From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a number of environmental issues in Puget Sound, Washington in the United States.

Puget Sound industry

Puget Sound, Washington is a body of water lying east of Admiralty Inlet, through which ocean waters reach inland some 50 miles (80 km) from the Pacific Coast to complex and intricate system of channels, inlets, estuaries, embayments and islands. Industries in this area include aerospace and military, biotechnology, fishing, electronics and computers, forest products, marine industries, telecommunications, transportation and commerce, and value-added industries.^[1]

Many of Puget Sound’s industries rely upon natural resources found in the surrounding ecosystem. For example, oysters, salmon, clams, herring, trout, yellow perch and sole can be harvested from Puget Sound's oceans and riverbeds, supporting a healthy fishing and shellfish industry.^[2][3] Fish farming (fish aquaculture) is also growing in the Puget Sound, as is the farming of shellfish, such as geoduck. Washington state is the second largest U.S. seafood producer, after Alaska, and ranks first or second in oyster production in the nation. For the west coast, Washington provides 86% of the bivalve market.^[4]

Some early industries used improper storage methods for dangerous chemicals, such as arsenic. As a result, areas of soil and aquatic land in Puget Sound are being managed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).^[5]

Standards for the storage and discharge of industry chemicals have improved, and Puget Sound remains vital to the industries that depend upon it, such as shipping ports. Ports in Washington are diverse. Governed as municipalities, the ports operate shipping terminals, marinas, docks, and associated infrastructure, such as roads, railroads and parks. The fastest-growing part of Washington ports is industrial development.^[5][6]

Urbanization and population in Puget Sound

The Puget Sound region has been growing rapidly. According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a board that plans for growth in the four central counties of the area (Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and King counties), the combined population of these counties was nearly 3.4 million residents in 2003. These counties forecast an increase to 4.99 million residents by the year 2040 for the central Puget Sound region alone.^[7]

Between 1970 and 2000, the Puget Sound region's population increased by 1.3 million people. The PSRC predicts that between 2000 and 2020 the region will increase by 1.7 million people. Another change the region faces involves the demographics of its population. The segment of its population ages 65 and older is projected to increase by 150 percent, making up 17 percent of the total population by 2040. The workforce, which makes up the segment ages 20–64, is expected to decline, with the age group 20 and younger shrinking, as fewer households are of childbearing years.^[7]

Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), local governments plan, coordinate and manage for growth in Washington, while protecting natural resources and public interests. The GMA requires local governments to develop long-term comprehensive plans for land uses in their jurisdictions. Plans must be coordinated with surrounding counties and be approved by a regional board. The local government must also develop a shoreline master plan, if the jurisdiction contains a "shoreline of statewide significance". Finally, as part of the GMA, local governments must address sensitive fish and wildlife areas through Critical Area Ordinances (CAOs).^[8]

Hood Canal hypoxia

Hood Canal is a fjord off the Puget Sound. The [{main focus on the thesis}] discusses different contributing factors that [{immenently influence}] low-oxygen conditions (hypoxia) in Hood Canal. One overriding factor is the underwater topography of the canal. The deepest parts of the canal are more than 600 feet (180 m) deep, but at the entrance is a sill that is only 150 feet (46 m) deep. Inlets or bays [{within}] this fjord often experience sluggish water exchange. The Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program (HCDOP)^[9] and the United States Geological Service (USGS) are studying Hood Canal circulation, trying to model the tidal circulations and salinity distribution patterns between the canal and Admiralty Inlet.^[10] Other factors that, when combined with the constrictive shape, could also influence hypoxia in Hood Canal are:^[11]

1. Pacific Ocean marine water may be entering with a lower oxygen content than historically received
2. Marine water may be entering at a density lighter than needed to flush out Hood Canal quickly or effectively
3. Riverine freshwater input as changed—increased or decreased—altering the stratification of Hood Canal and have competing effects on marine water input
4. Organic material input may have increased
5. Light input may have increased (algae growth increases with light, as well as organic nutrient input)
6. Wind currents may have altered water column circulation

The picture surrounding hypoxia in Hood Canal is complex; research models point to more than one contributing factor. Nutrient level is a large issue due to the human impact. The supply of nutrients, primarily nitrates, to the euphotic zone is thought to impact levels of dissolved oxygen. Nutrients feed algae, which under the right conditions, "bloom" and then die and decompose; the entire process requires a large amount of oxygen. This decreases the oxygen in the water column, lowering the dissolved oxygen level.

