The Legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership to oversee efforts to recover Puget Sound by 2020

In 2007, the Legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership) to oversee efforts to recover Puget Sound. Prior to this, government agencies and private organizations already were involved in recovery efforts. However, they lacked a shared regional plan and common ways to measure success. The Legislature directed the Partnership to work with these partner organizations and recover Puget Sound by 2020.

The Partnership is responsible for coordinating, prioritizing recovery actions, and monitoring the recovery efforts of partner organizations

The Legislature directed the Partnership to:

• Coordinate partner organizations and determine accountability for recovery efforts;
• Develop and periodically update a prioritized regional recovery plan; and
• Monitor results and report them to the Legislature, Governor, and public.

The Partnership does not implement recovery actions on the ground, directly fund projects, or have regulatory authority.

The Partnership is led by the Leadership Council and advised by three boards

Statute charges the Leadership Council (Council) with developing the recovery plan, setting strategic priorities and benchmarks, and reporting progress. Three boards advise the Council, providing input on recovery science and data collection, planning, and salmon recovery.

The Governor appoints the 7 members of the Leadership Council and the director of the Partnership (state agency). The director reports to both the Governor and the Leadership Council.

Partnership is funded with state and federal dollars

The Partnership’s funding is for its coordinating, prioritizing, and monitoring efforts.

The Partnership’s 2015-17 budget is $17.5 million ($7.5M state funds, $10M federal), which includes funding for 43 FTEs. According to OFM and the Partnership, $4.5 of the federal funds is not for Partnership operations, but is directed by the federal government to go directly to implementing organizations.

JLARC conducted audits of the Partnership in 2011 and 2013

JLARC staff audited the Partnership in 2011 and completed a follow up report in 2013. These reports stated that the Partnership needed to:

• Link actions to the progress made towards legislative goals;
• Prioritize actions to meet these goals; and
• Develop mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of actions.

The Partnership made improvements in each area, however this audit raises continued concerns.

Puget Sound recovery will not be complete by 2020

The Legislature set six recovery goals:

1. Support a healthy human population;
2. Sustain human quality of life;
3. Sustain healthy populations of native species;
4. Protect, restore, and sustain freshwater, estuary, nearshore, and marine habitats;
5. Sufficient groundwater levels and river and stream flows to sustain ecosystem; and
6. Fresh and marine waters of a sufficient quality to ensure water is safe for humans and marine life.

Recovery goals will not be reached by 2020

Progress toward the recovery goals is measured with indicators. For example, an indicator for Goal 1 (healthy human population) is a net increase in the number of acres of harvestable shellfish beds.

In its 2015 State of the Sound report, the Partnership concluded that “the majority of indicators are, at best, only slowly changing.” The Partnership reported that there is little evidence that the goals will be reached by 2020. The Partnership’s Science Panel has stated that recovery goals may be achieved in a longer timeframe.

The statutory timeframe for recovering Puget Sound is shorter than other large scale recovery efforts

The Legislature expected to achieve Puget Sound recovery by 2020 — 13 years after it established the Partnership. Other large recovery efforts have longer timeframes.

The two-year update cycle for the Partnership’s planning is also shorter than other large scale recovery efforts

The Partnership must write and periodically update two plans: one that identifies and prioritizes recovery actions (Action Agenda) and another that identifies gaps in scientific knowledge (Biennial Science Work Plan). Statute requires that the Action Agenda and Biennial Science Work Plan be updated every two years.

Of the other recovery efforts noted in Exhibit 2.2, three out of four use five-year update cycles. The other updates its work plans on a two-year cycle, but not the entire plan.

During interviews, partner organizations described frustration and planning fatigue that were attributed to the frequency of planning updates.

The Partnership’s role is to coordinate the actions of partners to achieve Puget Sound recovery. The Partnership is not implementing statutory requirements to identify partner organizations that make outstanding progress toward recovery goals or whose actions are noncompliant.

The Partnership works with hundreds of state and federal agencies, tribes, counties, cities, and private partner organizations.

The Partnership is directed to coordinate partner efforts to plan, fund, and prioritize actions

The Partnership is directed to coordinate the efforts of partner organizations to advance recovery of Puget Sound. The agency identifies its three key roles as aligning work around a shared vision and strategy, ensuring smart investments, and supporting priority actions. It refers to this approach as a “backbone” model.

Partner organizations reported that the Partnership:

• Contributes to the overall recovery effort by creating a shared recovery plan (Action Agenda).
• Maintains a focus on the entire Puget Sound, rather than the interests of individual organizations. Without the regional focus, partners believe Puget Sound could be in worse condition as population growth and other pressures increase.

