1. Ocean/Envir 260 The Puget Sound Partnership Lecture #21:

2. Discussion
When it comes to protecting and conserving Puget Sound, are we still at “the bottles and cans stage”?
What more could/should we be doing to motivate action?

3. Puget Sound Partnership
Preceded by:
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority ( )
Puget Sound Action Team ( )
Gregoire pledge, 2004 campaign
Ecosystem scope
“Snow caps to white caps”
Incorporates “Shared Strategy”
for salmon
David Dicks, Executive Director

4. Puget Sound Partnership
Complex structure
Leadership Council
Ecosystem Coordination Board
Science Panel
In Governor’s Office
Intended to align, coordinate state actions
Hold others accountable
How? Withhold money?
“Honest broker” role?
Bill Ruckelshaus, Chair, Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council,

5. Puget Sound Partnership
Charge: “Save the Sound by 2020”
Key responsibilities:
Action Agenda
Accountability system
Public education

6. Public education
98%: “Important to pass on a healthy Puget Sound as a legacy for future generations.”
78%: Current condition of Puget Sound is “fair” to “excellent”

7. Framing the issue “Save the Sound” 2020 deadline—relevance?
Is danger imminent?
Or longer-term?
2020 deadline—relevance?
Little for climate, population
A progress report?
But lose the real “narrative”?
Necessary to motivate changes needed for the long-term
Should car washes and dog poop be the central issues for a public education campaign for Puget Sound?

8. Framing the issue Compare with Cascade Agenda: Looked long-term
Built on outreach results
Compelling narrative
“Save what we cherish from
threats we know are coming”
Ambitious plan clearly
linked to narrative

9. Importance of “time and space scales”
The social structures and institutions [of]…the Pacific Northwest have proved incapable of ensuring a long- term future for salmon, in large part because they do not operate at the right time and space scales. --Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest, National Research Council (1996)

10. Space scales Institutions not at ecosystem scale
Jurisdictional vs. ecosystem boundaries
Fragmented authority
Local vs. ecosystem priorities
Puget Sound Partnership proposes:
Accountability system
Regional forum on growth
Regional priorities for protection, restoration
Regional taxing district
Regional land use decision-making system

11. Time scales Need to think “long-term” (50+ years) Must still act now
Population growth, climate change
Ecological processes
Must still act now
But within context of
long-term plan
Needed for vision,
“narrative” to motivate
and explain action
Chart from Cascade Agenda (2005)

12. Concerns for Puget Sound Partnership
Major changes needed:
Funding
Economic incentives
Regional land use
Water conservation, law
Widespread public support
necessary
Is it possible without the right “story”?
Does “2020” mindset distract from that story?

13. Discussion
What questions would you like to ask David Dicks, Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership?

14. Recap, Puget Sound Partnership
Third coordinating organization for Puget Sound since mid-1980s
Ecosystem scope, complex organization
Mission: “Save the Sound by 2020”
Conflict with longer-term threats?
Conflict with compelling “story”?