Puget Sound Restoration: Additional Actions Could Improve Assessments of Progress

Puget Sound is the nation's second-largest estuary and serves as an important economic engine in Washington State, supporting millions of people, major industries, and a wide variety of species. However, according to the CCMP, human use and development have degraded water quality and habitats and harmed critical species such as salmon.

GAO was asked to review efforts to restore Puget Sound. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, (2) how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts, and (3) the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration. GAO reviewed restoration plans and other documentation, conducted a two-phase survey of the more than 25 federal and state entities that GAO determined had participated in restoration efforts, conducted discussion groups with tribal and local representatives, and interviewed representatives from these federal and nonfederal entities.

Through its survey of federal and Washington State entities, GAO identified numerous federal and state efforts that, in whole or in part, supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The efforts involved a variety of activities, including habitat protection, water quality improvement, and monitoring. Some of these efforts focused exclusively on Puget Sound restoration, while others had a broader geographic or programmatic scope. Funding for these efforts came from a variety of sources, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reported expending about $142 million for activities in Puget Sound through the National Estuary Program and the Puget Sound Geographic Program during this time frame. However, total expenditures for all efforts are unknown, in part because of difficulties isolating expenditures specific to Puget Sound. A 2017 state audit recommended that two state agencies develop a plan to create a more complete inventory of restoration efforts and related funding. The state agencies concurred and have plans to develop this inventory by August 2019.

Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate restoration efforts through two primary interagency groups. First, the state-led Puget Sound Management Conference has developed a comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP), approved by EPA under the National Estuary Program, that serves as the primary planning document for Puget Sound restoration. Second, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force complements the work of the management conference by coordinating the efforts of federal agencies to support the CCMP, including by developing a draft Federal Action Plan that identifies priority federal actions to protect and restore Puget Sound.

The CCMP lays out a framework for assessing restoration progress, including 6 goals, 47 indicators, and recovery targets for 31 of the indicators. In 2017, the Puget Sound Partnership, a state agency, reported that progress had been made in some areas, but many key indicators had not shown improvement. For example:

One indicator that showed improvement was acres of harvestable shellfish beds, which the Partnership reported increased from 2007 to 2016.

One indicator that showed no improvement was the abundance of Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations, which the Partnership reported remained below desired levels.

The Partnership also reported that most of the 31 recovery targets that the management conference has adopted for 2020 are not likely to be attained. However, the Partnership's ability to assess progress has been limited in some instances, in part because the management conference has not developed targets for 16 of the 47 indicators. GAO has identified measurable targets as a key attribute of successful performance measures. By working with the management conference to help ensure that measurable targets are developed where possible for the highest priority indicators currently lacking such targets, EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress toward restoration goals.

GAO is making two recommendations, including that EPA work with the management conference to help ensure that measurable targets are developed where possible for the highest priority indicators currently lacking such targets. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and highlighted steps the agency has begun taking and plans to take to address the recommendations.

Washington State’s Puget Sound is the second-largest estuary in the  United States and supports a wide variety of fish, birds, and marine  mammals, including economically and culturally important species such  as salmon, killer whales, and different types of shellfish. The Puget  Sound basin extends north into Canada, encompassing a complex  landscape featuring mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, urban  development, and about 2,500 miles of shoreline. More than 4.5 million  people live in the Puget Sound basin, and the region is home to large  ports, industries, and critical military installations. The Sound and the  surrounding region serve as an important economic engine and include  metropolitan areas that accounted for more than $365 billion in gross  domestic product in 2016.

However, human use and development have contributed to the  degradation of habitats and water quality in Puget Sound. For example,  an estimated 70 percent of important habitats—including estuaries, salt  marshes, and eelgrass beds—have been damaged or lost over the past  125 years. In addition, stormwater runoff contaminated with toxic  chemicals and other pollutants threatens wildlife in Puget Sound, and  several species in the Sound are listed as endangered or threatened  under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) has designated Puget Sound as one of the 28 estuaries of  national significance under the National Estuary Program.

A large number of federal, state, local, tribal, and nongovernmental  entities play important roles in Puget Sound restoration efforts.  Washington State has provided much of the high-level leadership for the  restoration efforts, and in 2007 the state legislature created a state  agency, the Puget Sound Partnership, to oversee the restoration of the  Sound’s environmental health. Other state agencies, such as the  Washington State Conservation Commission and the Departments of  Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources, help fund and carry  out restoration-related work in the Puget Sound basin. At the federal  level, numerous agencies directly and indirectly support restoration efforts  by, for example, funding restoration projects, conducting research,  providing technical expertise to other entities, enforcing applicable laws  and regulations, and managing lands, such as national forests, that  provide habitat for salmon and other species. Local governments, tribal  entities, and nongovernmental organizations also support Puget Sound  restoration in various ways, such as by funding and implementing  restoration projects. In addition, Canadian agencies have been involved  in efforts to restore the broader Salish Sea—of which Puget Sound is a  part—including some joint efforts with federal and state agencies in the  United States.

You asked us to review federal and nonfederal efforts to restore Puget  Sound. This report examines (1) Puget Sound restoration efforts and  related expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016; (2) how federal  and nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts and their views  on this coordination; (3) the framework for assessing progress toward  Puget Sound restoration; and (4) key factors, if any, federal and  nonfederal entities identified that may limit the success of Puget Sound  restoration.

To examine Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for  fiscal years 2012 through 2016, we used the first phase of a two-phase  survey to identify federal and state efforts that supported Puget Sound  restoration during this time frame. We selected this period to allow us to  obtain information on a range of restoration efforts carried out in recent  years. In addition, we used the first phase of the survey to obtain  information on the availability of expenditure data for the federal and state  efforts and to help determine whether any limitations existed that would  affect the reliability of such data. In June 2017, we sent the first phase of  the survey to the 15 federal and 11 state entities that we determined had  participated in restoration efforts, and all of them responded. We used  the survey results in part to develop catalogs of federal and state efforts  that supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through  2016. To obtain additional information about these efforts, we reviewed  documentation, such as agency websites and reports, and interviewed  agency officials.

Based on the results of the first phase of the survey and additional follow- up interviews with agency officials, we determined that we would be  unable to collect sufficiently reliable data encompassing all federal and  state efforts to enable us to report on the total amount of expenditures  that have supported Puget Sound restoration. In particular, we  determined that data limitations, such as difficulties isolating expenditures  within the geographic boundaries of Puget Sound for some efforts, would  have made it difficult for us to collect consistent, reliable, and comparable  expenditure data across all of the federal and state entities. As a result of  the data limitations we identified, we limited our collection of expenditure  data to a nongeneralizable sample of three federal programs and one  state program to provide examples of the diversity in funding approaches  used to support Puget Sound restoration. We considered the following  factors in selecting these efforts: 1) the programs’ prominence in Puget  Sound restoration, 2) variations in the federal and state entities involved  in carrying out these programs, 3) variations in their size, and 4) evidence  of reliable expenditure data. In addition, to help illustrate how funds are  used at the project level, we obtained expenditure data for two recently  completed restoration projects and conducted two site visits to observe  the outcomes of these projects. We assessed the reliability of the  expenditure data for the selected programs and projects by comparing  the data we obtained with data from other sources where possible,  reviewing agency documentation, and interviewing knowledgeable  agency officials. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.

To examine how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their  restoration efforts and their views on this coordination, we reviewed  agency documentation, interviewed agency officials, and used the second  phase of our survey of federal and state entities to obtain their views on  steps taken to coordinate restoration efforts. To obtain additional views,  we interviewed representatives from conservation, agricultural, and  fishing industry organizations and obtained written responses from two  Canadian agencies. We also held six moderated telephone discussion  groups with representatives from 15 tribal entities and 20 local entities.  We selected these tribal and local entities because of their involvement in  implementing restoration projects. We compared the information we  obtained on the coordination of Puget Sound restoration efforts with  selected leading collaboration practices that we have previously identified  and that were most relevant based on our initial audit work, such as  leadership, bridging organizational cultures, and the inclusion of relevant  participants.

To examine the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound  restoration, we reviewed laws, regulations, and key restoration planning  documents. We obtained additional views on this topic from federal and  nonfederal entities through the second phase of our survey and  interviews described above. We compared this information with agency  guidance and leading practices for performance measurement and  reporting to determine whether efforts to assess Puget Sound restoration  progress have followed leading practices.

