Sometimes I wander around the web (and my mind) hoping for a bit of inspiration. Recently I happened upon a 9 year old paper/report (Upstream) on Pacific Northwest salmon by The National Academy of Sciences that was complemented this morning by an AP news headline proclaiming “Judge raises concerns over Columbia salmon plan.”  In that moment I realized the report was just as relevant today as it was a decade ago.  And that does not reflect well on our ability to turn things around.

 I tend to view the term “salmon problem” as a misnomer because it does not adequately describe the gravity of the issue.  Putting linguistic semantics aside, the salmon problem in essence refers to the decline in the numbers of salmon, which was estimated in the report to be less than one tenth of the historical numbers for the Pacific Northwest (Upstream, 1996).  Which as I said before was published and referenced in a report about 10 years ago.  However, the problem is more than the loss of a potential anadromous species, but signifies impending economic hardship for those individuals (and the families they support) who operate fishing vessels for a living.  In fact, the impact salmon have on our society extends well past the local troller as sustainable fisheries support a multitude of companies, employees, and Native American cultures and peoples.  The Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids put it best when they said, “The salmon problem is easy to state, hard to analyze, and even more difficult to solve” (Upstream, 1996).

It has become quite apparent that the salmon crisis is the culmination of many factors that include habitat degradation, pollution, introduction of non-native species, introduction of hatchery fish which compete, transmit diseases, and spawn with wild populations resulting in genetic introgression, building of dams, pesticide use, logging, the modification and redirection of waterways for agricultural usage, and lackluster management strategies that began with the arrival of European settlers.  This is demonstrated by the fact that the mid to late 1800s were characterized by an overabundance of industrialized fishing techniques, which caused the depletion of Pacific Northwest salmon catches by as much as 50%, the presence of more than 4000 salmon harvesters, and the existence of 37 canneries that populated the watershed.

Because there are so many reasons for the development of dwindling salmon populations, which are compounded by short sighted policies and decisions that, shall we say, are less than favorable for the achievement of sustainability, it is no wonder that a quick fix or single solution has yet to be discovered.  Each of the contributing parts mentioned above were summed up rather nicely in Upstream when unbridled economic development and the human population explosion were cited as the creator of the widespread declines because of their lack of sufficient attention to salmon and salmon environments (Upstream, 1996). With that said, is it conceivable that a salmon solution can actually be developed?

Before we can explore plausible solutions, I think it is important to point out that the salmon crisis is a problem with society and how we interact with our environment.  In its crudest sense, we are a wanting, exploitive society that is limited on foresight.  Better yet, we ignore the inevitable and typically adopt a lackadaisical approach to natural resource conservation and only address concerns after a major problem as arisen.  Salmon are not the only casualties of such human overindulgences as we are all familiar with need to reestablish American buffalo and bald eagle populations.  Even to this day, attention is given to the plight of whales and headlines abound with stories of the over-harvesting of our ocean’s fisheries. Thus, some fundamental changes are in order. I understand that we cannot very well halt all activities, but we can make better choices.  As stated by David Bayle, “Ultimately we have to live within the health of the natural systems.”

Realizing that we are bound to our environment is not enough to produce a solution, but may lead us in the right direction.  When commenting on the salmon problem and projects designed to maintain the viability of wild salmon runs, James Lichatowich said:

“First, we need to revise our traditional short-term thinking. We need to accept the fact that recovery, at least to the extent that we can achieve it, is going to be a long-term process. Salmon restoration needs real commitment for the long term (Lichatowich, 1994).” 

Therefore the basis for a salmon solution lies with the need to make sure the benefits of salmon and habitat recovery is not superseded by the desire to sustain catches, rely on technology, and favor economics.  Successful solutions require time, money, and sound management practices that do not promote separate goals for salmon, fisheries industry, timber, agriculture, water usage, commercial development, residential expansion, and cheap power. 

“To bring about real recovery, all the economic interests are going to have to get together and approach restoration from a common perspective (Lichatowich, 1994).”

I wish I could remember the exact quote and context, but I was intrigued by the sheer  denial of a salmon farmer’s claim that the aquacultured fish were not endangering wild stocks.  I guess the preservation of the business drives the  denunciation but there has been many peer-reviewed publications over the years presenting evidence that indeed wild fish are threatened by ocean-based cages and farms.  That documentary ‘Jean-Michel Cousteau Ocean Adventures:  Call of the Killer Whale’, aired in late April and I wish I had used the DVR since I have referenced that show a number of times throughout the last few months.  Thus, I welcome any exact quotes from the show to ensure I do it and interviewees justice.