The Partnership does not identify partner organizations that make outstanding progress toward recovery goals or whose actions are noncompliant

Statute requires the Partnership to evaluate the actions of partner organizations. Statute directs that once the Partnership has assessed partners’ actions:

• Partners who make outstanding progress at implementing the Action Agenda should receive preferential treatment from state agencies for certain project funding.
• Partners whose actions are noncompliant with the Action Agenda should be engaged in a statutory process to remedy the situation. If the Leadership Council finds an entity “substantially noncompliant,” they can recommend to the Governor that the entity be ineligible for state funding. Instances of noncompliance are supposed to be reported to the Governor and Legislature.

The Partnership has not developed standards and processes to evaluate partner organizations and, therefore, does not implement these accountability measures.

The Puget Sound is a designated estuary in the National Estuary Program, creating additional coordination responsibilities

In addition to the requirements created by statute, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated Puget Sound as a national estuary and provides funding to implement activities related to the designation. This designation adds additional planning and coordination complexity for the Partnership.

Puget Sound and salmon recovery efforts are related but have different structures for recovery

Two recovery efforts are underway in Puget Sound: one to recover salmon, the other to recover Puget Sound. The recovery efforts are related, but operate under distinct statutes to achieve different goals.

Salmon recovery is within the scope of Puget Sound recovery

The Legislature passed the Salmon Recovery Act in 1999. It is aimed at recovering salmon populations across the state. The Partnership is one of two organizations responsible for salmon recovery in Puget Sound (the other is the Hood Canal Coordinating Council). Salmon recovery efforts may advance some Puget Sound recovery goals, but may not address others. For example:

• A salmon recovery project that improves salmon habitat may also improve Puget Sound by improving water quality or habitat for another species.
• A Puget Sound recovery project that reopens polluted shellfish beds may not be necessary for salmon recovery.

The Legislature directed the Partnership to integrate salmon into Puget Sound recovery

The Legislature directed the Partnership to integrate salmon recovery plans into the Puget Sound recovery plan (Action Agenda). In 2014, an independent report requested by the Legislature recommended that the Partnership better align and integrate salmon and Puget Sound recovery structures.

The Partnership is working to align salmon and local Puget Sound recovery plans. An example of this work is using the same planning software and elements to develop salmon and local ecosystem recovery plans, which makes the plans more compatible. However, the two recovery efforts have not been fully integrated into a broader Puget Sound recovery system.

Partnership’s approach to salmon and Puget Sound recovery creates inefficiencies

Government agencies, private organizations, and other stakeholders often are involved with both salmon recovery and Puget Sound recovery. The recovery efforts have many boards, committees, and technical groups that discuss the same topics. The Partnership has attempted to address the duplication by having joint meetings for salmon and Puget Sound recovery boards.

Partner organizations reported examples of redundancies and inefficiencies. For example, they must follow a funding agency’s process to request grants for salmon recovery projects. The Partnership has a separate application process to consider the same projects for the Action Agenda. This creates more administrative work for partner organizations who need to complete two different applications to promote the same action.

The Partnership prioritizes only some recovery actions and expenditures. This limits its ability to evaluate actions, barriers, inefficiencies, and funding.

The Legislature has directed the Partnership to prioritize recovery actions and state agency budget requests.

The Partnership now prioritizes near-term recovery actions and state agency requests for new funding

• Near-term recovery actions: In 2016, the Partnership prioritized near-term actions in the Action Agenda for the first time. Near-term actions are defined as those that can be completed within 2 to 4 years. Partner organizations helped rank the actions. They used four main criteria: probability of success; benefit to ecological/human well-being; addressing a regional priority; and scientific and technical soundness. The Action Agenda was adopted in June 2016, so it is too soon to know if or how funders will use this ranked list.
• State agency requests for new funding: Since 2013, the Partnership has ranked state agencies’ budget requests for new funds related to implementing the Action Agenda. The primary criteria for ranking are the strength of the link to the Action Agenda and magnitude of benefit to the Puget Sound. The Office of Financial Management reported that it uses the ranked list to inform the Governor’s budget.

The Partnership does not prioritize recovery efforts that are ongoing state agency programs. It also does not prioritize many non-state agency actions.

