Wow! “Clean Up Puget Sound— Now”

(PHOTO: Elaine Thompson/Associated Press)

Hadn’t heard that in a while so it got me excited last Friday when I saw the Seattle Times editorial headline, “Stop political inaction, clean up Puget Sound — now”. The problem, according to its editorial board, is — guess what? -- politics.

The solution, according to its editorial board, is — guess what? -- more politics. Specifically passing federal legislation elevating Puget Sound to the status of having “national significance,” which would “align federal efforts and coordinate a united recovery strategy with the state.” And presumably bring more federal dollars to Puget Sound protection and recovery.

Strange to put progress towards cleaning up Puget Sound in hoped-for action from a Congress more skilled in deadlock and now in majority-party disarray. Disheartening to have the loudest editorial voice in the Puget Sound region shift focus to the Never-Never Land of Congressional politics and away from scrutiny of the State’s own efforts— that of the Puget Sound Partnership— and progress towards making Puget Sound “swimmable, fishable and diggable.”

Getting results in governance doesn’t come from having good ideas. It comes from having people, lots of people, supporting an idea. That’s called a constituency, something that causes like gay marriage and legal marijuana and $15 minimum wage have. That’s the kind of constituency cleaning up Puget Sound needs.

In the not-so old days we used to ask, “Who speaks for Puget Sound and who holds accountable all those who are responsible for its protection and restoration?” Does Governor Inslee? Does the Puget Sound Partnership? Does the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance?

A lot of money and social capital has been spent by the state on defining what “swimmable, fishable and diggable” means.  So I’m sure someone can give a report on progress to that end that maybe folks will listen to.  But, as the editorial points out, folks don’t know Puget Sound is ill. And even if they did, how would it make a difference?

An environmental group board member once punctuated a discussion about the need to educate people about Puget Sound by saying, “Is that what you want? A bunch of educated people watching Puget Sound go down the toilet?”

No, what Puget Sound needs is an organized constituency that speaks for the Sound and holds accountable all those responsible for its protection and restoration. It is a constituency that demands action by saying, loudly and clearly, “Clean up Puget Sound— now!”

--Mike Sato

Whither Puget Sound Starts Here?

Governor Inslee proclaims the month of May as Puget Sound Starts Here month. The Puget Sound Partnership laments that, due to funding cuts, Puget Sound Starts Here needs to find another home. Do you care?

A reader last week pointed out that the Puget Sound Partnership home page announced coming changes in staffing and program focus as a result of earlier EPA funding decisions. (Hard to tell when this was “announced” by the Partnership since the home page entry isn’t dated, nor is there any news release associated with the “announcement.”)

Earlier in the year, the Partnership sent out a news release expressing its support of EPA’s “new framework for distributing federal funding directed toward Puget Sound recovery.”

According to the Partnership’s web page, upcoming changes include:

• Realignment of staffing: some positions will not be funded in the future and other positions will be added to meet new demands.

• Transition of programs funded by the expiring Stewardship Grant: the end of this grant requires the transition of many of these efforts to sources of support outside the organization.

• Enhanced board support: for the Leadership Council, Ecosystem Coordination Board, Science Panel, and Salmon Recovery Council to meet increased responsibilities under the new model.
  

At the end of last week, Skagit County’s EcoNet coordinator posted an email from Partnership executive director Sheida Sahandy. Sahandy said that the end of the Stewardship grant required finding other sponsor “homes” to take over stewardship programs like Puget Sound Starts Here, that the EcoNet program would be integrated into county Local Integrating Organizations, and that, for now, two positions in the Partnership’s Stewardship and Policy Integration section were eliminated.

According to Sahandy, there are many details to be worked out but, “Most of the operational changes will be in place by July 1.”

Do you care? Maybe the legislature in its special session budget deliberations has already taken care of Puget Sound stewardship funding. Maybe Microsoft and Amazon and Starbucks are ready to step up as new program “homes.”

“I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to be able to swim in Puget Sound, catch a salmon to roast over the campfire, and enjoy shellfish grown right here in Washington. I want them to inherit an economy that is thriving. When it comes to a sustainable environment or a sustainable economy, it’s not one or the other,” said Gov. Jay Inslee. “Join me in creating a Puget Sound legacy we can be proud of.” ( Governor Inslee proclaims May as Puget Sound Starts Here )

Puget Sound: swim-able, fish-able, dig-able. An educated and engaged constituency. Who cares?

--Mike Sato

May 2014: 4 Down, 8 To Go

Billy Frank, Jr. 1931-2014 (AP)

We’re now a third of the way through the year and I’m checking on some of the items I said I’d keep track of in 2014:

I’ll miss Bill Frank Jr.’s big hugs and big smiles and tough talk (Billy Frank Jr., Nisqually elder who fought for treaty rights, dies). Maybe it’s fitting that Billy leaves us on the 40th anniversary year of the Boldt decision. (The Boldt Decision turns 40) Thanks, Billy. We fight on.

A few bright spots about leadership: One is a hooray to Governor Jay for his executive order to limit carbon emissions (Inslee orders a move toward limits on carbon emissions). It will require legislative support and it’s good news that Democrat turncoat Rodney Tom will not be running for re-election (State Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom drops re-election bid) and that Bellingham attorney Seth Fleetwood will be challenging 42nd District GOP incumbent Doug Ericksen (Fleetwood plans to challenge Ericksen for state Senate), giving the Democrats a chance to take back the state senate. And, regarding local governance, it’s good to see strong leadership coming from Whatcom County Council chair Carl Weimer and the newly elected members of the county council (Progressive Whatcom council thaws relations with environmentalists).

Still no definitive word on what’s killing our sea stars (West Coast starfish being killed by pathogens, scientists suggest). Watch closely if the disease spreads north of Keystone on Whidbey Island and if the deaths ramp up as the water warms.

Did you know that May is Puget Sound Starts Here month? (It all adds up: How are you going to protect Puget Sound?) 10th Man! Go to the Seattle Mariner’s game on May 10 and cheer them both on.

--Mike Sato

Early April 2014: 3 Down, 9 To Go

(PHOTO: Scott Terrell/Skagit Valley Herald)

We’re a fourth of the way through the year and the short list of things I said I’d be looking for in 2014 has gotten shorter, while the verdict’s still out on a few:

I think it’s pretty clear that nobody rose to govern in the Legislature or in the Governor’s office this past session but maybe that’s the strategy of divided government: make sure nothing happens so you can say the fault is divided government then go raise money for another election— so we don’t have divided government. The best we can say about this legislative session is that nothing bad happened to the environment. We’ll still have to wait to see who will rise to govern next year.

