Case Study: Puget Sound

1. Case Study: Puget Sound Presented to: House Bay Trust Study Commission By: M. Petruny-Parker I would like to present a brief overview of estuarine management in Puget Sound, in Washington state.I would like to present a brief overview of estuarine management in Puget Sound, in Washington state.

2. Overview Management challenges Management structure and process Funding Executive/legislative roles I will try and follow a similar list of topics: - what are the management challenges being faced -what is the management structure and process -how is the work funded -summary of executive and legislative roles I will try and follow a similar list of topics: - what are the management challenges being faced -what is the management structure and process -how is the work funded -summary of executive and legislative roles

3. Puget Sound Basin First, a little bit about the setting. - Puget Sound is located in the northwest corner of the state of Washington - It has fijord type characteristics � sill and deep channels. Average depth is 450 feet. - It has some 2500 miles of shoreline, consisting of bluffs, wetlands, beaches, mudflats - There are major cities along its coastline � Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia - 2/3of the population in the state is located in this area - about 4 million now- expected to be over 5 million by the year 2020. First, a little bit about the setting. - Puget Sound is located in the northwest corner of the state of Washington - It has fijord type characteristics � sill and deep channels. Average depth is 450 feet. - It has some 2500 miles of shoreline, consisting of bluffs, wetlands, beaches, mudflats - There are major cities along its coastline � Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia - 2/3of the population in the state is located in this area - about 4 million now- expected to be over 5 million by the year 2020.

4. Puget Sound Basin Expanding out to a larger regional view, shows the Puget Sound Basin extends into neighboring Canada. The shared marine inland waters is a combination of Georgia and Puget Sound basins - There is an international component to the management of Puget Sound - We have Massachusetts draining into Narragansett Bay � they have a part of Canada. Expanding out to a larger regional view, shows the Puget Sound Basin extends into neighboring Canada. The shared marine inland waters is a combination of Georgia and Puget Sound basins - There is an international component to the management of Puget Sound - We have Massachusetts draining into Narragansett Bay � they have a part of Canada.

5. Puget Sound Uses Shipping Commercial and recreational fishing Aquaculture Boating Culture (tribes) Tourism Wildlife habitat Wastewater receptacle Puget Sound waters support a variety of uses. These include: - Shipping (1998 figures indicate over $50 billion worth of commodities) - Commercial and recreational fishing (clams, oysters, salmon, groundfish) - Aquaculture - Boating (all sizes) - Cultural use (some 22 federally recognized tribes reside in basin and use Puget Sound as part of their lifestyle) - Tourism ($7 billion worth in 1998) - Wildlife habitat (fish, birds, shellfish, invertebrates, plants, and larger marine mammals such as orcas, gray whales, and harbor seals) - wastewater receptacle � reflective of human population residing in basin and commercial and industrial activities Puget Sound waters support a variety of uses. These include: - Shipping (1998 figures indicate over $50 billion worth of commodities) - Commercial and recreational fishing (clams, oysters, salmon, groundfish) - Aquaculture - Boating (all sizes) - Cultural use (some 22 federally recognized tribes reside in basin and use Puget Sound as part of their lifestyle) - Tourism ($7 billion worth in 1998) - Wildlife habitat (fish, birds, shellfish, invertebrates, plants, and larger marine mammals such as orcas, gray whales, and harbor seals) - wastewater receptacle � reflective of human population residing in basin and commercial and industrial activities

