Human activities have also degraded habitats that salmon and other  marine species depend on for survival. 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). 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. 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. The Partnership reported  that it plans to develop such an inventory by August 2019. Each group has  developed a planning document to guide its efforts. 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). Having written plans and agreements. 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. Protected and restored habitat. Healthy water quality. According to the Partnership’s website, from 2007 to 2016  the number of acres of harvestable shellfish beds increased by  approximately 4,800 acres. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Representatives from 15 of these tribal entities participated in the  tribal discussion groups.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.