UBC Faculty Research and Publications

A Cost-benefit Analysis of a Riparian Rehabilitation Project on Alderson Creek, Township of Spallumcheen,… Carvajal, Vilma Calvopina; Janmaat, John Aug 31, 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Carvaljal_V_et_al_CBA_riparian_rehabilitation_2016.pdf [ 1.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0319213.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0319213-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0319213-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0319213-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0319213-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0319213-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0319213-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0319213-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0319213.ris

Full Text

    A COST- BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF A RIPARIAN REHABILITATION PROJECT ON ALDERSON CREEK, TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN, BRITISH COLUMBIA               Vilma Calvopina Carvajal                   Master of Food and Resource Economics Faculty of Land and Food Systems The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia  John Janmaat                                                 Associate Professor of Economics IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences The University of British Columbia Kelowna, British Columbia  i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. ii 2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 3. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 4 4. METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 6 4.2 THE BENEFIT TRANSFER AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 9 5. IDENTIFYING AND QUANTIFYING THE IMPACTS (BENEFITS AND COSTS) ............................................ 14 5.1 EXPECTED WORKS AND COSTS ......................................................................................................... 15 5.2 EXPECTED BENEFITS .......................................................................................................................... 17 5.2.1 Improvement of land Productivity ............................................................................................. 18 5.2.2 Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek ...................................................................... 21 5.2.3 Riparian Habitat Restoration ..................................................................................................... 21 5.2.4 Improvement in Outdoor recreation ......................................................................................... 23 5.2.5 Improvements in Soil Retention and Erosion Control ............................................................... 24 5.2.6 Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation ........................................................................... 25 5.2.7 Water Supply & Regulation ........................................................................................................ 25 5.2.8 Fish habitat enhancement ......................................................................................................... 25 5.2.9 Climate regulation ...................................................................................................................... 27 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 28 6.1 Results from the Cost – Benefit Analysis .......................................................................................... 28 6.2 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 30 6.3 CLARIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 32 7. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 32 8. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 33 9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 35 10. APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 38     ii 1. ABSTRACT  Alderson Creek (AC) is a small stream, approximately 2.4 km long, located about 100 kilometers from Kelowna, British Columbia. It passes through seven private properties that produce alfalfa-grass hay, raise cattle, horses and poultry. The creek and riparian corridor is substantially degraded, with sinking stream banks, siltation of the watercourse, loss of native riparian vegetation, and loss of fish habitat (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014).   Channelization of the stream, lack of maintenance, as well as other inadequate management practices, have resulted in permanently flooded farmland (10.4 acre), cases of animals drowning in one part of the creek (due to unrestricted access for cattle) and disease problems such as foot rot for animals that are frequently in wet conditions.     In 2014, landowners along the creek formed a non-profit society called the “Alderson Creek Restoration Environmental Society” (ACRES) to cooperatively address issues resulting from the state of the creek.  In the same year, the proposal for a Group Environmental Farm Plan (GEFP) was submitted to BC Government. The plan proposed a set of solutions including fencing to keep cattle out of the creek, installing off-stream livestock watering and/or controlled livestock access to the stream, installing additional drainage infrastructure and planting natural vegetation to support the stream bank and provide shading and habitat.  This document presents an accounting of the costs and benefits of the project.  Some of these costs and benefits are experienced by the land owners themselves, while others impact the larger community.  Riparian corridors in particular provide extensive environmental services which include water flow regulation, attractive visual aesthetics, and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.    This study relies on the Benefit Transfer methodology to attach values to the expected ecosystem services after the restoration.  The analysis was conducted for two possible project scenarios, a three meter and a five meter riparian buffer on either side of the creek. The lifetime of the project was taken to be 20 years and the net benefits (Benefits – Costs) were discounted using a 3% and 5% discount rate.  Results showed positive net benefits for both scenarios when cash flows are discounted at 3%. Results suggest that a five meter riparian buffer results in the largest net benefit, calculated as Net Present Value (NPV= $53,422). With a three meter riparian buffer and using a 5% discount rate, net benefits are negative (NPV= - $5,865). The internal rate of return (IRR) for the three and five meter buffer scenarios was 4.64% and 5.41% respectively.  Keywords: cost-benefit analysis, economic feasibility, Alderson Creek, transfer benefit, Group environmental farm plan, ecosystem services. 3 2. INTRODUCTION  A riparian zone is defined as the fringe of vegetation growing along the border of a natural water body. (Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada)1.  Riparian zones are transition areas composed of different plant species, humid soils, and complex ecosystems that connect the water with the land, and support an extensive variety of flora and fauna. These areas can be found adjoining lakes, creeks, streams and rivers and are clearly different from nearby lands due to their unique soil and vegetation characteristics which are intensely influenced by the presence of water. (Capital Regional District BC. CRD)2  Riparian zones that border streams or rivers are commonly known as stream corridors. Stream corridors accomplish a number of environmental functions such as: enhancing wildlife habitat through the provision of food, cover, and water and interchanging nutrients between different ecosystems within the landscape. They also contribute to the aesthetic quality of the landscape, protect water quality, and may provide recreational opportunities. Healthy stream corridors also help regulate excessive flooding and erosion, and require less time and expense related to channel maintenance.  The value of many of these services that are provided by a healthy stream corridor will be expressed as an increase in property values in the surrounding areas. (USDA, 1996)3  The health of a stream corridors can be threatened by natural events or human influence. Disturbances such as extreme droughts, short winters, lower snow levels and floods can have significant impacts on these fragile ecosystems. However, human intervention and land use activities associated with agriculture, such as crop and livestock production, urban development, industry and recreation seem to be even more harmful. (Agriculture and Agri – Food Canada, 2004)4 From a financial standpoint, the return generated by investing in environmental projects such as riparian rehabilitation is commonly expected to be negative, especially in the short run. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that many rural land owners seem to be more committed to applying sustainable practices and environmentally friendly processes as part of their ongoing land stewardship (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014). Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) may, in the long run, lead to tangible economic benefits to the farm operation.                                                           1 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/soil-and-land/riparian-areas/riparian-area-management/?id=1187631191985 2 https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/ecosystems/freshwater/riparian-zones 3 Natural Resources Conservation Services -Riparian Areas Environmental Uniqueness, Functions, and values. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid=nrcs143_014199 4 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/soil-and-land/riparian-areas/using-off-stream-water-sources-as-a-beneficial-management-practice-in-riparian-areas-a-literature-review/?id=1220560749957  4 In this regard, a clear accounting of the costs and benefits derived from riparian rehabilitation projects, both to the farm and to society, can contribute to a better understanding of the interconnected effects between society, agriculture and nature, and document these effects in the short and long run.   3. BACKGROUND  Alderson Creek is a small stream located 100 kilometers from Kelowna, in the North Okanagan Regional District of the province of British Columbia, Canada. Alderson Creek is a tributary of Fortune Creek and its sub-watershed is part of the Fortune Creek watershed.  This watershed drains an area on the north side of Silverstar Mountain (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014).   Fortune Creek is a fish bearing stream. According to Fresh Water Fisheries Society, some fish species such as Chinook and Coho Salmon, Rainbow trout, Red shine Shiner and Sculpin can be found in the lower reaches of Fortune creek (Summit Environmental Consultants, 2011)5. As a creek that is primarily fed by groundwater, Alderson creek can be an important salmon fry rearing habitat.  However, past management practices together with instream cleaning and ditching has limited Alderson Creek’s fisheries values or productivity (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014).   The focus of this study is a portion of the creek that passes through seven private properties, immediately above the confluence of Alderson Creek with Fortune Creek. All of these properties are being farmed, where the land is mainly planted with perennial forages (primarily alfalfa-grass) for hay production.  The hay is used for feeding the owners’ livestock and/or sold off-farm. There are landowners that raise horses, cattle, and poultry.  Over the past several decades, agricultural activities such as land clearing, heavy livestock usage and channelization, have altered Alderson Creek’s flow and impacted the natural riparian corridor along the approximately 2.4 km of the creek that runs through the project properties (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014).   Farmers with land within the Alderson Creek watershed directly face the negative effects not only of climate change, such as extended droughts periods and the decrease of snow levels during the winter season, but also flooding and erosion issues on their land as well as the loss of farm animals due to degradation of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat of the creek. In 2014, the land owners formally presented their claimed negative impacts from Alderson Creek to Spallumcheen local authorities. Issues reported included the loss of calves in the creek, permanently unproductive land due to flooding and substantial crop loss due to lack of maintenance and proper management of the stream.  (The Vernon Morning, Spall creek flooding area farms, March 2014).                                                            5 (2011) “Fortune Creek source water assessment and protection report. 2030 and beyond”. Project 2010 – 8879.010. City of Armstrong  5 Personal interviews with the land owners in 2016 indicated that the share that farming operations contribute to total household income ranges between 10% and 40%. Nevertheless, they recognize that their incomes would increase if they didn’t have to deal with issues related to the creek, and if they would be able to use the water logged land.   In 2014 seven landowners of the Alderson Creek sub-watershed formed a not for profit society, the “Alderson Creek Restoration Environmental Society” (ACRES) to cooperatively address issues arising from the state of the creek in an environmentally sustainable manner. This was the first step toward the development of the Alderson Creek Group Environmental Farm Plan (GEFP). With the sponsorship of BC Provincial Government, Farmland-Riparian Interface Stewardship Program (FRISP) and other entities, the plan intends to assist land owners with a degree of naturalization of the system to enhance and/or improve the whole drainage system, which will increase crop production on adjacent fields. Improvements in water quality may also restore previous fisheries values from the creek (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014).  