Version: September 11, 2007

Options to Protect, Restore, and Enhance Wild Salmon:
Insights from the Salmon 2100 Project1

Robert T. Lackey2

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333

lackey.robert@epa.gov
(541) 754-4607

Citation: Lackey, Robert T. 2007. The Salmon 2100 Project: options to protect, restore, and
enhance salmon along the west coast of North America. Presented at the 137th Annual Meeting, of
the American Fisheries Society. SeDtember 3-6, San Francisco, California.

Available on the Web:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/fw/lackey/

1	The views and comments presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any
organization.

2	Dr. Lackey is senior fisheries biologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency located in Corvallis, Oregon
and also courtesy professor of fisheries science and adjunct professor of political science at Oregon State University.

-------
Abstract

The overall public policy goal of restoring runs of wild Pacific salmon in California,
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and southern British Columbia enjoys widespread public support.
Billions of dollars have been spent in a so-far failed attempt to reverse the long-term, general
decline of wild salmon in this region of western North America. Of the Earth's four regions
where salmon runs occurred historically (Asian Far East, Atlantic Europe, eastern North
America, and western North America), it appears probable that this region of western North
America, without a dramatic change in current and long-term trends, will emulate the other
three: extirpated or much reduced runs. Since 1850, an array of factors has caused the decline
and a plethora of specific impediments has prevented their recovery. The primary goal of the
Salmon 2100 Project was to identify practical options that have a high probability of maintaining
biologically significant, sustainable populations of wild salmon. The Project enlisted 33
scientists, policy analysts, and policy advocates, all well versed and experienced in salmon
science and policy. Three overarching realities must be addressed if society wishes to prevent
the remaining current runs from becoming remnant populations by 2100: (1) in large part,
because of altered and restricted freshwater habitat, salmon runs continue to be at low levels
compared to historical abundances and thus recovery efforts start with relatively few wild fish;
(2) restoring wild salmon is only one of many priorities that society professes and society must
make drastic changes in individual and collective life style choices if wild salmon have any
chance at recovery; and (3) the human population trajectory for British Columbia, Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho must change dramatically for any wild salmon recovery effort to have much
chance of success (California's human population is already large and will be much larger by
2100). The Salmon 2100 Project developed 23 different recovery strategies, each of which
likely would be ecologically viable (i.e., it would actually recovery wild salmon) and appreciably
less socially disruptive than are current strategies, but each of the 23 options also has much
more modest restoration objectives, requires extensive hatchery or other aquacultural
intervention, and/or involves creating protected areas. Most policy prescriptions fall into one of
four general categories: (1) technological intervention often accompanied by a recalibration of
the notion or definition of what is a "wild" salmon; (2) triage approaches that would concentrate
recovery efforts on areas where successful recovery is most likely; (3) revamped salmon
recovery bureaucracies and institutions including jettisoning "symbolic politics" pervasive in
salmon policy; and (4) changed individual and societal behaviors. The policy prescriptions
developed as part of the Salmon 2100 Project, if implemented, would likely restore wild salmon
runs, though most would require significant alterations in people's lifestyles.

2

-------
Introduction

When asked to present my thoughts about the future of salmon, I was reluctant.
Mostly I was reluctant because what can anyone add to what is reported about salmon
recovery nearly every day in newspapers and newscasts? We are bombarded with
information about salmon — not just science and technology, but arguments about
complex, unpleasant policy choices, and, of course, advocacy spin from across the
political spectrum. Many of us I know and the public I suspect suffer from salmon
fatigue.

But the request from the conference program committee was not your everyday,
generic request for a boilerplate discussion of salmon recovery. It turned out that what
they wanted from me was an unvarnished assessment of the long-term future of wild
salmon and, equally important, what society must do if wild salmon runs are to be
restored.

They challenged me to characterize the fundamental, the critical, the basic
barriers that must be breached in order to recover wild salmon runs. The challenge
sounded enticing, but I could see through such a request. I was being set up to
provoke, to challenge, to roil the placid waters of conventional wisdom. But, as all
successful program committees must be, they were persistent, persuasive, and, in the
end, convincing.

So, against my natural inclinations to recite the typical, generic discourse — light,
amusing, fluffy, general, safe, long on bureaucratic process, short on biological results
— banished from my assessment will be the usual (1) feel-good platitudes about the
importance of restoring wild salmon runs, (2) the appeals to delusional reality that most
of us in the salmon business know are simply rhetoric, (3) the cheer-leading for enticing,
but unattainable policy objectives, or (4) the win-win happy talk that these days often
passes for serious policy deliberation.

Nor will I (1) add another gloom-and-doom talk to the dozens most of us have
already heard, (2) contribute another to the long list of feel-good technofix bromides, (3)
effuse over the apparent recent improvements in wild fish runs, and, most important,
pitch the policy objectives of any particular organization, including my own.

I have made my share of all those kinds of contributions, but not here, not where
the focus is on serious analysis of watersheds and sustainability. I will step back from
the details and particulars of salmon science and policy and add a small dose of reality.

