I'd be interested to hear what the experts think about this study.

Producing Salmon: Study Looks At Cost Effectiveness Of Habitat Restoration Compared To Hatcheries

The average cost to produce a juvenile coho salmon through habitat restoration in British Columbia is about the same cost as producing a hatchery salmon, according to a recent study.

The study looked at the effectiveness of restoring habitat and increasing smolt production, along with the costs of the projects, in a string of off-channel improvements in the upper Chilliwack River in British Columbia and Washington State.

About $14 billion to $15 billion has been spent since 1990 on freshwater habitat restoration projects in the United States alone, but this is one of the few studies that has considered the cost-effectiveness of such projects.

It found that the cost of producing one additional coho smolt with habitat restoration, amortized over 30 years, is $0.69 to $10.05, whereas the cost for a hatchery to produce a smolt is typically about $1.00.

“While the effectiveness of restoration was not entirely surprising, it came as something of a surprise that cost of production per smolt from some of the restored habitats was comparable to hatchery production costs per smolt,” said corresponding author Jordan Rosenfeld, stream ecosystem scientist, BC Ministry of Environment.

Restoration project costs included thirty years of maintenance to ensure the projects remain viable, so both restoration project costs and hatchery costs are amortized over thirty years. The cost per smolt is the result of that calculation.

The study, “Watershed-scale effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration for juvenile coho salmon in the Chilliwack River, British Columbia,” was published online in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...9#.VR1WUPnF9qU)

In addition to Rosenfeld, authors are Lindsey Ogsten, Master of Science Student at the University of Toronto; Sam Gidora, restoration biologists with Fisheries and Oceans Canada; and Matt Foy, senior biologist, also with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

With costs being equal, the study concludes that wild juveniles from restored habitat “arguably have higher value than hatchery-reared fishes, because they survive better in the wild and have higher reproductive success.” The newly restored habitats also offer shelter and rearing habitat for other species in the Chilliwack River, including steelhead, bull trout and pink salmon, the study says.

According to Rosenfeld, the study was developed as a “rigorous effectiveness evaluation of the typical side-channel/off-channel restoration activities that were taking place in coastal rivers under the BC Watershed Restoration Program.” That program was established to mitigate the damage to streams caused by logging, particularly loss or isolation of floodplain habitat.

The study concludes that off-channel restoration projects to increase rearing and spawning habitat are not only effective at increasing local abundance of wild juvenile coho and other salmonids, but effectively increased production of coho smolts at a watershed-scale, Rosenfeld added.

The study evaluated the increase in abundance of juvenile coho salmon resulting from a series of off-channel projects designed specifically for coho spawning, rearing and overwintering, finding that the projects increased coho production 27 percent to 34 percent.

Even in the most conservative case where all side-channel smolts are recruited from mainstem river habitat, the added survival of smolts overwintering in the new side channel would be 40 percent, still resulting in an overall increase in smolt production of 13.4 percent, according to the study.

“This indicates that the cumulative additive effects of individual restoration projects can result in population level impacts at larger scales,” Rosenfeld said.

Of the restoration projects, the study found that those with a higher percentage of spawning habitat tended to be more expensive per smolt. That indicates that projects primarily for rearing and overwintering are the most cost-effective for coho smolt production.

The study also found that a restoration project that includes overwintering habitat will provide production benefits for both large and small populations of adult returning fish.

Most projects should include an evaluation component even though it is more tempting to spend as much money as possible on the habitat improvement, the study says, rather than adding in the cost of an evaluation.

“Evaluating the effectiveness of strategically selected restoration projects is essential for demonstrating their value, and for refining restoration approaches to optimize production,” Rosenfeld said. “Some level of project monitoring is usually essential, but needs to be strategic.”

For example, monitoring of the physical functioning of a restoration project is usually a given, but more intensive biological monitoring should be targeted to the subset of restoration applications where it will be most informative, Rosenfeld added.

He also said that some level of ongoing maintenance is important and is a relatively small cost for most projects. It is important to maintain fish access to constructed habitat, since obstructions to inflows and outflows are common and can greatly reduce productive capacity.

How cost effective is species and location specific. You can do a lot for Chum & Sockeye with bang for the buck coming out very well. Now Chinook is another thing all together as is Steelhead. Then comes the big bug a boo and that is urban impacts which are about impossible to undo. I did several off channel projects with really good results as Chum used them for spawning and Coho over wintering.