It’s a shame the session wrapped up before the 25th memorial anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on March 24 and the Galveston oil spill coming at the same time. It may have prompted more serious consideration of the oil spill prevention measures and fees proposed. There’s always the opportunity to remember the BP Gulf disaster this month, saying so inspiring words around Earth Day and hope there is no major spill here.

Still haven’t heard whether anyone’s figured out what caused our starfish to die. Haven’t heard much about whether they’re still dying. Still worrisome.

As we wrote earlier, the Puget Sound Partnership’s new executive director is fully on board and the Leadership Council has the blood of new members. We may not know for awhile whether it’s a new game or game over but an early measure would whether the draft 2014 Action Agenda creates some excitement. I’ve been told discussions have been scheduled for April 8 in Edmonds and April 15 in Tacoma. As always, we stay tuned. [4/10 edit: The Partnership cancelled the 4/8 Edmonds meeting and announced in a 4/9 news release  the Edmonds meeting would be on 4/16. The 4/15 Tacoma date remains unchanged. Go here to read about the updates.


No Seahawks for a few more months but there’s Mariner baseball to strut and fret over. 10th Man, anyone?

--Mike Sato

Hey, Puget Sound! It’s A “New Path Forward!”

(MAP: EPA)

That’s what the Puget Sound Partnership says Governor Inslee has done by reconstituting the Partnership’s Leadership Council. And, having named a new executive director, Governor Jay has his new team now to make or break Puget Sound recovery on his watch.

“Gov. Inslee has appointed longtime environmental advocate Stephanie Solien and former Ecology director Jay Manning to the Leadership Council, the Puget Sound Partnership’s seven-member governing body. Diana Gale, a senior lecturer at the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Affairs, was reappointed to fill the remainder of David Dicks’ term [who had earlier resigned].”  Gov. Inslee builds new path forward with appointments to PSP's Leadership Counci

Partnership chair Martha Kongsgaard sounded positively ecstatic with the new appointments in her March 11 letter, characterizing executive director Sheida Sahandy as “whip smart, curious, articulate, wise, and arrives firmly acquainted with our mission.” Gracious as ever, the chair praises departing members David Dicks (who started as executive director), Steve Sakuma and Dan O’Neal and warmly welcomes environmental activist Stephanie Solien and former Ecology director Manning. The position vacated by Sakuma still needs to be appointed by the governor. Kongsgaard, former King County executive Ron Sims and Billy Frank, Jr. of Northwest Indian Fisheries are the other members of the Council, with Gale and Frank the only ones from the original board organized when the Partnership was launched.

Well, will this make any difference, this “new path forward”? It’s hard not to feel like the old path built thus far by the Partnership has been into a quagmire, a morass of bureaucracy and squandered moral capital, built by the best and the brightest.

Is Puget Sound recovering or not? Do we know or not?

Asked by reporter Bellamy Pailthorp, the Partnership’s Jeaneatte Dorner, its Director of Local Ecosystem and Salmon Recovery, said it is not possible to give recovery a grade because the grading system isn’t in place:

“And until we actually have that system in place, it’s sort of like we don’t have the test scores to actually give a grade,” she said.

Dorner added, it's more like the agency needs to discuss reasons why it deserves  a no-credit grade of incomplete. Because -- despite millions of dollars spent on restoring habitat --the Puget Sound Partnership doesn't fully understand or know how to measure its progress in protecting endangered fish.

“If you talk to folks and get expert opinion, I think most would say that we are not making the progress that we need to; there’s still more habitat that we’re losing than we are gaining from the restoration work that we’re doing,” she said.

One big problem, says Dorner, is that many philanthropists and environmental organizations or contractors enjoy seeing habitat restoration, so they donate to set aside specific areas. But terminology used in the patchwork of efforts is different, and can’t be easily entered into databases that would help clarify which kinds of conservation measures work best. State Of Our Salmon The Focus Of 2-Day Puget Sound Partnership Meeting

Candor like Dorner’s is refreshing but might lead one to ask what, since 2007 when the Partnership was created by the legislature, has it been doing such that, six years to its original 2020 goal of a Sound fishable, swimmable and diggable, “we are not making the progress that we need to; there’s still more habitat that we’re losing than we are gaining from the restoration work that we’re doing.”

A simple answer would be to suspend, stop, prohibit the loss of any more Puget Sound habitat so that restoration actions effect a net gain. To do that requires leadership, regulatory authority and political backbone. Not more agendas or studies or plans or systems and systems within systems within systems.

If this “new path forward” takes us to stopping the loss of Puget Sound habitat, I cheer Governor Jay and Martha K. If not, it’ll be more of the same so somebody can tell me when it’s ‘game over.’

Where do you think we’re going now?

--Mike Sato

February 2014: Two Down, 10 to Go

Dying starfish (Photo: Don Noveillo/USA Today) 

February was a short month and I'm still waiting to see which of our elected officials in Olympia will choose to govern in the remaining weeks of the legislative session:  [“What I'm Looking For In 2014”]

At least we might have a tax put on those bringing crude oil by rail into the state, given that GOP energy and environment committee chair Senator Doug Ericksen (42-Ferndale) thinks that's a good idea. “Every tanker coming into our refinery today pays a 5-cents-per-barrel tax that goes into oil spill prevention and response,” Ericksen says. “We believe we should apply that to rail cars coming in and we have a bi partisan bill that would apply the barrel tax to the rail cars also.” [“Washington State Senators Propose Tax On Oil Train Shipments”]  On the other hand, will a bill improving safety for all oil transport in Washington state (HB 2347)  which passed out the House and moved to the Senate see the light of day out of Ericksen’s committee? Probably not.

Is somebody going to solve the mystery of our West Coast starfish deaths? We’re still waiting, worried. Who needs more to worry about? Try scallops dying because of ocean acidification in Qualicum Bay north of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. [“Ocean acidity wipes out 10 million scallops near Qualicum Beach”]

Meanwhile, next week will be a month since Sheida Sahandy took over as the Puget Sound Partnership’s executive director. Clock’s running; what’s Sheida got to say about a fishable, diggable, swimmable Puget Sound?

And we’re hearted that there were fine words said at the Squaxin Tribe Center ceremony recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Boldt decision— and heartened that the news media could tear themselves away from the Seahawks victory parade long enough to report on the anniversary. [“The Boldt Decision turns 40”]

Now, anybody still excited about the Seahawks? Reading Beth Hackett’s blog [“Seahawks: What bandwagon fans like me helped bring to Seattle”]  brings to mind the movie “State and Main” with a Northwest version of fist bumps, chest bumps and shout outs of “Go, ‘Hawks.”

