SAN JUAN INITIATIVE

Together with the community, the Initiative set out to accomplish two key goals: (1) Assess the effectiveness of programs aimed at protecting the shoreline; and (2) Recommend specific ways to improve protection in a manner that supports other community interests and respects the rights of property owners. We held over 25 public workshops to engage land owners, real estate and construction industry professionals, and the general public.

In summary, we found the following regarding the shoreline ecosystem:

1. Management programs and the community have made some positive improvements over the last 30 years of environmental management.
   
   
2. Some of the most sensitive parts of the marine shoreline are being altered and there is a high risk of further alteration, resulting in diminished ecosystem function.
   
   
3. There is a lack of accountability to ensure that people and governments successfully carry out their responsibilities in a way that results in ecosystem protection.
   
   
4. Current regulatory protection programs are turning people off, and education and incentive programs are not addressing the needs of the ecosystem or shoreline property owners.
   
   
5. Through scientific advancements and the ethic of stewardship within the San Juan community, there is tremendous opportunity to improve protection of the ecosystem.

To address these findings and ensure effective protection for two specific ecosystem components- shoreline vegetation and sedimentation processes- we developed the following overarching recommendations which were unanimously endorsed by the County Council on Dec. 9th, 2008 and supported by the participating federal and state agencies:

1. Tailor land protection efforts to match the level of ecological function and sensitivity. For instance, focus incentives and education efforts on beaches and bluffs.
   
   
2. Increase consistency in permitting requirements and certainty that the regulations will be interpreted consistently throughout the permit process. Property owners and builders need predictable outcomes from the permitting process that they can count on when calculating building costs and timelines.
   
   
3. Provide information to decision-makers, whether county planners or property owners, in an accessible, relevant and timely manner. This recommendation builds on the need for predictability in the permitting process. It also focuses on ensuring that the information needed by property owners, planners and elected officials is available and accurate.
   
   
4. Foster a collaborative approach between the public and private sectors in order to increase communication and effectiveness. Continued forums are necessary for local builders, real estate professionals and contractors to discuss issues and develop common solutions with county and state decision-makers.
   
   
5. Reward actions that protect ecosystems and discourage actions that are damaging or not in compliance. Implement programs that recognize people for good stewardship and provide financial incentives for private conservation actions like soft shore beach restoration projects.

2. Continuing the Work The County and other parties have made substantive progress implementing the Initiative's recommendations of December 2008. Yet there remains considerable work to be done to improve the effectiveness of shoreline protection. In addition to actions by specific organizations, it is critical that the efforts are coordinated and communicated to the public. A complete list of actions can be found at our website: www.sanjuaninitiative.org/documents. 3. Measuring Success We believe the true test of our work lies in the measuring of outcomes over time. To ensure future efforts deliver the desired outcomes, we established detailed measures of success that are posted on our website. Below is a summary of these measures: 1. The current percentage of native vegetation, trees and ground cover along the shoreline is retained.

We recommend the Marine Resources Committee and the Puget Sound Partnership convene the implementing agencies and the Policy Group in 2010 and 2012 to review the results and determine if the objectives listed above are being achieved and, if not, take corrective action.

4. Conclusion The work of the San Juan Initiative is now formally concluded, but the work to protect the San Juan ecosystem may be never-ending. We believe our work has affirmed the importance of landowners, governments, businesses and nonprofit organizations working together to achieve a healthy environment and a supportive community. In fact, our work has confirmed that environmental health cannot be achieved without the foundation of community collaboration and good will. Collectively, all levels of government must continue to find ways to be accountable and demonstrate to the local community their support for effective and inclusive governance. No one tool or group can assure protection of our environment. It has to be a collaboration where all parties are respected for their role and mutually held accountable to successfully contribute their part.

Thank you to the San Juan County Council for their leadership in creating the San Juan Initiative and being open to the evaluation of their programs.

Thank you to the federal and state agencies for their willingness to join us in our community effort. Thank you to the tribes for their participation.

Thank you to the many citizens and organizations who contributed their time and their hearts to participating in this process and helping us make a difference.

Thank you to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Bullitt Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Puget Sound Partnership for funding the work and believing in its importance.