But the documentary is just a springboard into the real nuts and bolts of the fish farming issue that definitely has a marketable appeal to businessmen and everyday people concerned about overfishing alike.  Unfortunately the aquaculture solution has unintentional consequences including a decline in wild fish populations, perhaps to near extinction, in areas with high concentrations of fish farms.
According to Neil Frazer, Sea-Cage Aquaculture, Sea Lice, and Declines of Wild Fish, “The difference is that sea cages protect farm fish from the usual pathogen-control mechanisms of nature, such as predators, but not from the pathogens themselves. A sea cage thus becomes an unintended pathogen factory.”

As you can expect, by keeping fish such as salmon in cages with regular feedings  we are effectively removing natural selection and enabling week and parasitized individuals to remain active members of the population by decreasing infection mortality.  And that means parasites and other micropredators are not culled or kept in control but are free to reproduce and spread.

Sea lice are one of these threats that are capitalizing on this new niche that allows them to persist and thrive. The sea lice are not discriminate in choosing only farmed individuals, but are just as happy to invade wild salmon stock that pass in close proximity to sea cages bubbling with copepodids (Postnaupliar developmental stages of copepods).  Instead of a naturally occurring  equilibrium of sea lice, wild salmon, and chance encounters, we are establishing a reservoir by which sea lice can survive year around in regions that would otherwise be absent of host salmon because of migration.  Thus, sea lice are now available to infect wild juvenile salmon migrating out to sea, which brings about increased juvenile mortality because of their lower body mass.  Less juvenile salmon equates to a smaller adult population and a lower number of adults returning to their natal rivers and streams.

So what must be done to ensure wild salmon stocks are again free of human-induced declines?  Well, Frazer presents two scenarios:

“Declines of wild fish can be reduced by short growing cycles for farm fish, medicating farm fish, and keeping farm stocking levels low.”

“Declines can be avoided only by ensuring that wild fish do not share water with farmed fish, either by locating sea cages very far from wild fish or through the use of closed-containment aquaculture systems.”
The answer is fairly simple and if sea lice was not an incredible problem the salmon farmers would not be spending 20% of revenue on the issue nor facing $100 million in losses (Frazer, 2009).

Reference:
FRAZER, L. (2009). Sea-Cage Aquaculture, Sea Lice, and Declines of Wild Fish Conservation Biology, 23 (3), 599-607 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01128.x

At one time California’s Central Valley witnessed the return of adult Chinook salmon 3/4 of a million strong. By 2007, the returning population making the trek from the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay and spawning in the Sacramento River had declined to 90,000. And with the season ending in 2008, the numbers had managed to only reach 8.8% of their former number. Did I mention the Chinook salmon population of 750,000 I am referring to was a mere 6 years ago in 2002?

Yes, in half a decade the Chinook population has plummeted by 92% and set a new record for an all-time low of wild and hatchery salmon to successfully return to their spawning waters. Blame for the rapid decline has many people pointing many fingers, but when we boil it down to a common cause mankind is left holding the bag.

Agricultural water pumps, ocean and climate change, California’s system of canals, pollution and dams are bandied about and have even instigated a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect the salmon. Speaking of the NMFS, they specifically state the cause of the decline as “Water storage, withdrawal, conveyance, and diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower purposes.”

These artificial features now inhabiting natural landscapes are preventing access to spawning grounds, and directly affecting mortality of adult and juvenile salmonids.

The NMFS expands on this pacific salmon issue and recognize that “Modification of natural flow regimes have resulted in increased water temperatures, changes in fish community structures, depleted flows necessary for migration, spawning, rearing, flushing of sediments from spawning gravels, gravel recruitment and transport of large woody debris. Physical features of dams, such as turbines and sluiceways, have resulted in increased mortality of both adults and juvenile salmonids.”

As is so common in the wildlife, environmental realm, we are faced with an understanding of the cause of the problem, but fail to take corrective actions and mitigate the problem.

Whether you are aware on not, California is currently anticipating yet another potential drought for 2009, especially if we continue to experience a run of dry weather. This past week some areas of the state’s north have been precipitation blessed, but the storms are not drought saviors by any means according to officials. The Sonoma County Water Agency has already informed more than 750,000 residents that water supplies may be reduced by 30-50% as they grapple with extraordinarily low storage levels in Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. If more storms do not pass our way before the summer hits, residents, agriculture, industry and wildlife will be forced to comply with water rations.

To make matters even more dire, Pam Jeane, deputy chief engineer of operations was quoted, “Detection of a La Nina weather pattern indicates that next year may also be a low rainfall year. Releases from Lake Sonoma will need to be minimized to carry over some water storage for next year’s needs.”