Hackett writes: “The Seahawks’  Super Bowl season brought people together.... I found people being kinder to one another because we had something in common. There was a little less distance between us. The football season created COMMUNITY and we all had a common goal, a common GOOD.  Something in common that we were working toward, together, without politics or all the other stuff that usually separates us, getting in the way.... We weren’t just rooting for the Seahawks. We were rooting for each other. And that should be celebrated and continued!”

Got community? You tell me. There are a few more months left in 2014. 

--Mike Sato

What I'm Looking For In 2014

Forget all the pundit wisdom as 2013 ends; the story continues and the end's not in sight so any conclusions others might wish to draw are, well, masterful or maybe not so masterful self gratification.

Since the story goes on, I'll be watching how Governor Jay Inslee figures out how to get something done with a GOP-led state Senate and whether there's any real political muscle in getting rid of turncoat Democrats like Rod Tom and Tim Sheldon.

Watch with me how much more of a threat is posed to Puget Sound and the Salish Sea as oil shipments by rail and pipeline ramp up, and vessel traffic numbers get tossed around for oil tankers and coal cargo ships.

I really don't know what's happening to the star fish and why they are wasting away along the West Coast and in the Salish Sea. Until the biologist figure out what's happening, it's hard to be sanguine about the health of our waters. I hope we figure out what's happening soon in 2014.

Next year is the 40th anniversary of the Boldt decision which recognized Washington treaty tribes as co-managers of fish harvest in their usual and accustomed tribal areas. I'll be watching for some fine words being written and spoken.

I'll also be watching and listening for some news from the Puget Sound Partnership and its Leadership Council on the real work that's being done and needs to be done to make Puget Sound fishable, swimmable and diggable. There's a lot of money being spent and, if making meaningful progress by 2020 is no longer a goal, then let's have a public discussion on what's the real timeline.

Looks like it'll be an interesting year. Stick around and see how the stories unfold. Thanks for reading.

--Mike Sato

Now, What About Puget Sound?

Vital signs status(2013 SOS, Page 70)

It’s pretty obvious that the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency charged with coordinating the recovery of Puget Sound, doesn’t want to be held accountable for what it’s supposed to be doing— namely, having a healthy Sound that’s fishable, swimmable and diggable by the year 2020.

The authors of the 2013 State of the Sound report issued last week wrote: “Puget Sound remains in crisis...It is increasingly likely that we will not reach our legislatively established targets by 2020.” (As reported in “New Report: Puget Sound Still In ‘Critical Condition’ But Don’t Unplug Life Support Yet”)

The 2013 report issued last week reads like the 2012 report: things got better in a few areas, things got worse or didn’t get better in other areas, and, due to a lack of data for some things, the Partnership couldn’t tell what’s going on for the better or the worse.

Maybe the best that can be said is that the goal of 2020 was unrealistic and that the things that are getting worse or not getting better (orca population, chinook salmon recovery, eelgrass beds, marine water quality, nearshore habitat) are too hard to do.

The Partnership’s Leadership Council chair Martha Kongsgaard chose to put it this way: “Indicators like acres of restored habitat and reopening shellfish beds respond more quickly to management strategies if they are given the proper resources. In contrast, herring or orca populations are examples of more complicated indicators for which meaningful improvements might not be seen for decades.” (Puget Sound Partnership E-Newsletter, November 5 )

I don’t think the health of the Sound has decades left. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t get any sense of urgency that the health of Puget Sound is a priority any more. If there is no deadline tied to a goal, what’s a goal worth, really?

I received a couple of comments when I posted the news story last week about this year’s State of the Sound report:

One reader wrote: “"Ecology has already issued regulations (NPDES) that will cause the remaining Puget Sound basin to be developed in (effectively) the same way that the first half was developed. PSP has acquiesced. No amount of protest by the 14 scientists or People for Puget Sound (now deceased) has been able to shift Ecology or PSP. I think that we have already unplugged life support."

Another reader made four points in response:

“One: The Puget Sound Partnership and its key, major members should stop doing so much “Good Tidings” publicity and be much more realistic in their bloviating.  What little “Public Relations” they use is way, way off the mark of what the situation is and what needs to happen.  They create no sense of urgency.

“Two:  Probably the 21 Targets are not quite the right way to measure the condition of Puget Sound.  I think the three strategic initiatives of Shellfish, Stormwater and Habitat might, instead, each have a couple of targets that are directly influenced by the various planned actions.  Then we could better assess the benefits of various actions – which we can’t do now.

“Three: The PUBLIC needs some simple, consistent, factual, realistic messages about conditions, causes, and actions needed.  So far those that have been presented are honorable, Pollyanna spits in the proverbial bucket.  I suspect this will need to come from non-profits because the messages will mostly not be very politically palatable.

“Four:  The esteemed, nice, credible, caring Leaders should LEAD.  Pretty much all they do is sit in meetings and mainly nod with the presentations and now and then suggest a change/ask a question.  But they set no goals, they don’t demand changes, they are not out in front championing the effort, they don’t stand for hard things like “Quit approving building permits in flood-ways”, they don’t coach the team members and they are not responsible for anything remotely related to actually improving the Sound.  They just make sure documents get released according to schedule.”

There’s urgency in the campaign to save the Sound right before us— if we choose to see it. For example, the state Fish and Wildlife Department is revising the Hydraulic Code, the permit system that is meant to ensure that no in-water construction (like piers, bulkheads, discharge pipes, marinas, oil and coal and gravel terminals) results in net loss of critical nearshore habitats or destroys or disturbs spawning and rearing fish habitat. There’s urgency to fix the current administration of the permit system and to improve the rules to truly protect nearshore habitat in Puget Sound-- if we choose to see it.

But maybe specifically saving Puget Sound nearshore habitat is too hard politically when private interests are involved; maybe saving Puget Sound in general is too hard. The new urgency today is climate change and ocean acidification, but if you think saving Puget Sound is hard, think about meeting some meaningful targets under real deadlines to reverse climate change and ocean acidification.

How far do you want to take the medical metaphor in applying it to Puget Sound? When the patient is in “critical condition” and in “crisis,” you don’t prescribe vitamins and teach wellness exercises. You do all that’s necessary to maintain vital signs and stability; you triage. For the Sound, that means moratoriums on development, prohibitions to prevent more harm, harvest closures, creating protected areas and reserves-- politically unpalatable and unpopular stuff to gain time to bring the patient back into a state of balance.

You can change the metaphor but not the reality.

What do you think?

