Puget Sound Partnership has honed its high-level game plan for
restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem, including a sharp focus on 10
“vital signs” of ecological health.
The newly released draft of the Puget
Sound Action Agenda has endorsed more than 600 specific
“near-term actions” designed to benefit the ecosystem in various
ways. Comments on the plan will be accepted until Oct. 15. Visit
the Partnership’s webpage to view the Draft Action Agenda and
access the
comments page.
The latest Action Agenda for 2018-2022 includes a revised format
with a “comprehensive
plan” separate from an “implementation
plan.” The comprehensive plan outlines the ecological problems,
overall goals and administrative framework. The implementation plan
describes how priorities are established and spells out what could
be accomplished through each proposed action.
Nearly 300 near-term
actions are listed at Tier 4, the highest level of priority,
giving them a leg up when it comes to state and federal support,
according to Heather Saunders Benson, Action Agenda manager.
Funding organizations use the Action Agenda to help them determine
where to spend their money.
The greatest change in the latest Action Agenda may be its focus
on projects that specifically carry out “Implementation
Strategies,” which I’ve been writing about on and off for nearly
two years. Check out
“Implementation Strategies will target Puget Sound ‘Vital
Signs’” in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Southern Resident killer whales, cherished by many Puget Sound
residents, are on a course headed for extinction, and they could
enter a death spiral in the not-so-distant future.
It is time that people face this harsh reality, Ken Balcomb told
me, as we discussed the latest death among the three pods of orcas.
A 2-year-old male orca designated J-52 and known as Sonic died
tragically about two weeks ago.
Two-year-old J-52, known as
Sonic, swims with his mother J-36, or Alki, on Sept. 15. This may
have been the last day Sonic was seen alive.
Photo: Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale
Research
The young orca was last seen in emaciated condition, barely
surfacing and hanging onto life near the entrance to the Strait of
Juan de Fuca on Sept. 15. Ken, director of the Center for Whale
Research, said the young whale was attended to by his mother Alki,
or J-36, along with a male orca, L-85, known as Mystery — who may
have been Sonic’s father, but more about that later.
Extinction, Ken told me, is “very real” — not some ploy to
obtain research dollars. The population of endangered Southern
Residents has now dropped to 76 — the lowest level since 1984. Most
experts agree that a shortage of chinook salmon — the primary prey
of the orcas — is the greatest problem facing the whales.
Last week, the Leadership Council — the governing body of the
Puget Sound Partnership — discussed what role the partnership
should play to “accelerate and amplify efforts” to restore chinook
salmon runs and save the orcas. Chinook themselves are listed as a
threatened species.
Graph: Center for
Biological Diversity
Puget Sound Partnership is charged by the Legislature with
coordinating the restoration of Puget Sound, including the recovery
of fish and wildlife populations.
The Leadership Council delayed action on a
formal resolution (PDF 149 kb) in order to allow its staff time
to identify specific actions that could be taken. Although the
resolution contains the right language, it is not enough for the
council to merely show support for an idea, said Council Chairman
Jay Manning.
Sonic was one of the whales born during the much-acclaimed “baby
boom” from late 2014 through 2015. With his death, three of the six
whales born in J pod during that period have now died. No new
calves have been born in any of the Southern Resident pods in
nearly a year.
Meanwhile, two orca moms — 23-year-old Polaris (J-28) and
42-year-old Samish (J-14) — died near the end of 2016. Those deaths
were followed by the loss of Granny (J-2), the J-pod matriarch said
to have lived more than a century. Another death was that of
Doublestuf, an 18-year-old male who died last December.
Three orcas were born in L pod during the baby boom, and none of
those whales has been reported missing so far.
Ken believes he witnessed the final hours of life for young
Sonic, who was lethargic and barely surfacing as the sun set on the
evening of Sept. 15. Two adults — Sonic’s mother and Mystery — were
the only orcas present, while the rest of J pod foraged about five
miles away.
Sonic seen with his mother in
June.
Photo: Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale
Research
That was the last time anyone saw Sonic, although his mother
Alki as well as Mystery were back with J pod during the next
observation four days later. Ken reported that Alki seemed
distressed, as often happens when a mother loses an offspring.
Ken admits that he is speculating when he says that Mystery may
have been Sonic’s father. It makes for a good story, but there
could be other reasons why the older male stayed with the mother
and calf. Still, researchers are engaged in studies that point to
the idea that mature killer whales may actually choose a mate
rather than engaging in random encounters. I’m looking forward to
the upcoming report.
