Dear Reader, - Puget Sound Partnership · Dear Reader, I am pleased to attach an electronic version...

Dear Reader, I am pleased to attach an electronic version of the Primer on Habitat Project Costs, a document created for the Puget Sound Shared Strategy by Evergreen Funding Consultants. The Primer is intended to help watershed leaders estimate the costs of habitat projects within their watersheds. Using simple techniques to translate project characteristics into likely cost ranges and to fine-tune estimates with secondary factors, the Primer provides an easy, consistent tool to estimate costs for habitat work in the watersheds and throughout the region. The Primer is the result of dozens of interviews with restoration experts in the Puget Sound region, and we are very appreciative of all those that have contributed. The distillation of large quantities of information into an accurate, succinct, and easy-to-use publication has been a challenging task. We hope to continue to improve the Primer with future updates and would welcome comments on how to make the Primer as usable and as helpful to watershed planners as possible. Please send any comments or suggestions to Helena Wiley at [email protected]. We hope that this product will help to further the goals of salmon recovery in Puget Sound. Sincerely, Jim Kramer, Executive Director Puget Sound Shared Strategy

A Primer on HabitatProject Costs

Prepared for the Puget Sound Shared StrategyBy Evergreen Funding ConsultantsSpring 2003

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Land Acquisition 4

Fencing 10

Riparian Planting 13

Culvert Improvements 19

Large Woody Debris/Engineered Log Jams 23

Streambank Improvements 28

Nearshore Restoration 33

Floodplain Restoration 37

Estuary Restoration 44

Credits and Sources 48

IntroductionThe purpose of this primer is to help watershed groups identify the costs of their salmon

recovery strategies. Groups are currently working on plans to restore salmon populations in

each of the 14 watersheds in the Puget Sound basin. As the plans are being assembled, they

are becoming more specific in the actions proposed. A few of the plans have information on

costs, but the methods used to compute costs vary widely. This primer is designed to give the

groups working on these plans a simple, consistent tool to estimate costs.

Why worry about costs? In the next few years, attention will need to shift from planning to

implementation of the salmon recovery strategies. Implementing the plans will be costly.

Thinking about costs in the early stages of planning will ensure that (1) the plans are realistic

about the costs and likelihood of funding for the recommended actions, and (2) funding

sources are available when and where they are needed.

The primer focuses on a specific segment of the costs of salmon recovery: the capital costs of

habitat acquisition and restoration projects. The cost estimates in the primer include construc-

tion, design, permitting, appraisal, basic monitoring (2 years), routine maintenance (2 years),

reestablishing the site to prior conditions, and project management costs that are normally

associated with implementing a capital project. More general administrative, enforcement, and

long-term monitoring and maintenance costs are not included although they are likely to be

warranted.

The primer was assembled by Evergreen Funding Consultants on contract to the Puget Sound

Salmon Forum with funding provided through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

However, the real credit for the publication goes to the many habitat experts around Puget

Sound who contributed their expertise on project costs. They are recognized individually in

the Credits and Sources chapter.

1Introduction

HOW TO USE THE PRIMER:The primer is designed to be used with draft watershed plans that have identified a number ofprojects to purchase and restore salmon habitat. It is best used to estimate the cost of a suiteof restoration activities, and will be less accurate for individual projects.

1. The first step in using the primer is to divide the recommended projects from a water-shed plan into the nine project categories used in the primer.

Many restoration projects will combine characteristics. For instance, a culvert replacementproject may incorporate planting of the stream corridor upstream and downstream of theculvert. Projects with multiple characteristics should be costed based on the predominantrestoration action. If there is more than one predominant action, the projects should becategorized and costed by their most expensive feature according to the following list.

LEAST EXPENSIVE FencingRiparian PlantingCulvert ImprovementsLarge Woody Debris/Engineered Log JamsStreambank ImprovementsNearshore RestorationFloodplain Restoration

MOST EXPENSIVE Estuary Restoration

Projects that combine acquisition and restoration should have each estimated separatelyand the totals combined.

2. The second step involves costing out categories of projects using the relevant primer chap-ter. Each chapter has the following information:

• A description of the project type;• A level of cost predictability;• The range in costs for the project type;• The Most Important Factors used for calculating costs for the project type;• A Calculating Costs table used to estimate cost ranges for projects with different

characteristics;• Other Important Factors used to fine-tune costs within estimated ranges;• An example project to illustrate how the model is used;• Sample restoration and land acquisition projects from around Puget Sound; and• Sources for further information.

3. The last step is to combine the costs within each category with the costs of projects in othercategories to get the overall cost of the proposed plan.

HOW NOT TO USE THE PRIMER:The primer should not be used to calculate costs for individual projects, as a substitute forother costing methods such as estimates by engineers or land appraisers, or to determine thefeasibility of projects. The primer is not intended to evaluate the appropriateness or feasibilityof restoration actions.

2 Introduction

ON FINE-TUNING AND COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW THE RANGES:The tables in each chapter address the likely cost ranges for average project conditions. Fine-tuning factors can be used to determine whether the project in question is at the high or lowend of the cost range. The “costs above or below range” information addresses projects thathave costs that are so high or low that they should not be predicted using the methods de-scribed in the primer.

ON PRECISION AND ACCURACY:A few types of habitat projects, like riparian planting and fencing projects, have been in wideuse for years and have few variables that affect costs. These conditions result in greater pre-dictability and precision in estimating costs. Other types, such as major floodplain and estuaryrestoration projects, are more experimental in nature and variable in characteristics, withcosts that are much more difficult to predict. To account for differences in precision, theprimer indicates the level of predictability for each category. Pay attention to this, and treatthe results accordingly.

Because of the variability in the precision of the estimates and the inherent difficulty of gener-alizing about the costs of widely differing projects, there are bound to be cases where the costestimates appear to be slightly off or even entirely wrong. Please keep track of these and letthe authors know about them so that the next version of the primer is more accurate.

Thank you.

Dennis Canty, PresidentNeelima Shah, Project ManagerHelena Wiley, Researcher and Writer

Kim Engie, Researcher and WriterEVERGREEN FUNDING CONSULTANTS

3Introduction

Land Acquisition

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:One of the most effective ways to protect highquality habitat is to purchase it. Land acquisi-tion is a widely used tool for salmon conserva-tion. In addition, acquisition is often the first stepin major restoration projects used to secure theland for future improvements. Acquisition includesthe outright purchase of property, known as fee-simple acquisition, and the purchase of specific rightsto the property through a conservation easement. A costestimating tool for conservation easements is included atthe end of this section.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Fair to Good. There is wide agreement among experts on the importance of development po-tential and the “highest and best use” of land in defining value. Rural land in large parcels isthought to be much more predictable than small urban and suburban lots that vary widely incost.

COST RANGE:Costs are given per acre. All the cost ranges in this section include appraisal, closing, commis-sion, surveying, legal, and project management costs. Use the steps in this section to calculatean estimated cost in the following range. COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Highly sought aftershoreline properties with lot sizes less than 1/2 an acre; timber value; parcels with functioningbuildings (those likely to have an appreciable value).

Timber Value The value of timber has a significant impact on the cost of land parcels. However, timber values are unpredictable andvary based on many site-specific factors. The value of timber on land parcels should be costed on a site-specific basis.

Agriculture Rural Urban

Forest Suburban

$700/acre $1,200,000/acre

4 Land Acquistition

A. MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Even though most parcels purchasedfor habitat conservation will never bedeveloped, the cost of prospectiveacquisitions will be determined firstand foremost by their potential fordevelopment. Parcels available forresidential and commercial use areworth substantially more than thosethat have development restricted dueto zoning or other regulations. Evenamong parcels that are available forresidential and commercial use, thereare substantial differences in the costof land acquisition due to the inten-sity of use, with urban lots worthsubstantially more than rural residen-tial parcels. Zoning is the simplestindicator of development potentialand has a substantial impact on thecost of acquisition.

For other factors impacting the cost of parcels with medium-high development potential, go to Step B.For factors impacting the cost of parcels with low development potential, skip to Step C.

AMENITY VALUE

LOW HIGH VERY HIGHMEDIUM

Exception: Industrial estuaries with riverfront or marine access havemedium amenity values because industrial use decreases the value.

IMPACT OF ZONING ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Acr

e

FOREST AGRICULTURE RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN

LOW DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

Lake

Ocean

Ocean

5Land Acquisition

Stream

River

B. PARCELS WITH MEDIUM-HIGHDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

B1. OTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR:AMENITY VALUEAmong developable parcels, water-front property commands a premiumin the marketplace. The extent of thatpremium is based on amenity value,with parcels bordering a small creekhaving a smaller premium than thoseon attractive lakes or Puget Soundshorelines. At the extreme are lots onhighly sought-after shorelines likeLake Washington or San Juan Islandswaterfront, many of which are sovaluable and highly variable in costthat they are not estimated in thisprimer.

MED-HIGH DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

Low

High

B2. CALCULATING COST FOR PARCELS WITH MEDIUM-HIGH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL:Use the following table to calculate a cost range based on the amenity value and the zoning.

COST OF PARCELS: MEDIUM-HIGH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ($/acre)

LOWAMENITY VALUE

MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

RURALRESIDENTIAL

SUBURBANRESIDENTIAL

URBANZO

NI

NG $5,000-$35,000 $24,000-$60,000 $60,000-$300,000 $300,000-$1,200,000

$60,000-$120,000 $120,000-$240,000 $300,000-$600,000 Unpredictable

$300,000-$600,000 $600,000-$1,200,000 Unpredictable Unpredictable

NOTE: Know of a project that does not fit these ranges? Please contact the authors with examples to improve future updates of the primer.

B3. FINE TUNING COSTS FOR MEDIUM-HIGH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PARCELS: LEVEL OFIMPROVEMENTS, PROXIMITY TO URBAN AREAS, AND SENSITIVE AREAS

Use the fine-tuning factors below to narrow the estimated cost range from the table above. Fine-tuningfactors will push the cost up or down within the range determined above. The fine-tuning graphs can beused in combination: for example, if one indicates a high cost in the range and another indicates a low cost,estimate a cost that fits in the middle of the range.

LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENTS/ACCESSThe level of improvements on aparcel will have a substantialimpact on cost. Parcels with goodroad access and all utilities in placewill be worth more than unim-proved parcels with difficult access.

PROXIMITY TO URBAN AREASFor rural residential parcels,proximity to the Tacoma/Seattle/Bellevue/Everett urban growthareas can have a major impact onvalue (see www.ocd.wa.gov/info/lgd/growth/maps/map_uga.tpl).Costs will be at the high end ofthe range for parcels within 10miles of a metropolitan area, inthe middle of the range for par-cels 11-30 miles away, and at thelow end of the range for parcelsmore than 30 miles from a metro-politan area.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMUM MAXIMUMMODERATE

IMPACT OF LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT/ACCESS ON COSTS

6 Land Acquistition

Low

High

SENSITIVE AREASThe presence of sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains, or steep slopes will generallylower the value of a parcel due to the restriction these areas place on development potential.Where sensitive areas decrease the number of houses allowed on a parcel or make access andutility service very difficult, they can substantially reduce the value of the affected parcels.Parcels with minimal sensitive area coverage will cost more than parcels with substantialsensitive areas. For costing purposes, parcels with minimal sensitive areas (able to achieve atleast 80% of the zoned density with simple access and utility service) will be at the high end ofthe range, those moderately affected by sensitive areas (able to achieve 50-80% of zoned den-sity and/or with complicated access and utility service) will be in the middle of the range, andthose with substantial sensitive areas (able to achieve less than 50% of the zoned density orwith very difficult access or utility service) will be at the low end of the range.

C. PARCELS WITH LOW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALC1. IMPORTANT FACTOR: PROXIMITY TO URBAN AREA

As with rural residential properties, agricultural and forest parcels vary in costs substantiallybased on their proximity to the Tacoma/Seattle/Bellevue/Everett urban growth area.

C2. CALCULATING COSTS FOR PARCELS WITH LOW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALUse the following table to calculate a cost range per acre based on the distance from an urban area and zoning.

COST OF UNDEVELOPABLE LAND ($/acre)

FORESTZONING

AGRICULTURALFAR41+ MILESMEDIUM21-40 MILESNEAR0-20 MILESPR

OXIM

ITY

TOU

RB

AN

A

REA

$700-$1,800 $1,800-$2,400

$1,800-$2,400 $2,400-$3,600

$2,400-$4,800

NOTE: Know of a project that doesnot fit these ranges? Please contactthe authors with examples toimprove future updates of theprimer.

7Land Acquisition

$3,600-$4,800

C3. FINE TUNING FOR LOWDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PARCELS:

PARCEL SIZEUse the fine-tuning factor below tonarrow the estimated cost range fromthe table above. The fine-tuning factorwill push the cost up or down withinthe range determined above.

As the graph indicates, the per-acre cost of agricultural andforest land decreases dramati-cally with increasing parcel sizes.It may even be necessary, withparcels greater than 100 acres, toreduce the per-acre cost belowthe minimum in the appropriaterange to reflect this substantialeconomy of scale.

LARGE(>100 acres)

Cost

Per

Acr

e

IMPACT OF PARCEL SIZE ON COSTS

MEDIUM(20-100 acres)

SMALL(<20 acres)

Low

High

CONSERVATION EASEMENTSSAMPLE PROJECTSfrom around Puget Sound

SKAGITCONSERVATION DISTRICTJohnson AcquisitionProject involves the acquisitionof 46 acres of stream front andfloodplain land. The current useof the property includes cattleand lumber production. Theproperty is 40 miles outside ofEverett.Acquisition Cost: $115,200($2,500/acre)

JAMESTOWNS’KLALLAM TRIBEJimmycomelatelyAcquisitionProject involves the acquisitionof 5.7 acres of rural streamfront property outside of PortAngeles. Property is beingacquired in order to relocatestream to its natural historicfloodplain.Acquisition Cost: $157,000($27,543/acre)

TULALIP TRIBEQwuloolt EstuaryProject involves acquisition of34 acres of suburban streamfront property in the City ofMarysville. The property,bisected by Allen’s Creek in theQwuloolt Estuary, is a criticalpiece in restoring an intertidalestuary. The site is accessibleby a paved road.Acquisition Cost: $2,200,000($64,700/acre)

KING COUNTYDNR AND PARKSSite 1 DuwamishProject involves the acquisitionof 3.2 acres of urban land inDuwamish River Estuary. Thisindustrial estuary located in thecity of Seattle has been usedfor heavy industrial develop-ment, including concrete, glass,steel, and lumber factories.Acquisition Cost: $1,726,000($539,375/acre)

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS FOR MEDIUM-HIGH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALPARCELS:

For medium-high development potential parcels, the majority ofland value is associated with the development potential of theparcel. Conservation easements tend to reduce the developmentpotential within the area of the easement. In cases where an ease-ment is purchased on part of a larger parcel, it may even decreasethe development potential of the remaining unencumbered portionof the parcel. The cost of a conservation easement is usually di-rectly proportional to the development rights purchased with theeasement. Easements that have little impact on developmentpotential often have low costs and those with major impacts cancost nearly as much as a fee simple purchase. Put another way,

The cost of an easement equals the fee simple value of the propertytimes the percentage of development rights purchased.*

*In cases where the easement is for a portion of a lot, the percent-age of development rights purchased should be calculated for thelot as a whole.

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON LOW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PARCELSOn parcels with low development potential, the cost of a conserva-tion easement is based primarily on the rights to farming andtimber. Since the primer does not include a cost estimate for tim-ber rights, the cost of conservation easements on low developmentpotential parcels cannot be estimated using this tool.

8 Land Acquistition

COST OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTSFe

e Si

mpl

e Co

st P

er A

cre

20%

80%

Development Rights Purchased20% 80%

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan prioritizes acquisition of 2 parcels of land, 60 acres of forest and 80 acres offarmland along a mainstem river in Whatcom County.

Development Potential: Low (forest and agricultural)Proximity to Urban Area: FarCost Range: $700-$1,800/acre (forest) and $1,800-$2,400 (agricultural)Parcel Size: MediumAdjusted Cost Range: $1,000-$1,500/acre (forest) and $2,000-$2,200/acre (agricultural)Watershed Cost: $60,000-$90,000 (forest) and $144,000-$176,000 (agricultural)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Washington Environmental Council http://www.wecprotects.org

Cascade Land Conservancy http://www.cascadeland.org

The San Juan Preservation Trust http://www.sjpt.org

The Nature Conservancy http://nature.org

Land Trust Alliance http://www.lta.org

9Land Acquisiton

Fencing

MATERIALS KEY:

SIMPLE = Barb or hog wire, no gates,few posts.

AVERAGE = Livestock fence, metal, woodcorners, few gates, moderate number of posts.

COMPLEX = Split rail, primarily wood, multiplegates, many posts.

A. MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR:MATERIALS

As illustrated in the graph andkey below, the cost of materials isthe most important factor indetermining the cost of fencingprojects.

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

IMPACT OF MATERIALS ON COSTS

SIMPLE AVERAGE COMPLEX

$3/lineal foot $12/lineal foot

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Fencing projects are commonly used to reducelivestock access to streams in agricultural areas.This chapter addresses projects in which fencingis the primary or only component. Fencing is afrequent element of other projects, but thoseprojects should be costed-out using the chapterspertaining to their predominant or most expensivefeatures.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Excellent. Fencing projects are common and experts generallyagree about the ranges in project costs and the factors that makeprojects more or less expensive.

COST RANGE:Costs range from $3 to $12 per lineal foot. All the cost ranges in this section include construc-tion, design, permitting, routine maintenance, reestablishing the site to prior conditions, andproject management costs. More general administrative, enforcement, and long-term mainte-nance costs are not included. Use the steps in this section to calculate an estimated cost in therange.

10 Fencing

Low

High

B. CALCULATING COSTSUse the table below to estimate the costs of a fencing project based on the type of materials used.

COST OF FENCING PROJECTS ($/lineal foot)NOTE: Know of a project that doesnot fit these ranges? Please contactthe authors with examples toimprove future updates of theprimer.

C. FINE TUNING: SITE PREPARATION AND LABORUse the fine-tuning factors below to narrow the estimated cost range from the table above. Fine-tuningfactors will push the cost up or down within the range determined above. The fine-tuning graphs can beused in combination: for example, if one indicates a high cost in the range and another indicates a low cost,estimate a cost that fits in the middle of the range.

MATERIALS

$1-4

COST RANGE

SIMPLE

AVERAGE

COMPLEX

$5-8

$9-12

SITE PREPARATIONHigher site preparation costsresult from having to clear veg-etation from the fenceline andwork on sloping land. Costs onflat pastureland will tend to below.

IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

FLAT/LIGHT CLEARING

AVERAGE SLOPE/AVERAGE CLEARING

STEEP/HEAVY CLEARING

11Fencing

Low

High

LABORBecause fencing projects rely heavily on manual labor, the costs ofthe labor force are a crucial consideration in overall project costs.The graph below indicates the three tiers of labor costs: thoseassociated with volunteer labor, conservation corps crews, andagency or contracted crews, the most expensive alternative.

SAMPLE PROJECTSfrom around Puget Sound

SKAGITCONSERVATION DISTRICTWayne JohnsonRestorationProject includes 1,000 linearfeet of barbwire fencing with Htreated wooden posts. The areais currently used for lumber andcattle production.Project Cost: $3,000($3/linear foot)

COWLITZ COUNTYAbernathy CreekRiparian RestorationProject includes 5,000 linearfeet of wire fence and posts.Fencing along the creek willreduce further livestockdisturbance.Project Cost: $7,500($1.50/linear foot)

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan identifies a need to install fencing along 3 different sections of a streamtotaling 6,000 feet. The fences for these projects are built with barbwire, have woodencorner posts, metal line posts, and no top rail. The sites are fairly straight and the fence hasonly a few posts and gates. The sites are on an open field and do not require much sitepreparation. The Washington Conservation Crew is hired to build the fences and equipmentis donated.