--Mike Sato

Revisiting “Extinction Is Not An Option”

Quinault fishing (Edward Curtis, 1913)

Remember Gary Locke? He gave a fine speech in 1998 as governor after our Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act. He talked about the challenge facing us in recovering the species. He ended with the dramatic, “We cannot fail. Extinction is not an option.”

I’d been thinking about then-Governor Locke’s dramatic oratory (it’s a good speech— you ought to read it) this week while scanning the news and lamenting the collapse of the Fraser River sockeye run, cheering the anticipated arrival of the Puget Sound humpy (pink salmon) run, and learning from Bill Sheets in The Herald that “Snohomish County waters still rich with salmon, trout.”

So, glass half empty or glass half full? On the road to recovery or on the road to extinction?

Of course, what Governor Locke was referring to was recovery of wild Puget Sound Chinook. And there’s been a lot of money, time and effort spent on restoration projects large and small. We’ve been guided by a Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon and, in Puget Sound, by an Action Agenda.

The Puget Sound Partnership’s Vital Signs Indicator for Wild Chinook Salmon reports that “Chinook salmon in the Sound now are about one-third as abundant as they were in 1908” and “For the 22 remaining populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon, one increased and one declined in abundance from 2006 to 2010... The total number of Chinook salmon has not increased, and most populations remain well short of their recovery goals.”

The best that can be said? “Nonetheless, the fact that we have any natural-origin Chinook left is testament to the success of our restoration and harvest reduction work so far.”

Do we know what we’re doing, what we’re supposed to be doing to recover our salmon? Maybe not.

This Wednesday there’s a ceremony at the Seattle Aquarium launching a Washington-British Columbia effort called The Salish Sea Marine Survival Project spearheaded by Long Live the Kings and the Pacific Salmon Foundation bringing together “US and Canadian federal, provincial, state, tribal and academic scientists and managers for an ambitious, precedent-setting new initiative to improve understanding of salmon and steelhead survival in the Salish Sea.”

Why? Because, as their media advisory says, “Something alarming is happening in the shared inland marine waters of the Salish Sea: salmon and steelhead are dying. What's the cause of this mortality? We don't know. The research hasn't been done. Without that knowledge, our substantial efforts to recover these populations and provide sustainable fishing may be for nothing.”

Honestly, I don’t know what I don’t know. What I do know is that Washington state propaganda about salmon recovery can be found in a very polished, 10-minute film, State of Salmon: Restoring a Washington Icon, produced for the state’s Recreation and Conservation Office.

I know there must be more to salmon recovery than what’s shown in the film, although there is some reference to “making the tough decisions every day,” whatever those decisions are supposed to be. The words “regulation” and “growth” and “pollution” are never mentioned.  Even Governor Locke and the state Joint Natural Resources Cabinet knew in 1999 that tough decisions would have to be made and carried out regarding hydroelectric dams, fish hatcheries, reduced harvest, and protection and restoration of critical spawning and rearing habitats. And the real big ticket item would be reducing the flow of toxic chemicals from our homes and businesses into the estuaries of the Sound.
Regarding salmon recovery, your lifestyle most likely isn’t much different than it was in 1999  when extinction was not an option. Maybe we’re living like how we lived in the madness of an Iraq War that never touched our daily lives unless our family was serving our country there. What was the point of that awful war anyway, what was accomplished for the good? When it’s business as usual while we go about saving our iconic wild Pacific salmon, when there’s no sacrifice required, what can you expect to be really accomplished? That salmon populations may not get better but hopefully they won’t get any worse?

C’mon, we can do better than that.

--Mike Sato

Tell Me A Story... About Puget Sound

Last week the subject of telling a story came up at the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council meeting. “We need to tell our story,” Councilmember Diana Gale said. Even people on the “inside,” our friends, don’t know what we’re doing and what’s being accomplished. Others on the Council agreed that better stories, not only about the bad things happening to the Sound but also about the good things being done, need to be told.

There are stories being told in words, photos and videos about Puget Sound and there will be more, according to Partnership staff member Dave Ward, who presented what’s called “Phase 2” of the Puget Sound Starts Here campaign.

We’re no longer having personal best practices at the forefront of the web campaign, explained Ward, who showed the Council the new web format now optimized for handheld devices as well. Best practices are still a part of the campaign but the focus is now not so much about how we are connect to the Sound as showing how we are connected by the Sound. In other words, the Partnership campaign has taken a major philosophical shift from telling people what needs to be done to telling stories about what life on Puget Sound is like, what it means to live here, why life in Puget Sound is so special.

The campaign will have monthly “themes” much like a magazine to attract viewers to return to the site each month: this month, “Journeys,” to be followed by “Farming the Sound,” “Craft Food and Beverages,” and “Sounds of the Sound.” According to Ward,  ten percent of the new web campaign’s content will be devoted to personal best practice “should dos” and calendar listings for local events; the rest of the content is unique “lifestyle storytelling.”

Ward said that public attitude polls show that Puget Sound Starts Here has gained a brand awareness among 26 percent of Puget Sound residents and the campaign, thus far having spent over $1.5 million, has a goal of increasing that awareness to 50 percent by 2015. Since brand awareness itself doesn’t mean behavior change, the web site itself is a conduit leading people to local events where they will learn personal best practices. The effectiveness of how much behavior is changed for the better will be tracked through county-by-county surveys in 2015.

The new “lifestyle stories” may not be quite the kinds of stories the Leadership Council members had in mind when they talked about telling stories. On the other hand, the Partnership doesn’t seem to be burdened amy more by the old polling albatross of only a fourth of the region’s population thinking the Sound is in bad shape. According to Dave Ward, people may not have much knowledge about the Sound but about two-thirds think it’s extremely urgent to protect the Sound. The Partnership now categorizes the Sound's population as 50 percent made up of supportive “Sound Protectors,” 39 percent “Fence sitters” and the remainder unreachable “Sound Skeptics.” With public attitudes like those, showing progress towards a “fishable, swimmable and diggable” Puget Sound by 2020 shouldn’t be that hard.

But it is difficult to move folks from awareness to action. Over the last 25 years, discussion about “what works” in Puget Sound communications has revolved around whether one sold death or sold life-- whether one emphasized what was bad with the Sound or emphasized what was good with the Sound-- to gain the public’s attention and move the public to action. Obviously the Puget Sound Starts Here Phase 2 campaign is selling life, telling the story of our Puget Sound lifestyle.

What’s missing in Puget Sound Start Here, Phase 1 and Phase 2 — and in the entire Partnership endeavor thus far— is the sense of urgency. There's urgency whether you're selling death or life.  If someone is aware that the Sound is going down the toilet, then it’s urgent that the person be engaged in ways to reverse that. If someone thinks the Sound is still in good shape, then it’s urgent that the person be engaged in ways to keep it good. You can sell death or you can sell life— and people can respond to either-- but it’s the urgency to take action that matters most.