There are both natural and man-made sources of nutrients. The primary natural source is in ocean water that flushes Hood Canal. Man-made sources include leaking septic systems, storm water runoff, agriculture and various other sources. The presence of nutrients leads to algae growth, which consumes oxygen when the algae die and decompose, contributing to the low oxygen conditions in these waters.

Another factor mentioned by the HCDOP is the influence of the ocean water. The ocean water that enters Hood Canal is like most estuaries: fresh, warm water flows out at the surface and is replaced by cold, salty water at depth. The cold, salty ocean water that enters Hood Canal comes into Puget Sound from the open ocean and has not recently been in contact with the atmosphere. As a result, this water is initially somewhat depleted in oxygen.

Finally, seasons play a role. The warmer temperatures, longer days, and lower winds change flushing conditions. Low oxygen conditions are at their worst in the late summer, after several months of limited flushing and maximum plankton production near the surface. In some years, oxygen becomes sufficiently depleted that animals cannot survive. These kills may occur either locally or over a wide area.^[12]

Eelgrass

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an underwater grass that thrives in marine and estuarine water bottoms and spreads through rhizomes, or roots. It has been estimated by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that Puget Sound is occupied by approximately 26,000 acres (105 km²) of eelgrass.^[13] Research has shown that eelgrass beds in Puget Sound can be found in two different habitats: flats, which can be described as either large, shallow bays or small "pocket" beaches, and fringe beds along steep shorelines.^[14] Beds of eelgrass provide a vital link in the nearshore foodweb, creating underwater forests for biota such as salmon, herring, sand lance, and numerous invertebrates.^[15]

Eelgrass beds provide nutrients and shelter for various biota in Puget Sound. As eelgrass and other seagrasses decay, it combines with other dead matter. This rich detritus is a staple for invertebrates, which are fed upon by salmonids, birds and other predators. Eelgrass functions as a protective cover from the predators for juvenile salmon and as a nursery for herring that deposit eggs among bed. Herring, in turn, are an important food source for juvenile and adult salmon.^[16]

During low tide, eelgrass beds shelters other small animals from extreme temperatures, and in tideflats the beds act as a sponge for moisture.^[16]

Eelgrass monitoring is conducted throughout Puget Sound using random sampling under the Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Nearshore Program.^[14] Results for 2003–2004 were posted in 2005. Many eelgrass populations were holding steady, but sharp declines were noted in five shallow bays in the San Juan Islands and 14 smaller sites in the greater Puget Sound. Eelgrass throughout the entire Hood Canal showed a steady decline.^[17]

A number of reasons contribute to the decline in eelgrass population, including, but not limited to:^[14]

1. Lack of appropriate substrate to grow upon
2. Lack of or poor-quality light, impacting photosynthesis
3. Changes in climate impacting currents, water temperature and water quality
4. Nutrient input, spurring algae growth, reducing light and oxygen availability
5. Sediment input, reducing light availability and quality
6. Physical alteration of the shoreline, potentially increasing wave energy or altering substrate in the nearshore area, sometimes both

The Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan (2005–2007) outlines a number of goals for improving management and health of the state's eelgrass beds. These include increasing protection over eelgrass beds on state-managed aquatic lands, and developing a statewide "seagrass management conservation plan" to be used by local, state and federal agencies.^[18]

Salmon

chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, and steelhead/rainbow and cutthroat trout occur in the Puget Sound area.

Degradation of nearshore habitat in the Puget Sound

"Nearshore" is most commonly defined as the backshore, intertidal and shallow subtidal areas of shoreline. In Washington, for example, the Shoreline Management Act defines the upland edge of this area to be 200 feet (61 m) behind the shoreline. Many groups also consider the nearshore to go fairly deep beyond the intertidal zone.^[19]

While Puget Sound has enjoyed tremendous growth, the nearshore environment has declined. This environment is considered the "key to life in the Puget Sound estuary".^[20] More than 10,000 streams and rivers drain into Puget Sound. Approximately 1,800 miles (2,900 km) of shoreline surround the estuary, which is a mosaic of beaches, bluffs, deltas, mudflats and wetlands.^[20] A number of factors have been listed as potentially contributing to continued degradation of the nearshore environment. These include changing the nearshore by adding artificial structures, such as tide gates and bulkheads; increased pollution from various sources, such as failing septic systems; and various impacts from agricultural and industrial activities.^[21] One-third of more than 4,000 kilometres (2,500 mi) of Puget Sound shoreline has been modified by some form of human development, including armoring, dredging, filling and construction of overwater structures.^[21]

A variety of species rely upon the nearshore environment, such as salmonids. Research has shown that juvenile salmonids rely upon the entire marine nearshore environment, not just upon localized areas, as some had previously thought.^[22] The research concluded that juvenile salmon use a diverse array of nearshore habitat types that have been significantly altered by human development activities. It connected salmon and both land and aquatic environments, which serve to support salmon and other species in the nearshore. For example, the report affirmed that juvenile chinook depend on food from both marine riparian vegetation on land and shallow water habitats such as eelgrass.

