From what I have seen "habitat restoration" seldom have a cost benefit ratio but rather more about perception than results. The cost of the Wildcat bridges will never pencil out as a gain for the fish, frankly I am sure that that money could have been spent on blockages with much more return ( fish ) on investment. Another the monies spent on Wynoochee habitat this past summer, is it a good thing? Absolutely but will it result in a healthier river, it cannot hurt but it is doubtful any quantifiable gain will result.

Restore seems to mean any gains will go to restoring harvest not healthy ecosystems. We need to preserve good habitat, address and limit over harvest which must include the marine fisheries, then target streams where recovery is possible. What we have now is PC BS of smoke and mirrors on habitat restoration as the fish continue to suffer.