1 / 23

The Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Indicators – Dashboard Development

The Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Indicators – Dashboard Development. University of Washington June 2, 2010 Bethany Johnson Brian Payne. Recent History – State Protection of Puget Sound. 1985: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1987: Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan

myron
Download Presentation

The Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Indicators – Dashboard Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related