Environmental justice

Tag: Environmental justice

Puget Sound Partnership takes closer look at human well-being and environmental justice

Amid the struggle to save salmon and orcas and restore the Puget Sound ecosystem comes a renewed effort to consider not only how humans affect the environment but how the environment affects the lives of humans.
The Puget Sound Partnership, which is overseeing the recovery of Puget Sound, has been developing a series of strategies to acknowledge and enhance the cultural, economic and psychological values that can come from a healthy natural environment. These new strategies, along with related actions, are to be incorporated into the 2022-26 Puget Sound Action Agenda, scheduled for adoption next year.
When the Washington Legislature created the Partnership in 2007, lawmakers set out a series of goals for improving the conditions of water, species and habitats. But even higher on that list were goals to achieve a “healthy human population” and a “quality of human life.”

Goals for human health and well-being have long been considered foundational issues in the recovery plan for Puget Sound, said Dan Stonington, planning manager for the Partnership. But now, he says, these ideas are getting heightened attention from the Puget Sound Leadership Council, the governing board for the Partnership.
Included in the discussion are strategies for improving environmental justice. This is the principle that all people — regardless of race, ethnicity or income — should be treated fairly when it comes to environmental laws and policies and, I might add, enjoying the benefits of environmental restoration.
A new design for the Puget Sound Action Agenda includes a series of “desired outcomes,” which I described in Our Water Ways in January, as the discussion was taking place. Desired outcomes for the next Action Agenda (PDF 6 mb) have been framed for all the statutory goals related to water quality, water quantity, biological species, and human health and well-being.
Now strategies for achieving those desired outcomes are under consideration. An online workshop for information and discussion is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1:30 p.m. Registration is required.
Many of the suggested strategies for improved ecosystem health are coming out of the so-called Implementation Strategies, which were developed through in-depth, scientific analyses about the causes of problems in Puget Sound. Such analyses have focused on Chinook salmon, floodplains and estuaries, land development and cover, freshwater quality, marine water quality, shellfish beds, shoreline armoring and toxics in fish.
A list of strategies under consideration for the next Action Agenda can be reviewed on the Partnership’s webpage “Identifying Strategies for Puget Sound Recovery.”

New Action Agenda Strategies for human well-being (HWB) and climate change (CC) are being developed outside the normal analytical process for Implementation Strategies (IS). // Image: Puget Sound Partnership

So far, the Implementation-Strategy approach has not been applied to the concept of human well-being, but ideas for the Action Agenda are coming out of existing planning efforts along with special work groups in the social sciences arena. Officials are leaning on the 2015 technical memorandum titled “Human Well-being Vital Signs and Indicators for Puget Sound Recovery” (PDF 1.3 mb), which helped establish methods for measuring human well-being.
About 50 individual strategies have been proposed for addressing human well-being issues. Partnership staffers are working to combine ideas and trim the list before adoption. A few of the ideas, as shown in the PDF version:

  • Increase the number and accessibility of natural environments, including green spaces and waterways.
  • Enhance protections for areas important for many cultural practices.
  • Improve appropriate access opportunities for harvesting local foods on public lands and shorelines.
  • Increase participation of historically underrepresented communities in Puget Sound recovery governing and advisory boards.
  • Engage social scientists to work with Puget Sound communities at better understanding social relationships, connectedness, and senses of belonging in Puget Sound.
  • Increase understanding about the connections between mental health and a healthy natural environment.

Dan Stonington points out that human well-being is a two-way street in ecosystem planning. Whatever benefits that people derive from the natural world — economic, recreational, cultural or psychological — become enhanced when people take actions to improve the ecosystem. Folks who feel a strong attachment to Puget Sound — known as “sense of place” — are more likely to support actions that advance ecosystem recovery and thus enhance human enjoyment.

The bottom line, Dan says, is that people are an integral part of the ecosystem. If they see the natural world as their home, as a special place worthy of protection, then the future will be better for salmon, orcas and all the wonderful creatures — and humans will experience a stronger sense of place.
How people feel about Puget Sound and how their feelings have changed over time are measured in opinion surveys conducted for the State of the Sound report, currently being updated. At last report, more than 75 percent of Puget Sound residents “agree” or “strongly agree” that they are “very attached” to the Puget Sound region and “feel responsible for taking care of Puget Sound’s natural environment.”
While the Partnership has always understood the importance of human quality-of-life considerations in improving the ecosystem, studies and analyses have not always accounted for diverse viewpoints. A closer look at the human population reveals that different groups of people might have differing values or experiences when it comes to the natural world. Efforts to improve certain aspects of the ecosystem might affect different people in different ways.
The Partnership has launched an ongoing effort to advance environmental justice, beginning with a greater inclusion of diverse populations in recovery planning. Special attention is being given to “overburdened communities,” which are populations identified with disproportionate environmental harms or health risks compared to the general population (“Words hold power,” EJ Task Force, PDF 3.2 mb). Aspects of this new effort of inclusion are identified in Addendum 5 of the Feb. 18 Outcomes memo (PDF 5.4 mb).
Meanwhile, the state’s new HEAL Act dealing with environmental justice calls on state agencies to look for and try to reduce health and environmental disparities in their normal operations, regulations and practices. After the new law passed in April, I outlined its provisions in Our Water Ways. See also the topical section on environmental justice in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

The Puget Sound Partnership, which is covered by the new law, has received legislative funding for a full-time staffer and consultants to assess ways to improve environmental justice within the organization and in its outreach programs. That new effort will develop an action plan to advance equity and inclusion throughout the Puget Sound recovery effort, as outlined in an equity and justice policy memo (PDF 410 kb).
“As a state agency with a mission centered around protecting and restoring the socio¬ecological resilience of Puget Sound, the Partnership coordinates and leads the recovery community to develop and implement strategies and actions that benefit all Puget Sound residents,” the memo states.
“The Partnership serves as the nexus between state agencies, federal agencies, Puget Sound tribes, local jurisdictions, and many other non-governmental organizations,” the memo explains. “The Partnership is well positioned to guide the Puget Sound recovery community in a new direction that explicitly centers diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice (EJ), which have long been absent from mainstream conservation and ecosystem-recovery work in the State of Washington and nationally.
“Moving in this direction is not only a moral imperative but is also critical to fulfilling our statutory obligations and mission to coordinate Puget Sound recovery for the benefit of all Puget Sound residents.”
As ideas for improving the “quality of human life” are examined in a wider context, we may eventually see new actions proposed within existing Implementation Strategies, actions that could strengthen the bonds among humans and the species we are trying to save.

State agencies will focus on improving environmental justice under new law

A person’s health should not be determined by their income, race or ethnic background nor by the neighborhood in which they live, according to basic principles of environmental justice. Yet studies have shown that these demographic groups tend to suffer from a disproportionate share of environmental problems — from toxic waste to air pollution to water quality.
The HEAL Act, approved and ready to be signed by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, is designed to address the problem in some ways. The legislation, Senate Bill 5141, requires state agencies to look for and try to reduce such disparities in normal agency operations, regulations and practices.
“Every Washingtonian deserves the same protections for living in a healthy environment,” said Laura Watson, director of the Washington Department of Ecology. “Everyone deserves to breathe clean air, to drink clean water and to live on unpolluted lands. That is our fundamental obligation to every one of the 7.5 million Washingtonians that call this beautiful place home in every community, regardless of their Zip code.”
Watson, testifying in favor of the legislation before the House Committee on Environment and Energy, went on to say that the COVID-19 pandemic “amplified what we already knew … that health inequities and environmental disparities permeate our current structures. People of color and low-income populations are disproportionately exposed to pollution in their homes, their schools, their jobs and their communities. That’s wrong and it shouldn’t continue.”
HEAL stands for Healthy Environment for All. The soon-to-become law calls for state agencies to account for environmental justice within their strategic plans and when taking “significant agency actions.” Such actions include proposing changes to laws or regulations, developing new grant programs or initiating major construction projects.

