III.     A Road Map to Recovery


The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon focuses on salmon, but at the same time recognizes and addresses the importance of providing adequate and clean water for the people of the state and healthy watersheds. The task at hand is about more than protecting and restoring fish — it’s also about sustaining the quality of life we have come to expect.


This chapter describes how activities addressing human threats can fit together into a comprehensive salmon recovery strategy. The factors limiting recovery vary, however, from watershed to watershed, from river to river, and even from river reach to river reach. Any one of the “four Hs” — habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower —

can be the main cause limiting recovery of a particular salmon population. Regional, watershed, and site-specific efforts are the appropriate level of response to address human factors and to design salmon protection and recovery programs. A framework is outlined for development and implementation of comprehensive regional salmon recovery plans; state, federal and local watershed management initiatives; and ESA compliance approaches.


This chapter also examines the role of science, the various contexts for application of “best available science,” and outlines a scientifically-based conceptual framework for the strategy. The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon and its related regional and watershed plans should be viewed as adaptive management — experiments on a large and long-term scale. The specific problems faced by different salmon species and populations are being identified, and objectives and actions to address them are being defined. Monitoring and evaluation plans are being developed. The approach used by the Strategy sets deliberate courses of action to address key questions and to generate needed information to improve decision-making.


Current Conditions

Regulatory Framework


Although there are many laws with mandates that either directly or indirectly attempt to protect or restore salmon and their habitats, the troubling status of these fish is an indication that our existing regulatory framework and implementing agencies have been unable to protect salmon populations and their ecosystems. Some of the failures are due to the complexity and difficulty in addressing ecosystems — interconnections are either ignored or not well understood. Decisions may have been made in the past which favor development or the status quo because of scientific uncertainty or the inability to resolve conflicts between economic development and environmental protection. Other problems arise due to lack of enforceability, coordination, comprehensiveness, resources for implementation, data and scientific information, and public support. Fortunately, salmon are very adaptive and have incredible survival skills.


Following are some examples of current laws which affect salmon:

·         Laws dealing with land and water use and development — State: Environmental Policy Act, Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, Floodplain Management Act, Forest Practices Act, Water Pollution Control Act, Hydraulic Project Approval, Aquatic Lands Act, Water Code and Water Resources Act; Federal: National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Reclamation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, Food Security Act, Federal Power Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and many more.

·         Laws pertinent to fish and wildlife protection — In addition to some of the above, such as State Environmental Policy Act and Hydraulic Project Approval: the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, The Northwest Power Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, The Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act .

·         Recently enacted legislation — Three acts passed in the last year were designed specifically to improve conditions for salmon recovery. These key pieces of legislation recognized the need for comprehensive, scientifically-based, coordinated, collaborative, incentive-based and locally-implemented solutions:

o        Salmon Recovery Planning Act (ESHB 2496): Passed in 1998, the Act provides the framework for developing restoration projects. It requires a limiting factors analysis for habitat restoration be completed, and establishes a funding mechanism for local habitat restoration projects. It also creates the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. The office’s primary purpose is to coordinate and assist in the development of salmon recovery plans for Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) and submit those plans to NMFS, USFWS and appropriate tribal governments. The Salmon Recovery Office is obligated to prepare a State of the Salmon Report by December 2000. The bill also calls for the creation of an Independent Science Panel to provide scientific review of salmon recovery efforts in the state. The panel will provide independent and objective scientific advice to inform decision-making, separated as much as possible from economic, historic, cultural or political factors. This will help increase the level of credibility and public trust in Washington’s salmon strategy and regional conservation/restoration responses.

o        Watershed Planning Act (ESHB 2514): This legislation, created in 1998, encourages voluntary planning by local governments, citizens, and tribes for water supply and use, water quality, and habitat at the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) or multi-WRIA level. Grants are available to conduct assessments of water resources and develop goals and objectives for future water resource management.

o        Salmon Recovery Funding Act (2E2SSB 5595): This legislation further developed concepts established in ESHB 2496. A Salmon Recovery Funding Board is established to localize salmon funding in one board. This Board will make decisions about base level allocations across regions, and will deliver funds for projects and activities based on a science-driven, competitive process. The legislation further clarified what must be considered in a Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon, and directs the Governor, with the assistance of the Salmon Recovery Office, to submit this document to NMFS and USFWS.

