November 20, 2008
To:    Puget Sound Partnership
From:    People For Puget Sound
Comments on Draft Action Agenda

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft 2020 Action Agenda. We appreciate the incredible effort on the part of the Leadership Council and Partnership staff and consultants that went into producing this document. There are many actions proposed for the near- and long-term that People For Puget Sound supports and appreciates. We hope the final Action Agenda you adopt on December 1st addresses the concerns we raise in this letter. We look forward to working with the Partnership on implementing the Action Agenda, including securing the significant new funding that will be needed to be successful.

The second press release of Governor Gregoire’s Administration in January 2005, called for a dramatic scaling up of the effort to recover the Sound to health. The legislature responded to that call, passing hundreds of millions of new dollars for Puget Sound and enacting the statute that created the Puget Sound Partnership and set the goal to recover the Sound to health by 2020. The Action Agenda represents the first phase of this renewed effort – many say last chance – to save Puget Sound. Thus, it is vitally important to get it right.

Unfortunately, the Action Agenda is coming forward at a time when the economy is down and budget projections are gloomy. Yet investments in recovery of Puget Sound are essential to developing a sustainable economy in our region, and many of the necessary action will also provide much-needed stimulus in the short term. It is critical for the Partnership to make the case that Puget Sound investments warrant new and increased revenue sources now at the state and local levels, and also deserve federal funding as part of stimulating the economy.

This letter outlines our most important recommendations for improving the draft Action Agenda. Our concerns and recommendations fall into these areas:

Accountability – How can we be sure that this plan will actually do the job for the Sound?

Funding – What is the funding plan to get to a healthy Sound by 2020?

Stormwater – Reducing impervious surface, increasing forest cover, and preventing pollution in runoff requires a much more aggressive strategy;

Toxics – the actions suggested do not comprise the comprehensive toxics prevention program that clearly is essential to recovering the Sound to health and saving our orcas, who are weakened by toxic uptake and starving to death;

Habitat – we do not think the focus on land acquisition will protect habitat without significant improvements in our regulatory system; and

Climate Change -  the final Action Agenda should include a section on climate change that describes the actions needed to ensure the Sound and its watersheds will be resilient in the face of the changes we can expect in the coming years.

Accountability
The watchword of this new effort has been “accountability,” meaning that what Puget Sound needs most is a plan for its recovery that is clear about who is supposed to do what by when, and how it is to be funded and enforced. Priority E sets out a framework for accountability. We strongly encourage you to enhance this section and lay out in the final Action Agenda the timeframe for preparing a comprehensive approach to achieving recovery of the Sound’s health by 2020. This approach will require targets, indicators, benchmarks – with all the actions tied to the benchmarks. The benchmarks must be based on science and tied to a healthy Sound, not to what is politically feasible.

The critical accountability section can also be improved by a careful review of sections 15, 16, 17, and 19 and additional actions to implement the accountability tools provided: independent scientific review; transparency and responsiveness to citizen input; fiscal accountability and compliance tools; management conferences; substantial noncompliance provisions; performance measures; corrective action plans; recommendations to the legislature and the governor on overcoming barriers in existing laws; and tracking and reporting on results.

We hope the final Action Agenda will focus in on how it will institute an accountable system that can overcome the many barriers to achieving success – the HOW of: securing adequate funding, achieving compliance and consistency Soundwide, improving regulatory protections, effectively addressing cumulative effects, credible monitoring, and the proper alignment of economic incentives and disincentives.

We would also like to point out that on page 1 of the Introduction, the statement that the Action agenda is the roadmap for “….moving toward a healthy Puget Sound by 2020” is inconsistent with statute, which clearly states that “It is the goal of the state that the health of Puget Sound be restored by 2020.” Our collective work over the past 25 years to improve to health Puget Sound has suffered from the open-ended nature of the enterprise – any old action or budget would do since we had an infinite amount of time to get there. The legislature, with the governor’s support, wisely recognized that providing a clear date-certain is the only way to assure progress and, yes, success. It is not trivial to modify this goal, as it injects uncertainty into the process of implementation, significantly reduces accountability, and potentially reduces motivation and energy for the project.

Funding
We appreciate that the draft Action Agenda endorses increased resources for inspection, compliance and enforcement programs. Investments in achieving compliance with programs that prevent pollution will pay dividends in avoided costs for cleanup and restoration in future years.

We hope that the final Action Agenda will include the essential and required (Section 19(2)) “recommendations for projected funding needed through 2020 to implement the action agenda….[and] identify methods to secure stable and sufficient funding to meet these needs; and include proposals for new sources of funding to be dedicated to Puget Sound protection and recovery.” This funding report is vital to our efforts to get the money we need to achieve recovery by 2020. If we don’t know what we need, it will be hard to convince people to pay for it.

The draft Action Agenda does a good job summarizing the importance of Puget Sound to our economy, and we look forward to the final report the Partnership is preparing on the economic value of the Sound and the ecosystem services it provides. A recent report estimated the value as up to $60 billion annually, and we anticipate that the Partnership’s report will provide substantiation of the economic value we all get from the Sound.

This information will help us make the case that investments in saving Puget Sound are essential to our economic health. Indeed, the changing political and economic landscape provide a golden opportunity to present, through the Action Agenda, Puget Sound recovery as a powerful solution to the loss of jobs and an essential part of the transition to a green economy. While much progress on the Sound can be achieved through improved application and enforcement of regulatory programs, significant new investment will be required in the areas of stormwater retrofit, wastewater treatment plant upgrades, septic system replacements, toxics prevention, habitat restoration, and other important needs for water quality improvement, species recovery, and habitat protection and restoration. These projects and many others will all create good jobs for people right here in Washington and will inject millions, if not billions, of new consumer spending and other benefits into our economy.

We strongly urge the Partnership to grab hold of this opportunity and begin by reframing the Puget Sound recovery effort from a “problem” to part of the solution, moving away from the language of “incremental” and “difficult” to a genuine attempt to use Puget Sound cleanup to help our economy recover. The new reality suggests that those who are bold, innovative, and energetic in promoting an agenda of job-creation and green economy will succeed – we hope you will work to include significant new funding sources for Puget Sound in you legislative package and ensure that Puget Sound recovery is included in both state and federal economic stimulus initiatives.

A note on how to save money: while we support land acquisition, it is the improvement of our regulatory system that is vital to achieve results. We cannot buy or incentivize our way out of all our problems, and we must make much better use of the regulatory tools we have. The Clean Water Act especially can be better utilized to protect the Sound – updating water quality standards for toxics is only one of many examples where the state can employ the law to much better effect to prevent pollution.

The Page-Specific Comments, which comprise the last section of this letter, provide recommended language on specific action items, although several of our General Comments include recommended language as well.

GENERAL COMMENTS
Indicators (Question 1, pp 3&4)
Shellfish growing area increase based on water sanitation is a strong and clear target.  While this is an excellent example of setting a clear direction, it is unclear how the determination of 10,000 acres of closed shellfish beds to be reopened was arrived at as the definition of “healthy”.  And it is not clear that the tools recommended in the Action Agenda will achieve this target. Agricultural pollution, for example, which is well known as a major source of shellfish bed contamination, is barely mentioned.   The final Action Agenda needs to outline a strategy for achieving this goal.

Land Cover provisional indicators call for 20 percent increases in impervious cover and 10 percent decreases in forest cover.  This indicator is not based on science and is inconsistent with a large body of science pointing to reduction in impervious surface and retention of forest cover as a way to combat watershed degradation. Research by the University of Washington shows that when watersheds have more than 10% impervious surface and less than 65% forested cover, salmon are significantly impacted. The goal set by the Partnership should, at a minimum, state that 65-10 be the goal for all watersheds throughout the region In areas where we are currently above 10% impervious surface, we should institute major stormwater retrofit programs to achieve the goal.  It makes no sense to us that the Action Agenda would set a standard that scientists have shown will cause salmon runs to collapse.

Salmon and Steelhead status and trends provisional indicators, while consistent with the salmon recovery plan, are disappointing because they do not suggest any potential to accelerate the pace of recovery toward the 2020 goal.  If NOAA projections of the amount of time required to achieve implementation and recovery require meeting targets no sooner than 2055, this should be cited as a note in the Action Agenda supporting this schedule.