I must admit that this issue of extinction has been creeping up
on me, and it’s not something that anyone wants to face. Food is
the big issue, and chinook salmon have been in short supply of
late. It will be worth watching as the whales forage on chum
salmon, as they are known to do in the fall months.
“This population cannot survive without food year-round,” Ken
wrote in a news
release. “Individuals metabolize their toxic blubber and body
fats when they do not get enough to eat to sustain their bodies and
their babies. Your diet doctor can advise you about that.
“All indications (population number, foraging spread, days of
occurrence in the Salish Sea, body condition, and live birth
rate/neonate survival) are pointing toward a predator population
that is prey-limited and nonviable,” he added.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which was involved in the
initial lawsuit that led to the endangered listing for the whales,
is calling upon the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service to
move quickly to protect orca habitat along the coasts of
Washington, Oregon and California. Currently designated critical
habitat is limited to Puget Sound, even though the whales are known
to roam widely along the coast.
“The death of another killer whale puts this iconic population
on a dangerous path toward extinction,” Catherine Kilduff of CBD
said in a
news release. “If these whales are going to survive, we need to
move quickly. Five years from now, it may be too late.”
How fast the whales will go extinct is hard to determine,
experts say, but the current population is headed downward at an
alarming rate, no matter how one analyzes the problem.
“I would say we are already in a very dangerous situation,” said
Lance Barrett-Lennard, senior marine mammal researcher at the
Vancouver Aquarium. “If this trajectory continues and we lose two
or three more from deaths or unsuccessful birth, we will be in a
real spiral,” he told reporter Richard Watts of the
Times Colonist in Victoria, B.C.
A
five-year status review (PDF 4.3 mb), completed last December
by NMFS, takes into account the number of reproductive males and
females among the Southern Residents, the reproductive rates, and
the ratio of female to male births (more males are being born). As
the population declines, the risk of inbreeding — and even more
reproductive problems — can result.
Eric Ward of NOAA, who helped write the status report, said the
agency often estimates an extinction risk for endangered
populations, but the actual number of Southern Residents is too
small to produce a reliable number. Too many things can happen to
speed up the race toward extinction, but it is clear that the
population will continue to decline unless something changes.
As Ken describes it in simple terms, Southern Resident females
should be capable of producing an offspring every three years. With
27 reproductive females, we should be seeing nine new babies each
year. In reality, the average female produces one offspring every
nine years, which is just three per year for all three pods. That
is not enough to keep up with the death rate in recent years. To
make things worse, reproductive females have been dying long before
their time — and before they can help boost the population.
Experts talk about “quasi-extinction,” a future time when the
number of Southern Residents reaches perhaps 30 animals, at which
point the population is too small to recover no matter what
happens. Some say the population is now on the edge of a death
spiral, which may require heroic actions to push the population
back onto a recovery course.
As described in the five-year status review, prey shortage is
not the only problem confronting the Southern Residents. The
animals are known to contain high levels of toxic chemicals, which
can affect their immune systems and overall health as well as their
reproductive rates. Vessel noise can make it harder for them to
find fish to eat. On top of those problems is the constant threat
of a major oil spill, which could kill enough orcas to take the
population down to a nonviable number.
The graph shows the probability
that the Southern Resident population will fall below a given
number (N) after 100 years. Falling below 30 animals is considered
quasi-extinction. The blue line shows recent conditions. Lines to
the left show low chinook abundance, and lines to the right show
higher abundance.
Graphic: Lacy report, Raincoast Conservation
Foundation
Despite the uncertainties, Robert Lacey of Chicago Zoological
Society and his associates calculated in 2015 that under recent
conditions the Southern Resident population faces a 9 percent
chance of falling to the quasi-extinction level within 100 years.
Worsening conditions could send that rate into a tailspin. See
report for Raincoast
Conservation Foundation.
What I found most informative was how the probability of
extinction changes dramatically with food supply. (See the second
graph on this page.) A 10 percent decline in chinook salmon raises
the quasi-extinction risk from 9 percent to 73 percent, and a 20
percent decline raises the risk to more than 99 percent.
On the other hand, if chinook numbers can be increased by 20
percent, the whales would increase their population at a rate that
would ensure the population’s survival, all other things being
equal. Two additional lines on the graph represent a gradual
decline of chinook as a result of climate change over the next 100
years — a condition that also poses dangerous risks to the orca
population.
