P U G E T S O U N D W A T E R Q U A L I T Y A C T I O N T E A M

This is the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team'sthird report on key indicators of Puget Sound'sHealth. We prepared the report in response to the

Washington State Legislature's request to evaluate effortsto protect Puget Sound. The report includes updatedinformation on the 17 indicators presented in 2000 as wellas information on two new indicators.

Indicators are measures that can be tracked throughtime to assess the successes and shortcomings of ourefforts to protect and restore Puget Sound. They help usto understand where we are making progress, where weneed to redouble our efforts, and where new solutionsmight be needed.

We hope that Puget Sound's Health helps you and otherswho live and work in the Puget Sound region to focus onthe Sound as a patient in our care. The environmentalindicators presented in this report are the vital signs thatwe use to measure the health of Puget Sound. Our com-bined efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound may beseen as treatments designed to fix problems and asadvice about the lifestyle choices that will help ensure thecontinued health of the Puget Sound ecosystem. As youlearn about the vital signs we are tracking, we hope youwill seek opportunities to contribute to a healthier PugetSound. (We offer some ideas on page 16.)

We recognize difficulties and risks in presenting a smallset of environmental indicators as measures of the per-formance of Puget Sound protection:

• The environment is continually changing. It is oftendifficult to determine whether changes observed inenvironmental indicators reflect natural factors(such as varying ocean conditions) or relate tohuman actions.

• Our actions and programs to protect and restorePuget Sound do not always have a simple relation-ship to environmental results. Several programs mayact together to bring about the changes we observein the environment. Actions taken today may notresult in an environmental response for a number ofyears. And, the positive results of our actions andprograms might be lost because of the increasingstresses from our region's rapidly growing humanpopulation.

• Vital signs, such as the environmental indicators thatwe track and present in this document, offer a sim-plified view of a complex system. Selection of a lim-ited number of indicators necessarily limits thebreadth and diversity of information that is present-ed. Turning complex data into simple indicators cansacrifice some of the richness of the underlying infor-mation. For more information on conditions in PugetSound, visit the Puget Sound Water Quality ActionTeam's website or call us (see back page).

Introduction

1. Are areas where shellfish can be safely harvested increasing or decreasing?� Area of classified commercial shellfish beds

approved for direct harvest (p.4)� Areas used by recreational shellfish harvesters (p.5)

2. Is the water quality for recreation improving or declining?� Water Quality Index for fecal coliform bacteria at river

and stream monitoring stations (p.5)

3. Are the size and frequency of oil spills increasing or decreasing?� Volume and frequency of "major" and

"serious" spills (p.6)

4. Is the area of contaminated sedimentsincreasing or decreasing?� Area of contaminated sediments and number of

cleanup sites (p.7)

5. Is toxic contamination of marine speciesincreasing or decreasing?� Contaminants in mussels (p.8)� Contaminants in harbor seals (p.9) � Occurrence of liver lesions in English sole (p.9)

Puget Sound’s Health2002

What’s Inside:Puget Sound environmental indicators are designed to answer these questions:

Photograph courtesy of D

onald Velasquez, W

ashington Departm

ent of Fish and W

ildlifeP

hotograph courtesy of Randy S

human ©

6. Is fish and wildlife habitat increasing or decreasing?� Abundance and distribution of eelgrass (p.10) - New Indicator!

� Modifications to marine shorelines (p.11) - New Indicator!

� Freshwater habitat available to salmon (p.11) � Water temperature conditions at river

and stream monitoring stations (p.12) � Marine water quality (p.12)

7. Are aquatic nuisance species increasing or decreasing in Puget Sound?� Acreage of spartina infestation (p.13)

8. Are fish and wildlife populationsincreasing or decreasing?� Coho (p.14)� Scoters (p.14)� Harbor seals (p.15)� Herring (p.15)� Rockfish (p.15)

2

T he shoreline of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin is some ofthe most rugged and beautiful in the world. The protectedmarine waters of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin provide

invaluable habitat for fish and wildlife, including the region'srenowned Pacific salmon and orca whales. The region supports oneof the leading trade centers on the West Coast of North America andis a gateway to some of the continent's busiest ports includingSeattle, Tacoma and Vancouver, BC.

Much of the promise and potential of this region is based on naturalresources and the industries these resources support, such astourism, shellfish and recreation. The region's natural resources andhigh quality of life have led to good economic growth, resulting inever-increasing numbers of people who live and work here. In 2000,the Puget Sound portion of the basin was home to nearly four mil-lion people—double the population of the mid-1960s. Approximatelythree million people live within the Georgia Basin in Canada. By2020 the population is expected to be greater than five million peo-ple in the Puget Sound basin—29 percent more people than livinghere today. Also by 2020, four million people are expected to be liv-ing in the Georgia Basin (35 percent more people than today). Thiswould bring the total Puget Sound/Georgia Basin population fromtoday's seven million to nine million in 2020.

A growing population means increasing stress on Puget Sound. Forinstance, the number of miles driven around and through the cen-tral Puget Sound region has been growing at about the same paceas the population. The more miles driven on Puget Sound's high-ways and roads, the greater the possibility of spills of oil and petro-leum products and the greater potential for contamination of runofffrom highways, roads and parking lots. Stormwater runoff fromdeveloped areas is a significant water pollution problem becauseof the contaminants from those surfaces.

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team workswith federal, state, tribal and local governments, citi-zens and businesses to develop and carry out two-

year work plans that guide protection of water quality andbiological resources. The biennial work plans, based on thePuget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, outline thestate of Washington's long-term strategy for protectingPuget Sound.

Members of the Action Team include a chair appointed bythe governor; representatives of a federally recognizedtribe, a city and a county, each appointed by the governor;the heads of ten state agencies; and the regional heads ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the NationalMarine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService.

The Puget Sound Council advises the Action Team on workplan projects and activities, and on coordination with otherstate and local activities. Council members are responsiblefor tracking the progress of state agencies and local gov-ernments in carrying out the biennial work plan. They alsorecommend changes to the Puget Sound Water QualityManagement Plan as needed.

The governor appoints eight of the Council's members.They include the chair of the Action Team, who also servesas chair of the Council, and representatives of agriculture,business, cities, counties, the environmental community,the shellfish industry and tribes. The leadership of the stateSenate and House of Representatives also selects four leg-islators to be Council members.

The Puget Sound WaterQuality Action Team andthe Puget Sound Council

Written by Pete Dowty andScott Redman with contri-butions from Washington

State Departments of Agriculture, Ecology,Fish and Wildlife, Health, Natural Resources,the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), Fisheries andOceans Canada, and the TransboundaryGeorgia Basin/Puget Sound EnvironmentalIndicators Working Group.

STATE OF WASHINGTONPUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY ACTION TEAM

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

2002Puget Sound’s Health

April 2002

Dear Puget Sound Citizen:

Thank you for your continued interest and involvement in protecting Puget Sound, one ofour nation's greatest natural treasures. In these times of economic unrest and heightenedconcerns for security, we can be thankful for this remarkable place we call home.As directed by state law, the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team is proud to report on thehealth of water and marine life in your Puget Sound. Puget Sound's Health 2002 is our thirdsuch report and presents information mostly compiled from 1980 through 2001. We hope theinformation in this report will increase your understanding about the health of the Sound—thequality of water in shellfish growing areas, harbor seal populations, coho salmon returns toPuget Sound rivers, disease in English sole in urban bays, and other measures.

