Puget Sound Partnership is creating a system designed to establish goals and to measure progress toward Puget Sound restoration. I wrote about those issues in a Kitsap Sun story on Thursday and a Water Ways entry that day.

At the same time, we need to remember that the partnership has not been a part of our political reality until recently. I’m not even sure whether to call it an agency or an organization. In any case, how the partnership goes about establishing its role in state government may be as important as how it goes about pushing and prodding state and local agencies to work on the cleanup effort.

At last week’s meeting of the Ecosystem Coordination Board, questions were raised about whether the partnership should be at the forefront of environmental legislation. See my story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun. The ECB is an advisory board to the Leadership Council, which sets policy for the partnership.

Bill Ruckelshaus, who chairs the Leadership Council, seems to be aware of history being made. After all, he was the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and has observed changes in that agency during many presidential administrations.

Ruckelshaus often reminds folks that success of the partnership depends on getting people to work together for a common goal. He told me last week that the partnership’s position on legislation should be the result of “rigorous” analysis, not what sounds good at the moment.

We also need to keep an eye on jurisdictional issues. State officials are working on a possible reorganization of the state’s natural resource agencies. Check out the governor’s Web site. One suggestion is to place the Puget Sound Partnership under an existing agency, such as the Department of Ecology.

I think most people who have read the statutory mandate of the Puget Sound Partnership recognize the conflict of interest that could result from this move. The partnership was designed without any regulatory authority, but rather with the job of judging all agencies on how well they are meeting their responsibilities to Puget Sound. Being critical of state agencies is going to be tough enough for a group that works closely with staffers from all natural resource agencies. How would that work if they were part of one?

David Dicks, executive director of the partnership, already serves on the governor’s cabinet. While the Leadership Council remains independent, members are appointed by the governor. Gov. Chris Gregoire is highly supportive of the Puget Sound restoration effort, so conflict so far is minimal. But what happens if we elect a governor antagonistic to the process? We should think through these issues carefully before we redraw the lines of authority.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Puget Sound Partnership continues to focus on a strategy to effectively and efficiently restore Puget Sound to health by 2020.

What a “healthy” Puget Sound would actually look like is one of the major tasks of the partnership’s Science Panel. How to measure progress and adjust plans on the way to the ultimate goal is the focus of much effort at the moment.

In a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun, I attempted to provide some information about the Puget Sound Partnership Performance Management System. I tried to keep the story general, because I was afraid the details would bore and possibly frustrate the average reader. Honestly, I’m not sure I captured the full scope of this complex system.

For those who would like more details, I refer you to the Oct. 1 “Tech Memo” (PDF 88 kb) that covers the concept and major elements of “performance management” — defined as “an ongoing, systematic approach to improving results through evidence-based decision making, continuous organizational learning and a focus on accountability…”

A few of the principles you’ll find in the memo:

• Goals, programs, activities and resources are aligned with mission, priorities and desired results. Accountability that funds allocated are best invested to advance results. (Clear line of sight between outcomes to funding)
• Science information and monitoring data must be provided on a schedule and in a format that meets the needs of the performance management system and can be interpreted and used by non-technical decision makers.
• Performance management transforms the Action Agenda, its management and the policy-making process. It will require a change in the culture of the Puget Sound Partnership and other implementers and the cleanup effort itself.

The process proceeds along these steps, which cycle again and again:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

“Puget Sound Starts Here.”

Given the complex issues we often discuss on this blog, the message seems too simple, almost childlike, conveying not much more than a slogan with a few pictures.

But maybe that’s exactly what we need to reach the broadest public.

Paul Bergman, communications director for Puget Sound Partnership, acknowledged that the message was carefully honed to fit a 15- or 30-second television spot. If the commercials raise people’s curiosity, they may visit the new Web site, “Puget Sound Starts Here.”

I briefly describe the new campaign in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

If you have a minute, take a look at the commercials I’ve embedded on this page and tell me if you believe they might encourage your friends and neighbors to change their behaviors — or at least think about them.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

An essential piece of the puzzle for restoring Puget Sound was put into place last week when the Environmental Protection Agency endorsed the Puget Sound Action Agenda.

The Action Agenda, which I covered extensively last year, was written by the Puget Sound Partnership. It is the guiding document for restoring Puget Sound.

EPA’s endorsement means money will continue to flow to the Puget Sound effort as part of the National Estuary Program. Federal officials might get even cozier with their state counterparts.

Michelle Pirzadeh, EPA’s acting Regional Administrator, had this to say in a news release about the endorsement:

“This makes official what has been true all along: EPA is fully committed to bringing our resources to bear on the critically important work of protecting and restoring our treasured Puget Sound. We pledge to continue to act hand-in-hand with our partners — the state, tribes, local governments and citizens — to ensure a healthy Sound for future generations.”