·         Pacific Salmon Treaty — This Treaty is negotiated among Washington, Oregon, Alaska, tribes, and the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada. The outcomes of these discussions impact fish stocks and harvest in both western Washington and the Columbia Basin.


Cooperative Efforts by fisheries CO-Managers


Since 1992, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the tribal co-managers have been implementing a Wild Stock Recovery Initiative, including Stock Inventories (SASSI and SaSI) and a Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory Project (SSHIAP). The co-managers are nearing completion of comprehensive species management plans for Puget Sound coho and chinook, Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum and Lake Ozette sockeye. Each of these plans examines limiting factors and identifies needed habitat activities, but they concentrate on actions in the harvest and hatcheries areas, including comprehensive hatcheries planning. In December 1997 the WDFW and some western Washington treaty tribes adopted a Wild Salmonid Policy to provide general policy guidance to managers on fish harvest, hatchery operations, and habitat protection and restoration measures to better protect wild salmon runs.


Regional Response


Regional and local salmon recovery plans are the way the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon will be put to work and make salmon recovery a reality, now and for the future. Every one of the salmon recovery regions is different and unique, but they hold one thing in common: each is required to recover salmon within its boundaries and to make decisions about what needs to be done in the area. All across the state, new partnerships to recover salmon are emerging. Federal, state and local governments, tribes, businesses and citizen groups are crafting plans, implementing restoration projects, collecting data and monitoring habitat conditions.


Washington State Salmon Recovery Regions


In consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office has identified seven salmon recovery regions in the state; the Puget Sound Region has been further divided into three sub-regions. Each salmon recovery region is based on the salmon recovery needs within a specific geographic area and includes existing Endangered Species Act listings, proposed listings, and where there is a strong likelihood for future listings.


Regional Salmon Recovery Entities


Although at this time there are not many incentives for the various governmental jurisdictions to pool their salmon recovery resources and create regional entities to oversee effort, some regional efforts are underway. These include:

·         Salmon Recovery Management Board (also known as the Lower Columbia Fish Management Board) — ESHB 2836 created this fifteen member Board to participate in the development of recovery plans for the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Region. Members include a legislator; commissioners from Cowlitz, Lewis, Wahkiakum, and Skamania Counties; a tribal representative; a mayor; and citizen designees.

·         Hood Canal Coordinating Council — This group is coordinating the development of a habitat-related salmon recovery plan for the ESA listed Hood Canal summer chum.

·         Tri-County Executive Committee — Salmon recovery efforts for the Central sub-region of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region are being coordinated by this group.

·         Douglas, Okanogan, Chelan Counties and Tribes Habitat Recovery Board — Recently appointed by stakeholders to coordinate habitat components of salmon recovery, this entity represents the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Region.

Areas with Salmon, trout, or steelhead that are listed, proposed for listing, or have a high potential for future listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Science is Our Guide


Role of Science


Science is not an outcome; it’s an approach to the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge can be acquired in various ways, but science typically operates under a series of guiding concepts or rules. Scientists’ work includes developing a broad understanding of the scientific literature on topics of interest and performing rigorous empirical research or observations leading to theoretical analyses and sound interpretations. This process is by nature self-correcting, where hypotheses are formed based on clearly articulated assumptions and then are systematically tested and either supported or rejected. The ability to build upon previous work, to change course based on new findings or theories, and to be able to test and re-test hypotheses and reproduce findings is a fundamental aspect of science. High quality work that has passed the scrutiny of independent peer review is published in scientific journals, books or other scientific media.


It is important to emphasize that science is not a panacea for salmon recovery. Science can help provide direction and answer some key questions, but should not be expected to solve all problems. Science may simply not be able to answer some questions; in some cases suitable technologies may not exist, and in others, results from needed scientific investigations may take too long to be of help with current problems. Uncertainty will always be a part of natural resource management.


