Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations · 2011-03-18 · 2- Huppert is aware of the limitations as well as strengths of economics. As he notes,“Social values, pre-existing commitments,

1- Opportunity costs are similarly incurred if restoration is foregone. As noted by Rectenwald, “...hidden costs that can be substan-tial from a biological perspective are delayed restoration actions due to lack of decision making ability, controversy and/or litigation.Some of the species in the watersheds have such low population levels that they do not have much time to begin recovery so they canexist in the future” (p. 205).

INTRODUCTIONParticipants at the Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop provided

thoughtful insights into many aspects of habitat restoration. This paper is anattempt to synthesize some common themes from the presentations as they relateto the three overall topics of the workshop: estimating restoration costs at the indi-vidual project level, feasibility of extrapolating project-level costs to largergeographic scales, and types of data needed to do such extrapolation. The paperconcludes with a summary of workshop recommendations.

RESTORATION COSTS IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF HABITATRESTORATION ECONOMICS

Huppert describes various types of economic analyses that can be used to evalu-ate trade-offs associated with habitat restoration. Cost analysis is used to estimatethe value of resources foregone to accomplish a particular activity (e.g., a restora-tion project or program). Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to evaluate restorationactivities in terms of cost per unit of effectiveness, that is, to determine whichactivities provide the “biggest bang for the buck”; this type of analysis requires thatall projects be characterized according to a common unit of effectiveness. Benefit-cost analysis is used to evaluate activities in terms of the relative size of benefitsand costs; benefits and costs must be expressed in common units (i.e., dollars) inorder to conduct this type of analysis. Economic impact analysis is used to estimateeffects of restoration activities on income and employment in local economies.Huppert also clarifies the concept of “opportunity cost” as used in economic analysisto include the value of goods and services foregone in order to achieve restoration.1Based on this concept, restoration costs include not only direct expenditures butalso (for instance) the value of crops foregone to increase instream flow. Huppert’spaper thus provides a larger economic context for the workshop, which focused onthe complexities associated with one component of economic costs, namely, directrestoration expenditures.2

Workshop Conclusions andRecommendations

CINDY THOMSON

National Marine Fisheries ServiceSouthwest Fisheries Science Center110 Shaffer RoadSanta Cruz, CA [email protected]

236

Conclusion

2- Huppert is aware of the limitations as well as strengths of economics. As he notes, “Social values, pre-existing commitments, and property rightsoften preclude or limit the role of economic information in decisions.There are over-arching social and ethical considerations in some cases that overshad-ow economic consequences and make economic information less crucial to public decisions” (p. 24).

3- For instance, the California Department of Fish and Game’s Fishery Restoration Grants Program caps road inventory and assessment costs at$1,200 per mile (see Weaver/Hagans) and equipment purchase at $5,000 (see Bell). Neal notes that capital construction projects undertaken in KingCounty are capped at $70,000. According to Obradovich, the Army Corps of Engineers caps land acquisition at 25%, monitoring at 1% and adaptivemanagement at 3% of total project costs. 237

Conclusion | Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations | CINDY THOMSON

PROVIDING A COMPARABLE COSTBASIS FOR EVALUATINGRESTORATION PROJECTS

It is important that restoration projectcosts be evaluated in a comprehensive andcomparable manner (see Huppert, Wellman,Weaver/Hagans, Neal, Hayes, Hudson). Forinstance, cost analysis should ideally includeall costs incurred over the life cycle of aproject. Multi-year costs should be correctedfor inflation to the same year and an appro-priate discount rate applied to annual costestimates. In comparing costs across projects,it is important to consider whether data oncomparable cost elements are available foreach project and whether the projects weredesigned to meet similar standards of whatconstitutes restoration.

Meaningful comparisons of project costsare often difficult to achieve, for a number ofpractical reasons.

Difficulty of obtaining data on actualcosts: Wellman’s systematic evaluation of47 restoration projects (which revealedsome significant differences between esti-mated and actual costs) suggests that costcomparisons across projects are best doneon the basis of actual costs. However, asindicated by Carlson/Allen’s experienceswith the California Habitat RestorationProject Database, cost estimates includedin project proposals are often more readilyavailable than data on actual costsincurred. Records of actual costs (e.g., frominvoices or final reports) are not alwaysmaintained in a complete or consistentmanner and can be difficult to reconstruct,especially if records are kept in paperrather than electronic files.

Accounting practices: Not all costs associ-ated with procurement of funding, planning,

design, permitting, public outreach, contractadministration, construction supervision,maintenance and monitoring are necessarilybilled to the project. Even in cases wheresuch services are billed to the project, appli-cable overhead rates and the types of costscovered by those overhead rates may vary,due to differences in financial accountingpractices among administrative entities.

Spending caps: Some of the differences inproject costs may be attributable to differentconstraints imposed by project sponsors. Forinstance, it is not uncommon for sponsors tocap the amount of money that can be spenton particular aspects of a project. Given thestrong incentive to get projects on theground, it is more typical for planning,design, maintenance and/or monitoring coststo be capped than construction costs.3

Multiple funding sources: Some projectshave multiple funding sources. While indi-vidual sponsors typically monitor the costsassociated with their own share of a project,they do not necessarily have information onthe costs covered by other co-sponsors. Insuch situations, it may be difficult to deter-mine the total cost of the project, due to thedifficulty of piecing together cost informationfrom the various co-sponsors (seeCarlson/Allen).

Allocating costs among projects: Somecontracts cover a mix of fairly discreterestoration activities (e.g., restoration atmultiple sites). Putting diverse projectsunder the umbrella of a single contract isoften cost-effective and administratively effi-cient. However, it also complicates attemptsto allocate contract costs among projects,particularly if the costs reported on contractinvoices are lumped in such a way as to

238

effectively preclude any practical attempt atcost allocation (see Carlson/Allen).

Treatment of in-kind contributions:Restoration projects often involve in-kindcontributions by watershed councils and othergroups that mobilize public participation.While it is important that such contributionsbe recognized as part of project costs, deter-mining the extent of in-kind work and imput-ing a value to it is not always easily done.

Making within-category cost comparisons:Even in cases where projects are similar interms of restoration requirements and totalcosts, differences in contract incentives orrestoration strategies can affect how expendi-tures are distributed across cost categories.For instance, contractors who are allowed torecover some of their mobilization costs upfront may bid mobilization higher andconstruction lower than contractors who arenot given this option. Another examplepertains to the division of expendituresbetween labor and equipment on revegetationprojects, which may depend on whether thework is done mechanically or by hand crews.