The close links between food supply and reproductive success are
explored in a story I wrote last year for the Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound.
At last Wednesday’s Puget Sound Leadership Council meeting,
members discussed a
letter from the Strait (of Juan de Fuca) Ecosystem Recovery Network
(PDF 146 kb) that called on the Puget Sound Partnership to
become engaged in salmon recovery efforts outside of Puget Sound —
namely the Klamath, Fraser and Columbia/Snake river basins.
“Such collaborative efforts must be done for the benefit of both
the SRKW and chinook fish populations, without losing sight of the
continuing need to maintain and improve the genetic diversity of
these fish populations …” states the letter.
A separate
letter from the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PDF 395
kb) also asks the Puget Sound Partnership to become more
engaged in orca recovery. The group is calling on the partnership
to support salmon recovery statewide, “relying on each region to
identify strategies to restore robust salmon runs.”
Rein Attemann of Washington Environmental Council said salmon on
the Columbia and Snake rivers, as well as he Fraser River in
British Columbia, are “vitally important” to the recovery of the
Southern Resident killer whales, and Puget Sound efforts should be
coordinated with other programs.
Jim Waddell, a retired civil engineer with the Army Corps of
Engineers, spoke forcefully about the need to save chinook salmon
and the Southern Residents, starting by tearing down dams on the
Snake River.
“We are out of time,” Waddell said. “The Corps of Engineers have
it within their power to begin breaching the dams within months….
The orcas cannot survive without those chinook.”
An environmental impact statement on chinook recovery includes
the option of breaching the dams, something that could be pushed
forward quickly, he said.
“Breaching the Snake River dams is the only possibility of
recovery,” Waddell said. “There is nothing left.”
Stephanie Solien, a member of the Leadership Council, said
speaking up for orcas in the fashion proposed is not something the
council has done before, but “we do have a responsibility to these
amazing animals and to the chinook and to the tribes.”
The council should work out a strategy of action before moving
forward, she added, but “we better get to moving on it.”
Puget Sound Partnership may take a stand on whether fish farms
should be allowed to remain in Puget Sound waters.
The partnership is charged by the Legislature to oversee the
restoration of the Puget Sound ecosystem. On Wednesday, the
partnership’s governing body, the Puget Sound Leadership Council,
received an update on last month’s collapse of a net pen containing
305,000 Atlantic salmon near Cypress Island in northern Puget
Sound.
About two-thirds of the escaped fish have been accounted for so
far, with about 146,000 found dead or alive in the damaged net pen
and about 55,000 caught by fishermen. (All but about 5,000 of those
were caught by tribal fishers in Puget Sound.)
This video, taken by a private
party and released by state agencies, shows the collapse of the
Cypress Island net pens on Aug. 19
About 100,000 Atlantic salmon apparently escaped and have not
been caught by people, although most of those probably were eaten
by predators, experts say. Officials continue their efforts to
figure out where any remaining fish have gone, specifically any
that swam up into the streams, according to Amy Windrope of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Atlantic salmon, an exotic species in Puget Sound, don’t
appear to be eating anything, let alone young native salmon,
Windrope said, and there is not much concern that they will breed
with native fish. The greatest concern is that they might somehow
disrupt the spawning behavior of native salmon, whose populations
are already stressed by adverse conditions in both marine and fresh
water.
The Atlantic salmon appeared to be healthy and free of parasites
at the time of the release, she said, but they became less and less
healthy as starvation set in.
In addition to Windrope, the presentation to the Leadership
Council included reports from representatives of the state
Department of Natural Resources, which leases the seabed where the
pens are located, and the Department of Ecology, which issues
permits under water-quality laws.
Puget Sound tribes are about to release a position statement
opposing salmon farms in Puget Sound, said Russell Hepfer, a member
of the Leadership Council and vice chairman of the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribal Council. He did not elaborate, except to say that
the non-native fish don’t belong here.
According to Windrope, the tribes see Atlantic salmon as weeds
in the garden of Puget Sound. Such cultural viewpoints should be
taken into account in the overall discussion, she added.
Soon after the Cypress Island net pen collapse, Washington Gov.
Jay Inslee and Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz issued a
moratorium blocking further net pen approvals until an
investigation is complete.