Composite map representing comparative health disparity data (rankings from 1 to 10) for all census tracts in Washington state // Map: Washington Department of Ecology

Efforts to correct inequities are to be guided by studies and information — including the statewide Environmental Health Disparities Map, which compiles demographic, environmental and health data by census tract across the state.
A new Environmental Justice Council, appointed by the governor, will oversee compliance with the law, but council recommendations will be strictly advisory. The original bill, introduced this year by Sen. Rebecca Saldaña, D-Seattle, would have given strong enforcement powers to the council, as recommended by the Environmental Justice Task Force. After more than a year of study, the task force released its recommendations (PDF 3.3 mb), which became the basis of the HEAL Act, which then underwent numerous amendments in the Legislature.
For further coverage of environmental justice in Washington state — including a proposal to update the Model Toxics Control Act — check out the recent entries in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Legislative battle
The HEAL Act was approved Tuesday, when the full Senate concurred with a House version adopted on April 10. Votes in both the House and Senate reflect a strict party division, with Democrats voting in favor of the bill and Republicans voting against — except for three Democrats who crossed over to join the opposition. In the House, Democrat Mike Chapman of Port Angeles voted with Republicans, joined by Senate Democrats Tim Sheldon of Potlatch and Kevin Van De Wege of Sequim.
Throughout the debate in both the House and Senate, Republicans said the legislation would create an unneeded layer of bureaucracy that would likely delay project approvals, harm the state’s economy and kill prospects for new jobs.
“As I thought about this, I wondered what is this really?” said Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, during the Senate floor debate. “This is an excellent bureaucrat-development project. It’s not a way to help minority communities in my district with jobs — or in yours.”
In the House, Rep. Mary Dye, R-Pomeroy, said past failures in environmental equity are failures within the agencies themselves.
“No one can look at the Health Disparities Map and not feel compelled to pursue justice for these communities,” Dye said. “Community after community from Tacoma to Seattle to Redmond to Bellevue, they are all experiencing extremely unhealthy conditions that are increasing their risk of adverse outcomes.”
But the HEAL Act offers no hope of justice, she said, because there is no accountability for the failures of the past. The environmental laws are strong enough as they are, she argued, but they have been poorly administered and inequitably enforced.
“Senate Bill 5141 does not ask anyone to apologize or take public responsibility for the degraded habitat we have,” she said. “It replaces no one. It merely adds a new government program and new bureaucracy to the already failing ones.”
Democratic support
Democratic legislators argued strongly in favor of the bill, saying that much progress has been made on the environmental front, but some people have benefitted more than others. In particular, many low-income families and people of color still languish in the worst environmental conditions, including worsening air pollution in some areas.
Rep. Sharon Shewmake, D-Bellingham, an environmental economist, said pollution costs the United States hundreds of millions of dollars every year — and it used to be worse. But new cleanup processes, equipment and institutions have created more wealth and better health for all Americans. The problem, she added, is that those benefits have not been shared fairly.
According to Shewmake, the environmental justice movement began in Warren County, N.C., not far from where her uncle lives. It was 1982, and the state of North Carolina was looking for a permanent disposal site for contaminated soils that had been dumped illegally along the roadways.
Shewmake said state officials chose to place the PCB-laden soils on productive farmland in a community of hard-working African Americans “because they thought they wouldn’t fight back.” A major protest ensued and spread to disadvantaged communities across the United States, and yet certain populations continue to bear the brunt of pollution problems.
“It happens to those who are vulnerable, who don’t have access to health care, who live in food deserts where they don’t have access to healthy, nutritious foods,” she said, “which means that these impacts of pollution of water and air on their bodies isn’t mitigated by other things that you and I might have access to. And that’s not right.”
Rep. Kirsten Harris-Talley, D-Seattle, said the inequities in the current system of regulating pollution and in the legacy of toxic sites are better understood today than ever before.
“We’re at a very unique moment in our history…, when we can start to have large comprehensive data about every corner of the state,” she said.
Armed with information about health and environmental conditions, state efforts can be begin to correct the problems, which affect rural communities as much as urban communities, she said.
“I agree with every member here who has said we have not gone as far as we can or should,” she said. “This policy is the start of what I think will be a lot of change to have us meet those goals and go beyond the goals we have set.”
Basic provisions of the law
Under the law, the state departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Ecology, Health, Natural Resources and Transportation along with the Puget Sound Partnership must incorporate strategies to advance environmental justice goals into their strategic plans by Jan. 1, 2023. Other agencies may opt into the program.
Those agencies also must conduct environmental justice assessments for any “significant agency action” taken after July 1, 2023. Such actions include: 1) new regulations, 2) new grant or loan programs, 3) capital projects, grants or loans of more than $12 million, and 4) agency-requested legislation.
Such assessments should be completed without delaying the agency action being addressed. New or novel studies are not required, and the assessment can be simply a checklist of information, conceptually similar to the checklist used for reviews under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Based on EJ assessments, agencies must try to reduce harms or increase benefits to “overburdened communities” affected by multiple environmental problems and “vulnerable populations,” defined as groups likely to be at higher risk for poor health outcomes due to socioeconomic factors (such as limited access to nutritious food or health care facilities) or sensitivity factors (such as low-birth weight).
Vulnerable populations may include 1) racial or ethnic minorities, 2) low-income populations, 3) populations disproportionately impacted by environmental harms; and 4) populations of workers experiencing environmental harms.
Each agency covered by the law must integrate EJ processes into their budget planning where feasible with the goal of increasing environmental benefits for overburdened communities and vulnerable populations. Those groups need to be consulted during the process.
Agencies must also develop a consultation process with federally recognized Indian tribes when developing EJ plans and actions that can affect tribal rights and tribal lands.
Each agency must adopt a community engagement plan by July 1, 2022, describing how the agency will share information with overburdened communities — including special efforts to reach those affected by agency decisions.
Agency heads can choose to exempt their agency from EJ assessments and planning when the result would be a delay causing significant harm to health, the environment or public interest. Exemptions could also be given if an action would create a problem involving state revenues or a conflict with federal law.
Environmental Justice Council
The governor is called on to appoint 14 individuals to an Environmental Justice Council, which will advise agencies on how they can incorporate EJ into their activities to advance the goals of environmental justice. Members will include:

  • Seven community representatives, including one youth (age 18-25) representative, all of whom have done some kind of work in environmental justice or related fields,
  • Two members representing tribes — one from Eastern Washington and one from Western Washington,
  • Two representatives considered environmental practitioners or academics who can serve as experts,
  • One representative of a business regulated by one of the state agencies covered by the law,
  • One representative of a union representing workers in the building and construction trades, and
  • One representative at large, based on work dealing with environmental justice.
  • Each agency covered by the law will be represented by a non-voting member on the council.

The EJ Council, which must meet before the end of this year, will provide a forum for discussion about environmental justice concerns, make recommendations to state agencies, help identify and prioritize overburdened communities, and evaluate agency progress in a report released to the public every two years.
The council will come under the Washington Department of Health, which will hire a manager and support staff. Health officials also will manage an inter-agency workgroup to provide technical assistance to agencies conducting EJ planning and analysis.
The Department of Health will maintain the Environmental Health Disparities Map with assistance from the agencies, community groups and universities. Updates to the map must be reported as they occur, with a complete evaluation report every three years. The interactive map, which went online in 2018, includes 19 indicators of demographic, environmental and health data for each census tract in the state.
The Department of Health is expected to employ the equivalent of 8.7 staffers to manage the council, workgroup and other obligations under the law, according to a financial report to the Legislature. Other agencies vary in their estimates of staff time needed to carry out their EJ planning and assessments. The budget for carrying out the new law has not been approved by the Legislature.

Environmental justice on the move: a few personal observations about change

I recently completed a much-involved writing project focused on environmental justice. It has been one of the most challenging, yet for me enlightening, efforts in my 45 years of covering the environment.
My initial idea was to report on a plan by the Washington Department of Ecology to rewrite the regulations for the Model Toxics Control Act, the law that prescribes the cleanup of all kinds of contaminated sites. One of Ecology’s goals in rewriting the rules has been to pay more attention to the demographic makeup of populations around polluted sites, making sure that families of color, low-income and other highly impacted groups are given the attention they deserve.