To determine key factors, if any, federal and nonfederal entities identified  that may limit the success of Puget Sound restoration, we used the  second phase of our survey of federal and state entities and our  discussion groups to obtain views on factors that may pose a risk to the  success of restoration efforts. We also reviewed agency documentation  and used our interviews with the federal and nonfederal entities described  above to obtain additional views on limiting factors. Appendix I contains a  more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to July 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Puget Sound basin—the southern half of the transboundary Salish  Sea—consists of about 19 major watersheds, according to EPA, and  spans much of western Washington State and portions of British  Columbia, Canada, as shown in figure 1. The basin covers more than  10,000 square miles, including about 2,800 square miles of inland marine  waters and thousands of rivers and streams. The Puget Sound basin  features a wide variety of land uses, including highly urbanized areas,  agricultural lands, large swaths of commercial forests, and areas that are  largely protected from development, such as national parks and wildlife  refuges.

The Puget Sound Partnership has identified numerous environmental  stressors that threaten Puget Sound and that have impaired water quality.  In particular, the Partnership has reported that nonpoint sources of  pollution, such as polluted stormwater runoff from roads and agricultural  fields, are the biggest threats to Puget Sound water quality. Polluted  stormwater runoff can also threaten sources of drinking water and carries  toxic chemicals, nutrients, sediment, and bacteria into Puget Sound,  where these pollutants can harm aquatic life. For instance, a 2017 study  found that toxic stormwater runoff is linked to the high rates of adult coho  salmon mortality that have been observed in some urban streams in  central Puget Sound. Moreover, fish, shellfish, and other species that  are contaminated by toxic chemicals and other pollutants in Puget Sound  may subsequently pose a threat to other marine wildlife and to humans  that consume them. For example, in 2017 the Partnership reported that  approximately 16 percent of the roughly 225,000 acres managed for  commercial shellfish harvesting in Puget Sound were closed because of  water pollution caused by fecal bacteria from sources such as failing  septic systems and agricultural runoff. Such closures have economic  impacts, as Washington State is the country’s leading producer of farmed  oysters, clams, and mussels, and much of this production comes from the  Puget Sound region. In addition, contaminated shellfish may pose  potential health threats to people who consume it, including tribes that  rely on shellfish for subsistence and ceremonial uses.

Human activities have also degraded habitats that salmon and other  marine species depend on for survival. The Partnership has reported that  some of the primary threats to Puget Sound habitats include hardened  shorelines (such as shorelines that have been armored with seawalls),  filled estuaries, channelized rivers, and altered floodplains. These  threats affect habitats in various ways. For example, according to a 2018  Washington State report, seawalls interfere with natural coastal  processes and cause beaches to erode, which in turn can decrease and  degrade habitat for fish, birds, and wildlife. The report states that about  27 percent of the shoreline in Puget Sound has been armored by  structures such as seawalls. Figure 2 illustrates the sources of water  quality impairment and habitat degradation in the Puget Sound basin.

Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species  Act, play a role in addressing water quality issues and habitat degradation  in Puget Sound. The Clean Water Act’s objective is to restore and  maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s  waters. A 1987 amendment to the act created the National Estuary  Program to, among other things, identify nationally significant estuaries  that are threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and promote  comprehensive planning for, and conservation and management of, such  estuaries. The National Estuary Program calls for management  conferences to be convened for designated estuaries of national  significance to, among other things, develop a comprehensive  conservation and management plan (CCMP). The current CCMP for  Puget Sound is The 2016 Action Agenda for Puget Sound, a document  developed to meet both federal and state requirements. By federal  statute, when selecting estuaries and convening management  conferences, EPA is to give priority consideration to certain named  estuaries, including Puget Sound. Under the act, EPA also works with  Washington State to regulate water quality.

The Endangered Species Act was enacted to, among other things,  provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered  and threatened species depend and to provide a program for the  conservation of such species. Several species in the Puget Sound basin  are listed as endangered or threatened, including bull trout, Chinook  salmon, Southern Resident Killer Whales (a population that spends  spring, summer, and fall months in the Salish Sea, including Puget  Sound), northern spotted owl, and steelhead trout.

In addition to environmental laws that relate to Puget Sound waters and  species, tribal treaty rights play an important role in restoration efforts  within the basin’s watersheds. In particular, 19 federally recognized tribes  are within the Puget Sound basin, and many of them have explicit treaty  rights to the fish in Puget Sound waters. In 1974, a federal court held that  the treaty tribes had the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable  fish in areas where fishing rights had been reserved, an allocation upheld  by the Supreme Court in 1979. In 1994, a federal court stated that tribes  were also entitled to take half of the harvestable shellfish on most  Washington beaches. According to several federal officials we  interviewed, considerations relating to tribal treaty fishing rights have  served as an important catalyst for some federal agencies’ restoration  activities, particularly with regard to restoring and protecting habitat.

Federal and State Entities Carried Out Numerous Efforts that Supported Puget Sound Restoration Using a Variety of Funding Sources, but Total Expenditures Are Unknown

Federal and state entities we surveyed identified numerous federal and  state efforts that, in whole or in part, supported Puget Sound restoration  from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Some of these efforts focused  exclusively on restoration activities in the Puget Sound basin, while others  had a broader national, regional, or statewide focus or had a broader  scope of work that did not center directly on restoration activities. These  efforts were supported by a variety of federal and nonfederal funding  sources, such as EPA’s National Estuary Program and Puget Sound  Geographic Program, which together expended about $142 million for  activities in Puget Sound during this time frame according to EPA data.  However, total expenditures across all restoration efforts are unknown, in  part because of data limitations such as difficulties isolating expenditures  specific to the Puget Sound basin for some efforts.

Federal and State Entities Carried Out Numerous Restoration Efforts that Varied in Geographic and Programmatic Scope

Through their responses to the first phase of our survey, officials from  federal and state entities identified numerous efforts that supported Puget  Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Specifically,  respondents from federal entities identified 73 federal efforts, and  respondents from state entities identified 80 state efforts that, in whole or  in part, supported Puget Sound restoration during this period. Appendix II  lists the restoration efforts identified by federal entities, and appendix III  lists the restoration efforts identified by state entities. According to the  survey responses, the federal and state entities often worked with local  governments, tribal entities, and nongovernmental organizations to carry  out these efforts. These efforts primarily involved six types of restoration  activities (see table 1).

The federal and state restoration efforts carried out during this time period  varied in geographic scope. Some of the efforts survey respondents  reported focused exclusively on the Puget Sound basin, such as  Washington State’s Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund.  According to agency fact sheets, this fund has helped state agencies,  local governments, and others carry out projects that address high-priority  salmon habitat protection and restoration needs in Puget Sound. Other  efforts that supported restoration activities in Puget Sound during the time  frame we reviewed have a broader national, regional, or statewide focus.  For example, EPA’s section 319 nonpoint source management program  is a nationwide program that supports state and tribal efforts to address  nonpoint sources of pollution. Within Puget Sound, EPA’s data show  that the section 319 program has supported activities such as carrying out  projects that target nonpoint source pollution from urban areas,  agricultural lands, and marinas.

The federal and state restoration efforts survey respondents identified  also varied in programmatic scope, with some efforts focusing exclusively  on restoration-related activities and other efforts supporting such activities  within a broader scope of work. Through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service’s National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grant Program,  Washington State carried out activities specifically aimed at restoring  wetlands, estuaries, and marshes in Puget Sound. In contrast, some  efforts survey respondents cited had a broader scope of work that did not  center directly on restoration but included some activities that also  benefited Puget Sound restoration. One such effort was the Natural  Resources Conservation Service’s Environmental Quality Incentives  Program, which helps farmers carry out conservation practices on  agricultural land. According to agency documentation, such as the  program’s website, some of these practices, such as those that reduce  the amount of sediment and nutrients entering waterways, can also help  improve water quality in the Puget Sound basin.

A Variety of Federal and Nonfederal Funding Sources Support Restoration Efforts, but Total Expenditures Are Unknown

Funding for Puget Sound restoration efforts has come from a wide variety  of federal and nonfederal entities. At the federal level, some agencies,  such as EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA), supported restoration efforts by providing funds to other federal  or nonfederal entities to carry out restoration projects. In contrast, other  agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, directly carried out  restoration activities in Puget Sound, sometimes working in conjunction  with nonfederal entities. Based on our analysis of survey responses and  interviews with agency officials, we selected the following examples of  federal programs to show the diversity in federal funding approaches in  support of Puget Sound restoration and to illustrate how federal funds  have been leveraged to obtain nonfederal contributions in support of  restoration efforts.

