Hi Paula.  I know this is a real crisis for salmon folks, & we want to be sure the conference does justice to that.  Let me offer some thoughts & we can have a conversation about whether what we have is on the right track, or whether we need to make changes/additions.

First, I'm coordinating the speakers for the last day, when we talk about "Future Solutions" -- I gather that we're trying to hit all the areas that people think are critical pieces of pulling this basin together in a way that sustains the ecosystem as well as local communities.  Here are the connections with your four points that I think are in place:

1) Planning for prevention of outbreak of parasites and disease:  Mike Orcutt, Troy Fletcher and either Ron Reed or Craig Tucker will address three topics:  Dams, Flows & Fish (10 minutes each, and they're deciding among themselves who will be best for which topic).  The one who takes "Fish" will outline what he believes the fish need to survive and return to healthy, stable population, and I imagine addressing fish disease is huge.  The Dams & Flows presentations should contribute to that discussion as well.

2) Planning for poor water quality conditions:  The Science Panel on Wednesday will identify what they believe are the biggest problems facing us, and certainly water quality at or near the top of the list.  They'll also make suggestions as to the most effective ways to improve water quality.  That's a big piece on the agenda--more than an hour, and it will include scientists from "all sides."  Bob Gearheart is rounding up the panel for that one.  Then in the Futures presentation, Phil Detrich will address restoration needs (most of which address water quality).

3) Planning for future dry years:  Ron Larson is really pushing for Drought Planning, which will address exactly this, and he's on the Futures panel.

4) Sharing the responsibilities, burdens and joy of recovery in the Basin:  we don't have anything on this, and I'm not sure what it would look like.  Would you like to do a 10-minute presentation on the last day as part of the Futures session?

As far as getting ag and Tribal folks to develop their "top 3", we don't have anything in the agenda that would lead to that.  It would mean getting each group to get agreement on those 3 things ahead of time, which could be tough, and then bring them to the conference.  I'm also not sure that we'd create what we want in the end, by encouraging each group to develop a separate set of priorities.  I imagine their lists would differ at least slightly, and we might create competition between different groups' priorities. 

I do agree wholeheartedly, though, with the concept of setting priorities before defining actions.  I envision us entering into a process as a whole Basin, developing priorities together, discussing & learning from each other in the process, focusing on expanding our midsets and as much as possible being inclusive.

What do you think, would this do justice to the priorities set by the river and ocean salmon communities?

Terry (Facilitator)

In a message dated 10/3/2006 7:44:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, pfyoon@sprintmail.com writes: