A long term study of turbidity trends in the Upper Deschutes watershed in Thurston County by Weyerhauser have indicated that improvements in forestry road construction practices have made a significant difference in reducing sediment in the Deschutes river and its tributaries.   Maryanne Reiter explained that the analysis of data from 1974 to 2004 suggested that even when adjusting for flow levels there is a clear correlation with reduced turbidity in the river and better road construction practices that have reduced sediment runoff.

In a statewide analysis of the risk of conversion of forestland to other uses between now and 2050, the forest lands of the South Sound have been identified as being at the highest risk of conversion in the state.   Luke Rogers from the University of Washington explained that the analysis identifies that there currently is a signficant economic incentive in some areas to convert land from forestry to mixed use or urban/suburban use.   He suggested that the state policy of reduced property taxes for enrolled forestry lands was successful in providing financial incentives to landowners to keep their land in forestry through the 1990’s.  However, Rogers asserted, new restrictions on forestry practices with new protective regulations have now counteracted that economic incentive and it is no longer effective.  

The biggest transition over the last few decades in forest land ownership has been the sale of industrial forest lands to small private forest land owners.  Rogers showed a map that identified which forestry lands in the South Sound were at the greates risk of conversion to non-forestry uses due to their economic value.  Many of these lands were in the middle area of the watersheds in the transition zone between the public forest lands in the upper watersheds and the more urbanized areas closer to Puget Sound.

A survey of private forest landowners revealed that 93 percent of them would be willing to keep their land in forest production for 10 years if they were given a payment of $200 per acre and 53 percent of them would be willing to sign a 50 year forestry easement for $200 per acre.

Luke Rogers spoke on “South Sound forest land conversion”

Questions asked from Integrated Statewide Parcel Data:  How big is forest industry?  How much of these are family forests?

things are rapidly becoming urbanized in the South Sound

roughly a 1/4 of forest land has been impacted by development

Showed timberland ownership net flow.  The amount of land under public ownership and small owners hasn’t changed much.  Much of the conversion comes from large forestry selling to smaller owners, which then (after a time) sell land for development.

He explained the property tax incentives to keep land for forestry.

Researchedthe amount of incentive payments needed for someone to choose not to develop.  For $200 an acre per year, 93% of owners would join a 10 year contract to not develop.  53% of people would keep the land undeveloped for 50+ years.

Concerns: “Forestlands are more at risk now than ever.”  DFL reduced risk, but was expensive for local communities.  “Regulatory takings trump tax incentives.”

Could use mitigation funds/markets, and dvelopment right markets.

Questions and answers:

Is there any evidence that reduced land prices is an opportunity?

This is a question that will be researched next spring, but opportunities here could be cancelled out by smaller budgets for buying land.

Are there any places where the conversion of large forestlands to small parcels could be adding to forested land, since it is less apt to be harvested?

We don’t have a good idea of what smaller parcels contribute to the ecosystem, and smaller parcels are more likely to be poorly managed.

The attendees of the Symposium today are being asked “How would you restore Budd Inlet?”

A table sized map of Budd Inlet has been laid out in the event center, with dozens of possible projects represented by a paper cup. Each attendee can take ten pieces of gravel and vote for each project with one or more piece of gravel.

Below is Tracey Farrel from the Department of Ecology and Joe Peters of the Squaxin Island Tribe assessing their choices.

You can view more photos of the Symposium here.

Pete Swensson, Senior Planner Thurston Regional Planning Council, spoke on “South Sound population growth projections.”

How forecasting is done, our changing economic base, pattern of growth

Where population growth and decline comes from:  birth rates and death rates change slowly, but migration is highly variable.  We need to look at economics and demographics to find labor force supply and demand

currently our growth is slowing due to state gov’t employment growth slowdown (since Intiative 601) and recession

gov’t share of jobs is falling

There are more commuters between Puget Sound counties.  We’re “NOT YET a ‘bedroom community'” 

outbound commuters “bring more earnings into local economy than State Government”

Commuters from Pierce and King (8,700) combined is approximately equal to commuters from Mason, Grays Harbors, and Lewis counties (8,900)

growth is cyclical and comes in spurts

“For the first time since the early ’80s, Thurston employment is droppping,”  but “TRPC forecasts a return of rapid long-term growth for Thurston.”