FACTORS AFFECTING RESTORATIONSTRATEGIES AND COSTS

While disparities in accounting practicescan create apparent cost differences amongprojects, costs are also affected in substan-tive ways by site-specific factors and institu-tional constraints. The following is a briefdescription of major cost factors identified byworkshop participants. While the specificeffects of each factor vary from project toproject, all of the factors are universal interms of their potential applicability to thevarious types of restoration activitiesdiscussed at the workshop.

Project ObjectiveRestoration strategies and associated

costs vary among projects, depending on the

objective. For instance, Jani identifies severalpotential reasons for repairing stream cross-ings (i.e., recover salmonids, protect otheraquatic species, meet EnvironmentalProtection Agency standards for TotalMaximum Daily Loads). Weaver/Hagans notethe importance of distinguishing betweenroad restoration that facilitates salmonidrecovery by reducing sediment deliveryversus road improvements that enhancetransportation. Coffin notes that road decom-missioning can mean different things todifferent people (e.g., road closure, elimina-tion of slope stability problems, completetopographic obliteration of the road).

Workshop participants emphasize theimportance of diagnosing site-specific prob-lems in the context of the watershed in whichthey occur. This requires careful considera-tion of the interconnectedness of the site withthe watershed (see Weaver/Hagans, Cocke,Bell, Neal, Rectenwald). Site-specific consid-erations pertain not only to current condi-tions but also expected future conditions atthe site. For instance, Weaver/Hagans pointout the importance of “forward looking” sedi-ment inventories that anticipate future roadproblems rather than merely documenthistoric problems. Jani suggests rolling dipsas a suitable low-cost alternative to crossdrains for directing runoff from roads thatare not expected to be used year-round. Cockedescribes erosion control measures at abridge implemented in anticipation ofincreased traffic associated with nearbysubdivision development. Bell points out thelimited utility of instream restoration inareas that are expected to be clear cut in thenear future. Hayes notes the importance ofdesigning Central Valley fish screens tohandle significant debris loads under a widevariety of flow conditions.

Project Design StandardsIn many cases, Federal and State agen-

cies provide design standards for restoration


239


activities that fall under their jurisdiction.Additionally, a number of government andnon-government entities have producedhabitat restoration manuals and cost guide-lines that facilitate the work of restorationpractitioners. Workshop participants providenumerous examples of design standards. Forinstance, Shaw notes that restoration doneby conservation districts must comply withNatural Resources Conservation Servicedesign standards. Dupont notes that streamcrossings must typically be designed to with-stand 50- to 100-year peak flow events. Thestringency of design standards and thestrictness with which they are enforced canhave a significant effect on the restorationstrategy chosen and associated costs. Forinstance, Hayes and Hudson point out thatNational Marine Fisheries Service designstandards for fish screens have had a signifi-cant effect on the cost and feasibility ofscreening projects.

Project Size and ComplexityProject size can be defined in a variety of

ways. For road projects, costs generallyincrease with the number of road miles andstream crossings treated, and also with thevolume of sediment and the number and sizeof culverts that must be removed (see Coffin,Weaver/Hagans). Restoration costs in ripar-ian areas increase with the number of acresrequiring revegetation or number of milesrequiring fencing. Channel size can affectstream restoration costs in terms of plan-ning, design and heavy equipment require-ments, and the number, size and complexityof materials (e.g., logs, boulders, bank barbs)required to do the job (see Shaw, Bair, Bell,Neal). Fish screening costs are affected bythe size of the diversion being screened (seeHayes, Hudson). Wetland restoration costsincrease with the size of the project (sizeoften being related to design requirements)and the volume of soil being moved (seeBonsignore/Liske, Obradovich, Steere).

While larger restoration projects gener-ally cost more than smaller ones, costs mayincrease less than proportionately with thesize of the project (see Wellman, Coffin,Weaver/Hagans, Bair, Hudson, Kepshire,Steere). Materials may be discounted andcontractors may be willing to work at lowerrates because of the increased job securityassociated with larger contracts.Mobilization costs, as well as overhead andadministrative costs, may also be subject toeconomies of scale. Large-scale projects maybecome more cost-effective as constructioncrews become more familiar and proficientwith work requirements. Design require-ments may not be proportional to the size ofthe project. For instance, Kepshire notesthat, while fish screen costs tend to increasewith the flow rate (measured in cubic feetper second, CFS) that the screen is intendedto accommodate, the cost per CFS tends todecrease with project size. Steere points outthat doubling wetland acreage does notnecessarily require doubling the number ofwetland structures (e.g., pumps), as suchstructures often provide good wetland func-tioning for a range of wetland sizes.

On the other hand, large or complexrestoration projects also pose significant chal-lenges (see Rectenwald, Bonsignore/Liske,Obradovich, Steere). Information, planningand consultation requirements tend toincrease with size and complexity. Complexprojects that extend over a prolonged periodmay require exceptional persistence to ensurethat the project does not lose momentum orget sidetracked from its ultimate objective.Obtaining a complete cost accounting of suchprojects is likely to be challenging, particu-larly if extensive consultation among multipleparties is required in the planning phase.

Availability of Materials, Equipmentand Labor

Availability of materials, equipment andlabor varies with local conditions (see Shaw,

4- Jani provides a particularly vivid picture of the role of skill and ingenuity in developing cost-effective solutions to difficult restoration problems. See, forinstance, his description of how to install a bridge when equipment can be positioned on only one side of the stream and the area is inaccessible to a crane.

5- According to Shaw, this is not an issue for Federal entities, which are exempt from State and local property taxes.240

Coffin, Jani, Bair, Cocke, Neal,Bonsignore/Liske, Obradovich, Steere). Arequirement to revegetate riparian orwetland areas with native plant stock maybe difficult to meet, depending on the avail-ability of such materials in their naturalsettings and the cost of obtaining adequatestocks from nurseries. Appropriate soils tobuild wetland structures may need to beimported if they are unavailable at therestoration site. Heavy equipment may notbe readily available in some forest areas due,for instance, to the decline of the construc-tion infrastructure that once supported thelogging industry. Changes in forest practiceshave reduced the amount of woody debrisavailable for restoration, and considerabletime and effort may be required to stockpilean adequate supply of wood for a project(e.g., by salvaging trees downed by storms).Restoration practitioners often seek “recy-cling” opportunities — e.g., salvagingculverts, soil or rock from one project for useon another project; transforming soil exca-vated at wetland sites into levies or birdislands — as a way to cut costs.