Perhaps it will be an unpleasant, even unwelcome dose to some, but a necessary dose

3

-------
of reality as I see it.

In short, I will try to answer a simple, but incendiary question: "What are the
fundamental barriers to recovering Pacific Northwest wild salmon and how might these
barriers be breached?" My answer consists of only three barriers: legacies, choices,
and trajectories.

Legacies

As we move into a new century, Pacific Northwest wild salmon, in spite of ups
and downs, good years and bad years, favorable and unfavorable ocean conditions,
and newspaper accounts of record runs, have been on a 150 year downward trend —
and they are now at very low levels (Lichatowich 1999, Lackey 2003).

Wild Pacific salmon in the lower 48 states are well on their way to attaining a
status enjoyed by some of their notable brethren — wolves, condors, grizzles, bison —
wild animals that are unlikely to disappear entirely, but struggle to hang on as remnants
of once flourishing species in small portions of their original range. Ted Turner of CNN
fame may be marketing the superior taste of buffalo burgers, but wild bison hang on as
a remnant population in Yellowstone and a few other refuges. So it has also become
for wild salmon in this part of the world.

Wild salmon are on the road to becoming remnant populations in the lower 48
(Lackey et al 2006). This prognosis should not surprise anyone even marginally
familiar with the state of salmon runs. Consider the following facts about the state of
wild salmon in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and the Columbia Basin portion
of British Columbia. Many runs are reduced to less than 10% of their historical
numbers; some are much less than 10%; some are gone. Other salmon runs are
dominated by hatchery-bred fish. Even for the Columbia, once the mightiest salmon-
producing river south of Canada, over 80% of the total run is now comprised of
hatchery-bred fish (Lackey 2003).

Celebrating the "record" salmon runs from the past couple of years, due mainly to
favorable ocean conditions, reflects a recalibration of what constitutes "good" runs. If
doubling a run from 5% to 10% of the historical level is what we now call success, we
are there! And, even with this modest increase, the majority of these runs continue to
be hatchery-bred fish.

People in the Pacific Northwest were — and remain — concerned about the

4

-------
decline of the once immense salmon runs. Billions of dollars already have been spent
in a so-far failed attempt to reverse the long-term decline (GAO 2002).

This region's trend of salmon decline is not unique. Of the Earth's four regions
where Pacific and Atlantic salmon runs originally occurred (the other three being the
Asian Far East, Atlantic Europe, and eastern North America), it looks increasingly like
western North America by 2100 will emulate the other three: (1) extirpated or much
reduced runs in the southern portions of the distribution; and (2) larger runs, often much
reduced but at least closer to historical levels, in the northern portions.

This is a brief synopsis of the legacies that must be overcome if society is really
serious about restoring wild salmon. Perhaps it is sobering to some, but it is based,
from my perspective, on a realistic assessment of the current situation and the future.

The legacy of much diminished runs of wild salmon is in large part due to altered
or inaccessible freshwater and estuarine habitat. The option of using hatcheries or
other aquacultural intervention to maintain runs is another story, but given the limited
quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat now available to salmon, the region
will not support self reproducing runs of wild salmon even remotely like those of 1850.

Some wild salmon and habitat restoration possibilities are definitely better than
others (Rahr et al 1998). There are relatively healthy runs of wild salmon (and habitat)
in some locations. In general, most promising are the coastal watersheds of Northern
California, Oregon, Washington, and some areas of southern British Columbia,
especially the Fraser River where salmon can reach relatively unaltered interior portions
of the watershed. The most efficient way to breach this barrier for wild salmon would be
to focus recovery efforts in those geographic locations with the best chance of success,
the coastal watersheds.

Choices

Our choices, both individually and collectively, are perhaps the most obvious,
and arguably the most important determinant of the future of wild salmon. Salmon are
only one of many, usually conflicting, priorities that society professes to rank high
(Lackey 2001 b). Societal priorities are dynamic, difficult to forecast, subject to rapid
change and, perhaps most frustrating to us salmon technocrats, impossible to rigorously
determine in real time. Remember how the recent Pacific Northwest drought and
California blackouts affected thinking. Or even more recently, how the terrorist attacks
have so drastically recalibrated our collective priorities.

5

-------
I want to be realistic here and avoid rhetoric and cheer-leading: where does
salmon restoration rank within the myriad of competing societal priorities? I do not
know the precise answer, but society's collective behavior, not public opinion polls, will
give us some indication. Let me recap the past 150 years from a salmon-centric policy
perspective and offer several specific examples.

1820 — With the arrival of substantial numbers of trappers in the early part of the
19th century, the systematic harvest of beavers began in earnest. Large numbers of
beaver can considerably alter the aquatic environment and in most cases such
alterations improves salmon rearing habitat. As beaver populations declined from
trapping, many salmon runs were adversely affected. As competition intensified
between the United States and Britain for control of the Pacific Northwest, the British
Hudsons Bay Company adopted a policy of leaving no beaver in the watersheds they
trapped. Without beavers to trap, the American fur trappers (and settlers) would be less
likely to come to the Pacific Northwest. The overall effect on salmon of the loss of
beavers is unknown, but is likely to be very great.