Materials: AverageCost Range: $5-$8/lineal footSite Preparation: Flat/Light ClearingAdjusted Matrix Cost Range: $5-$7/lineal footLabor: Conservation CrewAdjusted Matrix Cost: $6/lineal footWatershed Cost (6,000 feet): $18,000

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Washington State University Cooperative Extension http://wawater.wsu.edu

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife http://www.wa.gov/wdfw

Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition http://www.wildliferecreation.org

Earthcorps http://www.earthcorps.org/home/default.asp

IMPACT OF LABOR ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

VOLUNTEER CONSERVATION CREW CONTRACTED

12 Fencing

Low

High

Riparian Planting

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:One of the most common habitat problems in thePuget Sound basin is the loss of the streamsideand nearshore forests that bordered most rivers,streams, and coastlines before the settlement ofthis region. In response, many agencies and com-munity groups have sponsored projects to planttrees and shrubs in upland riparian areas. Thischapter addresses the costs of freestanding plantingprojects. Planting as a component of other restorationactivities is included in the cost ranges for those projectsin other sections of this primer.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Very Good to Excellent. Riparian planting projects are common and relatively simple. Expertsgenerally agree about the ranges in project costs and the factors that make projects more orless expensive.

COST RANGE:Riparian planting project costs range from $5,000 to $135,000 per acre. All the cost ranges inthis section include construction, design, permitting, basic monitoring (2 years), routine main-tenance (2 years), reestablishing the site to prior conditions, and project management coststhat are normally associated with implementing a capital project. More general administrative,enforcement, and long-term maintenance costs are not included. Use the steps in this section tocalculate an estimated cost in the range. COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Above: Urban “landscap-ing” projects requiring mature trees and shrubs and intensive maintenance; Below: Seeding orhydro-seeding with native plant mix.

$5,000/acre $135,000/acre

ESTIMATING ACREAGE

1 mile x 50 foot buffer = 6 acres (100% planted)1 mile x 50 foot buffer = 1.8 acres (30% planted)

1 mile x 150 foot buffer = 18.2 acres (100% planted)1 mile x 150 foot buffer = 5.5 acres (30% planted)

For planting along streams, double the acreage when both sides of the stream are planted.

13Riparian Planting

A. MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS: SITE ACCESSIBILITY, MATERIALS AND SITE PREPARATION

Cost

Per

Acr

e

EASY

IMPACT OF SITE ACCESSIBILITY ON COSTSSITE ACCESSIBILITYMany planting sites are far fromroads, and getting materials andplanting crews to the site can addsubstantially to costs. After theplanting project, poor access canalso greatly increase the costs ofmaintenance. The graph illus-trates the effect of accessibilityon costs.

MODERATE DIFFICULT

MATERIALSMaterials for planting projectsoften come from the same com-mercial firms that supply plantsfor residential landscaping, andcosts can vary greatly with thesize and maturity of plants, theuse of mulch and weedblockmaterials, and, after installation,the materials used to replant. Itis also quite common for somematerials to be donated or sal-vaged from construction sites,resulting in a substantial savingsin total project costs.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL


MODERATE SUBSTANTIAL

14 Riparian Planting

Low

High

Low

High

123456789012341234567890123412345678901234123456789012341234567890123412345678901234123456789012341234567890123412345678901234123456789012341234567890123412345678901234123456789012341234567890123412345678901234

1234567890123456789123456789012345678912345678901234567891234567890123456789123456789012345678912345678901234567891234567890123456789123456789012345678912345678901234567891234567890123456789

123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678901234567890121234

123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234123456789012345678901234567890121234

SITE PREPARATIONMany planting projects requireclearing and grading work toprepare the site for planting. Inthe most costly scenario, thepresence of invasive species suchas blackberry, knotweed, andreed canary grass in steep gradi-ent areas can result in totalproject costs that are double ortriple those of projects on mini-mal gradient sites without inva-sive species.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

FLAT/LIGHT CLEARING



IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION ON COSTS

B. CALCULATING COSTS FOR RIPARIAN PLANTING PROJECTS:First, use the following table to estimate the influence of materials and site accessibility on the cost ofriparian planting projects.

EASYEasily accessible by

vehicle, water sourceavailable

SITE ACCESSIBILITY

MINIMAL: Bare Roots; Weed block:mulch, cardboard or none; Mostmaterials donated.

MA

TE

RI

AL

S Low Cost

Low CostMODERATE: 1-5 gallon size plants;Weed block: landscape fabric, mulch;Combination of donated & purchasedmaterials.

SUBSTANTIAL: 5 gallon and greatersize plants; Weed block: landscapefabric and mulch; Majority of materialspurchased.

MODERATESite partially

accessible by vehicle

DIFFICULTVery limited access,no vehicle access

IMPACT OF SITE ACCESSIBILITY AND MATERIALS ON COSTS

15Riparian Planting

Medium Cost Medium Cost

Medium Cost High Cost

Medium Cost Medium Cost High Cost

12345678901234567890123123456789012345678901231234567890123456789012312345678901234567890123123456789012345678901231234567890123456789012312345678901234567890123

123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121123456789012345678901234567890121

Next, use the following table to identify a cost range based on site accessibility and materials (low, medium,high cost) established in the previous step and the level of site preparation shown below.

FLAT/LIGHT CLEARING

LEVEL OF SITE PREPARATION

LOW COST

MAT

ERIA

LS/S

ITE

ACC

ESSI

BIL

ITY

$5,000-$25,000 $20,000-$50,000 $60,000-$100,000

$10,000-$35,000 $45,000-$65,000 $70,000-$120,000

$30,000-$50,000 $55,000-$80,000 $100,000-$135,000

MEDIUM COST

HIGH COST



COST OF RIPARIAN PLANTING PROJECTS ($/acre)

NOTE: Know of a project that does not fit these ranges? Please contact the authors with examples to improve future updatesof the primer.

C. FINE TUNING COSTS ON PLANTING PROJECTS: LABOR, DESIGN/PERMITS, ANDMAINTENANCE


LABORBeing among the simplest resto-ration projects, planting projectslend themselves to less skilledlabor, including the use of volun-teers and conservation corpscrews. Because planting requiresa great deal of manual work, useof these labor sources can dra-matically decrease the cost of aproject. The graph indicates thedifference in costs amongprojects done by volunteers, byconservation corps crews, and byagency staff or contractors - themost expensive option.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

VOLUNTEER


CC CONTRACTED


Low

High

DESIGN/PERMITTINGOccasionally, riparian plantingprojects will need detailed plant-ing plans for permitting or fund-ing proposals. The addition ofprofessional fees or staff costs todevelop planting plans can sub-stantially increase overall projectcosts.

MAINTENANCEAll the cost ranges in this sectioninclude 2 years of maintenance(some replacement of plants andperiodic weeding and watering).Maintenance costs will vary withgreater frequency of mainte-nance, lower plant survival, andthe level of difficulty in gettingwater to the planting site. Longerterm maintenance will probablybe needed, but costs vary widelyand are therefore not predicted.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

SIMPLE

IMPACT OF DESIGN/PERMITTING ON COSTS

AVERAGE COMPLEX

Cost

Per

Acr

e

<2 days per yearEASY

IMPACT OF MAINTENANCE ON COSTS

2-4 days per year AVERAGE

>4 days per year DIFFICULT

17Riparian Planting

Low

High

Low

High


ASOTIN CONSERVATIONDISTRICTAsotin Creek RiparianTree PropagationThe goal of this project is toreduce water temperature in theAsotin Creek Watershed over thenext 10 years. Project involvesplanting of conifers on 10-footcenters and riparian trees on 6-foot centers.Project Cost: $29,900/acre

SOUTH PARK HABITATFOR HUMANITYWETLANDSThe project involves restorationof wetlands in an industrial areainvolving heavy clearing andsmall, low cost materials.Project Cost: $100,000/acre

COUGAR MOUNTAINCONIFERUNDERPLANTINGThe project involves planting ofbare root conifers with minimalinvasive removal and sitepreparation, and easy siteaccessibility.Project Cost: $6,000/acre

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan identifies a need for riparian planting on 4different streams totaling 6 acres of stream bank. Each projectrequires removing extensive amounts of reed canary grass andblackberries on a steep gradient, requiring a significant amount ofhandwork. The site is inaccessible by tractor. Bare root conifersare used - some donated and some purchased. Most of the work isdone by the Washington Conservation Crew. There are minimalpermit requirements and simple planting plans are used. Mainte-nance occurs 2-3 times per year.

Site Accessibility: DifficultMaterials: MinimalSite Preparation: Steep/Heavy ClearingCost Range: $70,000-$120,000/acreLabor: Conservation CrewDesign/Permitting: SimpleMaintenance: AverageAdjusted Cost Range: $90,000/acreWatershed Cost (6 acres): $540,000

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Washington State University Cooperative Extension http://wawater.wsu.edu


Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalitionhttp://www.wildliferecreation.org

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team http://www.wa.gov/pswqat

Washington Native Plant Society http://www.wnps.org

Earthcorps http://www.earthcorps.org


Culvert Improvements

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:One of the most common types of restorationprojects is the replacement of culverts. Culvertsare used to allow streams to pass under road-ways. Many culverts on Puget Sound streamswere installed decades ago when lowerstreamflows and less concern about fish passageled to the use of smaller culverts than are the cur-rent standard. Additionally, many culverts havecaused stream erosion at their downstream ends,resulting in them being perched above the current stream-bed. These small culverts impede upstream and downstreamsalmon migration and restrict salmon use in otherwise promisinghabitat areas. The typical culvert project replaces the undersized culvertwith a culvert of larger diameter and rebuilds the road segment over the culvert. Dependingon the complexity of the project, upstream and downstream channel habitat may need to berestored, and traffic may need to be routed around the culvert during construction.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Very Good to Excellent. Experts generally agree about the main cost factors that make culvertimprovement projects more or less expensive, and there are many examples of culvert replace-ment projects on which to base cost estimates.

