using the open standards to advance puget sound recovery

Using the Open Standards to Advance Puget Sound Recovery

Kari Stiles, PhDPuget Sound Partnership

Conservation Measures PartnershipOct 7-9, 2014

• National Estuary Program (EPA)

• 16,500+ sq miles• International border• 12 counties• 100+ cities• 20+ tribes

Snowcaps to Whitecaps … with a focus on the watery bits

6 goals: Habitat

Species

Water Quality

Water Quantity

Human Health

Human Well

Being

“swimmable, fishable, diggable, drinkable”

Recover Puget Sound by 2020

Puget Sound restoration and protection (2007)Washington State Statute at RCW 90.71.200(2)

• Puget Sound Partnership: coordinate and lead the effort to restore and protect Puget

Sound. The partnership will:

– Define a strategic action agenda (2-year cycle)

• prioritizing necessary actions, both basin-wide and within specific areas

• addressing complex connections among land, water, species, human needs

• based on science

• include clear, measurable goals for the recovery of Puget Sound by 2020

– Determine accountability for performance, oversee the efficiency and effectiveness of

money spent

– Educate and engage the public

– Track and report results to the legislature, the governor, and the public

– Not have regulatory authority

• Partners: All governmental entities, including federal and state agencies, tribes, cities,

counties, ports, and special purpose districts

– Support and help implement the partnership's recovery efforts

PUGET SOUND RECOVERY CONTEXT

2008

Death by 1,000cuts

Recovery by 1,000

uncoordinated actions

Localswatershedsaction areas

(cities, countiestribes, NGOs)

RegionStatefeds

1 regional Chinook

recovery plan (NOAA)

16 watershed Chinook recovery plans (NOAA)

Scientists

Decision makers

2008

Priorities

Actions

Gaps & needs

Locals Region

Scientists

Decision makers

Actions

Actions

Actions

ActionsActions

Actions?

Adaptive Management of Puget Sound Recovery Efforts

2009-2014

Open Standards, Miradi, Miradi Share

Locals Region

Scientists

Decision makers

2008

Locals Region

Scientists

Decision makers

Recovery PrioritiesPriority Threats

Monitoring & GapsEcosystem Status

Effectiveness & Impacts

2014

Locals Region

Scientists

Decision makers

Common language

Common database

Puget Sound TaxonomiesEcosystem & Human WellbeingPressuresStrategic InitiativesAction TypesBarriers, Corrective Actions

Common tools

Theories of Change (aka. Results chains)

Standard taxonomy for ecosystem components

Status in Puget Sound

Status within watershed• geographic unit

Status Goal

90%100%

(% of mainstem)

Status Goal

0.27

1.3

(key pcs/100 m)

Status Goal

29%

75%

% of historic length

Status Goal

0.31

0.7

(#/channel width)