Eelgrass indicator benchmark is appropriate because a reasonable estimate of eelgrass cover exists for the 2000 timeframe, although finer-tuned and more reproducible methods for estimating eelgrass cover were only perfected a few years later.  To use the target of “historic” isn’t helpful because older estimates of Soundwide eelgrass cover are both lacking and would be subject to the “shifting baselines” phenomenon.  We recommend the target for increased acreage by 2020 be calculated based on recovery statistics from other estuary restoration programs such as Chesapeake Bay and Narragansett Bay whose programs focused on eelgrass recovery.

Instream flow provisional indicator does not appear to be based on best available science.  No current status is reported so we do not know how close we are to this target and benchmark.  This indicator seems limited in its utility because instream flow standards have not been set for many streams and may vary depending on which species occur there. The addition of 20 percent impervious surface would continue, if not accelerate, development practices that cause reduction of summer low flows and the multiplication of peak winter flows.  It is illogical to assign instream flow values to streams when the plan nearly guarantees that they will be violated. We suggest a link to impervious surfaces and land use where excessive flows affect salmon spawning habitats, as well as the more traditional measures of instream flow directed at providing sufficient flows.  Instream flow benchmarks and targets should also consider minimum overbank flooding frequency and magnitude needed to maintain river delta accretion levels that will keep pace with projected sea level rise.

Toxics in pelagic fish - PBDEs should be measured higher up the food chain, preferably in a mammal.  Also, forage fish biomass should be a high level indicator as they are vital to the Puget Sound food web as is acknowledged in the draft plan on page Q2, P4:  “Pacific herring in Puget Sound are a universal source of prey….”

Finally, there are a number of additional indicators mentioned in the following section (Question 2) of the Action Agenda that are not among the list of provisional indicators, and it is unclear whether any of these will also be measured and by whom.  The process the Partnership used to narrow down from this longer list of potential indicators to the selected provisional indicators is not apparent in this section and does not appear to be tied in any way to the draft biennial science plan framework.  We recommend convening a special workshop between the science panel and the leadership council to align the biennial science plan to the action agenda prior to completing the December 1st document so that the message to the Governor and legislature on science priorities affecting implementation of the Action Agenda is clear.

Guiding Principles for Ecosystem Management (Question 3, p. 4)
The Guiding Principles for Ecosystem Management section of the Action Agenda is consistent with Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) and similar analyses and reflects discussions held in topic forums and Action Area meetings.

A watershed scale study of changes in land use patterns as related to the condition of aquatic habitat called for in (Question 3, p.5) already exists in the Snohomish Basin watershed characterization study conducted by Department of Ecology in 2000.  This study became the basis of a decision support tool used to set priorities for wetland mitigation.  This tool has been further developed by People for Puget Sound in the Puget Sound Blueprint, which includes Soundwide data sets.  Overlays between these existing models and other decision support tools that focus more on biodiversity (TNC Ecoregional Planning Model), salmonid support (SSHIAP), and nearshore process protection and restoration (PSNERP) will be possible within the next six months when the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Strategic Needs geodatabase is completed.  We recommend these decision support tools be acknowledged within the Action Agenda and recommended for completion and coordination to develop a comprehensive decision support system that can consider multiple prioritization factors across multiple scales and consider the benefits of multiple projects in proximity to one another.  WDFW’s Habitat Work Schedule is emerging as the most likely data framework to support this function.

A study of stressors affecting the Puget Sound pelagic food web and restoration of forage fish populations as called for in (Question 3, p.5) is crucial for determining the productive capacity and limitations to species recovery within the sound.  Details of such a study should be further developed, as it may require funding for multiple agencies and need to be coordinated among them.  The study must consider at a minimum these aspects:  the roles of terrestrial leaf litter, canopy and non canopy-forming kelp, eelgrass and marshes as primary producers and sources of detritus to pelagic and deepwater habitats; life histories and stock assessments of sand lance, surf smelt, northern anchovy, Pacific herring, and shiner perch; Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifts effect on nutrient upwelling and resulting primary production; hatchery Vs. wild salmon competitive interactions for limited prey; and shifts from historic biodiversity as a result of commercial and sport fishing activity .

We also agree effectiveness of protection strategies (Question 3, p.5) needs to be monitored and adaptively managed.

Priority A: Protect Intact Ecosystem Processes, Structures, and Function
Actions listed for Habitat Protection (Question 3, Priority A) are largely reflective of ongoing programs and existing tools, and much more needs to be done. 

The Action Agenda acknowledges that alteration of nearshore habitat through dock and bulkhead construction can threaten broad components of the ecosystem. The draft states the act of putting in a dock or building a bulkhead could very well make it more difficult for our starving resident orca to find food, because habitat alteration can affect herring populations that are a universal source of prey for all species of salmon, well as seals, sea lions, orcas, hake, halibut, cod, and 14 species of ducks and gulls (Page 4, Question 2).

We  strongly support proposed action A.2 on page 10 of Question 3, which recommends changes to the SMA rules that would require conditional use permits for bulkheads and docks for residential development. We support limits on new or replacement shoreline armoring, the requirements that soft or bioengineered alternatives be used where armoring is unavoidable, and limits on docks and prohibitions on new shoreline armoring at feeder bluffs, forage fish spawning areas, and eelgrass beds. Near term Action A.2, 7 is on track with what we have been advocating for some time, although it would require a statute change to SMA and the requirement to use “soft armoring techniques” which may not be feasible in all cases.  Should this policy be implemented, an indicator such as prevention of new armoring as a benchmark and reduction in overall percentage of armoring by a certain percent should be included as an indicator.

However, the Action Agenda also needs to include reforms to WDFW’s HPA process. Current HPA regulations authorize the permanent, unmitigated loss of shoreline habitat through allowing up to six feet of encroachment onto the beach for new bulkhead construction. And, the current regulations fall far short of protecting shoreline processes and functions by allowing continued armoring of important sediment sources (Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, Marine Shoreline Armoring in Puget Sound and the Washington State Hydraulic Code by Doris Small, Randy Carman.)  The Puget Sound Partnership’s April 14, 2008 Initial Discussion Draft for Habitat and Land Use states the HPA process as “having significant limitations and is an ineffective tool to protect habitat in most cases”.  The HPA process also does not consider cumulative impacts, but this is required for SMP implementation. To prevent regulatory inconsistencies and ensure effective implementation of Puget Sound protection and recovery strategies, the HPA process should be amended to better protect nearshore habitat from impacts of shoreline armoring.  At a minimum, the final Action Agenda should clearly recommend that HPA enforcement mechanisms be improved and that the program be reviewed to determine how HPA’s can become a more effective tool for protecting critical habitat.

Task A.2.2.1 recommends assisting local governments in completing and implementing shoreline master program updates on the current schedule.  That means that Island, Mason, Skagit, and San Juan Counties will not update their regulations until 2012, meaning that their regulations will not include “no net loss” provisions, nor soft shoreline armoring provisions.  A tremendous amount of shoreline degradation can occur in four years, so we strongly urge the final Action Agenda to call for these important shoreline areas to be protected on an expedited schedule, by accelerating and funding the updates of shoreline master programs. 

The final Action Agenda should include a provision for a uniform set of habitat protection standards, as proposed in the Habitat Topic Forum Paper. These standards need to be based on science and targeted not just at protection at the site level, but also at protection and recovery at the watershed scale. The lack of consistent standards that apply Soundwide for protection of habitat and water quality has resulted in a hodge-podge of buffer widths and variances, exemptions, exceptions and other ways to get around land use restrictions, depending on the county and city. With little or no incentive and no requirement to do what it would truly take to protect the Sound, jurisdictions do the minimum – to save money and time and avoid politically tough decisions on local land use. The only way to bring fairness to the system and true protection to the Sound is to prepare, apply and enforce minimum habitat protection standards Soundwide.

Other concerns on land use include that no explicit prohibition on expansion of Urban Growth Areas is recommended or targets for implementation of Low Impact Development, two tools known to be effective.  We feel these are often overlooked tools that should be employed by local jurisdictions with technical and financial assistance from the state. These should be included in the final Action Agenda.    We have included several additional comments relating to stormwater implications of land use decisions in the comments under Section C ahead.