1848 — The question of whether wild salmon will continue to exist in the western
United States is not a new one. The decline started in earnest with the 1849 California
gold rush. By the 1850s, excessive harvest and the impacts of mining activities were
decimating salmon in streams surrounding the California Central Valley. In response,
by the 1870s the Federal government had begun a massive California hatchery
program in an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the decline.

1870 — In the Central Valley of California, after a 30 year decline in salmon runs,
supplemental stocking from hatcheries was widely viewed as the solution to declining
salmon runs (Black 1995). In salmon policy debates, by the beginning of the 20th
century, hatcheries had won out over preserving or restoring natural habitat, and
hatchery-bred fish won out over wild salmon. Little more than a century later, protecting
wild salmon is the paramount statutory dictum. Now hatchery bashing is in vogue, and
it is hatcheries that are under siege as the nemesis of restoring wild salmon runs (Taylor
1999). There continues to be discussion about closing some, or even all, salmon
hatcheries. To be sure, part of the change in society's priorities is due to better
understanding of the biology of salmon, but most is due to changing values.

1905 — The mantra was "reclaim the Klamath Basin." Create productive
farmland by irrigation. In the competition between societal priorities, irrigated agriculture
won out over salmon. Over the next several decades, millions were spent to develop an
elaborate system of dams and canals in the Basin. Now, at least for the Klamath Basin,

6

-------
based on regional and national polling data, society ranks salmon and suckers above
agriculture for use of scarce water.

1933 — The mantra was "put people to work." Combat the devastating social
effects of the Great Depression. Massive public works projects, such as many of the
high dams of the Columbia Basin, were built even though the ruinous effect on wild
salmon was well known. A single dam, the Grand Coulee, completely and permanently
blocked a quarter of the Columbia Basin to migratory salmon, a thousand miles of the
mainstem river lost to salmon in a single action. We knew precisely what would happen
to those runs of wild salmon. The Depression and public works projects won out over
salmon. Now, we are less sure of our priorities and spend millions, even billions, trying
to compensate for this lost habitat (GAO 2002).

1942 — The posters proclaimed "America — the Arsenal of Democracy."
Electrical generation in the Pacific Northwest was greatly increased to supply the
voracious appetites of aluminum smelters. The hydro-power was here; the war-time
demand for aluminum was acute; the public support was near universal. Turbines,
operating at maximum capacity seven days per week, 24 hours per day, for four years,
chewed up salmon at devastating rates. It was a war, after all, and bombers won out
over salmon. Now most Pacific Northwest aluminum smelters are shut down because
they can make more money selling their electrical contracts than manufacturing
aluminum.

1948 — Widespread floods caused disastrous effects across this region.

Vanport, adjacent to the Columbia River and the second largest city in Oregon, was
swept away. The politicians of the day heeded the public's call for protection and we
built many flood control dams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia.
Society collectively demanded that human life and property be protected (Buchal 1998).

Flood control won out over wild salmon. Now, a major flood, such as the one that
occurred in 1996, brings few calls for additional flood control.

1991 — The first salmon "distinct population segment" was listed under terms of
the Endangered Species Act. With this action, the policy debate shifted away from
restoring salmon runs in order to support fishing to protecting salmon runs from
extinction, two very different policy objectives (Lackey 2001a). A century ago no one
cared much whether a salmon started life in a hatchery or in a stream. Now, hatchery-
produced salmon are not the restoration solution, they are part of the restoration
problem, at least according to many (Scarce 2000).

2001 — Just a decade later, a severe drought, combined with ongoing California

7

-------
blackouts, provoked the Bonneville Power Administration to declare a power
emergency, abandon previously agreed upon interagency salmon flow release targets,
and generate electricity using water reserved to help salmon migrate. In one of the
most striking recent barometers of competing societal priorities, electricity won out over
salmon, and with scant public opposition.

Not one of these public policy decisions made over the past 200 years was
inherently good or bad. Each simply reflected the priorities or legal interpretations of the
time, coupled with a strong dose of optimism that we could have our cake and eat it too.

So that is the second barrier: society's choices, the many competing, conflicting,
divisive priorities, and the fact that, when forced to make a choice, most people will
trade wild salmon recovery for another alternative. I am not cheer-leading for or against
wild salmon, electricity, property rights, salmon hatcheries, dredging shipping channels,
or any other societal priority. It is naive, however, to consider salmon recovery as
anything but one element, often one minor element, in a constellation of competing,
often mutually exclusive, societal wants, needs, and preferences. It appears that most
people are, or at least have been, willing to sacrifice wild salmon to achieve a suite of
other priorities.

Trajectories

This barrier is perhaps even more important than the first two, but is the easiest
to gloss over. As one of my colleagues cautioned me when we discussed barriers to
salmon recovery: "You are absolutely right, most people already know it, and that is
exactly why you should let it rest." Undoubtedly he offered very good advice. If society
wishes, however, to do anything meaningful about moving wild salmon off their current
long-term downward trend, then something must be done about the unrelenting growth
in the number of humans in the Pacific Northwest. The simple fact is that the human
population level that we should realistically anticipate by the end of this century is a
serious barrier, a show stopper, to achieving any kind of significant long-term wild
salmon recovery (Lackey 2001b).

Currently, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia are home to 15
million humans. Assuming a range of likely human reproductive rates, internal
migration to the Pacific Northwest, and continuing immigration policy and patterns, in
2100 this region's human population will be somewhere between 50 and 100 million: a
quadrupling of the region's human population by the end of this century — less than 100
years from now (Lackey 2003).

8

-------
If we end this century with 50 to 100 million people inhabiting this region — and
their demands for housing, schools, tennis courts, football stadiums, expressways,
planes, trains, automobiles, Starbucks, MacDonald's, WalMarts, electricity, drinking
water, pipelines, marinas, computers, HDTVs, movie theaters, ski resorts, golf courses,
sewer treatment plants, hotels, and conference centers — then society's options for
having wild salmon in significant numbers in this part of the world are just about non-
existent. Good water quality is achievable. Maintaining prosperous populations offish
species better adapted to altered aquatic environments (e.g., walleye, smallmouth bass,
and American shad) is also possible. But with high human populations and their
associated lifestyle requirements, the future of wild salmon is not good (Hartman, Groot,
and Northcote, 2000).

There is not an exact one-to-one relationship that a given human population
increase inexorably results in a predictable decrease in salmon run size, but the
general, unmistakable relationships are there: (1) as the human population of the Asian
Far East expanded, so salmon runs declined; (2) as the human population of Europe
expanded, so salmon runs declined; and (3) as the human population of eastern North
America expanded, so salmon runs declined.

The Pacific Northwest human population trajectory will have to be changed
dramatically for wild salmon to have any chance to recover (Hartman et al 2000). Could
society reverse the trajectory? Yes, it is possible. It is happening in some European
countries and Japan, but, as I interpret the demographic data, there is little indication
that it will happen any time soon in the Pacific Northwest. World-wide birth rates are
generally declining, but they are still above replacement levels in the Pacific Northwest.
And, of course, the proclivity of people moving into the region shows no sign of abating.

Should the rate of Pacific Northwest human population growth be slowed or even
stabilized? That question will be answered by society collectively and individuals
personally through decisions made over decades. All of us can assess the inevitable
consequences for wild salmon, but that does not mean that society ought to change
public policy on human population growth.

Assuming that society collectively wants to do something about population
growth, and that is a contentious assumption, how could it be done? To illustrate the
kind of personal and societal changes that might be made, let me be specific by offering
some concrete examples. An obvious point of influence is personal mobility, the fact
that two-thirds of the growth rate is caused by people moving to the Northwest from
elsewhere. Restricting personal mobility would have a major effect on the trajectory,

9

-------
but, as I read the public's mood, it does not appear to me that personal mobility, the
freedom to relocate as desired, will be restricted any time soon.

Another point of possible influence on human population growth, and equally
controversial, is tax policy, the fact that taxpayers have, intentionally or not, for a long
time, and currently still do, provide direct monetary subsidies to those members of
society who reproduce. As with personal mobility, I do not see the public any time soon
shifting away from supporting such tax deductions, or even tax credits, for each new
child born. I could be wrong, but I do not see such issues on the legislative table for the
foreseeable future.

There are many other public policy choices that could alter the Pacific Northwest
human population trajectory, but none appear likely to be widely embraced in the near
future. Whether my assessment is right or wrong, population issues are not easy ones
to raise, much less discuss without resorting to policy advocacy, but the current and
expected population level is at the core of any credible analysis of potential recovery
strategies, or at least those strategies that are offered as serious attempts to actually
recover wild salmon.

The Salmon 2100 Project

The Salmon 2100 Project began in 2003 as a response to the apparent
dichotomy between public and private understanding of the likely future of wild salmon
in the region. The overarching goal of the Project was to assess the potential policy
options needed to protect and restore wild salmon runs from southern British Columbia
southward.

We enlisted 33 salmon scientists, salmon policy analysts, and salmon advocates.
They range from hardcore technical scientists to aggressive champions of particular
salmon recovery policies, representing a spectrum from quasi-institutional to highly
individual opinions. The authors often do not agree with each other, to put it mildly, and
several only grudgingly concede each others' right to an opinion about salmon recovery.
Nonetheless, all their views enrich the current debate and the book, whether we agree
with them or not.

We asked project participants to identify and describe practical policy options
that, if adopted, could successfully sustain significant runs of wild salmon in California,
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and southern British Columbia. We did not define what
should be considered a significant run, but it was something sufficient to allow for at

10

-------
least some level of sustainable fishing.

Everyone who participated in the project recognized that restoring and
maintaining wild salmon in significant numbers through this century is a daunting
challenge. Since 1848 with the discovery of gold in California, salmon runs have
dramatically declined across the region due to many direct causes: water pollution;
loss of spawning, rearing, and riparian habitat from a multitude of human actions; a
history of over-fishing; dam construction and operation; water withdrawal for irrigation
and industrial cooling; competition with hatchery-produced salmon; competition with
various non-indigenous fish species; predation by marine mammals and birds; and
climatic and oceanic shifts. These direct causes of the decline were the result of policy
choices that arguably reflected society's overall priorities.

The project neither rejects nor advocates any particular policy or class of policies,
but we do advocate a serious and informed dialog about the current state of wild
salmon, their likely future, and the choices society has to alter that future. The
prescriptions offered in the book are universally candid, sometimes uncomfortably
radical, and occasionally sobering. Nearly all conclude that major, sometimes
wholesale modification of core societal values and preferences will have to occur if
significant, sustainable populations of wild salmon are to be present in the region by
2100.

Policy Prescriptions that Would Work

All Salmon 2100 Project participants were asked to address the same question:

What specific policies must be implemented in order to have a high
probability of sustaining significant runs of wild salmon through 2100 in
California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and southern British Columbia?

It is a challenging question and one that forced project participants to address
society's failure to restore wild salmon. The salmon recovery policy debate is a puzzle
that is characterized by: (1) claims by a strong majority to be supportive of restoring
wild salmon runs; (2) competing societal priorities which are at least partially mutually
exclusive; (3) the region's rapidly growing human population and its pressure on all
natural resources (including salmon and their required habitats); (4) entrenched policy
stances in the salmon restoration debate, usually supported by established
bureaucracies; (5) society's expectation that experts should be able to solve the
salmon problem by using a technological scheme; (6) use of selected experts and

11

-------
"scientific facts" by political proponents to bolster their policy positions; (7) inability of
salmon scientists to avoid being placed in particular policy or political camps; and (8)
the confusion caused by couching policy positions as scientific imperatives rather than
value-based societal preferences.

Somewhat surprising to us, nearly every project participant concluded that
current recovery efforts have a low probability of successfully restoring or even
sustaining wild salmon runs through this century from southern British Columbia
southward. None of the project participants considered recovery hopeless and all
concluded that salmon recovery could be accomplished. There was, however,
considerable disagreement about how best to recover wild salmon runs, but each
author was able to formulate at least one recovery strategy or policy prescription that, if
implemented, would successfully restore wild salmon runs to significant levels.

Policy prescriptions tend to fall into one of several broad categories. The
categories do not form a clean classification scheme, but we developed the following
categorizations to describe what was proposed.

Category #1 — Employ Technological Intervention

Several authors proposed habitat enhancements (or replacement) based on
existing scientific and technological knowledge, including creation of new streams that
replace lost or suboptimal salmon habitat. As proposed, an engineered stream could
duplicate or even improve natural habitat by providing excellent security, flow control,
and nutrient productivity. While much of the technological and scientific knowledge
exists to construct these streams, the proponents recognized that new technologies will
be needed for efficient operation and refurbishing of streams. Greater genetic
knowledge of local stocks would be critical to maintaining salmon distinct to particular
watersheds. These proponents suggest that by using what we currently know about
salmon habitat and existing technology, society could reverse the proximal causes of
salmon habitat loss including removal of dams, allowing floods, restoring vegetation,
and reducing logging and road building.

Several authors argued that supplemental stocking from salmon hatcheries will
be required to sustain salmon production at fishable levels. While most authors found
fault with current hatchery practices, a few suggested that the controversy over wild vs.
hatchery salmon is misplaced. They argued that the dispersal of hatchery fish to
different streams over many decades has resulted in a massive mixing of the gene pool
Recovery programs to achieve genetic purity are thus unrealistic and unnecessary.

12

-------
Many authors suggested that if a harvestable number of salmon is desired by
society, improvements in hatchery effectiveness will be critical. In their view, technology
is currently available or could be developed in the near-term to make supplemental
stocking a useful tool to assist in salmon recovery.

Category #2 — Apply Ecological Triage

One of the common types of policy prescriptions was a version of protecting the
most productive watersheds by concentrating resources and recovery efforts on them.
The rationale for adopting such an approach is that we have not had much luck
restoring runs once they have become threatened or endangered, in spite of spending
billions of dollars and many years in the effort.

Various authors proposed different types of "triage" approaches, but they shared
a common philosophy that at least some streams should be managed as refugia where
there is no salmon harvest or other detrimental practices allowed. One proposed, for
example, a Wild Salmon National Park distributed across the area and purchased with
public money. In support of this policy prescription is the observation that one of the
most successful methods for protecting endangered species is to provide national parks
where citizens are allowed to experience species in their habitat.

Another proposed approach involves creating salmon sanctuaries in watersheds
where society has chosen to ensure that salmon will be protected and restored over the
next 100 years. A sanctuary system is thus a social commitment to ensure the survival
of salmon given the downward pressures they will face in California, Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, and southern British Columbia through this century.