Maradel Gale, a resident of Bainbridge Island, addressed the
Leadership Council at Wednesday’s meeting near Port Gamble, saying
the Bainbridge Island City Council has effectively limited the
expansion of net pens at the south end of the island and would like
to get rid of net pens altogether.
She said Cooke Aquaculture, which owns all the net pens at four
locations in Puget Sound, receives the benefits of using the public
waterways and placing the ecosystem in peril while taking very
little risk upon itself.
Dennis McLerran, a member of the Leadership Council who has
worked for various environmental agencies, said Washington state
law has long provided a preference for aquaculture over many other
shoreline uses. Like it or not, he said, those preference are
“baked into state policies” that direct state agencies to support
aquaculture, including salmon farms.
“That is where the Leadership Council should have some
discussion,” McLerran said. “Are those preferences in state law
appropriate?”
The state of Alaska prohibits salmon farms, while California’s
complex regulations allow them only under specific conditions
related to water supplies, said Kessina Lee of Ecology.
Jay Manning, chairman of the Leadership Council and former
director of the Washington Department of Ecology, said the
Legislature will no doubt want to hear a complete report on the
Cypress Island net-pen collapse, and he urged the agency officials
to be fully prepared to answer questions from lawmakers.
“You will be asked, when the Legislature comes back, ‘How big a
deal is this?’” Manning said, noting that he has heard from some
people that it is a very big deal, while others say it is nothing
at all.
Windrope noted that native salmon populations are already
struggling, “and this is one more injury to the salmon.” But since
the escaped Atlantic salmon don’t appear to be competing for food,
the question comes down to whether they are affecting native fish
in other ways. That question is not fully answered, she said.
“For DNR, this is a very big concern,” said Dennis Clark, who
helps manage aquatic leases for the agency. “We have a contract
with a multinational company, and they failed to adhere to it.”
DNR serves as the landlord for the Puget Sound net pen
operations, he said. The aquatic leases run out at various times,
from 2022 to 2025, and the agency is taking a closer look at the
net pen structures to see what should be done from both a
scientific and landlord perspective. Commissioner Franz is taking a
special interest, he added.
“We are trying very hard to learn from this (incident),” Clark
said, “and we understand that we may need to devote more
resources.”
Rich Doenges of Ecology said the Atlantic salmon that got away
are considered a “pollutant” under Washington state law. While no
long-term effects have been seen following previous escapes of
Atlantic salmon, there is some risk to native salmon. The key is to
quantify that risk and determine if it is low enough to make the
operations worthwhile. If necessary, he said, compliance orders can
be issued and state water-quality permits can be amended to require
additional safety measures.
Seattle attorney Doug Steding, representing Cooke Aquaculture,
said he wanted to convey “sorrow and regret” from the company over
the potential impacts of the escape.
“We want to make right with respect to this terrible accident,”
he said, adding that the company is committed to working with
investigators into the cause of the escape and finding ways to make
sure that it never happens again.
Steding noted that Cooke recently acquired the Puget Sound
facilities and did not own the Cypress Island net pens when the
fish were placed in them. The company should have shared more
information with the public about plans to upgrade the facilities,
he said.
“You have an important task sorting through the difficult
science and integrating with the values of the people of
Washington,” Steding told the Leadership Council, adding that Cooke
hopes to remain a part of the discussion.
Martha Kongsgaard, chairwoman of the Puget Sound Leadership
Council, has always spoken with a voice of both reason and passion
while guiding the Puget Sound Partnership in its efforts to restore
Puget Sound to health.
Martha Kongsgaard
Yesterday and today, Martha attended her final meeting as a
member of the Leadership Council, the governing body of the
Partnership charged with coordinating Puget Sound ecosystem
recovery.
While listening to presentations on technical and financial
issues, Martha always seems to quickly focus discussions on the key
issues of recovery while asking how to help average people
understand the complex problems.
As a reporter, I’ve enjoyed speaking with Martha, who not only
answers my questions in a direct and revealing way but also
indulges my curiosity. Our discussions often take tangents onto
other interesting subjects, sometimes leading to new stories or old
stories told in a new way.
Nobody doubts Martha’s love of Puget Sound, expressed by her
willingness to spend countless unpaid hours working for a better
future.
Puget Sound Partnership continues to struggle in its efforts to
pull everyone together in a unified cause of protecting and
restoring Puget Sound.