ACCESSIBLE HABITAT

LARGE WOOD POOL FREQUENCY

POOR

FAIR

GOOD

VERY GOOD

Small river channels

16 Chinook watersheds regional story

CHEM-K09.03. Riparian function

CHEM-K01.09. Coastal sediment dynamics - condition of wind and wave features

CHEM-K01.04. Coastal sediment deposition & accretion-condition of sediment

CHEM-K09.02. Riparian community structure

CHEM-K08.07. Intertidal habitat zone - condition

CHEM-K01.07. Coastal sediment supply - distribution

CHEM-K08.04. Estuarine habitats - condition

CHEM-K01.06. Coastal sediment supply - extent

CHEM-K01.05. Coastal sediment deposition & accretion-condition of impoundment

CHEM-K01.03. Coastal sediment deposition & accretion - extent

CHEM-K02.01. Fluvial sediment dynamics - condition

CHEM-K03.02. Tidal circulation - dependent water condition

CHEM-K06.02. Detritus recruitment & retention-extent of supply

CHEM-K09.01. Spatial extent and continuity of riparian area

CHEM-K03.01. Tidal circulation - extent of biological activity

CHEM-K01.08. Coastal sediment dynamics - extent of wind and wave features

CHEM-K08.09. Tidally influenced wetlands - condition

CHEM-K01.02. Coastal sediment dynamics in drift cells - landscape context

CHEM-K08.05. Estuarine habitats - distribution

CHEM-K06.01. Detritus recruitment & retention-extent

CHEM-K04.01. Freshwater hydrology - dependent water condition

CHEM-K05.02. Tidal channel formation - connectivity of channels

CHEM-K08.08. Tidally influenced wetlands - extent

CHEM-K05.01. Tidal channel formation - extent of channels

CHEM-K08.01. SAV beds - condition

CHEM-K08.02. SAV beds - extent

CHEM-K04.02. Freshwater hydrology - condition

CHEM-K01.01. Coastal sediment dynamics in drift cells - condition

CHEM-K08.03. Estuarine habitats - extent

CHEM-K07.01. Habitat connectivity condition

CHEM-K08.10. Water quality

CHEM-K08.06. Intertidal habitat zone - extent

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

# of Estuarine & Marine Indicators by Key Ecological Attribute

Extent of intertidal habitat

Distribution of estuarine habitat

Riparian community structure

Estuaries

Puget Sound: Vital Signs linked to Ecosystem Components

Chinook watersheds contribute to regional goals

Shellfish Beds

2009 Puget Sound Threats and Soundwide Rating

X

Puget Sound Pressure Taxonomy

SOURCES of pressure on Puget Sound ecosystems and people (41)

STRESSORS - proximate actors on ecosystem (47)

SOURCE – STRESSOR DIAGRAMS illustrating source-stressor relationships

Pathways of Effect

Pressure (Source)

StressorEcosystem Component

(Stressed)source of acts on

Development Land conversion

Reduced floodplain

habitat extent

StressorStressor

Flight Paths

Gathering Terrestrial Plants

Invasive species and other problematic species

Hunting & Collecting Terrestrial Animals

Renewable (e.g. Tidal) Energy

Fire & Fire Suppression

Garbage & Solid Waste

War, Civil Unrest & Military Exercises

Wood & Pulp Plantations

Marine shellfish aquaculture

Industrial Wastewater

Release of Excess Energy (light, heat, sound)

Air-Borne Pollutants/Climate Change

Industrial Runoff

Onsite Sewage Systems (OSS)

Tourism & Recreation Areas

Shipping Lanes and Dredged Waterways

Utility & Service Lines

Dams

Freshwater Levees, Floodgates, Tidegates

Livestock Farming & Ranching

Mining & Quarrying

Oil Spills

Sewer - Domestic & Municipal Wastewater to Sewer

Commercial & Industrial Areas (Including Ports)

Freshwater shoreline infrastructure

Recreational Activities

Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops

Abstraction of surface water

Agricultural & Forestry Effluents

Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources

Logging & Wood Harvesting

Marine & Freshwater Finfish Aquaculture

Abstraction of ground water

Housing & Urban Areas

Marine Levees, Floodgates, Tidegates

Marine shoreline infrastructure

Roads & Railroads (Including Culverts)

Runoff from residential and commercial lands

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

StormwaterRoads & railroads

Marine shoreline armoring

DamsUtility Lines

Onsite Sewage Systems

Invasive Species

Chinook watersheds & Puget Sound pressures

(%)

Pressure

Ecosystem Endpoint

Intrinsic Vulnerability

Potential Impact

Assessment units: watershed marine basin Puget Sound

Pressures posing greatest risk(Puget Sound example)

Land Cover Conversion – Development- Transp. & utilities

Large Spills

Pressures

Most vulnerable parts of the ecosystem(Puget Sound example)

specieshabitats & processes

Cuthroat TroutCoho salmon

Chinook salmon

Riparian vegetationSmall, high-gradient streams

Ecosystem Components &

KEAs

Theories of Change: Actions linked to desired outcomes All 16 Chinook watershed plans (2005) (2005 plans expect lots of miracles) 2014-2015: Regional “Implementation Strategies” focused on key Vital Signs

Theories of Change + Puget Sound Taxonomies

2016 and beyond Refine common language

• multi-scale information sharing and assessments

Refine and apply common tools • improve prioritization of recovery goals, pressures, actions and

science needs

Develop Steelhead recovery plan (NOAA)

Develop regional theories of change (“Implementation Strategies”)

as basis for• 2016 Action Agenda• 2016 Biennial Science Work Plan• Effectiveness Assessment• (2015 &) 2017 State of the Sound reporting