The Big Lie in the depletion of our environmental capital is that we can live our lives as business as usual and that we have all the time in the world. What’s your story about Puget Sound?

--Mike Sato

Shhh...Puget Sound Partnership's Leadership At Work

PHOTO: Darren Stone (Times-Colonist)

The bad joke used to be that the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority had no authority, the Puget Sound Action Team didn’t take much action, and the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council.. well, you can finish the bad joke.

The Leadership Council meets in Skagit County this coming Wednesday and Thursday at the Padilla Bay Reserve. Its staff (still under interim director Mark Daily— nobody seems to want the job since Tony Wright resigned in January) will report on how well Puget Sound recovery is meeting goals in the critical areas of eelgrass, nearshore and shoreline habitat.  They’ll also discuss fish consumption science and monitoring, a legislative agenda for the 2014 session, and what’s next for the Puget Sound Starts Here campaign.

Are we recovering the health of Puget Sound? Like most of you, these days I only know what I read or hear or see in the media and saving Puget Sound has become one of the better kept secrets eclipsed by climate change, ocean acidification and coal export. I admit to having a bias towards communications, primarily because I take government transparency and public participation seriously. If one of the big problems with Puget Sound recovery is that ordinary folks don’t know what’s at risk and are not participating in its recovery, then keeping Puget Sound’s health a secret is taking us nowhere fast.

In the last few months, there have been ample opportunities for the Partnership and its leadership to say something about our Sound’s health. With two deaths in our resident orca L-pod, we are now down to where we were 10 years ago with a low of 82 Southern Resident killer whales.  The state’s inability to come up with fish consumption standards continues to allow toxic pollutants to be discharged into the Sound  and puts residents at risk from eating fish.  Research showing a decrease in the number of creatures living in the sediment of the central Puget Sound was called a “wake up call” then it seemed everyone went back to sleep.

Are the issues complicated? Sure they are but they require a public discussion sparked by more than picking up dog poop and washing one’s car on the lawn. Can the issues be understood by voters? They had better be— otherwise kiss the recovery of the Sound goodbye.

Governor Gary Locke’s pronouncement about saving our salmon-- that “extinction is not an option”-- only ended up being hollow as we waited and waited for actions to protect critical habitats and reduce and eliminated toxic pollution. It will be a shame if Governor Chris Gregoire’s pronouncement that, by 2020, the Sound will be “fishable, swimmable, diggable” became a toothless tiger because no leader would say clearly and loudly what needed to be done and who needed to do it— and hold them accountable for getting it done.

Partnership, Leadership Council, Governor Inslee— your play.

--Mike Sato

Puget Sound Starts Here Launches New Campaign

The Puget Sound Partnership has done social research into how the 4.5 million of us think and feel about Puget Sound and is launching a new Puget Sound Starts Here campaign this month.

Take a look at the campaign website.

In an email to ECO Network members, the Partnership wrote: ‘On May 6, the Puget Sound Starts Here website, advertising and local materials will have a new look. Instead of a static website that tells people what to do, the new PSSH will feature a mosaic of ever-changing content (videos, infographics, photo essays, articles and more) that celebrate why life in Puget Sound is so special, and why we each have a role in caring for the Sound. Next Monday we will do a “soft launch” of the website with the May “Walking the Sound” creative materials. In addition, our online advertising campaign and regional public relations efforts will begin. For each, we will begin slowly and build momentum as new content is added to the site over the coming months.’

According to Dave Ward, the Partnership’s Regional Stewardship Program Manager, in an April 9 memo, the new campaign goals are to “rekindle an emotional connection between area residents and Puget Sound, increase PSSH brand awareness from 26% to 50%, position PSSH as a connector for residents to a healthy Puget Sound, and reinforce the ‘umbrella’ PSSH brand to unite regional and local efforts of partner organizations.”

Sounds exciting and something to look forward to in the months to come.

--Mike Sato

A Fresh Breeze From The Herald Wafts Over The Partnership

Check out the editorial voice Peter Jackson and his editorial writers at The Herald are establishing. Over the last three weeks, they've opined on coal exports, the San Juan Island National Monument, food fish safety and coal trains.

Earlier this month, the subject was saving Puget Sound and praise for Governor Jay Inslee's proposed natural resources budget.

Specific to Puget Sound, the editorialists wrote:

"Most of Inslee's recommendations dovetail with the priorities of the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency responsible for the Sound's recovery. The partnership has become a lean, efficient bird-dog of state funds, ensuring oversight and accountability. Coordinating and leveraging federal dollars also falls on the partnership, as well as developing indicators of a healthy Sound consistent with its 2020 restoration goals. The partnership no longer gets scapegoated as too top-heavy or PR oriented, with an evolving bipartisan consensus. The reason centers on tangible results such as restoring shellfish beds previously off-limits because of contamination."

The "lean, efficient bird-dog" description and no longer "top-heavy or PR oriented" description had me checking out the Partnership staff web site since I'd not heard much from or about the Partnership since its executive director Tony Wright resigned earlier this year. I couldn't tell how much leaner or efficient the Partnership had become by perusing its staff roster but I did learn that Marc Daily is now serving as Interim Director.

With all due respects to Marc Daily, having an interim director for an agency charged with saving Puget Sound unfortunately doesn't inspire much confidence in the state's pursuit of this important task.

Nevertheless, The Herald editorialists see a new day for the Partnership thanks to delivering "tangible results such as restoring shellfish beds" and to "developing indicators of a healthy Sound." That led me to check out how well the Partnership (and Puget Sound) is doing in meeting the 2020 benchmarks that measure how 'fishable, swimmable and diggable' our Sound is. 

The Partnership's colorful Vital Signs display shows a few tangible results-- but we're clearly running out of time as the Partnership moves closer to 2020. What's disturbing is how many of the indicators of Puget Sound recovery don't show progress and some don't have interim targets to measure progress.

Sadly, the Partnership has never told its story or the story of Puget Sound very well since its inception in 2007. Maybe better "PR" -- in place of or in addition to its campaign of picking up dog poop -- would have resulted in more Puget Sound residents seeing the waters of the Sound as at risk. In 2007 about three-fourths of people polled thought the health of Puget Sound to be good or excellent; five year later, the Partnership's polling found little change in that public perception. ( General Public Opinion Survey 2012 ) 

It's a good thing that The Herald newspaper still thinks the Partnership and the need to save Puget Sound are important enough to editorialize about.  The issue is too important to fade from public awareness. How about Puget Sound environmental groups and other major news media do their parts to watch dog the Partnership and put the "action" into its Action Agenda?