The Group Environmental Farm Plan (GEFP)  The BC Environmental Farm Planning (EFP) is a voluntary process offered to producers in British Columbia to identify environmental strengths and mitigate possible risks on their farms. It is led by the Province’s Agriculture and Agri-Food Industry. “This initiative promotes producers from all BC to adopt Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) to achieve the following goals” (Environmental Farm Plan, British Columbia)6:    Improve the sustainability of the province’s agricultural industry   Recognize producer efforts to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable manner   Improve awareness  Improve the response to environmental incidents through contingency planning   Demonstrate on-farm due diligence  Reduce the need for additional environmental regulation; and,   Improve relationships”   EFPs are individual proposals.  However, the plan developed for Alderson Creek was a coordinated plan involving the seven landowners with specific contributions and actions that varied according to the challenges each faced on their land and the relationships between the properties. Support for this project came from a new initiative, the Group Environmental Farm Plan (GEFP).  The GEFP program implicitly recognizes that there are additional benefits from coordinating environmental activities between land owners that are less likely to be realized if each land owner acts independently.  After some meetings and coordination activities, the final plan will involve four properties encompassing approximately 146 acres.  This document presents an assessment of the economic efficacy of the GEFP in the Alderson Creek watershed through a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).  The objective is to identify the benefits and                                                           6 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/programs/growing-forward-2/environmental-farm-plan  6 costs, including estimates of the value of any positive externalities that may occur as a result of these interventions.  4. METHODS 4.1 THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK  Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is an important appraisal tool for public policy. It is also used to assess the economic feasibility of projects, programs, and regulations.  CBA identifies and quantifies the impacts of a policy to all members of a society; it assigns a monetary value to every benefit and cost, benefits and costs that are then aggregated to come up with a measure of the net benefit. Monetary values are used as a common denominator, allowing comparison of impacts that otherwise are measured in incommensurable units.  One of the most important aims of CBA is to assist social decision-making through the analysis of different alternative resource allocations.  (Boardman et al, 2011)7  Benefits are defined as increases in human well-being and costs as reductions or losses of human well-being. Recommended projects are those where the social benefits exceed the social costs. (Pearce et al, 2006) 8  In terms of timing, there are two primary types of CBA: Ex ante and Ex post. The first one is known as standard CBA and is conducted when a project or policy has not yet been implemented. In this case, the CBA is useful for determining whether the project is expected to have positive net benefits (Expected Benefits – Expected Costs).  This is done by comparing the status quo, what will happen without a project with the net benefits of implementing the project.    Ex-post CBA is performed when the project is done. It presents a more accurate analysis of the benefits and costs than can be conducted prior to the project.  While the original decision has been made, the result can be used as a reference for future ex-ante CBAs.  For the Alderson Creek environmental farm plan valuation, an ex-ante CBA has been carried out to estimate the direct costs and benefits as well as an estimate of the value of the externalities that may result from the project.   Boardman et al (2011) present a series of steps that are typically followed when conducting a CBA.  In what follows, the way that these steps were implemented in the present study are described.                                                              7 “Cost-Benefit Analysis Concepts and Practice’. 2011. Pearson, 4th Edition 8 Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., (2005) “Cost- Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Recent Developments”.  Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development  OECD.  ISBN: 9264010041OECD.  7 1. Specify the set of alternative projects  For the present analysis, three alternatives are considered.  One alternative is the status quo or “without project”.  This is the current situation, the base against which the other projects are compared.  The two alternatives to the status quo considered are implementing the project with a three meter buffer and with a five meter buffer.  It is assumed that all other details of the project are the same, for either of the buffer widths.  The project details and impacts are described further below.     2. Decide what benefits and costs count  The Alderson Creek sub-watershed is part of the Fortune Creek watershed, which in turn feeds the Shushawp River in the Fraser River basin watershed.  It is located near Armstrong in the District of Spallumcheen, a community in the Regional District of North Okanagan.  The geography, climate, settlement pattern and history are similar to the nearby northern Okanagan watershed, and therefore this area is often considered part of the Okanagan.  The benefits and costs will be estimated considering: (1) The local farmers involved in the project (four properties) and the estimations of external impacts that benefit (2) the larger community.  For simplicity, we take the larger impacted community to be equal in number to the population of the city of Kelowna.  This assumption is motivated in part by the ability to thereby use results from a previous CBA conducted for a portion of Mission Creek, an important creek that flows through the city of Kelowna.   3. Identify the impact categories, catalog them and select measurement indicators  One site visit was done during May 2016, in order to develop a better understanding of the whole environment as well as the details of the project and the affected zones. During this visit we had the opportunity to talk with some landowners in the project area.  They expressed their major concerns about the project, the negative and positive effects they have been facing and their expectations once the project will be implemented.    A second and very important resource utilized was a group of detailed interviews conducted by members of the Alderson Creek Project from UBC’s Okanagan campus during January and February of 2016.  Listening to the interviews allowed us to clearly understand the issues and to make a draft list of those impacts that should be considered and monetized.    Once the list was compiled, it was reviewed and ranked according to importance by the multidisciplinary team of UBC researchers involved in the project and indicators were assigned to each of them so they can be quantified.  For those important impacts that were difficult to assign monetary values to, some qualitative descriptions are included.    4. Predict the impacts quantitatively over the life of the project  Once the impacts were defined jointly with the team, they were confirmed with the landowners during the second visit in August 2016. The life of the project was set at twenty (20) years, with  8 an implementation stage of two (2) years.  The twenty year horizon is seen as a conservative estimate of how long animal exclusion fencing would last before major repairs.  Absent these repairs, many of the benefits estimated below would be lost.  For some of the benefit categories, such as from increased forest cover, the benefits did not attain their full value until the fourth or fifth year.  Costs were distributed according to the implementation plan and associated budget for the project.     5. Monetize all the impacts  For those benefits where the monetary values were assigned by benefit transfer (see Table 1), we updated those values to 2015 Can $ using the Canadian accumulated yearly inflation rate.  (Statistics Canada Time series).  Costs of implementing the project were estimated based on the project implementation plan and budget, and associated supporting documents, provided by the consultants responsible for management of the application and implementation activities of the project.  Costs and benefits related to agricultural production activities were determined using secondary sources and adjusted after consulting the affected land owners and others connected with the project.  6. Discount benefits and costs to obtain present values  Once the distribution of costs and benefits over the chosen time horizon (20 years) was determined, they were discounted to generate a present value, and then added as a net present value (NPV).  To calculate a present value, each benefit or cost value at a particular date is replaced by that amount which could be invested now, such that at the future date the investment has grown to equal the benefit or cost.  To do this calculation, one must choose a rate of return that is expected for the investment, typically called a discount rate.  For this analysis, results were calculated using two different discount rates, 3% and 5%.  The former is recommended recommended by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat9, and consistent with ideas about the social discount rate appropriate for environmental projects.  The latter 5% rate commonly used for CBA analysis, and is loosely consistent with stock market returns on reasonably safe investments.  7. Compute the net present value of each alternative  The net present value is the sum of all the discounted costs and benefits.  Results of this exercise will be presented in the following sections.  8. Perform sensitivity analysis  To conduct a cost benefit analysis, many assumptions need to be made.  Assumptions about future prices and costs for the various inputs to the project and the changes in agricultural productivity from the project.  Assumptions about the size of the impacts external to the land owners (externalities) and the value attached to these.  Sensitivity analysis varies some of these assumptions, in order to examine how critical they are to the results of the analysis.  In this study, we compare two alternative implementations of the project, a three and a five meter riparian buffer,                                                           9 Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide, Regulatory Proposals 2007. This document is available on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.  9 and for each of these examine how sensitive the result is to two different discount rates, 3% and 5%.  We leave further extensions of the sensitivity analysis to future work.  9. Make recommendations  Recommendations will be stated in the following sections. 4.2 THE BENEFIT TRANSFER AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY Natural ecosystems provide goods and services that directly or indirectly are beneficial to human well-being and constitute an important portion of the total economic value of landscapes. For every landscape, there are different services that can be provided and each one offers a unique contribution to human welfare (Wilson & Troy, 2005)10.  According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, four ecosystem services categories have been identified11:   Supporting: Necessary for other ecosystems services, includes nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production.   Provision: Goods produced or provided by the ecosystem, encompasses food, fresh water, wood and fiber, fuel.   Regulating: Regulation of ecosystems processes as climate regulation, flood regulation, disease regulation, water purification.   Cultural: Nonmaterial benefits of ecosystems, basically aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational.  To quantify these impacts in economic terms (monetize them), the use of methods related to the Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Willingness to Accept” (WTA) concepts have been strongly recommended. Willingness to pay refers to the amount of money a person is willing to give up in exchange for enhancing an ecosystem good or service, while willingness to accept is the amount of money a person must be paid in order to agree to a specific reduction in the level of an ecosystem goods or service. Both concepts are closely related to who has the relevant property rights (Pearce et al, 2006)12.  Most studies seek to measure WTP, as WTP is generally smaller than WTA, as people are inclined to demand a higher amount to accept a loss of an ecosystem good or service than the amount they are willing to forego to see the same enhancement.  WTP is therefore a more conservative estimate, and it is then fair to say that the true benefit is at least as large as that captured by the WTP.                                                           10 Wilson, M. and Troy, A. (2005). Accounting for Ecosystem Service Values in a Spatially Explicit Format: Value Transfer and Geographic Information Systems   11 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.  Island Press, Washington, DC. 12 Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., (2005) “Cost- Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Recent Developments”.  Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development  OECD.  ISBN: 9264010041OECD.  10  Ecosystem goods and services can be classified into two large groups: (1) Those providing direct market goods or services such as food, wood, raw materials and (2) Those providing non-market goods or services which would include climate and flood regulation, habitat for flora and fauna, and satisfaction associated with a healthy or aesthetic landscapes for example. (Wilson & Troy, 2005)13.  When it is possible, observing the market price for each good or service is an appropriate way to determine a value.  However, when there are no specific markets for the ecological goods and services, as is often the case, it is necessary to use more indirect methods (Wilson & Troy, 2005) 14.  Economists have developed a number of such methods, including:  Avoided Cost (AC): Measure the cost that is not being paid thanks to the existence of a specific ecosystem service that otherwise society would have to pay.  The value of the service is at least the alternative cost of providing it.  The water filtration services provided by a healthy watershed can reduce the cost of water treatment for a community drinking water system.   Travel Cost (TC): Used especially for measuring recreation services of an ecosystem. The benefit gained by visiting a recreational site must be at least as great as the cost of accessing it, or the individual would not visit the site. Anglers are known to travel further to fish in a lake where they are more likely to catch a fish, and other recreationalists are known to travel further to enjoy a lake with better water clarity.   Hedonic Pricing (HP): The value of the good or service is reflected in the prices people are willing to pay for associated goods. For example, the price of a home includes the willingness to pay for the quality of the environment where the home is located.   Contingent Valuation (CV): Use a carefully constructed survey to induce people to express their willingness to pay.  The technique typically proposes one or more hypothetical environmental scenarios and asks the respondents to state their willingness to pay to move from the status quo to the alternative scenario.  (ENVALUE)15. CV is commonly used to assess changes in environmental quality and/or estimate the economic value for environmental goods and services where there is no apparent direct or indirect connection to any market transaction. Residents may be asked to state their support for a hypothetical property tax levy that would be used to protect riparian areas.  These and related methods have formed the basis for determining monetary values for a range of environmental goods and services.  However, application of these methods is time consuming and                                                           13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envalueapp/  11 expensive.  (National Center for Environmental Economics, 2005)16.  Therefore, “information from past studies issued in the economic literature can be used to afford a significant basis for directing environmental policy and management” (Desvousges et. Al, 1998).   Benefit transfer is defined as the adaptation of existing studies to new policy contexts where little if any primary valuation data is collected. Benefit Transfer implies an estimation of the economic value of non-market goods or services through the examination of a study or group of studies that have been executed previously to value similar goods or services. (Wilson & Troy, 2005)17. While the collection of primary data and establishing values directly for the alternatives under consideration is always preferable, it may not be practical.  Benefit transfer is a second-best strategy in such situations, providing a basis to help inform decisions. The benefit transfer methodology is increasingly seen as an appropriate tool to generate estimates of the economic values for particular landscapes and environmental goods and services, on account of its lower cost and ability to more quickly provide results (Wilson & Troy, 2005)18.  The use of benefit transfer can therefore be an important improvement to benefit cost analysis where environmental impacts make up an important share of the project impacts (Wilson & Troy, 2005)19.   In order to facilitate the application of the benefit transfer methodology, several institutions in different countries have developed supporting platforms and databases that gather the results of valuation studies from all around the world.  These resources are then available to researchers and policy makers to perform their analysis. Two important databases are (1) The Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) valuation database from Canada and Environmental Valuation (ENVALUE) database developed by the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency of Australia.  EVRI20  The Environmental Valuation Resource Inventory (EVRI) was developed over the last decade by Environment Canada with the cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency of United States.  The EVRI was proposed as an instrument to support policy analysis using the benefit transfer method to assess economic values for changes in environmental goods and services or human health21. In 2005, during a workshop entitled “Benefits Transfer and Valuation Databases:                                                           16  Benefits Transfer and Valuation Databases: Are We Heading in the Right Direction? Proceedings of an International Workshop Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Center for Environmental Economics and Environment Canada. National Center for Environmental Economics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005 17 Wilson, M. and Troy, A. 2005. Accounting for Ecosystem Service Values in a Spatially Explicit Format: Value Transfer and Geographic Information Systems 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Valuation Databases (Session 1): 3-6 Van Lantz, University of New Brunswick, Canada Proceedings of an International Workshop on Benefits Transfer and Valuation Databases: Are We Heading in the Right Direction?  21 http://www.evri.ca/  12 Are We Heading in the Right Direction” EVRI was ranked as one of the two bests databases for environmental valuation. EVRI contains an extensive collection of values, regions and evaluation approaches. It has been an important tool in the development of this report.  ENVALUE22  The environmental evaluation database (ENVALUE) was developed by the Australian New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency. The aim of the ENVALUE database is to provide support to decision makers and researches in overall valuation of changes in environmental quality, for the incorporation of environmental values into cost-benefit analyses, and otherwise enabling more informed policy choices. Like EVRI, ENVALUE was ranked as one of the best tools for benefit transfer.     Table 1 summarizes the major studies reviewed as part of preparing the present report.  These studies did not precisely reflect the types of land cover for the Alderson Creek sub-watershed.  We therefore had to choose ‘similar’ land cover types from the reviewed studies to identify the values we have used.                                                              22 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envalue/  13 Table No. 1  Literature reviewed to perform the benefit transfer methodology in the Alderson Creek CBA Study Authors Year Location Method description Accounting for Ecosystem Service Values in a Spatially Explicit Format: Value Transfer and Geographic Information Systems  Wilson, Mathew & Troy, Austin 2005 General With the objective of increasing the accuracy of ecosystem value transfer, the authors strongly recommend to conduct spatial disaggregation once land cover types have been identified for a watershed. The economic values used to estimate the ecosystem goods and services were calculated based on existing non-market valuation literature.   The total ecosystem service value will be the result of multiplying the per hectare per year economic value for that ecosystem service by the area of the given cover type for that watershed.  Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources by: Spatial Informatics Group, LLC Troy, Austin & Bagstad, Ken 2009 Southern Ontario, Canada Value transfer is usually conducted by assigning a general value for an entire study area without considering spatial variability. In this study, the authors conducted a spatial ecosystem service valuation for southern Ontario using SIG and specific databases (Natural Assets Information System)™. Economic values for each ecosystem service are obtained by multiplying the per hectare per year ecosystem service value by the acreage of different land cover.   The Natural Capital of Mission Creek in Kelowna: The Value of Ecosystem Services.  Taylor et al,   2009 Mission Creek watershed, Kelowna BC The report estimates values for the natural capital for a portion of the Mission Creek watershed ecosystem services using Benefit transfer methodology. A vast literature review was done to determine the economic values for the study area (some of them have been proportionally adjusted to the Alderson Creek study area based on relative impacted areas for the location of this study). All values were inflated to 2012 dollars.   Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland Valuing the benefits from nature. Pacific Parks Foundation and David Suzuki Foundation. Wilson, Sara 2010 Vancouver, Canada.  The study estimates the non-market economic values for a set of ecosystem services provided by different cover land such as forests, fields, wetlands and waterways in BC's lower mainland region.  Estimations were established based on analyses of regional and local sources, as well as global economic information. Top three benefit values provided by the study area’s ecosystem services were: climate regulation, water supply, and flood protection.   Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer Troy, Austin & Wilson, Matthew   2006 Massachu-setts and Washington The study constitutes a framework for the spatial analysis of ecosystem service values. Using GIS, the authors mapped the spatial distribution of each cover class (forests, wetlands and beaches) for 3 study sites: Massachusetts, Maury Island, and Washington. The possibility to integrate biophysical and ecosystem service valuation data is a relatively a new approach. The paper places economic values on ecosystem services linked with natural and semi-natural landscapes spatially.     14 5. IDENTIFYING AND QUANTIFYING THE IMPACTS (BENEFITS AND COSTS)  As mentioned above, riparian corridors are crucial transition areas that provide multiple environmental services. They support habitat diversity to maintain healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and absorb nutrients and contaminants derived from agriculture and/or industry. Water supply and flood regulation are also environmental services provided by riparian zones.  In order to identify the benefits and costs that will be derived from the Alderson Creek GEFP, we first describe the major issues currently occurring on the site and then explained the proposals to overcome them:23  Livestock has had unrestricted access to the creek, which causes the sinking of the stream banks, siltation of the watercourse and has led to the almost complete loss of native riparian vegetation.  Lack of healthy riparian vegetation has caused higher temperatures in watercourse due to the absence of shade and root mass protection for stream banks.  This has reduced the value of the stream as fish habitat.  The lack of shade has also encouraged the growth of species such as watercress and reed canary grass in and near the stream.    As a consequence of the nonnative in-stream vegetation, silt is trapped and the water flows more slowly, increasing the amount of sediment deposited in the stream channel.   Some of the fields are tile drained.  However, they still remain too wet to cut hay or use for pasture, likely due to the high water level in the stream that prevents proper drainage flow from the tiles. Some other areas that are not drained are also typically too wet to work with equipment, rendering them of limited agricultural value.  There is also some land erosion taking place.   Excess water in the forage production areas could increase nitrous oxide emissions.    Continuous individual efforts to mitigate the excess water in the fields through instream cleaning of vegetation and silt has turned into the widening of the channel cross-section, loss of native riparian vegetation, with channelization resulting in the loss of the natural stream meander.   Alderson Creek is one of Fortune’s Creek tributaries, which in turn leads to the Shuswap River in the Fraser basin watershed.  The Fraser river is a very important salmon bearing river, and the Shuswap is an important spawning tributary river.  Fortune Creek and possibly Alderson creek are important rearing habitat for juvenile salmon.  At this point,                                                           23 Canada - British Columbia Environmental Farm Plan Group, Planning Proposal - Alderson Creek GEFP 2014 – 2015.  15 Alderson Creek cannot support any of these species.  Better natural regulation of stream temperature and other water quality issues can make a contribution to the fish habitat in Fortune Creek.  “Remediation works for improving the Alderson Creek condition are based upon successful restoration projects completed on similar systems in the North Okanagan”24. Possible works and their costs are detailed in next section  5.1 EXPECTED WORKS AND COSTS The data was obtained from recorded interviews done previously with the farmers involved in the rehabilitation, personal conversations and collection of the project’s financial documents and reports.  