Availability is also a matter of timing (seeShaw, Cocke, Steere). When the localeconomy is strong or in the aftermath ofevents such as fire or flood, competition forconstruction contractors tends to bid upequipment rental and labor rates and resultin higher bids on restoration projects. Costsmay also exhibit a seasonal pattern, withrestoration projects costing less at the begin-ning of the construction season, whencontractors are more eager to obtain work,than at the end, when the availability ofcontractors tends to dwindle.

Skill and ExperienceSkill and experience of personnel are crit-

ically important in all phases of a project(see Wellman, Shaw, Jani, Weaver/Hagans,Cocke, Bell, Neal, Obradovich). Cost-effec-

tiveness is greatly enhanced by sound advicein the assessment and design phase, compe-tent and attentive construction supervision,and crews who are skilled equipment opera-tors, know the local area and have priorexperience with similar projects.4 Competentwork in one phase of a project enhancesperformance in other phases. Thus, forinstance, competent planning reduces thelikelihood of problems in the constructionphase; capable construction crews requireless supervision than inexperienced ones.Depending on the nature of the work,Conservation Corps, Americorps, and volun-teer programs (including local watershedgroups) may be cost-effective sources of labor.

Site AccessibilityLegal or physical impediments may need

to be addressed in order to obtain access tothe restoration site.

Legal AccessThe legal right to conduct restoration

may need to be secured by measures such aszoning, purchase of land or easements (seeWellman, Shaw, Neal, Hudson, Rectenwald,Obradovich). The cost of land is affected notonly by the initial purchase price but also byany long term commitments (e.g., propertytaxes) that may accompany the purchase.5Easement costs are affected by the durationof the easement and by whether the intentis merely to secure access or to impose addi-tional restrictions (e.g., preclude futuredevelopment in the easement). Access indeveloped areas may require consultationwith multiple parties. Neal, for example,notes that, in King County, permission mustbe obtained from the majority of homeown-ers in a subdivision in order to construct ariparian corridor set aside as part of thesubdivision. Access can pertain to water aswell as terrestrial rights. For instance,Rectenwald describes a dam removal project


6- In some cases, helicopter use may also involve dealing with restrictions on flyovers around houses and power transmission lines.

7- Rectenwald provides a particularly compelling example of disposal of mercury-contaminated sediments at a dam removal site, which was conductedin accordance with Clean Water Act permit requirements.The work included core sampling of the reservoir, dewatering the sediments to prevent therelease of contaminated water, and disposal of sediments and dewatering effluent.The contractor hired to carry out the work was required to be licensedto handle hazardous wastes. One of the legal agreements made between the agencies and the dam owner to implement terms of the restoration included arequirement for environmental insurance for mercury contamination. 241


in California’s Central Valley that involvedan exchange of water rights. Depending onthe nature and complexity of the issuesinvolved, staff time (including lawyers)needed to conduct negotiations and completetransactions regarding access issues may beconsiderable.

Physical AccessAddressing impediments to physical

access can have a significant effect on costs(see Shaw, Coffin, Jani, Weaver/Hagans,Bair, Bell, Neal, Rectenwald,Bonsignore/Liske, Obradovich, Steere). Forinstance, roads that are abandoned, over-grown or washed out are harder to accessthan open roads. Wetland sites that arewaterlogged or covered with weeds areharder to survey and work than dry opensites. Costs of getting equipment, materials(e.g., rocks, logs, soil, plants, culverts) andwork crews to and from the restoration sitevary widely, depending on the nature of whatis being transported, distances traveled, diffi-culties associated with the transportationmode or route, and access conditions at thesite itself. For instance, the cost and incon-venience of transporting woody debris maybe minimal if such material is available nearthe restoration site, but increases signifi-cantly if a helicopter is needed to transportthe material to a remote site.6 Costs increaseif construction, improvement or clearing ofroads is required to gain access to a site,particularly if those roads then have to bedecommissioned once the restoration is done.Costs associated with wetland restorationcan be significantly higher if materials mustbe transported by barge instead of by land.In many cases, materials (e.g., excavateddirt, old culverts) must also be transportedfrom the restoration site to a disposal site.Disposal costs can be particularly high if the

materials removed are contaminated andmust be treated or taken to specializeddisposal sites.7

Other Site CharacteristicsIn addition to access, a variety of other

site-specific factors also affect restorationstrategies and costs. The following are exam-ples of some of the more common factorscited by workshop participants. Many ofthese examples also serve to illustrate thecontrasting strategies used in different land-scapes and the role of professional judgmentin dealing with local requirements and workconditions.

Road restoration — Landscapefeatures can have a significant effect onroad restoration costs (see Coffin,Dupont, Jani, Weaver/Hagans). Forinstance, road surface characteristics,stream crossing frequency, slope stabilityand number/size/depth of culverts areimportant cost factors. Work on publicroads is generally subject to more strin-gent engineering and safety requirementsthan work on private roads. Restorationstrategies vary, depending on the largercontext in which they occur. For instance,culverts are commonly used at streamcrossings in Idaho. However, flashingstreams and heavy sedimentation in thenorthern California coastal mountainsresult in a high rate of culvert failure andtherefore greater reliance on options suchas rock armor crossings and railroadflatcar bridges.

Instream restoration — Instreamtreatment costs (see Shaw, Cocke, Bell,Lacy, Neal) depend on factors such aschannel characteristics (e.g, depth, veloc-ity, substrate, gradient), specialized

8- Steere, for instance, categorizes wetlands in San Francisco Bay to include bay habitats (tidal marshes, mudflats, lagoons, beaches, salt ponds), seasonalwetlands (diked wetlands, grasslands and associated wetlands) and creeks and lakes.

242

equipment and material requirements,and whether the stream must betemporarily diverted around the workarea. One treatment strategy is to intro-duce unanchored trees and boulders intothe stream and allow nature to take itscourse. Another more engineeredapproach utilizes artificially anchoredwoody material and boulders. The latterapproach involves more intensive use ofhand crews and higher maintenance butis more commonly used, particularly inareas such as urban streams.

Revegetation — Revegetation costscan be significantly affected by irrigationand other requirements (see Shaw, Bair,Cocke, Neal, Steere). Irrigation costsdepend on the availability of a nearbywater source and the size of the irriga-tion system, as well as the period of timeover which irrigation is needed. Costsare also affected by the extent to whichplantings require protection from preda-tors (e.g., cattle, deer) and the extent ofongoing maintenance needed to controlnuisance vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass). Use of mechanized labor forplanting is usually more costly thanhand labor, but the success rate tends tobe higher as well.