Much of the news about Puget Sound's health is good, such as an improvement in themarine survival of coho salmon. Unfortunately, we are also faced with evidence of continu-ing concerns about sediment (the sand and mud bottoms of waterways that provide food foraquatic life), water quality, and declines in a variety of marine organisms in Puget Sound. Aprimary concern is the pattern of declines observed in recent years in species such as rock-fish and herring. This pattern suggests that significant ecosystem changes, which we areonly beginning to understand, may be underway.

Puget Sound's Health 2002 reminds us that the number of people living and working in thePuget Sound region continues to grow. As many of us experience every day, that's badnews for people who sit in their cars in traffic. The increased traffic is an obvious result ofmore of us living in Puget Sound. The growing number of people also causes problems forwater quality, Puget Sound's animal and plant life, and tribal, commercial and sport fisher-men who catch fewer fish nearly every year.

We need to work together to protect the Sound so we may continue to enjoy its beauty andresources. Citizens, service groups, businesses, and state, tribal, and local governmentsare working together to protect and restore many areas. You can do your part, too. Pleaselook at the final page of Puget Sound's Health 2002 for some ideas about things you can doto protect our cherished Sound.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Scott RedmanActing Chair

Published by the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team.

Designed by Jill Williams.

Cover photograph of harbor seal courtesyof Brian Walsh, Northwest Power PlanningCouncil.

Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks.

If you need this report in an alternative format-large print, Braille or cassette tape-please con-tact the Action Team at (360) 407-7306. 2

Are areas where shellfish canbe safely harvested increasingor decreasing?

StatusThe state Department of Health currentlymonitors and classifies approximately140,000 acres of shellfish growing areas forcommercial harvesting in Puget Sound. Theyuse the monitoring data to detect conditionsthat may lead to unsafe shellfish products andclassify growing areas accordingly to preventharvest in these areas. Since 1980, nearlyone quarter of the area available for directcommercial shellfish harvesting has beendowngraded in classification because of bac-terial contamination.

The major threats to safe shellfish harvestinginclude contaminated stormwater from devel-oped areas (runoff from streets, parking lots,etc.), discharges fromsewer and septic sys-tems, and water con-taminated by live-stock in agriculturalareas. As the humanpopulation grows inthe Puget Soundbasin, the threats toshellfish becomemore pressing asmore wastewater isgenerated and theloss of open landleads to morestormwater runoff.Increasingly, the co-ordinated efforts oflocal jurisdictions andthe shellfish industry arecounteracting threats towater quality and shell-fish harvesting areas inPuget Sound.

commercial

Washington State is among thetop shellfish producing statesin the nation. Shellfish are

prized symbols of the health and heritageof Puget Sound. Clams, oysters and othershellfish have long sustained the people ofthe region while also serving critical func-tions in the marine ecosystem.

Why are shellfish harvest areas a goodindicator ofPuget Sound'shealth?

The health of shellfishbeds and suitability ofshellfish for consump-tion closely reflect con-ditions in the shellfishgrowing environment.Bivalve shellfish feedby filtering large quanti-ties of water. In this

process they can accumulate bacteria,viruses and other contaminants from thewater in which they live. The accumulatedcontaminants can harm animals, includinghumans, that eat these shellfish.

The state Department of Health classi-fies shellfish growing areas in an effortto ensure the safety of Puget Soundshellfish that reaches seafood markets,restaurants or our kitchens. The classi-fication of shellfish growing areas pro-vides information about the extent towhich contamination restricts our abilityto harvest shellfish. Changes in theclassification of shellfish growing areascan reflect problems related to how landis used and cared for in the nearbywatersheds.

Area of commercial shellfish beds approvedfor direct harvest

Seven shellfish

areas were

downgraded

and five were

upgraded in

2000-2001.

There was a

net upgrade

of 691 acres.

Commercial shellfish growing area classificationsThe state Department of Health classifies all commercial growing areas using NationalShellfish Sanitation Program standards. State law prescribes a similar classification forrecreational shellfish areas. These classifications are based on an examination of poten-tial pollution sources and measured levels of fecal coliform bacteria in marine waters.This bacterial indicator reflects the presence of human or animal waste, which potential-ly carries disease-causing bacteria and viruses.

Approved-Shellfish can be marketed directly with norestrictions placed on harvest due to con-tamination or sanitary conditions.

Conditionally Approved-Shellfish can be directly marketed onlyduring prescribed periods. Predictablepollution events, such as storms, closeharvest for a specified period based onlocal conditions.

Restricted-Shellfish cannot be marketed directly dueto contamination. Shellfish must bemoved to clean waters for a period of timeprior to market distribution.

Prohibited-Shellfish cannot be harvested due to con-tamination or unsanitary conditions. Relayof shellfish to clean areas for future har-vest is not allowed.

TrendsDuring 2000-2001, the state Department ofHealth reclassified 11 shellfish growing areasbased on the monitoring data the agency collects.These reclassifications resulted in the downgradeof 849 acres and the upgrade of 1,540 acres.When combined, these reflect a net upgrade of691 acres during 2000-2001.

The area involved in these reclassificationswas relatively small when compared to thelarge downgrades that took place in the 1980sthat totaled approximately 33,000 acres.However, the net upgrade of 691 acres in thepast two years affirms that pollution controlefforts appear to be balancing out increasingwater quality threats.

Pho

togr

aph

cour

tesy

of T

aylo

r S

hellf

ish

Far

ms

4

recreationalAreas used by recreational shellfish harvesters

StatusThe state Department of Health classifies public beaches for recreational shell-fish harvesting based primarily on data collected in partnership with local offi-cials. Many public beaches have not yet been evaluated. These beaches arelabeled Unclassified for shellfish harvesting.

In 2001, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife observed almost 190,000 recre-ational shellfish harvesters on public Puget Sound beaches. This is 23 percentfewer harvesters than observed in 2000. Most of these harvesters were observedon Approved beaches (56 percent) but 30 percent of harvesters were observed onUnclassified beaches. The safety of consumption of shellfish from these beachesis unknown. More than 17,000 harvesters (9 percent of the total) were observedon Closed beaches. The state Department of Health has designed an educationalprogram for harvesters in an attempt to reduce this number.

TrendsThe state Department of Fishand Wildlife observed a smallernumber of recreational shellfish har-vesters on Puget Sound beaches in2001 as compared to the previousfour years. A greater percentage ofthese harvesters were found onApproved beaches in 2001, relativeto 1999-2000 and fewer harvestersused Unclassified beaches. The per-centage of harvesters observed onClosed beaches remained the same.

What causes the temporary closure of shellfish growing areas?

The state Department of Health may temporarily close shellfish growing areas to harvesting for anumber of reasons. In some areas, storms that bring high rainfall produce a pulse of contaminat-ed stormwater runoff that enters shellfish growing areas that are otherwise safe for harvesting.

Such areas are closed by the Department of Health following high rainfall.

