To: Grant County Council
From: Chief of Watershed Restoration
Re: 150 Million Dollar Salmon Restoration Offer
Adress
Dear Council,
I, Chief of Watershed Restoration, reach out to you today to offer my personal recommendation of the proposed offer of $150 million to restore the salmon population. Although this offer comes with a catch, I believe we should accept this offer as it is more than just a large amount of money, it is an opportunity to reverse ecological decline, bring forth hope to restoration communities, while also helping our economy.
Key Reasons
By accepting this money, Watershed can begin the task of bringing back an ecological that is currently in decline. Compton et al. (2006) speaks on how the reduced inputs or organic matter and nutrients need by salmon has limited freshwater production in the Pacific Northwest for generation to come. By applying a priority threat management framework, much like Chalifour et al. (2022), we can identify strategies that may not have been within our budgets prior to this offer while also reducing risks. Another way to help mitigate risk would be implementing panel regression models and assess the return on quarterly investment much like Jaeger (2023). Not only does this offer help the decline of salmon population in Grant County, but it will help to bring forth a thriving economy while doing so. Restoration investments have proven to have localized benefits which have helped to employ local labor and materials according to BenDor et al. (2014). A restoration plan that would help bring local jobs to the county not only brings forth money driven incentives but also gives residents incentives to support the community they love and live in. When successfully completed this project would then in turn help to bring awareness and hope to the restoration community.
Ecological Impacts
According to Timothy et al. (2023), studies have shown that mechanisms such as improving habitat capacity and productivity may improve salmon resilience. The acceptance of this offer can help this county restore spawning ground, improve water quality and biodiversity, and much more.
Conclusion
I leave the council with this; this offer may be a once and a lifetime kind of offer that is bigger than imaginable. If we act appropriately, we can end up not only restoring the salmon community, but restoring pride, resilience, and help the economy of Grant County.
Best Regards,
Anthony Barkley
References:
Beechie, T. J., Fogel, C., Nicol, C., Jorgensen, J., Timpane‐Padgham, B., and Kiffney, P. (2023). “How does habitat restoration influence resilience of salmon populations to climate change?” Ecosphere, 14(2).
BenDor, T. K., Lester, T. W., and Livengood, A. (2014). Exploring and understanding the restoration economy, <https://www.endangered.org/assets/uploads/2020/06/BenDor-and-Lester-Exploring-and-Understanding-the-Restoration-Economy.pdf> (Jul. 14, 2025).
Chalifour, L., Holt, C., Camaclang, A. E., Bradford, M. J., Dixon, R., Finn, R. J., Hemming, V., Hinch, S. G., Levings, C. D., MacDuffee, M., Nishimura, D. J., Pearson, M., Reynolds, J. D., Scott, D. C., Spremberg, U., Stark, S., Stevens, J., Baum, J. K., and Martin, T. G. (2022). “Identifying a pathway towards recovery for depleted Wild Pacific salmon populations in a large watershed under multiple stressors.” Journal of Applied Ecology, 59(9), 2212–2226.
Compton, J. E., Andersen, C. P., Phillips, D. L., Brooks, J. R., Johnson, M. G., Church, M. R., Hogsett, W. E., Cairns, M. A., Rygiewicz, P. T., McComb, B. C., and Shaff, C. D. (2006). “Ecological and water quality consequences of nutrient addition for salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(1), 18–26.
Jaeger, W. K., and Scheuerell, M. D. (2023). “Return(s) on investment: Restoration spending in the Columbia River basin and increased abundance of salmon and steelhead.” PLOS ONE, 18(7).