• Ongoing programs: State agencies and the Partnership reported to JLARC staff that most of their Puget Sound recovery efforts take place through ongoing programs. Ongoing programs have no end date, so they are not considered near-term actions. Agencies only submit budget decision packages for ongoing programs when they are requesting an increase or decrease to baseline funding. As a result, the Partnership does not prioritize these programs or related funding.
• Actions implemented by other partner organizations: Recovery actions implemented by tribal, federal, local, or private partner organizations are not included in the Action Agenda unless the organization chooses to participate. The Partnership may not know about these recovery actions.

Without the full scope of recovery activity, the Partnership has limited ability to evaluate actions, barriers, inefficiencies, and funding

It is unknown how many recovery actions and expenditures are neither identified nor prioritized by the Partnership. As a result, the full scope of actions and costs is unknown. Partial information limits the Partnership’s ability to evaluate all recovery actions, identify barriers, find inefficiencies, and determine if there is enough funding for the recovery effort.

The Partnership’s past attempts to identify the full scope have been unsuccessful. Such efforts are complicated because it requires information from the budgets and plans of local, federal, tribal, and private partner organizations in addition to state agencies.

A comprehensive monitoring program is key to advancing Puget Sound recovery. Additional work is needed to measure progress toward statutory goals.

The National Academy of Sciences recommends that a monitoring program identify whether actions were implemented as expected, if they had the intended effect, and if progress was made toward recovery goals.

The lessons learned from monitoring should inform future recovery plans, actions, and funding decisions. This is called adaptive management. Statute requires that the Partnership use adaptive management to update the recovery plan (Action Agenda).

The Partnership developed a monitoring program to report on project implementation, effectiveness, and progress toward recovery goals

The Partnership’s monitoring program has three components that reflect the National Academy of Sciences recommendation: implementation, effectiveness, and status and trends. However, the scope of the monitoring program is limited:

• The Partnership reports data provided by project partner organizations. It does not independently verify implementation data; and
• The Partnership does not conduct or direct its own monitoring studies, decreasing its ability to address identified monitoring needs.

The Partnership has begun linking recovery goals to measurable targets

The Legislature required the Partnership to develop measurable outcomes for each recovery goal and target to ensure progress toward meeting the goals.

• The Partnership identified 49 indicators to describe measureable outcomes. All six recovery goals have indicators.
• The Partnership has set long-term targets for 30 indicators. Targets quantify the indicator and allow the Partnership and others to measure progress toward achieving the recovery goal. The Quality of Life goal has no measureable targets.
• 15 indicators have near-term targets. The Science Panel and partner organizations told JLARC staff that near-term targets are particularly important to ensure continuous progress is being made to meet long-term targets.

Lessons learned from monitoring may be difficult to incorporate into the Action Agenda planning cycle

JLARC staff observed in previous audits that the Action Agenda did not clearly link actions to the recovery goals in statute. The Partnership has made improvements by linking goals and measurable targets. However, the Action Agenda and its specific recovery actions are still not clearly linked to the targets.

The Action Agenda does not specify what actions are needed to meet the recovery targets. As a result, it is difficult to see if actions have the intended effect and contribute to recovery targets. Likewise, it is difficult to see how lessons learned from monitoring inform the next Action Agenda update.

The Partnership’s Science Panel and Partnership staff have noted that additional work is needed to incorporate what has been learned from monitoring into the next planning cycle. They are piloting a new approach called implementation strategies to make these connections. It is still too early for JLARC staff to evaluate how effective this approach will be in improving linkages between actions and goals.

The Partnership’s approach to monitoring creates an organizational structure with unclear roles and responsibilities, limiting effectiveness.

Statute required the Partnership’s Science Panel to “guide the implementation and coordination of a Puget Sound assessment and monitoring program.” In 2007, the Legislature directed the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to identify possible organizational models for the monitoring program.

Ecology convened a committee to evaluate models in other parts of the country. The committee identified a number of essential requirements and recommended that the regional monitoring effort be housed in the Partnership or be an entirely separate organization. Either would report to the Partnership’s Science Panel.

Rather than choose one of the recommended models, the Partnership adopted a hybrid approach: a regional monitoring organization that operates independently from, but is staffed by, the Partnership. The organization is called the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP).

PSEMP includes representatives from many organizations that are involved in monitoring activities in Puget Sound. Its stated purpose is to “improve and coordinate the existing system of…data collection and evaluation in Puget Sound.”

The Partnership’s approach to monitoring is not fully meeting the essential requirements identified by Ecology

JLARC staff used the information from the legislatively required Ecology report as a basis for our analysis of the program. The report identified 18 characteristics, which JLARC staff consolidated into 5 essential requirements. JLARC staff find that PSEMP partially fulfills some of these requirements, but not others.

