About the Puget Sound Institute

2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v3.0
Protection strategies
The state’s Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act call on local governments
to take the lead in protecting the ecosystem as people build new homes and businesses. Local
governments, in turn, are required to account for human impacts and to require environmental
mitigation where damage cannot be avoided. Cities and counties vary in their level of protection
and their efforts to make sure that developers follow land-use regulations.
Although habitat is still being lost to development, regulations are evolving to reduce the
resulting damage. Local critical areas ordinances are designed to better protect wetlands,
streams, floodplains, aquifer-recharge areas, erodible slopes and special wildlife habitats.
Meanwhile, new stormwater rules call for greater infiltration, helping to maintain natural
streamflows and reduce pollution.
City and county shoreline master programs are being updated to better protect shoreline
habitat. Larger buffers are being imposed so that homes are built farther from vital nearshore
areas. New shoreline armoring, such as the creation of bulkheads, is generally prohibited except
where needed to protect houses from wave damage or flooding.
Where ecological damage cannot be avoided, mitigation projects may be required to enhance
habitat and offset the damage.
Logging practices also are improving, thanks to evolving research and ongoing updates to Forest
Practices Regulations. Teams of scientists continue to evaluate whether logging rules need to be
strengthened to reduce habitat damage and protect specific fish and wildlife species.
With financial aid and guidance from local conservation districts, farmers are finding ways to
improve habitat while maintaining their livelihood.
Tradeoffs
Maintaining ecosystem services can be viewed as a cost to some people but a benefit to others.
Most of the new Forest Practices Rules, such as increased stream buffers, have led to decreased
timber harvests on private forestland. Requirements to improve roads and stream crossings
have increased costs for landowners. The resulting protections for water quality and fish and
wildlife habitat do not directly improve the bottom line for most timber companies.
On the other hand, maintaining healthy forests with a goal of protecting water quality has
proved beneficial. The city of Bremerton, for example, owns and protects the entire 3,000 acres
that drains into Casad Reservoir, the city’s primary water supply. Keeping people out of that
forested watershed has allowed the city to avoid building a costly water-filtration system. That
cost savings, along with income from limited logging, has kept Bremerton’s water bills among
the lowest in the state, while creating a large preserve for wildlife.
Unlike timber companies, the shellfish industry can be considered a direct beneficiary of efforts
to clean up polluted waters, since the result has been a reopening of areas previously closed to
commercial shellfish harvesting.
106