Agenda Overview of meeting topics
9:30 AM Introduction and Agenda Review
9:45 AM Select Regional Allocation Option and
Process Steps for 2006 SRFB Funding Cycle
11:00 AM Review Goals & Objectives & 3-year Plans
12:00 PM Working Lunch
Review the Road to July – Process & Decisions
12:30 PM Discuss Investment Scenarios
2:15 PM Identify sub-group members to develop
proposal re: funding level to pursue
2:30 PM Wrap-Up and Adjourn
SRFB Round 7 Steps & Distribution Options
• The goal for this year is to use as efficient a process as possible. • This is a transition year.• Ultimately the 3-year investment scenario selected will guide future decisions.
Today:1. Clarify steps—see handout2. Select distribution option—see handout
Decisions July Meeting1. What are the best investments for salmon recovery in the next three years?
2. What strategy do we want to use to distribute funds?
3. What level of funding do we to pursue?
4. How do we want to address non-listed salmon species?
Investment Scenarios definition
The investment scenario ultimately selected should clearly identify the priorities in which this region wants to invest funds, political capital, voluntary efforts, and human resources in the next three years.
It answers the question: what are the best investments for salmon recovery in the next three years?
Technical Analyses for Prioritizing Recovery Strategies Across the Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
Two Key Criteria for Making Choices
1. Protect options for the future role of existing natural populations
2. Protect existing salmon habitat and the opportunities for habitat restoration
“Where are the populations whose future role is most threatened?”
“Where is the best existing salmon habitat and the best opportunities for habitat restoration?”
Data Used to Evaluate Near-term Threat of Extinction
1. Current abundance of natural-origin Chinook salmon (NOR)
2. Average number of adults produced by each Chinook salmon spawning in the wild (Recruits/spawner)
3. Proportion and origin of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds
Data Used to Evaluate Ecological Integrity of Watersheds
Four Positive Attributes
Four Negative Attributes
• Area occupied by natural wetlands
• Land use and land cover
• Hydrological alteration
• Sub-watershed slope steepness
• Hatchery production
• Presence of eagles
• Road density
• Undisturbed habitat
Ecological Integrity
Th
rea
t of N
ear
-te
rm E
xtin
ctio
n 15
10
5
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
= Indigenous
= Replaced
SF NooksackCedar
High Risk
• Immediate attention to protect future role of populations
Strategies
Ecological Integrity
Th
rea
t of N
ear
-te
rm E
xtin
ctio
n 15
10
5
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
= Indigenous
= Replaced
Cascade Upper Sauk
SuiattleMid-Hood Canal
Lower Skagit
Lower SaukSkykomish
Upper Skagit
Ecological Integrity Intact but Modified
• Significant portions occur in national forest or national parks• Opportunities for habitat restoration building on protection in lower watersheds, nearshore
Strategies
Ecological Integrity
Th
rea
t of N
ear
-te
rm E
xtin
ctio
n 15
10
5
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
= Indigenous
= Replaced
Puyallup
Nisqually
Sammamish
NF Stillaguamish
Green
Ecological Integrity Highly Compromised Strategies
• Large-scale, long-term protection, land use changes, and restoration
Ecological Integrity
Th
rea
t of N
ear
-te
rm E
xtin
ctio
n 15
10
5
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
= Indigenous
= Replaced
Skokomish
Elwha
SF StillaguamishWhite
Dungeness
NF Nooksack
Snoqualmie
Some Ecological Integrity Intact but Highly Modified
Strategies
• Need low risk populations • Protect existing integrity and ecological function• Large-scale restoration
Ecological Integrity
Th
rea
t of N
ear
-te
rm E
xtin
ctio
n
0
15
10
5
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
= Indigenous
=Composite/Replaced
Puyallup
Nisqually
Sammamish
NF Stillaguamish
Green
SF NooksackCedar
Skokomish
Elwha
SF StillaguamishWhite
Dungeness
NF Nooksack
Snoqualmie
CascadeUpper Sauk
SuiattleMid-Hood Canal
Lower Skagit
Lower SaukSkykomish
Upper Skagit