The Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Indicators – Dashboard Development

1. The Puget Sound PartnershipEcosystem Indicators – Dashboard Development University of Washington June 2, 2010 Bethany Johnson Brian Payne

2. Recent History – State Protection of Puget Sound • 1985: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority • 1987: Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan • 1987: National Estuary Program created (CWA) • 1991: Puget Sound Management Plan approved • Federal Comprehensive Conservation & Mgt Plan (CCMP) • 1996: Puget Sound Water Quality Protection Act • Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team and Puget Sound Council assumed Authority’s responsibility • 2005: Governor task force (aka PSP) • 2007: RCW 90.71 amended to establish the PSP • 2008: Puget Sound Action Agenda • Federal Comprehensive Conservation & Mgt Plan (CCMP)

3. State agency created in 2007 to: • Define a 2020 Action Agenda • Identifies work needed to protect and restore PS • Based on science • Clear and measurable goals; • Determine accountability for achieving results • Performance • Effectiveness • Efficient use of money spent on Puget Sound • Promote public awareness and communication • To build support for a long-term strategy • Released Action Agenda in 2008 • Biannual State of Sound reports

4. PSP Action Agenda • Developed to guide efforts to achieve a healthy Puget Sound by 2020 • Ecosystem Recovery Goals • A healthy human population • Human well-being • Healthy and sustaining species and food webs • Protected, restored, and sustainable habitats • Water for people, fish, and wildlife • Water quality

5. PSP Structure • Leadership Council • 7 Members appointed by the Governor • Sets policy and strategic direction • Serves as regional salmon recovery organization for PS salmon species • Ecosystem Coordination Board • 27 Members • 1 representative from each of the seven geographic action areas • 2 business representatives • 2 environmental representatives • 3 representatives of tribal governments in Puget Sound • 1 representative each for counties, cities, and port districts • 3 representatives of state agencies with environmental management responsibilities • 3 representatives of federal agencies with environmental responsibilities • 4 legislative liaisons • Advises and assists the Leadership Council • Focused on problem solving and the practical aspects of implementation • Science Panel • 9 Members • Provides independent, scientific advice to the Leadership Council • Responsibilities • Developing a regional monitoring program • Developing a list of critical research needs • Preparing a Strategic Science Plan, Biennial Science Work Plan, & PS Science Update

6. Action Areas • Hood Canal • Whidbey • South Puget Sound • San Juan / Whatcom • North Central Puget Sound • South Central Puget Sound • Strait of Juan de Fuca

7. Performance Measures • Mandate • Major component of legislation • One of five Action Agenda strategic priorities • Purpose • To track implementation of the Action Agenda • To communicate progress • Primary goal • To provide information to • Citizens • State representatives • On changes to PS ecosystem health from • Current policies • Investments of public resources

8. Previous Work Done by PSP on Performance Measurement • Technical Memos • Identification of Ecosystem Components and Their Indicators and Targets • Using Results Chains to Develop Objectives and Performance Measures for the 2008 Action Agenda • Identification, Definition and Rating of Threats to the Recovery of Puget Sound

9. Indicators Action Team • Membership • Department of Commerce • Department of Natural Resources • Puget Sound Partnership • Department of Ecology • US Environmental Protection Agency • Northwest Indian Fisheries • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Department of Fish and Wildlife • Northern Economics, Inc. • Long Live the Kings

10. Indicators Researched • Land Use – Development • Growth Management • Land Conservation • Working Lands • Land Use – Recreation • Beach Closures • Public Access • Additional Indicators • Residential Water Use • Transit Use • Onsite Septic Systems

11. Land Use – Development • Growth Management • Data Sources • University of Washington • Department of Ecology • Counties • Cities • Indicators • Shoreline armoring • Impervious surfaces • Developed land per time frame • Critical Ordinance compliance • Low Impact Development • Permits

12. Land Use – Development • Land Conservation • Data Sources • Tax Records • Non-profit Conservation Organizations • Federal and State Agencies • Counties and Cities • Indicators • Square miles conserved • Acres protected • Areas targeted for restoration

13. Land Use – Development • Working Lands • Data Sources • USFS • USDA • Washington Fish and Wildlife • Indicators • Acreage • Farms (active, fallow) • Working forests • Shellfish beds • Harvest • Pounds/Tons produced • Revenue generated

14. Additional Research • Transit Use • Data Sources • Puget Sound Regional Council • WSDOT • Counties • Indicators • Vehicle Miles Traveled • Public Transit Ridership • Commuting Time (travel time) • Number of transit options

15. Land Use – Recreation • Swimming Beaches • Data Sources • WA Department of Ecology • WA Department of Health • Counties Health Departments • Indicators • # days core beaches did not meet fecal bacteria water quality standards during swim season • # days core beaches were closed

16. Land Use – Recreation • Public Access • Data Sources: • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife • Washington State Department of Ecology • Counties and Cities • Indicators • Number of overall public access areas • Number of public access areas per capita • Number of public access points per shoreline mile

17. Additional Research • Water Use • Data Sources: • Water Supply Forum: 2009 Water Supply Outlook • DOH/ State Municipal Water Law Annual Reports • Individual Water Districts • Indicators • Per capita residential water use per year

18. Additional Research • Onsite Septic Systems • Data Sources • County Health Departments • DOE/ Puget Sound On-Site Septic System • Repair/Replacement Financial Assistance Program • Indicators • Total number of households with on-site systems • Total number of systems improved via financial assistance program

19. Indicators Proposed to Cross-Partnership Working Team (6/1/10)

20. Challenges • Number of organizations and stakeholders • Confusion on performance measures, threats, indicators • Indicators unclear tie to threats • Lack of clarity on priority actions • Politically sensitive indicators (land use) • Short term and long term balance

21. Recommendations – Prioritize, Clarify and Simplify • Stay true to the Action Agenda goals • Clarify linkage of dashboard • To Action Agenda strategic goals • To previous work done by the PSP • To identified and published threats • Keep it as simple as possible • Use indexes • Must make sense to the layman • Maintain necessary scientific rigor • Establish priority actions

22. Recommendations – Leverage the Unique Structure of the PSP • Build on the strengths of the various state agencies, and local governments • Utilize academic institutions research, data & programs • Trans-pollinate best practices across agencies • Drive efficiencies and collaboration when redundancies seen • Utilize the PSP structure • To strengthen, pilot and test indicators for relevance • To provide and inform indicator backup data • Recognize and Celebrate • Acknowledge and appreciate contributors to the PSP back to home organizations and associated leadership • Bring together the various agencies, governments, businesses, non-profit organizations and citizens that contributed

23. Recommendations – Provide an Annual Focus to Drive Action • High Leverage Public goals and programs • Restoration, Protection and LID • Impervious surfaces, protected areas, restoration projects and shoreline armoring • Leverage localized public involvement • Establish tangible goals that can be acted upon • Hypoxia or Dead Zones • Policy as a driver • Encourage, incentive or mandate • Protected areas • Environmentally progressive development behaviors • Building codes and permitting requirements • Restrict behaviors known to have adverse impacts • Provide education to permitees