EPA’s National Estuary Program. According to EPA’s website, this  program aims to protect and restore the water quality and ecological  integrity of designated estuaries of national significance, such as  Puget Sound. EPA Region 10 officials stated that the agency uses  funds from this program in conjunction with funds from EPA’s Puget  Sound Geographic Program to support restoration efforts. According  to data provided by EPA, these programs together expended about  $142 million for activities in Puget Sound from fiscal years 2012  through 2016. EPA provided most of these funds through grants to  state and tribal entities. According to EPA Region 10 officials we  interviewed, EPA requires an overall dollar-for-dollar nonfederal  match for these grants, and the officials stated that the National  Estuary Program funds have been leveraged to obtain significant  nonfederal funding support for Puget Sound restoration efforts. For  example, the Floodplains by Design program, a joint effort led by The  Nature Conservancy and state agencies to restore natural floodplain  functions, has used National Estuary Program funds to help leverage  nonfederal funding support, according to the EPA officials.

NOAA’s Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Under this  program, NOAA awards funds through grants to state and tribal  entities to carry out salmon recovery activities in five western states.  In Washington State, NOAA provided funds to the Washington State  Recreation and Conservation Office and the Northwest Indian  Fisheries Commission for use in Puget Sound and other areas.  According to data and estimates provided by NOAA, as of November  2017 these entities had expended or allocated about $59 million from  this program for activities in the Puget Sound basin from fiscal years  2012 through 2016. This program requires a 33 percent match from  state agencies, such as the Washington State Recreation and  Conservation Office, that receive funds, and NOAA officials we  interviewed said that Washington State usually exceeds this matching  requirement. For example, a 2015 NOAA report cites a habitat  restoration project in Puget Sound that received about $117,000 from  the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and secured an additional  $1.75 million in matching and other funds.

Corps’ Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration Program.  Under this program, the Corps carries out habitat restoration projects  in Puget Sound in conjunction with nonfederal entities, such as cities.  In 2000, Congress created this program and authorized $40 million to  be appropriated to carry out the program. As of November 2017, the  Corps had expended approximately $12 million over the life of the  program on five restoration projects, according to data provided by the  Corps. This program includes a cost-sharing requirement for the  participating nonfederal entity to contribute at least 35 percent of the  total project costs.

Survey respondents cited nonfederal funds as the exclusive source of  funding for about one-third of the state efforts presented in appendix III.  For example, Washington State’s Puget Sound Acquisition and  Restoration Fund, which the Partnership and the Washington State  Recreation and Conservation Office jointly manage, has been a  significant source of nonfederal funding for habitat restoration projects.  According to expenditure data provided by the Partnership, the Puget  Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund expended approximately $100  million on restoration projects throughout Puget Sound from state fiscal  years 2012 through 2016. In its response to our survey, the Recreation  and Conservation Office stated that these projects included culvert  replacements, levee setbacks, and acquisition of important habitat,  among other things.

When carrying out specific restoration projects in Puget Sound, federal  and nonfederal officials we interviewed said that project managers may  need to secure funds from multiple federal and nonfederal sources, such  as the federal and state programs discussed above. According to tribal  and local participants in our discussion groups, their experiences carrying  out restoration projects has similarly shown a need to piece together  multiple sources of funding for some projects. The discussion group  participants said that this need commonly arises with expensive and  complex projects that take a long time to complete, as reflected in the  project examples below that involved tribal and local entities.

Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project. According to a project fact  sheet and officials, this project restored more than 350 acres of  estuary habitat in the Snohomish River Delta that had previously been  converted into farmland. By breaching existing levees and taking  other actions to reestablish natural stream channels and allow for tidal  inundation of the historic floodplain, this project aimed to restore  salmon habitat and improve water quality in the estuary (see fig. 3). In  2016, NOAA reported that this project had led to improvements in  salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity. The Tulalip Tribes of  Washington served as the overall project manager and worked with  numerous federal, state, and local partners to complete this project,  which took more than 20 years and ended in 2015. According to tribal  data, this project cost about $21 million and received funding from  more than 20 federal, state, tribal, and local sources. Federal funds  accounted for a little more than half of this amount; the Corps  contributed the largest amount, around $5 million, using funds from  the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration Program.

Seahurst Park Shoreline Restoration Project, Phase II. This phase  of the project lasted from 2007 to 2014 and included removing about  1,800 feet of seawall, creating a small wetland, and restoring  shoreline habitat at a coastal park in Burien, Washington (see fig. 4).  Through these actions, this project aimed to improve nearshore  marine habitat for salmon and other species, restore natural  sedimentation processes, and improve recreational access to Puget  Sound. The city of Burien led this effort in conjunction with the Corps.

According to documentation provided by the city and the Corps, this  phase of the project cost about $10 million and received funding from  at least seven federal, state, and local sources, including EPA’s  National Estuary Program, the Corps’ Puget Sound and Adjacent  Waters Restoration Program, and Washington State’s Puget Sound  Acquisition and Restoration Fund.

As shown in the program and project examples above, we obtained  expenditure information for a selection of programs and projects to help  illustrate how federal and nonfederal funds have been used to support  Puget Sound restoration. However, we found that the total amount of  expenditures incurred for Puget Sound restoration across all federal and  nonfederal efforts for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 is unknown. We  identified two primary barriers to determining the total amount of  expenditures. First, data limitations present challenges to obtaining  accurate and consistent expenditure data across entities. For example,  federal and state agency officials said that for some national and  statewide programs, it is difficult to isolate expenditures specific to the  Puget Sound basin or to quantify expenditures related to staff time that  supported restoration-related activities. Second, no comprehensive  database of Puget Sound restoration activities and expenditures exists.  This issue was identified by the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit  and Review Committee in its 2017 audit of the Puget Sound Partnership,  which recommended that the Partnership and the Washington State  Office of Financial Management develop a plan to create a more  complete inventory of restoration efforts and related funding. Both  agencies concurred with the recommendation, and the Partnership  reported in December 2017 that a more complete inventory of efforts and  funding would significantly enhance the agency’s ability to prioritize  actions and recommend strategic investments. The Partnership reported  that it plans to develop such an inventory by August 2019.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Have Taken Steps to Coordinate Restoration Efforts and Identified Both Benefits and Challenges to Interagency Coordination

Federal and nonfederal entities have established two primary interagency  groups, the Puget Sound Management Conference and the Puget Sound  Federal Task Force, to coordinate Puget Sound restoration efforts at the  strategic level. Coordination also occurs at the project level and,  according to our discussion group participants, has been most effective  under certain circumstances, such as when written plans and agreements  are in place to help entities work together across their normal  jurisdictions. Federal and nonfederal entities provided their views on the  benefits produced by the management conference and the federal task  force as well as challenges that could limit the effectiveness of these  groups, such as not having had continuous national-level leadership for  the federal task force.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Coordinate Restoration Efforts at the Strategic Level through Two Primary Interagency Groups

Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate at the strategic level to, among  other things, identify goals, develop strategies to achieve the goals, and  set priorities for action. This coordination primarily occurs through two  main interagency groups: the state-led Puget Sound Management  Conference, which started in its current form in 2007, and the Puget  Sound Federal Task Force, which started in 2016. Each group has  developed a planning document to guide its efforts. Figure 5 provides an  overview of each group’s structure and planning document.

The management conference serves as the governance structure for  Puget Sound restoration under the National Estuary Program and helps  set the general direction for the restoration effort. To do so, the management conference brings together federal and nonfederal entities  under a common planning process led by the Partnership to develop and  periodically update the CCMP. EPA’s Region 10 office then works with  EPA’s National Estuary Program national office to review and approve  any new or updated CCMPs developed by the management conference.  The CCMP serves as the primary planning document for Puget Sound  restoration and identifies proposed near-term actions to help restore the  Sound, nearly all of which are to be carried out by nonfederal entities.  For example, one of the proposed near-term actions calls for a local  university to sample contaminants of emerging concern in regional waters  to help characterize risks and prioritize follow-up actions.

The Puget Sound Federal Task Force complements the work of the  management conference by coordinating the efforts of federal agencies in  support of the CCMP and by helping these agencies work together to  fulfill federal trust responsibilities to the tribes as they relate to The Puget  Sound Federal Task Force Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2017-2021) (Federal  Action Plan). The task force was created through a memorandum of  understanding signed by nine federal agencies as of October 2016, and  in January 2017 the task force released its Federal Action Plan, which is  currently in draft form. The federal task force consists of a national-level  leadership group—which focuses on higher-level policy, oversight, and  coordination issues—and regional leadership and implementation teams  that perform much of the on-the-ground implementation and coordination  work of the task force. The national-level group is co-chaired by the  Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and a co-chair that rotates  among the other agencies. The task force’s regional teams are led by  EPA’s Region 10 and a co-chair that rotates among the other agencies.