Sincerely,

Lovel Pratt
County Council Member
Co-Chair San Juan Initiative
Jonathan White
Co-Chair San Juan Initiative Co-Chair San Juan Initiative

Policy Group:

• Co-Chair Honorable Lovel Pratt
• Co-Chair Jonathan White
• Lincoln Bormann
• Lisa Byers
• Tom Cowan
• Peter Kilpatrick
• Patty Miller
• Mary Riveland
• Teri Williams
• Marilyn O'Connor
• Susan Key
• Stephanie Buffum Field
• Peter Dederich

Partners

• Department of Ecology
• Department of Natural Resources
• Department of Fish and Wildlife
• National Park Service
• NOAA Fisheries
• Puget Sound Partnership
• San Juan County
• Surfrider Foundation
• The Nature Conservancy
• Trust for Public Lands
• Tulalip Tribes
• US Fish and Wildlife
• US Army Corps of Engineers

San Juan Initiative Issue Paper
for Oct. 29, 2009
Policy Group Meeting

The San Juan Initiative is in the final phases of completing its work and will formally sunset at the end of this year. However, work will need to continue by the County and other organizations to measure success, complete the terrestrial assessment and implement the Policy Group recommendations. Our upcoming October 29th meeting will advance our work on several of these issues.

Nov. 18th, 2009 will be our final working meeting. We will conclude the Initiative with a presentation and reception with the County Council in early December. We greatly encourage the attendance of all Policy Group members at the Council meeting and at the reception immediately following.

This paper provides background on the issues for our meeting on October 29th which include;

1. Measuring success.
   
   
2. Key steps and lessons learned
   
   
3. Terrestrial assessment

At the September 17th meeting, the Policy Group directed staff to accomplish the following outcomes by December 2009. This paper provides an update on the progress of these efforts and identifies the decisions necessary to move forward.

• Revise the Aug. 20th buffer and shoreline recommendations to increase the emphasis on the issues raised by the Policy Group.
  
  
• Include a letter with recommendations outlining what is being asked of County Council and federal and state partners, previous recommendations endorsed by the Council and a timeline for action.
  
  
• Presentation to the Council in December 2009.
  
  
• Ensure that post-construction inspections are occurring.
  
  
• Complete an initial assessment of the effectiveness of protection programs for Island Marbled Butterfly and Golden Indian Paintbrush that includes property-owner interviews and a policy analysis.
  
  
• Work with County to design and implement a CAO public engagement process. This effort is not under the purview of the Policy Group, but you will be kept informed and are encouraged to participate in the public process.
  
  
• Affirm the support and progress of the Conservation District to implement a technical assistance program for shoreline property owners.
  
  
• Complete documentation of lessons learned, what should be measured to determine success in the future, and what is required from an ongoing institution in order to carry out the recommendations.
  
  
• Complete scoping of the terrestrial assessment, and outline next steps for its initiation.

Section 1: Assessing Our Success: Past and Future

The first part of this section measures the success of the San Juan Initiative in protecting our marine shorelines. The second part analyzes and is part of the continuing effort to identify key steps/lessons learned to share with funders, other Puget Sound communities, and the Puget Sound Partnership.

Overview:

1. LOOKING FORWARD

Staff incorporated suggestions from the May 28th and Sept 17th Policy Group Meetings regarding how to measure the success of the San Juan Initiative. The feedback recommended focusing on fewer measures and linking those measures to ecological outcomes and the data collected in the case study areas. The Policy Group reached consensus at the Sept. 17th meeting on the overall objectives listed below. It is now necessary to get your feedback on the metrics for 2010 and 2012.

Overall Objectives for Success in the Marine Ecosystem (agreed to on Sept. 17, 09)

1. More vegetation is retained in the development of new homes.

2. There are fewer bulkheads/armoring along feeder bluffs and soft shore beaches.

3. Builders, realtors, community leaders, county officials and the public understand they are all part of a strong working relationship in which each party is respected for their role in protecting the environment.

4. Property owners have convenient access to technical assistance for how best to maintain views, create access to the shoreline, and protect the shoreline.

Measuring Future Outcomes

Below are the current metrics for the desired outcomes:

By December 2010

1. No new bulkheads have been constructed without a permit, and a new soft shore beach project or threatened structure relocation has been completed.

2. 75% of all exemption and substantial development permits have had post-construction inspections to ensure compliance with permit.

3. Riparian vegetation coverage in the case study areas is unchanged at 88%; or, sample of residential properties with new homes shows intact buffer vegetation.

4. Twenty properties have received technical assistance visit from the Conservation District.

5. Web-site is operating and gets 20 hits/month.

6. Policy Group is reconvened and reviews outcomes of monitoring for submission of report to County Council, Puget Sound Partnership, and other state and federal agency partners.

By December 2012

1. No new hard-armored bulkheads have been constructed since the end of 2010. Five new soft-shore projects or threatened structure relocations completed.

2. Riparian vegetation on properties within the case study areas has not decreased below 88% on any individual property.

3. Fifty property owners have received technical assistance from the Conservation District.

4. Surveys of builders, property owners, and County staff show that they feel their collective efforts are working to successfully develop and maintain properties in a manner that protects ecosystem functions and promotes community, business, and government stewardship.