Other findings include:

1. Juvenile chinook were found for extended periods of time in the nearshore and often used the shallow shoreline areas of Puget Sound.
2. Juvenile chinook stocks are broadly distributed and intermix in central Puget Sound.
3. Hatchery chinook are more abundant than wild chinook in the nearshore environment.
4. Juvenile chinook have diverse diets that are a product of the diverse habitats which make up the nearshore ecosystem.
5. Chinook appear to feed opportunistically on whatever prey are seasonally available, and change their diet from insects, marine plankton, and epibenthic organisms to a diet of fish at approximately 130-150 mm in size.
6. Hatchery and wild chinook significantly overlap in space, time and diet in the marine nearshore.

A variety of efforts are under way to improve the nearshore environment. These efforts work to improve education, planning and adaptive management, particularly with respect to local planning processes. Some of these efforts are:

• The Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
• The Washington Department of Natural Resources, Nearshore Program
• Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan
• Washington State's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan, 2005

The needs of salmonid species for survival

Salmon are the primary nearshore species most think of in Puget Sound. In order for salmon to revive in the Puget Sound, their basic needs must be met, including cool, unpolluted water.^[23] Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Puget Sound has been designated a recovery domain for purposes of helping threatened and endangered salmon to survive.^[24] Within this domain, three Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmon species have been designated: Lake Ozette sockeye, Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook.^[24] Bull trout has also recently been listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Two populations are found in Washington, and one is located in Puget Sound.^[25]

In general, most salmon require clean gravel streambeds to lay their eggs, a flood regime in tune with their life cycle, accessible habitat that provides food and cover from predators, and functionally diverse stream beds. These biological requirements are increasingly impacted inside and outside of Puget Sound. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) lists the primary factors influencing the survival of salmon as being:^[26]

1. Water storage, withdrawal, conveyance and diversion
2. Natural resource use and extraction leading to habitat modification
3. Loss of connectivity and complexity between and within watersheds
4. Impacts of recreational, commercial and illegal fishing
5. Introduction of non-native species and modification of habitat resulting in increased predator populations
6. Natural environmental conditions (drought)
7. Hatcheries

Woody debris, such as logjams in Puget Sound rivers and streams, provide important wintering habitat for juvenile salmon. Logjams protect the salmon from predators and tumultuous waters. In 1880, the United States Army Corps of Engineers began a process of "desnagging" Northwest rivers, one of the first actions by settlers harmful to salmon populations.^[23] There is currently a movement among environmentalists to create engineered logjams (ELJs) to restore salmon habitat in the Puget Sound area.

The salmon are an icon of the Puget Sound, and ensuring their survival has become important to many agencies, groups and interested citizens. These stakeholders consider salmon a fundamental icon of residency in Puget Sound. "Besides humans, no other creature penetrates the Northwest so completely. The salmon is to the entire Northwest what the spotted owl was to old-growth forests—a telling indicator of ecological health".^[27]

The abundance of salmon is something that can be seen, touched, and even tasted. Many take extreme pride in working towards the recovery of salmonids, and although they see it as a huge task to be fulfilled, they consider their duty to an icon of Washington. All the pride in the Puget Sound will make it so worthwhile.

The role of hatcheries and salmon recovery

Hatcheries have produced Pacific salmon for nearly 130 years. The first hatchery was located on the Baker River, built in 1896. During this time, hatcheries have provided valuable data on salmon ecology and behavior by providing capture and release rates—the number of salmon that were captured returning as adults to spawn, compared to those that were originally released as smolts. The way salmon adapt to changing freshwater and marine conditions can be extrapolated from this; along with alteration in habitat; as well as natural disasters, such as wildfire and drought.