COST RANGE:Costs are given for total projects. All the cost ranges in this section include construction,design, permitting, basic monitoring (2 years), routine maintenance (2 years), reestablishingthe site to prior conditions, and project management costs that are normally associated withimplementing a capital project. More general administrative, enforcement, and long-termmaintenance costs are not included. Use the steps in this section to calculate an estimated costin the following range. COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Above: Projects on Interstate highwaysin metropolitan areas. Below: Removals without any replacement on roads to be decommis-sioned.

$15,000 $100,000 $200,000

Forest Road

Minor 2 Lane

Major 2 Lane

Highway (4+ Lane)

$800,000

19Culvert Improvements

A. MOST IMPORTANT COST FACTORS: TYPE OF ROAD AND SIZE OF WATERWAY

TYPE OF ROADLarger roads require larger andmore substantial culverts. De-sign, engineering, and permit-ting costs also tend to be greaterwith culvert projects on high-ways and major arterials. Thegraphic illustrates the effect ofroad type on total culvert projectcosts.

IMPACT OF ROAD TYPE ON COSTS

Proj

ect

Cost

FOREST MINOR 2 LANE HIGHWAY 4+ LANEMAJOR 2 LANE

$15,000$50,000

$100,000

$200,000

SIZE OF WATERWAYThe second crucial factor inestimating the costs of culvertprojects is the size of the water-way. Larger rivers and streamsrequire bigger culverts, and theirgreater power drives higherengineering, design, construc-tion, and permitting costs. Forpurposes of this primer, water-way size is determined by thewidth of the channel downstreamof the culvert at the high watermark.

IMPACT OF SIZE OF WATERWAY ON COSTS

Proj

ect

Cost

SMALL MEDIUM LARGE

20 Culvert Improvements

Low

High

Low

High

B. CALCULATING COSTS:Use the following table to calculate a cost range for culvert improvement projects based on the road typeand size of waterway.

FOREST ROADROAD TYPE

MINOR 2 LANE MAJOR 2 LANE HWY 4+ LANES

SMALL: Tributary0-10 feet wide

MEDIUM:Tributary 10-20feet wide

LARGE: Tributaryor small mainstem20-30 feet wide

SIZE

OF

WAT

ERW

AY

$15,000-$40,000 $50,000-$100,000 $100,000-$200,000 $200,000-$350,000

$50,000-$100,000 $140,000-$240,000 $200,000-$350,000 $300,000-$450,000

$80,000-$150,000 $180,000-$280,000 $250,000-$450,000 $600,000-$800,000

COST OF CULVERT REPLACEMENTS ($/project)


BRIDGES: In general, bridges are used to remedy fish passage barriers on streams over 20 feet wide. In cases where projectcost estimates for bridges are already available, they should be used. When these estimates are not available, double ortriple the cost of a culvert replacement to estimate the cost of a bridge.

C. FINE TUNING COSTS FOR CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS: FILL HEIGHTUse the fine-tuning factor below to narrow the estimated cost range from the table above. The fine-tuningfactor will push the cost up or down within the range determined above.

FILL HEIGHTFill height refers to the distancebetween the culvert and the road.Where the culvert is well belowthe road, total project costs canincrease significantly with theextent of fill to be removed andreplaced. Larger culverts areneeded to support greateramounts of fill. For the purposesof fine-tuning, fill height lessthan five feet will push costs tothe low end of the range; projectswith fill height greater than tenfeet will have costs in the highend of the range.

IMPACT OF FILL HEIGHT ON COSTS

Proj

ect

Cost

<5 FEET 5-10 FEET >10 FEET

21Culvert Improvements

Low

High

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan identifies 4 undersized culverts that need re-placement. They are on similar sized creeks that are between 10and 20 feet wide. The creeks run perpendicular to US 101, cross-ing at four different points. The streambeds are all far below theroad, and replacements will require extensive excavation. Sincethe culverts are on a major highway, traffic diversion and safetyare important concerns.

Size of Waterway: MediumRoad Type: HighwayCost Range: $300,000-$450,000Fill Height: >10 feetAdjusted Cost Range: $450,000Watershed Cost (4 culvert replacements): $1,800,000

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Washington State Department of Transportation http://www.wsdot.wa.gov

Washington State University Cooperative Extension http://wawater.wsu.edu


Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team http://www.wa.gov/pswqat/index.htm


CITY OF KENNEWICKLower Amon CreekCulvert ReplacementThe goal of the project is toimprove fish passage byreplacing two 30-inch culvertswith a 6-foot bottomless pipearch. The culvert is located onthe Lower Amon Creek, atributary 15-feet wide on aforest maintenance road.Project Cost: $80,000

KITSAP COUNTY PUBLICWORKSOlalla Valley RoadTributary to Olalla CreekProject involves replacing aculvert under Olalla Valley Road,a major 2-lane rural county roadwith heavy traffic. The culvert ison Olalla Creek, a tributary witha stream width of 15-feet.Project Cost: $350,000

QUINAULT INDIANNATIONSouth Fork Salmon RiverCulvertProject involves replacement ofa 72-inch culvert located on aforest service road that providesaccess to the Quinault IndianNation. The culvert is on a 30-foot wide tributary to theMainfork Salmon River.Estimated Project Cost:$148,000

KITSAP COUNTYBarker Creek Culvert(Barker Creek Road)Project involves replacement ofan undersized culvert on BarkerCreek Road, a minor 2 laneresidential access road. Theculvert will be replaced with a3-sided concrete box culvert onBarker Creek, a tributary 14-feet wide.Project Cost: $201,900

22 Culvert Improvements

Engineered Log Jams /Large Woody Debris

$1,000/stream mile

lWD

$80,000/structureELJs

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:A common technique used in habitat restora-tion is the placement of trees and stumpsinto a stream to create pools and refuge areasfor salmon and other fish and wildlife species.This technique replicates the natural process ofstreamside trees falling into the stream or river. Woodplacement projects are divided between Large Woody Debris (LWD) projects, which tend to besmaller in size and on smaller streams, and Engineered Log Jams (ELJs) that tend to be big-ger, more heavily engineered, and on larger rivers.

The techniques presented in this chapter are for projects that use wood to enhance instreamhabitat. Those that use trees and stumps to reinforce streambanks from erosion should becosted using the Streambank Improvement chapter.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Good to Very Good. Experts generally agree about the main factors that make these projectsmore or less expensive. Predictability of total costs would be improved with more consistencyin reporting of costs.

COST RANGE:Costs are given per stream mile for smaller projects and per structure for larger projects. Allthe cost ranges in this section include construction, design, permitting, basic monitoring (2years), routine maintenance (2 years), reestablishing the site to prior conditions, and projectmanagement costs that are normally associated with implementing a capital project. Moregeneral administrative, enforcement, and long-term maintenance costs are not included. Usethe steps in this section to calculate an estimated cost in the following range. COSTS ABOVE ORBELOW RANGE: Above: Extremely challenging permitting. Below: Onsite or donated materials,placement by volunteers, non-populated reach.

23Engineered Log Jams/Large Woody Debris

Proj

ect

Cost

SMALL


MEDIUM LARGE

Proj

ect

Cost

SMALL

IMPACT OF MATERIAL SIZE ON COSTS

MEDIUM LARGE

A. MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR:SIZE OF WATERWAY

All of the costs of wood placementprojects – design, materials,permitting, and labor – tend toincrease in direct proportion tostream size. While there arequalifying factors, projects onlarge mainstem rivers tend to bemuch more expensive than thoseon small tributaries.

B. OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS:MATERIALS AND TRANSPORTATIONCOSTS

MATERIALSThe trees, stumps, and othermaterials used in these projectsvary greatly in size, and largermaterials are substantially moreexpensive. It is assumed in thismodel that all materials arepurchased.

Size ofWaterway

Small

Mean AnnualFlow in CFS

at SiteExample

1-100 CFS Clover Creek,Pierce County

South ForkNooksack River,Whatcom County

Medium 100-2,000 CFS

Large 2,000+ CFS Green River,King County

Find mean annual flows for waterways in Washington State athttp://www.usgs.gov/

24 Engineered Log Jams/Large Woody Debris

ELJ

LWD

Low

High

Low

High

123456789012312345678901231234567890123123456789012312345678901231234567890123

123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678

12345678901231234567890123123456789012312345678901231234567890123123456789012312345678901231234567890123

12345678901234123456789012341234567890123412345678901234

123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678

TRANSPORTATIONTransportation costs are also asubstantial cost of wood place-ment projects. Transportationcosts vary based on site accessi-bility and the distance to thematerials source. Easy roadaccess and a local source of mate-rials (0-7 miles away) will resultin a less expensive project, whilesites with distant materialsources (20+ miles) and difficultsite access will have high costs.

Proj

ect

Cost

EASY/NEAR

IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION ON COSTS

AVERAGE ACCESS/AVERAGE DISTANCE

DIFFICULT/FAR

C. CALCULATING COSTS:First, use the following table to estimate the influence of material size and transportation on the cost ofwood placement projects.

Next, use the following table to identify a cost range based on the materials/transportation costs estab-lished in the previous step (low, medium, high cost) and the size of the waterway shown below. Note thatthe smaller projects (generally LWD) are estimated by stream mile and larger ones (generally ELJs) bystructure.

12345678901234567891234567890123456789123456789012345678912345678901234567891234567890123456789

EASY/NEAR0-7 mile

TRANSPORTATION

SMALL: (0-12") diameter

MA

TE

RIA

LS

Low CostLow CostMEDIUM: (13-24") diameter

LARGE: (25-36") diameter


7-20 mile

DIFFICULT/FAR20+ mile,

*Ranges given by per stream mile (assuming 100-400 pieces per stream mile.) All other cells ranges given per structure.All costs ranges assume purchased material.