Long term models cannot predict the timing of recessions or recovers, but are good for major trends.

Joe Gaydos from the SeaDoc Society encouraged the scientists attending to learn to communicate our science in a more effective way.   We need to be able to talk to the general public about the science we are doing in way that is interesting and useful to them.   Joe asserted that this is necessary to counteract people who are “denialists”  – people who allege there is a conspirancy, use fake experts, cherry pick evidence, create impossible standards for their opponents, use logical fallacies and manufacture doubt.    Joe cited Randy Olson’s book “Don’t Be Such A Scientist” that describes how many scientists are too negative, too literal, and poor storytellers.   

Joe suggested four main principles for scientists to be more effective in getting their good science out to the community:

1. Resolve to speak from science, not opinion.   Speak about your data and know what it means and the implications for society.

2. Know the playing field – understand the audience you are communicating with.  Don’t send detailed scientific publications to elected officials who have no time to read them.

3. Pursue excellence and be realistic –  focus on whether the big message got across, not the minute details.

4.  Expect backlash –  it is going to happen and is not a sign of failure, but rather can be an indication that your message is getting attention.

Jeff Dickison welcomed attendees.

Tribal fishermen have moved onto chum salmon.  While sockeye was good this year, coho salmon was dismal.  We need to look into this.

Referenced new research into algal blooms that provide danger to fish.  Ask Jeff to email you the article.

Thanked planners and sponsors.

Dr. Julia Parrish (University of Washington) will be facilitator today.

Encouraged us to focus on integrating ideas for a research agenda.

Joe Gaydos of The SeaDoc Society provided opening remarks.  He is a member of Puget Sound Partnership Science Panel, and Northwest Straits Commission.  Here are some selections from his talk:

Used example of Lancet article stating there was a link MMR vaccine and autism that has since been discredited as an example of denialism.

“prescription for denialism: allege there is a conspiracy, use fake experts, cherry-pick evidence, create impossible standards for your opponents, use logical fallacies, manufacture doubt”

“…we expect miracles, but have little faith in those capable of producing them.” -Michael Specter, Denialism

There is a “scientific vacuum in a world of information overload.”

Scientists are too negative and too literal, and we’re poor story-tellers (Don’t Be Such a Scientist – Randy Olson)

We need share our research to the public in a way they can understand

“Step 1: Resolve to speak for your science”

“Step 2: Know the playing field” (know what the media expects)

“Step 3: Pursue excellence and be realistic”

“Step 4: Expect backlash” (possible personal, and possibly from other scientists)

Julia , who will be facilitating the day, explained that today is about understanding how the South Sound works and what are the important factors.   She encouraged attendees to be the space for problem solving in the South Sound by going beyond documenting the impacts of our actions on the South Sound and looking how those impacts affect human communities and the local ecosystem.  She called for an interdisciplinary integration of ideas that allow us to come up with new innovative ways to deal with the issues facing the South Sound.

Jeff welcomed the approximately 350 attendees to the event.   He thanked the folks that helped to organize the day.  He also mentioned to people that there is a new organization forming in the South Sound to bring together the elected officials from the four counties that touch the South Sound (Mason, Kitsap, Thurston and Pierce), the three Tribes (Squaxin, Nisqually and Puyallup), and other agencies and organizations.   The purpose of this organization will be to be a coordinating, policy making body for the sustainable management of South Puget Sound.   There will be an official launch of this new organization on December 17th.

Jeff Dickison is giving the introductory remarks right now, and he mentioned that we could start calling this event the South Salish Sea Science Symposium, or S5.

What do you think of that?

More information on the Salish Sea moniker here.