They're both wrong. The habitat won't recover until massive, ecosystem levels of salmon escapement occur annually. The 1-2 kg/sq m for each species of salmon will significantly raise the productivity of the streams. The massive number of spawners will clean the gravel, thereby increasing egg-fry survival.

I do support, though, that when habitat projects are proposed an funded, and this includes dam rivals, barrier removals and such, that they are accompanied by a minimum defined benefit. For example, take out X dam in 10 years there will be a Chinook, B coho, and C chum spawning above the dam site. If those numbers aren't met at 10 years, the proponents pay the funders 25% of the cost of the project. Similar goalposts are set every succeeding 5 years (all set before the project starts) with a 25% payback until either we get the benefits or the project is paid back. Consequences.