If a report falls into Puget Sound and no one notices, has it really fallen? The Puget Sound Partnership's first-ever State of the Sound Report came out on Tuesday to virtually no attention from the local press and no ringing declarations by an (otherwise-occupied) governor, who launched an ambitious save-the-Sound crusade just three years ago.
To be fair, the report contains no big surprises. In a nutshell, it says that some things are better, while others are worse. "Because the Puget Sound ecosytem is complex," the Partnership's press release explains, "it is not surprising that some parts of it may improve while others decline."
In the improved category, the release lists "shellfish harvest areas upgraded, increases in shellfish harvest, increases in Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer chum run size, slight slowing in the rate of loss in forested land, improvement in sediment quality in Elliott Bay and improvment in freshwater quality."
Specific bright spots included a "reopening of 1,309 acres of shellfish beds for commercial and recreational harvest" and "restoration of 3,800 acres of habitat," which includes the 762 acres of the Nisqually Delta reopened, after a century, to the tides.
Decliners include: "fin fish harvest, conversion of forest land, orcas, herring spawning biomass, agricultural lands converted to development, eelgrass area, stream flows in major rivers, and flame retardant chemicals in harbor seals and herring."
Some of the news is downright dismal. Herring, a key prey species, may be circling the drain. "Many species of seabirds, marine mammals,and finfish, including Chinook and coho salmon, depend on herring as an important prey item," the report explains. And those species may want to think about Plan B, because "(f)or the 2007-08 period, less than half (47 percent) of Puget Sound herring stocks were classified by (the state Department of Fish and Wildlife) as healthy or moderately healthy. This is the lowest percentage of stocks meeting these criteria since development of the stock status summary in 1994; although similar to the status breakdown for the previous 2-year periods (2003-04 and 2005-06)."
Herring-fancying Puget Sound chinook were listed as a threatened species in 1999. The report says that chinook runs are larger now than they were at the end of the 1990s, but warns that "spawning biomass remains far below recovery targets." And, somewhat undercutting the good news, it notes that the runs may be larger because of ocean conditions, not anything done closer to home.
It also acknowledges that Puget Sound's officially-endangered orcas eat chinook salmon, and there may be a connection between the lack of predators and the lack of prey. "To better protect this (southern resident killer whale) population," it says, "we need to know the total nutritional requirement for a 'recovered and sustainable' population, and provide for that requirement in our fisheries management programs and environmental planning." Unfortunately, that is a connection never explicitly drawn, much less dealt with, in the harvest management plan for Puget Sound chinook, which will be renewed in April for another five years. (Likewise, the nutritional requirement issue is glossed over in the current biological opinion for operation of the federal Columbia River system dams.)
This all "leaves a critical question unanswered," writes People for Puget Sound executive director Kathy Fletcher in a blog. "Are we on track to restore the Sound to health by the year 2020?" Well, no. The current financial picture would be a whole lot bleaker without the one-shot contribution of federal stimulus funds. The report itself says there's not enough money to do the job. "To achieve recovery by the 2020 deadline," it says, "additional resources will be needed."
Fletcher writes, “If we aren't on track yet to restore the Sound to health by 2020, and I don't think we are, we need to get on track. ... Will the Partnership get the job done? I sure hope so, because Puget Sound is running out of time."
Amen, although to be fair, the Partnership can't do it alone. Maybe next year the legislature can focus on Puget Sound. And maybe the governor will remember — and remind us — that this is her crusade.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 7:43 a.m. Inappropriate
Puget Sound Partnership spent how much on a new HQ? How much are they spending on Staffing? How much is duplication of services from Ecology and DFW? Let's form a committee, establish a task force and commission a study.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 8:37 a.m. Inappropriate
The Puget Sound Partnership was formed out of a critical-mass recognition that our recovery effort had spawned a bunch of self-interested, uncoordinated fiefdoms all competing for recovery dollars. The PSP was supposed to bring coordination and efficiency to the process. But, because like-minded bureaucrats are loathe to speak ill of like-minded bureaucrats (or threaten their funding) the PSP has not fulfilled this, its raison d'etre. Instead it has become just another Democrat agenda pushing, union jobs program. Another hungry mouth talking about how bad the environment is.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 8:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Congrats to the Partnership for creating benchmarks to measure progress that we can understand and use to measure progress. Finally we're moving past broad rhetorical statements to better defining the specific problems.
To Cameron's point above, there seems to be literally thousands of people working on these issues at taxpayer expense. I'd find it very very helpful if someone would document the cost of the federal, state and local government employees working on Puget Sound cleanup, so we have a better sense of the value being generated by their work. The value proposition is so obscure now that no one in a position of managing these programs, or appropriating scarce resources to them, has any confidence they're getting good value. Needless to say the bureaucracies and advocacy groups will come unglued at the notion, but as we take apart programs in the coming years of scarcity and US dollar devaluation, the better prepared they are with a dollar-based argument, the better off they'll be.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 9:40 a.m. Inappropriate
Nice column.
I've spoken to several SRKW scientists who are impatiently waiting for NOAA to begin actually recovering SRKWs. NOAA adopted a recovery plan in 2006; so far, though, it's been long on additional research and darned short on actions. The one exception is the potential vessel regulation, which most scientists agree is of limited value in recovering the population.
Meanwhile, with NOAA's blessing, hydro dams on the Columbia continue to completely block recovery for the largest source of the Southern Residents' primary prey, chinook salmon. NOAA itself has recognized that hatchery fish don't make up for wild fish, as far as Southern Residents are concerned, and yet hatchery fish are the entire game as far as Snake River chinook are concerned. And our self-professed orca-loving electeds (Murray, Gregoire, Cantwell) turn a blind eye. Such a shame.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 10:47 a.m. Inappropriate
So, what does the acronym SRKW stand for?
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 3:46 p.m. Inappropriate
Oops, maybe you missed my story kindly highlighted on Crosscut's Clicker on Feb. 4:
While State Stresses the Positive, Report on Puget Sound Shows Worrisome Signs (See it at http://crosscut.com/clicker/?page=2)
The story was also highlighted at Sightline.org that day and originally was written for Seattlepostglobe.org, where it remains highlighted to this day with a photo on the home page and this headline:
Reports: Puget Sound getting sicker; Obama budget slashes money for Sound cleanup by 60%
It wasn't the only story about the report...
* KUOW noted that "Puget Sound is getting sicker in more ways than it's getting healthier" in its Feb. 4 report. Find it here: http://kuow.org/program.php?id=19342
* The Olympian on Feb. 3 called the report's results "a mixed bag." Find it here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/1124384.html
* The Kitsap Sun on Feb. 3 said the report "falls short of expectations." Find it here:
http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2010/02/03/state-of-the-sound-report-falls-short-of-expectations/
* The Seattle Times on Feb. 3 picked up that Kitsap Sun item about the report here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010975682_stateofthesound04.html
Maybe you meant to say that it's a crying shame that the Seattle Times didn't see fit to assign a staff environment reporter to write its own version of the story. Or that the Partnership didn't have a press conference releasing the report.
Or that Seattlepi.com -- with only about 10 journalists compared to 150 a year ago -- didn't cover it.
Is that what you meant?
- Sally Deneen
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 4:33 p.m. Inappropriate
SRKW stands for Southern Resident Killer Whales, i.e., the orcas that frequent Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands.
Posted Wed, Feb 9, 2:58 p.m. Inappropriate
@BlueLight -- a look at the enabling legislation reveals that there was a lethal gene built into the PSP from the get-go.