--Mike Sato

Whither Puget Sound Partnership, Whither Puget Sound?

Col. Tony Wright

Puget Sound Partnership Executive Director Tony Wright took the helm of the agency charged with restoring the Sound to health late last July and yesterday sent a letter to us announcing his return to the private sector.

Wright wrote: “With the new year and a new governor come other changes here at the Puget Sound Partnership. Last summer when I took a leave of absence from my company, Normandeau Associates, to lead the Partnership into a season of action, I made a commitment that I would return. That time is near....During my time here, I have pushed to reorganize the Partnership for action and implementation with the goal of tangible progress for Puget Sound recovery.”

Al Bergstein in his Olympic Peninsula Environmental News blog yesterday wrote: “This is quite shocking news. Mr. Wright only took the helm of the Partnership last summer, after the resignation of Gerry O”Keefe, who himself had not been in the ED role for very long. In meeting with members of the Marine Resource Committee members at their annual conference last winter, Mr. Wright was all a bundle of fire, an excellent motivational speaker. He left the distinct taste that this was a man who was going to get things done. About the only thing he appears to have done, is reorganized the Partnership."

Wright is a retired Army Corps of Engineers colonel who took the directorship with the understanding that he’d be at Partnership for the duration of Governor Christine Gregoire’s term in office. But he was a good, top-level choice to lead the often foundering agency.

“He has a reputation as a straight shooter who's not out to please everybody. Before he got this job, he told the Partnership it needed more courage if it wants to save Puget Sound. He says he's not afraid to ‘embrace the porcupine,’" reported KUOW’s John Ryan in late July.  Said Wright: "My previous job, I frequently tried to make everyone kind of equally unhappy. You can't solve difficult problems from a distance. You have to get in there, become part of the solution and sometimes you get stuck with quills in the process."

Martha Kongsgaard, chair of the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council, told Craig Welch of The Seattle Times when Wright took on leading the Partnership that the governor hired Wright because she wanted the agency to have a much-higher profile.

"I think the governor wanted to energize us," Kongsgaard said. "She wanted to put some new focus and oomph in the partnership and have it be a little, maybe, nosier, so that her legacy has a better chance of surviving through many governors.

"Tony's a well-known guy who has come in his fatigues and said some pretty strong things about what it's going to take to recover the Sound," she said.

"He's got the street cred of being a serious Army Corps fellow who stuck his neck out a lot in this region and was listened to. He can go toe to toe with anyone. He's a doer."

Today, Martha Kongsgaard wrote:

“We are all very sorry that Col. Wright isn't able to remain in the crucial position of Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership because, as was said,  his tenure brought heft and passion and vision to this enormous effort.  What was not said and may not be widely known is that  he came out of the private sector at the request of Governor Gregoire whom he greatly admires and promised to stay with her through her term.

“On the other end of that pledge, he promised his business partner, a war comrade, that he would be back at his firm by winter, and here we are.  He has helped  reenergize the effort  with great skill and vitality.  Puget Sound recovery has long been his passion.  What he perhaps did not count on is that the job of ED would become a formidable vehicle for the pursuit of same.  And so here we are in an imperfect place - he is very torn, but he has an obligation, is loyal, and will be  true to his word.  It is his intent to remain into Gov. Inslee's term long enough to enable a smooth transition, especially during the legislative session.

“The job of ED at the Partnership is an enormously important one and of course the churn of ED traffic is at best distracting to the public and  the remarkable staff.  But make no mistake, there is more to the PSP than the Director.  The 40+ staff members continue to carry out the serious central  core work of our mission with great technical savvy and passionate inspiration and will continue to do so regardless of Gubernatorial transitions or appointments.  And as we all recognize, this work does not have an end date - it will require all of us, out generations, with many more ED's, to work vigilantly together.”

OK, maybe this is just part of the process but there’s too much at stake without the kind of leadership Tony Wright was capable of providing. Martha asks that we all help Governor Inslee fill this important position. There’s also the position of director of the state Department of Ecology that Governor Inslee needs to fill.

Where ARE we heading and who is going to lead us there? As Craig Welch notes in his July article on Tony Wright, the leadership of Puget Sound Partnership is especially critical at this time: “The agency's two biggest champions, Gov. Chris Gregoire and U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton — who as former chair of the House Appropriations Committee steered millions of dollars toward Puget Sound work — are both leaving office this year. Details about the agency's work often appear complicated and murky to the public.”

Who leads the Partnership and Ecology becomes even more critical given the GOP-control of the state Senate this session. I’m sure there are good staff at the Partnership although I can’t tell how well they have been reorganized by Tony Wright “for action and implementation with the goal of tangible progress for Puget Sound recovery” by looking at the staff roster.

Somebody with “street cred” willing to “embrace the porcupine” and can “go toe to toe with anyone” needs to lead and take action to restore the Sound. Without that, we lose Puget Sound.

--Mike Sato


Update: The State of Washington Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) briefing report on PSP’S (the Puget Sound Partnership) 2012 Action Agenda Update finds that “Revised Approach Continues to Lack Key Accountability Tools Envisioned in Statute” January 23, 2013

Specifically in three areas:

1. The Action Agenda Does Not Link Actions to the Amount of Progress They Will Make Towards the Long-Term Restoration Goals Established by the Legislature
2. Actions are Not Prioritized to Meet Long-Term Restoration Goals
3. Monitoring Data Is Not Available to Facilitate Adaptive Management

Electing Obama, Saving Puget Sound

It might be instructive to take a look at the successful Obama campaign playbook when pondering how to build a constituency around restoring Puget Sound to health.

First of all, people have to know what’s at stake— and then need to know what they need to do to make a difference in what’s at stake. It took many millions of dollars to get that done in the presidential campaign.

And it was smart people spending money very smartly.

“It was called ‘the Optimizer,’ and, strategists for President Obama say it is how he beat a better-financed Republican opposition in the advertising war,” writes New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg in “How Obama Won.”

“Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree.” 

“Through its vast array of information collected via its e-mail list, Facebook and millions of door-to-door discussions conducted by volunteers in swing states — and fed into the campaign database — the campaign devised a ranking scale for voters ranging from likeliest to support Mr. Obama to least likely.”

From those voter profiles and ratings, the campaign developed its advertising campaign targeting specific messages via specific media, timing and frequency in swing states. Combined with volunteers on the ground, they got enough people to recognize what was at stake— and to get them to act — vote -- to make a difference.