In Near term Action A2, 4., Marine Protected Areas managed by WDFW are confused with Aquatic Reserves managed by Department of Natural Resources.  We applaud the Partnerships support of the three nominated Aquatic Reserves but those nominations are to DNR, not to WDFW.  While legislation does require coordination between the two agencies in managing the system of marine managed areas in the state, the Department of Fish and Wildlife should not pre-empt the existing nomination procedure underway by DNR.

Priority B: Restore Ecosystem Processes, Structures and Functions
Restoration Strategies identified in the Action Agenda (Priority B) are appropriate and consistent with existing directions and next steps.  Three river delta restoration projects were named as immediate priorities because they are already in progress and likely to be complete by the end of the first biennium of implementation subject to full funding.  This section also advocates for completion of the PSNERP general investigation to further inform nearshore restoration. The Action Agenda should anticipate a second tier of high priority restoration actions for the second biennium of implementation based on that analysis and the successful outcomes of feasibility studies occurring within the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and Estuarine and Salmon Recovery funding processes authorized this biennium.  In particular, large-scale projects such as Deschutes Estuary restoration, Elwha dam removal and retrofitting portions of the BNSF railroad should be called out for accelerated permitting, funding and implementation now that feasibility studies are complete.

Priority C: Reduce the Sources of Water Pollution
The final Action Agenda must include a truly comprehensive program to reduce stormwater pollution and runoff.  To begin with, this would include establishment of a region wide goal that embraces the 65-10 objective (see comments on Land Cover Indicator, p.2).  

The final Action Agenda should clearly recommend a mandatory LID strategy for new development (already the law in Phase I jurisdictions) in combination with an aggressive retrofit program to address existing problems.    While new development will obviously continue, we are encouraged by the emergence of new LID techniques that can, without great difficulty or added cost in most cases, result in zero runoff from a site.  We also think it is important for the Partnership to promote an aggressive new retrofit program to address existing problems. This would involve establishment of new funding for this work, not simply “prioritizing” projects as suggested under C.2.2.6 (although we do agree prioritization is needed).  We would also recommend that the plan establish a firm annual goal for the retrofit program.

The final Action Agenda must place a heavier emphasis on the need to maintain and restore natural hydrologic systems including forests and wetlands to achieve water quality objectives by 2020. The Action Agenda should recognize that many state and local land use / land management programs fail to integrate water quality objectives in their planning process. C.2.1 touches on this, but the concept should be better articulated in section A.1.3. We recommend that you add to this section, calling for local governments in the region to conduct basin planning to identify where there are opportunities to maintain natural hydrologic functions as well as identify important retrofit opportunities. We are concerned that basin planning occurs at the appropriate scale. There is a suggestion that such work occur on a WRIA basis in A.1.3.2. This scale is too large. Review must occur at the basin or sub-basin level to completely understand the hydrologic implications of restoration or land use decisions on water quality.

The Action Agenda should recognize the fact that, under the recent PCHB ruling, LID is now required for new development in Phase I and likely will be in Phase II jurisdictions. The Draft Action Agenda, section C.2.2.4, emphasizes an incentive strategy which seems out of step with the new regulatory approach. 

While we appreciate the focus on municipal stormwater problems, there is no mention of industrial stormwater, construction stormwater, or DOT related stormwater problems.  Likewise, the draft includes no direction to Ecology to bring the estimated 16,000 unpermitted dischargers into the stormwater program or to geographically expand the coverage of the program to the entire Puget Sound watershed.

We would also urge that you lay out a framework in Section C for achieving goals established under the Shellfish Growing Area Indicator, that is to say, opening areas currently closed to shellfish harvest.    People for Puget Sound, Department of Ecology and others that have been working on GIS based decision support tools linking upland and watershed health parameters with nearshore conditions such as fecal coliform bacterial pollution to prioritize the likeliest geographies to begin remediation techniques.     Restoration literature from the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries where shellfish health remediation has been successful should be consulted, as should general restoration theories that support building onto existing functional areas.   TMDL strategies should also be employed where appropriate to address basin wide pollution problems associated with closed shellfish beds.   It would also be useful to develop a list of potential tools or management measures with proven effectiveness in reducing fecal coliform pollution at the watershed and marine embayment scale.

C.1.1. Toxics - The draft Action Agenda recognizes that pollution of toxic and other pollution at the source is the most cost effective approach to reducing the toxic chemical load in the biota of the Puget Sound ecosystem.  The draft actions, however, do not constitute a strong reduction strategy for 2020.  We therefore recommended to the Partnership a number of key actions including a) establishing policies and programs that help businesses phase out their use of chemicals of concern to Puget Sound through increased technical assistance and partnerships with research institutions, businesses, and nonprofit groups to identify safer alternatives, b) support of recommendations proposed by Ecology's Toxics Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC) which is looking comprehensively at these issues, and c) language that directly supports a toxics reduction program - not just an public outreach campaign.  In addition, the issues of air quality reduction – a major source that impacts both wildlife and human health - need stronger actions for 2020, including programs that address cumulative impacts. Finally, the phase out of mixing zones, especially for PBTs, should be explicitly included in the 2020 agenda as a key method to move us towards toxics reductions up the system (it is not likely it will work in reverse in a significant way in time for 2020).

Recommendation C.1.5 seems to confuse the issues of fecal coliform contamination and nutrient over-enrichment.  Nutrient limited water bodies and those threatened by fecal coliform pollution do not necessarily co-occur.  The recommendation also fails to specify whether the No Discharge Zones would apply only to recreational vessels or to commercial vessels as well.  The language in the near term action (C.1. 5) is slightly more specific and holds the potential for all of Puget Sound to be declared a No Discharge Zone.  People for Puget Sound advocates for a Soundwide No Discharge Zone to avoid such confusion.

Priority D: Work effectively and efficiently…
While there are areas in which environmental regulatory system can be improved, the description of the system in D.4 is not balanced and is somewhat misleading. The fact is that our permit system is critical for the continued protection of Puget Sound. By suggesting that the regulatory system is replete with “conflicting requirements” and “incoherent approach,” the Action Agenda overstates the problems and understate the importance of these tools. The real issue is the effective application and enforcement of these programs, and the gaps among them that allow degradation – not that they are in some way conflicting.
 
It has been our experience that many efforts to “simplify” and “streamline” the process have the unintended effect of reducing effectiveness of the permit system. Many in the regulated community have suggested, for example, that the HPA program is redundant to other shoreline permits. Under close examination, however, it becomes apparent that the HPA is the only tool in the regulatory toolbox that carefully evaluates the effects of development on fish habitat. We are concerned with the suggestion that you will move to eliminate programs where there is “overlap” or “conflict” when these terms are not well defined. We are particularly concerned with D.4.1.3., which states that it is your goal to “promote development” through the use of Clean Water Act general permits by “improving efficiency of review.” While we all support efficiency, it should not come at the sacrifice of effectiveness of the permits.  By moving in the direction of programmatic and general permits there is generally a major shift away from review of site-specific impacts.  This is an idea that conflicts with the goal to recover the Sound to health by 2020.

We recommend that the Partnership conduct more stakeholder dialog around these issues before moving forward on pilots and further recommendations.

Priority E: Build and Implement the Management System…
Twenty-two short-term recommendations were made to improve the scientific basis for management actions (E,4), loosely paraphrased from the Science Panel’s biennial strategic science plan.  Many of these are modeled through PSNERP and other science programs ongoing in the Sound and can be adapted for use by the Partnership.

The biennial science work plan defines a logical approach to science implementation and is well referenced.

Statements in the Action Agenda should flow more logically from the biennial science plan, including outlining areas of immediate action that are supported scientifically and don’t require additional studies.  As soon as possible, the Partnership Science Panel should review and amend the provisional indicators to be more consistent with the framework in the biennial science plan, or, if time does not allow within the schedule for Action Agenda adoption by the Governor and Legislature, a more explicit citation linking the provisional indicators to the adaptive management portion of the biennial science plan framework should accompany the provisional indicators table.

PAGE-SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Question 1.  What is a healthy Puget Sound (and how do we know if we are moving towards one)?
Page Q1, P2:  Human Heath Outcome.  The human health goal is written with a marine and water focus.  If the final Action Agenda does not broaden this, are there plans for a ridge top-to-ridge top effort for the future?  If so, it would be helpful for the plan to articulate that this will be addressed and by when.  For example, human consumption of upland wildlife, human contact with contaminated soil, etc.  For example, the first sentence could be expanded to “Human health is supported by clean air and water, and LANDS, marine and freshwaters that are safe to come in contact with.”

