2015 State of the Sound
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•432 vues
The Puget Sound Partnership's 2015 State of the Sound report shows mixed results in recovery efforts in Puget Sound. Stephanie Suter shared the results at the January 2016 NRC meeting.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (11)
Similaire à 2015 State of the Sound
Similaire à 2015 State of the Sound (20)
Plus de Nisqually River Council
Plus de Nisqually River Council (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
2015 State of the Sound
- 1. The 2015 State of the Sound Nisqually River Council January 15, 2016
- 2. 2015 State of the Sound Four-part communication format • Report to the Governor and Legislature Responds to six questions in RCW 90.71.370(3) • Report on the Puget Sound Vital Signs Conveys monitoring findings about progress toward ecosystem recovery targets • Report to the Community Snapshot of Puget Sound ecosystem trends and what’s needed to advance recovery • Website: www.psp.wa.gov/sos
- 3. 2015 State of the Sound Report to the Governor and Legislature 4 0 11 5 23 19 70 100 44 71 48 52 17 0 11 12 15 14 0 0 11 2 7 69 0 22 10 7 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Habitat SI NTA Shellfish SI NTAs Stormwater SI NTAs All SI NTAs NTAs not associated with SI All NTAs PercentbyStatusCategory NTA Category (SI = Strategic Initiative) Completed On Plan Off Plan Serious Constraints Not Started 2012 Action Agenda Percent of NTAs by status category, and by Strategic Initiative
- 4. 2015 State of the Sound Report to the Governor and Legislature 2014 Action Agenda (in progress) Percent of NTAs by status category, and by Strategic Initiative 7 12 23 11 9 9 56 69 46 57 50 52 16 19 15 16 15 16 13 0 8 9 12 12 9 0 8 7 11 10 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Habitat SI NTAs Shellfish SI NTAs Stormwater SI NTAs All SI NTAs NTAs not associated with SI All NTAs PercentbyStatusCategory NTA Category (SI = Strategic Initiative) Completed On Plan Off Plan Serious Constraints Not Started Not Reported
- 5. 2015 State of the Sound Report to the Governor and Legislature 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Funded Percent Funding Gap 2012 Action Agenda 2014 Action Agenda 2012 and 2014 Action Agendas Percent NTA funding gap by Strategic Initiative
- 6. 2015 State of the Sound Report to the Governor and Legislature Funds provided to the Partnership & recommendations for funding to match Action Agenda priorities Expenditures to affect recovery • $578 million for 2015-17 (of $715 million requested by Governor) • 57 percent shortfall in funding 2012 NTAs • $7.5 million of state funds to Partnership for 2015-17 • $14.4 million of federal NEP funds to Partnership and for pass-through to local entities for FFY14 and FFY15 • Funding strategy describes unmet need for strategic initiatives: $300M/y for habitat $40M/y for shellfish $100-250M/y for stormwater
- 7. 2015 State of the Sound Report on the Puget Sound Vital Signs Getting better Not changing Mixed results Getting worse No data 1. On-site sewage inspection & inventory 2. Shellfish beds 3. Salmon commercial harvest 4. Shoreline armoring 5. Forest to developed 6. Riparian restoration 7. Floodplain restoration 8. Estuary restoration 9. Summer low flows 10. Chemicals exceeding sediment quality standards 1. Swimming beaches 2. Sound behavior index 3. Recreational fishing licenses 4. Eelgrass 5. Freshwater quality index 6. Sediment chemistry index 1. Marine birds 2. Insects in small streams 3. Sediment quality triad index 4. Toxics in fish: herring 1. Chinook salmon 2. Pacific herring 3. Southern Resident Killer Whales 4. Conversion of ecologically important lands 5. Marine water condition Index 1. On-site sewage repairs 2. Expand Marine Recovery Areas 3. Quality of Life Index 4. Terrestrial birds 5. Armoring on feeder bluffs 6. Use of soft shore techniques 7. Population growth in Urban Growth Areas 8. Floodplain function 9. Estuary restoration for salmon recovery goals 10. Freshwater impairments 11. Dissolved oxygen 12. Toxics in fish: English sole 13. Toxics in fish: salmon
- 8. Are indicators making progress? Are they reaching targets? 10 indicators 4 indicators 6 indicators 5 indicators Few are meeting 2014 interim targets: 2 of 14 indicators 12 indicators Mixed results, pressures continue, change is slow, few will reach 2020 targets
- 9. Most are habitat indicators Estuary restoration Floodplain restoration Riparian restoration Shoreline armoring Forest loss
- 11. 11 Land cover change: forest to developed
- 14. 14 Area of estuarine wetlands restored to tidal flooding Interim targets are not met
- 15. Most are species indicators and none of the species are getting better Pacific herring Chinook salmon Orcas Marbled murrelet
- 17. 17 Orcas Interim target is not met
- 20. 1. Swimming beaches 2. Sound Behavior Index 3. Recreational fishing licenses 4. Eelgrass 5. Freshwater Quality Index 6. Sediment Chemistry Index 1. Marine birds 2. Insects in small streams 3. Sediment Quality Triad Index 4. Toxics in fish: herring
- 21. 21 Human Wellbeing Puget Sound Partnership Goals: A healthy human population supported by a healthy Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning Puget Sound ecosystem
- 22. 22 22 Newly adopted human wellbeing Vital Signs On-siteSewage
- 23. Newly adopted human wellbeing indicators Human health • Outdoor activity • Nature-based recreation • Nature-based work • Air quality • Local foods • Drinking water Quality of life • Economic vitality • Natural resource industry output • Percent of GDP in natural resource industries • Employment in natural resource industries • Participation in cultural practices • Good governance • Sense of place • Sense of place index • Psychological wellbeing index • Overall life satisfaction • Sound stewardship 23
- 24. 24 2015 State of the Sound Messages How is the ecosystem doing? Some indicators are improving, but most are not Slow to change, and many indicators are not likely to meet targets Are we making progress in implementing the Action Agenda? A majority of Near Term Actions are on track, but many are stalled Funding is the most common barrier to progress What are the next steps? We need to improve focus and fund priority actions.
- 25. 2015 State of the Sound Now what? • Improve the shared road map Develop discrete, achievable NTAs with better performance measures Increase focus on Strategic Initiatives • Mobilize funding Implement the Partnership’s Funding Strategy Use the new funding model increase the rate of funding for NTAs • Communicate findings from the shared measurement system to educate key partners, remove barriers, and advance policy
- 26. 2015 State of the Sound Report to the Governor and Legislature (b) Actions inconsistent with the Action Agenda (a) Progress in implementing the Action Agenda • Higher rate of implementation for Strategic Initiatives • Recommendations (e.g., for 2016 AA) • Effectiveness of actions • Report card forums Water resources & habitat Salmon recovery Pollution identification & correction Shoreline armoring
- 27. 2015 State of the Sound Report to the Governor and Legislature (d) Citizen concerns and their disposition (c) Science Panel comments on implementation and findings from monitoring • Progress in recovery of the Puget Sound ecosystem in key areas • More than 70 percent of NTAs are complete or moving forward • Progress in linking ecosystem status to recovery efforts • Many Vital Signs have not changed or are even deteriorating relative to the goals • Additional actions are needed to maintain and increase the rate of recovery • Issues addressed Preventing oil spills Improving distribution of funding Using riparian buffers Reducing threats from toxic chemicals
Notes de l'éditeur
- Let’s go straight to our key findings that answer the question: Are indicators making progress, are they reaching the targets Getting better: meaning improved relative to baseline Not changing: bumping along but no trend, not going up or down. Mixed results: indicators that are more complex, and different components are going in different direction. Getting worse: lower than before, lost ground relative to baseline. No data for 12 indicators, for various reasons, and thanks to the Partnership and legislature’s decisions, we have resources to address the data gaps. Few meeting 2014 interim targets. Remember: overall results for Puget Sound. Overall we find very mixed results for progress with no particular category here doing better than another: some indicators are improving, some are doing soso, some are getting worse In the next couple of slides, we will dig just a little deeper in these progress categories Mixed results, pressures continue, indicators are slow to change and for the most part not meeting targets Leave with one more message: for many of the indicators, we expected this outcome. Because indicators have slow generation times, or respond to a whole bunch of factors, multiple pressures, and drivers and forces often outside of human control. Think climate change and ocean acidification. So in that sense, should not view them as specific measures of the Action Agenda in 2012 and 2014, but good long-term gauges for the health of Puget Sound.
- Starting with what is getting better Most are habitat indicators If you remember from the previous slide, 10 that are getting better, half are indicators are for habitat goal only. Habitat restoration for floodplains, estuaries and riparian areas, reflecting investments Shoreline armoring: actually a measure of pressure; data suggest that the addition of seawalls is slowing down. Forest loss: forest loss continues, but the rate at which we are loosing forest has declined steadily in the past 20 years These are getting better, but might add that all of them except for forest loss they are still far from reaching their targets. Forest loss is actually really near its 2020 target.
- Five indicators getting worse. Most of these are species indicator. And, none of the species indicators are “getting better” Pacific herring, a forage fish, which fuel the rest of the food web above them, not showing signs of recovery Chinook salmon, which show some very modest increases in a couple of populations, but overall numbers decreased in the past decade years, and still are very far from reaching their federal recovery goals. Marbled murrelets, a seabird that nests in old trees, are declining. Of course, the orca. The population hit a 20 year low last year, there are 5 new orcas this year which is a welcomed addition, but the population is very much a concern.
- The other indicators are either not changing or have results mixed results. All I will say here is that context of change is important Sometimes no change could be ok: when at or near the 2020 targets like for Marine Sediment Chemistry Index But if indicator is not close to the target, like Eelgrass.
- Vital Signs represent are measures that help us gauge health and recovery of PS These are the focus of the report, take a moment to understand what is represented here Outer edge: 6 goals for recovery spelled out in statute. You see that there are very diverse goals, and are fairly comprehensive for ecosystem recovery. These goals are represented by one or more Vital signs – the wedges And then in turn, the Vital Signs are represented by one or more indicators. Furthermore, most of those indicators are associated with 2020 ecosystem recovery targets. I will take you through an example with Orcas. Species and food web goal, with 4 Vital Signs, one of which is for Orcas.