What is the essence of the platform for the topic? (2-3 sentences) Federal Assurances Assurances are important. Need clarity on assurances and process since there is an expectation to commitment. Agree that level of assurances tie to level of commitment/results. If we do not live up to our commitments, there are consequences.

What aspects of the platform are headed in the right direction? Federal Assurances Platform is a good starting point. Yes, assurances are important; offer by watershed. Timing is critical.

What improvements were suggested by break-out session participants? (top 3-5) Federal Assurances Recognition of the benefits of having a recovery plan: 1. Allows individual actions to be reviewed in the broader context of the whole watershed rather than the development site, and 2. without recovery plan, federal funding will dry up for recovery. We need to be clearer the kinds of assurances, site specific, programmatic at a watershed or regional scale in regard to the standard of not harming the fish and jeopardy. Building upon and getting credit for actions implemented under the CWA and GMA Identify the risk and liability if we do not engage in recovery and the salmon populations decline, ie. greater regulatory burdens and expense to restore the population. Look at assurances more broadly than just federal government, ie. process on water in the Nooksack.

What questions still remain to be answered? (top 1-2) Federal Assurances How we define credit? What if some watersheds are not implementing their recovery? How do you balance the commitment and implementation by watershed with the cost and benefit of results in another watershed?

What happens next and who will be involved or responsible in the next steps? Federal Assurances Build upon what we learned from the Tri-county process. Re-drafting of the platform statement based on the discussion, reviewed by the shared strategy sub-committee and delivered to watersheds by late February.