Washington wasn’t a swing state so most of the Obama campaigning came to me via email messages from Barack, Joe, Michelle, Jim and a host of others I came to know nearly every day on first-name basis, inviting me to enter drawings to have dinner with the president and to join him election night in Chicago. Nothing out of the ordinary for a small amount contributor.

But the Obama campaign’s use of data mining and using that data moves way beyond even the sometimes amusing promotions I get from Amazon based on past purchases and purchases made by others whom they think I resemble.

The Obama campaign makes the campaign to save Puget Sound— the polling, data collecting, profiling and segmenting-- comically anachronistic. For years, the Puget Sound Partnership has been laboring under early polling that nearly three-quarters of the population thinks Puget Sound is in OK shape. That’s led leaders to shy away from decisive actions until more people see Puget Sound’s health as a problem.

Efforts to change that awareness — if in fact it is so sanguine — have proceeded like a low-grade infection. So how do you strategically go about getting enough people to recognize what is at stake— and to get them to take actions that will make a difference?

We’ll continue to nibble around the edges of the problems in Puget Sound until we take real action.

It costs money but there are smart people who know how to spend money very smartly.

--Mike Sato

The Governor’s Visit to the Samish Bay Taylor Shellfish Farm – Wed. July 18. - An Eyewitness Report

By Pete Haase

About a week ago I got an e-mail from the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) inviting me to a “small” luncheon and conversation, at the local Taylor Shellfish Farm, with the Governor and some PSP folks and other locals involved with the Clean Samish Initiative (CSI).  I was invited because I have been an active member of the “Storm Team” – a group of volunteers that do intensive watershed sampling for fecal coliform pollution during/right after rain storms.  I have done quite a lot of sampling in the Samish in support of the CSI and have contributed quite a lot of feedback, comments, and suggestions to the effort.

Turns out the “small” luncheon was actually the second of three visits the Governor and her group were making this day – all celebrating some activity in the endless effort to improve Puget Sound.  And it coincided with the first annual “Shellfish-tival”, a moderately attended family-oriented day at Taylor’s, with activities, education booths, food, and a bit of entertainment.  So there were quite a few people there, including plenty of press coverage.  It was also cloudy and cool.  As most know, the Taylor Farm is a small, old, working farm with dismal parking, not at all fancy, but right there on the shores of Samish Bay.  The tide was way out and all in all, it was really a nice setup; informal, great smells of shellfish cooking, lots of nice people and kids and action.  The arrangement for the Governor’s “luncheon” was just some picnic tables out near the bay with a little buffet table, and the Shellfish-tival crowd sort of intermingled with the “official” crowd.

The official group included Governor Gregoire, Bill Ruckelshaus who is Puget Sound Partnership Leader-emeritus, Martha Kongsgaard who is the current Chair of the PSP Leadership Council, Tony Wright who is the brand new Director of the PSP.

Attendees I knew included: Steve Sakuma, who is on the PSP Leadership Council, Tom Eaton who is the local EPA Manager, Ron Wesen who is a Skagit County Commissioner and member of the PSP Eco-systems Coordination Board, Mike Shelby with the local Western Washington Agricultural Association, Jon-Paul Shannahan from the Upper Skagit Tribe, Doug Allen and Mak Kaufman with the Bellingham Department of Ecology Field Office, Carolyn Kelly who manages the local Conservation District,  Kristen Cooley who is with the Outreach effort of the PSP,  Duane Fagergren who is the PSP representative on the Clean Samish Imitative, Rick Haley from Skagit County and the Manager of the Clean Samish Initiative, and Bill Dewey representing Taylor Shellfish and also a member of the PSP Eco-systems Coordination Board.  There were also other representatives from local Tribes and several of our State legislators.   There were about 30 in all.

The Governor then introduced her entourage and thanked us all and made a few brief remarks.  Next, Steve Sakuma welcomed and thanked us and encouraged us and said that when it rains you just have to work around it; a lot of spring rains having caused much Samish Bay pollution.  Then Rick Haley gave a brief recount of the past few months of effort and the disappointing results this spring. He asked the Governor to do all she could to keep various State agencies working on this effort.  He said this spring showed that there are often mysterious pollution sources we don’t yet know about and need to keep working on.

Mak Kaufman, the full-time “in the field” inspector with the Bellingham Field Office of the Department of Ecology, said that, in the fall the ground is not soaked up, so heavy rains that have dissolved the livestock manure in the fields have a good chance to soak in before reaching a ditch or stream,  but by late winter, the grounds are so soaked that new rains just sheet right off into the ditches and streams, carrying heavy loads of manure along. He said this is a Farm Management problem, rarely a septic problem.  The Governor asked Carolyn Kelly from our local Conservation District how they were dealing with that and Carolyn said they have to do a lot of follow-up, a lot of coaching, and that it is usually folks who have some other full time job and when they come home to the “farm” they might not get to the chores of mud and manure management.  Carolyn said there is a lot of “Incentive” money for farmers.

Doug Allen, Mak’s boss, said “Yes, continuing education is important but that we need to ramp up inspection and enforcement – an awful lot of education has already happened and results are not real good yet.”  Carolyn then said that many of the Best Management Practices that they have prescribed can’t be done except in the dry “construction” season (now) so we should see improvements this next fall.

Governor Gregoire gave some closing remarks.  She said the goal for the Samish pollution issue – only one pollution-caused closure of the shellfish harvest during March, 2012 – June, 2012 (there were 10!) – was a tough one but we should feel good about the progress and we would make it next year.  She reiterated that more and sterner enforcement was needed and encouraged continued education efforts and financial aid for farmers needing to make expensive changes.  She stressed that we must clamp down on those who don’t/won’t cooperate in order to keep it fair to those who do and have. She said that, as a private citizen, she will continue to do all she can to protect and improve Puget Sound.

Puget Sound Partnership: Who Cares?

Tarboo Bay (K.Kennell)

The Senate Democrats today release their state budget proposal and we’ll see how the Puget Sound Partnership fares.

According to The Olympian, the House Democratic budget proposal cuts the Partnership’s budget by 31 percent and the House Republican budget proposes doing away with the agency.

How sad it would be to have this effort to make the Sound “swimmable, fishable and diggable” by 2020 die with a whimper. It would be the third major effort in the last 25 years — following the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and the Puget Sound Action Team — to fall into political oblivion.

The Olympian editorializes that the value of the Puget Sound Partnership is threefold:

 • Convenes scientists to figure out what’s wrong with Puget Sound, and what can be done to fix the problems.

 • Reports on progress and setbacks on the road to Puget Sound recovery.

 • Keeps the 600 Puget Sound partners working together on common goals through an action plan that sets specific targets and holds partners accountable.