Wetland restoration — Wetlandrestoration strategy (see Bonsignore/Liske, Obradovich, Steere) depends onthe type of wetland being created orrestored.8 Adjacent land uses are a signif-icant cost consideration. An assessment(including consideration of soils, topogra-phy and hydrology) must be made todetermine the suitability of the site forrestoration. Availability of water is animportant cost consideration; forinstance, use of an existing water sourceand a gravity flow system is much lesscostly than pumping water to the site.

For some projects, it may be necessary todemolish existing structures and/or relo-cate utility lines from the prospectivewetland area. Costs also depend on thescope of the work (e.g., building levees,excavating ponds) and the extent towhich maintenance of wetland structures(e.g., weirs, levees, pumps) and ongoingcontrol of invasive plants and/or mosqui-toes is needed once the initial work iscompleted. Costs associated with disposalof excavated soils vary widely, dependingon whether the soils can be reused onsiteor must be transported elsewhere andwhether the soils are contaminated.

Fish screens — Fish screen require-ments and costs (see Hayes, Hudson,Kepshire) are affected by issues relatedto flow rate, debris and sedimentation.Relevant cost factors include screen andscreen structure requirements, extent ofsite preparation, and features such as thepower source, cleaning system andbackup system. Prefabricated screensthat minimize the need for detailed engi-neering and rely on non-electric powersources (e.g., paddle wheels) are cost-effective options for some small diver-sions in places like Oregon. Suchstandardization is less suited to largecomplex diversions such as those found inCalifornia’s Central Valley. Routineinspections and reporting requirementsare important for identifying problemswith screen functionality. Screens thatcan be retrieved from the water duringthe non-irrigation season are initiallymore costly but also have a longer lifeexpectancy and are easier to inspect andmaintain. Ease of maintenance affectsnot only cost but also the incentive toperform maintenance. Fish bypassesshould also be monitored to ensure thatyear-to-year changes in the stream havenot rendered them ineffective; bypasses


9- Bonsignore/Liske provide a mitigation example involving construction of levies around a restored wetland area to prevent water from seeping ontoneighboring properties. Steere cites the need to accommodate adjacent or co-existing human uses as a major cost consideration in urban wetland restora-tion projects. 243


are also a useful tool for monitoring theeffectiveness of the screen in protectingfish.

Coordination RequirementsDepending on the nature of the project,

staff time devoted to planning and designmay be significant and costly (see Wellman,Cocke, Neal, Obradovich, Steere). Projectplanning may require considerable consulta-tion among engineers, geologists, hydrolo-gists, biologists and other experts who canprovide an understanding of the local land-scape, determine the source of the problemand develop solutions. Wellman, for one,points out that sound planning goes a longway toward preventing cost overruns anddelays in completing the construction phaseof a project. Coordination may be desirablebeyond the needs of a single project. Forinstance, Hayes cites the benefits of coordi-nation among fish screening programs inCalifornia’s Central Valley.

Coordination can be particularly time-consuming and costly for projects that arelarge and complex, require extensive intera-gency consultation or involve a large numberor diversity of interest groups (see Neal,Hudson, Rectenwald, Obradovich, Steere).Interagency coordination may be challeng-ing, as different agencies operate underdifferent mandates and funding constraints,and may have different perceptions regard-ing what constitutes adequate restoration.While coordination may be costly, it is impor-tant to note that some restoration may notbe feasible without the support of multiplepartners who bring funding, technicalexpertise or other resources to the project.Coordination provides an opportunity to poolassets and better anticipate and resolveproblems that can impede success of theproject.

The feasibility and cost of conductingrestoration on private lands depend criticallyon landowner cooperation (see Shaw, Cocke,

Neal, Bonsignore/Liske, Obradovich, Steere).Landowners vary widely in the extent oftheir willingness to participate in restorationactivities; cooperation becomes even moreuncertain if multiple landowners areinvolved. A significant amount of staff timemay be spent negotiating with landownersand (particularly in urban areas) holdingpublic meetings with homeowner associa-tions and other groups. A restoration projectmay have unintended effects on adjacentproperties, in which case it may be necessaryto negotiate with neighboring landownersregarding mitigation of such effects.9

Environmental Review, Permitting andPublic Input Requirements

Depending on the nature and scope of therestoration, a project may be subject to envi-ronmental review and permitting require-ments (see Coffin, Bair, Cocke, Neal, Hayes,Rectenwald, Bonsignore/Liske, Obradovich,Steere). For instance, Federal projects aresubject to the documentation and publiccomment requirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). Statesalso have statutory requirements for envi-ronmental review — e.g., the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (see Cocke),Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act(see Neal). In cases where a project mayresult in “take” of a species listed under theFederal Endangered Species Act (ESA),applicable requirements (e.g., consultation,incidental take permit, habitat conservationplan) must be met. In addition, the ArmyCorps of Engineers, State resource agenciesand some county agencies have permittingrequirements for activities that fall withintheir jurisdiction. One reason for the differ-ences in restoration costs among Federal,State and private lands pertains to differ-ences in review and permitting require-ments. The issue becomes furthercomplicated if the restoration occurs on landin mixed ownership, i.e., with different

10- For Federal projects subject to NEPA requirements, one potentially cost-effective strategy is to cover multiple projects in a single NEPA document.Potentially controversial projects, however, should not be bundled in this manner, as controversy regarding any single project can hold up implementation of allthe projects covered by the NEPA analysis (see Bair, Cocke).244

parcels subject to different permittingrequirements.