With nearly all the triage strategies, there was a reluctance by proponents to be
explicit about writing off (from a wild salmon perspective) the watersheds and regions
that show little promise for maintaining wild salmon runs through the century. Based on
follow-up conversations with these individuals, there was great reluctance to bluntly
identify the "downside" of proposed policy prescriptions.

Category #3 — Change Bureaucracy

Several authors apportioned responsibility for the failure of wild salmon recovery

13

-------
to deficiencies in various elements of governance, decision-making processes or
procedures, or failures of specific organizations. From the perspective of these authors,
successful salmon recovery would require major changes in what we loosely
categorized as the bureaucracy.

The prime candidate for overall change was generally described or categorized
as institutional arrangements. Criticisms cover the range from institutions being too
centralized to institutions that are too fragmented and decentralized.

Several authors observed that bureaucratic institutions, especially state,
provincial, and federal management agencies, are particularly stable with many
practices, policies, and ideologies supporting the continued existence of the institution
rather than the solution of any particular problem.

Authors identified many examples of what they perceive to be institutional
incompetence in salmon recovery: applying standard, inflexible rules, protecting the
institution (or individual) rather than the salmon, and allowing elected officials and/or
citizens to make recovery decisions not based on the best available science.

Policy prescriptions included moving toward a much more decentralized recovery
effort with rural residents playing leadership roles. Others encouraged the appointment
of government leaders who are more willing to solve problems using the best available
science rather than personal policy preferences or philosophical beliefs that appear to
be at variance with the majority.

Category #4 — Domesticate the Policy Issue

The prescriptions from some of the authors fell into a category of what political
scientists call "domesticating" the policy issue.

Domestication is the process of taking difficult, divisive policy issues off the table until a
solution emerges or the problem disappears by solving itself (e.g., the species is
extirpated). The most common forms of domestication are funding more research or
scientific activity, more workshops and venues to get stakeholders involved through
collaboration, and tweaking current regulations or policies that provide the illusion of
substantive action.

It is easy to see why offering policies to domesticate the salmon decline policy
challenge is easier than developing explicit policies that would actually work. Reversing

14

-------
the long-term decline requires changing at least some of the current and entrenched
political realities: (1) most rules of commerce and economic growth work against
salmon recovery; (2) increasing scarcity of key natural resources, especially high
quality water, will constrain ecological options; (3) the current trajectory for the region's
human population precludes some frequently stated recovery goals; and (4) individual
and collective life-style preferences demonstrate that recovery is less important than
many advocates assert.

Few authors explicitly proposed ways to change the political realities about the
salmon decline issue. Instead, they suggested variations on existing policy options to
revise the Endangered Species Act (U.S.) or the Species at Risk Act (Canada), protect
more and/or different salmon habitat, create new hatchery practices, change K-12
education, and/or transform people's attitudes.

The domesticating strategies proposed by some authors are requests for
extensions of practices already in place and they do not propose revolutionary
approaches or challenge existing beliefs. They tacitly assume that at some future time
we will formulate and agree on a viable solution. In reality, the public may not even be
sure what the problem is, much less know what possible solutions exist.

Reflections about the Salmon 2100 Project

Given the complexity of our salmon recovery question, we consider the authors
who took us up on the offer to contemplate the future of salmon in 2100 as exceptionally
brave. They ended up having to reflect on their own training, organizational and
professional careers, and political ideologies, which turned out to be a disconcerting
experience for many, as described in the epilogue of the book. A few discovered that
the political fallout was severe when they expressed personal opinions that differed from
the "agency storyline." Several early participants dropped out once they grasped the
difficulty of the assignment. Others ended up with conclusions that surprised and
disappointed themselves.

The group of authors is diverse, and a handful would much rather not have
appeared together between the same book covers. Their diverse policy perspectives
aside, very few of them seriously challenged the core drivers proposed by project
organizers in Chapter 3 (Lackey et al. 2006). All thought that, although the wild salmon
conservation problem is indeed wicked, there are still workable solutions. Collectively,
they believed we need to engage new ways of thinking; we need to recognize that
politics and power structures, not science, make natural resource decisions; and that

15

-------
transformation of our approach is essential if indeed we wish to save wild salmon in
appreciable numbers by 2100.

Most authors recognized that the way forward will not be through a single
solution: more science will not restore significant, sustainable runs of wild salmon if
institutional arrangements are inflexible; new institutional arrangements will not restore
salmon runs if economic priorities are not reassessed; and technological fixes will not in
and of themselves allow us to muddle through this phase of problem solving. There is
not a single policy prescription (that has any chance of widespread adoption) that will
quickly restore endangered salmon.

