Launching the new Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators : Toward Data Collection, Data Cleansing, Data Analysis and Targe

1. Launching the new Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators: Toward Data Collection, Data Cleansing, Data Analysis and Target Setting Leadership Council Meeting July 30, 2010

2. Performance Management Thought for the Day • “The perfect is the enemy of the good” • - Voltaire • The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien,” from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) • In other words, pursuing the "best" solution may end up doing less actual good than accepting a solution that, while not perfect, is effective • Best Available Science - “Ultimately, successful management of aquatic ecosystems will rely on scientists, managers and decision makers who have the skills and courage to apply the best science available and not wait for the best science possible” – Marine and Freshwater Research, 2010 • Leadership’s relationship management challenge • … the Science ~ Policy dance …

3. Today’s outcomes • Obtain Leadership Council support for launching the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators and review next steps • Continue to discuss natural and social science underpinnings for Dashboard indicators, relationship to health of Sound and improving people’s behavior in that context • Continue to discuss dynamic nature of dashboards and other such performance management tools for use with our collective, collaborative leadership and continuous performance improvement approaches • Review collaborative target setting work plan and timeline

4. Today’s agenda • Brief recap on role of the Leadership Council • Brief recap on big picture of performance management and key deliverables in 2010 • Review of changes made to DRAFT Dashboard and next steps • Briefing on importance of Dashboard indicators to set a context for further use of Open Standards • Begin to explore the larger families of measures for each of the Dashboard indicators developing within the Open Standards results chains

5. Leadership Council Performance Management Focus for 2010 • Choose ecosystem indicators for Dashboard • Re-start Open Standards Results Chains work • Set some 2020 targets • Targets may be set for either ecosystem indicators or threat reduction indicators or both

6. State of the Sound 20XX • Action Agenda 20XX: priorities, strategies and actions, incorporating revisions to the previous version(s) Action Agenda Assessment and Adaptation Conceptual Approach Inputs Outputs • Current Open Standards application products:components/attributes, threat definitions and ratings/tiers, action outputs, threat reduction objectives, component objectives Process State of the Sound 20XX+2 Budget guidance Action Agenda performance assessment Action Agenda 20XX+2: priorities, strategies and actions, incorporating revisions to the previous version(s) • Science Update synthesis document(this could be post-2010 iterations of the Science Update) Program guidance Biennial Science Work Plan 20XX+2 • Monitoring program products: addressing ecosystem status and trends and effectiveness of actions and programs • Current reporting indicators (distinguished from the broader set of components, attributes, or indicators being tracked) • Progress towards threat reduction indicator targets and ecosystem indicator targets • Action output results

7. Work accomplished so far and next steps in 2010 • Initial Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators work completed – Need for continuous improvement • Open Standards results chains next steps: • Ecosystem components list in place • Results chain work restarting • Science Update chapters completed/nearing completion • Working list of topics generated for 2020 target setting effort • Inventory of state agency measures completed • Governor’s GMAP for Natural Resources being launched

8. Magical Dashboard Mystery Tour Indicators Action Team started mid-March • weekly Team meetings • continuous improvement based on input received by Team Champions Starting in June, DRAFT Dashboard presented to: • Cross-Partnership Work Group on Performance Management • Science Panel • State Caucus • Puget Sound Environmental Caucus • Ecosystem Coordination Board • Leadership Council Further distributed to key leaders through: • Partnership website • Monitoring mailings • State-level Performance Managers’ group • Governor’s Office on Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional and federal offices

9. Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators • Total 20 indicators included – 12 Natural Dimension, 6 Human Dimension and 2 Program Dimension • Action Agenda Goals – 2 Human Health, 4 Human Well-Being, 2 Water Quality, 1 Water Quantity, 4 Species and Food Web and 5 Habitat • Champion systems helping in the development, shepherding and improvement of Dashboard indicators • Relationship to Science Update Process • Dashboard indicators to serve as lead indicators for families of measures, threat reduction indicators, results chains, other dashboard efforts (GMAP and EPA), associated drill down details, problem solving, research, story telling, etc.

10. Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators Improvements 1) Jellyfish replaced by Pacific herring2) Personal Vehicle Miles Traveled replaced by Puget Sound Behavioral Index – ‘under construction’3) Puget Sound Regional Council’s ‘Trends Index’ replaced by Puget Sound Quality of Life Index – ‘under construction’4) Working with Indicator Champions to further improve indicators – ongoing

11. Dashboard next steps Action Plan • Establish new Indicator Champions to collaboratively move the Dashboard forward • Tell the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators story – using a formal Communications Plan-driven process • Continuously test ecological importance and social resonance • Collect, cleanse and analyze the associated data • Work select families of indicators through the Open Standards process

12. Drum roll please …

13. Recommended Leadership Council action The Leadership Council affirms the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators and is committed to: • The Indicators Action Team completing the documentation of the process used to derive the current list of Dashboard indicators; • A research program determining the social resonance of the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators with the public; and, • Conducting regularly scheduled reviews of the the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators to improve the Dashboard consistent with scientific findings and public input.