Project review, permitting and consulta-tion activities are important for anticipatingand addressing environmental concerns andensuring adequate opportunity for publicinput. These requirements may also addsignificantly to the cost and time required tocomplete a project, particularly in caseswhere the project is large in scale, controver-sial or affects a large number or variety ofstakeholders (see Rectenwald). Controversycan arise from any number of sources. Forinstance, road decommissioning may raiseconcerns among hikers or other user groupsregarding loss of access to a recreationalarea. Adding woody debris to streams mayraise concerns by kayakers. Projects thathave the potential to affect a multiplicity ofinterest groups (e.g., dam removal, urbanrestoration) may be particularly demandingin terms of environmental documentationand public input. However, while satisfyingsuch requirements may be costly (sometimeseven costlier than the restoration itself),inadequate attention to these requirementsmay increase the likelihood of public opposi-tion or litigation once the project is under-way, which is also costly.10

Scheduling IssuesRestoration costs are affected by the need

to accommodate activities that are going onsimultaneously with the restoration (seeWellman, Weaver/Hagans, Bell, Neal, Hayes,Hudson, Obradovich). For instance, construc-tion may be limited to certain hours of theday to alleviate noise concerns. Fish screen-ing projects may be timed to minimize inter-ference with migrating salmon or theirrigation season. Extraordinary weatherevents may occur that delay completion ofthe work. Restoration on private land may beinterrupted if the landowner decides totemporarily divert equipment to other,higher priority uses. Significant delays

between project planning and mobilizationmay require that the original plans (includ-ing environmental documentation) be revis-ited and perhaps modified before proceedingwith implementation. Construction delaysassociated with delays in obtaining funding,permits or easements may result in schedul-ing conflicts with other projects and perhaps(in a worst case scenario) postponement ofthe project until the following season.Regardless of the reason for delays, theresulting downtime can add to the cost of theproject. Conversely, scheduling may also beadvantageous to a project. For instance, costsavings may occur if restoration can bescheduled to take advantage of heavy equip-ment that may already be at a site foranother purpose, or if restoration at multiplenearby sites can be simultaneously sched-uled to ensure efficient use of equipmentthat will need to be mobilized to do the work.

Contract Versus In-HouseAn important consideration in restoration

planning is whether to conduct the work in-house or under contract (see Hudson,Kepshire). Agency practices in this regardvary widely. For instance, some agenciesdesign their own fish screens and contractout the construction. Others have an in-house“shop” that constructs screens (sometimesaccording to standardized design criteria),with installation handled either by agencycrews or contractors. Screen shops tend to becost-effective in situations where standard-ized screen designs have wide applicability.

The choice between conducting restorationin-house or under contract involves considera-tion of factors such as project cost, projectcontrol, project liability and the extent of in-house expertise and resources (see Bair,Cocke, Neal). When construction is contractedout, the project sponsor may incur significantplanning and administrative costs associatedwith project design, review of proposals andcontract monitoring. In such cases, the


11- For Federally funded projects, an additional cost consideration is the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires construction contractors to pay hired labor-ers the local prevailing wage rate for work of similar type. Other funding entities may also have similar prevailing wage requirements of their own.

12- For instance, Coffin and Weaver/Hagans note that on-the-ground road surveys frequently reveal the presence of roads that do not appear on exist-ing maps. Hudson and Kepshire note that existing inventories of water diversions may provide good coverage of larger unscreened diversions, but a signifi-cant number of smaller diversions are likely to be missing from such inventories; determining ownership and legal status of diversions is also a challenge.

13- Several workshop participants, however, were hesitant to consider extrapolation under any circumstances. With regard to streambank restoration,Bair states, “It is possible, however, that standardized costs estimated for larger areas (watersheds and greater) may never be appropriate, and that workingfrom the individual conditions at each restoration site may be the only way to develop reasonable estimates of project costs” (p. 112). Obradovich notes that“Expanding [wetland] cost estimates to watershed, ESU or state level seems to be an iffy proposition at best” (p. 223). Steere similarly points out that“While estimates [of urban wetland restoration costs] can be made, they have great variability, and some practitioners believe that attempting to makethem on the basis of ‘per acre restored’ or ‘per cubic yard of earth moved’ are at best inadequate and at worst misleading ...” (p. 225). 245


contractor assumes most of the liability asso-ciated with completion of the project.11

Liability concerns tend to bid the contractprice up. When construction is done in-house,plans must be sufficiently detailed to satisfyup-front permitting requirements, but theneed for detailed specifications may be some-what mitigated by the availability of in-houseengineering and biological expertise to assistwith the project as it progresses. In suchcases, the project sponsor assumes the liabil-ity associated with project problems anddelays. “Intermediate” arrangements are alsocommon, whereby agency staff directs thework of operators and equipment hired onhourly contracts. Hourly contractors are likelyto rent equipment on an as-needed basisrather than incur the overhead cost associatedwith purchase and maintenance of equipment.

FEASIBILITY OF EXTRAPOLATINGCOSTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PROJECTSTO LARGER GEOGRAPHIC AREA

In order to estimate habitat restorationcosts to recover ESA-listed salmonids, it isfirst necessary to comprehensively evaluaterestoration needs (see Huppert, Dupont,Weaver/Hagans, Bair, Cocke). Concertedefforts are being made by government,private sector and local watershed groups toconduct on-the-ground assessments thatfocus on limiting factors and ways to reducetheir influence. These assessments are typi-cally done at the watershed level, as restora-tion problems are best understood in thecontext of the watershed in which they occur.However, detailed watershed assessmentsare being conducted on only a portion ofsalmon/steelhead habitat. Resources toperform such assessments are limited, and

ability to perform such assessments onprivate lands is often contingent onlandowner cooperation. For areas where on-the-ground assessments are not available, itmay be necessary to resort to more approxi-mate assessments of restoration needs basedon less detailed sources of information. Forinstance, topographic maps are useful foridentifying relevant landscape features, suchas the distribution of existing roads and theirintersection with stream crossings. It is alsoimportant to consider the limitations of topo-graphic maps and other data sources.12

Developing a comprehensive picture of aggre-gate salmon/steelhead habitat restorationneeds thus requires critical evaluation andsynthesis of information of varying qualitygathered from many different sources.

Estimating costs associated with address-ing aggregate restoration needs is also prob-lematic. Workshop participants (see Coffin,Weaver/Hagans, Bair, Bonsignore/Liske,Steere) emphasize the importance of on-sitesurveys to ensure that project cost estimatesaccurately reflect site-specific requirements.However, recovery plans for ESA-listedsalmonids will require estimation of aggregaterestoration costs associated with multipleprojects over an extended geographic area.The infeasibility of developing detailed on-sitecost estimates for every such project makes itnecessary to consider the possibility of extrap-olating the costs of individual restoration proj-ects to a larger geographic scale.