This week, the Puget Sound Leadership Council, which oversees
the partnership, adopted the latest Puget Sound Action
Agenda, which spells out the overall strategies as well as the
specific research, education and restoration projects to save Puget
Sound.
Some 363 projects, known as
near-term actions, are included in the latest Puget Sound Action
Agenda. They line up with three strategic priorities. // PSP
graphic
The goal of restoring Puget Sound to health by 2020 — a date
established by former Gov. Chris Gregoire — was never actually
realistic, but nobody has ever wanted to change the date. The
result has been an acknowledgement that restoration work will go on
long after 2020, even though restoration targets remain in place
for that date just four years away.
A letter to be signed by all members of the Leadership Council
begins to acknowledge the need for a new date.
“As the scope and depth of our undertaking expands along with
our understanding, federal and state funding is on the decline,”
the letter states. “We’re increasingly forced into a position where
we’re not only competing amongst ourselves for a pool of funding
wholly insufficient to accomplish what needs doing, but we are also
feeling the impacts of cuts to programs supporting other societal
priorities as well. If we continue at our historic pace of
recovery, which is significantly underfunded, we cannot expect to
achieve our 2020 recovery targets.”
The cost for the near-term
actions in the Action Agenda total nearly $250 million, with most
going for habitat restoration.
PSP graphic
This is not necessarily an appeal for money to support the Puget
Sound Partnership, although funds for the program have been
slipping. But the partnership has always been a coordinator of
projects by local, state and federal agencies, nonprofit groups and
research institutions — where the on-the-ground work is done. That
much larger pot of money for Puget Sound efforts also is
declining.
“These are threats that compel us to action, fueled by our
devotion to place,” the letter continues. “We at the Puget Sound
Partnership, along with our local, tribal and regional partners,
have a vision of a resilient estuary that can help moderate the
increasing pressures of a changing world.
“How we aim to accomplish our vision is found in this updated
Action Agenda. For the next two years, this is the focused,
measurable and scientifically grounded roadmap forming the core of
the region’s work between now and 2020 and beyond.”
The newly approved Action Agenda is the outcome of a greater
effort to reach out to local governments and organizations involved
in the restoration of Puget Sound. Priorities for restoration
projects were developed at the local level with an emphasis on
meeting the priorities and strategies developed in previous Action
Agendas.
Who will do the projects? Most
are proposed by *local groups, including cities, counties, special
purpose districts, local integrating organizations and lead
entities. // PSP graphic
The latest document is divided into two sections to separate
overall planning from the work involved parties would like to
accomplish over the next two years. The two parts are called the
“Comprehensive Plan” and the “Implementation Plan.”
As determined several years ago, upcoming efforts known as
“near-term actions” are focused on three strategic initiatives:
Stormwater: Prevent pollution from urban
stormwater runoff, which causes serious problems for marine life
and humans.
Habitat: Protect and restore habitat needed
for species to survive and thrive.
Shellfish: Protect and recover shellfish beds,
including areas harvested by commercial growers and recreational
users.
Actions are focused on 29 specific strategies and 109
substrategies that support these ideas. Projects, which may be
viewed in a list at the front of the “Implementation Plan,” are
aligned with the substrategies.
“This leaner, scientifically grounded strategic recovery plan is
a call to action,” the letter from the Leadership Council states.
“We know that our restoration efforts are failing to compensate for
the thousands of cuts we continue to inflict on the landscape as
our population grows and habitat gives way to more humans.
“We know that salmon, steelhead and orcas — the magnificent
beings that in many ways define this corner of the world — are
struggling to persist as we alter the land and waters to which
they’re adapted,” the letter concludes. “And we know that warming
temperatures and acidifying seawater are moving us toward a future
that we don’t fully understand and are not entirely prepared for.
Hard decisions are ahead, and we’re past the point where additional
delay is acceptable.”
When it comes to restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem, human
beings really do matter — in some ways that are obvious and in some
ways that are fairly subtle.
The Puget Sound Leadership Council, which oversees the
restoration of Puget Sound, acknowledged this fact yesterday when
adopting a new set of ecosystem indicators to measure how Puget
Sound influences the health and well-being of humans.
It’s often said that people have damaged the Puget Sound
ecosystem through years of abuse. They say it will take years of
restoration — by people — to return things to a healthy condition.
But why do we care? Are we spending millions of dollars on
restoration just to benefit fish and wildlife, or are we doing it
for ourselves?