Composite map representing comparative health disparity data (rankings from 1 to 10) for all census tracts in Washington state // Map: Washington Department of Ecology

I naively approached this story as I would any story regarding potential changes to public policy. Regulations often revolve around agency activities with input from community activists, guided by science and influenced by political leaders. I am fairly comfortable dealing with political leaders and scientific discoveries in the fields of biology, chemistry, oceanography and such. But I had never been trained in sociology, which is at the heart of environmental justice. I found myself questioning basic ideas, searching for reliable studies, wondering about methodologies, and relishing personal revelations about race, class, political power and history.
I started by digging for answers: Is it really true that toxic sites are more often found in disadvantaged communities? How did this come about? Why are toxic-cleanup efforts more often focused on affluent areas? What are the social forces that led to today’s circumstances? What are the forces for change versus those for maintaining the status quo?
I can’t say that I found all the answers, and I’m still learning. I plan to write more about environmental justice in the future, as more people realize that our efforts to treat the environment with greater respect also means treating all people with greater respect. For now, I’ve written three stories, all published this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound:

When it comes to political struggles, there is increasing awareness about the need to address environmental justice. Lots of things are happening at the state and federal levels. Washington’s Legislature is moving ahead with a bill that would require state agencies to establish new EJ practices when dealing with health and environmental issues. Senate Bill 5141 has passed both houses in somewhat different forms and is now going through reconciliation before final passage.
At the national level, President Joe Biden has launched a new White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council to bring greater visibility to EJ issues and to make sure that federal agencies remain committed to more equitable outcomes for a variety of environmental and climate issues.
When it comes to Washington state, it is clear that more studies are needed to assess the geographic and demographic distribution of toxic sites. Statewide studies seem to be either out of date or limited in other ways. Few, if any, have been peer-reviewed for credibility. Still, some localized studies point to an inequitable distribution of toxic sites, thus supporting the findings of well-researched studies in other parts of the country. It is time to understand that low-income communities and communities of color are not only affected disproportionately by the location of toxic sites but also that their homes, healthcare services and working conditions may put their health at greater-than-average risk.
One useful demographic tool that anyone can use is the Washington Environmental Health Disparities Map, which compares conditions across the state, grouped by census tract. The map looks at 19 indicators — including proximity to Superfund sites, exposure to diesel emissions, and toxic releases from industrial facilities. It also includes comparative data on poverty, race, housing costs and English proficiency, among other things. You can type in your address and learn how your area compares to other areas across the state.
Displaying all this information by census tract creates some limitations, because census tracts vary greatly in size across the state. Nevertheless, it is a nice high-level snapshot of these conditions, and the “Information By Location” tool provides a good starting point to see how your “community” compares to others in the state. An explanatory video offers information about using the map, which was developed by the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Health Sciences in collaboration with Front and Centered, a nonprofit group, the Washington departments of Health and Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The project is more fully explained in a report (PDF 10.9 mb) from the Washington Environmental Justice Mapping Work Group.

Duwamish Waterway // Photo: brewbooks via Wikimedia Commons

As I continued my exploration of EJ issues, I felt compelled to seek out answers about why certain “vulnerable” populations were getting more than their fair share of environmental hazards. On the one hand, I told myself that regardless of the history we must deal with things as they are today. On the other hand, the conditions of today are derived from the conditions of yesterday, as explained by Millie Piazza, environmental justice senior adviser for the Washington Department of Ecology.
“We have to realize that history is important in order to deal with the problems of today,” Millie told me. “If we keep supporting systems that led to these problems (of racial and economic injustice), then we will keep getting the same results.”
My story “Why is so much pollution found in disadvantaged communities?” provides a general answer to my initial question, although the history of industrialization and the resulting pollution is different for each community across the state and nation.
For a more thorough explanation of the history of racial and income disparity as they relate to environmental justice, I can recommend two excellent books: “Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility” by Dorceta Taylor; and “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America” by Richard Rothstein.
To see how environmental justice played out in one community, I examined the history of the Duwamish Valley in South Seattle, where a pristine river was converted to an industrial waterway. Check out my story “Diverse populations benefit from targeted efforts to improve environmental justice.” I’m grateful for help from BJ Cummings, author of “The River That Made Seattle: A Human and Natural History of the Duwamish.”
I’m currently looking into a few other communities where the injustice of pollution seems to maintain a stranglehold on area residents, who find themselves stymied in their efforts to reduce unhealthful conditions.
I have learned by diving into this issue of environmental justice that we are all affected in widely differing ways by our environment, and we all have the power to make changes to our environment, for better or worse. The essence of environmental justice is to include everyone and forget no one in our choices for change.
While I can never understand what it means to be a person of color or to live in poverty, I am learning a good deal from people who have other life experiences. As a result of new efforts at the local, state and federal levels, I see hope for a better future.

