Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council Meeting November 9-10, 2007 2020 Action Agenda

1. Note to Leadership Council: At the meeting, we will present an animated version of this slideshow handout. The animation shows points and types of public engagement throughout the process. Puget Sound PartnershipLeadership Council MeetingNovember 9-10, 20072020 Action Agenda The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

2. 2020 Action Agenda Presentation Purpose: • Overview of proposed process • Leadership Council input on process The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

3. What is the status of and threats to Puget Sound’s health? What is a healthy Puget Sound ecosystem? What actions must we take to move from where we are today to a healthy Puget Sound by 2020? • 2020 Action Agenda • Regional guide for action with ecosystem framework and local priorities • Focused on priorities • Accountable for ecosystem health and implementation • Widely supported How do we successfully engage implementers and interests to create the Action Agenda? The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

4. Recap of Principles for 2020 Action Agenda Creation • Interested parties essential participants in process • Collaboration and cooperation across sectors and interests is vital • Clear and transparent process • Public engagement critical – tie to broad effort • Include scientific review of proposed actions • Focus on implementers, not new structures in Action Areas The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

5. What is the status of and threats to Puget Sound’s health? What is a healthy Puget Sound ecosystem? What actions must we take to move from where we are today to a healthy Puget Sound by 2020? Action Agenda Questions How will we answer them? • Synthesize existing data and information: • Status of Puget Sound health • Indicators to measure ecosystem health • Current programs and efforts, opportunities • Conduct a gap analysis to highlight what more is needed • Identify priorities, actions, assignments • Ecosystem • Local • Roll up, review draft Action Agenda, and approve The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

6. What is the status of and threats to Puget Sound’s health? • What does the collective existing information tell us for all goals? • Human health, Human well-being/prosperity • Species/biodiversity • Habitat • Water Quality • Water Flow • What is the order of magnitude of threats and risks? The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

7. Risk AnalysisExample Results from Great BritainBased on Table 5.1 in Charting Progress:An Integrated Assessment of the State of UK Seas(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stateofsea/chartprogress.pdf) Orange shading indicates the impacts from activities (rows) are considered to be important in the corresponding regions (columns) The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

8. From Figure 5.2 in Charting Progress:An Integrated Assessment of the State of UK Seas(http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stateofsea/chartprogress.pdf) The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

9. What is a healthy Puget Sound? • What are the outcome measures? • How much • Where • By when • What indicators add up to show a healthy Puget Sound? • Science (more complex) • Report card (more public) The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

10. Example Outcomes for Water Quality Goal • Only a few outcomes are quantifiable now (e.g., Chinook salmon) • Narrative that could be scientifically measured and/or estimated: “Toxic and pathogen levels in marine mammals, fish, birds, shellfish, plants do not harm the persistence and health of these species.” • Measure: tissue levels that do not impair recovery and persistence of populations or species • Thresholds/quantification needs ecosystem model – most not possible in near-term • Refine all narratives now; process to have quantification • Option for thresholds/accountability – policy benchmarks • Example: Meet existing water quality standards • Need criteria and process to set The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

11. What actions must we take to move from where we are today to a healthy Puget Sound by 2020? Part I -- Science: What is the scientific certainty/uncertainty of our strategies and actions? • For current actions, what do we know about what works? • For current actions, what is known to be less certain in achieving outcomes? • What do we know about how to reduce uncertainty and risk of action/inaction? • What areas need more attention if we are to meet the outcomes? The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

12. Example: Habitat • Strategy with Certain Effectiveness: • Protection of existing, intact habitat • Strategy with Uncertain Effectiveness: • Restoration of damaged habitat • Technologies not always well worked out • Success rate – hard to mimic natural system • Longevity • Effectiveness over time The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

13. What do we need to do to achieve a healthy Puget Sound and what are the assignments? Part I -- Programs and Policies: • What are the current assignments and roles in protecting and restoring Puget Sound? (accountability) • What are the: • Strengths of current efforts? • Weaknesses/gaps and threats of current efforts? (implementation impediments, scale, etc.) • New opportunities to achieve a healthy Puget Sound? • Who: Implementers The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

14. Example • To come at the meeting The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

15. What is the status of and threats to Puget Sound’s health? What is the scientific certainty/ uncertainty of actions? What are the program and policy opportunities? What is a healthy Puget Sound ecosystem? Part II – Gap analysis to highlight what more is needed • What existing actions and/or new opportunities are on track to address threats and risks? • What actions benefit multiple goals? • What actions address priority threats/risks? • Which goals or threats have no action? • What actions are not aligned with priority risks and threats? (e.g., address low threat, magnitude of action, scale of action, low certainty of results) The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

16. Action Area Action Area Action Area Action Area Action Area Action Area Action Area Action Area Priorities -- Local solutions to local problems (similar questions, local experts added to charrette teams) Part III: Identify Actions and Priorities • Ecosystem Priorities • What should be the regional approach to ecosystem health? • What should be the ecosystem priorities for each goal? • What are the ecosystem-wide responsibilities and actions? • Capital • Policy • Education and Outreach • Science The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

17. Part IV: Roll up, Review and Approval • Science Panel Review • What is the certainty that the Action Agenda adds up to a healthy Puget Sound by 2020? • Public Review • 30-60 days per National Estuary Program • Leadership Council approval The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

18. Action Agenda Leadership Science Panel (advise) Ecosystem Coordination Board (advise) Leadership Council Executive Director, David Dicks Action Agenda Project Management The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

19. Task Managers Consultants Loaned/Donated (agencies/organizations not PSP) Partnership staff Action Agenda Project Management Action Agenda Strategic Management Team Martha Neuman, Puget Sound Partnership (Action Agenda Director) Puget Sound Partnership Strategic Science Manager, TBD Mary Ruckelshaus, NOAA Fisheries (loan) David St. John, King County (loan) Action Agenda Public Engagement Lead (TBD: PSP Public Affairs Director or consultant) Lead consultant(s) as needed Regional scientific and policy expertise Loaned/Donated (agencies/organizations/private sector not PSP) Consultants Partnership staff The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

20. How do interests participate? • All agencies and interests • ID main staff point of contact who can speak for agency/organization • Be available as regional interests and experts: • Policy specialists • Scientists • Political interests • Analytic task teams to prepare for workshops • Working discussions and workshops • Work through caucuses where possible • No caucus, no problem • Interactive website The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

21. What about the Action Areas? (aka: How should local interests participate?) • Work first as local implementers (now) • City, county, port, conservation district, existing collaborative efforts, etc. • Caucuses where possible • Contribute expertise • Action Area Charrette Workshops (a little later) • Compressed work sessions: experts, interests, general public • Follow up workshops during public review • Partnership Support (throughout) • Information about Action Agenda and process • Analytic resources and support • Local workshops as needed for products and information The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.