The answer, which comes from studies of economics and human
behavior, appears to be that helping fish and wildlife — by putting
the ecosystem back together — also benefits humans in a variety of
ways.
When the Washington Legislature told the Puget Sound Partnership
to go forth and lead the way toward restoring Puget Sound to
health, our lawmakers understood that people would be the primary
beneficiaries. The first two goals assigned to the partnership, as
articulated by RCW
90.71.300:
A healthy human population supported by a healthy Puget Sound
that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem;
A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning
Puget Sound ecosystem;
The other three goals are related to native species, habitats
and water supplies.
Sometimes goals related to human values conflict with goals to
restore ecological functions. For example, one cannot build a house
on undeveloped land without altering the ecosystem in some negative
ways. Sometimes human values are aligned with ecological values,
such when we reduce pollution to clean up streams and drinking
water. In any case, these new ecosystem indicators will help people
understand the tradeoffs and opportunities of various actions.
As I pointed out last month in
Water Ways, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council has completed a
plan and associated website
that highlights connections between human well-being and natural
resources in the Hood Canal region. Hood Canal became a pilot
project for the indicators approved yesterday for all of Puget
Sound. Some of the same folks — including social scientist Kelly
Biedenweg of the Puget Sound Institute — were involved in creating
nine new “vital signs” with indicators to track human-related
changes in the Puget Sound ecosystem.
Unlike the original human health and human well-being indicators
adopted in 2010, these new indicators have undergone an extensive
review by scientists and other experts to ensure their validity and
reliability. That is, these new indicators have real meaning in
connecting human beings to the ecological functions of Puget
Sound.
In yesterday’s meeting, Martha Kongsgaard, chairwoman of the
Leadership Council, said the human dimension is often ignored in
favor of empirical science.
“This is a hard thing to do,” she said about developing the new
indicators. “This is sort of a brave new world, and I think it is
true that we live in this world whether we call it out like this or
not.”
Council member Stephanie Solien said she would like to see more
discussions about human health and well-being issues — not because
they are more important than species and habitats, but because they
make connections to average people.
“People are self-interested,” she said. “They care about their
health, their family’s health, the health of their communities. The
more we can draw those connections to Puget Sound and healthy
watersheds, I think we will be more successful in our work around
ecosystems and saving species.”
Here are the four new vital signs and associated indicators
related to human health:
1. OUTDOOR ACTIVITY: Measured by 1) Percent of
swimming beaches meeting bacterial standards (one of the existing
indicators), 2) Average hours people spend having fun outdoors, 3)
Average hours people spend working outdoors.
2. AIR QUALITY: Indicators to be determined
from existing data.
3. LOCAL FOODS: Availability of wild foods,
such the ability to catch fish, collect shellfish, harvest plants
and hunt for game.
4. DRINKING WATER: Indicators to be determined
from information about water systems.
Here are the five new vital signs and associated indicators
related to human well-being:
5. ECONOMIC VITALITY: Measured by 1) Value of
natural resources produced by industry, including commercial
fishing, shellfish harvesting, timber production, agriculture,
mining and tourism; 2) Value produced by natural-resource
industries compared to gross domestic product of all other
industries in the region; 3) Number of jobs in natural-resource
industries.
6. CULTURAL WELL-BEING: Percent of residents
who feel they are able to maintain traditions associated with the
natural environment.
7. GOOD GOVERNANCE: Percentage of people who
feel they have 1) the opportunity to influence decisions about
Puget Sound, 2) the rights and freedom to make decisions about
managing natural resources, 3) trust in local and regional
governments to make the right decisions about Puget Sound, 4) been
well represented by government leaders, 5) access to information
about natural-resource issues.
8. SENSE OF PLACE: Percentage of people who
feel: 1) a positive connection to the region, 2) a sense of
stewardship for the watershed, 3) a sense of pride about being from
Puget Sound.
9. PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING INDEX: Percentage
of people who experience: 1) inspiration from being in nature, 2)
reduced stress, calm or relaxation from being in nature, 3) Overall
life satisfaction based on criteria in national studies.
A new vital sign wheel will add
nine indicators for human health and well-being. Two indicators
were moved to another area.
Graphic: Puget Sound Partnership
Leadership Council member Jay Manning, former director of the
Washington Department of Ecology, said he supports the indicators.
His only concern is that some are beyond the control of the Puget
Sound Partnership, and some may have nothing to do with people’s
connection to Puget Sound.