The human population trajectory for the region was recognized by all authors as
a major policy driver, but most authors effectively accepted the trajectory as an
unchangeable fact. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia combined are
now home to 15 million humans. Assuming a range of likely human reproductive rates,
ongoing migration to the Pacific Northwest from elsewhere in Canada and the United
States, and continuing immigration policy and patterns, by 2100 this region's human
population will not be its present 15 million, but rather will be somewhere between 50
and 100 million — a quadrupling or more by the end of this century. As with any
forecast a century ahead, there is considerable debate, but all authors agreed that there
will be many, many more people in the region by the end of the century.

Few authors bluntly and candidly addressed the importance of changing the
human population trajectory as part of a recovery policy prescription. There are policy
options that would likely alter the expected population growth, but almost no one
involved in the Project was willing to propose any such policy changes.

Another chapter author tackled the phrasing and implications of the core policy
driver asserting the apparent unlikelihood of widespread and major changes in
individual and collective preferences. He noted that it is more important that we stop
making linear presumptions (as this core policy driver does) that are often incorrect in a
nonlinear world. In his view such thinking leads to the assumption that our own actions
do not directly affect the status of salmon or are so small as to be inconsequential.

It would be easy to consider most of the authors to be unrealistic in their
understanding of the social and political consequences of their proposed prescriptions,
but that would be unfair. Policy changes that would likely work involve values that many
people hold dear. Salmon are dependent on habitat that provides water, power, food,
and recreation to an increasing number of people in California, Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, and southern British Columbia. Practices and policies for providing these

16

-------
services are based on rules, regulations, and values that are deeply embedded in
individual, organizational, and cultural value systems. Values surrounding private
property rights and individual freedom of choice are particularly deeply held.

Most people report that they want to support the common good of sustaining
significant runs of wild salmon, but in our experience, few people are willing to give up
any freedom to decide how to manage their property or how they live their lives.
Arguably they are becoming reluctant to pay more for the sustenance of public services
such as education, transportation, and environmental protection. What would it take for
the public and private sectors to give even more to salmon recovery in their everyday
political, economic, and social choices?

Based on informal discussions with the authors, many were well aware of the
general reluctance of the public to change certain priorities or behaviors. No one
mentioned changing property rights, for example, and only a few suggested stopping or
even curtailing fishing. No one suggested abrogating treaties to eliminate tribal rights to
a certain portion of the wild salmon harvest. Except for a few brave authors, there was
little apparent support for shifting away from hydropower toward potentially more
salmon friendly forms of energy production such as coal, nuclear, and/or tar sands.
While some authors did propose shifting to renewable energy sources beyond
hydropower, few grappled with the fact that without either hydropower or nuclear power,
there probably is not enough renewable energy to power the North American economy
in the foreseeable future. None of these solutions is socially or politically acceptable
given current conditions. If we accept the future challenges, however, we have to
accept that some of the current "unmentionables" may become more politically and
socially palatable over the next 100 years.

What else is likely to change between now and 2100? Forecasts of the future
are based on a few assumptions: (1) until major crises occur, current practices will
continue with only slight modifications; (2) there will be major crises (most likely to be
related to energy and water shortages); and (3) there will be unimagined technological
changes. It is easy to speculate about new forms of energy, for example, but
commercially viable, cost effective advances will take decades or longer to develop and
deploy.

The Near-term Future for Wild Salmon

We are currently in a holding pattern since the salmon recovery problem has

17

-------
been largely domesticated politically. As a society, we appear to be waiting for
something to change, be it in the science, technology, economy, or even public
attitudes, something that will shake us into a place where the problem becomes so
apparent that the way forward is both clear and acceptable.

Society may eventually decide that the best we can do is to create large-scale
salmon zoos like we have for buffalo in Yellowstone so that our great-grandchildren will
have a tangible reminder of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and southern British
Columbia of the 1800s. Historians of 2100 may wonder why we spent billions of dollars
on recovering salmon when we had so many other pressing needs including poverty,
defense, health care, drug abuse, education, crime, and disaster relief. The list of
things we could be spending our money on is long and each item has advocates.

Part of the current impasse is caused by the fact that we cannot assess the
appropriateness of any policy choice because, as a society, we have not clearly agreed
about whether there even is a problem worth fixing.

Conclusion

We want the collective output from the Salmon 2100 Project to serve as court
jester, Greek chorus, cage rattler, and straw man to decision-makers, elected and
appointed officials, and others who have various mandates to address the decline of
wild salmon runs along the west coast of North America. We offer no easy, cheap,
painless solutions, but we propose a set of alternative strategies that would likely
sustain significant, sustainable runs of salmon through and beyond 2100.

Ultimately, of course, it is the general public that must become knowledgably
engaged in salmon policy debates if intelligent, informed, efficacious decisions are to be
made. Therefore, we present this book and its policy prescriptions to the general public
in a quest to define clearly what would have to change if wild salmon recovery efforts
are to have a reasonable likelihood of success.

I have identified the three fundamental barriers that must be breached before the
long-term decline of wild salmon can be reversed. There are certainly other, formidable
obstacles that also hinder recovery, but for these others to have any lasting effect, the
central barriers — the legacies, the choices, the trajectories — need to be breached.