The state Department of Health also restricts shellfish harvesting when levels of naturally occurring tox-ins, such as the toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning, are high. These toxins are produced byplankton that occur naturally in Puget Sound marine waters, but only reach levels of concern when theplankton reach high concentrations during blooms. These blooms do not appear to be related to con-tamination. There is another natural biotoxin, produced by a different species of plankton, that causesamnesic shellfish poisoning in humans, but these organisms have not been found in Puget Sound.

T he rivers and streams flowinginto Puget Sound providerecreational opportunities

such as paddling, fishing and swim-ming. River and stream water is con-sidered safe for recreation when lev-els of fecal coliform bacteria remainbelow state standards. Extremelydry conditions during November2000 through March 2001 resulted inrecord low flows in many riversreservoirs and this limited manyrecreational opportunities.

Fortunately, above-average rainfalland snowfall in the remainder of2001 and early 2002 restored waterlevels and provided an above aver-age snowpack.

StatusAlmost three quarters (73 percent) of the state's long-term river monitoring stations within the Puget Soundbasin had good conditions with respect to fecal coliformcontamination. The state Department of Ecology moni-tors these stations monthly for fecal coliform levels andcalculates a water quality index for fecal coliform bacte-ria. This index rates each station's annual performancerelative to state water quality standards. The Departmentof Ecology rated the remaining stations as having fairconditions with respect to fecal coliform contamination.Scientists selected these long-term river monitoring sta-tions to be representative of the larger watershed. Theydo not reflect many local water quality problems relatedto fecal coliform contamination. Additional data sourcesare used in a different ranking system to identify pollutedwater bodies. In 1998, the Department of Ecology identi-fied 235 bodies of fresh water in the Puget Sound basinas impaired because of fecal contamination.

TrendsAt most of the river monitoring stations, no consistenttrends in fecal coliform contamination are seen in datafrom 1991 to 2000. However, eight stations did show atrend and seven of these showed an improvement infecal coliform contamination between 1991 and 2000.The one exception was a worsening trend at the CedarRiver station at Renton.

Seven stations out of 20 showed improvement

in fecal coliform conditions between

1991 and 2000.

Is water quality for recreation improving or declining?

Harvesters on Approved

Beaches56%

ConditionallyApproved Beaches 5%

ClosedBeaches 9%

Harvesters onUnclassified

Beaches30%

Water Quality Index for fecal coliform bacteria at riverand stream monitoring stations

In 2001, the stateDepartment of Fish andWildlife observed mostrecreational shellfish harvesters on Approvedbeaches, but 27 percentwere observed on beaches not tested(Unclassified) by the stateDepartment of Health.

Photograph courtesy of Taylor S

hellfish Farm

s

5

Are the sizes and frequency of oil spills increasing or decreasing?

Puget Sound is one the nation's leading petroleumrefining centers. Approximately 15 billion gallons ofcrude oil and refined petroleum products are trans-

ported through the Sound each year. In addition, largequantities of oil travel through the region's pipelines.

In 2000, about 39 large commercial cargo ships, tankersand oil barges moved through the Sound each day. Marineterminals, where oil is transferred between ships and land,and highway transportation by tanker trucks also contribute tothe risk of major spills. Oil spills introduce contaminants intothe environment at toxic levels and can immediately harmmarine fish larvae, invertebrates, birds and marine mammals.

Spills Prevention

The state Department of Ecology has implemented severalprocedures to reduce the risk of oil spills. More than 2,600cargo vessels are screened in a typical year to promote safe

operation and maintenance. Refueling inspectionshelp reduce the frequency of spills during fuel trans-fers. Oil-handling facilities maintain spill preventionplans with Ecology. Investigations of spill incidentsare used to improve spill prevention. The use ofpenalties, where appropriate, is an effective incen-tive to maintain safe practices. In response to thelast major spill in the state, the 1999 OlympicPipeline spill in Bellingham, the state Departmentof Ecology intends to issue a penalty of $7.86 mil-lion to three companies, upon completion of set-tlement negotiations that also involve the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. This would bethe largest penalty ever issued by the State ofWashington.

The state also maintains a rescue tugboat at NeahBay for prevention of oil spills from disabled ves-

sels, although the tugboat is currently funded for only 200days of service per year.

TrendsMajor spills (10,000 gallons and over)

The volume and number of major spills in Puget Sound has remained relative-ly low since 1992. There were no major spills in 2000-01. Between 1985 and2001, 16 major spills from facilities (such as refineries, depots), pipelines, ves-sels and barges released more than 2.2 million gallons of oil. Some of this wascontained, but much of this oil reached the waters and land of the Puget Soundbasin. Six spills in 1990 and 1991 released more than one half of this volume.In the last five years, only one major spill has occurred—the Olympic Pipelinespill in Bellingham in 1999.

Since 1985, shore-based facilities accounted for 52 percent of the oil spilled inmajor incidents (10,000 or more gallons). The remaining 48 percent of oilreleased in major spills was relatively evenly split between spills from pipelines(26 percent) and vessels and barges (23 percent). Heavy fuel oil and crude oilare the materials most commonly spilled in major incidents.

Serious spills (25 to 10,000 gallons)

From 1993 to 2001, the stateDepartment of Ecology recorded 191spills in the Puget Sound basin, where25 to 10,000 gallons reached surfacewaters. Approximately 73,400 gallonsof oil entered Puget Sound watersfrom those 191 serious spills. Theannual numbers appear to be risingslightly, although the total volumeremains relatively steady. Vesselswere by far the greatest source ofspills of 25 to 10,000 gallons. A rela-tively small number of the spills con-tributed most of the oil released inspills of 25 to 10,000 gallons.

Volume and frequency of "major" and "serious" spills

oil spillsThe use of

penalties, where

appropriate, is

an effective

incentive to

maintain safe

practices.

The volume of major spills refers tothe total volume spilled; in mostcases, not all of the oil spilledreached surface waters.

Photograph courtesy of W

ashington Departm

ent of Ecology

6

Sediments—mud, silt, sand and gravel that have settled to the bottom ofwater bodies—cover many of the 1.8 million acres of Puget Sound's sub-merged lands and tidelands. The condition of the sediments in Puget

Sound provides a record of historical and ongoing pollution in the region.

Why measure the acreage of contaminated sediments?Many pollutants have an affinity for sediment particles. Whether they enterPuget Sound through spills, wastewater discharges or stormwater runoff, toxiccontaminants tend to bind to sediment particles. Therefore, as sediments settleout on the sea floor they can cause accumulations of contamination. Areas ofcontaminated sediment can harm marine life that lives or feeds in sediments.Fish and shellfish harvested from contaminated areas can, in turn, threatenhuman health.

What affects the extent of contaminated sediments in Puget Sound?Areas of contaminated sediment have developed during the past century aspeoples’ activities on the water, along the shoreline and in the watershedsof Puget Sound have released toxic contaminants to the environment.Many sediment contaminants do not break down very quickly.

Reduction in the acreage of contaminated sediments will occur only byeliminating sources of pollution and cleaning up contaminated sites.Cleaning up sediments can involve dredging or removing contaminatedmaterial and properly disposing of it in designated facilities. Cleanup canalso entail capping the contaminated sediments with cleaner material toensure that the contaminants remain buried so they cannot harm PugetSound organisms.