14. A Science and Leadership-driven Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators Recognizing the Indicators Action Team Members: • Leonard Bauer, Department of Commerce • Helen Berry, Department of Natural Resources • Mary Beth Brown, Puget Sound Partnership • Rob Duff, Department of Ecology • Angela Grout, US Environmental Protection Agency • Ken Currens, Northwest Indian Fisheries • Phil Levin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Tim Quinn, Department of Fish and Wildlife • Trina Wellman, Northern Economics, Inc. • Jacques White, Long Live the Kings • Bethany Johnson, University of Washington (student) • Brian Payne, University of Washington (student)

15. Tuesday’s Fortune Cookie Mystery

16. Looking back … lessons learned • Performance Management’s role – help leaders work better together and ultimately make better decisions • Provide tools for design, management and improvement of our business processes – improving organizational and inter-organizational performance • Manage with facts – critical, fundamental principle of Performance Management in this context • Three other fundamental principles of Performance Management … Respect People, Customer Focus and Plan-Do-Check-Act • Other lessons learned?

17. Questions? Comments?

18. Setting Targets • Partnership will set 3-5 priority 2020 targets by February 2011 • Include a mix of human and environmental targets • Other targets will be set later … not everything will need to have a target • Need to set targets within the context of performance management and an adaptive cycle • First group set in 2010 • Design long-term process for setting and evaluating targets

19. Target Setting Context • Partnership can define “What is a healthy ecosystem?” • 2020 tangible progress best measured by setting targets for reducing threats to a healthy ecosystem • Target setting process needs to have scientific integrity • Why set 2020 targets? • Called for in Partnership statute • Defines what is a healthy Puget Sound by 2020 • Helps guide regional (Federal, State, tribal, local) work priorities • Needed for milestones that show progress along the way

20. 2020 target setting input and decisions to date March/April 2010: • Cross PSP group on performance, threats, strategies advise on topics for target setting and give guidance • ECB and LC weighed in on the topics and discuss the guidance • Science Panel reviewed list • Roles of LC, ECB, SP and Cross-PSP group clarified

21. Indicators to be investigated for Target Setting in 2010/2011(* Indicators more likely to be recommended for 2010 approval) Indicators from Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators Other indicators related to key investments or threats Estuary restoration* Surface water runoff (pollutants and volume) Growth management (related to the land use/land cover indicator) • Swimming beaches • Shellfish beds restored* • Chinook salmon • Orca • Pacific herring • Shoreline armoring/alteration • Eelgrass* • Land use/land cover

22. Proposed steps and schedule for Target Setting • Initial policy direction to the scientific and technical work - build support for the overall process (August 2010) 2. Conduct technical background work • For targets set in 2010: August – September 2010 • For targets to be set in 2011: August - October 2010 3. Convene first science-policy discussions • For targets set in 2010: September 2010 • For targets to be set in 2011: October 2010 4. Develop and vet draft target options • For targets set in 2010: October 2010 • For targets to be set in 2011: November 2010 5. Resolve issues, adopt targets, incorporate targets into Action Agenda assessment and updated strategy development • For targets set in 2010: Approval November 2010 • For targets to be set in 2011: Approval February 2011

23. Criteria for selecting targets to work on in 2010(March 2010) • All: • Must have data available • Must include a mix of human and environmental targets • Ecosystem indicator targets: • An indictor that is “highly” likely to be selected is a good candidate for target setting • Sound-wide threat reduction indicator targets: • Ranked very high or high in the 2009 Threats Technical Memo • Is currently lower ranked but needs continued investments to stay managed • Is an existing reporting target required under the National Estuary Program and needs updated numeric targets • Region has a reasonable chance of setting a sound-wide target in 2010 • Resolution of issues about the existing definition or ranking would not elevate the threat as a candidate for target setting in 2010

24. Target Setting Process Input to date • From the Cross-PSP work group • Issues of scale related to threats need resolution at some point (watershed? Action Area?) • Some threats are more localized • Identifying local contributions to achieving the Sound-wide target • Need to consider long-term implications and scenarios related to climate change and population growth • Consider existing standards that we already need to meet • From Science Panel • Providing directional arrows indicating trends may be more appropriate than setting “targets” for ecosystem indicators • Numeric threat reduction targets are appropriate for setting policy objectives