The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

Puget Sound Partnership

Leadership Council MeetingNovember 9-10, 20072020 Action Agenda

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.

The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

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.

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?

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?

The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

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.

How will we answer them?

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?

1. Synthesize existing data and information:

• Status of Puget Sound health

• Indicators to measure ecosystem health

• Current programs and efforts, opportunities

2. Conduct a gap analysis to highlight what more is needed

3. Identify priorities, actions, assignments

• Ecosystem

• Local

4. Roll up, review draft Action Agenda, and approve

Action Agenda Questions

The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

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.

Risk Analysis Example 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)

Region 1. North Sea 2. Southern North Sea

3. Eastern English Channel

4. Channel and

Approaches

5. I rish Sea 6. Western Scotland

7. Scottish Continental

8. Scottish Offshore

Climate I mpacts

Fisheries

Nutrients Coastal

Microbiological Contaminants

Hazardous Substances

All oil I ndustry

Radioactivity

Construction

Dredging

Sedimentary and Coastal Erosion

Litter

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.

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.

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.

Example Outcomes for Water Quality Goal

1. Only a few outcomes are quantifiable now (e.g., Chinook salmon)

2. 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

3. 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.

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.

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.

What do we need to do to achieve a healthy Puget Sound and what are the assignments?

Part I -- Programs and Policies:

1. What are the current assignments and roles in protecting and restoring Puget Sound? (accountability)

2. 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.

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.

Part II – Gap analysis to highlight what more is needed

What is the status of and threats to Puget Sound’s

health?

What is a healthy Puget Sound ecosystem?

What is the scientific certainty/

uncertainty of actions?

What are the program and

policy opportunities?

1. 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?

2. Which goals or threats have no action?

3. 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.

Part III: Identify Actions and Priorities

Ecosystem Priorities

1. What should be the regional approach to ecosystem health?2. What should be the ecosystem priorities for each goal?3. What are the ecosystem-wide responsibilities and actions?

• Capital• Policy• Education and Outreach• Science

Action Area Priorities -- Local solutions to local problems(similar questions, local experts added to charrette teams)

Action Area

Action Area

Action Area

Action Area

Action Area

Action Area

Action Area

The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

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.

Action Agenda Leadership

Leadership Council

Executive Director, David Dicks

Action Agenda Project Management

Ecosystem Coordination

Board (advise)

Science Panel (advise)

The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

Action Agenda Project Management

Regional scientific and policy expertiseLoaned/Donated (agencies/organizations/private sector not PSP)

ConsultantsPartnership staff

Action Agenda Strategic Management TeamMartha Neuman, Puget Sound Partnership (Action Agenda Director)

Puget Sound Partnership Strategic Science Manager, TBDMary 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

Task Managers

Consultants

Loaned/Donated (agencies/organizations not PSP)

Partnership staff

The points and types of implementer and public engagement in the Action Agenda process are in an animated version of this slideshow.

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.

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