• Scale: Attention to the ecosystem of the near-shore environment.
• Balance/Integration: Development of a multifaceted series of recommendations encompassing regulatory, education and voluntary efforts to enhance resource protection.
• Collaboration: Emphasis on having the community define shared concerns and reach consensus to put forward solutions.

Lead Organizations

• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Key Parties

Funding

• Nature Conservancy
• Salmon Recovery Funding Board
• Bullitt Foundation
• Surfrider Foundation
• Community Salmon Fund

Other Partners

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Washington Department of Ecology
• Washington Department of Natural Resources
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife
• Trust for Public Lands
• NOAA Fisheries
• San Juan Island National Historical Park
• Tulalip Tribes

Stakeholders

• Land owners
• Building trades (architects, engineers, builders)
• Marinaowners
• Real estate agents
• Environmentalists
• Citizens
  
   

The San Juan Initiative began as a partnership between the San Juan County Council and Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, a non-governmental organization concerned with salmon recovery in the region. The Puget Sound Partnership eventually assumed the management role of Shared Strategy and adopted the San Juan Initiative as a pilot project.

Policy Group

The San Juan Initiative was governed by a Policy Group. Eleven of the twenty-two members were local residents appointed by the San Juan County Council and included builders, environmentalists, land owners, marina owners and real estate agents. The other members were drawn from federal and state agencies and Native American tribes with resource management responsibilities on the islands.

Advisory Committees

The Technical Advisory Committee and the Science Advisory Committee advised the Policy Group:

• The Science Advisory Committee (SAC) included local and regional scientists and assisted the Policy Group in narrowing the focus of the initiative, suggesting solutions to overcome a lack of resources and time. For instance, the SAC recommended surveying specific representative areas of coastline on three of the most populated islands instead of attempting to survey the 400-mile length of shoreline. The SAC assisted in developing research questions and identifying potentially high-impact human modifications along the shoreline and improvements that would reduce these impacts.
• A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) also advised the Policy Group for the Initiative.

Work Teams

In developing solutions to some of the problems identified in its June 2008 report, “An Assessment of Ecosystem Protection: What’s Working, What’s Not,” the Policy Group developed five work teams to expand community engagement. The work teams included four to seven people, who helped brainstorm ideas and provide information from their perspectives and experiences. Their contributions helped establish recommendations that would be supported and were grounded in community values. Work teams were assembled from the following groups of people:

• Trades people
• Property owners who were experiencing erosion
• Property owners with retained shoreline vegetation
• County planning staff
• State fish and wildlife staff

Residents of the San Juan Islands were passionate about their marine ecosystem, but resistant to the idea of programs being implemented by outside authorities. In the 1980s, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposed a National Marine Sanctuary for the San Juan area, but the idea was dropped due to strong local opposition.

In 1996, a group of diverse citizens formed an advisory body to the San Juan County Council called the Marine Resources Council which continues to offer community input on marine environmental matters.

In 2006, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, a non-profit focused on the recovery of salmon populations, released a Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. The plan identified population growth as a major threat to the ecosystem. It found that few attempts had been made to evaluate the effectiveness of laws, incentives and education programs related to resource protection in the region. In addition, the report found that the region lacked a single organization responsible for ecological stewardship and a coordinating structure to ensure that private and public efforts were efficient and effective.

To meet those needs, Governor Chris Gregoire and the state legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership, a community effort of citizens, governments, tribes, scientists and businesses working together to restore and protect Puget Sound  The Partnership was charged with creating a plan for a healthy Puget Sound and coordinating efforts to implement that plan.

At the same time, San Juan County Commissioner Kevin Ranker had been working with government officials and private foundations along the West Coast to start an ecosystem-based management pilot project in the San Juan Islands to implement the recommendations of the U.S. Joint Ocean Commission.

Shared Strategy for Puget Sound and the San Juan County Council decided to work together to create the San Juan Initiative. A memorandum of understanding to manage the initiative jointly was signed in 2006. San Juan County agreed to the initiative, but only if the majority of its funding came from external sources.

As the Puget Sound Partnership became established, it eventually assumed the management role of Shared Strategy and adopted the San Juan Initiative as a pilot project.

The Ecosystem

The San Juan Islands in the Puget Sound consist of approximately 175 square miles of land and 408 miles of waterfront. At high tide, the archipelago includes 176 islands and reefs. At low tide, that number increases to 743. The islands are in the Salish Sea at the confluence of Canadian and American waters.

In the past, farming, ranching, logging and fishing were the basis of the area’s economy, but in recent years, the tourism industry has greatly increased. About 16,000 people live on the islands throughout the year; however, the population increases dramatically during the tourism season due to thousands of visitors and recreational boaters. Tourists contribute 23 percent of the county’s annual retail sales tax revenues.

The islands have a variety of terrain and marine habitats, including deep water, shallow bays, rocky coastlines and sandy beaches. The endangered Puget Sound Chinook Salmon use the area to feed on their journey to the ocean.