LOW COST

TRANSPORTATION & MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

SMALL: 1-100 $10,000-$30,000* $20,000-$50,000* $20,000-$40,000$20,000-$50,000* $15,000-$45,000 $40,000-$70,000$10,000-$20,000 $40,000-$60,000 $60,000-$80,000

HIGH COST

COST OF ELJs AND LWD ($/stream mile or $/structure)


STRE

AM

SIZ

E(C

FS)

Medium Cost

Medium CostMedium Cost

High Cost High CostHigh CostHigh Cost

MEDIUM: 100-2,000

LARGE: 2,000+

MEDIUM COST

Low

High

E. FINE-TUNING COSTS FOR WOOD PROJECTS: RISK AND WOOD DENSITYUse the fine-tuning factors below to narrow the estimated cost range from the table above. Fine-tuning factors willpush the cost up or down within the range determined above. The fine-tuning graphs can be used in combination: forexample, if one indicates a high cost in the range and another indicates a low cost, estimate a cost that fits in themiddle of the range.

RISKLogs and stumps placed instreams can create hazards bytrapping floaters and boaters,jamming downstream culverts,and changing channel and flood-plain characteristics resulting inpotential flooding and erosionthreats. All of these issues can beovercome by careful design andengineering but at additionalcost. Costs will tend to be highestin heavily used rivers and thosebordered by rural and suburbancommunities, and lowest insmaller, more remote streams.

MINIMAL RISK

PROJECT COST

MODERATE RISK SUBSTANTIAL RISK

MINIMUM DENSITY

PROJECT COST

AVERAGE DENSITY MAXIMUM DENSITY

WOOD DENSITYThese projects also vary a greatdeal by the number of trees andstumps used or wood density.Average wood density is 200-300pieces per mile or 50-80 piecesper structure. Projects with lowerthan average wood density willhave costs in the low end of therange; higher than average wooddensity will have high end costs.

26 Engineered Log Jams/Large Woody Debris

HighLow

HighLow

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan recommends three engineered logjams to ad-dress the lack of structural complexity in a major tributary(800cfs). Each jam consists of roughly 60 pieces of wood. Woodpieces range in size from 18-24 inches in diameter and access tothe river is limited in some areas by forested terrain. The materialssource is within a few miles. The projects are in a sparsely popu-lated rural area and there is little river use.

Waterway Size: MediumMaterials: MediumTransportation Costs: Average Access/Average DistanceCost Range: $15,000-$45,000 per structureRisk: MinimalWood Density: AverageAdjusted Cost Range: $20,000-$30,000 per structureWatershed Cost (3 projects): $60,000-$90,000␣

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:US Forest Service http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/RRR/index.shtml

Snohomish County Public Workshttp://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/publicwk/swm/reports/salmonwatch/salmon1.pdf

University of Washington, Center for Streamside Studieshttp://depts.washington.edu/cssuw/Publications/FactSheets/elwdc.pdf



WASHINGTON TROUTNorth ForkStillaguamish RiverProject involves implementationof Phase II of the North ForkStillaguamish EngineeredLogjam Project and placementof 3 engineered logjams.Project Cost: $202,510($67,503/structure)

LOWER ELWHAKLALLAM TRIBEElwha RiverEngineered LogjamsProject involves restoration ofthe river’s most importantremaining spawning & rearingsite for salmon throughplacement of 300 pieces ofwood for 5 structures at thehead of the Elwha River.Project Cost: $180,961($36,192/structure)

UMATILLACONFEDERATED TRIBELarge Woody DebrisPlacement in South ForkTouchet RiverProject involves the placementof whole trees with rootwadsand large woody debris in 7miles of the South Fork TouchetRiver to increase floodplainstabilization and number ofpools.Project Cost: $269,000($38,571/stream mile)


Streambank Improvements

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:In their natural condition, rivers tend to move across their flood-plains, cutting new banks and channels. With the settlement of thisregion and farming and development in the floodplains, many chan-nels have been reinforced with rock banks to prevent erosion. Thispractice stabilizes the streambank but reduces or eliminatesstreamside vegetation that provides essential fish and wildlifehabitat. In order to restore the habitat values of modifiedstreambanks, many agencies are replacing rock leveeswith streambank restoration projects that incorpo-rate trees, logs, shrubs, and other natural materi-als. Often these projects are undertaken be-cause the previous erosion control method hasfailed.

This chapter addresses the cost of streambank improvements. Work to place logs and stumpsin the river to promote channel diversity is covered in the chapter on Large Woody Debris andEngineered Log Jams. Projects that include reconnection of river elements through the set-back of levees are included in the Floodplain Restoration section. Projects that consist ofplanting only should be costed using the Riparian Planting chapter.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Good. Streambank improvement projects are fairly common in the Puget Sound area. The widevariability in materials used, site characteristics, and design options results in some difficul-ties in predicting costs.

COST RANGE:Costs range from $30-1,000 per lineal foot of streambank. All the cost ranges include construc-tion, design, permitting, basic monitoring (2 years), routine maintenance (2 years), reestab-lishing the site to prior conditions, and project management costs that are normally associatedwith implementing a capital project. More general administrative, enforcement, and long-termmaintenance costs are not included. Use the steps in this section to calculate an estimated costin the range. COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Above: Projects with a focus on erosion control forprotection of roads or other human infrastructure. Below: Volunteer labor in area above highwater mark.

$30/lineal foot $1,000/lineal foot

28 Streambank Improvements

A. MOST IMPORTANT COST FACTOR: SIZE OF WATERWAY

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

SMALL


MEDIUM LARGE

Size ofWaterway

Small

Mean AnnualFlow in CFS

at SiteExample

1-100 CFS Clover Creek,Pierce County

South ForkNooksack River,Whatcom County

Medium 100-2,000 CFS

Large 2,000+ CFS Green River,King County

Find mean annual flows for waterways in Washington State at http://www.usgs.gov/

B. OTHER IMPORTANT COST FACTOR: EXTENT OF EXCAVATION

Because these projects tend to beplaced on erosion-pronestreambanks, the erosive powerof the stream or river is a crucialissue. More powerful rivers willrequire larger and more stablematerials to anchor thestreambank and more compli-cated design and engineering.Use the following graph and tableto describe the size of river orstream where the projects will belocated.

In the simplest streambankprojects, the bank is intact andwill need minimal regradingbefore logs and stumps are placedand trees and shrubs planted.However, many streambankprojects require more substantialexcavation to remove existingriprap, relocate levees or revet-ments, or provide a streambankprofile that can accommodateplants and natural materials.Extensive excavation, meaningthe reconstruction of the entireslope, requires heavy equipment,better access, and a place tostockpile or dispose of materials,all of which can be costly. Thegraph illustrates the relationshipbetween degree of excavation andcost.

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

MINIMAL

IMPACT OF EXTENT OF EXCAVATION ON COSTS

MODERATE SUBSTANTIAL

29Streambank Improvements

Low

High

Low

High

C. CALCULATING COSTSUsing the information on the degree of excavation and size of waterway, estimate the cost ranges per linealfoot of streambank from the following chart.

COST OF STREAMBANK IMPROVEMENTS ($/lineal foot)

SMALLSIZE OF WATERWAY

MEDIUM

MINIMAL

MODERATE

SUBSTANTIAL

EXTE

NT O

FE

XC

AV

AT

ION

$30-$60 $60-$150

$60-$100 $150-$250

$100-$200 $250-$500


LARGE

$150-$400

$400-$700

$700-$1,000

D. FINE-TUNING COSTS FOR STREAMBANK IMPROVEMENTS: MATERIALS AND PERMITTINGUse the fine-tuning factors below to narrow the estimated cost range from the table above. Fine-tuningfactors will push the cost up or down within the range determined above. The fine-tuning graphs can beused in combination: for example, if one indicates a high cost in the range and another indicates a low cost,estimate a cost that fits in the middle of the range.

MATERIALSAs with planting and large woodydebris projects, the size of andtype of materials can have asubstantial impact on costs ofstreambank projects. At the highend are large logs (>24" in diam-eter), large root wads, large toerock, and larger plants (> 5gallon sizes), all of which arepurchased. The low end includessmaller and donated materials.

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

MINIMAL


SUBSTANTIAL


Low

High

PERMITTINGStreambank projects can be challenging to permit, particularly thelarger ones that involve substantial in-the-water excavation. Al-most all of these projects will require federal 404 and state HPApermits, and any wrinkle in the permitting process can have asubstantial impact on overall project costs. While permittingproblems may be hard to predict, projects on key salmon-bearingrivers, upstream of crucial roads or culverts, or where adjoiningproperty is developed are more likely to have higher permittingcosts. Risk due to erosion and flooding concerns can also increasepermitting costs.

IMPACT OF PERMITTING ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

SIMPLE AVERAGE COMPLEX

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan identifies a river reach needing bank enhance-ment. Priorities include two sections of bank, a 200' and a 500'stretch, along two similar tributaries to the main channel. Excava-tion costs will be high in both cases, because enhancements willinclude excavating rootwads into the bank to create habitat andreconstructing the entire slope. The permitting costs are high,because both tributaries adjoin residential areas with erosion con-cerns.

