Economic Benefits of Salmon Protection Equal or Exceed Costs

Eugene, Ore — A new report concludes that many of the proposed logging restrictions on private and state lands, which biologists say are needed to rebuild healthy salmon populations, would have economic benefits that outweigh the costs.  “Most reports about the economics of salmon recovery focus solely on the costs,” said Ed Whitelaw, economist with ECONorthwest in Eugene.  “A complete economic assessment must also include the benefits of salmon protection, and there are many.” 

ECONorthwest prepared the report, “Salmon, Timber and the Economy” for the Pacific Rivers Council, Oregon Trout, Audubon Society of Portland and the Institute for Fisheries Resources. 

The most apparent benefit from logging restrictions to protect salmon would be an increase in salmon populations.  This is important to the commercial-fishing industry, recreationists, and those who treasure salmon’s intrinsic value. 

In addition, logging reductions should yield cleaner streams, by reducing logging-related sediment. Sediment generated by clearcutting just one acre can cause damage downstream totaling about $200.

“This thorough study reinforces the notion that forested watersheds make their highest contribution to the economy when they’re in their best shape ecologically,” said David Bayles, conservation director for the Pacific Rivers Council, “when they provide not just logs but also clean water, abundant fish and wildlife habitat, irreplaceable recreation and flood protection.”

“Preserving and protecting salmon habitat acts like financial assets,” said Whitelaw.  “It generates a flow of economic benefits over time.”  If habitat improvements from salmon-related logging restrictions generated one additional fish for the recreational fishery per year for the foreseeable future, the asset value of the habitat would be about $2,800, Whitelaw says.  By comparison, the average timber-asset value of state and private land used for growing timber is about $400 per acre in western Oregon.  So, if logging restrictions converted one acre of private or state land from producing just timber to producing one salmon per year for the recreational fishery, the asset value of the new salmon habitat would be about seven times the forgone timber-asset value of the land.

“Salmon, Timber and the Economy” also finds that some of the confusion over the economic consequences of rebuilding healthy salmon populations stems from studies that have exaggerated the potential costs of salmon protection.  A report prepared by associations representing many of the state's private timberland owners, for example, claims that logging restrictions associated with salmon protection proposals would cost them as much as $8,000 per acre.  Whitelaw says several other, arm’s-length studies indicate the true costs probably would be 1-10 percent of that, i.e., $80-$800 per acre.  Even these estimates, however, fail to account for the benefits that would accompany the logging reductions.

The importance of looking at both the benefits and the costs of salmon protection was recognized by 76 economists who recently sent a letter to the governors of the four Pacific states and the premier of British Columbia.  The economists urged the politicians to look beyond those who cast conservation as a salmon vs. economy contest by focusing solely on the costs of salmon conservation.

“This report confirms that the Oregon economy stands to gain as much, and perhaps more, from efforts to restore salmon than it would lose with fewer clearcuts,” noted Glen Spain, of the Institute for Fisheries Resources.  “Salmon means business, and thus salmon restoration is an investment, not a cost.  The returns on that investment will benefit the whole economy in the long run.”