More than 100 hatcheries are operated in Puget Sound and coastal Washington by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Puget Sound and coastal Native American tribes, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Most were built to produce fish for harvest in response to declines in naturally spawning salmon populations.^[28]

Hatcheries now provide 70 percent of the salmon caught in Puget Sound and are the linchpin of an $854 million annual recreational fishing economy in Washington (ranked eighth in the nation). Hatcheries also play an important role in meeting tribal treaty harvest obligations. As better scientific information has become available, however, hatcheries have been identified as one of the factors responsible for the decline of naturally spawning populations. It has been difficult to conclusively prove negative impacts on naturally spawning salmon by hatchery fish and this is a subject of debate among fisheries scientists.

One set of data that helped determine how the management of hatchery salmon impact wild salmon came directly from the federal government. A caucus of nine federal agencies convened to study on a basin-wide scale the salmon decline in Washington. In 2000, the Federal Caucus published a report concluding that (1) the decline of salmon was well documented, and (2) there were four human activities linked to this decline: changes in habitat, the use of hydropower, harvesting, and hatcheries. These actitivies became known as the "4 H's".^[29] Modern hatchery practices seek to minimize any chance of adverse impact to naturally spawning fish. Some hatchery programs are specifically designed to assist in the restoration of weak and endangered populations.

The report recommended two strategies with respect to hatcheries and the recovery of threatened and endangered salmon. First, reform was necessary for all production and mitigation hatcheries to reduce any harm to wild salmon. Second, supplemental and captive broodstock programs were recommended to act as "safety nets" while long-term recovery goals were worked towards. It was highly recommended that hatcheries produce fish genetically diversified for the local environment into which they were released, and naturally capable of interbreeding with wildstock without any harm. To meet this goal, the Federal Caucus suggested that salmon hatcheries develop a Hatchery and Genetics Management Program (HGMP). Hatcheries would also start using eggs collected from native, wild salmon, rather than non-native salmon, for captive broodstock.^[29]

At that time, state, tribal and federal managers of Washington's salmon and steelhead were working to find ways to ensure that their hatcheries did not present a risk to several Puget Sound and coastal stocks that were listed or proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA. In Washington, tribal and state hatchery managers wanted to go above and beyond complying with the baseline terms and conditions provided under the ESA. It had become apparent that a statewide hatchery system had to be developed that would recover and conserve wild populations, while supporting a sustainable fishery. The collaborative project of hatchery reform began. This effort allowed science to direct management and policy.

This effort was started by a non-profit group called Long Live the Kings, which had been working for some time in a collaborative manner with local, state, tribal and federal entities on hatchery reform. The result was the Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project, approved by Congress in 2000. This project provided appropriated funds that would:

1. Provide for an independent, scientific panel to oversee hatchery operations within the state of Washington;^[30]
2. Provide a competitive grant program for projects that addressed hatchery-related impacts;
3. Support state and tribal efforts to implement hatchery reform; and
4. Provide for the facilitation of a reform strategy by an independent third party.

In April 2004, the Hatchery Scientific Review Group produced the first report on changes that were required within hatchery management in order to assist in the recovery of salmon in Washington.^[31]

While the Hatchery Reform Project was being developed at the state level, decisions about the management of hatchery and endangered wild salmon were being made at the federal level. In 2001, a district court ruled that the federal government's strategy of grouping hatchery and wild salmon for purposes of defining ESUs, but separating hatchery and wild salmon for purposes of defining threatened and endangered species was not legally valid. The government was ordered to find a different procedure. The resulting solution was to group hatchery and wild salmon for both purposes: defining ESUs and determining whether the species is threatened or endangered under the ESA.

This decision was controversial. A letter appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Science, signed by the Salmon Science Recovery Review Panel, a United States National Research Council-approved group of six ecologists that had been requested to provide recommendations on Pacific salmon recovery to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)^[32]; however, NMFS declined to use the group's recommendations, stating that the group went outside the realm of science and into policy. The group chose to publish its recommendations in Science. The published article stated that hatchery fish should not be included with wild fish.^[33]

Soon afterward, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent agency of NMFS, had its Fisheries Division release a formal statement on its hatchery policy, expressing a desired commitment to ensure the survival and recovery of wild salmon, and recognizing that some hatcheries promote recovery and some hatcheries do not.^[34]

Since that time, a lawsuit led by the non-profit advocacy group Trout Unlimited was launched against the federal government, calling its decision "arbitrary and capricious", and citing the decision not to allow the Salmon Science Recovery Review Panel's recommendations—or the Panels' references and citations—as one reason.^[35] The lawsuit was allowed to proceed by a Seattle Federal District Court judge.^[36] The local, state and tribal-based hatchery reform effort proceeds forward, while federal efforts to address hatcheries and salmon recovery remain entangled in legal complexities.