6. Management Challenges Nutrient loading Toxic chemicals Contaminated sediments Habitat loss Bacterial contamination � shellfish Declining populations of marine species Aquatic nuisance species Numerous management entities - With these competing uses comes management concerns. The management concerns and issues associated with Puget Sound are very similar to what we see here at home in Narragansett Bay as well as in other areas of the country. - Nutrient overloading from point and non-point sources - Toxic chemicals from industrial discharges - Contaminated sediments and the concerns associated with disposal of dredged materials - Habitat loss resulting from development pressures - Bacterial contamination of valuable shellfish beds Declining populations of marine species (due to a variety of reasons- overfishing, habitat loss, changing ocean conditions) There is concern about the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species and the impact on native species There are numerous management entities involved: 108 cities 12 counties 12 conservation districts 12 local health jurisdictions 28 local port districts 3 regional government bodies 22 tribes 14 state agencies 9 federal agencies Hundreds of special purpose districts for water,sewer,groundwater protection,drainage and irrigation Many non-government entities (academic institutions, non-profits,etc.) - With these competing uses comes management concerns. The management concerns and issues associated with Puget Sound are very similar to what we see here at home in Narragansett Bay as well as in other areas of the country. - Nutrient overloading from point and non-point sources - Toxic chemicals from industrial discharges - Contaminated sediments and the concerns associated with disposal of dredged materials - Habitat loss resulting from development pressures - Bacterial contamination of valuable shellfish beds Declining populations of marine species (due to a variety of reasons- overfishing, habitat loss, changing ocean conditions) There is concern about the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species and the impact on native species There are numerous management entities involved: 108 cities 12 counties 12 conservation districts 12 local health jurisdictions 28 local port districts 3 regional government bodies 22 tribes 14 state agencies 9 federal agencies Hundreds of special purpose districts for water,sewer,groundwater protection,drainage and irrigation Many non-government entities (academic institutions, non-profits,etc.)

7. Management of Puget Sound How have they been dealing with this? What are some of the interesting elements of the Puget Sound story? Story picks up in the late 1970s and early 1980s when there was a lot of media attention on Puget Sound. High levels of toxic chemicals found in harbor seals; dead gray whales washing up on beaches. Prior to this, scientific findings shoed toxic chemicals in sediments causing damage in benthos and fish (liver tumors) This resulted in a increased public awareness and concern for the pollution problems in the Sound. The state legislature responded in 1983 by creating a 21 member committee (mostly comprised of citizens) to study Puget Sound and make recommendations on how to improve water quality. Findings of committee showed the need for coordination among all the different entities engaged in activities affecting Puget Sound and the need to develop a long-term, comprehensive management plan. State legislature responded by creating the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and charged it with developing a management plan. The Authority was comprised of 7 members appointed by governor and confirmed by senate, representing various interested parties concerned about water quality. Chair also appointed by governor and staff assigned from various state agencies. Authority worked with a 77 member advisory committee and a scientific review panel and went through an extensive public participation process. Management plan was developed and adopted in 18 months. How have they been dealing with this? What are some of the interesting elements of the Puget Sound story? Story picks up in the late 1970s and early 1980s when there was a lot of media attention on Puget Sound. High levels of toxic chemicals found in harbor seals; dead gray whales washing up on beaches. Prior to this, scientific findings shoed toxic chemicals in sediments causing damage in benthos and fish (liver tumors) This resulted in a increased public awareness and concern for the pollution problems in the Sound. The state legislature responded in 1983 by creating a 21 member committee (mostly comprised of citizens) to study Puget Sound and make recommendations on how to improve water quality. Findings of committee showed the need for coordination among all the different entities engaged in activities affecting Puget Sound and the need to develop a long-term, comprehensive management plan. State legislature responded by creating the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and charged it with developing a management plan. The Authority was comprised of 7 members appointed by governor and confirmed by senate, representing various interested parties concerned about water quality. Chair also appointed by governor and staff assigned from various state agencies. Authority worked with a 77 member advisory committee and a scientific review panel and went through an extensive public participation process. Management plan was developed and adopted in 18 months.

8. Management of Puget Sound The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority continued working on coordinating the implementation of the management plan. In 1996 the state legislature created a new structure, phasing out the Authority. A Puget Sound Action Team and a Puget Sound Council were formed. The Action Team was charged with the implementation of the plan and the Council serves in an advisory capacity to the Action Team. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority continued working on coordinating the implementation of the management plan. In 1996 the state legislature created a new structure, phasing out the Authority. A Puget Sound Action Team and a Puget Sound Council were formed. The Action Team was charged with the implementation of the plan and the Council serves in an advisory capacity to the Action Team.

