IEAB Independent Economic

Analysis Board

Noelwah R. Netusil, Chair 

Hans Radtke, Vice-Chair 

Daniel D. Huppert 

John Duffield 

Joel R. Hamilton 

Susan S. Hanna 

Roger Mann 

Investigation of Wildlife O&M Costs 

Independent Economic Analysis Board 

Task Number 116 

October 30, 2007 

Document IEAB 2007-4 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-1 

Investigation of Wildlife O&M Costs 

The IEAB would like to thank the Wildlife Advisory Committee of the Columbia Basin 

Fish and Wildlife Authority and Bonneville Power Administration for their assistance 

with this analysis. Analysis and opinions are those of the IEAB only. 

Executive Summary and Conclusions 

Introduction 

The purpose of this task was to investigate operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for 

wildlife projects to further the cost-effectiveness goal of the Fish and Wildlife Program. 

The scope of this study explicitly did not include land easements or acquisitions, nor did 

it include fish projects. Wildlife projects were studied because of the perception that there 

are better measures for quantitative analysis, not because they are believed to be less 

cost-effective than other (i.e. fish) projects. In particular, wildlife project cost per acre 

can be measured and has been discussed as a possible basis for cost-effectiveness 

comparisons. 

The investigation has proceeded on three independent paths: 1) exploring the potential 

use of wildlife project cost data from Pisces for cost benchmarking, 2) examining the 

availability and potential usefulness of other wildlife project cost data from the region, 

and 3) considering the application of cost management and economic incentives. 

In summary: 

• In its current form Pisces can provide useful information on relative costs of 

wildlife projects, but only at a very coarse level of resolution, and with caveats. 

More detailed, informed, and case-by-case comparisons are likely to be more 

accurate and useful. 

• The IEAB recommends that project reporting and Pisces be modified to include 1) 

cost shares from other (non-BPA) sources by work element, and 2) the expected 

life of any investments expected to last more than 1 year. Other changes to Pisces 

may be justified. 

• There are many wildlife projects in the region that are not part of the Fish and 

Wildlife Program that can provide useful cost and management information. 

• There is potential for cost-effective changes to project contracting and 

management practices, but there are impediments to their implementation in some 

areas of the program. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-2 

Cost benchmarking with Pisces 

Cost benchmarking refers to use of quantitative standards or points of reference for 

judging project costs. Cost benchmarking might be used in many different ways as part of 

the broad cost-effectiveness goal of the fish and wildlife program. Benchmarks might be 

used for screening project proposals, for performance evaluations, or for calculating 

allowable costs. 

BPA’s Pisces database was analyzed to determine if it could be used to develop cost 

benchmarking information based on an equation or a standard cost per acre for specific 

project types. The IEAB has previously investigated Pisces data for its potential value for 

cost benchmarking (IEAB 2006). That study found that 

There is great variation in the types of projects, their objectives, and local conditions 

that affect activities and their expected costs. For typical questions about 

benchmarking and cost-effectiveness, there are still project-specific and site-specific 

conditions that should be considered. 

With help from BPA and the Wildlife Advisory Committee of the Columbia Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Authority (Wildlife Committee), Pisces and other data on 2006 costs and 

characteristics for over 30 wildlife projects were compiled and factors that affect costs 

were examined. Cost per acre was hypothesized to be inversely related to acreage, 

positively related to distance from urban areas, and affected by cover type. A statistical 

regression equation using acreage, habitat type and distance to population center to 

estimate the expected cost per acre of a project. Results generally confirmed the 

hypothesized relationships. 

Some useful information is provided by the equation, but the application of the equation 

alone for formal cost-benchmarking must be discouraged. There are a number of known 

problems with the Pisces data for this application, including costs that are not reported 

and costs that are not annualized. 

For all projects used in the sample, actual reported costs were compared to costs 

predicted by the regression equation. Most projects have unique conditions that cause the 

cost per acre predicted by the equation to be very different from the actual. For eleven out 

of 32 projects, the predicted cost per acre was less than 50 percent or more than 150 

percent of the actual. For these projects, project managers provided eleven different 

reasons to explain these outliers, none of which suggested that the projects were more or 

less cost-effective. 

For some projects the actual and predicted cost are similar, but this does not imply that 

the equation can provide accurate benchmarking. Table ES-1 shows costs per acre for 

five other representative projects that happen to have similar predicted and actual costs 

per acre. The statistical 95 percent confidence interval associated with the predicted costs 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-3 

is shown.1 The confidence intervals indicate that there is a wide range of cost per acre to 

be expected even for projects that may have similar actual and predicted costs per acre. 