Size of Waterway: MediumExtent of Excavation: SubstantialCost Range: $250-$500 per lineal footMaterials: AveragePermitting: ComplexAdjusted Cost Range: $350-$500 per lineal footWatershed Cost (2 projects): $70,000-$100,000 (200') and $175,000-$250,000 (500')


NORTH OLYMPIC SALMONCOALITIONEast Fork ChimacumExtension1,300 feet of bank reconfiguredto add floodplain margin.Anchored logs added to bankand native plantings.Project Cost: $63,800($48/lineal foot)

KING COUNTYDNR & PARKSNarita Levee RepairOver-steepened levee regradedover 400 feet of the Green Riverbank to enhance bank stability.Flood bench created and sitereplanted.Project Cost: $150,539($376/lineal foot)

NORTH YAKIMACONSERVATION DISTRICTBuchanan RanchRestoration Project4,620 feet of bank at mouth ofWenas Creek running through acattle ranch. Fencing, re-meandering, and reconstructionto allow access to floodplain.Includes rootwads, rock vanes,and planting.Project Cost: $296,904($64/lineal foot)

KING COUNTYDNR & PARKSWhite Swan Levee RepairEntire bank including riprapexcavated out to create steps inslope. 7-layer geogrid systemused to stabilize bank of GreenRiver over 50 feet. Planting ofnative shrubs and trees.Project Cost: $48,580($970/lineal foot)

31Streambank Improvements

Low

High

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:King County’s guide to Bank Stabilization http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/biostabl

Robbin Sotir & Associates, Soil Engineering Consultants http://www.sotir.com


Washington State University Cooperative Extension http://wawater.wsu.edu


Nearshore Restoration

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Recent studies indicate that marine habitatalong the shores of Puget Sound is vital tosalmon and other fish and wildlife species.Because marine shorelines are so popularas homesites and have been used for awide range of industrial purposes, muchof this habitat has been lost or degraded.In response, many agencies and organiza-tions are proposing projects to removebulkheads, reconfigure beaches, and add naturalsediments, wood, and plants to recreate the historic nearshore characteristics.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Fair. The fact that few projects have been completed and they range widely in scale limits thepredictability of nearshore restoration work. As more nearshore projects are completed in theregion, practices and designs will become more predictable as will costs.

COST RANGE:Costs are given per lineal foot. All the cost ranges include construction, design, permitting,basic monitoring (2 years), routine maintenance (2 years), reestablishing the site to priorconditions, and project management costs that are normally associated with implementing acapital project. More general administrative, enforcement, and long-term maintenance costsare not included. Use the steps in this section to calculate an estimated cost in the followingrange. COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Above: No natural sediment source; Capping or removalof contaminated marine sediments; Highly urban area bulkhead removal with city infrastruc-ture. Below: Small planting projects using handwork.

$100/lineal foot $250/lineal foot $1,000/lineal foot $1,250/lineal foot

Enhancement

Minor Reconstruction

Major Reconstruction

33Nearshore Restoration

A. MOST IMPORTANT COST FACTOR: PROJECT COMPLEXITYNearshore restoration projects can be divided into three categories that differ in costs:

ENHANCEMENT: Characterized bythe addition of natural sedimentsor gravels and plants to a beachor subtidal area. Some equipmentuse, minimal grading work andskilled labor needs.

MINOR RECONSTRUCTION: Character-ized by the removal of smallbulkhead structures and somerecontouring of the beach com-bined with replanting. Additionof natural sediments, minimaluse of LWD and boulders, heavyequipment use, and skilled labor.

MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION: Character-ized by substantial reconstruc-tion of the beach with removal ofmajor bulkheads and fill. Replace-ment with natural materials(logs, rootwads, boulders, andplants), large amounts of heavyequipment, and skilled labor.

B. OTHER IMPORTANT COST FACTOR: TRANSPORT

Cost

Per

Lin

ear

Foot

ENHANCEMENT

IMPACT OF PROJECT COMPLEXITY ON COSTS

MINORRECONSTRUCTION

MAJORRECONSTRUCTION

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

EASY/NEAR

IMPACT OF TRANSPORT ON COSTS


FAR/DIFFICULT

The cost of nearshore projectswill depend on how far materialsneed to be carried to or from theproject site and how difficult thesite is to access from land orwater. For cost estimation,projects with disposal sites 0-7miles away and easy access forcrews and equipment will havelow transport costs. Projects thathave difficult access from thewater or roads or have longdistances to material sources ordisposal sites (20+ miles) willhave high costs.

34 Nearshore Restoration

Low

High

Low

High

C. CALCULATING COSTS: PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND TRANSPORT COSTSFind an approximate cost range in the matrix below based on the transport costs and the project complexity:

COST OF NEARSHORE RESTORATION ($/lineal foot)

EASY/NEAR

TRANSPORT COSTSAVERAGE ACCESS/AVERAGE DISTANCE

ENHANCEMENT

MINORRECONSTRUCTION

PROJ

ECT

CO

MP

LE

XIT

Y

$100-$150 $150-$250

$125-$250 $200-$500

$200-$600 $300-$1,000

NOTE: Know of a project that does not fit these ranges? Please contact the authors with examples to improve futureupdates of the primer.

FAR/DIFFICULT

$200-$600

$300-$1,000

$1,000-$1,250

D. FINE-TUNING COSTS FOR NEARSHORE PROJECTS: DESIGN/PERMITTING AND OVERALLPROJECT SIZE


DESIGN/PERMITTINGBecause few of these projectshave been implemented, designand permitting costs can varytremendously, accounting for 15-60% of total project cost. Projectsin very active shorelines (strongtidal currents, major longshoredrift, heavy wave action) willhave higher design and permit-ting costs than those in lessactive shoreline areas. Permittingcosts will also be determined byshoreline land use, with devel-oped shorelines requiring morecareful and costly analysis.

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

SIMPLE

IMPACT OF DESIGN/PERMITTING ON COSTS

AVERAGE COMPLEX

MAJORRECONSTRUCTION

35Nearshore Restoration

Low

High

OVERALL PROJECT SIZEBecause the costs of design, transport, and permitting tend to behigh for nearshore projects of any size, the larger projects tend tobe substantially cheaper in per foot cost than smaller projects dueto an economy of scale. For cost estimation, consider any projectsmaller than 300 feet of shoreline as small, 300 to 600 feet me-dium, and greater than 600 feet large.

IMPACT OF PROJECT SIZE ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Lin

eal F

oot

SMALL(300 ft. or less)

MEDIUM(300-600 ft.)

LARGE(600 ft. or more)

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan recommends four projects to remove riprapbulkheads, reconfigure the shoreline, and replant native vegeta-tion. Substantial excavation will be required. The disposal site forthe riprap is more than 20 miles away. The project sites are noteasily accessible by road, and equipment and materials will need tobe barged in and out. Design and permitting is expected to bedifficult, and the total length of the projects is estimated at 1,400 feet.

Project Complexity: Major Reconstruction; Transport: Far/Difficult; CostRange: $1,000-$1,250/lineal foot; Design/Permitting: Complex; ProjectSize: Large; Adjusted Range: $1,100-$1,200/lineal foot; Watershed Cost(all four projects): $1,540,000-$1,680,000.␣


ISLAND COUNTY MARINERESOURCE COMMITTEEMaylor’s MarshNearshore RestorationMajor Reconstruction projectinvolving 2,200 feet ofbulkhead removal (riprap andplanks), regrading of tidalchannels and the shoreline forforage fish benefit, and tidegate removal.Project Cost: $617,700(Estimated: $280/lineal foot)

BLOMQUIST RESIDENCEHood CanalMinor Reconstruction/Enhance-ment project involving therestoration of 95 feet of beachthrough the anchoring of largewood with ecology blocks and/or cables and adding a gravelmix to existing shoreline. Goodsite access.Project Cost: $15,500($165/lineal foot)

BAUM RESIDENCEBudd Inlet, OlympiaMajor reconstruction of 250 feetof a steep bluff throughinvasive control, excavation toremove a wood bulkhead, andreplacement with riprapbulkhead, soil nails, and livewillow stakes. Also includesplanting and an irrigationsystem. Transport costs includelowering drill rig by boom truckoff bluff.Project Cost: $160,000($627/lineal foot)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Puget Sound Nearshore Project http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/psnerp

Washington State Department of Natural Resources http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/index.asp

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team http://www.wa.gov/pswqat/Programs/Habitat.htm

Northwest Straits Commission http://www.nwstraits.org

Washington State Department of Ecology Publication http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0006012a.html

36 Nearshore Restoration

High

Low

Floodplain Restoration

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The settlement of the Puget Sound basin hasbeen concentrated in the floodplains of themajor rivers of the regions. With settlementhas come the straightening and reinforce-ment of stream channels to reduce erosionand carry floodwaters downstream. The leveesand revetments installed on many rivers toaccomplish this have walled-off rivers from theirfloodplains and isolated tributaries and side channels on the floodplains that formerly providedrefuge areas and spawning habitat for fish and wildlife. Many organizations and agencies arenow taking steps to improve habitat by restoring the connections between rivers and flood-plains and rebuilding floodplain tributaries and side channels.

This chapter addresses the costs of two types of floodplain restoration. The simpler of the two,the floodplain tributary reconnection, involves improving connections and habitat on tributarystreams that flow across the floodplain and connect to the river in one place. The more compli-cated cases, termed side channel reconnections, are side channels and oxbows that connect atan upstream and downstream point and carry part of the flow of the entire river. Projects thatconsist of planting only should be costed using the Riparian Planting chapter.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Fair. Floodplain restoration costs are among the most variable and difficult to predict of anyproject type addressed in this primer. Expert opinion varies on which factors are most respon-sible for differences in project costs. More systematic record keeping with consistent param-eters would encourage greater predictability for these projects.

COST RANGE:Costs are given per acre. All the cost ranges include construction, design, permitting, basicmonitoring (2 years), routine maintenance (2 years), reestablishing the site to prior condi-tions, and project management costs that are normally associated with implementing a capitalproject. More general administrative, enforcement, and long-term maintenance costs are notincluded. Use the steps in this section to calculate an estimated cost within the following range.COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Above: Major reconnection projects on extremely large or ener-getic river like the Lower Skagit. Below: Hand work to allow connection of small wetland tosmall stream; Projects only involving planting.

37Floodplain Restoration

Floodplain Tributary ReconnectionSide Channel Reconnection

$10,000/acre $80,000/acre $300,000/acre

For discussion of floodplain tributary reconnection, simple reconnections of wetlands or tributaries via asingle connection to the main channel, go to step A. For discussion of side channel reconnection, projectsinvolving two connections to the main channel, go to step B.