The Legislative Auditor recommends that the Partnership submit plans to the Legislature that address short planning timeframes, create a more complete inventory of actions, and revise its monitoring approach

JLARC’s previous audits of the Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership) identified areas of concern and recommended actions. While the Partnership has made improvements, JLARC staff remain concerned about three structural issues that hinder recovery efforts: planning timeframes, an incomplete inventory of actions, and an unclear monitoring approach.

The Legislative Auditor recommends that the Partnership develop plans to address these structural issues. Statute requires the Puget Sound Partnership inform the Legislature about barriers to Puget Sound recovery and ways to address them. Consistent with that directive, the Partnership should submit the plans and the resources needed to implement them to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee and other appropriate committees of the Legislature.

1. The Partnership should submit a plan to the Legislature that identifies and addresses needed revisions to the planning and recovery timeframes.

The Legislature intended for the Puget Sound to be recovered by 2020, and required the Partnership to update the Biennial Science Work Plan and elements of the Action Agenda every two years. Recovery will not be complete by 2020. JLARC staff’s review of other large ecosystem recovery efforts revealed that the 13-year recovery goal (2020) and 2-year planning timeframes are comparatively short.

The Partnership’s plan should propose an appropriate recovery timeframe and planning cycle to the Legislature. The plan should address the concerns identified by JLARC staff in Section 2 of this report, as well as those identified by the Partnership and partner organizations. The plan should update and add long- and short-term targets as needed. It may include proposed legislation and should include actions for the Partnership to address timeframes, targets, and related barriers to recovery.

2. The Office of Financial Management and the Partnership should submit a plan to the Legislature that details how they will create a more complete inventory of recovery actions and funding.

The Partnership currently tracks near-term actions, which are actions partners have identified that can be completed within a 2- to 4-year timeframe. JLARC staff learned that the number of efforts undertaken by partners, and not defined as near-term actions, may be quite large. This likely includes the activities of many ongoing agency programs. Without knowing what these activities are, it is not possible for the Partnership to prioritize all activities necessary to restore the health of Puget Sound.

This plan should identify the processes and procedures that OFM and the Partnership need so that the Partnership can create a more complete inventory of recovery actions and funding by partners. OFM and the Partnership should report the plan, along with any resource requirements, to the appropriate legislative committees.

3. The Partnership should submit a plan to the Legislature that details how it will address the deficiencies in its ability to meet the essential requirements for a monitoring program, as identified by JLARC staff. The plan should also address how the Partnership will improve and clarify links between monitoring and planning.

The lessons learned from monitoring should inform future recovery plans, actions, and funding decisions. This is called adaptive management, and statute requires that the Partnership use it to update the Action Agenda. The Partnership’s monitoring approach limits its ability to use adaptive management and measure progress toward statutory goals.

In 2007, the Legislature directed the Department of Ecology to propose a structure for a regional monitoring program that the Partnership would manage. The report recommended two options for an organizational structure and identified a number of essential requirements the program needed to meet in order to be successful. The Partnership’s Leadership Council chose a model that is not fully meeting those essential requirements. A key concern is accountability.

The plan should include specific actions to address the deficiencies JLARC staff identified in sections 6 and 7 of this report, such as linking actions to recovery targets and making changes needed to the PSEMP structure. It also should include estimates of any associated costs or resource needs.

Puget Sound Partnership

Office of Financial Management

Audit Authority

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) works to make state government operations more efficient and effective. The Committee is comprised of an equal number of House members and Senators, Democrats and Republicans.

JLARC's non-partisan staff auditors, under the direction of the Legislative Auditor, conduct performance audits, program evaluations, sunset reviews, and other analyses assigned by the Legislature and the Committee.

The statutory authority for JLARC, established in Chapter 44.28 RCW, requires the Legislative Auditor to ensure that JLARC studies are conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, as applicable to the scope of the audit. This study was conducted in accordance with those applicable standards. Those standards require auditors to plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. The evidence obtained for this JLARC report provides a reasonable basis for the enclosed findings and conclusions, and any exceptions to the application of audit standards have been explicitly disclosed in the body of this report.

Scope & Objectives

Why a JLARC Study of the Puget Sound Partnership?

In 2007, the Legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership) and charged it with coordinating and leading the effort to restore and protect Puget Sound by 2020. The enabling legislation, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5372, directed JLARC to conduct two performance audits of the Partnership, the first in 2011 and the second in 2016. JLARC staff completed the 2011 performance audit, as well as a follow-up report as directed in the 2012 supplemental budget. This Scope and Objectives document relates to the upcoming 2016 audit.