StatusAs of 2001, the state Department ofEcology has identified 112 contam-inated sediment cleanup sites inPuget Sound. These sites cover anestimated 3,400 acres of marinesediments in the Sound's urbanwaterways.

A 1997 to 1999 study by state andfederal scientists provides addition-al information about the pattern andextent of sediment contamination inPuget Sound. This study found that8,700 acres (1.5 percent) of softsediment in Puget Sound (exclud-ing the San Juan Islands and theStrait of Juan de Fuca) is contami-nated. Approximately 10 times thatarea (another 83,000 acres) is lessseverely contaminated.

TrendsAs of 2001, 22 sites of contaminat-ed marine sediment have beencleaned up or require no cleanupactions. Federal, state, local agen-cies and private parties are current-ly cleaning up 11 more sites. Anadditional 79 sites still need to becleaned up and 65 of these are inthe investigation and design phas-es leading to cleanup.

Long-term monitoring by the stateDepartment of Ecology indicatesthat concentrations of some con-taminants (e.g., naphthalene andother smaller PAHs) haveincreased during the past few yearswhile concentrations of other con-taminants (e.g., copper and mercu-ry) have decreased.

Chlorinated organic compounds:• These chemicals do not occur naturally and persist in the environment for

long periods before they decompose.• They are some of the most toxic compounds known and can retard growth,

reduce fertility and cause birth defects, liver damage and skin lesions in ani-mals.

• Sources include solvents, electrical coolants and lubricants, pesticides, her-bicides and treated wood.

• Examples include:• polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), industrial chemicals that have

been banned from many uses.• DDT, a pesticide whose use was banned in the United States in the 1970s;• dioxins and furans which are formed as by-products of some industri-

al processes using chlorine.

Heavy metals:• Exposure can cause reproductive failure in people and other animals.• Sources include discarded batteries, spills of hazardous materials, car

emissions, paints, dyes, polluted runoff and industrial and municipalwastewater discharges.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):• Exposure can increase risk of cancer and impair immune function,

reproduction and development.• Present in fossil fuels and formed when fossil fuels and other organic

materials are burned. • Sources include stormwater runoff, industrial and municipal dis-

charges, and spills of petroleum and petroleum products.

Is the area of contaminated sedimentsincreasing or decreasing?

Area of contaminated sediments andnumber of cleanup sites

sediments

Pollutants of Concern

Photograph courtesy of M

ohsen Kourehdar, W

ashington Departm

ent of Ecology

7

StatusMussels filter large quantities of waterand can accumulate toxic contami-nants that are present in thatwater. NOAA's National MusselWatch Program sampled con-taminants in mussels in 1997and 1998 at 13 Puget Soundstations. A few organic contam-inants—especially PAHs (see p.7"Pollutants of Concern")—accumulate to higher concentrations in PugetSound mussels than in shellfish from elsewhere around the country.Arsenic and many metals, including copper, lead, mercury and silver arepresent at lower levels in PugetSound mussels than observed else-where in the country.

PCBs (see p.7) have been of specialconcern in Puget Sound. During the1997-98 Mussel Watch Program,total PCB concentrations in PugetSound mussels ranged from 24 ppb(parts per billion) at Cape Flattery to533 ppb at Four Mile Rock beachnear Magnolia (north Elliot Bay,Seattle). PCB concentrations inPuget Sound mussels are generallyhigher than on the outer coast butPCBs are found there also. On aver-age, the PCB concentrations inPuget Sound mussels were neitherexceptionally high nor exceptionallylow compared to the rest of the US.

Is toxic contamination ofmarine species increasing or decreasing?

musselsContaminants in mussels

TrendsThe NOAA National Mussel Watch data through 1998 pro-vided evidence for multiple Puget Sound locations of long-term declining concentrations of the long-banned pesticideschlordane and DDT, and several metals such as lead andmercury. However, it also appeared that PCBs were nolonger decreasing and possibly increasing during the midto late 1990s. NOAA scientists have now used newly avail-able data from 1999-2001 to construct a 16-year record ofPCBs and have identified three important patterns. First, itis clear that concentrations of PCBs in mussels have gen-erally been declining during the past two decades followingthe banning of most PCB uses in the 1970s. Second, thehighest concentrations were consistently found in musselsfrom central Puget Sound sites such as Four Mile Rock(north Elliott Bay) and adjacent areas confirming this urbanarea as a long-term source for PCBs.

Finally, the long-term downward trend was interruptedunexpectedly in the mid-1990s by increases in PCBs atmany locations. Fortunately, between 1999 and 2000,PCB concentrations in mussels began to decrease again.These data now indicate that we cannot be certain thatPCBs will continue to decline at the dramatic rates seenduring the 1970s to early 1990s.

Some

chemicals

that people

introduce into

Puget Sound

are highly

toxic to various

forms of life.

Photographcourtesy of Dan Cheney

8Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Mussel Watch Program, 2001

english soleStatusScientists routinely monitor English sole atsix Puget Sound locations. They havefound that English sole had significantlyelevated occurrence of liver lesions at twourban sites (Seattle waterfront in ElliottBay and Thea Foss Waterway inCommencement Bay) and one near-urbansite (Port Gardner near Everett). The riskof developing liver lesions was comparedto reference areas in Puget Sound that

were used to define baseline risk. PAH concentrations in sediments are also elevat-ed at these three sites. These results indicate that the health of bottom-dwelling fishin Puget Sound is worse off in areas where sediments are contaminated.

TrendsThe risk of developing liver disease increased in English sole sam-pled along the Seattle Waterfront between 1989 and 1998, butdecreased in 1999 and was low again in 2000. No increasing ordecreasing trends were evident at the other sites.

Numerous sediment capping projects have been completed to thenorth, south and in the immediate vicinity of the Seattle waterfrontsite since 1989. Collectively, these projects may have lowered thePAH concentrations in sediments and reduced PAH exposure toEnglish sole feeding in this area. The lower risk of English soledeveloping liver disease in 1999 and 2000 may be due to an over-all reduction in the amount of PAHs present in the surface sedi-ments along the whole of the Seattle waterfront.

StatusHarbor seals feed relatively high in the food web and accumulate contaminants fromtheir food—primarily fish. These contaminants tend to accumulate in fatty tissue madeup of lipid compounds. Results from contaminant analysis are reported per unit oflipid. Harbor seals from Puget Sound have levels of PCBs (see p.7) up to eight timeshigher than those in the Strait of Georgia. These differences probablyreflect higher levels of industrialPCB usage in Puget Sound beforethe 1970s ban on PCBs.

In contrast to PCBs, the levels ofdioxins (see p.7) were higher inStrait of Georgia harbor seals thanin Puget Sound seals. These ele-vated concentrations in the Straitof Georgia are mainly a result ofthe discharge of these chemicalsfrom the British Columbia pulp andpaper mills in the late 1980s andearly 1990s.

TrendsThere was a sharp decline in meas-ured levels of PCBs and DDT inPuget Sound harbor seals throughthe 1970s and afterwards. This wasa result of the widespread restric-tions placed on their use in theearly 1970s. These declines have leveled off since the mid-1980s as con-taminated land and sediments continue to release PCBs into the marine food web.