Salmon

The Puget Sound estuary is home to many marine creatures including Orca whales, seals and Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon are an iconic species of the Puget Sound region and spawn in most major tributaries that feed the sound. Puget Sound salmon species include king or Chinook, coho, chum and sockeye.^[37]

The declining salmon population in Puget Sound is "a telling indicator of the ecological health" of the area and "billions of dollars have been spent to reverse the declining salmon runs".^[27] It can be attributed to several factors, including the 4 H's—habitat, hydropower, harvesting and hatcheries—and "the Fifth H"—history. Salmon have ecological requirements such as logjams, wood and gravel in the rivers, high oxygen content, correct ocean and fresh water temperature, and proper sunlight. History has the power to greatly impact the rise or fall of the salmon population in the Puget Sound. "Humans have conducted at least three full-scale experiments on how well salmon adapt to a changing landscape. Salmon failed each time, first in Great Britain, then in New England, and now in the Pacific Northwest".^[38]

Pacific Salmon have disappeared from 40 percent of their historic range outside Alaska. For every 50 salmon the Columbia River basin supported 150 years ago, today it is estimated to support seven. The state of Washington continually tried to place the blame for this decline on Native American fishing, even as commercial fisheries took more than a sustainable amount of fish each year. State courts continually curtailed tribal fishing rights by limiting the sites and times of year that they could fish.^[39] When brought to the federal courts, however, these cases have been repeatedly overturned, as in the landmark Boldt Decision of 1974. In this decision, Judge Boldt consulted the original treaties made with numerous tribes in the 1850s to determine what rights the tribes had regarding fishing. The treaties all stated that the tribes had the right to fish at "all usual and accustomed places" and that this right was "secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the territory".^[40] Judge Boldt interpreted the phrase "in common" to mean that the tribes and other citizens were each entitled to half of the fish harvest. This was a groundbreaking decision whose repercussions are still being felt today, especially by fishermen who complain that the tribes take nowhere near the half allotted to them.

There has been a struggle on salmon returning to their Pacific Northwest rivers and streams because of the struggling Northwest's economy. This provides a much-needed economic influx from increased recreational and commercial salmon fishing. Three percent of wild salmon runs in the Columbia Basin are below historic numbers. Recent studies also show that the ocean's temperature may be warming again and that the Northwest is suffering its sixth straight year of below-average waters.^[41]

Under provisions of the ESA, numerous salmon populations throughout the Pacific Northwest have been listed as endangered.^[27] One of the factors that contribute to declining salmon runs in Puget Sound, and the Pacific Northwest in general, is the lack of logjams in rivers. Logjams are essential to the survival of healthy salmon populations. Logjam and river current interaction carve deep pools into riverbeds, providing salmon and their young, also known as fry, with hiding places from predators. Logjams also force some of the water from the main river to spill out over the adjacent floodplain, forming tributaries along the river, which supply ideal habitat for maturing salmon. The natural processes of spawning and reaching maturity become much more difficult for salmon without the services logjams provide.^[39]

Another reason for salmon population decline is the use of increasingly sophisticated fishing technology. Some of the first Native American fishermen depended only on canoes, nets made from nettle or cedar fiber, and their personal skill to catch fish (Pacific Coast 2005). Today’s fishermen use trackers to locate the fish they want to catch, whether salmon or otherwise, and then use technology like powerboats, winches, and nets made of almost unbreakable substances to catch the desired species. Advances in technology have their disadvantages, however. Advances in fishing technology have enabled fishermen to catch more and more fish of all sizes and species. For an extended period of time now, fishermen have been catching not only the larger, mature fish, but also the smaller, immature fish that have not had the chance to reproduce. This practice is detrimental to salmon populations because it does not leave any fish to propagate the salmon species.

In addition to technological advancements in fishing, invasive species and natural predators threaten the remaining salmon population. These include, but are not limited to, harbor seals, sea lions, killer whales and various sea birds. While these species are natural predators of salmon, juvenile salmon also have competition to deal with when gathering food. One major source of competition are jelly fish that feed on the same organisms as juvenile salmon. The proliferation of jelly fish and decrease of salmon could potentially lead to the "infestation" of jelly fish in local waters.^[42] Also, as the organisms that salmon feed on begin to dwindle due to factors including overfishing and invasive species, salmon are further threatened as their food sources become precarious, as is the case with herring populations around Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team).