According to EPA Region 10 officials, the draft Federal Action Plan  developed by the task force is not intended to be a strategic plan with its  own overarching restoration objectives. Instead, the federal task force  used the priorities established in the CCMP and tribal documents, as well  as salmon recovery priorities, as the basis for developing its draft Federal  Action Plan, which identifies priority federal actions to help protect and  restore Puget Sound. For example, to support the habitat-related priorities  established in the 2016 CCMP and elsewhere, the draft Federal Action  Plan identifies more than 40 priority federal actions that focus on  protecting and restoring habitats, such as by removing fish passage  barriers and implementing projects to restore estuaries.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Coordinate at the Project Level in Various Ways

Based on our interviews with federal and nonfederal officials and the local  and tribal discussion groups, federal and nonfederal entities coordinate at  the project level to plan, secure funding for, and carry out specific  restoration actions, such as projects to improve water quality or restore  habitat in a particular location. According to federal officials, federal  involvement at the project level varies and may range from providing  funding to being more directly involved in project planning and  implementation. Participants in our discussion groups said that local and  tribal entities often lead the on-the-ground planning and implementation of  restoration projects, including coordinating with other participating entities  throughout a project’s lifecycle. For example, the Qwuloolt Estuary  Restoration Project we previously discussed was largely led by a local  tribe that coordinated the involvement of numerous federal, state, local,  and nongovernmental entities throughout project planning, permitting, and  implementation.

The management conference recognizes nine local integrating  organizations—local groups made up of various local, tribal, and other  nonfederal participants—to, among other things, guide the  implementation of the CCMP’s priorities at a local scale in specific  geographic areas of Puget Sound. In addition, 15 salmon recovery lead  entities, which are local watershed-based organizations that develop local  salmon habitat recovery strategies and manage projects to implement the  strategies, are active in the Puget Sound region. Representatives from  these local integrating organizations, salmon recovery lead entities, and  tribal entities participated in our moderated discussion groups and  identified several factors that have helped to facilitate effective  collaboration among entities on restoration projects. Some of the factors  discussion group participants commonly cited were consistent with key  features that we have previously identified as benefiting interagency  collaboration, including:  Involving all relevant participants. Discussion group participants  highlighted the importance of ensuring that the appropriate entities are  involved to bring together a broad range of knowledge, skills, and  expertise in support of restoration projects. For example, one  discussion group participant commented that his local organization’s  ability to partner with both government and nongovernmental entities  and harness their talents has enhanced its efficiency in carrying out  restoration projects. Other participants stated that an important part of  successfully involving all relevant participants has been early  engagement with members of the local community to identify priorities  and vet projects. In addition, several participants described projects  that could not have been carried out without the financial, technical,  and political support of diverse partners. Ensuring that the appropriate  entities are involved is consistent with our previous work on  interagency collaboration, which found that it is important to ensure  that all relevant participants have been included in collaborative  efforts, including federal agencies, state and local entities, and  organizations from the private and nonprofit sectors.

Bridging organizational cultures to build trust. Discussion group  participants cited the long-standing relationships that have been built  over time among different restoration partners as critical to developing  the level of trust needed for project-level collaboration to succeed  across organizational boundaries. For example, one participant said  that having long-standing collaborative relationships with other  partners has helped her local organization identify, secure funding for,  and carry out good restoration projects. Another participant described  a separate example of a local watershed council that has met monthly  for 30 years, explaining that these meetings have developed a level of  trust among the key partners that helps them work toward common  goals and deal with difficult issues. We have previously reported that  different agencies participating in any collaborative mechanism bring  diverse organizational cultures to it. Accordingly, it is important to  address these differences to enable a cohesive working relationship  and to create the mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the  collaborative effort. We have also reported that positive working  relationships among participants from different agencies help to  bridge organizational cultures, build trust, and foster communication,  which then facilitates collaboration.

Having written plans and agreements. Discussion group  participants also described the benefits that have resulted from having  local plans and agreements in place to help entities work together  across their normal jurisdictions on restoration projects. For example,  according to one local discussion group participant, the decades-old  formal agreement among the local governments within his watershed  was a fundamental reason for the restoration successes they  achieved. The participant explained that this agreement has helped  the local governments look beyond their immediate jurisdictions and  think more broadly about priorities for the entire watershed. We have  previously reported that agencies that articulate their agreements in  formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working  collaboratively.

According to Federal and Nonfederal Entities, the Steps Taken to Coordinate Restoration Efforts Have Yielded Benefits, but Challenges Remain that May Limit Effectiveness

Federal and nonfederal entities we surveyed and interviewed identified  benefits produced by the steps taken to coordinate restoration efforts,  including the development of the management conference, the federal  task force, and their respective planning documents. Federal and  nonfederal officials generally described the management conference as  having provided an effective forum for different entities to share their  diverse views and work collaboratively to address priority restoration  issues in Puget Sound. Moreover, officials said that the management  conference has helped Puget Sound restoration by enabling federal and  nonfederal entities to identify common goals and develop strategies to  achieve the goals, among other things.

These benefits are consistent with our previous work on interagency  collaboration, which found that defining and articulating common  outcomes and establishing strategies to achieve them are practices that  can enhance and sustain collaboration. Federal officials credited the  federal task force, and in particular the task force regional teams, with  having helped to improve communication and coordination of efforts  among federal agencies by bringing together a broad group of agencies  to focus on issues surrounding Puget Sound restoration and tribal treaty  rights. Other benefits of the task force that survey respondents identified  include providing national-level awareness of restoration activities and  providing a forum for nonfederal entities to engage with federal agencies  on restoration or species-related issues.

Federal and nonfederal entities also identified strengths of the key  planning documents that the management conference and federal task  force developed to help coordinate Puget Sound restoration efforts,  based on our interviews and our analysis of survey responses. For example, 8 of the 27 federal and state entities that responded to our  survey said the 2016 CCMP provides a clear blueprint or road map for the  restoration of Puget Sound that helps guide restoration efforts in a  common direction. In the case of the draft Federal Action Plan, survey  respondents from 7 of the 27 federal and state entities said that one of  the plan’s primary strengths is that it clearly defines a list of priority  federal actions and identifies roles and responsibilities for implementing  them. This is consistent with our previous work on interagency  collaboration, which found that agreeing on roles and responsibilities is a  leading practice that can help enhance and sustain collaborative efforts.  In addition, one federal survey respondent credited the development of  the draft Federal Action Plan with helping to raise awareness among  federal agencies of each other’s efforts, which the respondent said has  led to improved coordination.

Federal and nonfederal entities also identified challenges the  management conference faces that could limit its effectiveness as an  interagency coordinating group. For example, according to Partnership  officials we interviewed, within the management conference there are  differing views and disagreements about how to balance local versus  regional perspectives and decision-making authorities. In addition, some  federal and nonfederal entities described the planning process to produce  the CCMP as overly burdensome and frustrating. The Joint Legislative  Audit and Review Committee’s 2017 audit of the Partnership similarly  reported on frustration and planning fatigue among the entities they  interviewed that stemmed from the frequency of plan updates, which state  law had required take place every 2 years. In 2017, Washington State  amended the law to extend the required planning cycle to every 4 years,  which the Partnership said should result in a more effective use of time  for the agency and its partners.

We also found, through our analysis of agency documents and interviews  with federal officials, that the federal task force faced an additional  challenge that it has since addressed. Specifically, the federal task force  did not have continuous leadership at the national level because the task  force’s national leadership group was inactive for more than a year  beginning in January 2017. During this time, CEQ, the permanent co- chair of the national-level task force leadership group, did not convene  the group for meetings, and there was uncertainty about who would  represent some agencies after the change in administration and  subsequent changes in agency personnel, according to officials from the  task force agencies. EPA Region 10 officials said that the federal task  force’s regional implementation team remained active during this period  and facilitated continued engagement among federal agencies and  nonfederal partners at the regional level. Nevertheless, without an active  national-level leadership group in place, the federal agencies did not have  a fully functioning task force and were not in a position to fulfill some of  the task force’s responsibilities under the memorandum of understanding,  such as approving a federal action plan.