Jay makes a good point, but the social scientists who developed
the indicators stressed that there will be no targets or goals
associated with human values. What will be interesting to watch is
whether people feel better or worse about the restoration effort as
time goes on, and how the leaders choose to respond to any changes
in public opinion.
Much of the information that will fit into the new indicators
will be the result of phone surveys yet to be conducted. Other
information will be teased out of ongoing research studies. The
partnership has received funding from the Environmental Protection
Agency to hire a consultant to continue work on the human-related
indicators until the numbers are finalized.
None of the new information about human health and well-being
will be included in the State of Puget Sound report to be issued
later this year, according to Kari Stiles, staff scientist for the
partnership. But some information could go into the Vital Signs wheel within
the next year.
It began, “Gov. Chris Gregoire today appointed retired Army
Corps of Engineers Col. Anthony Wright to lead the Puget Sound
Partnership.”
That’s strange, I thought. What happened to Gerry O’Keefe, who
had served in the ranks of the partnership before being named
interim director and then permanent director just 16 months
ago.
What could O’Keefe have done to get fired so suddenly? There was
no mention of O’Keefe until the last paragraph of the press
release, where the governor stated:
“I thank Gerry O’Keefe for his work over the past year to lead
this agency. He has thrown his heart and soul into the work of the
partnership, and I wish him well.”
Before I wrote my story, I interviewed numerous people. As far
as I could tell, O’Keefe’s departure came as a complete surprise to
nearly all the staff at the partnership, to members of the
Ecosystem Coordination Board and to others close to the agency.
The press release still leaves me wondering a bit, but I can
thank Martha Kongsgaard, chairwoman of the Puget Sound Leadership
Council, for speaking candidly to me about what happened. To
summarize, Martha said the governor wanted a higher profile person
in the post, someone who could have an impact with the Legislature;
converse with federal, state and local entities; and connect with
the public. Clearly, the governor would like the Puget Sound
Partnership (“her baby,” Martha said) to survive and hopefully to
thrive as a new governor comes on next year.
You can read Martha’s comments to me in the story I wrote for
yesterday’s Kitsap Sun. Martha also prepared a written
message for the Puget Sound Partnership’s website, recognizing
O’Keefe’s contributions in more detail than the governor.
I could not reach O’Keefe Friday, so I can’t report how he’s
taking the news, but Martha and others have told me that he is
likely to take a job with the Washington Department of Ecology. No
doubt the position will be less stressful.
As for Wright, everyone I have interviewed is impressed with his
success as district engineer and commander for the Seattle District
of the Army Corps of Engineers. “I like him,” is a direct quote
from several people.
I have never been formally introduced to Col. Wright, but I do
recall his testimony before the Puget Sound Leadership Council
about a year ago, when he told council members they need to get
some “courage” in dealing with land-use issues, such as development
along the shoreline. Of course, he realized that much shoreline
development falls under the purview of cities and counties, but it
is the job of the Puget Sound Partnership to push local governments
to do the right thing for Puget Sound.
When I reached Tony Friday, he began with a few straight-laced
comments, such as, “I am glad to join the team” and “Puget Sound
has lots of big challenges.”
But when I reminded him of some of his more outspoken comments,
he became a quotable figure, perhaps foreshadowing how he will
communicate about Puget Sound — something many people agree needs
to be brought to a new level. From my story:
“I’ve been told that I’m outspoken. It is time for some plain
talk, because the sound has serious problems. Some people don’t
think it does. Some people want to rearrange the deck chairs.
That’s not my style…
“Some things are really challenging. Sometimes you have to
embrace the porcupine.”
He also told me that, as an Army officer, he has tried to be
apolitical, which could help him work across party lines on
restoring Puget Sound and managing the partnership.
“I think the organization is important and has a really key
role…,” he told me. “It will be a lot of fun.”
I’m glad he is bringing that kind of attitude to the Puget Sound
Partnership. I’m looking forward to reporting on how Col. Anthony
Wright leads the way.
Puget Sound Partnership has completed 19 ecosystem “targets”
that will serve as mileposts on the road to restoring Puget Sound
to a healthy condition.
Ecosystem indicators and
targets, along with other information, can be accessed from this
"Vital Signs" wheel.
Click on image to link to the PSP
website.