Best Available Science


References to the use of the “best available science” appear in various sections of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon. In addition, various state and federal laws and regulations call for the use of “best available science.” In the context of the Strategy, this means that the best scientific information available on a subject will be used to inform related public policy decisions.


Science-based Conceptual Foundation for the Salmon Strategy


To ensure the conservation strategies and actions of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon have the best chance of achieving the desired outcomes, a strong conceptual scientific foundation is required. A conceptual scientific foundation helps clarify what is known and not known about watershed and ecosystem dynamics in relation to salmon conservation and recovery. It provides a way to view needs and issues using a more holistic, ecosystem approach, rather than in piecemeal or single-issue fashion. A conceptual foundation provides the basis for adaptive management and monitoring that links conservation strategies, critical uncertainties, and related objectives and risks to key questions that can be addressed with improved decision-making. It provides the lens through which principles and approaches for recovery actions and decisions can be viewed.


Scientific principles will help guide a wide range of monitoring planning needs and decisions, and will promote their integration. The principles will influence identification of key questions and the relative priority of their answers to salmon recovery, will shape the appropriate scale(s) of monitoring and evaluation efforts, will help identify gaps and redundancies in monitoring attributes, and will guide the selection of appropriate methods and analytical approaches. Ultimately, use of the scientific framework will facilitate understanding, coordination and cooperation among partners involved in the salmon strategy.


Scientific Review


The five-member Independent Science Panel, created to provide scientific review and oversight of the state’s recovery effort, will review recovery plans at the request of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office and will report to the Governor’s Office and the Legislature. The panel will focus on scientific issues and will not have authority to make policy decisions. Members were appointed by the Governor in May, 1999. Science reviews, particularly at the project level, are anticipated in 2E2SSB 5595 and plans are underway for integrating these with other efforts. For example, the Northwest Power Planning Council uses an Independent Scientific Advisory Board to provide scientific guidance on issues associated with fish and wildlife restoration in the Columbia River Basin, and an Independent Scientific Review Panel to assist with project review and selection. The State of Oregon has formed an Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team to advise on matters of science for the Oregon Salmon Plan. Formation of a science panel is also being explored by parties in the central Puget Sound area to address questions pertinent to recovery of fish in the Puget Sound ecosystem. It will be in the best interests of parties in all areas to ensure science panels are coordinated to achieve efficiencies, avoid unnecessary duplication, and share relevant information in a timely manner.


As will be discussed further in the strategy, the use of scientific review groups is not the only mechanism through which the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon will receive and use scientific information. State agencies and other partners can draw upon their scientific resources in developing recovery strategies and plans. Federal, tribal, state and local agencies have staff resources and existing mechanisms for including scientific information in their processes and methods.


Adaptive Management and Monitoring


Science has a key role to play in making decisions associated with salmon recovery. Decisions will be informed by the best available scientific information. Information obtained from monitoring the implementation and consequences of activities will help determine whether strategies and actions are producing the desired results so that decision-makers can affirm or change course as needed.


Coordinated and integrated data and information management systems will be implemented to help make salmon recovery decisions and support adaptive management. To help meet this need, 2E2SSB 5595 requires that salmon monitoring data be provided to the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP). This system will be used and expanded to acquire and integrate salmon habitat data from a wide variety of sources, and streamline access to the data by all interested parties. It will also integrate habitat information with stock status information available from SaSI efforts. More information on adaptive management and monitoring strategies can be found in a later chapter of this document.


Building Blocks for Salmon Recovery


People of Washington tend to agree that salmon recovery is an important goal to achieve, but there is little consensus about how to get there. Current systems are particularly criticized for their failures: lack of collective agreement on goals (“Where are we going?”), inability to define success (“How will we know when we get there?”), as well as general chaos of structure (“Who’s in charge?”). It is the intent of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon to provide a coherent framework — the foundation — upon which to lay other crucial building blocks so that we may collectively build salmon recovery.