9. Management of Puget Sound The members of the Action Team are comprised of representatives from the state agencies and departments, cities, counties, tribes, and federal agencies. The Chair is appointed by the Governor Action Team facilitates the coordination of activities across all levels of government, with the International Task Force (Canada), and with non-governmental entities. The Action Team develops Work Plans and budgets every two years. These are submitted to the environmental policy and finance committees of the State Senate and House of Representatives for review and approval.The members of the Action Team are comprised of representatives from the state agencies and departments, cities, counties, tribes, and federal agencies. The Chair is appointed by the Governor Action Team facilitates the coordination of activities across all levels of government, with the International Task Force (Canada), and with non-governmental entities. The Action Team develops Work Plans and budgets every two years. These are submitted to the environmental policy and finance committees of the State Senate and House of Representatives for review and approval.

10. Management of Puget Sound The Puget Sound Council serves in an advisory capacity to the Action Team. It is comprised of representatives from business, environmental community, shellfish industry, agriculture, counties,cities, and tribes appointed by the governor. State legislature also has a presence on this Council. 2 state senators appointed by the Senate President and 2 state representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House serve on the Council. They are non-voting members. Council advises the Action Team on: Work Plan elements Coordination of activities Revisions to the management plan.The Puget Sound Council serves in an advisory capacity to the Action Team. It is comprised of representatives from business, environmental community, shellfish industry, agriculture, counties,cities, and tribes appointed by the governor. State legislature also has a presence on this Council. 2 state senators appointed by the Senate President and 2 state representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House serve on the Council. They are non-voting members. Council advises the Action Team on: Work Plan elements Coordination of activities Revisions to the management plan.

11. 2003-2005 Budget Summary $27.8 million in state and federal funding (proviso funds -additional $8.9 million non-proviso funds) $4.9 million � Action Team $470,000 � University of Washington $331,000 � Washington State University $840,000 � capital expenditures $4.2 million DOT funds Balance to state agencies The 2003-2005 budget includes $27.8 million in state and federal funding This is proviso funds � another $8.9 million goes towards Puget Sound management from non-proviso sources (other parts of state agencies budgets) The two year budget for 2003-2005 includes $27.8 million in state and federal funding Out of this $27.8 million: $4.9million goes toward supporting the Action Team (operating costs � covers a staff of 21) $470,000 goes to the University of Washington and $331,000 to Washington State University for researching and demonstrating on low impact development practices - $840,000 on capital expenditures (Conservation District water quality projects) $4.2 million DOT funding for stormwater, wetlands, and habitat mitigation for construction projects Balance to state agencies: Departments of Agriculture Community, trade and economic development Ecology Fish and Wildlife Health Natural resources Conservation Commission State Parks and Recreation Commission The 2003-2005 budget includes $27.8 million in state and federal funding This is proviso funds � another $8.9 million goes towards Puget Sound management from non-proviso sources (other parts of state agencies budgets) The two year budget for 2003-2005 includes $27.8 million in state and federal funding Out of this $27.8 million: $4.9million goes toward supporting the Action Team (operating costs � covers a staff of 21) $470,000 goes to the University of Washington and $331,000 to Washington State University for researching and demonstrating on low impact development practices - $840,000 on capital expenditures (Conservation District water quality projects) $4.2 million DOT funding for stormwater, wetlands, and habitat mitigation for construction projects Balance to state agencies: Departments of Agriculture Community, trade and economic development Ecology Fish and Wildlife Health Natural resources Conservation Commission State Parks and Recreation Commission

12. 2003-2005 Budget Summary (cont.) $27.8 million: $12.3 million � General Fund �State $14.0 million � Special Accounts (state) $1.5 million � Federal funding Another breakdown of the $27.8 million budget shows $12.3 million comes from general state fund - $14.0 million from special accounts (such as oil spill prevention account, water quality permits fees, state toxic control account � also state funds) 1.5 million in federal fundingAnother breakdown of the $27.8 million budget shows $12.3 million comes from general state fund - $14.0 million from special accounts (such as oil spill prevention account, water quality permits fees, state toxic control account � also state funds) 1.5 million in federal funding

13. Puget Sound: Management Structure

14. Executive/Legislative Roles Legislature Oversight: Identifies scope of work to be done and procedure Fiscal decisions Performance assessment Executive Implementation: Establishes implementation team Develops, prioritizes, coordinates, carries out work plan elements