Habitat

The Puget Sound boasts an impressive habitat for salmon, as well as other flora and fauna necessary for the species’ survival. Healthy eelgrass and kelp beds foster juvenile salmon as they make the change from small rivers and streams to a new ocean habitat in the Puget Sound before they travel on to the Pacific Ocean. Prey for salmon at different stages of their lives also thrives in healthy Puget Sound habitat, including sand lances and rockfish.^[43] As it applies to habitat, the human population along the Puget Sound shoreline has made these pristine environments harder and harder to come by. Shorelines have been bulk-headed and armored, estuaries have been filled to make agricultural land and naturally occurring logjams have been removed to make navigation in the sound easier.^[39] Habitat degradation is cited by the WDFW as one of the major contributors in reducing the Salmon stock’s resilience (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2001). An additional loss of salmon habitat along the Puget Sound has been that of salt marsh habitats along shorelines. These habitats provide salmon with important grounds for shelter as well as food. Nearly all salt marshes in and around the major Puget Sound region urban areas have been destroyed. In fact, there has been a 73% loss of salt marsh habitat in and around the Puget Sound over the last 125 years.^[44]

Hydroelectric dams

Hydroelectric dams contribute to the decrease in salmon populations as well. They prevent adult salmon from entering upstream to spawn. The fluctuation in water flow puts tremendous amounts of stress on salmon and reduces their ability to survive.^[39] Some dams have fish ladders that allow salmon to pass through the dam. This system helps salmon reach their spawning sites; however, the juveniles often get killed on the way downstream by the turbines in the dam. Continued use of hydroelectric dams has been the subject of local controversy. Discontinuing the dams' use would leave the region with insufficient energy supplies, since about 55% of the local energy supply is provided by hydroelectric dams. On the other hand, environmentalists are in favor of stopping hydroelectric dam operations.^[45]

Dams affect almost all the major rivers in the Pacific Northwest, particularly near the Puget Sound. Some important river systems for salmon affected by hydroelectric dams include the Baker River, Nisqually River and Green River systems. Dams impede the natural lifecycle of salmon by creating physical barriers to their spawning grounds with detrimental consequences. Reduced water velocity from these barriers significantly increases the time needed for young salmon to travel down the river to start the ocean phase of their lifecycle. This augmentation in migration time for salmon and alteration in "timing" possibly leads to disorientation and an increased susceptibility to predation.^[46] Another adverse effect known as "supersaturation" can occur for fish encountering dams that is similar in nature to "the bends", which can kill humans. Dams also play a major role in "taming" once "wild" rivers, the latter much more beneficial to sustaining wild salmon populations, thus negatively altering the natural environmental dynamics of ecosystems suitable for salmon.^[47]

Overfishing

Overfishing is another major historic factor in the depletion of salmon. Salmon became popular because it was considered very cheap compared to the growing costs of meat. As fishing became more popular, so did canneries. In 1877, the first Puget Sound cannery was built in Mukilteo, and by 1900, Puget Sound had expanded its operating canneries to 19. The effectiveness of the cannery fish traps was so great that biologists began to argue that a guaranteed number of fishes needed to be allowed to escape the nets to reach their spawning grounds, in order to prevent the total extermination of salmon.^[48]

The production of canned salmon grew slowly until about 1890 when it started to rapidly increase. During the World Wars of the 1900s canneries started to decline progressively. This was mainly due to voters supporting salmon protection initiatives because their traps were banned in Washington as voters passed Initiative 77 in 1934; however, because of this Oregon fishing boats began increasing their catch since Washington banned their traps. Through this, there was no increase in the number of salmon reaching their spawning grounds 18 years after the initiative passed. The ban in Washington eventually led to technological advances in salmon fishing. Vessels for open-ocean salmon fishing started developing in the 1930s through advances in marine technology. This allowed huge floating canneries to harvest and package salmon in the open ocean far from where runs were originally located. Thus, through the development of marine technology, countries with no salmon or depleted runs could harvest fish in other countries' open water, which in turn began to negatively affect salmon conservation and recovery efforts.^[49]

Today, Alaska currently hosts most of the American salmon fisheries because it is able to maintain relatively healthy habitats and salmon runs.^[50] Alaskan and Canadian fisheries do have impacts on Puget Sound salmon stocks, however.

Currently, fisheries are managed to minimize impacts on weak and endangered stocks of fish. Nearshore and freshwater fisheries are regulated by the WDFW and the treaty Native American tribes. Ocean fisheries off the Washington coast are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and Pacific Salmon Commission. Fisheries impacting endangered species are required to have permits under the ESA.