Most of the workshop participants whodiscussed the feasibility of extrapolationwere willing to consider it, though underlimited circumstances and with the under-standing that such cost estimates wouldhave a large margin of error.13 Given the

14- The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed a system of eight-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) to categorize major watersheds in the U.S. accordingto four classification levels.The first two digits of a HUC classify the U.S. into 21 regions, the second two digits define 222 subregions within the regions, the thirdtwo digits define 352 accounting units that nest within or are equivalent to the subregions, and the fourth two digits define 2,149 cataloguing units within theaccounting units. Regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloguing units are referred to respectively as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th field HUCs. California is dividedinto 153 4th field HUCs, Oregon into 92, Washington into 73 and Idaho into 92.There are 368 4th field HUCs in the four states combined (less than the sum ofthe number in each state, as some HUCs overlap state boundaries), and 294 of these 368 HUCs overlap with one or more salmon/steelhead ESUs.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in coordination with the USGS, is updating national watershed maps to the 5th and 6th field levels.State-level mapping efforts have been ongoing as well. For instance, California’s Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee (IWMC) coordinates changes andenhancements to California’s official watershed map (known as Calwater), which delineates the landscape to a sub-watershed level of detail (3,000–10,000acre areas).The IWMC, which includes State and Federal agencies, is working to ensure that Calwater meets State and Federal mapping standards (see246

sensitivity of restoration costs to site-specificcharacteristics, they generally recommendedthat data on project costs be extrapolatedonly to other projects involving similar workdone in the same watershed to addresssimilar problems (see Coffin, Dupont,Weaver/Hagans, Cocke, Hampton, Hudson).Two specific approaches to cost extrapolationconsistent with this advice were suggested atthe workshop.

Method A: Base cost estimates for agiven type of project on recent historicalcosts for the same type of project in the samewatershed.

Method B: Base cost estimates on predic-tions derived from models that explicitlyrelate costs to characteristics of the projectand the landscape in which it occurs. Twomodels were presented at the workshop thatillustrate this approach:

Using data on 37 instream restorationprojects in north coastal California,Hampton estimates a multiple regressionmodel relating cost per stream mile tostream gradient, number of structuresper stream mile and stream length. Theoverall fit of the model was r2=0.46, withthe coefficient on one of the explanatoryvariables (structures per stream mile)being statistically significant at the 95%level. Hampton cautions that the dataused in his analysis did not includecomplete costs for planning, permitting,monitoring and maintenance.

Hudson uses a sample of fish screenprojects in the State of Washington toestimate a model relating project cost todesign flow. Three versions of the model

were estimated using data on screensdesigned for flows of 1–15 CFS, 1–58 CFSand 1–210 CFS. Goodness-of-fit was highfor all three versions (r2 = 0.803, 0.865and 0.891 respectively) and was evenhigher (r2 = 0.942) for a fourth versionthat was based on proposed rather thanactual costs. Hudson also provides inter-val estimates (±25% of the costs indicatedon the cost curves) to reflect uncertaintiesregarding the comparability of costsacross projects.

Specific suggestions made by workshopparticipants regarding methods A and B —as well as their more general observationsregarding the availability and quality ofrestoration project data and the factors thatdrive restoration costs — would appear tosuggest the following:

Both methods A and B require costand location data on individual restora-tion projects. Available data are not likelyto include full life cycle cost informationat the individual project level. Thusefforts will need to be made to ensurethat the data include at least comparablecost elements across projects, with theexpectation that subsequent adjustmentsto these cost estimates may be requiredto account for whatever cost elements aremissing from the analysis.

Method A involves estimation ofwatershed-specific statistics such asmean cost per project, and thereforerequires that a sufficiently large andrepresentative sample of projects beavailable for each type of restorationactivity in each watershed.14 In applyingmethod A, it will be desirable to limit the


http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/calwater/).In terms of estimating habitat restoration costs at a watershed level, it should be noted that definition of the term “watershed” is somewhat ambiguous

and subject to change over time. For instance, 4th field HUCs are sometimes referred to in common usage as “watersheds”, although in areas where 5thfield subwatershed mapping has been done (e.g., by the Forest Service in some of the national forests), the 5th field designation is likely to be referred toas a “watershed”. In an upcoming update to Federal mapping guidelines, 3rd and 4th field HUCs (currently referred to as accounting and cataloguingunits) will be renamed basins and subbasins, and newly delineated 5th and 6th HUCs will be named watersheds and subwatersheds.

15- Dupont, for instance, suggests that project costs be stratified by land ownership as well as watershed. 247


data to recently completed projects tobetter ensure that the data reflectcurrent design standards and the currentstate of restoration technology.Depending on data availability, attemptsshould also be made to further stratifywatershed-specific cost estimates on thebasis of other relevant cost factors.15

Method B involves estimating therelationship of project costs to project andlandscape characteristics that arehypothesized to affect costs. Method Bthus requires detailed information on thecharacteristics of restoration projects andthe landscape in which they occur. To theextent that available project data includeinformation on project design standards,the model should be specified to capturethe effect of changing design standardson costs. However, to the extent thatdesign standard data are not available, itwill probably be advisable to include onlyrecently completed projects in the model(as in method A).

In order to link model predictionsfrom method B to specific watersheds,descriptive landscape information will beneeded for each watershed correspondingto the types of landscape variablesincluded in the model. Method B is moredata intensive but also potentially moreinformative than Method A, as it quanti-fies the relationship of project costs toproject and landscape characteristics. Thesuccess of method B will be contingentnot only on data availability but also theperformance of the statistical model.

As indicated by workshop participants,extrapolation methods are likely to producerestoration cost estimates with a high

margin of error. The particularly strongreservations expressed by two of the wetlandexperts regarding the feasibility of extrapola-tion would seem to suggest that wetlandrestoration requirements are particularlyindividualistic. Ongoing consultation withrestoration practitioners will be advisable inthe course of developing aggregate restora-tion cost estimates for salmon/steelheadrecovery plans.

With regard to data requirements, manyof the types of project-level data needed toapply methods A and B to restoration activi-ties are being collected in the CaliforniaHabitat Restoration Project Database(CHRPD) (see Carlson/Allen). The CHRPD isa work in progress and concerted efforts arebeing made to augment the database withprojects originating from a variety of fundingsources. Experience to date with the CHRPDsuggests a number of ways in which data-bases maintained by project sponsors can bemade more useful for cost analysis. Forinstance, while information on project loca-tion is essential for linking individual proj-ects to their associated landscapecharacteristics, location informationcontained in project descriptions are oftenimprecise. While cost analysis is best done onthe basis of actual rather than proposedcosts, records of actual costs are not alwaysmaintained or reported in a sufficientlydetailed manner by project sponsors to beuseful for cost analysis. Some standardiza-tion of reporting requirements among projectsponsors would facilitate cost analysis.Workshop participants developed a list ofdata elements that address this particularneed (Table 1). Some project sponsorsalready have reporting requirements thatclosely resemble Table 1; it is important thatsuch requirements be enforced (seeCarlson/Allen).