Salmon recovery and ESA response require partnerships at all levels. Certain actions are, necessarily, state-initiated while others are local. The state building blocks which locals will rely upon include those covered in the following chapters. It is the intent of the state strategy that these partnerships reduce duplication of efforts wherever possible; for example, when the state has achieved a level of ESA protection for an action, and where locals are in conformance with state standards and guidelines, then the same ESA protection will be extended to the locals. It is this “umbrella effect,” combined with geographically-tailored actions, which will make ESA compliance and salmon recovery achievable with the least disruption. Essential building blocks for recovery include:


Federal Recovery Plans and ESA Response


National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) are required by the Endangered Species Act to develop recovery plans for listed species under their jurisdiction. They will also review the plans and actions taken by state and local governments and grant certain protections under the ESA. The Services are required to develop the biological standards that fish require from each of the “4 Hs” — habitat, hatcheries, harvest and hydropower — and also to describe how they will determine when fish are recovered — which is the pinnacle of the pyramid (see p.34). The degree of protection granted state and local governments will depend on how well the plans do in meeting recovery goals developed by these federal agencies. NMFS’ “Working Guidance for Comprehensive Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast” identifies three overarching components of a successful restoration strategy:

·         Its substantive protective and conservation elements;

·         A high level of certainty that the strategy will be reliably implemented, including necessary authorities, commitments, funding, staffing and enforcement measures; and,

·         A comprehensive monitoring program.


NMFS further has stated that the strategy will “greatly benefit from the existence of explicit default measures whose implementation is certain should reasonable time frames or other expectations not be met.”


Statewide Strategy and Early Action Plans


The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon is the state vision of what needs to be done to recover salmon. It is intended to present major elements of an agenda for protection and restoration of salmon and aquatic resources. If these elements are not successful or are not implemented, default measures have been identified for some sections. Where they are not indicated, the state is still debating options, from increasing enforcement, tightening restrictions on important permits, or seeking new legislative authorities to correct the problems.


A complete list of acronyms can be found in Appendix B.

The strategy is intended to:


·         Provide a forum to address all factors, within state control, limiting salmon recovery.

·         Set statewide goals and objectives for protection and restoration.

·         Identify major policy and program changes and actions related to the “4 Hs.”

·         Identify statewide initiatives, and regional and local watershed initiatives as the mechanism for implementing the strategy.

·         Provide a framework to effectively coordinate and integrate changes and actions to be taken under all “4 Hs.”

·         Set joint objectives for state agencies’ activities, such as cooperation to fully integrate enforcement, monitoring and data collection activities.

·         Set framework for priority setting and decision making.

·         Identify actions, options or programmatic approaches that could lead to conservation of salmon and protection of state, local, and/or private actions from legal exposure under ESA.

·         Guide the formulation and evaluation of early actions and long-term state implementation plans, and regional and local responses.

·         Guide and endorse the use of good science, adaptive management whenever significant uncertainties exist about the best action or its effect, and implementation of monitoring programs.


Goal and Objectives of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon



·         Restore salmon, steelhead, and trout populations to healthy and harvestable levels and improve habitats on which fish rely.



·         Develop and implement a coordinated and balanced statewide strategy that moves aggressively toward the goal while maintaining a healthy economy.

·         Use sound scientific concepts, principles, and design approaches to guide development, implementation, monitoring, and revision of statewide and regional conservation frameworks and plans.

·         Collaborate with tribes, local governments, and the private sector to integrate local knowledge with flexibility and control at the local level into quantifiable state and regional salmon recovery plans. Regional plans should detail the desired future condition of the salmon resource and the future habitat conditions needed to support it. Incentives will be provided to assist and encourage development and implementation of regional structures.

·         Provide guidelines and standards for use by local governments, which, if implemented, will extend any ESA protections granted the state.

·         Monitor progress of state agencies and regional bodies in developing and implementing salmon recovery plans. In doing so, the state will provide technical, enforcement, and financial support in the highest priority areas.

·         Compile relevant components of state and regional salmon recovery and species management plans into responses to NMFS for specific ESU listings.