Invasive species

Aquatic nuisance species are non-native plants or animals that threaten the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological stability of infested waters; or the commercial, agricultural or recreational activities that depend on such waters.^[51] In recent years, the Puget Sound has seen an increase of invasive species, specifically from Japan, as early as 1971.^[52] In recent decades, society and how it relates to the ocean has become increasingly globalized. Invasive species have come to the Puget Sound via several factors, including aquaculture, importation of live seafood, shipping (attached to ship hulls and through ballast water), research and academic institutions, deliberate introductions, pet stores and public aquaria, and natural dispersal.^[53] The European green crab Carcinus maenus and the marine grass Spartina are currently two of the most damaging species. In response to such trends, ocean species have migrated to places they shouldn't. The Puget Sound has the most introduced invasive species.^[54] Nationwide, about 400 of the 958 (42 percent) species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are considered to be at risk, primarily due to competition with and predation by non-native species.^[55]

The WDFW is now attempting to combat its exotic species problem with the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Under this plan, Washington State Patrol Commercial Vehicle Inspectors search incoming vessels for harmful invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, and decontaminate the vessels before they can spread the organism.^[56] The plan also established an Aquatic Nuisance Species committee to find other ways to protect Washingtonians from the harm done by invasive species. The committee coordinates responses to threats at the federal, state, local and tribal, as well as private, levels, and presents a biennial report to the Governor's office to ensure that the situation is always under control.

Pollution

The population in the greater Seattle area has grown by over 18% from 1990 to 2000 (censusscope.org). This population will continue to grow and increasingly pollute Puget Sound. The strain on Puget Sound is augmented by the fact that it is still legal to discharge chemicals such as lead, PCBs, and mercury into Puget Sound waterways. These chemicals are dangerous not only to humans but also to marine organisms, as the PCBs build up in their systems. In fact, more than 70 waterways in Washington have unsafe levels of these and similar chemicals.^[57] Burning coal or petroleum creates hydrocarbons; many industries and steamships use coal as a power source. In the early 1900s, hydrocarbons dramatically increased pollution. By 1943, the pollution began to decline. In 1970, the hydrocarbons level dropped to its original level from fifty years before. Storm water runoff contributes significantly to the level of pollution. During rainy weather, the toxins on city streets are swept away by the running water and delivered to storm drains. This toxic water is delivered directly to Puget Sound.

Oil spills

Oil spills pose another major threat to the Puget Sound marine wildlife and ecosystems. Since 1989, there have been 225 oil spills in Puget Sound. Nearly every day Puget Sound imports 550,000 barrels of unrefined oil, thus making Puget Sound one of the country's primary centers for refining petroleum.^[58] One such spill on October 14, 2004 in Dalco Passage leaked nearly 1,000 gallons over Vashon and Maury Islands.^[59] The effects of oil spills were wide spread, affecting the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. The reserve inhabits sensitive eel grass and forage fish spawning areas, which are necessary for native salmon and orca populations.^[57]

223 of these spills have been deemed "serious" and have released a combined 114,405 gallons of oil in the sound. The other two spills have been called "major": the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and another in 1999 off the coast of Bellingham.^[60] Because more than 600 vessels travel through Puget Sound every day, many believe that a disastrous oil spill is imminent.^[57] An oil spill even bigger than the Exxon Valdez incident could devastate the precious Puget Sound environment. Toxins could infiltrate every aspect of the sound, including all marine and plant life.

Population

Times have changed since the 1970s, when a billboard in Seattle read “the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights”.^[61] The expansion of Microsoft and Boeing has spurred an economic growth in the area. The 12-county Puget Sound region, including Seattle and Tacoma, has quadrupled to four million people since the 1950s, and the state predicts one million more residents by 2025.^[57] This has major environmental implications, including pollution runoff and the altering of important shorelines. “One-third of Puget Sound shoreline has already been altered”.^[43] Population can also indirectly cause problems for fragile marine environments; for instance, the gravel mining operation at Maury Island, started in part to provide material for the proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport as well as to repair overused roads in the area, carries with it a host of aquatic environmental implications.