I asked one observer of the Olympia political winds what’s in store for the Partnership’s budget and future. The two-word reply: “Think McKenna.”

Puget Sound recovery and the Puget Sound Partnership were key components of Governor Chris Gregoire’s adminstration. The Partnership has suffered from past mismanagement. Its main champion the Governor is moving on. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee hasn’t championed Puget Sound recovery and is trailing Republican candidate Rob McKenna in polling.

Who is still in the Puget Sound Partnership’s corner?

I hope the final budget won’t be quite so draconian for the Partnership but it will raises the relevant point as to what the Partnership does and whether what it does is critical to the restoration of Puget Sound.

The Partnership, like the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority of the past, has no authority so theirs is a coordinating and oversight function with ‘moral authority,’ as it were. I think that ‘authority’ and the role of being the keeper of the Puget Sound Action Agenda and its performance benchmarks are reasons enough to keep the Partnership functioning.

That the Republicans  would do away with the Partnership gives enough reason to keep the Partnership and to keep the flame of Puget Sound recovery glowing.

The Partnership has squandered so many opportunities and social capital and disappointed its supporters that it would be easy to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face and say, let ‘em disappear .

But I want to keep our eyes on the prize— that of a Sound that is swimmable, fishable and diggable — and protect what we have in place, as imperfect as it has been and might even seem to be presently--  to help move us forward to that prize. I want the Puget Sound Partnership to speak out and use its "moral authority" to get that job done.

Save the Puget Sound Partnership.

--Mike Sato

Norm Dicks' Millions For Puget Sound

Rep. Norm Dicks

We hooted in derision when the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska brought federal dollars home to build the “bridge to nowhere.”

We cheered when Rep. Norm Dicks brought millions home to his son David Dick’s Puget Sound Partnership to save Puget Sound.

Kimberly Kindy in the Washington Post retold the Dicks pere et fils story in the context of what’s called “earmarks” -- special appropriations handed out by representatives and senators to special projects back home. Kindy detailed the trail of big money coming to the Partnership under David Dick’s direction, to the Environmental Protection Agency for dispersal to state Puget Sound projects, and how money was appropriated and misappropriated along the way.

Rob Hotakainen at McClatchy blogged that the Post in its story cited Dicks as one of 16 members of Congress who had taken actions to aid entities connected to their immediate families.

Nothing new, according to Brad Shannon of the Olympian:  “This is not the first time Dicks’ influence over earmarks has been called into question. A Congressional Quarterly report in 2009 said he ranked high among the more than 100 House members who secured earmarks for clients of a much-scrutinized lobbying firm, The PMA Group.... Dicks, now in his 18th term, had asked for some $11.3 million of contracts on his own and secured $800,000 more with others. Dicks also received $91,600 in campaign donations from the PMA Group and employees since 2001, the article contended.”

I’m sure, as Norm Dicks says in the Kindy story, he and his son were doing what they thought was right for the health of Puget Sound and for the people of Washington state.

Quite frankly, I thought David Dicks was chosen to direct the new Puget Sound Partnership because he was the son of Rep. Norm Dicks. I’m sorry that the Partnership under his direction did as poor a job of saving Puget Sound as it did and frittered away valuable political capital and money.

I also think the big money, the prospects of sharing in the big money, and the relationship of pere et fils also made it hard for those working on Puget Sound recovery to be candid and constructively critical of what the Partnership was and wasn’t doing.

But that’s all behind us now. New team, new game.

It’s also election year. And it's a good time to ask how protecting and restoring Puget Sound — and the Puget Sound Partnerhsip-- will play in the gubernatorial election? Outgoing Governor Chris Gregoire has held up as a priority a clean Puget Sound by the year 2020 (Fishable, Swimmable, Clammable). Will Jay Inslee? There's no mention of Puget Sound in his latest fundraising letter. Does Rob McKenna fish, swim, clam in Puget Sound?

There’s a big chunk of change going to Puget Sound protection and recovery. What have been the results thus far? The Partnership has established benchmarks and “performance measures.” Well and good, but if you want candidates and elected officials to stand by your side, best you say what the money’s bought in results. Not how the money’s been spent but how things are better as a result of what’s been spent.

I think we enviros and our fellow travelers should be the toughest critics to make sure the money’s spent well— before taking it in the teeth from the polluters, developers and Tea Baggers.

Oh, and we should remember to make good on the claim that investing in environmental protections creates jobs: how many jobs have Norm Dick’s millions created? That’s powerful stuff.

--Mike Sato

Thoughts on Sewage, Shellfish and the Partnership's Action Agenda

Geoduck farming (Protect Our Shoreline News)

Last week’s posting ‘Sewage is good for you’ prompted the following comment from Herb Curl:

"The shellfish industry would it both ways: removing pollutants & providing seafood. It's incredible that shellfish are being grown in Puget Sound estuaries with high levels of pollutants from failed septic tanks. The Big Bend at the southern end of Hood Canal is a major example. Maps of shellfish rearing areas in Puget Sound are available (here).

“Shellfish culture has many downsides including production of pseudofeces from rafts, polluting bottom sediments, hybridization between non-native Mytilus galloprovincialis and native Mytilus edulis, and smothering intertidal acreage with oyster bags and geoduck tubes."

Meanwhile, today’s news clip posting at Salish Sea News and Weather of Chris Dunagan’s story about the Puget Sound Partnership’s draft Action Agenda brought the following comments:

"Regarding Chris Dunagan column on the new draft of the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda:  I tried to read it to provide comments.  OMG!  Dense, foggy, huge long detailed tables, 41-page executive summary full of gobbeldy gook, almost impossible to actually find any "action" items/plans.  Woe is us .... "  --Rabbits’ Guy

"The Puget Sound Partnership talks about “restoring” decimated species.  But they say nothing about preventing the final destruction of Puget Sound.  Puget Sound’s death will be collateral damage to the final wave of development in the Basin.

"As we have discovered in Chesapeake Bay, restoration is probably not politically possible.  It requires scraping off most of the development in the watershed and replacing it with forest and LID.  (That is not going to happen any time soon).  Why is PSP focusing on “restoration” when we have an eternity to restore, but only months left to prevent driving the final nails in the coffin?

"The Carnegie Letter to the governor spells out the bare-bottom minimum action that PSP must insist upon if their mission is not to be a total failure.  (NPDES permits must insist on the 65/10/0 development standard.)  PSP has shown no indication that they will endorse the Carnegie action plan.  Is it because PSP’s boss, the governor, has dismissed the CG action plan?" -- Tom Holz

Thanks. It sure is interesting to read your comments.

--Mike Sato