David Dicks, executive director for Puget Sound Partnership, added this in a separate statement: “Today’s action is yet another signal that Puget Sound is a national priority.”

Dicks said the endorsement could help in the effort to increase the money coming to Puget Sound through the National Estuary Program.

A Seattle PostGlobe story by Sally Deneen provides additional perspective from Paul Bergman, spokesman for the Partnership, and Mike Sato, spokesman for People for Puget Sound.

Meanwhile Dicks’ father, U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, is the man working to deliver an increase in the estuary funding from this year’s $20 million to $50 million next year. Dicks is chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, which first looks at the EPA’s budget.

“This is a much more appropriate federal commitment, on par with the multi-jurisdictional program that we have been funding on the Chesapeake Bay and, similarly, complementing pollution control efforts at the state and local level,” Dicks said in a statement after his committee finished its work.

The appropriations bill subsequently passed the full House with the $50 million intact.

Meanwhile, the Ecosystem Coordination Board, a wide-ranging advisory group within the Puget Sound Partnership, is scheduled to discuss the structure and function of the board at its next meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Ferndale.

Questions that need to be answered, according to the agenda, are these:

• How should ECB interface or integrate with the Salmon Recovery Council?
• Are there groups missing on the membership that should be included?
• How should ECB members liaison with constituencies, staff, and other boards (Leadership Council and Science Panel)?
• Should the Board have bylaws and if so, how should they be developed?
• Should an Executive Committee be created to work between meetings?
• How often does the ECB need to meet?

The Action Agenda contains plenty of solid information. But I think those involved in the Partnership would agree that the work was a bit rushed at the end. The document contains a few holes, such as how to measure progress toward Puget Sound restoration. Now, the organization has some time to make sure the Action Agenda is the document that the Legislature envisioned.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

President Obama is being praised for his decision to pull together all the ocean-related challenges this nation faces and for plotting a unified course of action.

On Friday, the president issued a memorandum calling for a task force to develop a national ocean policy along with a “framework” for action and a set of objectives. See the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, along with a news story by reporter Doug Palmer of Reuters.

I was tempted to state cynically that actions speak louder than words, so we should curb our enthusiasm about what can be done to save the oceans. But then I talked to Bill Ruckelshaus, who co-chairs the Joint Ocean Commission, a national group dedicated to this topic.

Ruckelshaus seems to be thrilled with this latest development, following years of failed promises from the Bush administration.

“This is quite a significant event, really,” Bill told me. “It moves the oceans up on the presidential agenda, which means they will get more attention from Congress and from agencies in the administration. Presidencies are all about setting agendas, and this means more attention will be paid to the recommendations we made.”

I’ll tell you a little more about what my conversation with Mr. Ruckelshaus, but first I’ll review the history.

Five years ago, similar praise was accorded to President Bush after the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a presidentially appointed body — released it’s comprehensive examination of the major problems facing the oceans. The report included a list of potential solutions.

Adm. James D. Watkins, a retired Navy officer who chaired the commission, expressed enthusiasm for the reception he felt the report was getting from the Bush administration.

“President Bush’s response to the Commission’s Report and his signing of Executive Order establishing a Secretarial-level Committee on Ocean Policy … sets into motion the important process of developing and implementing a new national ocean policy,” Watkins declared.

Despite the positive reaction, I don’t believe a whole lot came about. (Review the last three “report cards.”) A separate report written by the Pew Oceans Commission received even less attention.

After the two commissions dissolved, some members — including Ruckelshaus — moved into a new organization called the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a nongovernmental group that maintained pressure for action through annual “report cards” relating the progress, or lack thereof, on ocean issues.

In April of this year, the joint commission issued an urgent new report called “Changing Oceans, Changing World: Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress” (PDF 280 kb). I outlined that report in a Water Ways entry on April 7.

And so now we come to today, five months into the new administration, which seems to be trying to do everything at once. Can there really be much energy left for a discussion about the oceans?

Bill Ruckelshaus is undaunted. “I think holding back and doing things one at a time just doesn’t work,” he said. “You have to act while the energy is there.”

Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Nixon, now chairs the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, where he is heading the effort to reverse the degradation of our inland waterways.

President Bush created the U.S. Commission on Oceans, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But pulling all the environmental agencies together and getting Congress to focus on budgets, regulations and international treaties just never came to pass.

Why is Obama’s action different?

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

State and local officials are waiting anxiously to learn who will get the federal stimulus money passing through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The money will be targeted for habitat improvement.