Unlike people, wildlife are not necessarily able to cope with their already diminishing allotment of water as more and more is diverted to fill the need of urban sprawl, growing agricultural needs, and commercial industries. The two aforementioned lakes and their river counterparts support a selection of flora and fauna, including three fish species (coho and chinook salmon and steelhead) listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

And as typically happens when faced with any threat to our current practices (sustainable or unsustainable), society immediately scrambles to find a patch.

In this case, the patch under debate is a series of desalination plants to siphon the Pacific Ocean and quench our current and future thirst. But what about increasing conservation efforts? Well that is exactly what a number of conservation and watchdog groups are posing to over eager officials who are ignoring environmentally friendly solutions such as good ole’ fashioned conservation efforts by individuals and industries, storm water reuse and water recycling. Desalination plants are not magical purveyors of free water, but energy hogs, fishery traps, and depositors of concentrated brine in ecologically significant wetlands. Our lack of proper action has already caused the deterioration of fish populations, and now with our third year of below average rainfall approaching we are forcing ourselves into emergency action (as usual) instead of instituting proper management techniques.

Mark Massara, director of the Sierra Club’s Coastal Program, said, “Obviously there’s a need for fresh water, but there’s a misperception that desalination is the Holy Grail that allows you to engage in unfettered sprawl and ignore conservation. Desalination is still not priced competitively with traditional water costs, and we haven’t even hit the tip of the iceberg on conservation.”

Just as the current economic climate requires individuals, governments, and corporations to reduce financial obligations and save, the same holds true when water is the limiting factor. Having been natural resource gluttons in the past does not entitle us to be gluttons in the present nor in the future.

The California Coastal Commission has suggested the following potential coastal zone impacts for installation of a desalination plant:

• Air quality
• Commercial and recreational fishing
• Construction impacts on land and marine species and habitats
• Energy use
• Marine resources impacts from feedwater intake and ocean discharge
• Navigation
• Noise
• Potential hazardous releases from accidents
• Visual and Water quality
• Water quantity (e.g. effects of drawdown or saltwater intrusion of groundwater

The recent discovery of endangered coho salmon in California’s Garcia River watershed is a testament to the importance of preserving and restoring habitat. The twice clear-cut Garcia River Forest resulted in the diminishment of its coho population to a mere 1 percent of historical numbers. I guess we should not be surprised that responsible land and resource management is essential for sustaining wildlife populations and rehabilitating endangered species.

However, this “revelation” does not seem to resonate when politics and monetary streams are involved. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy declared in 2004, “Of our nation’s 259 major fish stocks—representing 99 percent of total commercial landings—roughly 25 percent are either already overfished or experiencing overfishing.” Yet, before leaving office the Bush Administration is working to deregulate certain fisheries management decisions and put power in the hands of the same commercial operations responsible for the current state of our fish stocks.

Thus, the inherent problem of this whole situation is cost-benefit analysis. Using salmon as an example, I believe we are not asking the right questions: What mode of action provides the best odds of salmon recovery (as opposed to the notion of what is the minimum we need to do to just slide by), ensures salmon restoration, or is it simply a need to ask what is the morally right thing to do?

In the context of environmental law, cost-benefit analysis tries to breakdown both the positives and negatives of regulatory alternatives to a dollar figure. Thus, there becomes a need to quantify the monetary value of human life, endangered species, aesthetics, and habitats. Generally speaking, the positives and negatives are calculated by what people are willing to pay to either prevent or retrieve an outcome. With this in mind, the regulators and legislators must choose a point at which to end; the point at which the benefits of pursuing salmon recovery are not worth the achievable costs. Estimating the costs for salmon recovery when it comes to removing dams, loss of hydroelectric power, or even other technologies like salmon ladders/passages can easily be measured. And hence we are often provided a cost of salmon restoration that is in the billions of dollars. However, it is when benefits, such as environmental health, habitat protection, species conservation and natural resource sustainability, need to be monetized that things are not quite as easily discernable.

In an effort to wrap this up, Environmental Law and Policy provides the following reasons why cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection fails:

• The standard economic approaches to valuation are inaccurate and implausible- The establishment of artificial (estimated) prices for the prevention of endangered species, protecting a habitat, or saving a human life are not based on precise calculations, but rather done through a variety of indirect techniques that result in the loss of accuracy and common sense.

• The value-laden and complex cost-benefit process is neither objective nor transparent- It is less likely to deliver objectivity because, as opposed to theory, it actually introduces opinions and judgment calls often influenced by personal beliefs and partisanship.