Legislature set Specific Goals and Objectives for the Partnership

In creating the Partnership the Legislature established six goals and eight objectives for the restoration of Puget Sound.

The goals are:

1. A healthy human population supported by a healthy Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem;
2. A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning Puget Sound ecosystem;
3. Healthy and sustaining populations of native species in Puget Sound, including a robust food web;
4. A healthy Puget Sound where freshwater, estuary, nearshore, marine, and upland habitats are protected, restored, and sustained;
5. An ecosystem that is supported by groundwater levels as well as river and stream flow levels sufficient to sustain people, fish, and wildlife, and the natural functions of the environment; and
6. Fresh and marine waters and sediments of a sufficient quality so that the waters in the region are safe for drinking, swimming, shellfish harvest and consumption, and other human uses and enjoyment, and are not harmful to the native marine mammals, fish, birds, and shellfish of the region.

The objectives are:

1. Protect existing habitat and prevent further losses;
2. Restore habitat functions and values;
3. Significantly reduce toxics entering Puget Sound fresh and marine waters;
4. Significantly reduce nutrients and pathogens entering Puget Sound fresh and marine waters;
5. Improve water quality and habitat by managing storm water runoff;
6. Provide water for people, fish and wildlife, and the environment;
7. Protect ecosystem biodiversity and recover imperiled species; and
8. Build and sustain the capacity for action.

To meet these goals and objectives the Partnership has been given three key responsibilities: to develop and prioritize recovery solutions through a science-based Action Agenda; to oversee implementation of recovery actions; and to track and monitor results, incorporating those findings into ongoing work. The Partnership is not responsible for implementing the Action Agenda: state agencies and local entities work as implementers to conduct on-the-ground work throughout Puget Sound.

JLARC’s First Audits Focused on Accountability Processes

Recognizing the first JLARC reviews were likely too early to measure progress in meeting the Legislature’s goals and objectives, the 2011 audit and 2013 follow-up report focused on key accountability directives assigned to the Partnership: would the Partnership be able to determine which restoration efforts were getting results?

The Partnership agreed with the audit’s conclusion that much work was still needed to create and implement measures to understand what was and was not working in efforts to meet statutory goals and objectives.

2016 Audit Scope

This study will evaluate the Partnership’s performance in their key responsibilities and follow-up on previous audit findings.

Audit Objectives

The audit will answer the following questions:

1. What progress has been made in restoring Puget Sound by 2020?
2. Are restoration efforts and expenditures across the Puget Sound tracking with the priorities and strategic initiatives set by the Partnership to meet legislative goals?
3. How is the Partnership meeting key oversight and accountability requirements directed by statute? Specifically, how has it improved linking actions to progress on restoration goals, prioritizing actions, and monitoring effectiveness?
4. Has the Partnership identified any barriers to implementing the Action Agenda? If there are barriers, have solutions been identified and communicated to the Governor and/or Legislature?
5. How is the Partnership utilizing monitoring and adaptive management in updating the Action Agenda?
This study will include a review of other national ecosystem restoration efforts to inform these questions.

Timeframe for the study

Staff will present its preliminary report at the JLARC meeting in January 2017.

Study methodology

The methodology JLARC staff use when conducting analyses is tailored to the scope of each study, but generally includes the following:

• Interviews with stakeholders, agency representatives, and other relevant organizations or individuals.
• Site visits to entities that are under review.
• Document reviews, including applicable laws and regulations, agency policies and procedures pertaining to study objectives, and published reports, audits or studies on relevant topics.
• Data analysis, which may include data collected by agencies and/or data compiled by JLARC staff. Data collection sometimes involves surveys or focus groups.
• Consultation with experts when warranted. JLARC staff consult with technical experts when necessary to plan our work, to obtain specialized analysis from experts in the field, and to verify results.

The methods used in this study were conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.

More details about specific methods related to individual study objectives are described in the body of the report under the report details tab or in technical appendices.

Contact

Authors of this Study

Melanie Stidham, Research Analyst, 360-786-5190

Amanda Eadrick, Research Analyst, 360-786-5174

John Woolley, Audit Coordinator

Keenan Konopaski, Legislative Auditor

Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee

Eastside Plaza Building #4, 2nd Floor

1300 Quince Street SE

PO Box 40910

Olympia, WA 98504-0910

Phone: 360-786-5171

FAX: 360-786-5180

Email: JLARC@leg.wa.gov

JLARC Members on Publication Date