In April 2018, a senior CEQ official informed us that CEQ had taken  action in response to our discussions with CEQ staff about this challenge  and convened a meeting of the national-level task force group on April 4,  2018. In addition, according to the CEQ official, the task force agencies  have committed to working together going forward and plan to continue  meeting. By working with the other federal agencies to hold this meeting  and secure this commitment, CEQ has taken an important step toward  addressing the challenge we identified and ensuring that national-level  leadership is in place for the federal task force.

The CCMP Lays Out a Framework for Assessing Progress toward Puget Sound Restoration, but Assessment of Progress Has Been Limited in Some Instances

The CCMP lays out the primary framework for assessing progress toward  Puget Sound restoration, including six high-level goals created by state  law and a variety of associated indicators and targets. The Partnership  leads the management conference’s efforts to assess restoration  progress under this framework, but its assessments have been limited  because of insufficient data and because targets have not been  established for all indicators. In addition, we found that the federal task  force has limited ability to assess how the implementation of the Federal  Action Plan, which is currently in draft form, contributes to overall  restoration progress under the CCMP’s framework, because the task  force has not clearly linked the plan’s priority federal actions to the  framework’s goals, indicators, and targets.

The CCMP’s Framework for Assessing Progress Includes Goals, Indicators, and Targets

The CCMP lays out the primary framework for assessing progress toward  Puget Sound restoration, including goals, indicators, and targets. In  2007, the Washington State legislature established six high-level goals for  Puget Sound restoration that continue to guide the CCMP, with an  overarching directive to strive to achieve the goals by 2020. The six  high-level goals are:

Healthy human population. A healthy human population supported  by a healthy Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the  ecosystem.

Vibrant human quality of life. A quality of human life that is  sustained by a functioning Puget Sound ecosystem.

Thriving species and food web. Healthy and sustaining populations  of native species in Puget Sound, including a robust food web.

Protected and restored habitat. A healthy Puget Sound where  freshwater, estuary, nearshore, marine, and upland habitats are  protected, restored, and sustained.

Abundant water. An ecosystem that is supported by groundwater  levels as well as river and streamflow levels sufficient to sustain  people, fish, and wildlife, and the natural functions of the environment.

Healthy water quality. Fresh and marine waters and sediments of a  sufficient quality so that the waters in the region are safe for drinking,  swimming, shellfish harvest and consumption, and other human uses  and enjoyment, and are not harmful to the native marine mammals,  fish, birds, and shellfish of the region.

The CCMP identifies 25 categories of measures, called vital signs, used  to gauge the health of Puget Sound. Each vital sign is designed to  support one of the six high-level goals. For example, the CCMP has  assigned four vital signs—marine water quality, freshwater quality, marine  sediment quality, and toxics in fish—to collectively assess progress  toward the goal of healthy water quality. According to the CCMP, most  vital signs are represented by one or more specific measures, called  indicators, for a total of 47 indicators. Based on our analysis of  Partnership data, more than half of these indicators have measurable  recovery targets set for the year 2020, and some of the indicators also  have measurable interim targets to assess incremental progress. Figure 6  provides an example of the relationship among goals, vital signs,  indicators, and targets for 1 of the 47 indicators.

To achieve the CCMP’s recovery targets, the Partnership, supported by  other members of the management conference, has initiated an effort to  develop implementation strategies that will outline, among other things,  specific approaches, actions, and program and policy changes that are  needed. According to the Partnership’s implementation strategy  guidelines, each implementation strategy will focus on the recovery  targets for indicators under a particular vital sign or a set of related vital  signs. The guidelines state that the implementation strategies are to also  estimate the costs of achieving recovery targets, including the cost- effectiveness of specific activities to inform decisions about priority  investments and expectations for progress. Officials from EPA and the  Partnership said no official estimates have yet been developed for the  total costs to restore the Sound, but EPA Region 10 officials stated that  investments on the order of tens of billions of dollars, if not more, will  likely be necessary. According to EPA Region 10 officials, the  implementation strategies will help more directly link investments to  restoration progress, a step consistent with our previous reporting on  enhancing the use of performance information. Specifically, in September  2005 we reported that linking cost with performance information brings  performance concerns into planning and budgetary deliberations,  prompting agencies to reassess their performance goals and strategies  and to more clearly understand the cost of performance.

The Partnership Has Taken Steps to Assess Restoration Progress under the CCMP’s Framework, but Its Assessment of Progress Has Been Limited in Some Instances

The Partnership leads the management conference’s efforts to assess  Puget Sound restoration progress and has taken steps to do so under the  CCMP’s framework. In particular, the Partnership created the Puget  Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program to help monitor the effectiveness  of restoration actions and assess restoration progress. The Puget Sound  Ecosystem Monitoring Program includes representatives from federal  entities, such as EPA, and nonfederal entities, such as state and local  agencies. The Partnership uses information from the Puget Sound  Ecosystem Monitoring Program and other sources to assess and report  on restoration progress in a biennial State of the Sound report, which was  most recently published in November 2017. The Partnership has  assessed two primary aspects of restoration progress for the CCMP’s 47  indicators: (1) progress relative to baseline conditions and (2) progress  toward the 2020 recovery targets.

Assessments of Progress Relative to Baseline Conditions

The 2017 State of the Sound reported the general results of assessments  of progress relative to baseline conditions for 29 of the 47 indicators, with  additional details available on the Partnership’s website. According to the  State of the Sound, progress was made in some areas but many key  indicators did not show improvement, as reflected below:

Ten indicators improved compared to baseline data. For example,  one of the indicators reported as improved was acres of harvestable  shellfish beds, which is associated with the goal of a healthy human  population. According to the Partnership’s website, from 2007 to 2016  the number of acres of harvestable shellfish beds increased by  approximately 4,800 acres.

Fifteen indicators showed mixed results or no improvement relative to  baseline data. For example, one indicator reported as showing no  improvement was the abundance of Puget Sound Chinook salmon  populations, which is associated with the thriving species and food  web goal. According to the Partnership’s website, these populations  remain below desired levels.

Four indicators worsened compared to baseline data. For example,  another indicator for the thriving species and food web goal tracks the  number of Southern Resident Killer Whales. According to the  Partnership’s website, from 2010 to September 2017, the number of  Southern Resident Killer Whales declined.

However, the State of the Sound was unable to report on assessments of  progress relative to baseline conditions for 18 of the 47 indicators  because of data limitations. Specifically, the State of the Sound reported  that there were insufficient data or no data available to assess progress  relative to baseline conditions for these indicators. Based on our analysis  of information on the Partnership’s website, the most common reason for  these data insufficiencies is that the data for many indicators are in the  early stages of collection and more time is needed to obtain enough data  to assess progress. For example, the Partnership plans to assess nine  indicators under the healthy human population and vibrant quality of life  goals using new data collected through a survey, which the website  states should allow the Partnership to assess progress within several  years. According to a senior Partnership official, in addition to needing  more time to collect data and assess progress for some indicators,  resource limitations have posed a challenge to addressing some of the  data gaps.

Assessments of Progress toward Recovery Targets

The 2017 State of the Sound reported general information on the  progress made toward recovery targets, with additional details available  on the Partnership’s website. Based on our analysis of Partnership data,  we found that the management conference has adopted measurable  2020 recovery targets for 31 of the 47 indicators. According to the State  of the Sound, most indicators have not met their interim targets, and most  of the 2020 targets are not likely to be attained, as reflected in the  examples below.

The Partnership reported that the indicator for restoration of  floodplains showed some progress toward its 2020 target to restore  15 percent of degraded floodplain acreage in Puget Sound, but the  2020 target was still far from being met.

According to the Partnership’s website on the Southern Resident  Killer Whales indicator, the 2016 interim target of an end-of-year  census of 91 whales was not met, and as of September 2017 the  number of Southern Resident Killer Whales was well below the 2020  target of 95 whales.

However, the overall ability to assess progress toward recovery targets  has been limited because the management conference, led by the  Partnership, has not established recovery targets for all indicators.  Specifically, according to our analysis of Partnership data, recovery  targets have not been established for 16 of the 47 indicators. We have  previously reported on the importance of using performance measures to  track progress in achieving goals and have identified key attributes of  successful performance measures, such as having measurable targets.  More specifically, a measurable target should have a numerical goal,  without which it is difficult to tell whether performance is meeting  expectations.