A GIS analysis was conducted by researchers at the Okanagan campus of UBC regarding the acreage that could be affected once these works are implemented and those areas that are currently flooded25.   The CBA will be carried out considering four properties totaling 146 acres. Total costs were accounted based upon six components of implementation (bank stabilization, fencing, planting, channel configuration, off stream watering, land drainage,), maintenance, professional advice and the loss26 of land to riparian buffer set asides (Alderson Creek Remediation Plan, 2014).   Bank Stabilization. – Reconfiguration of banks to allow for planting appropriate riparian vegetation. Stable watercourse banks will reduce siltation, and vegetation will provide root mass protection, the capture of nutrients from overland flows, and shading for the watercourse which will reduce the growth of in-stream invasive weed species.   Fencing. - Riparian Corridor will be fenced limiting livestock access. Landowners are committed to providing more room for at least a five meter setback from the edge of the stream along the riparian corridor.    Planting. – Establishing a healthy natural riparian corridor will provide filtration of contaminants. Healthy tree plantings along the entire corridor will result in shading and thereby reduce populations of invasive water plants. By promoting plant growth and eliminating livestock grazing flows in the creek will return to a more natural pattern.    Channel Configuration. - Channel cross-section will be improved and adjusted in some sections of the creek to better facilitate natural habitats and water flows that are less likely to cause erosion.                                                           24 GEFP, Alderson Creek, 2014 25 Bauer, B & Richardson, N. 2016. “Alderson Creek Drainage Projects and Riparian Buffer Analysis Report” 26 From the farmer’s standpoint in present time. However, from a social point of view, it can also be considered as a relocation or change in land use, that in the medium and long run will in a certain way, revert in potential revenue for landowners.  16  Off Stream Watering. - An off-stream water source or limited access point may be established for livestock.   Land Drainage. - Install infiltration galleries to improve field drainage, replace an existing culvert that does not allow the free passage of fish, and replace an instream crossing with a new culvert.    Implementation costs are detailed in Table 2 and will be spent during the first 2 years of the project, distributed between years as 75% and 25% respectively.  Planting costs are assumed to occur entirely during the second year.  Note that for privacy reasons, costs of project components are not broken down by land owner.   Table 2. Costs of implementing Alderson Creek GEFP Total Costs: Includes Funding and Landowner contributions ($CAN) Landowner Bank Stabilization Fence Plant Crossing Waterer Drainage Total  Total 38,984.50 35,510.20 50,075.00 4,267.16 12,265.91 22,077.22 163,179.99 Source: GEFP Budgets – Elaborated by authors  Table 3 includes the costs that will be faced only by the landowners as cash and in-kind contributions. The in-kind contribution takes the form of provided machinery services, labor, etc. during the implementation stage.   Table 3. Costs of implementing Alderson Creek GEFP Owners Contribution: Cash and in-kind contributions (Can dollars $) Landowner Bank Stabilization Fence Plant Crossing Waterer Drainage Total  Total 10,657.50 14,792.45 0.00 1,263.83 2,580.00 8,752.99 38,046.77 Source: GEFP Budgets – Elaborated by authors  Maintenance expenditures. - were considered as 5% of the total costs for fencing.  The amount of fencing needed differs little between the three and five meter buffers.  The costs are assigned in years 5,10,15,20. The loss in planting. - The professionals engaged in the project indicate that a 10% loss for the plantings should be expected during the first 3 years of the project. Plant death can occur from water stress, damage during planting, or insect and rodent attack.  Most of the loss, and the resultant cost of replanting, would occur during the first year.  A value of $3,000 and $5,000 were distributed in 3 proportional installments (50%,25%,25%) for each scenario respectively.  17 Project Management and Monitoring. – Project management costs are based on the proposed project budget.    The value of $11,974.47 and has been evenly distributed in the first 3 years of the project.  No Monitoring expenditures have been considered in the budget for this project.  Loss of farmland due to riparian rehabilitation. - Losses of farmable land due to inclusion in the riparian buffer has been calculated for only one property. For the other 3 properties, these areas were too wet to work prior to the project, and therefore assumed to have no productive value.  For those three properties, this land was not included in the recovered area. The specific property where land is lost to the buffer will not receive any drainage works.  Therefore, all the land included in the three or five meter buffers is assumed lost for productive use.  Expected loses are estimated using the same assumptions as for obtaining the expected benefits for improving land productivity explained below.  However, in this case the land owner is losing land that is planned for Timothy Hay, rather than Alfalfa – grass hay (Personal conversations with the landowner, August 2016). According to market reports, sales prices for Timothy hay are higher than for Alfalfa – grass hay27. A 2nd cut of Timothy hay can be found for $385/ton = $9.6 per bale; $374/ ton = $9.3 per bale; while a 1st cut is offered within the range of $8.5/bale to $9/bale depending the site.  For our calculations, a conservative value of $8/bale was assumed for Timothy hay. During the first harvest year (year 3) a low yield of 1.7ton/acre or 68 bales is assumed (considered as establishment year28) to account any cost increase that results from producing a new type of hay29. For the next years we assumed ramping up yields: second and third year we used values assigned to maximum yield in dryland (2.5 ton or 100 bales per acre) and during years fifth to seventh, production reaches the higher yield of (4 ton), years eighth and ninth decreases (2.5) and after the tenth year we assumed an average yield of 2.1 ton/acre (84 bales/ acre per cut). Two cuts per year are assumed30.  5.2 EXPECTED BENEFITS Benefits were estimated considering the positive impacts for farmers (land productivity) and also the ecosystem services derived from the rehabilitation. For the external benefits (ecosystem services), the methodology of benefit transfer was used.  The studies used as bases for the                                                           27 http://www.thehorse.com/articles/34020/poll-recap-2014-hay-costs and http://www.kijiji.ca/b-alberta/hay-for-sale/page-3/k0l9003 28 Guidelines for Estimating Hay Production Costs 2016 in Manitoba. 29 As the farmer is producing Alfalfa grass hay nowadays and express the desire to change to Timothy in the fields where riparian restoration will take place, their costs even when can change it is uncertain whether he will or not do this change. With the purpose of account this particularity, we are penalizing the first year with a lower yield that could be considered as an increase of production costs as well. 30 Details and sources in benefits section  18 economic values that have been assigned for each land cover type and ecosystem service are those cited in Table 1, in the Methods Section.  5.2.1 Improvement of land Productivity The proposed works for Alderson Creek rehabilitation include the improvement and/or installation of drainage systems in three properties that presently have water logged soils and are not used for agricultural production. To quantify the expected benefit, an analysis using GIS was conducted by the UBC team31 where GPS coordinates along Alderson Creek were collected and used to generate GIS point features and lines.  These were then used to estimate the land areas that would be included within the three and five meter riparian buffers, as well as identifying the areas of excessive moisture where drainage would be installed and land productivity improved.  These results were used as estimates for the land affected by the project, areas where the land cover and/or land use would change.                                                              31 Alderson Creek Drainage Projects and Riparian Buffer Analysis, 2016. Bauer, B., Richardson, N.  19 Figure No. 1 Water-Logged Soils in three properties in Alderson Creek  Source: zones of excessive soil moisture for  three of the properties along Alderson creek -  Alderson creek drainage projects and riparian buffer analysis. (Bauer B. & Richardson N. 2016)   Table 4. Drainage works and acreage of recovered land  Landowner Property size (acres) Water logged (acres) 3 meter riparian buffer (acres) Area gained with 3 meter buffer (acres) 5 meter riparian buffer (acres) Area gained with 5 meter buffer (acres) 1 25 2.930 1.099 1.962 1.836 1.307 2 75 N/A 1.928 N/A 3.212 N/A 3 25 3.034 0.433 2.601 0.72 2.314 4 21 4.445 0.968 3.346 1.623 2.609 TOTAL 146 10.409 4.428 7.909 7.391 6.23 Source: zones of excessive soil moisture for three of the properties along Alderson creek -  Alderson creek drainage projects and riparian buffer analysis. (Bauer B. & Richardson N. 2016)   20 In general, if fences are installed to protect a three meter riparian buffer, it is expected that 7.9 acres of productive land will be recovered.  If the riparian buffer is extended to five meters, then 6.23 acres of land will be recovered32.    Indicator: Acres of productive farmland recovered.   According to the interviews done with the farmers, in most of the cases, the land will be used to plant alfalfa-grass hay. To obtain the economic benefit of these works, we calculated the expected revenue for hay crops per year.   According to the Agricultural Marketing Guide from the Government of Alberta33, the expected yearly yield for dryland hay production ranges between 1.7 - 2.5 ton/acre, equivalent to 68 - 100 bales (50 pounds) per cutting per acre and 4.0 ton/acre = 160 bales per cutting for irrigated land.   Similar to the calculations done above for estimating the loss of farmland, informed by reviewing interview recordings conducted in February and August of 2016, and consulting other secondary sources, we chose to use a yield of 2.5 ton per acre per cut, with 2 cuts per year. Tons have been converted into bales of 50 pounds each and hectare into acre, resulting in 100 bales per cutting per acre or 200 bales per year.   We have also assumed an establishment year at the beginning of the third year, followed by increasing yields (2.5 ton) in year 2 to year 5, reaching the maximum yield (4 ton) in year 6 to year 9 followed by the average yield equal to 2.1 ton/acre or 84 bales per cut per acre.  Conversations with the land owners suggested a price per bale for alfalfa-grass hay of $734, and is consistent with local prices35.  The cost of production was assumed to be $3 per bale 36 . Secondary sources reviewed as background include Progressive Forage that suggests a cost of $2.35, Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development at $3, and Virginia Tech Crop $3.87 (converted to Canadian currency) per bale of 50 pounds of hay. During personal interviews, the farmers agree with a $3 cost per bale. The reviewed literature suggested that of these costs, approximately 70% are variable and 30% are fixed. For our calculations, we used $2 and $1 as the variable and fixed costs of hay production.   It is important to highlight that during the interviews, one landowner suggested that the improvement of the land would enable an alternative crop, sugar beet, to be grown.  As these plans were not firm (unlike the Timothy hay described above, where the land owner had already                                                           32Bauer, B & Richardson, N. 2016. Alderson creek drainage projects and riparian buffer analysis. 33 Agricultural Marketing Guide, Timothy and Other Compressed Hay. Alberta Government, 2015. 34 Volatility of hay prices made difficult to state a unique price for this calculations. Farmers mentioned that last year’s prices fluctuate from $20 per bale to $8/$7 nowadays due to greater market supply.  35 http://www.kijiji.ca/b-kelowna/hay-bales/k0l1700228. Reached August 9, 2016. 36Guidelines for Estimating Hay Production Costs 2016 in Manitoba. Page 2  21 contracted for the establishment of the crop), this alternative was not considered in the analysis.  This observation highlights that focusing on additional hay production may understate the value of the improvements made to the land.  5.2.2 Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek During the conversations and interviews with the farmers, they said that their animals drink directly from the stream. One land manager (tenant) claimed to have lost 2 calves in 2015 that fell into the creek, and almost losing one adult.  They also reported additional costs related to animal diseases (foot rot) caused by animals spending time standing in waterlogged soils. They indicated that calves were valued between $500 and $1,200 (weight based). The adult animal at local prices ranges between $2,000 and $3,000. Additionally, the costs of medicines and veterinarian services are around $200 each time the animal get sick. This is significant because, once the disease gets into the mud; there is a higher probability that other animals will become infected. Fencing, improving water flow in the stream, and improving drainage will significantly reduce the risk of these losses. We estimate savings of $200 per year, equivalent to one avoided veterinary treatment of a sick animal or the reducing the probability of loss (cull or drowning event) by 10%. Indicator: Amount of money saved by reduction of animal illness or death.   