Now what does not do as well is the woody debris bit or other such things aimed at complexity. Cost a bunch of $$$ and while beneficial to fish the cost benefit ratio is low. So as always in anything you can be 100% correct and 100% wrong all at the same time. Just depends on what your starting point is and what you call success.

One aspect of the debate that is not figured in would be the actual cost in lost development opportunity. When i was in salmon management we viewed wild fish as "free"; there was no cost associated with that production while hatchery fish actually cost money out of the budget.

But wild fish, in a functional watershed, prevent use of the land, water, trees, etc. to some extent. Those leave strips on clearcuts represent trees not cut, and so on.

The biggest chum salmon run in the state probably was Hoodsport/George Adams/Mckernan in the 80s. For something on the order of 100 cfs of water you got way more salmon than the Skagit. On purely economic grounds the Hood Canal watershed produced chum more fiiciently.

Salmon management, or any natural resource management, should not be simply about what methods brings in the most money to the state. But if that is your only measure, then hatcheries are not all that bad.

Did anyone else have any problem with the conclusion that the costs were "comparable?" What I saw was the minimum cost of natural habitat producing a smolt ($0.69/smolt) was comparable to the cost of a hatchery smolt ($1/smolt), but the high end of the range for habitat producing a smolt ($10.05/smolt) was not at all comparable. This is assuming that the definition of comparable being used is "similar" as opposed to "capable of comparison." If it is "capable of comparison," then any value for producing a natural smolt would be comparable, even if it were 100 or 1000 times as expensive.

Excellent perspective, as usual, Rivrguy.

Further South, coho are in the chiter and limited $$ is being thrown around.

Not sure if ocean conditions are favorable to all the salmon species like in the past?

Maybe we need to consider the current conditions and what species are 'sustainable' today?

Not sure about any of it myself, but you have good points.

My experience is that cost analysis is rarely looked into by the governing administration. Since it helps and costs them nothing, why should they? It is up to those facing the burden to try to argue that against the regulation.. A better solution would be to try to figure out the cost benefit before implementation and then, if it is much less than the cost of mitigating it, find a number in between that can be assessed and used to create better returns else where. Unfortunately, since that costs money too it is probably never going to happen. I personally believe the collective costs could produce infinitely better results, but since each component (regulation) costs the individual affected party too much to fight, we will continue to see money poured out with little end result.

I think the study makes the most favorable comparisons. Off channel floodplain habitat is the most "restorable" per unit cost. And that habitat type favors coho above other species, although chum salmon can be very responsive to the right projects as well. Like OncyT I noticed that the coho smolt cost range was $0.69 to $10.05, and they used the low end of the range for comparison. These types of habitat projects do also benefit other species, but I think they are marginal, especially for chinook, bull trout, and generally steelhead. Heck, may as well add pink salmon to that list, unless the project is specifically designed for pinks.

What I like about this study is that it may influence those who make habitat project funding decisions to be more selective about the projects that they fund, with an eye toward cost effectiveness. My observation of a lot of habitat improvement projects is that the major accomplishment often is that all the money that is allocated does get spent.

Sg

Give the man a cigar!!!!!

Right on the money. We have a beaurocracy created to spend money on habitat restoration projects and it is like everything else. The money is spent but very little information is available on just what we expect to get for our money. Very little before and after data. It could be because I am not looking deep enough. I would love to see some analysis of where we have spent the money and where we have success and where it was a waste.

But of course that would cost more money.

There are a few published synthesis papers out there summarizing measured fish benefit for many individual habitat enhancement efforts. As would be expected, results are mixed. Minimal fish benefit is typically the outcome, overall it makes you wonder why we spend so much money on it.

Opening up blocked habitat, no brainer. Fish benefit is clear.
Off channel projects for coho, sure they get used but does that mean they result in more fish? Not necessarily.
In-stream wood placement, more of a coin toss. Cant hurt, but fish are often indifferent to our good intentions, and in larger streams a lot of them get blown out.
Riparian plantings, if you feel good about yourself for doing it, go for it.

Remember that the results of habitat improvement depend on how the fish are managed. If you open up more habitat by removing a blockage and leave the stream's escapement where it was pre-project, you have actually lowered the goal by putting less spawners in more habitat.

Results of habitat restoration also take a long time. I plant a lot of trees around streams that need them. Someday it will help. Tree plantings are cheap too compared to enhancement projects.

We tend to forget that we began intensively screwing the system in (about) 1850 so it has taken us 160+ years to get where we are. It is foolish to expect restoration in a couple years.

But, that is longer than most people's, and certainly most politicians, attention spans.