Partnership officials we interviewed said that recovery targets have not  been established for all indicators because they first focused on  developing targets for indicators about which more information was  known. The officials said they have not had sufficient resources to fully  develop all of the indicators and associated recovery targets to assess  progress, and that additional information and expertise are needed to develop targets for some indicators. According to EPA Region 10 officials  we interviewed, developing targets for the remaining indicators would be  useful, but given limited resources, it may be necessary to prioritize  indicators for which to develop targets.

We recognize that developing measurable recovery targets can take time  and resources and that prioritizing among the remaining 16 indicators for  the development of targets is important. The management conference  plans to issue an updated CCMP in December 2018, with another update  scheduled for 2022, according to Partnership officials. EPA officials said  that EPA’s Region 10 office will be responsible for reviewing and  approving these updated CCMPs in conjunction with EPA’s National  Estuary Program national office. Partnership officials we interviewed said  that the management conference intends to reexamine and, as  appropriate, revise the indicators and targets during the development of  the 2022 CCMP. EPA’s National Estuary Program guidance directs EPA  regions to work with management conferences to ensure that revisions of  the CCMP contain all the appropriate content, including quantitative  performance measures where possible. By working with the  management conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize  among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure  that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where  possible, EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress  toward restoration goals.

The Federal Task Force Has Limited Ability to Assess How the Implementation of the Federal Action Plan Contributes to Overall Restoration Progress under the CCMP’s Framework

The federal task force has limited ability to assess how the  implementation of its Federal Action Plan, currently in draft form,  contributes to overall restoration progress under the CCMP’s framework,  according to our analysis of agency documents and interviews. We found  that except in a small number of cases, the federal task force has not  clearly linked the priority federal actions identified in the draft Federal  Action Plan to the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery  targets. For example, one of the plan’s priority federal actions is to  replace or remove culverts that pose a barrier to fish passage on Forest  Service roads. However, the plan does not specify how the expected  outcome of this action will contribute to the CCMP’s goals, vital signs,  indicators, or recovery targets.

The federal task force’s memorandum of understanding calls for the  integration of federal efforts with those of nonfederal entities in the  implementation of the CCMP. According to EPA Region 10 officials we  interviewed, one of the primary purposes of the federal task force is to  support the CCMP as the strategic plan for Puget Sound restoration,  which includes the overarching goals and targets for the restoration effort.  The federal task force’s regional implementation team is responsible for  annually evaluating the Federal Action Plan and making any necessary  modifications. As the permanent co-chair of the regional implementation  team, EPA’s Region 10 office leads the effort to track and report  information on the progress made in implementing the action plan,  according to Region 10 officials. EPA has developed a tool to track the  implementation of each priority federal action in the plan and has started  to collect initial information from the other task force members, according  to the Region 10 officials. The tracking tool documents the  implementation status of each of the priority federal actions, but similar to  the action plan, the tracking tool does not show how the actions are linked  to the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery targets.

We have previously reported on the importance of interagency  collaborative efforts, such as federal task forces, to track and monitor  progress toward their desired outcomes. In addition, we have reported  that agencies can increase the value of their performance reporting by  linking annual performance information with their goals, a leading practice  for performance reporting.

According to an EPA official involved in leading the regional  implementation team, the draft Federal Action Plan did not link the priority  federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing restoration  progress because the task force had focused on higher-level alignment  between the organization of the action plan and the CCMP’s strategic  initiatives, which focused on habitat, stormwater, and shellfish. In  addition, the EPA official said that the tracking tool does not include such  linkages because the tool has focused more narrowly on tracking the  progress made in carrying out the priority federal actions.

According to the EPA official, better documenting the linkage between the  priority federal actions and the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, and targets would be helpful for assessing progress. The official said that he  sees value in making these linkages more explicit, and that one  opportunity to do so would be to add more detail in the tracking tool on  how some of the key federal actions connect to the various elements of  the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress. Similarly, some federal  and state survey respondents reported that more explicitly linking the  information in the Federal Action Plan to the CCMP would be helpful,  based on our analysis of narrative responses about shortcomings to the  draft Federal Action Plan and the plan’s alignment with the CCMP. By  working with the appropriate members of the regional implementation  team to clearly link, such as through the tracking tool, the plan’s priority  federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress toward  Puget Sound restoration, EPA would better position the federal task force  to assess the impact of its efforts and the implementation of the draft— and, if applicable, final—action plan.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Identified Several Factors, Including Population Growth and Climate Change, that May Limit the Success of Puget Sound Restoration

Federal and state respondents to our survey and tribal and local  participants in our discussion groups identified a number of factors that  may limit the long-term overall success of Puget Sound restoration  efforts. Federal and nonfederal entities have control over some of these  factors, such as coordination, but entities in the region may have less  ability to influence other factors, such as climate change. To obtain views  from federal and state agency officials, we asked survey respondents to  rate the level of risk that 10 factors could pose to the long-term overall  success of Puget Sound restoration efforts. We identified these factors  based on our review of key restoration documents, such as the CCMP,  and our interviews with federal and nonfederal entities. Figure 7 illustrates  the number of survey respondents that identified each of the factors as  posing a great risk.

Through our analysis of the survey results, discussion group transcripts,  federal and nonfederal documentation, and agency interviews, we found  that federal and nonfederal entities consistently identified certain key  factors as posing significant risks that may limit the success of Puget  Sound restoration, including:

Effects of population growth and increased development.

According to estimates in the CCMP, the population of the Puget  Sound region is projected to increase from roughly 4.5 million in 2016  to 7 million people by 2040. Survey respondents and discussion group  participants explained that population growth and the associated  increase in development threaten restoration efforts in a variety of  ways. For example, population growth and development contribute to  new habitat loss and water quality degradation and may contribute to  increases in property values that can raise the costs of restoration  projects that involve land acquisitions. Nearly all of the survey  respondents rated this factor as posing a great risk, and the majority  of survey respondents identified this factor as the single greatest risk  to the long-term overall success of Puget Sound restoration efforts.

Effects of climate change and ocean acidification. According to  the CCMP, climate change and ocean acidification could affect many  aspects of Puget Sound’s ecosystem and natural resources. In  addition, a 2015 University of Washington report stated that projected  increases in sea surface temperatures associated with climate change  could harm salmon populations and increase the magnitude and  frequency of harmful algal blooms in Puget Sound. Moreover,  according to a report from the Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel  on Ocean Acidification, more than 30 percent of Puget Sound’s  marine species—including oysters, clams, mussels, and crabs—are  believed to be vulnerable to ocean acidification because of its  corrosive effects on some shelled organisms. According to a  December 2017 report by the Washington Marine Resources Advisory  Council, Washington’s waters are considered to be among the most  highly affected by ocean acidification in the world. A variety of  actions are under way in Washington State to respond to this threat,  including the implementation of stormwater and nutrient reduction  programs to reduce the severity of acidifying conditions and research  on kelp cultivation to absorb carbon dioxide to improve seawater  conditions.

Funding constraints. Funding constraints cited by federal and  nonfederal entities included concerns about securing funds for future  restoration efforts and the administrative challenges associated with  combining multiple sources of funding to carry out projects. According  to Partnership officials we interviewed, many of the near-term actions  called for in the CCMP are at risk of not being carried out because  funding has not been secured for these actions. Discussion group  participants also cited difficulties securing funds as a barrier for  project implementation and stated that the challenges associated with  having to cobble together funds from multiple sources can delay or  threaten the success of restoration projects. The participants  explained that managing the requirements of multiple funding sources  can increase administrative burden and project complexity. Moreover,  discussion group participants explained that the single-year funding  cycles for some programs and the restrictions that are sometimes  placed on how funds can be used present additional challenges, as  they are not always compatible with the needs of more complex multi- year restoration projects. Participants in the discussion groups noted  a critical need for predictable, consistent, multi-year funding to  adequately and efficiently plan and carry out restoration activities.

The factors identified by federal and nonfederal entities as posing a risk to  the success of Puget Sound restoration efforts are consistent with some  of our prior work on large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts in other  parts of the country. Specifically, we previously reported that similar  factors—including population growth, the effects of climate change, and  funding constraints—may limit restoration efforts in the Great Lakes and  Chesapeake Bay.

