overall recovery efforts. • Science-policy linkage: Need to ensure a clear path for Science Panel and PSAMP findings to inform policy actions. • Control Toxics: Need a toxic loading model to understand sources and loadings of toxic contamination in Puget Sound. • Ecosystem understanding: Food web models needed to link biota, habitat, and physical environment which can help define desired outcome for ecosystem-based management actions. 22 Role of Science in Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Science Solutions in 2007-2009 • Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda will include a strategic Science Program with a biennial science work plan. • Partnership Science Panel will work with Ecosystem Coordination Board to identify key research and science needs and communicate with policy and decision makers. • Toxic loading study – Phase 1 (initial estimate of toxic loading) was funded through Ecology and EPA; this phase was completed in 2007. Progress is underway in funding and implementing Phase 2 and 3. • Ecosystem based management will be the driver behind the Action Agenda, and foodweb models will be developed in the next 2-3 years to help define measurable outcomes for the ecosystem goals. • The State’s 2020 Recovery Plan (Action Agenda) will be based on science. Science Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. Continue ongoing monitoring of the status and trends of key components of the Puget Sound ecosystem. 2. Provide scientific information to stakeholders, decisionmakers and the public. 3. Direct new monitoring activities to focus on the effectiveness of management activities and policy initiatives. 4. Develop a roadmap to prioritize, finance and conduct focused research on emerging topics or research questions that are brought forth through PSAMP and science programs. Sample Indicators of Puget Sound Health • Marine and Freshwater quality: 1,474 listings of ‘impaired’ water in Puget Sound. Less than 1/3 of these have cleanup plans in place. • Contaminants in fish and seals: Puget Sound Chinook have the highest levels of PCBs and PBDEs of any salmon species on the West Coast. PBDEs (flame retardants) in Puget Sound seals are rapidly increasing. • Fish stocks: Since 1992, the number of healthy salmon stocks declined from 93 to 81. Seven stocks have gone extinct. Once abundant populations of cod, pollock, hake, and rockfish remain critically depressed. • Marine birds: Nineteen of the most common marine birds have declined between 20 and 95% since 1978. 23 05-07 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan New Priority – Climate Change • • • • Efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound’s biological diversity and water quality cannot succeed if they are designed and carried out independently of anticipated regional changes in climate. Action Team agencies approved the addition of climate change as a priority in the 07-09 Puget Sound Plan. Focus on adaptation rather than emissions reductions. State of the Sound Indicators track: Air and sea surface temperature, sea levels, stream flow, snow pack. Strategies for 2007-2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. Support, track and report on science related to the effects of climate change on the Puget Sound ecosystem. Provide risk-assessment models to help identify vulnerabilities to existing infrastructure and work with affected agencies to prepare for or respond to potential impacts. Review state, federal and local activities and expenditures on conservation and recovery in the Puget Sound basin in light of climate change impacts, and make specific recommendations for changes, if necessary. Make specific recommendations on management and planning adaptations in response to climate change for all levels of government in Puget Sound. 24