The outcome of achieving these recovery objectives is not only healthy salmon runs that support fisheries, but also healthy streams and rivers we all depend on. This, in turn, will lead to compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which is vital to state and local economies. Strong ownership in the locally-based, geographic-specific regional salmon recovery plans is the key to achieving these objectives.


Guiding Principles


The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon is being shaped using a wide range of fundamental principles:

·         Use collaborative, incentive-based approaches to recover salmon. Coupled with this, the state will enhance enforcement of existing authorities to protect salmon habitat.

·         Science will be a guide, performance measures for recovery will be established, time lines for achieving these measures will be clarified, and progress toward salmon recovery goals will be monitored.

·         Where resource risks are severe, take early and immediate actions as necessary to address key factors for decline.

·         Where insufficient effort is made to recover salmon or where performance measures are not met after a reasonable period, the state should be prepared to take necessary default actions.


Early Action Plan


The strategy is the guide to state agencies’ long-term implementation plans. An additional volume, The Early Action Plan, contains specific activities state agencies will undertake in the 1999-2001 biennium and the expected outcomes from those actions. Many of those activities will directly benefit local recovery efforts. These early actions form the first chapter in long-term implementation plans currently under development, and are the foundation for ESA compliance strategies. Although these compliance actions will require a mosaic of federal, state, and local conservation and protection measures to be taken, pursuit of these actions will proceed concurrently with recovery activities. The state approach to achieving ESA compliance is:

·         Pursue programmatic (instead of project-by-project) approaches, grouping activities, projects, programs, and/or entities whenever possible.

·         Focus the state’s compliance efforts first on programs under direct state jurisdiction.

·         Avoid doing further harm to listed species by strengthening regulatory policies and activities to avoid, minimize and mitigate human impacts on salmon habitat; adopting standards and conditions to address impacts — including incremental effects — and providing consistency in decisions; implementing early actions to provide immediate and substantial salmon protection; and enforcing existing regulatory programs.


Setting Priorities


Determining how priorities will be set is a fundamental issue in developing the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon. The Strategy cannot be implemented to the same extent in all places at the same time. Given the nature and extent of the problems faced by Washington’s salmon, the need for funding and other resources will always be greater than what’s available. Decisions must and will be made to allocate available resources to specific activities and areas over time. At the state level, priority decisions for each program related to salmon recovery are now made independently by each agency using program-specific criteria on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis. In the future, coordination will occur to effectively set priorities for the “four Hs” of salmon recovery — habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower.


The Joint Natural Resources Cabinet adopted the following guidance for allocating resources for salmon habitat protection and restoration:

·         Allocate a greater portion of new state and federal funds to habitat protection than to habitat restoration.

·         Use scientific principles and information consistent with recovery of healthy salmon populations as the basis to identify and establish geographic priorities for habitat protection and restoration.

·         Allocate most new state and federal funds for salmon habitat protection and restoration to higher priority geographic areas.

·         Provide continuing technical and financial support to ensure that decisions within high priority areas are scientifically sound.

·         Prioritization approaches should be based on scientific principles and information that emphasize salmon recovery in high priority areas, while also addressing potential Endangered Species Act (ESA) liabilities of local governments and others.


2E2SSB 5595 created a Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) which will be comprised of ten members, five of which are voting members appointed by the  Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. The other five members will represent the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Transportation, Ecology, Natural Resources and the Washington State Conservation Commission. The Board will be responsible for developing procedures and criteria for the allocation of funds, including priorities and geographic distribution. It will also make grants and loans for salmon habitat projects and recovery activities.


The Board will develop, refine and implement the framework for prioritization, and rely on scientific information to ensure funds are allocated for use on the highest priority activities. However, many details pertaining to the implementation of the legislation and related activities are still under development.


Local planning and decisions developed under the Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514), the 1998 Salmon Recovery Planning Act (ESHB 2496), and 2E2SSB 5595 will determine priorities for habitat protection and restoration projects and actions within WRIAs or watersheds. To ensure coverage of marine as well as freshwater habitat issues, planning processes for WRIAs that discharge to saltwater should also set priorities for local estuaries and nearshore marine areas. State agencies will provide technical and financial support to local decision processes.