5.2.3 Riparian Habitat Restoration  One of the main habitat restoration activities in the Alderson Creek project is the creation of riparian buffer areas from which livestock will be excluded, and where native vegetation will be planted. This analysis considers two possible scenarios, implementation of a buffer three meters on each side of the creek or a five meter wide buffer on each side of the creek. Riparian ecosystems provide a range of important services, including the provision of erosion and flood protection, filtering and cleaning functions that improve water quality, and serve as habitat that supports high biodiversity (Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan – Indication of Support, 2014).  As mentioned above, Alderson Creek contributes to Fortune Creek which in turn flows into the Shuswap River.  Based on flow measurements made as part of monitoring the restoration project, and discharge measurements on Fortune Creek, Alderson Creek provides approximately 3% of the flow in Fortune Creek. This contribution to the flow in Fortune Creek is expected to contribute (marginally) to enhancing fish habitat.  Following the benefit transfer methodology, the results of similar analysis conducted elsewhere were used to identify reasonable numbers to capture the value of the ecosystem services (environmental benefits) that will result from the project implementation. It is acknowledged that these values are not the result of primary research, and therefore rely on the appropriateness of the adjustments made to transfer the values to this project.  Inclusion of these values provides an indication of what the value of these benefits may be, which is taken as an improvement relative  22 to a Cost Benefit Analysis that ignores these effects and effectively sets the value of the change in environmental goods and services at zero (Troy & Bagstad, 2009)37. Alderson Creek is approximately 2.4 km long and the main stream channel ranges between 0.5 and 2 meters wide. As it is a headwater perennial stream, according to the Fluvial Geomorphology 38  classification system, Alderson Creek would be classified as a first order stream39.  In Troy & Bagstad (2009), the authors analyze eleven studies to value ecosystem services in Southern Ontario. An average economic value for “habitat, refugium and biodiversity” (per year per hectare) was obtained by calculating individual value for each land cover type identified in their study zone (grassland/pasture/hayfield, forest: non-urban and adjacent to stream, open water: river and estuary/tidal bay and wetlands).  In Taylor et al (2013)40, a similar methodology was applied for assessing ecosystem services in Mission Creek, Kelowna, BC. In this case, they considered four types of cover land: forest, grassland, farmland and wetland; and determined the respective economic value for total habitat by adding each of them.   For Alderson Creek restoration project, habitat services were measured based on the 4 habitat land cover types expected after restoration41:  1. Forest. -Following Troy and Bagstad (2009), the Willingness to Pay (WTP) to keep or increase a hectare of forest adjacent to streams42  per year assigned to Ontario in 2009 was $142. We transformed this amount into acres and inflated to 2015 dollars obtaining a value of $60 per acre of forest adjacent to stream in 2015.  We applied to the total area that will be restored in AC within the 2 scenarios (3m and 5m) riparian buffer.  2. Grassland/pasture/hayfield. -  This was taken as the WTP for likely areas for pasture or hayfields, or identified native grasslands outside of urban areas. Following Willis and Benson (1988) used in Mission Creek study, a value of $101 was established per year per hectare in 2012. In AC study area, this value was inflated and converted to acre and got a price of $ 43 per acre in 2015. The areas used for these calculations, were obtained of the                                                           37 Value for Open water: Urban/suburban river. Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario. Troy & Bagstad, 2009 38 State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry ESF. Fluvial Geomorphology – Classifying Stream Orders.  Available on http://www.fgmorph.com/fg_4_8.php. 39 When two first order streams assign the downstream reach an order of 2 40 The Natural Capital of Mission Creek in Kelowna: The Value of Ecosystem Services. Taylor et al, 2009 41 According to the general objectives of the project and conversations with the project planner and manager. The present studio didn’t carry out any exhausted analyses to determine specific land cover areas.   42 Forest adjacent to stream: Areas of forest cover located within 30 meters of the banks of 2nd order or greater streams, excluding urban /suburban areas. (Troy & Bagstad, 2009)  23 net farmland that will be recovered after the drainage system improvements and that will be used as grassland, pasture or hay and that indirectly contributes to improvements in habitat for both scenarios (7.9 acres and 6.23 acres respectively).  We are assuming that the waterlogged pasture which is converted to productive pasture is contribution a value of zero.  This area is likely providing some environmental services, implying that the value of services we use for this land type is probably somewhat overstated.   3. Farmland. - To calculate farmland value, in Olewiler et. al (2009) 43  a survey was conducted in metro Vancouver to ask households about their WTP into a fund that could be used to pay farmers to set aside farmland for wildlife. The result was an average of $24 per household per year. Following the methodology used for Mission Creek report, this value was first applied to Kelowna area for which a similar study performed in Abbotsford44 was used to state that only 31.4% of local households were willing to pay for this purpose. First, we calculated the total WTP for Kelowna (31.4% of 74,94245 dwellings multiplied by $24) this value corresponds to farmland acreage of 2,428 hectares. For 2015 the value per acre year was $98. For Alderson Creek, we applied this value to the farmland that landowners will set aside for riparian restoration for both scenarios.    4. Wetlands. - There is a small wetland area (approximately 1.2 acre) that is expected to increase in area by approximately 5%, relative to the current highly disturbed area, once the project is implemented. To calculate the economic value, we used the land cover for Wetlands: non-urban, non-coastal (Wetlands, bogs, marshes, swamps, and fens, excluding those in urban/suburban areas and those considered coastal) used for Ontario valuation. The value of $75 in 2009 was inflated and converted to acres to get $32 per acre in 2015. We applied this value to the 5% area equivalent to 0.06 acre in Alderson Creek.  These benefits are taken to begin four years after the start of the project.  Indicator: Total habitat restored acreage  5.2.4 Improvement in Outdoor recreation While Alderson Creek is not considered a place for recreational activities and the project does not include any specific work to change this, there are implicit benefits that would be derived once the riparian corridor is enhanced. According to what the farmers said, they will be happy to enjoy a healthy riparian zone and also will feel motivated to use it as a recreational area or just enjoy the scenic view of the landscape and of wildlife that will be part of the new corridor.                                                            43 An estimate of the public amenity benefits and ecological goods provided by farmland in metro Vancouver. (Olewiler et al. 2009) 44 Public Amenity Benefits and Ecological Services Provided by Farmland to Local Communities in the Fraser Valley - A case study in Abbotsford, B.C 2007. 45 Statistics Canada 2011. Available on https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=915  24  To calculate the economic value of this impact, we used the per capita, per year WTP or consumer surplus for outdoor recreational activities and wildlife viewing from the study of Environment Canada (2000).46 The WTP for Canadians living in BC for outdoor recreational activities and wildlife viewing was $165.3 and $106.6 respectively in 1996.  To transfer these values to the study area, after inflating them and converting into acres, we first estimate recreational activities and wildlife viewing values for Kelowna considering total acreage (53,713 acre) and population (74,471)47.   To adjust those results to our valuation, we followed the steps detailed in Mission Creek report to obtain a proportional per acre per year value for Alderson Creek regarding the acreage that will be restored (4.42 acre and 7.39 acre divided by 53,713 acres) for both scenarios. These benefits are assumed to begin five years after the start of the project.  5.2.5 Improvements in Soil Retention and Erosion Control As mentioned above, livestock have had unrestricted access to the creek, which causes the sinking of the stream banks and siltation of the watercourse.  The repeated presence of livestock and the resultant damage prevents the vegetation native to the area that would normally inhabit the riparian zone from developing and surviving.  The absence of a natural water course and the damage done by livestock access also contributes to the flooding problems experienced on the land adjacent to the creek.  After the project is implemented it is expected that soil retention will be improved due to the native vegetation that will be planted surrounding the creek, which together with the fencing will protect the banks along the stream. To estimate the benefits, we considered the economic value of two types of land cover that will be improved: hayfield/pasture and forest adjacent to a stream.  The areas for each type are the net productive land that will be recovered after drainage and the areas for the riparian buffers. We used the values used for Ontario in 2009 (Troy & Bagstad), inflated them to 2015 dollars and converted to acre. Finally, we apply those values to the respective areas of our study case. These are $1,573 and $2,613 for each scenario per year. For CBA calculations, the benefits are assumed to be realized from year five onwards. An adaptation period of 2 to 3 years after the implementation is seen as necessary for the vegetation to grow to the point where the benefits take place.                                                               46 Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities 47 AS the survey was conducted to people 15 years old and more, the population used for Kelowna transfer is population between 20 and 64 years old.    25 5.2.6 Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation Healthy riparian areas improve water quality because trees and vegetation divert rainwater into the soil where microorganisms can filter out pollutants48, and captures silt and other contaminants and organic matter that otherwise would make its way into the stream. Riparian forests help to reduce nitrogen and nitrates in runoff and capture sediment.  Extensive research validates that forests cover considerably improves the quality of water, transport of nutrients and waste regulation.  To calculate water quality, nutrient and waste regulation, we applied the economic values of these environmental services used for Ontario (Troy & Bagstad, 2009) for two types of cover land: forest adjacent to stream and acreage improved of wetlands49(0.06 acre) to the Alderson Creek areas and obtained $1,318 and $ 2,149 per year per scenario respectively.  5.2.7 Water Supply & Regulation Rivers and lakes are valuable for flood protection; they store flood waters at no cost. Forests adjacent to streams regulate the water flow and help prevent flooding and soil erosion. On the other hand, lack of natural riparian forest or vegetation leads to drainage issues.  It will cause abnormal levels of water in dry (lower levels) and wet (higher) seasons and also increase siltation in the water body and higher temperatures50.  The vegetation and particular soils of riparian zones absorb flood waters, making them gradually return to the main channel. This process helps to reduce their intensity and volume. Flood control by riparian areas reduces damage to downstream lands. To calculate this impact, we considered the acreage of forest adjacent to stream that will be increased or improved by both scenarios and applied the values used by Bagstad and Troy (2009). The values per year per acre in 2015 for Alderson Creek are $2,641 and $4,408. These benefits are assumed to begin four years after the start of the project. 5.2.8 Fish habitat enhancement                                                           48 Winogradoff, D.A. 2002. Bioretention Manual. Prince Georges County, MD. Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning Division. www.goprincegeorgescounty.com/Government/AgencyIndex/ DER/ESD/Bioretention/pdf/intro_bioretention.pdf (cited by Nowak, supra note 59.) cited by Wilson S. on Natural Capital in BC’s Lowe r Mainland: Valuing the Benefits from Nature. 49 In this case the economic value assigned corresponds to bogs, marshes, swamps, and fens, excluding those in urban/suburban areas and those considered coastal, described in (Troy & Bagstad, 2009) 50 Ibaudo, M.O. 1986. “Regional estimates of off-site damages from soil erosion.” In: The off-site costs of soil erosion. (Ed.) T.E. Waddell. (Proceedings of a symposium held May 1985.) cited by Wilson S. on Natural Capital in BC’s Lowe r Mainland: Valuing the Benefits from Nature.  26 Monitoring of the stream during the period prior to the beginning of works did not find any fish presence.  Only one land owner indicates that there may still be fish in the stream, and that is only in the early autumn.  