I can’t find the national numbers, but I recall that NOAA had requests for maybe 10 times the money it had available. That means there are going to be a few disappointed people and groups around the country.

Some people expected to hear an announcement of the results several weeks ago, but the Obama administration appears to be making a list and checking it twice — maybe trying to figure out which groups are naughty and nice.

Anyway, the Puget Sound Leadership Council moved ahead to award some state funds to make sure critical projects get under way this summer one way or another.

The Nisqually estuary restoration has been named a priority and will receive a good share of the money, but Hood Canal also remains a priority, with projects moving from the drawing board to construction on the water. Two Hood Canal estuary-restoration projects, totaling $2.7 million, are among five Puget Sound projects approved for state funding this week.

The Hood Canal projects are a $1.7 million restoration in the Skokomish River estuary and a $1 million restoration in the Little Quilcene estuary. The other three projects, totaling $1.6 million, are associated with the Nisqually River restoration project.

Check out the press release from the Puget Sound Partnership. Here’s the brief story I prepared for Saturday’s Kitsap Sun:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Gov. Chris Gregoire today submitted 52 projects, totaling $101 million, for federal stimulus money to come through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for habitat improvement.

NOAA has a total of $170 million to be disbursed nationwide through a competitive process under the American Recovery and Economic Development Act.

“The need for this funding is especially great in Washington state, which is why I have endorsed a large number of grant proposals,” Gregoire said in a press release. “Each of these proposals would create and retain jobs immediately — especially in hard-pressed rural areas — and would provide long-term economic and environmental benefits to the State of Washington.”

Gregoire praised the efforts of the state Recreation and Conservation Office in coordinating the proposals, which were reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office and Puget Sound Partnership. The projects meet federal stimulus requirements while advancing state plans for habitat and salmon protections.

For a quick list look at projects in the Puget Sound region, continue reading below. For more details with projects in other areas, download the summary table (PDF 63 kb), which includes descriptions and costs.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Few issues separate people into two groups as much as shoreline management regulations.

We are guaranteed to have a lively debate in Kitsap County and in jurisdictions throughout the Puget Sound region beginning later this year and possibly continuing for the next three years. See my story on this issue in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

A preview of this debate was provided in the comments attached to that story. Here’s a condensed version:

familien1
None of this will matter when a KC employee can give a variance from the 100′ buffer down to 10′… and change the 20′ road rule down to 6′ from the road…both variances done for the same property.

beachkid61
If the county or state wants to tell us what we can and can’t do with our waterfront property, then why don’t they pay part of our property taxes which are already inflated.

just_me_nor
yep…Government intrusion into our lives and property has already become suffocating. the next 4 years will be epidemic. it is so sad that the democrats have a stranglehold on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

casey
Too bad the shorelines here are largely private, rather than public, as in Oregon. Puget Sound could be lovely — instead it is a disappointing cesspool. In many places you can’t even see it for the homes and fences that block views, including the views of those who formerly could see it from their homes.

darincroft
Let’s not kid ourselves. There is no such thing as private property and hasn’t been since at least 1971. The government, and especially the ‘Garridoites’ and their ilk that think it all belongs to them and their band of land grabbers.

Regulating shoreline uses is a hot topic because the property is at the pinnacle of value, both in terms of land costs and in terms of ecosystem processes. Many land owners think they can protect the environmental values of their property without governmental interference, and they get tired of the regulations getting more and more restrictive over time. On the other hand, the decline of the Puget Sound ecosystem has created an urgency to protect intact or even damaged shoreline ecosystems.

As David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, said today on KUOW’s Weekday, the solution to cleaning up Puget Sound relies on some combination of regulations (cheaper for the government) and purchase/restoration (which costs the government more but can be more acceptable in some ways).

In that same broadcast, Bill Ruckelshaus, chairman of the Partnership’s Leadership Council, talked about how it can be easier during an economic downtown to purchase lands important to the ecosystem. But it’s also a time when government budgets for such thing are the tightest.

Ruckelshaus also spelled out his philosophy in a straightforward way:

“Ecosystems are not indivisible from human habitation and there are a lot of humans that live in Puget Sound, and there’s going to be a million and a half more by approximately 2020… We can’t treat the other living things as though they are separate from us humans.

“If we don’t act wisely and intelligently in the way we develop and the way we live, then these … other species we share this ecosystem with can’t survive. What we need to do is put into place systems and processes that allow us humans to prosper — that’s our charge under the statute — and at the same time allow the ecosystem itself to be healthy.”