My role as a provider of scientific information is one I take seriously, but scientific
information is only one piece of decision-making. More important, it is society

18

-------
collectively that sets policy priorities, weighs competing alternatives, and ultimately
charts the policy course. To the extent that I, or anyone else who works daily on
salmon science policy, can be a detached observer about the future of wild salmon, I
remain skeptical that, even given all the facts, society will opt to pay the required social
and economic costs to bring back significant runs of wild salmon.

I conclude with a prediction, and also offer a challenge, especially a challenge to
those early in their careers: "Any policy or plan targeted to restore wild salmon runs
must at least implicitly respond to these three barriers or that plan will fail. Otherwise, it
will be added to an already long list of prior, noble, earnest, and failed restoration
attempts."

Look down the road to the end of this century, to 2100, less than 10 decades
away, only a few dozen generations of salmon beyond today's runs, just 2 or 3 Pacific
Decadal Oscillations from now, to a time when this region's human population will not
be its present 15 million, but rather will be somewhere between 50 and 100 million.

Even given all this, there are still salmon recovery options that are likely to be
ecologically viable and probably socially acceptable, but the range of options continues
to narrow.

In my view, for fisheries experts, especially for those of us who work daily on
salmon science and policy, it is a time for neither crippling pessimism, nor for delusional
optimism. Rather, it is a time for uncompromising ecological realism and forthright
policy analysis.

19

-------
Acknowledgements

The Salmon 2100 Project, four years in the making, resulted in 23 policy
alternative prescriptions developed by 33 senior salmon scientists, policy analysts, and
wild salmon advocates. The contributions from these individuals in shaping my thinking
about the future of diadromous species was immense. In addition, my two co-project
leaders, Denise Lach and Sally Duncan, with their sociological and political science
perspectives, worked diligently to broaden my provincial view of ecological policy, a
view formed largely by spending my professional career surrounded by other biologists.
This article benefited greatly from candid review by colleagues. Particularly helpful
were the suggestions provided by Joan Hurley. Some of these reviewers maintain
different views than those expressed in this essay; thus being acknowledged as a
reviewer does not constitute an endorsement.

20

-------
Literature Cited

Black, Michael. 1995. Tragic remedies: a century of failed fishery policy on California's
Sacramento River. Pacific Historical Review. 64: 37-70.

Buchal, James L. 1998. The Great Salmon Hoax. Iconoclast Publishing Company,
Aurora, CO.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2002. Columbia River Basin Salmon and
Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures, and Actions.
United States General Accounting Office, Report # GAO-02-612, 86 pp, Washington,
DC.

Hartman, Gordon F., Cornelis Groot, and Thomas G. Northcote. 2000. Science and
management in sustainable fisheries: the ball is not in our court. In: Knudsen, E. Eric,
Cleveland R. Steward, Donald D. MacDonald, Jack E. Williams, and Dudley W. Reiser,
Editors. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Salmon. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida, pp. 31-50.

Lackey, Robert T. 2001a. Pacific salmon and the Endangered Species Act: troublesome
questions. Renewable Resources Journal. 19: 6-9.

Lackey, Robert T. 2001b. Defending reality. Fisheries. 26: 26-27.

Lackey, Robert T. 2003. Pacific Northwest salmon: forecasting their status in 2100.
Reviews in Fisheries Science. 11(1): 35-88.

Lackey, Robert T., Denise H. Lach, and Sally L. Duncan. Editors. 2006. Salmon 2100:
The Future of Wild Pacific Salmon. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lichatowich, James A. 1999. Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon
Crisis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Rahr, Guido R., James A. Lichatowich, Raymond Hubley, and Shauna M. Whidden.
1998. Sanctuaries for native salmon: a conservation strategy for the 21st century.
Fisheries. 23(4): 6-7, 36.

Scarce, Rik. 2000. Fishy Business: Salmon, Biology, and the Social Construction of
Nature. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.

21

-------
Taylor, Joseph E. 1999. Making Salmon: An Environmental History of the Northwest
Fisheries Crisis. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

22

-------
Author's Biographic Sketch

Dr. Robert T. Lackey, senior fisheries biologist at the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's research laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, is also courtesy professor
of fisheries science and adjunct professor of political science at Oregon State
University. Since his first fisheries job more than four decades ago mucking out
raceways in a trout hatchery, he has dealt with a range of natural resource issues from
positions in government and academia. His professional work has involved many areas
of natural resource management and he has written 100 scientific and technical journal
articles. His current professional focus is providing policy-relevant science to help
inform ongoing salmon policy discussions. Dr. Lackey also has long been active in
natural resources education, having taught at five North American universities. He
continues to teach a graduate course in ecological policy at Oregon State University
and was a 1999-2000 Fulbright Scholar at the University of Northern British Columbia.
A Canadian by birth, Dr. Lackey holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Fisheries and
Wildlife Science from Colorado State University, where he was selected as the 2001
Honored Alumnus from the College of Natural Resources. He is a Certified Fisheries
Scientist and a Fellow in the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists.

**********************

23

-------