Contaminants in harbor seals

harbor seals

Why measure liver lesions?

PAHs and other contaminants that English soleencounter in the bottom sediments of Puget Sound cancause a variety of harmful effects. Development of liverlesions, which are growths of abnormal tissue in theliver, may be one of these effects. Other indicators oftoxic contaminants reflect the presence of contaminantsin the environment or in the tissue of marine organisms.The occurrence of liver disease in English sole providesone measure of the effects of contaminants on fishhealth in Puget Sound.

What causes liver lesions in English sole?

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the stateDepartment of Fish and Wildlife have identified threeprimary risk factors associated with liver disease inEnglish sole:

• Exposure to PAH contaminated sediments.• Fish age. • Exposure to PCB contaminated sediments.

Researchers have linked higher than normal occurrences ofliver lesions with lower rates of reproduction in English sole.

Occurrence of liver lesions in English sole

� � � � � �� ��

Pho

togr

aph

cour

tesy

of

Ran

dy S

hum

an ©

Source: Transboundary Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Indicators Working Group, 2002

Source: Transboundary Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Indicators Working Group, 2002

9Baseline risk is determined from 19 relatively uncontaminated sites.

Is fish & wildlife habitat increasing or decreasing?

Abundance and distribution of eelgrass beds

Eelgrass beds are important habitats in marine and estuarine waters because they arehome to many small organisms that are food for larger species, and they provide protec-tive cover for migrating salmon, other fish, and many other kinds of marine life. Eelgrass

also supplies organic material to nearshore areas and its roots stabilize the sediments.

eelgrass beds Why Monitor Eelgrass?Eelgrass and other seagrass species are usedas an indicator of estuary health throughout theworld because they respond to many naturaland human caused environmental variables.Changes in abundance or distribution of thisresource are likely to affect other species thatdepend on eelgrass habitat. Abundancedescribes the total amount of the resource andis measured by calculating the percent coveragewithin an eelgrass bed, or basal area coverage(area of plant at base). Vertical distribution ischaracterized by measuring the maximum waterdepth of eelgrass beds, which affects theamount of light available to the plants. Trackingchanges in both these measurements over timewill help us learn how this resource is changing.

What affects eelgrass beds?Eelgrass, like other plants, needs light,nutrients, and the appropriate substrate,or bottom sediments, to grow and thrive.Light availability and quality are the mostimportant factors controlling growth anddistribution of eelgrass beds. Light in thewater column (the vertical depth of waterfrom the surface to the bottom) dependson the amount of sunlight available andthe water clarity and quality. People'sactions, climate changes, and extremeweather events can harm water quality.

Two main factors that control light in thewater column are nutrients and sus-pended sediments. Both have marine aswell as land based sources. The rela-tionship between nutrients in marinewaters and eelgrass is complicated.Eelgrass primarily uses nutrients in thesubstrate for growth. However, excessnutrients in the water, often due to therunoff of excess fertilizer, can spur algaeto grow on eelgrass leaves and in thewater column. Algae can limit eelgrassgrowth by reducing the amount of lightthat reaches eelgrass leaves. In Puget

Sound, suspended solids such as silt and otherparticles in the water column also reduce lightavailability. Suspended solids come from ero-sion runoff, dredging activities, rivers andstorms.

Substrate type, wave energy, and other environ-mental conditions also determine the amountand distribution of eelgrass in Puget Sound. Onerecent concern is physical alteration of theshoreline to protect or support shoreline proper-ty development (see related indicator; p.11). Theresulting structures can increase wave energyand alter substrate type creating nearshoreareas less able to support eelgrass beds.

StatusBased on the first year of a new eelgrass mon-itoring project, the state Department of NaturalResources estimates that Puget Sound ishome to approximately 26,000 acres (or near-ly 41 square miles) of eelgrass.

Eelgrass beds are divided into two habitattypes. A significant amount of eelgrassoccurs in flats, which can be large shallowbays or small pocket beaches. Close to onefifth of all the eelgrass in Puget Sound growsin one large flat, Padilla Bay.

Eelgrass also occurs in narrow fringing bedsalong steeper shorelines. These fringing bedsare used as corridors for migrating salmon andother wildlife. About one-half of all eelgrass inPuget Sound occurs in fringing beds.

In Puget Sound the maximum depth towhich eelgrass grows can be as shallow as2.5 feet below the low tide line to greaterthan 30 feet deep. Much of the eelgrass inPuget Sound is subtidal; half of the 67 areassampled for this monitoring program hadeelgrass extending to depths greater than10 feet below the low tide line.

TrendsThis first year of data provides a valuablebaseline estimate of the eelgrass resourcethat will be used to estimate trends in thefuture as the monitoring program continues.At the current level of effort, the monitoringprogram will be able to detect as little as a 20percent change in eelgrass abundance dur-ing a 10-year monitoring period. Knowinghow much of a resource exists and how it ischanging is the first step to better protectingit for salmon and other wildlife.

Human development significantly alters the Puget Sound envi-ronment, often causing changes that damage fish and wildlifehabitats. Habitat loss and degradation are major threats to the

health and well-being of Puget Sound's fish and wildlife. Protecting andrestoring habitat is a key element of the state's strategy to recover wildsalmon and is a priority of the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team.

Habitats at risk from direct human development and constructionactivities include freshwater habitat for salmon and other fish andPuget Sound's fringe of shallow subtidal, intertidal and shorelinehabitats known as the marine nearshore.

Pho

togr

aph

cour

tesy

of

Ran

dy S

hum

an ©

10

People have modified Washington State's shorelines exten-sively. Shoreline modification, such as bulkheads or sea-walls, tends to harm habitat through conversion of tidelands

to uplands. Modification also indirectly affects habitat by alteringnearshore processes. The amount of modified shoreline in an areacan be a useful indicator of the effect people have on thenearshore environment.

Scientists with the Nearshore Habitat Program at the Departmentof Natural Resources inventoried the extent of shoreline modifica-tion as part of a statewide inventory of saltwater shorelines (theShoreZone Inventory) that was completed in 2000.

StatusApproximately one-third of all saltwater shorelines in WashingtonState have some of kind of shoreline modification structure, suchas a bulkhead. Given that shoreline modification is known todegrade nearshore habitat, this finding suggests that one in everythree feet of saltwater shoreline in the state may be impaired.

Few changes have been made to the outer coast, however, peo-ple have made extensive changes to Puget Sound. The large riverdeltas in Puget Sound are some of the most extensively modifiedareas, including the Commencement Bay / Puyallup River areas,and the Elliott Bay / Duwamish River areas. These urban bayswere once highly productive estuarine deltas. Snohomish and KingCounties have the most highly modified shorelines. San JuanCounty has the lowest modification overall because the county isless heavily developed, and many of the shorelines are rocky anddo not tend to erode. The ShoreZone Inventory also indicates thatthe state has approximately 1,200 boat ramps, 3,600 piers anddocks, and 30,000 recreational boat slips.

marine shorelines

Freshwater habitat available to salmon

freshwater habitatRivers, streams, lakes and wetlands are all critical to the sur-

vival of salmon and steelhead species. They provide food,shelter and spawning and rearing habitat. When fish-bear-

ing streams cross roadways, migrating fish must use culvertsdesigned to carry water. Many existing culverts are barriers to fishpassage because of improper design, changes in watershedhydrology or because of deterioration and the need for mainte-nance. These culverts take away habitat as upstream aquaticareas are made unavailable for spawning and rearing.Fortunately this habitat loss is reversible when barrier culverts aremaintained or replaced, but this is a slow and costly process.

StatusThere is no comprehensive inventoryof culverts along the 170,000 miles ofpublic and private roads in WashingtonState. The state Department of Fishand Wildlife and state Department ofTransportation jointly maintain themost complete inventory of culverts,known as the Salmonid Screening,Habitat Enhancement and Restoration(SSHEAR) Fish Passage database.

As of early 2002, the SSHEAR inven-tory identified 3,526 culverts on fish-bearing (or potentially fish-bearing)streams in the Puget Sound basin.Fifty-two percent of these culverts, or1,828 culverts, act as either partial ortotal fish passage barriers.

TrendsNew culvert assess-ments during 2000-01increased the inventoryin the SSHEAR data-base by 37 percent. Thisreflects a substantialeffort to inventory andassess Washington cul-verts, yet the stateDepartment of Fish andWildlife estimates thatthe SSHEAR databaserepresents only 10 to 15percent of the culverts inWashington State.

Modifications to marine shorelines

Photograph courtesy of H

ugh Shipm

an, Washington D

epartment of E

cology

11

Percent of Shore Length that is Modifiedwith Bulkheads, Seawalls and Stone Structures

Water temperatures at river and stream monitoring stations

W ater temperatures in Puget Sound's rivers can rise high enough to harm salmonand other cold-water fish. Stream temperature varies naturally from year to yeardepending on weather conditions, the amount of snow pack and the seasonal pat-

tern of snowmelt. Clearing trees and other cover along stream banks can cause stream tem-perature problems. Also, dams and the extraction of water for drinking, industrial and other usescan affect stream temperature.

Puget Sound's marine watersprovide essential habitat fororganisms ranging from

plankton to marine fish and salmonto marine mammals. The stateDepartment of Ecology summa-rizes overall water quality based onthe strength and persistence of lay-ers, or stratification, in the watercolumn; lack of nitrogen-containingnutrients for several months; lowamounts of dissolved oxygen in thewater; high ammonium concentra-tions; and high fecal coliform bac-teria counts. The results are pre-sented in terms of levels of overallwater quality concern.

StatusBased on data from 1994 to 2000,the areas of greatest marine waterquality concern are Budd Inlet,southern Hood Canal and PennCove on Whidbey Island. Concernat Budd Inlet is based on high fecalcoliform and ammonium concen-trations, strong and persistentstratification, depleted oxygen lev-els and low nutrients. Nutrient inputto Budd Inlet decreased in the late1990s as the regional wastewatertreatment plant incorporatednitrogen removal. Southern HoodCanal and Penn Cove concernsinclude very low oxygen concen-trations and sensitivity to additionalnutrient loadings.

The Department of Ecology gen-erally classified sampling stationsnear urban areas or in areas withreduced levels of tidal flushing asareas of high concern.

water temperatures

StatusThe state Department of Ecology reported that each ofthe long-term monitoring stations in rivers and streamshad good conditions for water temperature in 2000. Theagency measured water temperature every month at 33stations and calculated a water quality index for temper-ature. This index rates each station's annual performancerelative to state water quality standards. Scientists select-ed these long-term river monitoring stations to be repre-sentative of the larger watershed. They do not reflectmany local stream temperature problems. Additional datasources are used in a different ranking system to identifylocal temperature problems in compliance with the feder-al Clean Water Act. In 1998, the Department of Ecologyidentified 105 waterbodies in the Puget Sound basin asimpaired because of high temperatures.

TrendsAt most of the river moni-toring stations, no consis-tent trends in water temper-ature are seen in data from1991 to 2000. However, thestate Department ofEcology's water qualityindex for temperature indi-cates that during this nine-year period, temperatureshave been declining at fiveof 20 stations analyzed inthe Puget Sound basin.

Temperatures

have been

declining at

five of 20

stations

analyzed in

the Puget

Sound basin.

marine water qualityComponents of MarineWater Quality

• Fecal coliform bacteria—not agentsof disease themselves, these bacte-ria indicate the presence of other dis-ease-causing organisms fromsewage or agricultural contamination.

• Dissolved oxygen—low amounts ofoxygen can be harmful to somemarine life, such as fish.

• Dissolved inorganic nitrogen—low levels of nitrogen-containingnutrients can leave marine waterssusceptible to water quality prob-lems when nutrients are added fromwastewater or agricultural sources.

• Ammonium—high concentrationsof ammonium can indicate sewageor agricultural contamination.

• Stratification—when marine watersdevelop stable layers (become strat-ified) then pollutants as well as nutri-ents cannot be mixed around andsome layers may develop waterquality problems.

12

A variety of human activities have resulted in the movementand introduction of species into new areas. Such activitiesinclude the discharge of ballast water from ships, imports of

species for agriculture and aquaculture, trade in live seafood, andimproper disposal of unwanted exotic organisms. Many introducedspecies, known as exotic species, die in their new environment orbecome inconspicuous members of new communities. Somespecies can be invasive, which means they become very prolific andalter the basic nature ofecosystems. Invasivespecies that threatennative species andhabitats are considerednuisances.

Spartina is an invasiveaquatic salt marshgrass that has enteredPuget Sound and canalter nearshore habitatto the detriment of fish,shellfish and birds thatuse this habitat. Spartina is not as extensive in Puget Sound as inother coastal areas of our state. While eradication from the PugetSound basin is a difficult challenge, it is possible to achieve. TheWashington Department of Agriculture leads the state's efforts to con-trol spartina.

Other species of concern include the green crab (pictured above)and mitten crab, which have not yet been observed in Puget Soundbut have damaged other West Coast areas, including SanFrancisco Bay.

TrendsAs of the beginning of the 2001 control season, the control efforts of thestate Department of Agriculture and its partners have reduced the size ofthe Puget Sound spartina infestation. In a few cases they have eradicatedthe nuisance plant from specific sites. As the state Department ofAgriculture and its partners succeed at reducing or eliminatingsmaller, outlying populations of spartina that have the potential togreatly increase in area, larger areas of infestations, such assouth Skagit Bay, will become a bigger priority and the focus ofadditional funding. Between 1999 and 2001, the area of spartinainfestations was reduced in each county where it occurs exceptSnohomish County. The south Skagit Bay site in SnohomishCounty has proven extremely challenging to control and manyareas within this site have never been controlled. Because of this,there was a small increase in the Snohomish infestation between1999 and 2001.

With the current level of funding, the state Department of Agriculture andits partners anticipate eradicating all known spartina infestations in PugetSound in four years.

Acreage of spartina infestation

spartina

����

����

StatusSpartina (commonly known as cordgrass) infestations are concentrated inthe northern and central areas of Puget Sound. None have been foundsouth of the Tacoma Narrows or in southern Hood Canal. State and localagencies, volunteer groups and private landowners are actively working toeradicate spartina.