To ensure a level of statewide consistency in setting priorities, the state may also provide guidance on the minimum elements that should be present in a local WRIA or watershed priority-setting process. These minimum elements include: 1) consideration of science-based principles and analyses; 2) use of best available data; and 3) a collaborative and open public process.


The science-based principles include: 1) freedom for stream channel movement; 2) consideration of the time needed for regeneration of the natural processes that salmon are dependent upon at various life stages; 3) maintaining biological diversity; 4) improving connectivity of critical habitats; 5) analysis of the overall landscape context of the watershed; and 6) incorporating the needs and impacts of people in the analysis and priority-setting process.


Monitoring and Adaptive Management


The Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office will coordinate and assist in the development of state and regional salmon recovery responses. Monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of these is essential at both a regional and at a watershed scale. It is important to remember that regional salmon recovery will reflect an ongoing and evolving process, not an endpoint.


Regional Recovery Responses


To achieve recovery objectives, regional salmon recovery plans are needed that build upon watershed plans and data to address all of the factors necessary for salmon recovery within each region. The number of fish caught both commercially and recreationally, as well as hatchery management, must be coordinated with habitat protection and restoration. Priorities for actions and funding must be set. The more this is coordinated, the more efficient and effective the effort will be.


Discussions are on-going to develop incentives which encourage “regionalizing” salmon recovery efforts. Some possibilities include:

·         Improved efficiency of state-region actions. As problems arise within a recovery region, the state will more quickly and effectively assist a regional council than a number of competing jurisdictions.

·         Increased effectiveness of regional councils in legislative and congressional discussions.

·         Funding through block grants or other mechanisms may be encouraged for regional councils.

·         Federal agencies reviewing regional response plans for contributions to salmonid recovery and for ESA compliance require planning to address all issues across an ESU. The likelihood of swifter review and a favorable response is increased when all levels of government agree on a course of action that does not contain competing plans.


Watershed Biological Assessments, Monitoring Plans and Activities


It is important to recognize that local habitat protection and restoration projects are proceeding concurrent with watershed assessment and the development of the broader regional planning framework. Watershed assessment, planning and management provide an opportunity to improve and protect water quality, habitat and instream flows. All partners will need to ensure these local processes use resources effectively, monitor implementation effectiveness, identify local needs and opportunities, and coordinate existing as well as new efforts.


Extinction is Not an Option


Restoring and protecting wild salmon populations and their habitats in perpetuity, with or without ESA listings, will not be easy or inexpensive. Effective conservation and recovery of wild salmon stocks and their watersheds must occur as specific critical factors or ecosystem functions and processes limiting natural production are identified.


Several recurring themes underlie the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon. All of Washington’s citizens and governments have a role to play. To accomplish the goal of the Strategy:

·         We need to determine our own future

If we do not act to save our salmon we will be depending on the federal government and federal courts to decide the future — not only of salmon but also of our watersheds and the communities within them.

·         We must make tough choices

We are not going to save salmon by talking about it. We must make changes in the way we conduct our lives in our communities and our watersheds. These changes must result in improvement to salmon habitat, and include how we use our water, where we build our homes, how we harvest our timber and how we farm. We are also going to have to change how we manage harvests of salmon.

·         We must undertake significant effort and provide adequate funding

It is going to take a lot of hard work to protect and restore our salmon. The kinds of change that are needed will not and cannot happen without extraordinary efforts. In addition, saving our salmon will not be free. Protecting and restoring salmon habitat will require substantial investments.

·         We are all in this together

Saving our salmon is not about blaming anyone. We are all part of the problem and we must all be part of the solution. Each of us must come to understand the impacts we have on salmon and the opportunities we have to contribute to their protection and restoration.


Most importantly, a successful strategy will require four key ingredients: use of science as a guide, collaborative decision-making, increased public understanding and engagement, and collective energy to challenge the status quo.

Back to Summary Contents