Restoring Puget Sound is a large, complex, and potentially costly  endeavor that involves many federal, state, local, tribal, and  nongovernmental partners, and it faces a number of factors that may limit  long-term success. Federal and nonfederal entities have made progress  in coordinating the numerous restoration efforts underway by establishing  the Puget Sound Management Conference and the Puget Sound Federal  Task Force and by developing the CCMP and the draft Federal Action  Plan. The Partnership, through its plans to develop a more complete  inventory of restoration efforts and related funding, can make important  information available for coordinating the management of the efforts  moving forward. In addition, the Partnership has led the management  conference’s efforts to assess restoration progress under the framework  laid out in the CCMP, reporting in 2017 that while progress had been  made in some areas, many key indicators had not shown improvement.  However, these assessments have been limited by insufficient data,  resources, and the lack of measurable targets, which have not been  established for 16 of the 47 indicators. By working with the management  conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the  indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such  targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible,  EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress toward  restoration goals.

In addition, the federal task force has made progress by coordinating its  actions through the Federal Action Plan and can continue to make  progress as it takes steps to implement the draft plan—and, if applicable,  any final version of the plan that is approved. However, the task force has  limited ability to assess how the implementation of its plan contributes to  overall restoration progress because neither the plan nor the tracking tool  developed by EPA’s Region 10 clearly link the plan’s priority federal  actions to the goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery targets that make  up the CCMP’s framework. By working with the appropriate members of  the regional implementation team to clearly link, such as through the  tracking tool, the plan’s priority federal actions to the CCMP’s framework  for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration, EPA would better  position the federal task force to assess the impact of its efforts and the  implementation of the draft—and, if applicable, final—action plan.

We are making the following two recommendations to EPA:  The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the management  conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the  indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such  targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible.  (Recommendation 1)

The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the appropriate  members of the federal task force regional implementation team to clearly  link, such as through the tracking tool, the Federal Action Plan’s priority  federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress toward  Puget Sound restoration. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to CEQ; the  Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the  Interior, and Transportation; EPA; and the Puget Sound Partnership. EPA  provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV, and  stated that it generally agrees with the conclusions and recommendations  in our report. The Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland  Security, and the Interior responded by email that they did not have  comments on the draft report. CEQ, the Department of Agriculture, and  the Department of Transportation provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. The Partnership also provided written  comments, which are reproduced in appendix V, and stated that our  report does a good job describing a complex landscape. The  Partnership’s comments included one technical comment, which we  incorporated as appropriate, and highlighted several points that we made  in the report, including the lack of targets for some indicators and other  barriers to success, the importance of obtaining more comprehensive  information on restoration expenditures, and the importance of linking the  work of the federal task force to the CCMP.

In its written comments, EPA stated that it appreciated the work we  performed to understand the scope and intricacies of restoration efforts in  Puget Sound and our coordination with multiple federal and nonfederal  entities in developing our report. EPA agreed with our recommendation to  work with the management conference to help prioritize among the  indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such  targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible.  The agency stated that it has begun working with the Partnership and  other management conference partners to identify this as a priority for the  next review of the CCMP, as well as to develop a clear plan for advancing  this priority. EPA also stated that progress has been made to evaluate the  current set of indicators and vital signs as a result of a 2017 project led by  the Partnership and that recommendations from that project will inform  both adjustments to the current set of indicators and future target setting.

In addition, EPA agreed with our recommendation to work with the  appropriate members of the federal task force regional implementation  team to clearly link the Federal Action Plan’s priority federal actions to the  CCMP’s framework for assessing progress, and the agency highlighted  steps it will take to do so. EPA stated that it has already met with the  federal task force’s regional leadership and implementation teams and  reached agreement to review the Federal Action Plan and specify how  each action connects to the vital signs and other elements of the CCMP.  EPA stated this this crosswalk process will begin in January 2019 after  the updated CCMP is approved.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Chair of CEQ; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce,  Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the  Administrator of EPA; the Executive Director of the Puget Sound  Partnership; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) Puget Sound restoration efforts and related  expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016; (2) how federal and  nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts and their views on  this coordination; (3) the framework for assessing progress toward Puget  Sound restoration; and (4) key factors, if any, federal and nonfederal  entities identified that may limit the success of Puget Sound restoration.  To help us understand the legal framework supporting restoration efforts  across these four objectives, we reviewed selected relevant federal and  state laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act,  and Washington State law governing Puget Sound water quality  protection and establishing the Puget Sound Partnership.

To examine Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for  fiscal years 2012 through 2016, we used the first phase of a two-phase  survey to identify federal and state efforts that supported Puget Sound  restoration during this time frame. We selected this period to allow us to  obtain information on a range of restoration efforts carried out in recent  years. In addition, we used the first phase of the survey to obtain  information on the availability of expenditure data for the federal and state  efforts and to help determine whether any limitations existed that would  affect the reliability of such data. As part of developing the first phase of  the survey, we conducted a pretest with the Partnership to check that the  questions were clear and used terminology correctly and to ensure that  we could obtain the requested information without placing an undue  burden on agency officials. We sent the first phase of the survey to 15  federal and 11 state entities in June 2017, and all of them responded. We  identified the 15 federal entities based on their participation in the Puget  Sound Federal Caucus, a group formed of regional federal entities in  2007 to help coordinate federal restoration efforts in Puget Sound. The  federal entities were the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Federal Emergency  Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit  Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,  National Park Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis-McChord, U.S.  Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and  the U.S. Navy. We identified the 11 Washington State entities based on  our review of the comprehensive conservation and management plan  (CCMP)—called The 2016 Action Agenda for Puget Sound—and our  discussions with federal and state officials. The state entities were the  Office of Financial Management, Puget Sound Partnership, Recreation  and Conservation Office, Washington State Conservation Commission,  and the Washington Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Ecology,  Fish and Wildlife, Health, Natural Resources, and Transportation.

In the first phase of our survey, we requested specific information on  federal and state efforts to support Puget Sound restoration. Table 2  summarizes the questions we are reporting on from the first phase of the  survey. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically report  on to provide additional context for the survey responses. For example,  we asked the respondents whether their agency managed each effort on  its own or jointly with other entities, and we asked whether their agency  had provided funding from each effort to other entities.

We used the first-phase survey results in part to develop catalogs of  federal and state efforts that supported Puget Sound restoration from  fiscal years 2012 through 2016. To obtain additional information about the  federal and state efforts identified in the survey responses, we reviewed  documentation, such as agency websites and reports, and interviewed  agency officials. We incorporated this additional information as  appropriate in the catalogs, and we then asked each entity to verify the  accuracy of the information presented in the catalogs. Appendix II  presents the catalog of federal efforts, and appendix III presents the  catalog of state efforts.

Based on the results of the first phase of the survey and additional follow- up interviews with agency officials, we determined that we would be  unable to collect sufficiently reliable data to report on the total amount of  expenditures that have supported Puget Sound restoration. In particular,  we identified data limitations that would make it difficult for us to collect  consistent, reliable, and comparable expenditure data across all of the  federal and state entities’ efforts. These limitations included difficulties  isolating expenditures within the geographic boundaries of Puget Sound  for some efforts, difficulties isolating expenditures that supported  restoration activities as opposed to other purposes, and difficulties  quantifying administrative expenses, such as staff salaries and travel  expenses, associated with specific efforts.

As a result of these limitations, we limited our collection of expenditure  data to a nongeneralizable sample of three federal programs and one  state program to provide examples of the diversity in funding approaches  used to support Puget Sound restoration. We considered the following  factors in selecting these efforts: 1) their prominence in Puget Sound  restoration, 2) variations in the federal and state entities involved in  carrying them out, 3) variations in their size, and 4) evidence of reliable  expenditure data. In addition, to help illustrate how federal and nonfederal  funds are used together at the project level, we interviewed agency  officials and obtained expenditure data for two recently completed  restoration projects. We selected these projects because they had  received funding from a variety of federal and nonfederal sources and  illustrated how federal and nonfederal entities work together to carry out  restoration projects. We also conducted two site visits to observe the  outcomes of these projects. We assessed the reliability of the expenditure  data for these program and project examples by comparing the data we  obtained with data from other sources where possible, reviewing agency  documentation, and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials. We  found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To examine how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their  restoration efforts in Puget Sound and their views on this coordination, we  identified two key groups that coordinate among federal, state, local,  tribal, and nongovernmental entities: the state-led Puget Sound  Management Conference and the Puget Sound Federal Task Force,  which replaced the Puget Sound Federal Caucus in 2016. We analyzed  key restoration-related documentation, including the CCMP developed by  the management conference and the federal task force’s draft The Puget  Sound Federal Task Force Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2017-2021) (Federal  Action Plan). We also interviewed officials from EPA and the Council on  Environmental Quality about the implementation of the federal task force.  In August 2017, we sent the second phase of our survey to the 15 federal  and 11 state entities that had received the first phase, as well as to the  Washington State Governor’s Office, to obtain their views on the  coordination of restoration efforts and we received responses from all of  the entities. The second phase of the survey featured, among other  things, a series of open-ended and closed-ended questions about the role  of the management conference and the federal task force in helping to  coordinate restoration efforts and about the strengths and shortcomings  of the CCMP and the draft Federal Action Plan. We refined the second  phase of the survey based on pretests we conducted with two federal  agencies and two state agencies to ensure that the questions were clear  and used terminology correctly and that we could obtain the requested  information without placing an undue burden on agency officials.