5. Policy Group is reconvened and reviews outcomes of monitoring in a report to County Council and Puget Sound Partnership.

Policy Group Questions:

1. Without getting into the detailed numbers, is there anything missing in the metrics for 2010 and 2012? Does it make sense?

2. Would you be satisfied if these metrics were achieved or would you want something more?

Next steps:

Staff will include these measures in the final letter and provide a rough estimate of the resources necessary to monitor the effort over time.

2. LOOKING BACK

At the end of 2008, the San Juan Initiative analyzed its process and the lessons learned in a document called "Key Steps and Lessons Learned". The "Key steps" portion summarizes how the work was accomplished, how we engaged the public, and what analysis was completed. "Lessons learned" provides an analysis of our effectiveness. This documentation is intended to assist other communities and organizations interested in more effectively protecting their ecosystems. To generate this document, we held several discussions with the Policy Group at the end of 2008. This report was revised to include comments on the final year of work with additional lessons we learned through the implementation process. The following is a summary of the key lessons learned.

1. Gather a variety of perspectives, expertise, and experience to develop an understanding of what works and what doesn't.

2. Significant time must be allocated to effectively understand the needs, interests, and perspectives of agencies, policy makers, landowners, and scientists.

3. Information must be gathered from multiple landscape scales in order to answer big questions.

4. Community perspectives are gained through a targeted approach that encourages new voices to be heard.

5. Include all protection programs in the audit of effectiveness, which results in a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the problem, and creates opportunities for new solutions.

6. Support of agency directors is critical at every stage.

7. "Audit" function requires an independent group that is closely tied to decision- makers and elected officials, but not under their direct control.

8. The Policy Group's diverse perspectives were critical. Though as individuals they held a variety of perspectives, they were non-positional and represented the diversity of the community.

Policy Group Questions:

We will continue our "Lessons Learned" discussion at the November 18th meeting. Are there any additions or refinements to this list that should be considered by staff in drafting the final "Key Steps and Lessons Learned" document?

Next steps:

Staff recommends forming a small subcommittee to review the "Key Steps" document and provide the staff with more direction on the final letter. Following the discussion at the November 18 meeting, staff recommends the Policy Group Chairs approve the final documents. Section 2: Terrestrial Ecosystem Protection – Addressing Connectivity

Overview

By the end of the year we will complete the scoping for a comprehensive assessment of terrestrial protection efforts. The scoping will identify the key questions to be asked, data gaps, any preliminary findings we develop about the effectiveness of current terrestrial protection, and a project cost to accomplish the work.

At the Sept. 27th meeting, the Policy Group decided to focus on the connectivity of habitats and landscapes, and the benefits that accrue from that connectivity. Based on that decision, staff interviewed local and regional scientists and land managers to gain greater understanding of the current issues around connectivity in the Islands. From these interviews, staff identified several key limitations in our ability to focus on connectivity. Based on the feedback from experts, we need more direction from the Policy Group regarding how to proceed. At our October 29 meeting, a presentation by a key scientist will help guide our discussion of potential directions for the terrestrial assessment.

As we did on the shoreline, staff tried to identify existing models/frameworks to help us understand the terrestrial connectivity in the San Juan Islands. From the experts we learned there are two main approaches to understanding connectivity. The first relies on a species approach based on the needs of an animal that roams broadly. The species model utilizes an "umbrella species," such as the Chinook salmon in Puget Sound, the Florida panther, the Yellowstone Bison or the grizzly bear. The assumption is that by protecting the continuity of habitats for one big animal, we are also protecting the continuity needed for all the other species that use the same habitats (they are under the "umbrella"). This framework does not work for the San Juans because there is not a terrestrial animal that can serve as the "umbrella species."

The second model connects green spaces across a landscape. This model is used for large scale greenways that connect various habitat corridors through urban or suburban areas. This model can work for the San Juans; but it focuses on the need for protected open space and only indirectly addresses the connectivity between species and other ecological functions. In addition, the land use pattern in the San Juans is less amenable to this approach because of the dispersed nature of development in the Islands.

Instead of using one of the two models described above, the scientists and managers recommend focusing on the connections within each of the four priority habitats---large intact forests, wetlands, prairies and oak woodlands. The experts raised a few key questions that may need to be answered before a comprehensive assessment can be initiated:

• What changes to connectivity have occurred within each of the four habitat types over the last 30 years?
  
  
• What are the implications for overall health of the terrestrial ecosystem and for biodiversity?
  
  
• What is the past trend and what can we expect if that trend continues? Are there any additional factors, like climate change, that will modify that trend?