The final three goals, all dealing with land-use issues, were
approved Thursday by the Puget Sound Leadership Council, as I
described in a story published in
today’s Kitsap Sun. This a major milestone for the
partnership.
The last three targets are mentioned in my story, and you can
download the complete resolutions here:
The website also includes information about ecosystem indicators
and targets, along with other information, on a “Vital Signs”
wheel. Click on the image above to use the new tool.
One concern, as I’ve said before, is that too much focus may
shift to these targets to the exclusion of other potential
problems. The partnership’s Science Panel and Ecosystem
Coordination Board must keep their eyes on the entire Puget Sound
ecosystem. They must make sure the approved indicators and targets
advance recovery and protection efforts everywhere in Puget
Sound.
Monitoring will be needed to measure advancement toward the
approved targets, of course. We also need monitoring to measure the
success of recovery projects and their effects on smaller
ecosystems, particularly estuaries.
Although it requires long-term stable funding to achieve,
without monitoring, there can be no performance accountability, and
the opportunities to make improvements in ecosystem recovery are
constrained. Because of its critical importance, the Partnership
will develop and implement a coordinated regional monitoring
program to inform the adaptive management process and support
decisions about future ecosystem recovery and information
needs.
Support from diverse interests depends on the partnership
staying on a path defined by science, as I discovered in my
interviews earlier this year assessing the Puget Sound Partnership.
See
Kitsap Sun, Feb. 5, 2011.
With targets now in place, I hope the partnership will be
fearless in its assessment of success. Some failures are inherent
in this system. While the partnership has struggled with
administrative processs during these early years, there’s too much
at s take for less than a clear-eyed vision of what needs to be
done.
Last week, the Puget Sound Partnership completed work on its
ecosystem targets, the first time in history that goals have been
established for the restoration of Puget Sound. See the story I
wrote for
Saturday’s Kitsap Sun.
Early in her first term, Gov. Chris Gregoire established a goal
of restoring Puget Sound to health by the year 2020. What we have
learned since then is that nobody can define precisely what that
means. There is no battery of tests to be given to the waterway
that would allow a team of doctors to declare their patient in fine
condition.
In human terms, one can say a healthy person is one free of
serious disease. But for some people that is not enough. Some are
satisfied with nothing less than top athletic form. It’s even more
complicated for Puget Sound, where some parts of the water body can
be pristine while others are in need of intensive care.
UPDATE: Nov. 19
Readers may be interested in this commentary
from Rep. Dave Upthegrove published Wednesday in the online
Seattle PI. Upthegrove, a Democrat from Des Moines, was one of the
principal authors of the legislation that created the Puget Sound
Partnership.
In his statement, Upthegrove was complimentary of David
Dicks:
During Dicks’ tenure at the helm of this new agency, he
distinguished himself as a strong leader who was able to corral
diverse interests to unite for a common goal: a healthy Puget Sound
by 2020.
—–
David Dicks will leave his post as executive director for the
Puget Sound Partnership at the beginning of December to take a new
position at the University of Washington’s College of
the Environment. Check out my story in
today’s Kitsap Sun.
To maintain David’s expertise on the partnership, Gov. Chris
Gregoire has appointed him to the Puget Sound Leadership Council,
the governing body of the organization.
From my perspective, David Dicks has been great to work with the
past three years. Whenever I’ve had questions about something, he
has taken time to explain things at great length. And his staffers
were available at a moment’s notice. Even when the partnership ran
into financial-management troubles with the State Auditor’s Office,
David stepped up and explained how the problems occurred and what
had been done to correct them.
Were all the answers about the audit complete and satisfactory?
It’s hard to judge. But, as Sen. Phil Rockefeller told me
yesterday, “David went through some tough times, and I think he
emerged wiser and smarter. It’s a new day and a new ball game there
now.”
I’m not sure David realized in 2007 what pressures he would be
under when he took this high-profile job as the son of a U.S.
congressman. It has been impossible for anyone to disprove the
notion that he only got the job because he was Norm Dicks’ son.
His standing apart from his father was not helped by the fact
that Norm was bringing big dollars into the state for Puget Sound
restoration — even though Norm was doing that long before his son
came on board and would have done that in any case.
David Dicks became the target for those who dislike his father’s
politics as well as those who believe the Puget Sound Partnership
is a waste of time and money.
The question remains: Given these circumstances, was it ever a
good idea to appoint David Dicks to lead this new agency? Continue reading →
