[Previous entry: "Legal Waters Found Deep For Orca Protection"] [Next entry: "Transfer Station: Improve Existing Or Move It?"]

06/14/2007: "State & Feds Come To Hear & Help"

(Bill Ruckelshaus welcomes the group to the meeting)

Say what you want about the San Juan Initiative (SJI), but one thing is clear: They got them some clout! What is less clear is how they will become a state “pilot program”, and how an “action plan” will be created by next year that will accomplish the stated state wide goal of “Restoring Puget Sound by 2020”.

They have money, they have state and federal contacts and influence, and they have a whole bunch of charts to guide them. But based on the last three meetings -and the Wednesday meeting in Friday Harbor with the heads of some of the most powerful departments in the state on board- it seems that all they need now is to stop talking about where they are going to go, and get the boat moving; and to do so before the crew either starts to abandon ship, or falls asleep at the oars.

It has been painful to observe the process to date, and almost impossible to report on it, since nothing much can be said about nothing, since each meeting -and there have been four so far- seems to be a warm-over of the last one, with only a few minor new additions added to spice it up, but at the Wednesday meeting there was some slight progress, and a call for action.



The forth meeting in Friday Harbor started at 12:30 with the 34 bureaucrats and citizen volunteers lining up for a lunch, and then at 12:45 Bill Ruckelshaus gave a welcome talk and a PowerPoint presentation on the history and importance of the current Puget Sound Partnership .

For some reason the next thing that always happens at these meetings is everyone in the room, the 34 committee members, and the public (and this was the first time anyone from the public showed up) is asked to introduce themselves; then it was down to…business. It is at this point that an observer has to wonder -at least a little bit- how on earth are these people going to restore Puget Sound when they have so much trouble staying on course. The first of three questions asked was “What are the issues faced by regional resource managers that would benefit from a cross-jurisdictional ecosystem approach?”

There was not much rocking of the boat on that one, as many of the “regional resource managers” used the question as a springboard to get some message out not related to the question, or simply stated the obvious, such as the importance of “working together”, and “It is impossible for any one federal agency to accomplish this alone”. One of the invited members noted that “a lot of what we are doing here looks like the previous plans we have done.. third time is a charm?”

Only a handful of the other invited state folks responded at all, and Ruckelshaus informed the group that “we are gathering all of the past studies and plans to see where we are; we are not interested in re-creating what has already been done”. 2:00 p.m., time for a break.

After the breaking out of the cell phones and Blackberries, the group came back to the table to hear SJI Director Amy Windrope give a concise summary of the “progress to date” by the SJI, which included three threats to the ecosystem the local Policy Group had identified: 1. population growth, 2. climate change, 3. a major oil spill. Windrope’s report states that “the staff recommends the Policy Group choose from a more manageable sub-set of threats” and “..we will ask how effective protection programs are addressing population and climate change...” as the group works to make “changes in specific programs”.

According to the Windrope report, the SJI is asking only two basic questions: “How well are we protecting the ecosystem, and what can we do to better protect the ecosystem”. That was also the lead-in to the last two questions asked of the assembled group on Wednesday: What are the issues that threaten SJC and how can the different agencies “link” together to fill the gaps in the protection and restoration of Puget Sound?

Some of the local citizens that make up the Policy Group members have at past meetings expressed frustration by the slow pace, the repetition of statements on the issues, and the lack of any meaningful action. That frustration did ripple the waters at the end of the Wednesday meeting when Realtor Sam Buck and FH Port Director Steve Simpson both called for a commitment to action by the group. Simpson said “I hope we leave this meeting with a bias for action, we are good at talking” and noted that “you cannot take any action if people (i.e. public) are not convinced there is a problem”.

Sam Buck lives and works in the private sector, and as one of the most successful Realtors in San Juan County he can become impatient in the face of repetitive discussion and little action. He told that group that it is “too easy to just keep talking to the choir”, and suggested that the state and federal representatives tell them what they need so “we can start moving”. This brought DNR Director Doug Sutherland to his feet who said “You tell us what is important; and then we can try and help”. Buck indicated that was fine with him, but that “I want to bite into something, do something, take action, then see if it works!”

The next meeting will be on Shaw on June 25th, and the stated goal is: “To establish a priority list of threats to be analyzed in Phase II”. In phase two the local group members will attempt to find answers to “What protection efforts are actively addressing the priority threats? Are they working? Where are the gaps?”. The answers to these questions may help in forming a response to Director Sutherland’s request for direction from the group as to how the state and federal agencies can help San Juan County, and help form this pilot program for the rest of the state.