There has not been any independent verification of this observation. Once riparian vegetation grows it will help to regulate the water temperatures, on account primarily of the shading provided to the watercourse.  The enhanced stability of the bank, the improvement in water quality, and the removal of non-native species will also improve the quality of the habitat for fish51.  According to McGrath et al., (2016) in River Research and Applications (DOI:10.1002/rra.3057) the mean annual discharge for Fortune Creek is 0.66 cubic meters per second, equivalent to 660 liters per second.  Naturalized discharge for July is 530 L/s and for August is 150 L/s. which represents contributions between 2% and 3%.    Based on this, Alderson Creek contributes somewhat less than 3% of the flow to Fortune Creek. Therefore, in this section, we will calculate the impact of enhancing fish habitat of Alderson Creek according to the flow contribution that this stream makes to Fortune Creek.  Three components were considered in establishing values to attribute to enhanced fish habitat.  First, the potential spending on recreational fishing if Alderson Creek was suitable for it, the consumer surplus  or WTP associated with this activity and finally the estimate value of the restored habitat52.  We base our estimate on the contribution of the restored aquatic habitat in Alderson Creek to the health of the fish population in Fortune Creek.  Alderson Creek may be a rearing habitat, but is unlikely to be an important spawning habitat nor is it an important location for recreational fishing53.  The landowners said that there used to be fish in the creek in the past, and that they would like to be able to enjoy the presence of fish in the creek again, particularly to share with their families.   To assign an economic value we used the values stated on Okanagan Basin Water Board, (2013)54 for Household Willingness to pay for increased salmon Population in BC in 2012. On that study, they established lower and higher values per capita per year that range between $77 and $103 based on literature review of around 5 studies in the United States, focused on coastal Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. Following the recommendations of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for applying the benefit transfer methodology55 they chose the study that provided the most relevant results for their analysis.   In the same way, we decided to choose the lower value of $77 for our study area following OBWB study because the Okanagan fish stock is a small subset of all salmon populations in BC. The                                                           51 (Canada - British Columbia Environmental Farm Plan Group planning proposal - Alderson Creek EFP Group Plan, 2014 - 2015) 52 Mission Creek, 2012 53 Personal conversation with AC Team of UBC-O 54 Economic Analysis in the Okanagan Basin the Importance and Value of an Unchannelized Section of the Okanagan River, 2013.  55 1 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2007. Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide. Catalogue No. BT58-5/2007.  27 Fraser River system supports much larger salmon populations, and the Fortune Creek and Alderson Creek contributions are quite small. The marginal impact of enhancing Alderson Creek on the total Fraser River salmon population is taken to be small, and therefore the WTP of the BC population for this restoration is also taken to be small56.   To scale the value, we apply a similar area based method as used to transfer other values from the Mission Creek study in the Kelowna area.  We first estimate the willingness to pay for all the area of Kelowna.  Applying $70 to the local households (74,942) and then obtained the value per acre per year dividing this result by the total acreage of the city. Subsequently, we transferred this value to the Fortune Creek area (105,761 acres) and then took 3% of this value to represent the contribution from Alderson Creek to the fishery value of the watershed. With this adjustment, the contribution of an enhanced Alderson Creek watershed to fisheries values is calculated to be $967 per year.  5.2.9 Climate regulation  When referring to climate regulation valuation, we are referring to the expected benefits resulting from carbon storage by different types of land cover.  For example, forests, grasslands, wetlands, shrub lands and agricultural soils (Wilson S. J, 2010).57 In a benefit cost analysis, this is the avoided damage cost resulting from the carbon that has not been emitted to the atmosphere.  We considered that the study done by Wilson (2010) most closely fits our study area.  This work was conducted for the Lower mainland of BC and also considers economic values for a secondary study area that encompasses the Fraser Canyon, Harrison River, Chilliwack, Lower Fraser and Squamish.  An important quality to consider in such an estimation is forest age class, which determines how much carbon is taken out of the atmosphere and how much is stored (Wilson S. J, 2010)58.    In our case, we select two types of land cover that will be increased and/or improved after the project implementation: Forest (1 to 20 years old) and shrub lands. The purpose of the project works is to naturalize the corridor, which will be done by planting conifers and native vegetation. For calculation purposes, we assumed that 75% of the total restoration will be shrub lands and remaining 25% will be the forest.  Economic values for forest used in Wilson (2010) corresponds to $1,898 per hectare per year for carbon storage (Fraser Canyon). This value was established based on an average between two studies that calculate cool temperature forest storage (642 tons) and pacific maritime ecozone (487                                                           56 Economic Analysis in the Okanagan Basin the Importance and Value of an Unchannelized Section of the Okanagan River, 2013. Table 11.  Summary of Willingness to pay for increased salmon population in BC, 2012. 57 Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland Valuing the benefits from nature, The David Suzuki Foundation, 2010 58 Ibid  28 tons). In our case, as planting haven’t done yet59 , it’s difficult to obtain the biomass of the vegetation that will be planted, we will just refer to the expected acreage of forest and will apply the value established in Wilson (2010) after inflated to 2015 dollars and converting to acres.    For shrub lands, the same study stated a value of $1,000 per hectare per year in 2005. After we approximate the acreage of the two expected types of land cover, we applied these values to the Alderson Creek area. Annual values in 2015 are $903 and $476 per acre per year per forest and shrub lands respectively.  6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 RESULTS FROM THE COST – BENEFIT ANALYSIS  The costs and benefits described above were entered into an Excel workbook.  The values were aggregated for each year of the twenty year horizon to generate an annual net benefit.  These annual net benefits were then discounted and summed to calculate the net present value.  One value was generated for each scenario and each of the two discount rates. It is tempting to consider the ‘loss’ that the land owners are suffering on account of current state of the stream.  Relative to a situation where the stream was not flooding and there was no loss of land due to water logging, the land owners could be seen as suffering an aggregate present value loss of $99,803.14 with a 3% discount rate and $85,772.26 at 5% for the same 20 years that are considered in this analysis. One could interpret the project as recovering this loss, at the cost of implementing a riparian buffer and some additional works.  However, cost benefit analysis typically proceeds by looking at changes relative to the current situation.  We have set out the costs and benefits, and interpret them in this way.  Relative to the current situation, the status quo, we consider two scenarios:  Scenario 1: Restoration of the Riparian zone in an enclosed area of 3m buffer along the creek, together with draining and bringing back into production 7.9 acres of hay land.   Scenario 2: Restoration of the Riparian zone in an enclosed area of 5m buffer along the creek, together with draining and bringing back into production 6.23 acres of hay land.                                                            59 And still no certainty about the specific types of trees and shrub lands that will be planted as well as their biomass.  According to direct conversations with the responsible for executions, conifers is one of the species considered.  29 Both scenarios have been calculated using two different discount rates: the social discount rate of 3% that should be applied to values derived from the ecosystem in Canada, (recommended by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat) and 5% used commonly for this kind of economic analysis.  The time horizon has been set to 20 years.  We feel that this is sufficiently long to capture the dynamic nature of the flow of benefits, while not so long as to assume benefits continue where land ownership changes, development, etc., can change the pattern of land use60, and in particular within the time horizon that major repairs are not needed to the exclusion fencing.   Table 5. Alderson Creek’s Ecosystem Services Valuation  (Estimate economic value for 2015 - CAN $)  Expected Benefit Estimated economic value per year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Improvement of land productivity 6,327.20 4,984.00 Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek 200.00 200.00 Riparian Habitat Restoration 1,040.02 1,437.26 Improvement in Outdoor recreation 2,354.24 3,929.06 Improvements in Soil Retention and Erosion Control 1,572.91 2,612.82 Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation 1,317.83 2,149.24 Water Supply & Regulation 2,641.04 4,408.29 Fish Habitat enhancement 967.12 967.12 Climate Regulation 2,579.74 4,305.98  In both scenarios, the largest benefits result from improvements of land productivity followed by water supply& regulation (flooding regulation), climate regulation (carbon storage) and outdoor recreation. Even when there is still a high uncertainty of how works will be performed, results seem to be consistent with what we should expect from riparian restorations.  As stated in Table 1, results are quite similar from what was found in Wilson (2010) for mainland Vancouver61.   The net present value (NPV) has been calculated as the difference between annual profit from the sale of Alfalfa-grass hay during the 20 years, the expected savings in animal production (reduced disease and/or mortality) and the external benefits derived from the ecosystem services cited in Table 5. All of them have been adjusted to 2015 dollars.  Subtracted costs are the implementation costs incurred during the first two years, the maintenance costs (spread over the project life), planting losses (years 3,4 and 5) and finally the losses of productive agricultural land that is included in the riparian buffer. The net present value for the scenarios, and the internal rate of return are presented in Table 6.  Table No.6                                                            60 Economic Analysis in the Okanagan Basin the Importance and Value of an Unchannelized Section of the Okanagan River, 2013. 61 Top three benefit values provided by the study area’s ecosystem services were: climate regulation, water supply and flood Protection.   30 Results of CBA Analysis CBA Results Net Benefits (NPV) Discount rate 3% Discount rate 5% Internal Rate of Return (IRR)  Scenario 1 3m riparian buffer $ 30,434.16 $ -5,864.87 4.64%  Scenario 2 5m riparian buffer $  57,383.48 $  10,970.48  5.57%   When using a 3% discount rate, the present value of the benefits accumulated over the twenty year horizon is sufficient to result in a positive NPV for both scenarios.  This is no longer the case when a 5% discount rate is used.  In that case, the present value of the benefits from the three meter riparian buffer that accumulates over the twenty year horizon is less than the cost of implementing the project.  The benefits from the five meter buffer are sufficient.  The larger buffer does involve larger costs, particularly in terms of a loss of productive agricultural land.  However, the value of the environmental benefits used in the calculation increase more when the buffer size is increased than the costs.  As a result, the five meter buffer results in a larger net present value for both scenarios, and the only positive NPV when the discount rate is 5%.   The internal rate of return (IRR) is the discount rate that would result in the net present value being equal to zero, that rate of return at which the project just breaks even. For scenario 1, the IRR is equal to 4.64%, while it is 5.41% for scenario 2. This is the same result as above, and can be seen by the fact that for the three meter buffer scenario, the IRR falls between 3% and 5%, while for the five meter buffer it exceeds 5%.  6.2 DISCUSSION One important result is that the discount rate is important.  Whether the net economic benefit of this project is positive depends on the opportunity cost of the funds devoted to the project.  If that alternative rate of return is much larger than 5%, then this project becomes questionable.  However, if it is appropriate to consider this project as generating long term social values, then most analysts would consider a low discount rate as appropriate, in the range of 3%.  In that case, both scenarios generate a positive NPV, with the wider buffer resulting in the larger NPV.   The results are dependent on a number of assumptions.  They will be sensitive to those assumptions.  Beyond the chosen discount rate, assumptions were made about the timing of benefits and costs, and the size of those benefits and costs.  Changing these will change the results.  A more thorough sensitivity analysis would explore the implication of changing a variety of assumptions.  A more sophisticated analysis could simulate the outcome for various combinations of these critical parameters and present a distribution of NPVs or IRRs.  The time frame of the present work precluded such an analysis.  This is one suggestion for enhancing the results.   Some particular assumptions should be pointed out.  The numbers used to estimate the value from “Forest adjacent to stream” came from a study for land within 30 meters of a second order or  31 greater stream.  Alderson Creek would be classified as a first order stream.  There were no estimates available for this situation, suggesting that to analyze small scale projects like this, better ecosystem values should be measured. We suspect that the benefit for this particular environmental service may be overstated.   For estimations of land productivity, we assume yields ramp up from the beginning of the project until the sixth year. After year six, yields remain at the average, and crop price remains constant.  In actuality, yields will vary considerably, a function of local climate conditions and crop management.  Beyond yield, the return is highly dependent on the crop price.  For hay, landowner’s reported that prices per bale could vary between $7 and $20 quite suddenly.  As the increase in productive crop land is one of the main benefits, assessing the sensitivity of the results to variation in hay prices is an important consideration.  Of course, prolonged low hay prices may encourage farmers to change crops, and it was noted that at least one farmer was considering this.  Small scale projects such as the Alderson Creek riparian restoration present challenges for economic valuation.  Alderson creek is small, and a share of the project benefits are a result of its connection with other systems, particularly Fortune Creek.  Where these connections are not well known, the precision of the results will be low.  Further, as noted for the price, there are uncertainties.  For cost benefit studies on large watersheds, many of the sources of uncertainty may average out over the large number of affected people and land parcels.  However, for a project that involves only a handful of participants, the flow of benefits will be very sensitive to the decisions of individual participants.  To the extent that people’s motivations change and/or land changes hands, the economic value generated by this project may be substantially different.  In addition to biophysical connections, watersheds also facilitate connections between neighbors.  One feature of shared water courses is that neighbors tend to be more connected (more aware of, more likely to speak with, etc.) along the water course than across different water courses, even when the distances are similar.  One important benefit of this project is to further strengthen the connection between the neighbors, and build a sense of both appreciation of and shared responsibility for the local environment.  To the extent that this is successful, it implies that project benefits may be higher and project costs may be lower.  That the costs are lower follows from the greater willingness of the participants to contribute their time and resources to the protection of the local environment and for the good of their local community.  Finally, an important objective of the present study is to highlight that there are typically positive externalities in the form of environmental benefits (e.g. increased ecosystem goods and services services) that result from projects like this.  While acknowledging the serious sources of uncertainty in the values we used for our calculations, that these external benefits exist should not be ignored.  We may not be able to accurately calculate the value of the benefit society at large earns by investing in such restoration projects, but we can say with confidence that there are benefits generated for the community beyond the directly affected land owners.     32 6.3 CLARIFICATIONS 1. Project costs were taken from the funding proposals assembled by the project planner. The planting cost budget item was scaled to reflect the size of the buffer, being set at 100% for the five meter buffer and 60% of the budget amount for the three meter buffer.  However, it was not clear from the material provided whether this amount would in fact change, or whether the same amount would be spent, regardless of which buffer width was implemented. 2. The productive value of the recovered land was calculated based on an alfalfa-grass hay crop.  One owner was committed to planting some land to Timothy hay, and another mentioned switching crops.  Since the increase in productive land is one of the main benefits, that benefit will be significantly larger if more valuable crops can be grown. 3. The environmental services and productive value of the waterlogged lands was assumed to be zero.  While neither wetland or pasture or hayfield, the land likely provides some ecosystem services and/or some value as grazing lands.  These values are lost as a result of the project, implying that the project benefits may be somewhat overstated in this area. 4. To estimate the benefits of outdoor recreation, we only consider the WTP or consumer surplus for outdoor activities and wildlife watching. We do not see Alderson Creek as a recreational destination.  However, if enhancing Alderson Creek increases the amount of recreation – cycling, walking, etc. – in the area, then the benefit value would be larger. 5. The assumption that the riparian buffer will be 75% shrub lands and 25% forest is made for convenience. A more accurate estimation of the actual plantings and/or a reassessment after the vegetation has established would improve the results. 6. No adjustment has been made for changes in property values.  We would expect some of the benefits to be capitalized into the price that the property can be sold for.  Improvements in the local aesthetics will benefit the land owner, and may also have a positive influence on neighboring properties that are not part of the project.  Any increase in crop yield or cropping options will also be reflected in property values, and to the extent that these benefits extend beyond the twenty year horizon chosen, the benefits will be larger.  7. CONCLUSIONS   This study estimates the costs and benefits over a twenty year horizon for the proposed work in the Alderson Creek group environmental farm plan.  This work consists primarily of installing land drainage and protecting and enhancing a riparian buffer area along the creek.  Two scenarios, a three and a five meter wide buffer, and two discount rates, 3% and 5%, were considered.  Three of the four scenarios show a positive net present value (NPV), with the narrow buffer and the high discount rate resulting in a negative NPV. The external impacts we have considered that result from the project include improvements in habitat, outdoor recreation, erosion control, water quality, supply and regulation, contribution to enhancement for fish habitat and climate regulation through  33 carbon storage contributions. We acknowledge that these may not be all the benefits, and that precise estimation of the values by benefit transfer to a small project like this is difficult.  A key objective of the current project is to enhance the stewardship of the land by the land owners.  Education about how streams function, the environmental value of streams, etc. is part of the project goal.  We have not included any valuation of this benefit, in spite of its centrality to the project objectives.  One hoped for result from enhancing the environmental ethic of the participants is that they will absorb the costs of maintaining the enhancements after the project is complete.  Where the direct benefits to the land owner do not exceed the cost of maintenance and the opportunity cost of the lost production, it may be difficult to sustain this changed perspective.  One of the most challenging works while conducting this analysis was to scale the economic values to the study area.  Most of the studies published have been done in areas with outdoor recreational and sport fishing potential, wildlife watching or simply with larger impacted areas.  The small scale of this project and the resultant vulnerability to various relatively common changes (e.g. land ownership) means that the precision of the result may be low.   8. RECOMMENDATIONS    This particular project is being implemented.  Our results indicate that the net benefit from a five meter riparian buffer is larger than from a three meter buffer.  We therefore recommend that the buffer be five meters.  We acknowledge that the project makes no provision for the fact that this wider buffer involves a larger ongoing loss of productive farmland for the land owners.    Following from the above, we would recommend that government implement policies to support land owners with the ongoing maintenance of environmental enhancements such as this.  These policies need to recognize that the greater benefit for society at large may involve a greater cost to the land owner, and that therefore the land owner is not being rewarded for taking care of the land in a way that maximizes the benefit to society overall.  This particular analysis was based on aggregating the changes in land cover.  Recent work by Troy and Wilson (2005) suggests using a spatially explicit analysis.  The present work can be enhanced by being more spatially explicit, and in particular if the spatial detail can also account for uncertainty.   This analysis is based on a project proposal that was developed to secure funding.  The final form of the project may be considerably different.  Therefore, an ex-post CBA would highlight any differences between the costs and benefits that may have resulted from the original plan relative to those generated by the final implementation. As many of the commonly undertaken environmental projects are small in scale, like this one, more work needs to be done to establish methods to assess the costs and benefits.  Benefit transfer by lateral movement, where the project being assessed is at a scale similar to the  34 studies being referenced, is the common approach.  For small projects, the benefits also need to be downscaled to reflect the different scale of the project.  There is little work on this part of benefit transfer.  Insights in this area can help improve the many decisions made around small projects.    35 9. REFERENCES  Alberta Government, Growing Forward Two. (2015). “Agricultural Marketing Guide, Timothy     and Other Compressed Hay”.   Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada. “Riparian Area Management”.  http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/soil-and-land/riparian-areas/riparian-area-management/?id=1187631191985  Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada (2004). “Using Off-Stream Water Sources as a Beneficial Management Practice in Riparian Areas - A Literature Review”. http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/soil-and-land/riparian-areas/using-off-stream-water-sources-as-a-beneficial-management-practice-in-riparian-areas-a-literature-review/?id=1220560749957  Australian New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency. “The environmental valuation database (ENVALUE)”.  http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envalue/  Bauer, B., Richardson N., (2016) “Alderson Creek Drainage Projects and Riparian Buffer Analysis Report”. UBC-O Boardman et al., (2011). “Cost-Benefit Analysis Concepts and Practice”. Pearson, 4th Edition  Capital Regional District BC-CRD. “Riparian Zones”. https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/ecosystems/freshwater/riparian-zones  Environment Canada. “The Environmental Valuation Resource Inventory (EVRI)”. http://www.evri.ca/  ENVIRONMENTAL FARM PLAN - Group Planning in British Columbia (2014-2015) “Alderson Creek EFP Group Plan 2014 – 2015”.  Environmental Farm Plan, British Columbia. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/programs/growing-forward-2/environmental-farm-plan  Ibaudo, M.O. 1986. “Regional estimates of off-site damages from soil erosion.” In: The off-site costs of soil erosion. (Ed.) T.E. Waddell. (Proceedings of a symposium held May 1985.) cited by Wilson S. on Natural Capital in BC’s Lowe r Mainland: Valuing the Benefits from Nature.  Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (MAFRD), Growing Opportunities GO. (2006). “Guidelines for Estimating Hay Production Costs 2016 in Manitoba”.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.  Island Press, Washington, DC.   36 Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (2000) “Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities”. Cat. No. En 47-312/2000E. ISBN 0-662-28400-3.  Ministry of Agriculture and Lands British Columbia (2007) “Public Amenity Benefits and Ecological Services Provided by Farmland to Local Communities in the Fraser Valley - A case study in Abbotsford, B.C”. File Number 800.100-1 2007  Olewiler, N., Robbins, M., Robinson, M., (2009) “An estimate of the public amenity benefits and ecological goods provided by farmland in metro Vancouver”.   Okanagan Basin Water Board and Okanagan Nation Alliance (2013) “Economic Analysis in the Okanagan Basin the Importance and Value of an Unchannelized Section of the Okanagan River”.   Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., (2005) “Cost- Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Recent Developments”.  Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development  OECD.  ISBN: 9264010041  Personal conversations with Alderson Creek’s Project Managers: Mr. Pete Spencer & Lee Hasket.  Personal conversations with farmers   Prices of hay, reached at: http://www.thehorse.com/articles/34020/poll-recap-2014-hay-costs and http://www.kijiji.ca/b-alberta/hay-for-sale/page-3/k0l9003  State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry ESF. Fluvial Geomorphology – Classifying Stream Orders. http://www.fgmorph.com/fg_4_8.php.  Statistics Canada 2011. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=915  SUMMIT Environmental Consultants. (2011) “Fortune Creek source water assessment and protection report. 2030 and beyond”. Project 2010 – 8879.010. City of Armstrong.   Taylor, A., Wilson, S., Sauer, G., (2012) “The Natural Capital of Mission Creek in Kelowna: The Value of Ecosystem Services”.  The Vernon Morning, Spall creek flooding area farms. (March 2014). http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/251562881.html  Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007). Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide, Regulatory Proposals 2007. www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/analys/analys-eng.pdf  Troy, A., Bagstad, K., (2009) “Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario”. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources by: Spatial Informatics Group, LLC”.    37 Troy, A., Wilson, M., (2006) “Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer”. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 60(2006) 435– 449  United States Environmental Protection Agency’s National Center for Environmental Economics and Environment Canada. (2005) “Benefits Transfer and Valuation Databases: Are We Heading in the Right Direction?”.  Proceedings of an International Workshop Sponsored by the National Center for Environmental Economics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   United States Department of Agriculture USDA (1996) “Riparian Areas Environmental Uniqueness, Functions, and Values”. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid=nrcs143_014199  Van, L., (2005). Proceedings of an International Workshop on Benefits Transfer and Valuation Databases: Are We Heading in the Right Direction? Valuation Databases (Session 1): 3-6, University of New Brunswick, Canada   Wilson, M., Troy, A., (2005). “Accounting for Ecosystem Service Values in a Spatially Explicit Format: Value Transfer and Geographic Information Systems”.  Wilson, S., (2010) “Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland Valuing the benefits from nature”. The David Suzuki Foundation. ISBN 978-1-897375-34-1. www.davidsuzuki.org/publications  Winogradoff, D.A. 2002. Bioretention Manual. Prince Georges County, MD. Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning Division. www.goprincegeorgescounty.com/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/ESD/Bioretention/pdf/intro_bioretention.pdf. (cited by Nowak, supra note 59.) cited by Wilson S. on Natural Capital in BC’s Lowe r Mainland: Valuing the Benefits from Nature.   38 10. APPENDIX   SCENARIO 1 – 3% DISCOUNT RATE NPV= $ 30,434.16  3M RIPARIAN REHABILITATIONDiscount rate 0.03BENFITS YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Improvement of land productivity 4,302.50 6,327.20 6,327.20 10,123.52 10,123.52 10,123.52 6,327.20 6,327.20 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00Riparian Habitat Restoration 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02Improvement in Outdoor recreation 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24Improvements  in Soil Retention and Erosion Control 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83Water Supply & Regulation 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04Fish Habitat enhancement 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12Atmospheric Regulation 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74TOTAL BENEFITS 2,000.00 18,800.10 18,800.10 22,596.42 22,596.42 22,596.42 18,800.10 18,800.10 19,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 19,787.75COSTSBank Stabilization( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 38,984.50 29,238.38 9,746.13Fence( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 35,510.20 26,632.65 8,877.55Plant (100% in year 2) 50,075.00 30,045.00Crossing( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 4,267.16 3,200.37 1,066.79Waterer ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 12,265.91 9,199.43 3,066.48Drainage ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 22,077.22 16,557.92 5,519.31Profesional services(Only during implementation) 11,974.47 8,980.85 2,993.62Maintenance 5% (every 5 years) 5,655.25 1,413.81 1,413.81 1,413.81 1,413.81Loss of 10% planting(During 3 years since planting finish) 3004.5 1502.25 751.125 751.125Monitoring(NO MONITORING PLANNED) 1,796.17Lose of riparian area 3mt (Includes just 1 landowner)* 1,311.04 1,928.00 1,928.00 3,084.80 3,084.80 3,084.80 1,928.00 1,928.00 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52TOTAL COSTS 93,809.60 61,314.87 2,813.29 2,679.13 2,679.13 4,498.61 3,084.80 3,084.80 1,928.00 1,928.00 3,033.33 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 3,033.33 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 3,033.33NET BENEFIT -93,809.60 -61,314.87 -2,813.29 -679.13 -2,679.13 14,301.49 15,715.30 19,511.62 20,668.42 20,668.42 15,766.77 17,180.58 18,168.23 16,168.23 16,168.23 14,754.42 16,168.23 16,168.23 16,168.23 16,168.23 16,754.42NPV -93,809.60 -59,529.00 -2,651.80 -621.50 -2,380.37 12,336.59 13,161.32 15,864.73 16,315.84 15,840.62 11,731.96 12,411.62 12,742.83 11,009.78 10,689.10 9,470.30 10,075.51 9,782.05 9,497.13 9,220.52 9,276.51 39 SCENARIO 1 – 5% DISCOUNT RATE NPV= $ -5,864.87  3M RIPARIAN REHABILITATIONDiscount rate 0.05BENFITS YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Improvement of land productivity 4,302.50 6,327.20 6,327.20 10,123.52 10,123.52 10,123.52 6,327.20 6,327.20 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85 5,314.85Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00Riparian Habitat Restoration 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02 1,040.02Improvement in Outdoor recreation 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24 2,354.24Improvements  in Soil Retention and Erosion Control 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91 1,572.91Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83 1,317.83Water Supply & Regulation 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04 2,641.04Fish Habitat enhancement 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12Atmospheric Regulation 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74 2,579.74TOTAL BENEFITS 2,000.00 18,800.10 18,800.10 22,596.42 22,596.42 22,596.42 18,800.10 18,800.10 19,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 17,787.75 19,787.75COSTSBank Stabilization( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 38,984.50 29,238.38 9,746.13Fence( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 35,510.20 26,632.65 8,877.55Plant (100% in year 2) 50,075.00 30,045.00Crossing( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 4,267.16 3,200.37 1,066.79Waterer ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 12,265.91 9,199.43 3,066.48Drainage ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 22,077.22 16,557.92 5,519.31Profesional services(Only during implementation) 11,974.47 8,980.85 2,993.62Maintenance 5% (every 5 years) 5,655.25 1,413.81 1,413.81 1,413.81 1,413.81Loss of 10% planting(During 3 years since planting finish) 3004.5 1502.25 751.125 751.125Monitoring(NO MONITORING PLANNED) 1,796.17Lose of riparian area 3mt (Includes just 1 landowner)* 1,311.04 1,928.00 1,928.00 3,084.80 3,084.80 3,084.80 1,928.00 1,928.00 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52TOTAL COSTS 93,809.60 61,314.87 2,813.29 2,679.13 2,679.13 4,498.61 3,084.80 3,084.80 1,928.00 1,928.00 3,033.33 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 3,033.33 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 1,619.52 3,033.33NET BENEFIT -93,809.60 -61,314.87 -2,813.29 -679.13 -2,679.13 14,301.49 15,715.30 19,511.62 20,668.42 20,668.42 15,766.77 17,180.58 18,168.23 16,168.23 16,168.23 14,754.42 16,168.23 16,168.23 16,168.23 16,168.23 16,754.42NPV -93,809.60 -58,395.11 -2,551.74 -586.65 -2,204.12 11,205.59 11,727.00 13,866.55 13,989.20 13,323.05 9,679.43 10,045.13 10,116.75 8,574.36 8,166.05 7,097.13 7,406.85 7,054.15 6,718.23 6,398.32 6,314.56 40 SCENARIO 2 – 3% DISCOUNT RATE NPV= $ 53,421.64  5M RIPARIAN REHABILITATIONDiscount rate 0.03BENFITS YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Improvement of land productivity 3,389.12 4,984.00 4,984.00 7,974.40 7,974.40 7,974.40 4,984.00 4,984.00 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00Riparian Habitat Restoration 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26Improvement in Outdoor recreation 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06Improvements  in Soil Retention and Erosion Control 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24Water Supply & Regulation 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29Fish Habitat enhancement 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12Atmospheric Regulation 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98TOTAL BENEFITS 2,000.00 24,793.76 24,793.76 27,784.16 27,784.16 27,784.16 24,793.76 24,793.76 25,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 25,996.32COSTSBank Stabilization( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 38,984.50 29,238.38 9,746.13Fence( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 35,510.20 26,632.65 8,877.55Plant (100% in year 2) 50,075.00 50,075.00Crossing( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 4,267.16 3,200.37 1,066.79Waterer ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 12,265.91 9,199.43 3,066.48Drainage ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 22,077.22 16,557.92 5,519.31Profesional services(Only during implementation) 11,974.47 8,980.85 2,993.62Maintenance 10% (every 5 years) 11,310.50 2,827.62 2,827.62 2,827.62 2,827.62Loss of 10% planting(During 3 years since planting finish) 5007.5 2503.75 1251.875 1251.875Monitoring(NO MONITORING PLANNED) 1,796.17Lose of riparian area 5mt (Includes just 1 landowner)* 2,184.16 3,212.00 3,212.00 5,139.20 5,139.20 5,139.20 3,212.00 3,212.00 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08TOTAL COSTS 93,809.60 81,344.87 4,687.91 4,463.88 4,463.88 7,966.82 5,139.20 5,139.20 3,212.00 3,212.00 5,525.70 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 5,525.70 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 5,525.70NET BENEFIT -93,809.60 -81,344.87 -4,687.91 -2,463.88 -4,463.88 16,826.94 19,654.56 22,644.96 24,572.16 24,572.16 19,268.06 22,095.68 23,298.24 21,298.24 21,298.24 18,470.62 21,298.24 21,298.24 21,298.24 21,298.24 20,470.62NPV -93,809.60 -78,975.60 -4,418.80 -2,254.79 -3,966.10 14,515.06 16,460.39 18,412.43 19,397.49 18,832.52 14,337.24 15,962.39 16,340.92 14,503.07 14,080.65 11,855.59 13,272.36 12,885.79 12,510.47 12,146.09 11,334.08 41 SCENARIO 2 – 5% DISCOUNT RATE NPV= $ 7,781.85  5M RIPARIAN REHABILITATIONDiscount rate 0.05BENFITS YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Improvement of land productivity 3,389.12 4,984.00 4,984.00 7,974.40 7,974.40 7,974.40 4,984.00 4,984.00 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56 4,186.56Expected savings for loss of animals in the creek 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00Riparian Habitat Restoration 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26 1,437.26Improvement in Outdoor recreation 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06 3,929.06Improvements  in Soil Retention and Erosion Control 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82 2,612.82Water quality, nutrient and waste regulation 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24 2,149.24Water Supply & Regulation 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29 4,408.29Fish Habitat enhancement 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12 967.12Atmospheric Regulation 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98 4,305.98TOTAL BENEFITS 2,000.00 24,793.76 24,793.76 27,784.16 27,784.16 27,784.16 24,793.76 24,793.76 25,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 23,996.32 25,996.32COSTSBank Stabilization( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 38,984.50 29,238.38 9,746.13Fence( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 35,510.20 26,632.65 8,877.55Plant (100% in year 2) 50,075.00 50,075.00Crossing( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 4,267.16 3,200.37 1,066.79Waterer ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 12,265.91 9,199.43 3,066.48Drainage ( 75% in year 1 and 25% in year 2) 22,077.22 16,557.92 5,519.31Profesional services(Only during implementation) 11,974.47 8,980.85 2,993.62Maintenance 10% (every 5 years) 11,310.50 2,827.62 2,827.62 2,827.62 2,827.62Loss of 10% planting(During 3 years since planting finish) 5007.5 2503.75 1251.875 1251.875Monitoring(NO MONITORING PLANNED) 1,796.17Lose of riparian area 5mt (Includes just 1 landowner)* 2,184.16 3,212.00 3,212.00 5,139.20 5,139.20 5,139.20 3,212.00 3,212.00 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08TOTAL COSTS 93,809.60 81,344.87 4,687.91 4,463.88 4,463.88 7,966.82 5,139.20 5,139.20 3,212.00 3,212.00 5,525.70 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 5,525.70 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 2,698.08 5,525.70NET BENEFIT -93,809.60 -81,344.87 -4,687.91 -2,463.88 -4,463.88 16,826.94 19,654.56 22,644.96 24,572.16 24,572.16 19,268.06 22,095.68 23,298.24 21,298.24 21,298.24 18,470.62 21,298.24 21,298.24 21,298.24 21,298.24 20,470.62NPV -93,809.60 -77,471.30 -4,252.07 -2,128.39 -3,672.44 13,184.35 14,666.54 16,093.35 16,631.41 15,839.43 11,828.92 12,918.89 12,973.33 11,294.91 10,757.06 8,884.68 9,756.97 9,292.35 8,849.86 8,428.44 7,715.16

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0319213/manifest

Comment

Related Items