Voices Unbound logo

‘Voices Unbound’ seminar looks at disenfranchised communities

Like so many things, a person’s understanding of environmental issues can depend on different factors, from economic status, to race and ethnicity, to politics and culture. An upcoming seminar hosted by the Puget Sound Institute on March 22nd at 10:00 AM will look at these perspectives and will talk about some of the ways that disenfranchised voices can be increasingly heard in environmental policy discussions. The seminar features UW Tacoma Nursing professor Dr. Robin Evans-Agnew, who will describe the ‘Voices Unbound’ project. The project surveyed more than a thousand people in Pierce County about their environmental concerns.
Voices Unbound: Amplifying Perspectives of Disenfranchised Communities to Provoke Environmental Change
What do people think about environmental challenges and what do they do every day to survive those challenges?
A considerable gap exists among the discourses of those who implement environmental policies and the underrepresented communities that disproportionately experience environmental issues. In order to address this, Voices Unbound asks people throughout Pierce County to document environmental challenges that are impacting them and their community by using enviro-postcards.
Over seven months between 2019 and 2020, we stood in the street, behind booths, in the sunshine and the rain, asking passers-by to fill out a postcard to answer these two questions. We chose places where we wouldn’t necessarily find the sorts of people who already had a voice: outside the State Fair, in senior centers, amongst those experiencing homelessness, in parks, outside an ice-skating rink, and in local outdoor markets. We collected over 1000 postcards before the coronavirus outbreak took over everyone’s consciousness. Now, we invite you to listen in as we present selections of the postcards we collected and discuss our experiences.
The project also created a podcast series to amplify community voices.
Co-Principal Investigators: Christopher J. Schell, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma; Robin A. Evans-Agnew, School of Nursing and Healthcare Leadership, UW Tacoma.
Co-Investigators: Tom Koontz and Joel Baker, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma.
When: 10:00 AM
Where: Join by Zoom
https://washington.zoom.us/j/97391827146
Meeting ID: 973 9182 7146
One tap mobile
+12063379723,,97391827146# US (Seattle)
+12532158782,,97391827146# US (Tacoma)

Voices Unbound logo

‘Voices Unbound’ seminar looks at disenfranchised communities

Like so many things, a person’s understanding of environmental issues can depend on different factors, from economic status, to race and ethnicity, to politics and culture. An upcoming seminar hosted by the Puget Sound Institute on March 22nd at 10:00 AM will look at these perspectives and will talk about some of the ways that disenfranchised voices can be increasingly heard in environmental policy discussions. The seminar features UW Tacoma Nursing professor Dr. Robin Evans-Agnew, who will describe the ‘Voices Unbound’ project. The project surveyed more than a thousand people in Pierce County about their environmental concerns.
Voices Unbound: Amplifying Perspectives of Disenfranchised Communities to Provoke Environmental Change
What do people think about environmental challenges and what do they do every day to survive those challenges?
A considerable gap exists among the discourses of those who implement environmental policies and the underrepresented communities that disproportionately experience environmental issues. In order to address this, Voices Unbound asks people throughout Pierce County to document environmental challenges that are impacting them and their community by using enviro-postcards.
Over seven months between 2019 and 2020, we stood in the street, behind booths, in the sunshine and the rain, asking passers-by to fill out a postcard to answer these two questions. We chose places where we wouldn’t necessarily find the sorts of people who already had a voice: outside the State Fair, in senior centers, amongst those experiencing homelessness, in parks, outside an ice-skating rink, and in local outdoor markets. We collected over 1000 postcards before the coronavirus outbreak took over everyone’s consciousness. Now, we invite you to listen in as we present selections of the postcards we collected and discuss our experiences.
The project also created a podcast series to amplify community voices.
Co-Principal Investigators: Christopher J. Schell, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma; Robin A. Evans-Agnew, School of Nursing and Healthcare Leadership, UW Tacoma.
Co-Investigators: Tom Koontz and Joel Baker, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Tacoma.
When: 10:00 AM
Where: Join by Zoom
https://washington.zoom.us/j/97391827146
Meeting ID: 973 9182 7146
One tap mobile
+12063379723,,97391827146# US (Seattle)
+12532158782,,97391827146# US (Tacoma)