The islands have seen a decline in marine species and habitats. For example, rockfish are no longer abundant and populations of marine birds have diminished. In 2008, the orca whale population declined by 10 percent. A catastrophic loss of eelgrass has been reported in the most heavily visited bays, such as Westcott Bay.

Threats

Although threats to the ecosystem are varied, a 2006 study conducted by Shared Strategy of Puget Sound pointed to population growth as a major concern. Shoreline development that continued under existing policies and practices would be highly detrimental to the ecosystem.

Community Consensus

The San Juan Initiative developed community consensus about the importance of protecting the near-shore ecosystem and recommended measures to reduce the impacts of shoreline development. It involved builders, land owners and real estate professionals whose individual decisions greatly affected the shoreline environment.

Information Gathering

The initiative proceeded amidst a lack of information on the San Juan Islands ecosystem, but its surveys of shoreline areas developed new information that will be useful to the community, such as a finding that 26 percent of docks and 30 percent of mooring buoys had been placed in areas of eelgrass; shoreline development led to an average vegetation loss of 25 percent per parcel; and areas in which fish may spawn had been covered by extensive beach armoring.

Modeling

The initiative modeled the application of ecosystem-based management principles to a small, community setting. Members of the Policy Group spent time at the outset learning about ecosystem-based management and how it differs from previous resource management strategies.

The following facilitating factors also are listed in the “Key Steps” document issued by the San Juan Initiative:

• Strong Local Leadership: Kevin Ranker, the County Council member, provided leadership and support that was critical to the creation of the San Juan Initiative. Ranker’s vision excited local leaders and kept them engaged, particularly during the early stage of the initiative.
• Regional Connections: The involvement of a regional organization, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, helped to highlight the significance of the project and gave local people a sense that their input could matter to the rest of Puget Sound, as well as in San Juan County.
• Outside Funding: External financial support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation gave the county and others confidence that the initiative would not be a financial burden and facilitated the raising of additional external support.
• Building on Past Work: The completion of a Marine Stewardship Area Plan by the San Juan County Marine Resource Committee provided a critical foundation upon which to build the initiative.
• Identifying Shared Concerns Among Three Perspectives: The initiative developed its reports from the perspectives of scientists, property owners and program managers who all used different language, but often addressed the same concern.
• Role of the Science Advisory Committee (SAC): The SAC was pivotal in helping design the overall approach of the protection assessment. A mix of regional and local scientists was useful in framing questions that would be relevant to the larger scientific community in Puget Sound.

Additionally, the 2008 report of the San Juan Initiative, “Protecting Our Place for Nature and People,” listed additional facilitating factors:

• Strong and Balanced Regional and Community Representation: The San Juan County Council selected local members of the Policy Group to provide credibility who were strong advocates, but who worked well together.
• Strong Support by the San Juan County Council: Consistent interest and support from the San Juan County Council gave the initiative local credibility and increased community interest.

The following challenges are listed in a “Key Steps” document that was issued by the San Juan Initiative in December 2009 to provide information to resource conservation practitioners interested in conducting similar initiatives:

• Concerns about Local Control: There was criticism that the San Juan Initiative was created without community input and would duplicate existing efforts and sap limited funding that otherwise would be available to local groups engaged in resource protection. The credibility of the Policy Group, which included local citizens, and its commitment to building local capacity for ecosystem protection helped diffuse these concerns.
• Lack of Baseline Data: The Policy Group questioned whether existing data could present a clear picture of the current status of key ecosystem functions and whether they were improving or declining.
• Limitations in Resources: Policy Group members were concerned that to develop an understanding of the ecosystem, the initiative would need to assess every part of it. But limitations in money, time and baseline information would not allow for such an assessment. Narrowing the scope of the initiative was necessary.

The San Juan Initiative listed the following five overarching lessons for resource conservation practitioners to consider in its “Key Steps” document:

• Without baseline and trend information, it is difficult for people to believe that their personal choices make a difference.
• To determine the effectiveness of resource protection practices and policies, the initiative held separate meetings with groups of interested parties – scientists, landowners, development professionals, and government officials. The assessments from each group were integrated to refine overall findings, provide insights into the effectiveness of resource protection efforts, and draw relationships helpful in identifying solutions.
• A holistic view was required to evaluate the effectiveness of resource protection efforts, and required examining regulations, incentives and education efforts across three scales -- countywide, shoreline reach and individual parcel. The initiative found that if property owners found programs did not make sense, were confusing, or significantly inhibited the basic interests of property owners, ecosystem outcomes were diminished.
• A smaller scope of work that could be advanced and implemented was preferred over a broader scope of work. At each stage of the initiative, the Policy Group focused on key elements to advance to the next stage.
• The diversity of perspectives, responsibilities and experiences of the members of the Policy Group was essential to its success. Members brought their interests to the group, but did not fall back on hardened positions. They were often able to reach agreement quickly. The group was focused on creating solutions, and staff and co-chairpersons were committed to facilitation and consensus-building.

San Juan Initiative:http://www.sanjuaninitiative.org/

Puget Sound Partnership: http://www.psp.wa.gov/

Shared Strategy for Puget Sound: http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/

San Juan County Council: http://sanjuanco.com/council/default.aspx