Page Q1,P2:  Water quality Outcome. Does this goal include groundwater?  It should be explicitly included.

Page Q1,P3:  Indicators – overall.  This section could be strengthened and more provisional indicators and benchmarks added, to which the actions are directly tied.  Also, It would be stronger for indicator targets to be tied to science and/or economic well-being. Please see our comments on indicators earlier in this letter.

Question 2.  What is the status of Puget Sound and what are the biggest threats to it?
Page Q2, P1:  Question 2 - Introduction. “The people of Puget Sound have built a thriving economic center, creating the second largest port on the West Coast, global enterprises such as Boeing, Microsoft, and Starbucks, lively ecotourism businesses, world-renowned seafood industries, sophisticated tribal communities, and a timber industry that is still a national and international leader.”  We suggest that additional businesses be added to this list and a mention made that the combined net revenue (2006) of the top 18 public companies that are headquartered in the Puget Sound basin (from the Puget Sound Business Journal Dec 27, 2007 “2008 Book of Lists”) was over $222 billion.  Top companies (in order) were Costco, Microsoft, Washington Mutual, Weyerhaeuser, Paccar, Amazon, Nordstrom and Starbucks.

Page Q2, P1:  Indicator use.  “Using the indicators identified in Question 1, this section of the Action Agenda summaries what we know today about the health of the ecosystem.”  This sentence implies that only the indicators called out in the table will be used.  It would be clearer to state, “Using the indicators identified in Question 1 AND OTHER INDICATORS THAT WILL BE BETTER DEFINED IN THE COMING MONTHS, this section of the Action Agenda summaries what we know today about the health of the ecosystem.”

In addition, the process the Partnership used to narrow down from the longer list of potential indicators to the selected provisional indicators is not apparent in this section and does not appear to be tied in any way to the draft biennial science plan framework.  We recommend convening a special workshop between the science panel and the leadership council to align the biennial science plan to the action agenda prior to completing the December 1st final Action Agenda so that the message to the Governor and legislature on science priorities affecting implementation of the Action Agenda are clear.

Page Q2, P1:  Clarity needed.  “an ONGOING integrated ecosystem assessment led by NOAA…”

Page Q2, P2:  How healthy is Puget Sound? – general comment.  This section is confusing.  Reference is made to indicators that could be used, and many of these are already on the provisional indicator list.  It would be clearer to state, for human well-being, for example, that “provisional indicators, such as shoreline access opportunities, the number of days open for sport fishing, acres of land in economically productive use… could be used to measure human well-being.”  And similarly for other goals, which in the draft have each been written differently (some with a list of potential indicators and some not).

Page Q2, P4:  Water Quality - Current condition.  This section is overly marine focused and would benefit from a specific freshwater and/or groundwater example.

Page Q2, P4:  What threatens the health of Puget Sound?  This section would benefit from the inclusion of conceptual models (that were developed by the Indicator team) as a visual aid.

Page Q2, P5:  Pollution Threat.  Clarity is needed in these sentences for improved accuracy:  “This SOME pollutANTSion typically accumulates ON LANDSURFACES during the drier summer months.  With the first rains, massive quantities of the accumulated pollution pours into streams and rivers just as fall salmon are waiting in the lower river reaches to access their spawning grounds. A MAJOR UNKNOWN IS THE TOXICITY OF THE COMBINATIONS OF THESE POLLUTANTS…. Vehicles release toxic substances from oil leaks, brake linings, EXHAUST, and tire wear…. Emerging contaminants from medication and personal care products often pass through sewage plants without MINIMAL treatment…. “

The septic system discussion implies that all septics contribute nutrients to surface waters, which is not true.  We suggest this clarification:  “TheRE ARE half million on-site septic systems in THE Puget Sound BASIN.  SYSTEMS THAT ARE PLACED TOO CLOSE TO BODIES OF WATER, CONTRIBUTE are a significant source of nitrogen loading into rivers and marine waters.  IN ADDITION, where the systems do not function properly, they are also major sources of bacteria and viruses.”

Page Q2, P5:  Surface and groundwater supply and availability threat.  This section would benefit of clarification more explicitly as to which threats are associated with human activities and which are due to climate change (i.e., snow pack).

Page Q2, P6:  Harvest Threat.  This section would benefit from the addition of some terrestrial examples.
Question 3.  What actions should be taken that will move us from where we are today to a healthy Puget Sound by 2020?

Page Q3, P2:  Question 3 – General.  “Question 3 of the Action Agenda describes what we need to do, identifies near-term actions, and describes how we need to do this together.”  This statement and this section do not articulate how Q3 will be turned into a 2020 Action Agenda.  It would be helpful to describe that here.

Priority A: Protect Intact Ecosystem Processes, Structures, and Function
Page Q3, P5:  Question 3, Priority A- general comment.  Actions listed for Habitat Protection (Question 3, Priority A) are largely reflective of ongoing programs and existing tools.  However, no explicit prohibition on expansion of Urban Growth Areas is recommended or targets for implementation of Low Impact Development, two tools known to be effective.  We feel these are often overlooked tools that should be employed by local jurisdictions with technical and financial assistance from the state.

Page Q3, P5:  A.1  Focus Growth.  This Priority section doesn’t match with the other sections.  In this section, the actions include mapping and other assessment actions, whereas for other priorities, these types of assessment actions are deferred to Priority E (example:  toxics loading assessments).  It seems that Priority A should focus on actions other than assessment (including using the results of assessment).

Page Q3, P9: A.2.NT 4 Marine Managed Areas.  Marine Protected Areas managed by WDFW are confused with Aquatic Reserves managed by Department of Natural Resources.  We applaud the Partnerships support of the three nominated Aquatic Reserves but those nominations are to DNR, not to WDFW.  While legislation does require coordination between the two agencies in managing the system of marine managed areas in the state, the Department of Fish and Wildlife should not pre-empt the existing nomination procedure underway by DNR.

Page Q3, P10: A.2.NT 7 Shoreline Management Act.  People For Puget Sound supports this policy recommendation.  This is right on track with what we have been advocating for some time. Should this policy be implemented, an indicator such as prevention of new armoring as a benchmark and reduction in overall percentage of armoring by a certain percent should be included as an indicator.

Page Q3, P11: A.3.3.1 Promote use of recycled water.  “Establish rules or standards which promote the use and reuse of recycled water IN A MANNER THAT IS PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN AND WILDLIFE HEALTH.”  It is important to add that clause to address concerns about pharmaceuticals and other emerging chemicals in reclaimed water, as well as concerns about instream flows.  We believe that both of these issues will be addressed, but want to ensure that the Action Agenda does not promote actions that have unintended negative consequences.

Page Q3, P12: A.4.3.1 Promote Farms. We suggest these edits: “Expand programs that support the economic viability of farms in Puget Sound IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE WAY.” We are concerned that this program not result in unintended consequences of increased pollution.

Priority B: Restore Ecosystem Processes, Structures, and Functions
Page Q3, P10:  Priority B – current condition.  This section focuses heavily on aquatic impacts.  It would be helpful to include terrestrial examples as well, including logging, transportation projects, etc.  Similarly, there is a salmon focus in the description of B.1. and it would be helpful if another example could be included in addition to the Salmon Plan.

Page Q3, P17:  B.2 NT.  ADD NEW ACTION:  SEATTLE WATERFRONT.  ADVOCATE THAT THE SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT FOR THE SEATTLE’S CENTRAL WATERFRONT INCLUDE WILDLIFE-FRIENDLY FEATURES AS WELL AS IMPROVED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS (I.E., TOUCH THE WATER).
Ongoing efforts on the Seattle waterfront are as important as those listed in the other actions.

Priority C: Reduce the Sources of Water Pollution
Page Q3, P19:  Water Quality – General.  We are concerned about significant gaps in the draft Action Agenda in the following areas: industrial pollution; agricultural sources of pollution; and pollution associated with large vessels, cruise ship discharges, and oil spill prevention/response. These topics deserve much more attention. In addition, pollution prevention is not adequately addressed – a major concern as the Partnership has recognized this as major problem.  Our comments below address these concerns.