Photograph courtesy of B

rett Dum

bauld, Washington D

epartment of F

ish and Wildlife

Pho

togr

aph

cour

tesy

of

Was

hing

ton

Dep

artm

ent

of A

gric

ultu

re

Are aquatic nuisance speciesincreasing or decreasing in Puget Sound?

13

StatusProduction andsurvival of cohosalmon can varywidely from year toyear due to a num-ber of factors.Recent marine sur-vival of PugetSound wild cohosalmon has beenmuch lower thanhistorical levels.The DeschutesRiver coho popula-tion in south Puget Sound has experiencedparticularly low marine survival. South PugetSound coho populations in general are per-forming more poorly than other populationsin Puget Sound. In contrast, south PugetSound populations had higher survival ratesthan other populations in the early 1980s.The cause for this reversal is unknown.

TrendsThroughout Puget Sound marine survival ofwild coho steadily declined during the late1980s to late 1990s. In contrast, marine sur-vival for the coho brood that returned in 2000increased slightly inpopulations throughoutPuget Sound. Scientistsspeculate that thisrecent increase couldsignal the start of a newclimate pattern thatresults in marine condi-tions more favorable tocoho survival. Continuedmonitoring will deter-mine if this recentsmall, though pervasive,increase represents aturning point to highermarine survival andincreases in PugetSound coho stocks.

StatusScoters are the most abundant diving duck inPuget Sound during the winter. Winter densi-ties of scoters in north Puget Sound are aboutten birds per square kilometer and about fourtimes that number in south Puget Sound.

TrendsDensities of scoters in Puget Sound havedeclined by 57 percent during the past 20years. During the same period, 13 out of 18other marine diving bird species in PugetSound declined as well. These include a 72percent decline in scaup, a 91 percent declinein long-tailed duck, a 95 percent decline inwestern grebes, and a 96 percent decline inmarbled murrelets. In contrast, some speciesshowed significant increases, such as harle-quin ducks that were up 189 percent.

Bird species that either eat fish or dependupon specific spawning events of PugetSound forage fish appear to have declinedmore than species such as harlequins thatdon't have such specific requirements andtend to feed on other parts of the food chainsuch as crustaceans and invertebrates.Researchers have observed declines in scot-ers and scaup in other marine areas through-out the Pacific Flyway. This suggests that thebirds have not moved from Washington tosome other part of their wintering range.

It is not yet clear whether these changesrelate to global or regional cycles such as thePacific Decadal Oscillation, which affects alarge portion of the Pacific Ocean, or to localchanges such as the decline of forage fish orchanges in habitat.

���� ������ �� ����� ����� ��� ����

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����� ���

��

���

� �

��

���

����������������� ���������������������������������������

������� �����������������������������

�������� ��������������������������

Coho salmonsurvivalremains

far below historical

levels.

Are fish & wildlife populations increasing or decreasing?

scotersPuget Sound is home to more than 220species of fish, 26 different kinds ofmarine mammals, 100 species of sea

birds and thousands of species of marineinvertebrates. Some species are migratory,while others remain in the Sound year-round.Species selected as indicators of PugetSound's health include fish and wildlife thatrepresent some of this diversity:

• Harbor seals• Scoters (ducks)• Pacific herring• Rockfish• Coho salmon

Pacific salmon and a number of marine fishspecies in Puget Sound are in peril. Chinooksalmon in Puget Sound and summer chumsalmon in Hood Canal have been listed since1999 as "threatened" species under the feder-al Endangered Species Act (ESA). That meansthere is a threat that without protection thespecies may become extinct.

In 2001 the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) completed a review of seven PugetSound marine fish species for listing as "threat-ened" or "endangered" under the ESA. Theyconcluded that listing was not warranted for six ofthese species because the Puget Sound popula-tions are not distinct from healthy populationsthat live outside of the Sound. One species,Pacific whiting, is still under review. The scien-tists involved in the review expressed concernabout the widespread, nearly synchronousdecline of multiple fish species within PugetSound regardless of their status with respect tothe ESA. They suggested that this might indicateecosystem-level changes that would be of deep-er concern than the decline of any single species.

In 2002, NMFS will complete a review of thesouthern resident orca whale population forpotential listing under the ESA. This popula-tion, whose range includes Puget Sound, hasdeclined from a high of 97 whales in 1996 to78 in 2001.

coho salmon

Photograph courtesy of Jeff Skriletz, W

ashington Departm

ent of Fish and Wildlife

Pho

togr

aph

cour

tesy

of

U.S

. F

ish

and

Wild

life

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 200214

StatusRockfish stocks throughout Puget Sound are consid-ered depressed because either their abundance orsize has drastically declined during the past 25 years.

NMFS completed a status review of several PugetSound marine fish, including copper, quillback andbrown rockfishes, in 2001. While NMFS decidedthat listing these fish as "threatened" or "endan-gered" of becoming extinct under the ESA was notwarranted, the review teams acknowledgeddeclines in a number of species and suggestedfurther study to determine the overall significanceof the apparent ecosystem-wide changes.

TrendsRockfish abundance has declined markedly fromlevels seen in the 1970s. One indication of thisdecline is in the experiences of recreational fishers.In the 1970s, the average fisherman was catchingone or more rockfish per trip. More recently, it maytake two or three fishing trips to catch a rockfish.

Although this trend of fishingsuccess can be affected bychanges in fishing regula-tions, the change can beused as a relative indicator ofthe number of rockfish thatare in Puget Sound. Thisdecline in the numbers ofrockfish and the loss of larg-er fish from the populationmeans that the spawningpotential of rockfish hasdeclined by about 75 percentfrom the levels observed inthe 1970s.

StatusIn 2000 and 2001, the amount of Pacific herring spawn-ing in Puget Sound was between 13,000 and 15,000tons. In recent years, the greatest quantity of herring inPuget Sound was from stocks spawning south of PortTownsend. Stocks that spawn at Cherry Point, north ofBellingham, and Discovery Bay, on the Strait of Juan deFuca, are at historically low levels.

Pacific herring in Puget Sound come together to spawnin the winter or spring. For management purposes, thestate Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified 19distinct spawning groups in Puget Sound.

TrendsThe spawning biomass of Pacific herring in Puget Soundhas increased in recent years from the low levels—10,000 to 11,000 tons—observed in 1997 and 1998 toabout 15,000 tons in 2001. Herring stocks from northPuget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca havedeclined during the past 25 years. In particular, stocks innorth Puget Sound declined sharply in the late 1990s. Atthe same time there was a large increase in central andsouth Puget Sound stocks between 1998 and 1999. Intwo of the past three years, the biomass of herring in cen-tral and south Puget Sound exceeded 10,000 tons. Thebiomass observed in these years is the highest on recordfor the central and south Sound stocks.

Forage FishPacific herring are an important prey item eaten by anumber of fish, birds and mammals in Puget Sound.Herring, and other small marine fish such as sandlance and surf smelt, are called forage fish becausethey are the food of many other organisms. Pacificherring are among the more common Puget Soundprey items eaten by spiny dogfish, coho and chinooksalmon, Western and red-necked grebes, red-breasted mergansers, rhinoceros auklets, Dall's por-poises, and harbor seals.

herring

What affects rockfishspawning potential?The condition of a stock can bemeasured by its potential to produceoffspring, or its spawning potential.