248

OTHER ISSUES ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

While the focus of the workshop was onhabitat restoration cost estimation, partici-pants also suggested ways to enhance theeffectiveness of restoration both at the indi-vidual project level and at the large scaleplanning level. Their recommendations areas follows.

Obtaining Comprehensive Picture ofRestoration Activity

Restoration funding originates frommany sources and is distributed throughmany channels, making it difficult tocomprehend the full extent of restoration interms of projects or expenditures. In order tounderstand the “big picture”, it is importantthat this picture include information on proj-ects sponsored by the various fundingsources. It is also important that monies notbe double counted, as monies may be trans-ferred through one or more channels beforebeing allocated to specific projects. Evendetermining which projects to classify assalmon habitat restoration may be problem-atic, as some projects are intended to specifi-cally benefit salmon, while others aremotivated by a broader environmental inter-est (e.g., clean water, general wildlife bene-fits) that may include but not be specificallyfocused on salmon.

While ambiguities exist regarding exactlywhich monies and projects to attribute tosalmon restoration, it is nevertheless clearthat some accounting of this type must bemade. Significant sums of money have beenallocated to restoration and it is important todetermine what has been accomplished aswell as what remains to be done. Databasessuch as the CHRPD (see Carlson/Allen) areimportant for documenting the scope anddistribution of restoration activities acrossthe landscape. The CHRPD will be a usefultool for recovery planning for ESA-listedsalmon and steelhead in California.

Ensuring Maximum Benefits fromRestoration Funds

It is important that restoration moniesbe allocated among projects in a way thatyields maximal benefits to salmonids.However, as noted by Huppert, “A problemin applying these [cost-effectiveness analy-sis, benefit-cost analysis] to salmon habitatrestoration is the difficulty of linking thecosts of specific restoration activities to thebroad objectives of salmon restoration,which typically include increased numbersand genetic diversity of naturally spawningfish” (pp. 24–25). Given this difficulty, bene-fits to fish are often measured in terms ofhow well the restoration activity addresseslimiting factors (e.g., sedimentation, watertemperature) that impede salmon recovery.Measures of restoration effectiveness(whether expressed in terms of fish popula-tion parameters or limiting factors) areessential for providing the feedback neces-sary to evaluate and improve restorationtechniques and for prioritizing projects forfunding. Isolating the benefits of any singlerestoration project relative to the totality ofrestoration activities within a watershed isoften problematic. Even determining theeffects of entire watershed restorationprograms can be difficult, as the effect ofsuch programs on fish populations takestime to become apparent and must be distin-guished from the effects of other confound-ing human and environmental factors.

Several workshop participants discussways to relate funding decisions to restora-tion benefits:

Tomberlin provides an optimizationmodel for allocating restoration fundsboth temporally and across space (e.g.,among projects, rivers, watersheds). Heidentifies a number of factors thatshould be explicitly considered infunding allocation decisions — namely,the objective that allocation is intended


16- While monitoring is typically viewed as a post-construction activity, Weaver/Hagans also use a form of monitoring in the construction phase oftheir projects by requiring their operators to record the time and effort spent on various tasks.This information is used to refine cost estimation proce-dures and improve project efficiency.

17- Dupont, for instance, provides excellent examples of life cycle costs for stream crossings in Idaho. 249


to achieve, the size of the availablebudget, the nature of the relationshipbetween restoration effort and benefits,the degree of uncertainty in the effort-benefit relationship, and the decisionmaker’s attitude toward risk. Tomberlinalso provides stylized examples thatdemonstrate some of the insights thatcan be gained from his model. Forinstance, he shows that — when theobjective is to maximize the sum ofrestoration benefits across two rivers,both rivers share an identical sigmoidaleffort-benefit relationship that is knownwith certainty, and the restorationbudget is too small to be of much benefitto either river if divided between rivers— funding should be concentrated in oneof the rivers. However, if the effort-benefit relationship is uncertain,funding should be distributed betweenthe two rivers to reduce the chance ofgetting no benefits at all. More compli-cated variations of these scenarios canalso be developed (e.g., allowing eachriver to exhibit a different effort-benefitrelationship).

Weaver/Hagans focus on a particulartype of restoration activity (road repair)as it relates to a particular restorationbenefit (preventing sediment deliveryinto streams). They emphasize the impor-tance of predictive (i.e., “forwardlooking”) sediment source inventories anddescribe how to develop such inventoriesat screening, reconnaissance and fullassessment levels. They also describe asystematic process for determiningwhether to upgrade, maintain or decom-mission a road based on five steps:problem identification, problem quantifi-cation, prescription development, cost-effectiveness evaluation andprioritization, and implementation.

Specific outputs of their process include arisk reduction plan, a budget, a cost-effec-tiveness analysis and prioritization ofsites to be treated.

Recognizing and Addressing Life CycleRequirements of Restoration Projects

Restoration sponsors are often encour-aged to use funding in ways that are visibleand engender public support. This translatesinto an inordinate attention to the morevisible aspects of restoration, namelyconstruction. In some cases, this emphasis on“moving dirt” is further reinforced by legal,policy or contractual constraints that effec-tively limit the amount of money spent onplanning, maintenance and monitoring —less visible aspects of restoration that arenevertheless critical to project success.Inadequate attention to planning can lead todelays, cost overruns and poor execution ofproject requirements in the constructionphase. Given the importance of maintenanceto the success of a project, it is important torealistically appraise whether funding andother incentives are adequate to ensure thatmaintenance requirements will be met; proj-ects should not proceed without a reasonableexpectation of adequate maintenance.Monitoring is essential for evaluating thesuccess of restoration projects in meetingtheir goals and objectives, and also providesthe type of feedback needed to evaluate andimprove restoration techniques.16

Restoration practitioners are well versedin the life cycle requirements and costs ofrestoration projects.17 It is also importantthat policy makers and the public have arealistic appreciation of the need to addresstotal project requirements, the inexactnature of restoration science and the lengthof time it takes to see results.18 In order toencourage greater attention to maintenanceand monitoring requirements, it is impor-tant to consider why these activities are not

18- Cocke provides a particularly vivid description of the dynamic nature of stream systems and the long-term effects of human behavior and naturalprocesses on the system. He emphasizes the need to incorporate adaptive management into the restoration planning process. He notes that restoration ofteninvolves laying the groundwork for continuing as well as current beneficial effects (e.g., trees planted to stabilize stream banks also serves as a future source oflarge woody debris) and makes the point that “...the most important aspect of restoration work is time” (p. 119).