Page Q3, P19:  Current Condition.  We suggest the following edits for clarity and completeness, especially because groundwater is not well represented: 
“Pollution of the rivers, creeks, GROUNDWATER, bays, and open waters of Puget Sound comes from a variety of sources and travels along many pathways. … Polluted waters reduce ecosystem services – pollution results in shellfish closures, beach closures, impacts to recreation, loss of cultural resources, IMPAIRED DRINKING WATER SOURCES, consumption warnings for fish, and low oxygen conditions that kill marine species. … Past water quality programs have often emphasized expensive cleanup programs without adequate emphasis on reducing new pollution INTO THOSE AREAS….”

Page Q3, P20:  C.1 Prevent Pollutants at Source – general comment.  We suggest that toxic chemicals be separated from nutrients and pathogens into its own high level action.  Each pollutant category is addressed by generally distinct efforts, with some overlap. As lumped, this action category is disproportionately much larger than other actions.

Page Q3, P20:  C.1 Prevent Pollutants at Source.  We suggest the following edit:  “Prevent pollutants from being introduced into the Puget Sound ecosystem to decrease the loadings from toxics, nutrients, and pathogens. The most reliable and cost effective way to manage for water quality health is to target the sources of contaminants, prior to their entry into Puget Sound’s surface and groundwater system. Source control tactics include education, pollution prevention, PRODUCT BANS, innovative technologies, open space protection, low impact development, natural infrastructure, and engineered solutions.”

Source control must include product elimination because there are many pollutants that can't be removed.
Page Q3, P20:  C.1.1 Comprehensive Reduction Plan.  “Implement a prioritized, comprehensive management program to reduce loadings of toxics into Puget Sound ECOSYSTEM.”

This sounds great but the sub-actions below this do not support this.  As listed below, we have included new suggested actions.

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.1.1 Public Outreach Campaign.  We suggest this edit for completeness:  “Conduct public outreach focused on reduction of pollutants and pharmaceuticals. As a first step, focus on pollutants identified in the Phases I and II THROUGH III of the regional toxic loading study that are priority threats to Puget Sound.”

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.1.2 Standards. We suggest these edits:   “UPDATE THE TOXIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR Washington, INCLUDING FRESHWATER BODIES.  Advocate national standards for new and emerging contaminants.  THE PARTNERSHIP WILL IDENTIFY WHICH NEW CONTAMINANTS ARE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO BE REGULATED BY THE STATE. ”

The state has the authority (and need) to update standards. 

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.1.3 Chemical Substitutions. We suggest these edits:    “CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES THAT USE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN. Advocate strategies including chemical substitutions, cradle to grave CRADLE management of products with hazardous materials and chemicals, and the reduction and reuse of materials where possible.” 

Many of the programs that are ongoing (Pharmaceutical Take-Back, for example) focus on producer responsibility such that products and wastes are not disposed in landfills or sent to other countries for recycling.  It is more productive for the long-term to focus on cradle-to-cradle approaches as the highest goal.

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.1.4 PBT Reduction Acceleration. We suggest these edits:    “Accelerate FUNDING, DEVLEOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOLOGY’S PBT CHEMICAL ACTION PLAN IN ORDER TO ACCELERATE THE reduction of the loading of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic chemicals to Puget Sound.”
This program needs additional funding and support from the Partnership.

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.1.5 Toxic Pollutant Technologies. We suggest these edits:   “IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND DELIVERY OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANNING BY IMPROVING REPORTING ON HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE USE BY INDUSTRY AND INCREADSING FUNDING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT.  Continue to invest in technologies that reduce toxic pollutants.”

We support specific language as to how we will better understand the use of toxic chemicals and how we can help support the reductions (i.e., technical assistance).

ADD NEW ACTION:  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR TOXICS REDUCTION:  AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOXICS REDUCTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, HELP BUSINESSES REACH A 50% TOXICS REDUCTION GOAL BY INCREASING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON SAFER ALTERNATIVES, IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE HIGHLY TOXIC CHEMICALS FOR REDUCTIONS.

The TRAC committee has developed a number of important recommendations that are supported by a broad range of stakeholders.  These are included as suggested new actions.

ADD NEW ACTION:   INTERSTATE CLEARINGHOUSE.  AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOXICS REDUCTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AUTHORIZE ECOLOGY TO PARTICIPATE AN INTERSTATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO COORDINATE WITH OTHER STATES INFORMATION ON SAFER ALTERNATIVES TO HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS.
ADD NEW ACTION:  TOXIC CHEMICALS REDUCTION ACCELERATION.  ACCELERATE FUNDING, DEVLEOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO ACCELERATE THE REDUCTION OF THE LOADING OF TOXIC CHEMICALS (OTHER THAN PBTS) TO PUGET SOUND, INCLUDING COMMON STORMWATER POLLUTANTS INCLUDING FERTILIZERS, HERBICIDES AND STREET CAR WASHING RESIDUES INCLUDING SOAPS, OIL AND GREASE AND HEAVY METALS.

The action above (PBT) is good, but there is also a need to similarly reduce other toxic chemicals that may not build up in the ecosystem but have significant impacts none-the-less, which is why we suggest this parallel action.

ADD NEW ACTION:  TOXICS LOADING ASSESSMENT.  CONTINUE TO FUND AND SUPPORT TOXICSLOADING ASSESSMENTS FOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN TO THE PUGET SOUND BASIN, INCLUDING AIR TOXIC CHEMICALS.

In keeping with actions listed in Priority A to do mapping/assessments for prioritization, a similar effort is needed for this Priority.

ADD NEW ACTION:  MIXING ZONES.  IN ORDER TO REDUCE TOXIC POLLUTANTS FROM NPDES DISCHRGES, REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVIEW AND REVISE CURRENT GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF MIXING ZONES.   EXISTING MIXING ZONES CAN BE REDUCED IN SIZE.  LONG TERM, CONSIDER PHASING-OUT MIXING ZONES FOR PERSISTENT BIOACCUMULATING TOXIC CHEMICALS AND OTHER TOXIC CHEMICALS OF CONCERN. 

The draft Action Agenda fails to address the topic of NPDES “mixing zones.”  Toxic chemicals can be reduced through pollution prevention if facility operators are motivated by requirements that their mixing zone be reduced or eliminated.  There should be some review of whether mixing zones can be more narrowly drawn (currently almost all permits allow for mixing zones to be set at the maximum allowed by law).  

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.2 Air Toxics Reduction and Source Control.  We suggest these edits:   “Implement targeted air emission and source control programs for land-based vehicles, marine vessels, and air transportation.” 

This section should address point sources as well as emissions from our everyday activities, other than transportation.

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.2.2 Reduce vehicles.  We suggest these edits:   “Promote efforts that reduce the number of vehicles on the road AS WELL AS THE WAY TRANSPORATION IS MANAGED to reduce pollutants entering Puget Sound from roads and parking lots.”

There are many transportation-related issues beyond just the number of vehicles that can assist in the reduction of pollutants.

Page Q3, P20:  C.1.2.4 Air Quality Management Plans. We suggest these edits:   “Implement existing air quality management plans to decrease risks to human health and reduce pollution, as part of the overall pollution reduction strategy.  DEVELOP AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS THAT ADDRESS TOXIC CHEMICALS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR BOTH HUMAN HEALTH AND WILDLIFE (VIA AIR DEPOSITION/STORMWATER RUNOFF PATHWAY.”

Current air quality management plans may not actually address some of the key pollutants of concern for the health of the Puget Sound ecosystem (as these were developed for a different purpose), which is why we suggest a broader approach.

ADD NEW ACTION:   REQUIRE ECOLOGY AND THE REGIONAL AIR AGENCIES TO ADDRESS CUMULITIVE IMPACTS FROM AIR EMISSIONS FROM POINT SOURCES AS WELL AS MOBILE SOURCES.

Current air quality management does not address cumulative impacts.  We believe that this type of assessment is key to improving air quality in areas that are more intensely impacted, such as the Duwamish Valley and Tacoma.
ADD NEW ACTION:  REDUCE THE REPORTING THRESHOLD FOR TOXIC CHEMICALS FOR AIR EMSISIONS FROM POINT SOURCES.

PSCAA has the authority to, but to date has not implemented, adopt a policy to lower the threshold for addressing toxic chemicals of concern.

