07/06/2006: "Is Puget Sound "Healthy"?"

A recent public opinion survey asked 825 citizens who live in counties that have shorelines on Puget Sound to respond to questions, and state opinions, that would allow some conclusions to be drawn about "what are people thinking about Puget Sound" ?

The survey was conducted by Cocker Fennessy & Moore Information, Inc, for the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). PSP is a group created by a Gov. Gregoire initiative, and funded by the Legislature -to the tune of $52 million dollars- to "address critical short-term needs" in an effort to restore and protect Puget Sound. Some of the names involved in PSP will be familiar to SJC residents, such as Bill Ruckelshaus, who has a home on San Juan Island, and Jim Kramer of Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (SSPS), which has been in the local news now that they are working with SJ County in updating our Critical Areas Ordnance Past story

According to a synopsis published by Cocker/Fennessy, The results of the survey show that

● Transportation-related issues are the leading top-of-mind concerns among Puget Sound residents today. In this open-ended question, just 8% mention the environment when asked what they are most concerned about. There were no mentions of Puget Sound or the environmental health of the Sound.

● In addition, the health of Puget Sound is no the major concern when it comes to environmental issues facing the region. When asked what they believe is the leading environmental issue facing the region, four issues top the list: clean water/water quality (21%); air pollution (17%); pollution in general (15%); and population growth (10%). Nobody mentions Puget Sound specifically.

● Three out of four people rate the environmental health of Puget Sound as "excellent" (7%) or "pretty good" (66%) compared to 19% who rate it "not so good" or "poor" (5%). The question was repeated at the end of survey – after respondents heard messages about Puget Sound's environmental health. The positive ratings decline, but are still positive (58% excellent/pretty good) compared to 40% not so good/poor.

The survey also asked "which environmental threats have the most potential to generate concern among the public", and found that of seven issues, the top three perceived threats are:

● Population growth and increasing development (68% rate this as a threat – giving it a 4 or a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5)

● Loss of fish and wildlife habitat and natural areas (63% rate this as a threat)

● Contamination of harbors and bays near urban areas (60% rate this a threat)

Given the on-going dialog in San Juan County, it may not be surprising that "development along shorelines of rivers and the sound"; "industrial discharges"; "toxic chemicals in the water"; "polluted runoff from rainwater"; "threat of an major oil spill"; "climate change or global warning"; and "leaking septic tanks". were all reported as having the "most potential to generate concern among the public".

The results of the survey will be incorporated into a "preliminary findings report" that will be sent to the Governor this month. The report summarizes the group's initial findings and "includes updates on the Governor's five charges: developing a 2020 agenda for recovering the Sound, engaging the public, and looking at organizational structure, funding issues and the role of science." All of the reports can be read by clicking on: Links to the reports