Coastal development

Another factor contributing to the salmon decline in the Puget Sound region is coastal development. The concrete walls that are often used to protect coastal housing from large surf are also contributing to the destruction of coastal habitat. These concrete walls can often destroy the gravely beaches that are essential parts of salmon habitats. These walls can also affect eelgrass beds that are located just off shore. Salmon and many other fish rely heavily on eelgrass beds for food and protection. These concrete walls are known as bulkheads, and from 1977 to 1992 in Thurston County, shoreline armoring (which includes bulkheads) doubled where the Deschutes River empties into the Puget Sound.^[62] These bulkheads also alter shore drift, ridding beaches of important sediments, shelter, and food for salmon. Shoreline vegetation and feeder species are also often lost due to bulkheads.^[44] There are very few remaining undeveloped coastal beaches in the Puget Sound; however, the few remaining "pristine" undeveloped beaches are along the shores of Maury Island. These beaches are almost as close as anyone can get to pristine, and that is because they have been carefully zoned to protect the coastal waters. If people want to keep the remaining salmon habitat everyone needs to conserve and protect the remaining semi-pristine coastline.

Solutions

Although Puget Sound and its inhabitants all must face difficult issues, there are many significant forces working hard to counteract the degradation of the region. In regards to salmon, the National Research Council recommended a publicly accountable scientific advisory board to help direct conservation efforts on a larger scale.^[63] Grassroots organizations, such as People for Puget Sound, have developed into powerful centers for lobbyists, and have created and enacted programs to monitor, restore or preserve the environment.^[57] In addition, the state government has expressed its concern for the region, creating groups such as the Puget Sound Action Team to restore and maintain the health of the sound.^[64] This organization has programs to remove fishing gear, increase salmon population and health, and improve nearshore habitat. With the support of local communities and state sponsorship, organizations are able to help provide restoration and protection regarding a wide range of issues in the region.

The Washington state government has adapted the federal government's Marine Protected Area (MPA) system into designated Aquatic Reserves, defined as "aquatic lands of special educational or scientific interest or lands of special environmental importance that are threatened by degradation".^[65] Aquatic Reserves are meant to serve as aquatic versions of national parks or sanctuaries.^[66] Through the Aquatic Reserve Program, the DNR hopes to control these areas in an effort to restore, preserve or enhance habitats and species that directly tie into the aquatic ecosystem. The first Aquatic Reserve created under the program was at Maury Island in November 2004. Further candidate sites under review include Cherry Point, Fidalgo Bay and Cypress Island.^[67]

Solutions for Puget Sound salmon protection

Federal involvement is crucial to the long-term survival of salmon. The majority of the decline in salmon population is attributable to the effects of population growth within the region, such as damming of Puget Sound tributaries and pollution of Puget Sound; however, some proposed solutions have little to do with directly addressing the effects of population growth. Federally sponsored actions have been proposed in defense of salmon including marine mammal predation control activities for seals and sea lions (which are also federally protected species) in waterways (such as the Puget Sound) where the salmon runs are depleted and the seals and sea lions are threatening the survival of the salmon.^[68]

Another commonly proposed solution is the increased implementation of salmon hatchery programs. There are debates over the effectiveness of hatcheries. Proponents of the plan argue that hatcheries are essential to the survival of salmon within the Puget Sound region and beyond. Other groups argue against the hatcheries because they claim that it offsets the environmental balance by introducing the artificially raised salmon populations and pitting them against the natural population.^[69]

See also

• Environmental issues in the United States
• Marine conservation
• South Maury Island environmental issues

References

Further reading

• Christie, Patrick, Assistant Professor, Society and the Oceans Lecture, The University of Washington, April 2005.
• Emerick, Christina M. (1991). Introduction to the Oceans: A Laboratory Manual. Kendall Hunt. p. 39. ISBN 0-8403-5885-7.  
• "Hatchery Reform Science Group". Long Live the Kings. 2006. http://www.lltk.org/HRP_Publications.html. Retrieved 2006-08-09.  
• Hatchery Scientific Review Group (April 2004). "Scientific Framework for the Artificial Propagation of Salmon and Steelhead" (PDF). Long Live the Kings. http://www.lltk.org/pdf/hsrg/HSRG_Scientific_Framework.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-28.  
• "Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan (PSCRP)". Puget Sound Action Team. http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/priorities_05/pscrp_05-07_final-web.pdf/. Retrieved 2006-08-08.  
• "Puget Sound Shorelines: Nearshore Foodweb and Eelgrass diagram". Washington State Department of Ecology. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/detritus.html/. Retrieved 2006-08-08.  
• Sverdrup, Keith A.; Duxbury, Alyn C. (2003). An Introduction to the World's Oceans. Duxbury, Alison B.. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. pp. 328, 337–339.  
• Thanqaraju, Ranjini (2004-05-12). "Lucrative Income From Organic Aquaculture". New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur): p. 11.