ADD NEW ACTION:  REDUCE HIGH PRIORITY TOXIC CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FROM AIR LOADING, INCLUDING DIOXIN, BY PHASING OUT THE USE OF INCINERATORS IN PUGET SOUND BASIN.

Incinerators have been largely eliminated in the region, but unfortunately, key facilities still exist, in some densely populated areas.

Page Q3, P21:  C.1.3 Water Quality Plans.  We recommend that action be enhanced:  “Develop and implement water quality clean up and management plans that ACHIEVE REDUCTION in pollutant loads. In the near term, implement existing Water Quality Management Plans (TDML), Shellfish Protection District, and other water quality plans. In the long term, implement comprehensive watershed-based and regionally coordinated approaches to controlling and treating pollutants that is integrated with other strategies to protect and restore Puget Sound.  WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO USE GIS AND OTHER TOOLS TO IDENTIFY KEY POLLUTION REDUCTION STRATEGIES ON WATERSHED BASIS.”

We recommend that the Partnership begin work with People for Puget Sound, Department of Ecology and others that have been working on GIS-based decision support tools linking upland and watershed health parameters with nearshore conditions such as fecal coliform bacterial pollution to prioritize the likeliest geographies to begin remediation techniques.  Restoration literature from Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries where shellfish health remediation has been successful should be consulted, as should general restoration theories that support building onto existing functional areas.  A list of potential tools or management measures with proven effectiveness in reducing fecal coliform pollution at the watershed and marine embayment scale should be developed.  To the extent that stormwater runoff is the source of fecal coliform, the only effective means to eliminate pollution is to eliminate runoff.  Treatment of runoff for bacteria is not practical.  Elimination of runoff entails LID retrofit and mandatory LID for new development.

Page Q3, P21:  C.1.NT 1 Toxics Reduction Outreach Campaign. Who will conduct this action?  We believe that this action is not strong enough for the needed level of effort to reduce toxic chemicals.

Page Q3, P21:  C.1.NT 2 Ecology’s PBT Program.
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P21:  C.1.NT 5 No Discharge Zone.
This action fails to specify whether the No Discharge Zones would apply only to recreational vessels or to commercial vessels as well.  People for Puget Sound advocates a Sound-wide No Discharge Zone to avoid such confusion.

Page Q3, P21:  C.1.NT 6 Air Management Plans. 
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P21:  C.1.NT 7 Shellfish Protection District Plans.
Should not this be moved to the Shellfish Actions (C.4)?

ADD NEW ACTION:  MIXING ZONES.  CONVENE A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TO EXAMINE AND UPDATE CURRENT NPDES MIXING ZONE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES.

As noted above, the current policy of allowance and use of mixing zones should be reviewed.  We believe that a stakeholder group should be convened soon in order to begin this process.

Page Q3, P21:  C.2 Urban and Rural Stormwater – general comment.  We agree that a strategic and watershed-based approach is needed.  The scale, however, needs to be appropriate.  Also we are concerned that the focus of this action category is on municipal permits and the other permits are not addressed (industrial, boat yard, WSDOT, etc.)

Page Q3, P22:  C.2.1.2 Monitoring.  We suggest these edits:   “Establish priorities and resource needs for creating a coordinated water quality monitoring program under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) IN CONCERT WITH A REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN.”

We strongly support this action but are concerned that, as written, the focus in on the permits rather than the large context of the Puget Sound ecosystem.

Page Q3, P22:  C.2.2.3 LID Assistance.  We suggest these edits:   “THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP WILL TAKE A LEAD IN AssistING cities and counties in adopting low impact development (LID) stormwater codes for development and redevelopment. Provide standards for low impact development and establish criteria to determine where LID is feasible.”

We feel that the Partnership should take a strong role in the development of standards and assistance.
Page Q3, P22:  C.2.2.4 LID Use.  We suggest these edits:   “REQUIRE Advance the use of low impact development approaches to stormwater management. ASSISTANCE FOR LID IMPLEMENTATION WILL INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM This includes, but is not limited to: a) resolve institutional barriers which limit use of low impact development for road construction and stormwater flow control projects, b) implement, assess, and promote successful examples of low impact development techniques, c) develop incentives for using low impact development, d) develop focused training for contractors and developers, and e) develop focused training for local government staff on areas best suited for low development impact and assist them in revising their regulations to allow low impact development.”

The Action Agenda should recognize that under the recent PCHB ruling, LID is now required for new development.   The Draft Action Agenda emphasizes an incentive strategy, which seems out of step with the new regulatory approach. 

Page Q3, P22:  C.2.2.5 Combined Sewer Overflows.  We suggest these edits:   “Evaluate the technical and programmatic solutions for Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) in the context of improving water quality in fresh and marine water and preserving and recovering the health of Puget Sound WHILE RECOGNIZING THE KEY ISSUES INVOLVING THE NEED TO REDUCE TOXIC IMPACTS IN URBAN BAYS.”

We are concerned that there is the perception that CSOs are not a big problem.  We believe, to the contrary, that in urban bays, CSOs are THE major problem for the loadings of some toxic pollutants.  We believe the focus should be on toxics reductions as we move forward on CSO reductions, as the highest priority (which is different than the previous approach).

Page Q3, P22:  C.2.2.6 Stormwater Retrofit Prioritization.  We suggest these edits:   “Prioritize, FUND, and implement stormwater retrofits in urban areas AND AREAS WHERE POLLUTION AND/OR FLOW PROBLEMS ARE IDENTIFIED AS A MAJOR CONCERN. In the near term, develop high-level prioritization criteria for the selection of new projects. Over the long-term, link retrofit priorities to coordinated watershed clean up and prevention strategies.”
It is important for the Partnership to promote an aggressive new retrofit program to address existing problems.  This would involve establishment of new funding for this work, not simply “prioritizing” projects.  Further, we are concerned that the prioritization be based on science, rather than just a policy that prioritizes urban areas across the board.

Page Q3, P23:  C.2.NT 1.  Regional Monitoring. 
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P23:  C.2.NT 3. LID Assistance.
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P23:  C.2.NT 4. LID Use.
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P23:  C.2.NT 5. Combined Sewer Overflows.  We suggest these edits:   “Convene a [delete “focus”] group to evaluate the technical and programmatic solutions for CSOs in the context of improving water quality in fresh and marine water WHILE RECOGNIZING THE KEY ISSUES INVOLVING THE NEED TO REDUCE TOXIC IMPACTS IN URBAN BAYS. The integration of CSO solutions into the larger range of solutions to stormwater and other water quality problems may improve the cost effectiveness of both programs in urban areas, notably Seattle and King County. This will require flexibility in implementation, timing, and scope of municipal wastewater NPDES program as applied to CSOs BUT WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE NEED TO REDUCE TOXIC POLLUTANT LOADING.”

Our comment is the same as above.

Page Q3, P23:  C.2.NT 6. Stormwater Retrofit Prioritization. 
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P23:  C.3 Wastewater Treatment Facilities.  We suggest these edits:   “Prioritize and complete upgrades to MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL wastewater treatment facilities to reduce pollutant loading. Wastewater is a source of a broad spectrum of pollutants, including nutrients and pathogens, to Puget Sound. Wastewater treatment removes or transforms many but not all contaminants, and treated municipal sewage contains a mixture of personal care products, caffeine, endocrine-mimicking chemicals and other pharmaceuticals. Land based wastewater treatment plants discharge an estimated 400 million gallons per day of treated water into Puget Sound. Combined sewer outflows (CSOs) sometimes discharge mixed stormwater and untreated wastewater to Puget Sound during wet weather when conveyance or plant capacities are exceeded.”

If industrial wastewater facilities are not included here, then we suggest that a distinct set of actions be developed for them.  A similar set of concerns (i.e., pollutant loading, bioaccumulation, etc) exist for industrial as well as municipal facilities.

Page Q3, P24:  C.3.1 UPGRADE FACILITITES.  We suggest these edits:  “FUND, INCENTIVIZE AND Implement priority upgrades of MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL wastewater facilities in urban and urbanizing areas to increase effectiveness of treatment, especially in nutrient sensitive areas of Puget Sound.”

Although ratepayers may pay for upgrades, we believe that funding assistance and incentives will be needed to address priority facilities.  We also feel that most of the facilities will need to be addressed over the long term (see AKART comment below).