Table 3 summarizes the questions we are reporting on from the second  phase of the survey. We also asked other questions that we do not  specifically report on to provide additional context for the survey  responses. For example, we asked the respondents to identify what  steps, if any, could be taken to improve the management conference and  the federal task force, and we asked whether any entities were missing  from these groups that should be included.

We also held six moderated discussion groups, three with tribal  representatives and three with local representatives, to obtain their views  on factors that have helped and hindered their ability to implement  restoration projects, including factors related to coordination. We selected  the tribal and local entities to participate in the discussion groups because  of their involvement in implementing restoration projects. We invited all 19  federally recognized tribes in the Puget Sound basin to participate in our  discussion groups, as well as two tribal consortia that support restoration  efforts. Representatives from 15 of these tribal entities participated in the  tribal discussion groups. For the three local discussion groups, we  invited all 9 local integrating organizations and all 15 salmon recovery  lead entities within the Puget Sound basin to participate.  Representatives from 7 of the local integrating organizations and 13 of  the salmon recovery lead entities participated in the three local discussion  groups.

We conducted the six moderated discussion groups over the telephone in  May and June 2017. During each discussion group, the GAO moderator  asked participants to list factors that, in their experience, had helped their  tribal or local entity implement restoration projects in Puget Sound, as well as factors that hindered their ability to do so. The moderator then  asked participants to elaborate on how the factors had helped or hindered  the implementation of restoration projects. When necessary, the  moderator asked probing questions to further clarify participants’  comments. Two or three analysts transcribed each session and combined  and reconciled notes to develop transcripts for each of the discussion  groups. We analyzed the transcripts from the six discussion groups using  qualitative analysis software to categorize the factors that helped and  hindered the implementation of restoration projects. Prominent factors  identified in the discussion groups that we discuss in the body of the  report include factors related to administration and management,  coordination, and resources. Other factors, such as laws and regulations,  public awareness, and science were also raised to a lesser extent, and  we do not discuss these in the body of the report.

To obtain additional views on the coordination of Puget Sound restoration  efforts, we interviewed federal and state agency officials as well as  representatives from conservation, agricultural, and fishing industry  organizations. We also obtained written responses from two Canadian  agencies about their coordination of restoration activities with entities in  the United States. We compared the information we obtained on the  coordination of Puget Sound restoration efforts with selected leading  collaboration practices that we previously identified and that were most  relevant based on our initial audit work, such as leadership, bridging  organizational cultures, and the inclusion of relevant participants. We  also assessed federal entities’ implementation of the memorandum of  understanding that established the federal task force.

To examine the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound  restoration, we reviewed laws, regulations, and key documents, such as  the CCMP and the draft Federal Action Plan. We also reviewed the  Partnership’s documentation on the results of its assessments of  restoration progress. We identified some limitations associated with these  results and noted those in our report where appropriate. We obtained  additional views on efforts to assess progress from federal and  nonfederal entities through the second phase of our survey and  interviews described previously. For example, in the second phase of the  survey, we asked the federal and state entities about their views on  efforts to assess progress under the CCMP and the draft Federal Action  Plan and about their views on the sufficiency of monitoring efforts in  Puget Sound. We compared the information obtained through these steps  with EPA’s National Estuary Program guidance and with leading practices  for performance measurement and reporting to determine whether efforts  to assess Puget Sound restoration progress have followed leading  practices.

To determine key factors, if any, federal and nonfederal entities identified  that may limit the success of Puget Sound restoration, we used the  second phase of our survey, which we described above, and our  discussion groups to obtain views on factors that may pose a risk to the  success of restoration efforts. We also reviewed the CCMP and other  documentation and used our interviews with the federal and nonfederal  entities described above to obtain views on limiting factors. In addition,  we reviewed our prior work on large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts in  other parts of the country, such as in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake  Bay, to compare the key factors we identified in Puget Sound with factors  that may limit restoration efforts that we identified in our past reports.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to July 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Catalog of Efforts Identified by Federal Entities that Supported Restoration Activities in Puget Sound

As part of our first objective to examine Puget Sound restoration efforts,  we surveyed 15 federal entities and asked them to provide information  about their efforts that have supported Puget Sound restoration  activities. Based on our research and discussions with federal and state  officials, we identified six general categories of restoration activities:

Habitat restoration – projects or other activities intended to restore  degraded habitats.

Habitat protection – projects or other activities intended to protect  high-quality habitats from future degradation.

Water quality improvement – projects or other activities intended to  improve the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of waters  within the Puget Sound basin by, for example, reducing stormwater  runoff and other sources of water pollution.

Monitoring – projects or other activities intended to monitor the  physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of waters within the  Puget Sound basin, including monitoring for the purposes of  establishing baselines, identifying trends, and assessing the  effectiveness or results of restoration activities.

Research – research projects, studies, or other related activities  intended to support Puget Sound restoration activities.

Education and outreach – projects or other activities intended to  educate the public about the state of Puget Sound and the pressures  facing the basin or to elicit community support for restoration activities  (e.g., by recruiting volunteers).

Table 4 presents a catalog of applicable federal efforts from federal fiscal  years 2012 through 2016 based on the survey responses from each  federal entity. The table includes a wide range of efforts, including some  efforts that focused exclusively on restoration-related activities and other  efforts that had a broader scope of work that in some cases did not center  directly on restoration. We further developed some information presented  in the table based on information obtained from other sources, such as  agency websites and documentation, and follow-up communications with  the federal entities. We did not evaluate whether each entity had included  all relevant efforts in their responses.

Appendix III: Catalog of Efforts Identified by State Entities that Supported Restoration Activities in Puget Sound

As part of our first objective to examine Puget Sound restoration efforts,  we surveyed 11 state entities and asked them to provide information  about their efforts that have supported Puget Sound restoration  activities. We used the same six general categories of restoration  activities as in the catalog of federal efforts in appendix II:  Table 5 presents a catalog of applicable state efforts from state fiscal  years 2012 through 2016 based on the survey responses from each state  entity. The table includes a wide range of efforts, including some efforts  that focused exclusively on restoration-related activities and other efforts  that had a broader scope of work that in some cases did not center  directly on restoration. We further developed some information presented  in the table based on information obtained from other sources, such as  agency websites and documentation, and follow-up communications with  the state entities. We did not evaluate whether each entity had included  all relevant efforts in their responses.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix V: Comments from the Puget Sound Partnership

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.

In addition to the individual named above, Janet Frisch (Assistant  Director), Susan Iott (Assistant Director), Joshua Wiener (Analyst in  Charge), Chuck Bausell, Stephen Betsock, Mark Braza, Ellen Fried, Jack  Granberg, Carol Henn, Gina Hoover, Karen Howard, Vondalee Hunt,  Benjamin T. Licht, Jeffery Malcolm, John Mingus, Patricia Moye, Dan C.  Royer, Sara Sullivan, Sarah Veale, and Arvin Wu made key contributions  to this report.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Improved Data Collection and  Reporting Would Enhance Oversight. GAO-15-526. Washington, D.C.:  July 21, 2015.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More  Useful Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress.  GAO-13-797. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2013.

Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State  Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, D.C.:  September 15, 2011.

Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps  Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional  Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.

Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could  Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection. GAO-08-130. Washington,  D.C.: December 14, 2007.

South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing  Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs.  GAO-07-520. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007.

Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better  Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96.  Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.

Great Lakes: Organizational Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to  Be Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress. GAO-04-1024.  Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2004.

Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress  Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. GAO-03-515.  Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003.

Puget Sound is the nation's second largest estuary, supporting millions of people and a wide variety of species. Development and use, however, have degraded its water quality and habitat, and harmed critical species like salmon and killer whales.

Federal and nonfederal entities have established two main interagency groups to coordinate restoration efforts. However, it's difficult to assess the amount of progress these groups have made, in part because they lack measurable targets for a number of indicators.

We recommended that these groups improve their ability to assess the progress of Puget Sound restoration efforts.