The KUOW broadcast, by the way, includes some new information about using the federal economic stimulus money for environmental restoration — such as moving up removal of the Elwha dams to 2010. Under the current schedule, the federal money won’t be available until 2012. I’ll be covering this issue in more detail later.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Happy New Year!

You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting many entries lately. I’ve been on vacation since the beginning of the snow — officially since the beginning of last week. I will return to full speed on Monday.

Meanwhile, I’ve been watching developments on the environmental front and will try to catch up on some of the bigger issues when I get back. I’d like to discuss, for example, some of President-elect Obama’s staff positions related to water and the environment.

For now, I’d like to call your attention to a disturbing Washington Post story about Chesapeake Bay, then I’d like to talk about implications for the restoration of Puget Sound.

The Post piece begins:

Government administrators in charge of an almost $6 billion cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay tried to conceal for years that their effort was failing — even issuing reports overstating their progress — to preserve the flow of federal and state money to the project, former officials say.

The cleanup, which had its 25th anniversary this month, seems doomed to miss its second official deadline for achieving major reductions in pollution by 2010.

The story, by David A. Fahrenthold, goes on to say that the Chesapeake Bay Program failed to achieve the political will to reduce pollution. So how did officials in the Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations respond? They fudged the data to show greater progress than what was actually taking place.

Officials did not have good monitoring data to measure progress. So they used computer models to show what should be taking place. Richard Batiuk, the EPAs’ current associate director for science for Chesapeake Bay, said exaggeration was never intentional. Officials simply did not use the models correctly.

When scientists finally caught up with the truth across the sprawling Chesapeake Bay watershed, which covers parts of five states, the price tag for cleanup was $28 billion. Officials realized they had no real plan to meet such a financial and public relations challenge. At the same time, it became clear that the goal of cleaning up the bay by 2010 could not be met — but nobody wanted to be the one to say so.

Ann Pesiri Swanson, executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Commission, said she suspected as early as 1997 that public statements were too optimistic. The situation became more clear as time went on.

“I think that, by 2005, 2006, you know, we should have made more . . . perhaps [we] could have recognized it more publicly,” she was quoted as saying.

In 2004, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that computer modeling and a lack of real-world data “downplays the deteriorated condition of the bay” and paints too-rosy of a picture.

That’s when I began paying closer attention to Chesapeake Bay and comparing it to efforts taking place in Puget Sound. See my stories from Sept. 17 and Sept. 18, 2006. We’ve all learned a great deal more over the past two years.

So what are the lessons to be learned from Chesapeake Bay?

I believe there are many. Above all, the people of Puget Sound must understand where things stand and what is at stake. We must rely on scientific conclusions based on real-world monitoring. Politics must not get ahead of the science — which is to say that most, if not all, actions should be analyzed for their costs and benefits to the ecosystem.

Bob Benze of Silverdale recently wrote a piece for the Seattle Times bemoaning the lack of science brought to bear on the recently adopted Puget Sound Action Agenda. He points out that legislative deadlines forced remedies to be proposed before scientific teams could validate those efforts.

Much of what Bob says is very legitimate, but one could argue that scientists have a general idea about what needs to be done. So taking actions before completing a full scientific evaluation may not be a waste of money. It may be a way to keep Puget Sound from slipping further behind while scientists catch up. Above all else, scientists need data to work with. Much monitoring has been done, but more is needed.

I think Bill Ruckelshaus, chairman of the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, has a good grasp of the situation. He has talked about the vital need to measure and report progress. This is one of the big lessons from Chesapeake.

Here are some other lessons I’ve learned: Let the scientists do their jobs; be willing to pay for monitoring; be thoughtful about how progress is measured; be honest with all appraisals; and let the public know the truth, no matter what the repercussions may be.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Those who attended Puget Sound Partnership’s “celebration” on Monday were treated to a video featuring experts, policy folks and other concerned people describing the values of Puget Sound and its various threats. It included some impressive footage of the waterway and its environs.

This afternoon, the video was posted on the Puget Sound Partnership’s Web site.

Featured are folks including Kari Koski of The Whale Museum, Mike Racine of Washington Scuba Alliance, Mary Ruckelshaus of NOAA Fisheries, Dave Herrera of the Skokomish Tribe, Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish Farms, Steve Bauer, a Kitsap County commissioner, and Steve Sakuma, a Skagit Valley farmer.

Some of these people are directly involved in the Partnership process. For example, Sakuma is a member of the Leadership Council; Bauer is a member of the Ecosystem Coordination Board; and Ruckelshaus is a member of the Science Panel.

Monday’s celebration called attention to the release of the Puget Sound Action Agenda, a blueprint for restoring Puget Sound to health.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post