A. FACTORS AND COST CALCULATION FOR FLOODPLAIN TRIBUTARY RECONNECTION

A1. MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS: EXTENT OF EARTHMOVING AND MATERIALS

EXTENT OF EARTHMOVINGThe most common problems with floodplain tributaries are poor connections between thetributary and the mainstem river and straightening of the tributary channel. Connections areoften through undersized culverts, and floodgates are occasionally used to prevent backwaterflooding. The remedies tend to be expensive, often requiring substantial excavation in rocklevees and revetments. Reconfiguring a straightened channel is also expensive and may in-volve heavy equipment and stockpiling and disposal of materials. In the cost table, minimalearthmoving costs are for conditions where the connection and tributary channel require littlework – a few days of equipment work and little or no off-site disposal (0-250 yds3/acre). Sub-stantial earthmoving costs apply when a levee or revetment needs to be excavated or an entirechannel segment needs to be reconfigured (5,000-50,000 yds3/acre).

MATERIALSEarthmoving is commonly fol-lowed by the rebuilding of thefloodplain channel with rock,logs, stumps, and plants. Thematerials for this work can be animportant element of total projectcosts. In the table and graph, lowmaterial costs apply to thoseprojects where the channel workis not extensive, the use of largelogs, rock, and stumps is mini-mal, and most of the cost is forplants. At the high end, largequantities of expensive materials– big rocks, logs, and stumps –will be required.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL


SUBSTANTIAL

38 Floodplain Restoration

Low

High

A2. CALCULATING COSTS FOR FLOODPLAIN TRIBUTARY RECONNECTIONConsidering the extent of earthmoving and materials, find the appropriate cost range in the table below.

COST OF FLOODPLAIN TRIBUTARY RECONNECTION ($/acre)

MINIMALEXTENT OF EARTHMOVING

MODERATE

MINIMAL

MODERATE

SUBSTANTIALMA

TE

RIA

LS $5,000-$10,000 $10,000-$20,000

$10,000-$20,000 $20,000-$30,000

$30,000-$40,000 $40,000-$60,000

Estimating Acreage For floodplain restoration projects, use the footprint of the construction site as the acreage amount.


SUBSTANTIAL

$30,000-$40,000

$40,000-$60,000

$60,000-$80,000

A3. FINE-TUNING COSTS FOR FLOODPLAIN TRIBUTARY RECONNECTION: LABOR

Use the fine-tuning factor below tonarrow the estimated cost range fromthe table above. The fine-tuning factorwill push the cost up or down withinthe range determined above.

LABORThe smallest of these projects areat a scale and complexity whereless skilled manual labor can beused for major elements of theproject. Use of conservation corpsand similar crews can result incosts at the low end of the rangesgiven.

Cost

Per

Acr

e



CONSERVATION CREW CONTRACTEDLow

High

B. FACTORS AND COST CALCULATION FOR SIDE CHANNEL RECONNECTION

B1. MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS: RIVER/STREAM ENERGY AND EARTHMOVING

RIVER/STREAM ENERGYBecause side channel restorationprojects connect at the upstreamand downstream end to divert aportion of the river’s flow into thechannel, the power or energy ofthe river or stream is a key factorin driving design, construction,and permitting costs. High-energy rivers, those with highvelocities and streamflows, willrequire projects with larger andmore robust materials, morecomplicated design and engineer-ing, and costlier constructiontechniques. Use the followingtable to categorize rivers andstreams by energy. When indoubt, note that lower energyrivers are placid in appearance,while high-energy rivers oftenhave waves or rapids.

RIVER/STREAM ENERGY

Snohomish Rivernear mouth

EXAMPLE

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Nisqually River, mainstemNooksack River

Sauk River, Middle ForkSnoqualmie River, North Fork

Nooksack River

RIVER/STREAM ENERGY

Rive

r/St

ream

Ene

rgy

L

M

H

M

L

KEY: RIVER/STREAM ENERGY

L=1st order tributary, low volume, rapidlyflowing.

M=2nd order tributary with some gradient.Pools and riffles.

H=Energetic 2nd and 3rd order streams,small mainstem rivers. High volumewith multiple tributaries contributingto flow, moderate gradient. Eddies,standing waves, pools and riffles.

M=3rd or 4th order mainstem rivers. Smallriffles, low gradient.

L=4th or 5th order mainstems or estuaries.Large volume, minimal gradient,placid.


EXTENT OF EARTHMOVINGEarthmoving costs tend to besubstantially higher for sidechannel projects than for flood-plain tributary restoration. Theseprojects often include substantialmodification or total removal ofriverfront levees, the construc-tion of levees elsewhere in thefloodplain, and major excavationof side channels. In the table andgraph below, high earthmovingcosts will result from majorchanges to levees and channelsthat involve extended use ofheavy equipment, relocation orremoval of large quantities ofmaterial including levee setbacks(50,000-400,000 yds3/acre), anddistant sources for materials ordisposal sites (over 20 milesaway). Projects with existing sidechannels, no levee removal,minor excavation (50-500 yds3/acre) at the connections and localdisposal sites (less than 7 milesaway) will have low costs.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL/NEAR

IMPACT OF EXTENT OF EARTHMOVING ON COSTS

MODERATE/AVERAGE DISTANCE

SUBSTANTIAL/FAR

B2. CALCULATING COSTS FOR SIDE CHANNEL RECONNECTIONConsidering waterway energy and extent of earthmoving, find the appropriate cost range in the table below.

COST OF SIDE CHANNEL RECONNECTION($/acre)

LOWENERGY OF WATERWAY

MEDIUM

MINIMAL/NEAR


SUBSTANTIAL/FAR

EXTE

NT O

FEA

RTH

MO

VIN

G

$20,000-$40,000 $40,000-$70,000

$40,000-$60,000 $70,000-$100,000

$60,000-$100,000 $130,000-$200,000

HIGH

$60,000-$90,000

$100,000-$200,000

$200,000-$300,000

Estimating Acreage For floodplain restoration projects, use the footprint of the construction site as the acreage amount.



Low

High

B3. FINE-TUNING COSTS FOR SIDE CHANNEL RECONNECTION: PERMITTING AND MATERIALSUse the fine-tuning factors below to narrow the estimated cost range from the table above. Fine-tuningfactors will push the cost up or down within the range determined above. The fine-tuning graphs can beused in combination: for example, if one indicates a high cost in the range and another indicates a low cost,estimate a cost that fits in the middle of the range.

PERMITTINGAlthough permitting costs can behighly variable for all restorationprojects, it is particularly so withlarger projects like most sidechannel restorations. Most in-volve an in-water component andwill need the full suite of stateand federal permits. Permittingcosts will tend to be higher whenthe land adjoining the side chan-nel has roads or structures on itand when the floodplain is alongan important salmon-bearingriver- both factors that result incomplexity.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

SIMPLE

IMPACT OF PERMITTING ON COSTS

AVERAGE COMPLEX

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL


SUBSTANTIAL

MATERIALSOnce the earthwork is completedand the new side channel andriver connections are in place,the channel, levee, and otherfeatures will need to be restored.This often involves the placementof rock, logs, and root wads andthe planting of trees and shrubsalong the new channel. The costof these materials tends to bedwarfed by earthmoving costs onside channel projects but can bean important secondary consider-ation. High project costs willresult from use of expensivematerials – large logs, root wads,and rock - as well as more matureand larger plants.


Low

High

Low

High

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:In order to address a river segment that has been channelized andleveed, a watershed plan recommends reconnection of three sidechannels on a high-energy river. Each site will involve breaching alevee in two places to allow the main channel to flow over part ofthe floodplain. The project sites are on pastureland. Adjoiningcropland will require a new levee to be built further away from theriver. Permitting complexity is expected to be average and materi-als costs are likely to be high due to extensive restoration needed.The total size of the three projects is estimated at four acres.

Type of Project: Side Channel ReconnectionExtent of Earthmoving: SubstantialRiver Energy: HighCost Range: $200,000-$300,000/acrePermitting: AverageMaterials: SubstantialAdjusted Range: $250,000-$275,000/acreWatershed Cost (4 acres): $1,000,000-$1,100,000/acre

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife http://www.wa.gov/wdfw

King County Surface Water Engineering & Environmental Serviceshttp://ldnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/swees/cip.htm


Side Channel Reconnections:KING COUNTY DNR & PARKSRaging River PrestonReach Levee RemovalRemoval of 1,300 feet of levee toopen connections to floodplainand wetland. Project includesinvasive control and planting.Project Cost: $250,000(Estimated: $167,560/acre)

KING COUNTY DNR & PARKSPorter Levee2 levee breaches allow thereconnection of a side channelon the left side of the GreenRiver. Project includes installa-tion of large woody debris andplanting.Project Cost: $190,000(Estimated: $126,000/acre)

SEATTLE CITY LIGHTPowerline ChannelConnection of abandoned sloughby excavation of 1.8 acres of off-channel habitat on the UpperSkagit. Project includes theplacement of spawning gravel inexcavated pond.Project Cost: $345,000(Estimated: $186,116/acre)

Floodplain TributaryReconnections:KITSAP CONSERVATIONDISTRICTGamble Creek RestorationProject involves re-meandering350 feet of creek, allowing accessto 1-acre of floodplain, installingrootwads, logs, and gravel.Project Cost: $73,200.(Estimated: $14,640/acre).

KING COUNTY WATER &LAND RESOURCESO’Grady Park StreamRestorationProject involves the reconstruc-tion of 1,100 feet of streamcorridor to allow for flooding andmeandering over a benchedmigration zone. Includes theaddition of large woody debris,boulders, and native vegetation.Project Cost: $222,000(Estimated: $54,000/acre)


Estuary Restoration

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Salmon migrate through the estuariesat the mouths of the major rivers ofPuget Sound as juveniles andadults. Because much of the earlysettlement in the region occurred inthese lower river segments, muchestuarine habitat has been filled anddeveloped. This loss of habitat isthought to be a major limiting factorin salmon recovery, and many of thewatershed plans are likely to have recom-mendations for removing fill and dikes and re-claiming estuary habitat.