Page Q3, P24:  C.3.1.1 NUTRIENT INVESTIGATION.  We suggest these edits:  “Investigate requiring IMPROVED nitrogen removal at MUNCIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL treatment plants in targeted areas including those with nutrient loading issues and vulnerable waters.”

The problem of nutrient loading is not limited to sewage treatment plants.

Page Q3, P24:  C.3.3 NON-STATE FACILITIES.  We suggest these edits: “Require federal AND TRIBAL facilities to reduce nutrient and pathogen loading consistent with the Action Agenda priorities.”

There are numerous tribal as well as federal facilities that should be included in our effort as we restore the health of the Sound.

ADD NEW ACTION:  UPDATE AKART.  AS PART OF THE REVIEW OF THE NUTRIENT AND TOXIC LOADINGS TO THE PUGET SOUND BASIN, INITIATE THE PROCESS TO UPDATE ALL KNOWN, AVAILABLE, AND REASONABLE TREATMENTS (AKART) FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES.

We support AKART review for South Sound treatment plants but the current language in C.3. 1. would suggest that the Partnership endorses AKART review only for these facilities.    We feel that all facilities should achieve AKART in Puget Sound and that we are overdue for an update.

Page Q3, P24:  C.3.NT  1. AKART.  We suggest these edits: “Ensure that AKART (All Known and Reasonable Technology) or better standards are met in nutrient sensitive areas such as Hood Canal, South Sound, and the Whidbey Basin IN THE NEAR TERM AND INITIATE THE PROCESS FOR THE ENTIRE BASIN.”

We feel that all facilities should achieve AKART in Puget Sound and that we are overdue for an update.

Page Q3, P24:  C.3.NT 3. SUPPORT NONSTATE UPGRADES.  We suggest these edits: “Support federal AND TRIBAL facilities in reducing nutrient and pathogens, particularly in already impaired areas.”

ADD NEW ACTION:  UPDATE AKART.  SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN AN UPDATE OF AKART FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.

The Department of Ecology currently lacks the resources to review all NPDES permits on a five-year basis as required by the federal Clean Water Act.   There is rarely a careful review of treatment technology to determine if it reflects the latest, best available technology as required by law.  The Partnership can play a key role in assisting and directing funding to Ecology to initiate an AKART review in this biennium.

Page Q3, P24:  C.4 Septic Systems – general comment.  We appreciate the emphasis on implementation of septic management plans and Marine Recovery Areas.  We also support the recommendations that septic utilities be established and that new treatment technology be reviewed and approved as appropriate. 

ADD NEW ACTION:  SOURCE CONTROL FOR TOXIC CLEANUP SITES (C.5).  FUND AND SUPPORT ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SOURCE DETECTION AND SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEANUP SITES. (AS A LONG TERM AND A NEAR TERM ACTION)

One of the major impediments to cleanup of sites in the Puget Sound basin has been the lack of funding and resources to adequately address source control in a timely manner, as well as a lack of emphasis on the need for source detection (i.e., actual sampling of storm drains and drainage systems) rather than business inspections.  Additional funding is needed for sampling.

Priority D: Work effectively and efficiently together as a coordinated system to ensure that activities and funding are focused on the most urgent and important problems facing the region.

Page Q3, P27:  Priority D - general comment.  Overall, we would like some caveats to be included in a number of the proposed Priority D actions.  We recommend that the Partnership work with stakeholders to work through issues before even a pilot is conducted for some of the new untested actions (streamlining, banking, trading, etc).   These ideas have really not had time for a solid public and stakeholder dialogue.  There are pitfalls and unintended consequences that should be fully vetted before we move forward.  Many of these ideas may well be effective in protecting the Sound, but they are mostly new ideas and are very complicated.  We want to strike a balance between efficiency and effectiveness.  It is premature to even go to a pilot for many of these ideas.

Page Q3, P33:  D.4.1.3 General Permits.  We suggest these edits: “DEVELOP A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO Investigate opportunities to develop and use new Clean Water Act general permits to promote MANAGE development in WATERSHEDS WITHIN urban areas by improving efficiency for review of development projects, WHERE APPROPRIATE. This would include a) regional general permits development projects with urban growth areas and b) programmatic general permits for projects that often require mitigation.”

Although we support a cross-jurisdictional approach, we are concerned that water quality issues be addressed within a watershed lens.  We are also not in favor of “promoting” development across the board but rather managing development.  In general, we do not support a major shift to the issuance of more general permits rather than site-specific permits because we have seen that this leads to unintended consequences where important environmental problems go unnoticed and unaddressed.

Page Q3, P34:  D.4.1.4 SEPA Programmatic Review.  We suggest these edits: “DEVELOP A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO REVIEW HOW TO Streamline and coordinate the environmental permit review process to improve the consistency and efficiency of decisions. AS A PILOT, Fund cities and counties to perform non-project, programmatic analyses under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on lands included in UGA expansions, AS LONG AS THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AND AN ALLOWANCE FOR PUBLIC APPEAL IS RETAINED FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN PROJECT DESIGN. Exempt project actions performed in areas where programmatic SEPA review has already been conducted from complying with SEPA, except in limited circumstances.”

We are concerned that the ability for public appeal is reduced and/or eliminated in the proposed process.  In addition, a time limit should be included because environmental conditions as well as science/technical know-how advances occur over a reasonable timeframe and would not be incorporated if a programmatic SEPA is conducted for a project that doesn’t actually reach completion for 20 years.  As noted above, we are concerned that we work through this issue in a stakeholder process before we start a pilot effort.

Page Q3, P34:  D.4.2.2 Watershed-based Mitigation.  We suggest these edits: “Establish and implement a PILOT watershed-based approach to mitigation. ….”

While we recognize that mitigation has not worked well, we are concerned that the Partnership not 100% endorse a new approach that also may not work well.  We suggest that the first efforts should be considered pilot until the Partnership and other scientists can evaluate how well the new approach works.

Page Q3, P35:  D.4.NT 5. SEPA Programmatic Review. 
We suggest that our language above be used.

Page Q3, P35:  D.5.1.1.  Integrated Enforcement.  We suggest these edits: “An integrated field compliance monitoring program should include land use, shoreline, water quality, water use, hazardous materials, and other environmental permit related activities. Ultimately, field inspector TEAMs should be located in each watershed and be tasked with assisting landowners, builders, and contractors with understanding regulatory requirements, strategizing optimal environmental protection approaches, and inspection to ensure compliance with a full spectrum of environmental protection regulations.”

We understand from talking with enforcement persons that teams are generally more effective than individuals.  It takes many years for inspectors to fully “get up to speed,” and it is unreasonable to expect them to understand all programs. 

Priority E: Build and implement the management system to support the implementation and continual improvement of the Action Agenda.

Page Q3, P40:  E.1.3.2 Data Management.  We suggest these edits: “Implement a distributed data and information exchange system that IS FULLY TRANSPARENT AND can be contributed to and accessed by scientists, implementers, policy makers and other interests.”

While we strongly support the development of a data management system, our past experience compels us to request that the words “fully transparent” be added.  Information collected using public funds should be easily accessible to the public in a timely manner.

Page Q3, P42:  E.2.3.1 In-lieu-fee mitigation. We suggest these edits: “Implement an PILOT in-lieu-fee mitigation program for Puget Sound.”

For reasons articulated above and in our attached letter, “Mitigation that Works,” we suggest that this should be a pilot at this stage,

Page Q3, P43:  E.2.NT 12 In-lieu-fee mitigation.

For reasons articulated above, we suggest that this should be a pilot at this stage.

Page Q3, P43:  E.2.NT 14.  Water Quality Trading.  We suggest these edits: “USING A STAKEHOLDER APPRAOCH, Evaluate use of a water quality trading program to address dissolved oxygen issues in south Puget Sound.”
We have serious concerns about a water quality trading program, and if this is to be implemented, there should be a stakeholder process to discuss the issues fully.

Page Q3, P43:  E.2.NT 15.  Permit-Specific Trading.  We suggest these edits: “USING A STAKEHOLDER APPRAOCH, Develop a framework policy for permit-specific trading in the Puget Sound region….”

We have serious concerns about a permit-specific trading program, and if this is to be implemented, there should be a stakeholder process to discuss the issues fully.

Page Q3, P44:  E.3.1 Develop and oversee a coordinated monitoring program.