To help the Policy Group understand the questions above and the issues with connectivity in general, staff has invited Peter Dunwiddie to present at our next meeting. His presentation will provide concrete examples of the impacts of changes in the four priority habitats due to fragmentation. Peter is a terrestrial ecologist who has worked extensively in the Islands and in greater Puget Sound. He was recommended as a person with relevant knowledge and experience by all the scientists and managers we interviewed.

Questions for the Policy Group: What direction should staff pursue with the remaining time and resources? Section 3: Improving Protection for the Island Marble Butterfly and the Golden Paintbrush – Initial Results from the Assessment

Overview

As part of the grant received from the USFWS, the San Juan Initiative is reviewing the effectiveness of protection for two key prairie species: island marble butterfly and the golden paintbrush. Both species exemplify some of the key concerns raised about connectivity in key habitats in the San Juans: encroachment by forest into prairie habitats, encroachment of non-native species, and loss of connection between habitat patches. Island marble butterfly is listed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as a candidate for possible State listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. The USFWS lists island marble butterfly as a species of concern. The golden paintbrush is listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened.

The Golden paintbrush, due to its federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, has an approved recovery plan which outlines quantifiable recovery goals. In 2007, the USFWS performed a five year review to document the progress made towards the recovery goals. That work was focused on the ecological monitoring of the species and the number and expansion of the various populations. Of the three criterion for recovery, only one has been met, which is the collection of genetically diverse seeds. The other two critierion: at least 20 stable populations and that populations are on "protected land." Protected land includes land held in conservation easements or by a natural resource protection agency like the National Park Service. The island marble butterfly is not currently a federally listed species so there is not currently a recovery plan in place. The San Juan Initiative is building on existing reports and actions by contributing an analysis of the "community perspective" as well as some analysis of how coordinated the various agencies and organizations are. This analysis is largely missing from existing reviews and reports.

In order to analyze the protection and recovery efforts, we've reviewed all local, voluntary, incentive and regulatory protection programs that focus on island marble butterfly and golden paintbrush. We have also interviewed most of the agencies with management responsibilities for either or both of these species. From the interviews and the policy analysis, we developed a matrix identifying existing programs and gaps. In addition to this analysis, we also interviewed land owners who have one or both of these species on their property. We interviewed a total of nine property owners, the majority of whom live on San Juan Island. We estimate this to be a little less than 50% of all the property owners with these two species, though the exact number of parcels with these species is difficult to ascertain. From these two approaches, we have developed a good understanding of the effectiveness of current programs for protecting and recovering these two species. This analysis does not include ecological monitoring of actual population size, which is a logical next step and would build on current census efforts.

The recovery and protection of these species relies on voluntary incentives and education programs. Neither species, due to their protection status, require action by property owners. Due to the primacy of education and voluntary efforts, we focused our energy on understanding what sort of education property owners have received and whether or not it is effective, from their standpoint. The policy analysis focused on understanding how the various agencies and non profits are working together to provide incentives, funding, education and outreach to property owners.

Similar to San Juan Initiative's work in the shoreline, there is a "good news/bad news" aspect to our protection efforts. Using the model we developed for the shoreline work, we have summarized the findings below with the red italics as the "good news" and the blue font as the "bad news." We have summarized what's working and what's not from two perspectives: property owners and management. We have also combined the findings for both species due to the enormous amount of overlap in agencies, property owner concerns and for simplicity.

Staff is hosting a conference call with state, federal and non-profit managers on Monday, Oct. 26th. At that meeting, these findings will be refined. These are preliminary findings.

Property Owner's Perspective: What's Working, What's Not

1. Government agencies and organizations diligently worked to contact property owners who have these species on their land, and the interaction was viewed as helpful by 8 of the 9 property owners who were interviewed. Notably, many property owners had positive interactions with biologists from USFWS and WDFW. Unfortunately, property owners aren't often asked to do specific tasks to manage the species on their land. In addition, property owners feel disconnected to the overall protection effort and they don't know how their individual contribution fits into the larger picture of recovering the species. Agencies haven't effectively communicated how individual efforts are affecting overall protection, resulting in property owners feeling left behind and under-supported in the long term.

2. Property owners are receiving information, such as the WADFW butterfly flier, which has been widely distributed, and most property owners who were interviewed found this information useful. However, many property owners lack detailed information about what they can or should do specifically, and when asked whether or not the efforts thus far on their property have been effective, most said they didn't know.

3. Most property owners feel that having the species on their property is a bonus and all have allowed access to biologists and volunteers to monitor, conduct surveys, etc. In addition, most property owners actively or passively manage the species on their land. But, many property owners feel that they need help managing the species with either labor (such as clearing or mowing) or in understanding how to achieve their other goals with their property while still protecting the species.

SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2010

editor@sanjuanislander.com

About Us | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Privacy Policy