Earlier this month, the Puget Sound Partnership released its State of the Sound Report, which is the annual evaluation on the health of the sound and effectiveness of recovery efforts. The results are distressing. Eelgrass beds that were once vast ribbons of green continue to disappear. Herring populations, a prime salmonid food source that is the backbone of a healthy Puget Sound, are shrinking, and chinook populations stand at a mere 10 percent of historic levels.

When it comes to orcas, the news is downright devastating. Since 2010, 18 endangered orcas have died with the current population now at only 80 whales — a 10 percent drop since being listed as endangered in 2005 and a 5 percent decline in the past two years alone.

In the state of Washington, the primary law designed to protect the habitat that supports the Puget Sound ecosystem is called the Hydraulic Code, and all nearshore development projects require a permit. These permits — called Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPAs) — are administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for construction projects in both marine and freshwater environments. To be approved, nearshore projects such as bulkheads, piers, dredging, marinas and barging facilities must result in no net loss of marine habitat and must provide protection for habitats during fish spawning and rearing times. While that is what is dictated by the law, review has found that WDFW often misses that mark.

Sound Action, the environmental watchdog group born from the local group Preserve Our Islands, recently audited two past years of HPAs issued by the department and reported on serious shortcomings in protecting forage fish spawning habitats in Puget Sound. We currently continue to conduct permit-by-permit review of each HPA applied for or approved in the Puget Sound basin. Most recently we appealed two dozen permits that did not ensure fish habitat protections and required corrective action by the department.

Last month, the state announced plans to revise the rules ensuring environmental protections in HPA permitting. As a first step, the department released a draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), which evaluates the pros and cons of the proposed rule-making, and announced a series of public meetings and a public comment period.

Unfortunately, rather than proposing new rules that strengthen environmental provisions and the ability to protect habitat, the currently proposed draft rule language significantly weakens the regulations by providing troubling loopholes and directives that contradict both the best available science and the protections mandated by law.

For example, WDFW has proposed a new “simplified” category of HPA that would in effect allow some nearshore construction projects to go forward with little or no environmental review. The proposed rules also limit the state’s ability to protect habitat, outlining that a provision to protect habitat can only be applied to a project if the habitat, species or spawning activity has been fully documented through a survey at the site. But, since many nearshore areas in the Puget Sound basin have not been surveyed, many productive habitats are undocumented in the eyes of the department and would be afforded no protection.

Current law requires WDFW to protect habitat first and foremost and, with few exceptions, it gives the department flexibility to develop the strong tools needed to do so. One provision that should be included in new rules would be to require, not just suggest, that any proposal for bulkhead construction use methods other than hard armoring, which destroys important nearshore habitats.

When the state began the rule-making process two years ago, it put together a stakeholder group for assistance in drafting the new rules. The majority of the contributing members, however, reflected the interest of regulated parties — such as developers — rather than the interests of the scientific, environmental and recreation communities. This is sadly reflected in the proposed language.

For decades, the introductory line for the Hydraulic Code rules spoke to the purpose of the regulations by specifying first and foremost that the intent of the department is to provide protection for all fish life. The proposal, however, has dropped this language as an opening line. The omission and tone it sets is disconcerting.

Weakening, not strengthening, safeguards to protect critical nearshore fish habitats reverses the efforts of many who are working to protect and restore the sound’s health and vitality. It runs counter to the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda. It puts at risk our forage fish, our salmon and our iconic orcas, as well as our compliance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

Sound Action asks all who care about the health of our marine, estuarine and freshwater habitats throughout the state to join us by stepping forward and participating in public meetings being held and providing public comments, which are due by Dec.13. Let’s ensure that any changes strengthen rather than weaken the HPA program and its protections.

Information on the proposed rule making and the public comment period can be found online at wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/rulemaking.

— Amy Carey is the executive director of Sound Action.