This action should also include a discussion of the need to determine the “governance” of a regional monitoring program.

ADD NEW ACTION (UNDER E.3.1):  DETERMINE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR REGIONAL MONITORING AN ASSEMENT PROGRAM.  BY JUNE 30, 2009, THE PARTNERSHIP WILL FORMALLY REVIEW THE PUGET SOUND MONITORING CONSORTIUM’S DETAILED GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THE KEY ESSENTIAL PROGRAM FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS, AND DECIDE WHAT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WILL HOUSE THE ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY MONITORING PROGRAM AND ALL THE NECESSARY FUNCTIONS OF AN INTEGRATED, COORDINATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR PUGET SOUND.”

This is a key need.  Stakeholders are looking to the Partnership to make this decision.  Successful resolution of this issue will allow all parties to move forward to provide support for funding and potential legislative changes in successive years.

Priority E talks about building the management system needed to support the Draft Agenda, however it never mentions how the data for the indicators will be collected and reported to insure that we are making progress towards recovering Puget Sound.  Without this data, we will be where we are today, not knowing whether our actions are making any difference. This section should also be beefed up with the accountability sections of the statute creating the Partnership.

Page Q3, P38: Priority E – general comment.  Education was identified as an essential component of the Puget Sound Initiative but in the draft action agenda its action elements are not integrated into the action agenda nor its outcomes clearly defined. The menu of major communications and education initiatives does not provide a clear roadmap to what will be accomplished by whom and in what time frame.  We note that on the draft agenda urges people to get involved with "...hundreds of organizations that need your help. Visit www.psp.wa.gov to connect with a group in your area." However, we cannot find any such groups listed on the Partnership website. In fact, it is very difficult to discern the role and responsibilities of various organizations - federal, tribal, state, local, non-governmental - in the draft action agenda.

Page Q3, P48:  E.4.1 Communications Effort.  Communications, education and outreach actions and their outcomes need to be more clearly delineated and defined. Raising awareness and effecting behavior change are two very different outcomes requiring different strategies and tactics and cannot be accomplished solely with a long-term, high-visibility communications effort. We recommend that more community-based social marketing research be done to assess whether the education initiatives chosen in the action agenda are the best ways to go to get public support and action to meet Puget Sound recovery and restoration goals.

Page Q3, P48:  E.4.1.1-3 Communications Effort.  Please make explicit that the Puget Sound Partnership is tasked with these actions and what outcomes can be expected by when from these actions.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.2 Local Volunteer, Steward And Educators’ Programs.  Please clarify and make explicit that the outcome of coordinating volunteer efforts through education and outreach is to focus these efforts on action agenda priorities. Please address how the coordination of volunteer efforts will be integrated into action agenda priorities, by when, by whom, and who is holding whom accountable for these outcomes.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.2.1 EcoNet.  Please make clear the current status of the EcoNetwork and define what it is. It currently is not an active network and will need to be reorganized and re-energized after the action agenda is adopted. Please make clear that there is as yet no governance structure for the EcoNetwork and make clear if the Puget Sound Partnership is tasked with coordinating and staffing the work in E.4.2.1.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.2.2 Education Working Group.  Please clarify the role of the Education Working Group and why the membership is limited to government agencies and excludes not-for-profit organizations doing the work on the ground and having funding needs. Please include a condition of transparency in deliberations of the Education Working Group. Please make clear if the Puget Sound Partnership is tasked with coordinating and staffing the work in E.4.2.2.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.2.3 Coordinated Network.  Please identify who is going to do this, when is it going to be done, and what are the outcomes that would provide a basis for measuring effectiveness and accountability. Please specify that these action elements will be integrated into the science and restoration action elements of the agenda.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.2.4 Coordinated Technical Assistance.  Please identify who is going to do this, when is it going to be done, and what are the outcomes that would provide a basis for measuring effectiveness and accountability. Please specify that these action elements will be integrated into the science and restoration action elements of the agenda.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.3 K-12 Environmental Programs.  For consistency, please make clear that K-12 environmental education will focus on priorities of the action agenda. We cannot support the adoption of the “Meaningful Watershed Education Experience” curriculum without a more thorough review of all available curricula; we suggest that MWEE be used in the Action Agenda as an example of the kind of curriculum that might be adopted after more thorough public review. Also, we recommend that any academic curriculum adopted should also be made available to non-school groups of youth such as churches, boys & girls clubs, scouts, etc.

Page Q3, P49:  E.4.3.1-2 Meaningful Watershed Education Experience.  Please clarify who will be doing this, when it will happen, and how we will measure effectiveness and provide accountability. Please make explicit that we will use existing environmental education materials and not create new materials.

Page Q3, P49:   E.4.NT 1 Messaging. Please indicate that the Partnership does this and when it will be done

Page Q3, P49:   E.4.NT  2 Coordination. Please indicate who does this and when it will be done. Please explain what “STORM” is and what it exemplifies as a coordinated effort.

Page Q3, P49:   E.4.NT 3 Message Delivery. Please indicate who does this and what measure of effectiveness will be in place.

Page Q3, P49:   E.4.NT 4 WSF Pilot.  Please indicate who does this, who is involved in putting the program together, and when will it be done.

Page Q3, P49:   E.4.NT 5 Grant Program. Please indicate who does this and when will it be done.  Please provide more details about what kind of activities will be funded.  For example, is this a PIE-type program focused on action agenda priorities?

Page Q3, P50:   E.4.NT 6 Training. Please indicate who does this and when will it be done. What would be the anticipated outcome of these trainings?

Page Q3, P50:   E.4.NT 7 Citizen Science.  Please indicate who will do this, when will it be done, and how this will be coordinated with and integrated into the action elements in science, restoration, regulation. Please clarify what role federal, tribal, state and local governments have in this, and what role not-for-profit organizations will have.

Page Q3, P50:   E.4.NT 8 Beachwatcher. Please explain what the "WSU Beachwatcher Sustainability Plan" is.  We cannot support something that we have not seen or reviewed. We question whether establishing WSU beachwatcher programs in King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston and Mason counties is the most effective way of developing citizen engagement when there may be existing programs already in place that can be adapted to focusing on action agenda priorities.

Page Q3, P50:   E.4.NT 9 Students. See comment on E.4.3. We cannot support a program that we have not reviewed. We suggest using MWEE as an example of the type of program that could be introduced in the schools. Again, please indicate who will be doing this work, when will it be done, and how its effectiveness will be measured.

Page Q3, P50:   E.4.NT 10 Curriculum. See comment on E.4.3.1-2. Please indicate who will be doing this promoting. The materials, we assume, will be focused on action agenda priorities.

Question 4.  Where do we start?
It would be helpful if the proposed actions could be cross-coded to the six broad categories of threats identified on page Q2, P4: habitat alteration, pollution,  surface/groundwater impacts, artificial propagation, harvest, and invasive species.  In addition, it does not appear that adequate actions have been provided to get a good start on each of these threats.  Or specific comments below will include suggestions for actions that will help beef this up.
Financing Chapter

We await the release of the long-term funding strategy, which is the critical element of the Action Agenda to ensure the resources needed to achieve recovery of the Sound by 2020.

Page 6:   Ecosystem Service Markets.  We are concerned about the emphasis placed the Use of Ecosystem Service Markets, which is referenced in the Draft Financing Plan.  We are particularly concerned about the concept of a Water Quality Trading Program.  This approach, which was originally conceived of and piloted in the 1970’s is fraught with problems.  While it is extremely difficult to craft policies around cap and trade programs, it is even more difficult to implement them in a way that insures that there is a net benefit for the environment.  We’d urge you to reconsider this recommendation. We are also concerned about the fee-in-lieu proposal and look forward to the opportunity to work with you on this issue.

Biennial Science Work Plan 2009-2011
The biennial science work plan defines a logical approach to science implementation and is well referenced.

Statements in the Action Agenda should flow more logically from the biennial science plan, including outlining areas of immediate action that are supported scientifically and don’t require additional studies.   As soon as possible, the Partnership Science Panel should review and amend the provisional indicators to be more consistent with the framework in the biennial science plan or, if time does not allow within the schedule for Action Agenda adoption by the Governor and Legislature, a more explicit citation linking the provisional indicators to the adaptive management portion of the biennial science plan framework should accompany the provisional indicators table.