PREDICTABILITY OF COSTS:Fair. Data is limited for estuary restoration projects, because relatively few projects have beendocumented to date. Experts point to the lack of design standards as the reason for less pre-dictable costs. Increased predictability is likely as more projects are implemented.

COST RANGE:Costs range between $20,000 and $2,000,000 per acre. All the cost ranges include construc-tion, design, permitting, basic monitoring (2 years), routine maintenance (2 years), reestab-lishing the site to prior conditions, and project management costs that are normally associatedwith implementing a capital project. More general administrative, enforcement, and long-termmaintenance are not included. Use the following steps to calculate an estimated cost in thisrange. COSTS ABOVE OR BELOW RANGE: Above: Capping or removal of contaminated marinesediments. Below: Invasive control or planting only.

$20,000/acre $2,000,000/acre

44 Estuary Restoration

A. MOST IMPORTANT COST FACTOR:

SITE LAND USESite land use refers to whatactivities occurred on the siteprior to restoration. Undevelopedsites like pastureland will offerless hindrance to excavation andwill cost less. Projects on devel-oped sites with utilities, roads,and/or buildings will involvemore difficult excavation and mayinvolve re-routing of roads orutilities. As shown in the graph,cost per acre increases with landuse intensity. Contamination is arelated factor to prior land useintensity, but will be covered inStep D.

Cost

Per

Acr

eUNDEVELOPED

IMPACT OF SITE LAND USE ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL/NEAR

IMPACT OF EXTENT OF EARTHMOVING ON COSTS


SUBSTANTIAL/FAR

HIGHLY DEVELOPED

B. OTHER IMPORTANT COST FACTOR:

EXTENT OF EARTHMOVINGEarthmoving costs are a signifi-cant cost in estuary restoration.These projects often includeremoval of estuarine dikes, theconstruction of setback dikes, ormajor excavation of entire estua-rine sites. High earthmovingcosts will result from majorchanges to sites that involveextended use of heavy equipment,removal of large quantities ofmaterial (50,000-400,000 yds3/acre), and distant sources formaterials or disposal sites (over20 miles away). Projects involv-ing the removal of dikes with nosetbacks or only minor excava-tion (50-500 yds3/acre) with on-site or local disposal (less than 7miles away) will have low costs.

45Estuary Restoration

Low

High

Low

High

C. CALCULATING COSTS: SITE LAND USE AND EXTENT OF EARTHMOVINGUse the table below to find the appropriate cost range based on site land use and extent of earthmoving:

SITE LAND USE

MINIMAL/NEAR:0-7 miles

EXTE

NT O

FEA

RTH

MO

VIN

G

$20,000-$40,000 $70,000-$150,000 $400,000-$900,000

$40,000-$60,000 $150,000-$450,000 $900,000-$1,200,000

$60,000-$80,000 $450,000-$1,000,000 $1,000,000-$3,000,000

MODERATE/AVERAGE: 7-20 miles

SUBSTANTIAL/FAR:20+ miles

SOMEWHATDEVELOPED

Few small structures,utilities, or roads

HIGHLYDEVELOPEDMajor structures,utilities, roads

COST OF ESTUARY RESTORATION ($/acre)

UNDEVELOPEDNo stuctures, utilities,

or roads

D. FINE-TUNING COSTS FOR ESTUARY PROJECTS: CONTAMINATION AND PLANTING/INVASIVE CONTROL



CONTAMINATIONContaminated fill is a commonproblem for estuary projects inurban and industrial areas andoccurs, but less frequently, evenwhen the filled area has beenused for farming. Disposal costs,permitting, and design consider-ations increase substantially withthe degree of contamination. Attheir most extreme, costs foraddressing site contaminationare unpredictably high.

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL

IMPACT OF CONTAMINATION ON COSTS

SUBSTANTIAL

46 Estuary Restoration

Low

High

PLANTING AND INVASIVE CONTROLAfter excavation work in estuarine areas, planting of native spe-cies is often used to restore the original ecosystem conditions andto stabilize sediments. Tidal influence in estuaries can requirespecific planting plans and analyses that can be costly. As withriparian planting projects, detailed designs, larger and moreunusual materials, and the intensity of planting all drive costs.Invasive plants may also be a significant problem in estuary areas;where control is necessary, it will lead to substantially higher costs.


PORT OF BREMERTONSinclair Inlet EstuaryRestoration Phase 2In a somewhat to highlydeveloped urban/industrialarea, restoration of 1.7 acres ofestuary and 1,600 feet ofshoreline through fill removal,gravel placement, and planting.Project Cost: $885,817(Estimated: $442,000/acre)

WDFW and ACOEDeep Water SloughLevee ProjectIn a somewhat developed area,removal of 14,000 feet of dike,construction of 8,300 feet ofsetback and repair of 10,000feet of dike in Lower Skagit.Project Cost: $2,149,993(Estimated: $191,247/acre)

SYKOMISH INDIAN TRIBESkykomish River EstuaryNalley Island LeveeRemovalIn undeveloped agriculturalarea, project involves removalof 6,600 feet armoring, riprapand berm to allow re-floodingof pastureland.Project Cost: $254,600(Estimated: $33,611/acre)

COLUMBIA LAND TRUSTLower Columbia RiverEstuary Deep RiverIn an undeveloped area, projectinvolves removal of 16,000 feetof dike to restore tidal functionto floodplain.Project Cost: $467,322(Estimated: $25,428/acre)

IMPACT OF PLANTING/INVASIVE CONTROL ON COSTS

Cost

Per

Acr

e

MINIMAL/LIGHT CLEARING

MODERATE/AVERAGE CLEARING

SUBSTANTIAL/HEAVY CLEARING

EXAMPLE USING THE MODEL:A watershed plan identifies an estuarine area which was filled forurban use but has been acquired for restoration. Priorities includeexcavation of 3 one-acre sites currently under parking lots andabandoned roads. Extent of earthmoving will be high due to com-plete excavation of each site and a disposal site 20 miles away. Thesites have low contaminant levels. Planting costs will be minimal,because watershed planners are relying on tidal influx of seeds toestablish themselves once this estuary has been excavated.

Site Land Use: Somewhat developed; Extent of Earthmoving: Substantial;Matrix Cost Range: $450,00-$1,000,000/acre; Contamination: Minimal;Planting: Minimal; Adjusted Range: $450,000-$600,000/acre; WatershedCost (3 sites each 1 acre): $1,350,000-$1,800,000.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife http://www.wa.gov/wdfw

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership http://www.lcrep.org

NOAA National Strategy http://restoration.nos.noaa.gov/welcome.html

47Estuary Restoration

Low

High

Credits and Sources

Tim Abbe, Herrera Environmental ConsultantsBrian Bair, Wind RiverMike Barber, Washington Department of Fish & WildlifeGary Bell, Washington Department of Fish & WildlifePeggy Bill, Cascade Land ConservancyPieter Bohen, EarthcorpsMason Bowles, King CountyRandy Brake, Pierce CountyBob Brandow, Washington Department of Natural ResourcesMartha Bray, Skagit Land TrustPat Cagney, Army Corps of EngineersTom Cowan, Northwest Straits CommissionDick Dadisman, Kitsap CountyMonica Daniels, Kitsap CountyTom Dean, People for Puget SoundTracy Drury, Geo EngineersSteve Dubiel, EarthcorpsTroy Fields, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement GroupJim Fox, Salmon Recovery Funding BoardRoger Fuller, Nature ConservancyBill Garrott, Army Corps of EngineersPerry Gayaldo, NOAA Fisheries ServiceNoel Gilbrough, Army Corps of EngineersMichael Hagen, Hagen ConsultingSteve Hagen, Seattle City LightJim Hansen, Lummi TribeBernie Hargrave, Army Corps of EngineersPeter Hummel, Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.Jim Johannessen, Coastal Geologic Services, Inc.Randy Johnson, Washington Department of Fish & WildlifeJohn Kolchak, Skagit System CooperativeJohn Koon, King CountyRuss Ladley, Puyallup TribeSteve Liske, Ducks UnlimitedClint Loper, King CountyPaula Mackrow, North Olympic Salmon CoalitionMonty Mahan, Pierce County Conservation DistrictIkuno Masterson, Adolfson Associates, Inc.Roger Maurer, Cowlitz CountyPat McCullough, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement GroupMike McHenry, Lower Elwha Klallam TribeFiona McNair, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement GroupDave Montgomery, University of Washington

48 Credits and Sources

Shannon Moore, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement AssociationTom Mumford, Washington Department of Natural ResourcesTom Murdock, Adopt a Stream FoundationDoug Myers, Puget Sound Water Quality Action TeamKathryn Neal, King CountyKen Nelson, City of KennewickGeorge Pess, NOAA Fisheries ServiceJon Peterson, Washington Department of TransportationScott Porter, Quinault Indian NationPat Powers, Washington Department of Fish & WildlifeSteve Price, Terra Property Analytics, L.L.C.Monte Reinders, Jefferson CountyFaith Roland, King CountyGordon Roycraft, Kitsap CountyJeff Rudolph, Pierce CountyTim Seifert, San Juan Preservation TrustAnn Seiter, Jamestown S’Klallam TribeBruce Sexauer, Army Corps of EngineersHugh Shipman, Washington Department of EcologyJohn Small, Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.Carey Smith, Pacific Coast Joint Venture, USFWSMike Spillane, Herrera Environmental ConsultantsPat Stevenson, Stillaguamish TribeTom Stowe, Stowe AppraisalsAlison Studley, Skagit Fisheries Enhancement GroupHan Timmers, Timmers Appraisal ServicesRandy Van Hoy, Ducks UnlimitedColin Wagoner, Ridolfi EngineersJaques White, People for Puget Sound

Illustration: Sandra Noel, Noel DesignDesign: Natalie Kosovac, Natfly Productions

Credits and Sources

49Credits and Sources

Dear Reader, - Puget Sound Partnership · Dear Reader, I am pleased to attach an electronic version...

Documents

Transcript of Dear Reader, - Puget Sound Partnership · Dear Reader, I am pleased to attach an electronic version...