Spawning potential declines whenthere are fewer fish of spawning age orwhen individual fish produce fewereggs. Older rockfish produce manymore offspring than younger fish.

Scientists have suggested that over-harvesting by commercial and recre-ational fishing is the most likely causeof the loss of older rockfish. Other fac-tors that may harm older fish includecontamination of the food chain andtheir habitats being disturbed by trawl-ing, diving or other activities.

harbor sealsStatusSince harbor seals received protection under the feder-al Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972,Washington harbor seals have been recovering from aperiod of prolonged hunting pressure. The region's pop-ulation of harbor seals has grown steadily and most ofthis growth has been in the San Juan Islands and theStrait of Juan de Fuca. The least growth has been inHood Canal.

State and federal researchers estimated that 14,600harbor seals lived in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juande Fuca in 1999.

TrendsBetween 1978 and 1999, the population of harbor sealsin Puget Sound, grew faster than in the rest of the stateand rose from 42 percent of the total state population to46 percent. Harbor seal abundance in these waters hasincreased three-fold since 1978.

Analysis of the harbor sealpopulation growth rate sug-gests that Washington'sinland harbor seal popula-tion is near the current carry-ing capacity of the environ-ment, or the number that canbe sustained in the long-term. This does not meanthat the seal population hasreached its historical size;the region's capacity for sup-porting harbor seals may belower than it was historically.

What affects herring?Herring stocks may be affected by a number offactors. Low numbers of spawning herring may berelated to:

• More are being eaten by greater numbers ofpredator species such as harbor seals, salmon,and Pacific hake.

• Changes in water conditions, such as tempera-ture, salinity and dissolved oxygen.

• Reduced food supplies.• Alteration of critical nearshore habitat, especially

eelgrass beds on which eggs are deposited.• Harvest levels.

What affects harbor seals?Increasing harbor seal popula-tions may be the result of:• Protection from bounties or

harvest by the Marine MammalProtection Act of 1972.

• Variable abundance of foodresources such as hake andherring.

• Availability of secure puppingsites.

• Decreased levels of contami-nation in the environment.

Harbor seals may be able to toler-ate disturbances from people betterthan other marine mammals inPuget Sound such as the harborporpoise, which has disappearedfrom central and south PugetSound in recent decades.

rockfish

Photograph courtesy of R

andy Shum

an ©

15

Pho

togr

aph

cour

tesy

of

Way

ne A

. P

alss

on

1. Make smart growth, not sprawl choicesChoose to live in a neighborhood that provides you with all conveniences—low main-tenance homes and lawns, nearby shopping, walking paths, easy-access to busesand trains, and green, open spaces to enjoy.

2. Keep your boat and our water clean Rinse and scrub your boat hull and decks with a brush instead of using soap. If yourboat is stained, use phosphate-free soap or laundry detergent to clean it. Take yourboat out of the water when scrubbing off barnacles and doing other thorough cleaning,scraping and painting jobs. Always use pump-outs to empty your holding tank. Takeprecautions to avoid spills when filling boat tanks with gas and oil. And don't throw cans,bottles, and other disposable items overboard.

3. Watch for and keep nuisance plants and animals out of Puget SoundWhen fishing, put unwanted live bait and organic packing materials into the trash—not the water. When boating, remove plants and animals from your boat, trailer andother equipment after taking your boat or watercraft out of the water. When housecleaning, trade unwanted aquarium fish or plants with friends, return them to the storewhere you bought them or freeze them and then dispose of them in the trash. Don'tdump them into waterways.

4. Follow fishing and hunting regulationsFish and hunt what, where and when regulations guide you. Also, release fish when itmakes sense.

5. Use your car less and never pour anything down a storm drainVehicles are the biggest cause of air pollution in the Puget Sound, and oil, grease andmetals from cars and trucks also pollute the Sound. When possible, walk, bike or atleast share a ride with others. Fix oil leaks in your car. Also, recycle used motor oil.And never pour anything down a storm drain. Wash your car on grass or gravel—notyour driveway. Use non-toxic, low-phosphate soap sparingly. Best of all, take yourcar to a commercial car wash that recycles water.

6. Keep vegetation and shorelines naturalPreserve the established trees around your home, in your neighborhood and nearbyshoreline. Plant new trees and shrubs to encourage excess rainwater to filter slowlyinto the soil. Add native plants to your landscape. Build homes and other structuresaway from shorelines. And in locations where homes and businesses are already inplace, instead of adding cement, wood or metal bulkheads, use drift logs, gravel, ornative vegetation to prevent erosion and protect the environment.

7. Use less water At home and at work, help cut down on the millions of gallons of water that is treated ata wastewater treatment plant or runs through smaller, home and neighborhood septicsystems every day. Run full loads of clothes and dishes. Install faucet aerators andshowerheads. In your garden and on your lawn, apply no more than one inch of waterper week, and water in the morning or evening. Sweep your driveway and sidewalks,don't hose or spray them with water.

8. Cut down on fertilizers, pesticides and herbicidesIf you use fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, follow directions and use them sparingly.Don't fertilize before a rainstorm. Consider using organic fertilizers. Compost grass clip-pings, weeds and other yard waste.

9. Pick up after your pets and keep animals out of streamsScoop your dog's poop and properly dispose of it, preferably in the toilet. You canalso seal the waste in a plastic bag and throw it in the garbage. This is legal in mostareas, but check your local laws. Also, make sure fences and other structures arekeeping cows, horses and other animals out of streams.

10. Keep your septic system in top working orderHave your system inspected regularly and get your tank pumped when needed.

For more information, visit the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team’s

website: www.wa.gov/puget_sound

Ten simple things you can do to help protect and improvethe quality of water in your Puget Sound. Choose at leastone and start making a difference today!

OYSTER PAN FRY (serves 4)• 2 pints fresh small or extra small Pacific oysters• 1 tbsp. olive oil• 1 tbsp. butter• Freshly ground pepper• Mrs. Dash seasoning

1. Rinse and pat oysters dry on paper towel2. Liberally sprinkle Mrs. Dash on both sides of the oysters3. Warm a good, non-stick pan on medium high heat.

Add olive oil and then the butter.4. Add oysters to the hot oil and butter, season with

fresh pepper5. Cook oysters about 5 minutes on each side. Continue

flipping oysters until all their own liquor has cooked away.6. Serve hot with Italian farm bread, a tossed salad and

dry white wine.

STUFFED BAKED SALMON (serves 6)• 1 five pound salmon, head removed• 1 yellow onion, sliced• 1 large lemon, sliced• 1 orange, sliced• 1/2 lb. butter, cut into 6 pieces

Preheat oven to 400° F

1. Place salmon on a cookie sheet covered with foil.Salmon should be in the center of the foil.

2. Fill salmon with onion, orange and lemon.3. Put butter pieces inside fish and stuffing, evenly

spaced.4. Fold foil over fish, but don't seal along belly of fish.

Twist off ends of foil.5. After 15 minutes, decrease oven to 350° and

continue cooking for 45 minutes.

What can you do? W

ater Quality C

onsortium/W

ashington Departm

ent of Ecology

Water Q

uality Consortium

/Washington D

epartment of E

cology