19- Hayes cites a case in which slots were built (at considerable expense) into a Central Valley pumping facility to facilitate monitoring.

20- According to Neal, King County maintains separate budgets for restoration projects and research-oriented assessments, with research sometimes under-taken collaboratively with the University of Washington. Hayes notes that the CalFED Bay Delta Program sometimes engages in cost-sharing arrangements withirrigation districts for research-related monitoring at fish screen facilities.

21- Hayes cites as an example the Anadromous Fish Screen Program — established under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act — which hasstreamlined its permitting process by ensuring that a single staff person works with an applicant on all permitting requirements.

22- Neal describes King County’s sponsorship of volunteer planting events, including provision of parking/shuttle buses, team leaders, refreshments, tools andplanting instructions. Rectenwald notes the importance role played by watershed groups in community-based restoration planning and the significant amount ofeffort and citizen involvement (as well as monetary grants) needed to make such groups successful.

23- Hayes cites the work of the Family Water Alliance, a program sponsored by the Natural Resources Conservation Service that works with farmers onsmall screen projects. Hayes also points out that the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program streamlines its funding process by providing irrigators withaccess to multiple fish screen funding sources via a single application.250

adequately addressed in the first place. Forinstance, monitoring can add significantlyto the cost of a project,19 and landownersmay be particularly reluctant to pay forresearch-related monitoring. In suchinstances, collaborative or cost-sharingarrangements with research-oriented enti-ties may be desirable.20

Streamlining the Regulatory ProcessRegulatory and permitting requirements

serve a valuable function by providingprotection for vulnerable species and ensur-ing adherence to clean water and other envi-ronmental standards. However, thepermitting process often requires clearancesfrom multiple agencies and can be lengthy,costly and uncertain in terms of timing andoutcome. Some progress on streamlining hasbeen accomplished, particularly for smallerrestoration projects.21 Continuing efforts areneeded to ensure that permitting require-ments are clearly and explicitly defined andthat the permitting process moves forward ina timely manner with minimal “red tape”(see Bell, Hayes).

Enhancing Public ParticipationA variety of restoration and monitoring

programs exist that encourage and facilitatepublic involvement in habitat restoration.Public participation is valuable for fosteringan attitude of stewardship toward habitatand for augmenting restoration efforts overand above what agencies can provide with

their limited resources. It is important thatpublic involvement be supported withadequate funding to organize, train andotherwise support volunteer participation inrestoration efforts.22

A variety of programs exist that encour-age the participation of private landownersin salmon habitat restoration projects byproviding design and other technical assis-tance or facilitating permit acquisition andaccess to funding sources.23 While many takeadvantage of these services, others are notinterested or are concerned that such partici-pation may draw attention to themselves interms of agency oversight of their land useactivities. Positive incentives and “win-win”situations, of course, work best for obtaininglandowner cooperation.24

Managing Projects EffectivelyRestoration is particularly challenging for

large or complex projects that involve multipleagencies with overlapping jurisdictions anddiverse stakeholders. Workshop participantsemphasize the importance of managerial skillsas well as technical expertise in ensuring thesuccess of restoration projects. For example:

Neal describes project managementprocedures in King County that may beuseful in other populated urban settings.She points out the importance of restora-tion design teams that include a range ofprofessional disciplines. The teams areorganized by watershed, which allows


24- Hudson cites an instance where, in lieu of screening an existing water diversion, the Bureau of Reclamation assisted the landowners in obtainingfunding to excavate wells and install a sprinkler system, thereby allowing elimination of the diversion and benefitting both the landowners and the fish.Rectenwald notes that wildfire prevention can serve dual purposes in terms of reducing sedimentation in a creek and protecting property in the communi-ty. Kepshire notes that pump screens, which keep snails as well as fish out of irrigation ditches, are popular among Oregon farmers. 251


members to develop detailed knowledgeof that watershed and long-term relation-ships with relevant stakeholders and thestaff at regulatory agencies who havejurisdiction in the watershed. Regulatoryagencies are consulted early on to ensurethat environmental requirements arereflected in the early stages of projectdesign. Collaborative and pro-activearrangements such as this help buildlong-term relationships with regulatoryagencies and the public that are based ontrust and ensure successful restoration.

In his discussion of a dam removalproject in California’s Central Valley,Rectenwald provides many specificsuggestions for dealing with the complexcoordination requirements of the project.For instance, he points out the impor-tance of understanding the mandates andpolicies of different agencies and dealingwith agency aversion to setting a prece-dent by changing standard ways ofconducting business. He emphasizes theneed to appreciate the motivations andconcerns of the dam and water rightsowner. He encourages the use of commu-nity knowledge to augment agencyknowledge regarding the history ofsalmon runs in the watershed. He notesthe contribution that local watershedgroups make to community-based plan-ning. To enhance public participation, hesuggests scheduling meetings at timesand places convenient to the public andensuring that the same person is consis-tently available to represent the projectin interactions with the public.Rectenwald advises full and early disclo-sure of information relevant to the project(including any potential adverse effectson stakeholders), outreach activities thatallow stakeholders to participate in thedevelopment of options that mitigate

adverse effects, and environmental docu-mentation that includes the specific miti-gation measures developed in the courseof negotiations. His case study vividlyillustrates the importance of skillfulmanagement and collaboration in ensur-ing the success of protracted, complexand controversial restoration projects.

FINALLY…Restoration involves the application of

technology to complex natural systemswithin an often complicated legal, institu-tional and social context. Restoration is ulti-mately a human activity — conducted bypeople who respond to restoration opportuni-ties, constraints and incentives in adaptableand ingenious ways. Workshop presentersprovided insights into all these dimensions ofrestoration. We thank them for sharing theirknowledge and expertise with us.

Table 1. Restoration project datarequirements for cost analysis, as

suggested by workshop participants

1- Location should be identified in as specific a manner as possible.Some standardization of location descrip-tors would be helpful.

2- Both proposed and actual costsshould be provided for each cost category.Cost estimates should be complete, includ-ing matching funds.

3- Construction costs should be brokendown by labor, materials and equipment.Labor expended in each cost categoryshould be reported in person hours anddollars.

Goals and measurable objectivesProject descriptionProject location1

Project manager (contact person)Funding source(s)Project costs2

PlanningDesignPermitting/environmental reviewConstruction3

MonitoringMaintenanceOverhead

Documents

Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations · 2011-03-18 · 2- Huppert is aware of the limitations as well as strengths of economics. As he notes,“Social values, pre-existing commitments,