This wide range between confidence bounds means that the regression is not very good at 

predicting cost per acre if we require much confidence in our estimates. 

Table ES-1. 

Cost Per Acre Measures (No Acquisition or Easement) for Five Projects of 

Different Size and Habitat Types 

 2006 Cost Estimates, $/Acre 

 

95% Confidence 

Bounds 

Wildlife Project Name Acreage 

Habitat 

Type 1. Actual 

Predicted 

by 

Equation Lower Upper 

Lower Yakima Valley 

Riparian/Wetland Rest. 21,000 RW $28.41 $23.64 $6.63 $98.64 

Asotin Wildlife Area O&M 10,105 SG $13.43 $15.17 $4.53 $58.59 

Southern Idaho Wildlife 

Mitigation 6,681 EFM $74.32 $51.74 $15.45 $203.82 

Wanaket Wildlife Area 2,817 DW $64.28 $79.51 $24.31 $299.88 

Hangman Creek Wildlife 

Restoration 1,100 RW $141.45 $152.42 $46.65 $575.75 

1. RW = Riparian/wetland, EFM = Eastside forest/meadow, DW = desert wetland, SG = 

shrubsteppe/Grassland 

Given the current status of Pisces data, cost benchmarking for wildlife projects using 

Pisces data, i.e., judging a project largely on the basis of its Pisces cost per acre compared 

to a cost standard or results of an equation, can not be recommended. There is too much 

potential for erroneous conclusions. Any one project may have unique features that make 

it non-comparable to the Pisces projects. For most projects, there does not appear to be a 

group of similar projects that could provide a cost per acre for an accurate comparison. 

Projects included the Pisces data set may not be cost effective, or they may be underfunded, so they should not be used to judge other projects for cost effectiveness. 

Also, general cost benchmarking could have unintended consequences that could lead to 

inefficient funding requests. For example, benchmarks might be viewed as allowable 

costs that would be requested even if actual expected costs were less. 

The IEAB does recommend that, for any subject project, detailed project-by-project 

comparisons might provide useful information for cost-effectiveness analysis. Projects 

may be comparable if they have the same goals and site conditions. There may be a 

project or even a group of projects that are similar to the subject project, or some project 

 

1

 A confidence interval provides an estimate of the probability distribution of the estimates based on the 

“tightness of fit” provided by the regression equation. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-4 

cost components may be comparable across projects even when other cost components 

are not. The equation might be useful, but only if combined with detailed project-specific 

information and a list of important factors that may increase or decrease costs (Table 1, 

for example). 

Also, a project cost might be benchmarked by reference to its own costs, either in the past 

or as planned. This type of benchmarking might be used with incentives to achieve more 

cost effective spending. However, some projects are already under-funded. Also, 

changes in cost structure within a project from year to year are common; for example, if 

it is transitioning from restoration to maintenance or if a large capital replacement cost 

was required. Again, detailed understanding of each project is the only appropriate basis 

for cost efficiency considerations. 

The IEAB recommends two changes in the Pisces data base that would improve its 

usefulness for cost analysis. Pisces does not include two types of important data needed 

to estimate annual cost. 

1. Only the share of costs paid by BPA is included. The costs paid by others and the 

associated work element should be included. 

2. Information on the expected life of investments is not included. The expected life 

of investments should be included for any investment with an expected life of 

more than one year. This information would also help the Program predict future 

funding needs. 

The IEAB recommends that these data should be reported and included in Pisces or some 

other accessible format. 

Four other potential Pisces improvements were considered. More detailed analysis is 

needed to determine if additional cost is justified to modify reporting requirements and 

Pisces to implement these improvements. The more detailed analysis might identify 

changes that are smaller in scope and cost that would be useful. 

3. Some of the Pisces work elements include a large variety of types of activities. 

More disaggregation of these work elements may be useful, but it is not clear that 

the additional cost would provide much more opportunity for analysis. The 

detailed analysis would determine the share of Program costs that involve those 

work elements that include a wide range of activities and the potential for a 

disaggregation to provide useful cost comparisons. 

4. The disaggregation of costs currently provided by BPA is not accurate enough for 

economic analysis. For this analysis, BPA attempted to differentiate costs by 

grouping work elements into habitat maintenance, habitat enhancement, and other 

activities - environmental compliance, planning and coordination, project 

administration, acquisition and easement, and other – but this exercise did not 

provide accurate accounting. The detailed analysis would investigate alternative 

ways of categorizing and reporting cost data and decide if changes are justified. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-5 

5. The Pisces data do not differentiate costs for enhancement versus maintenance. 

The potential reporting costs of accurately differentiating maintenance from 

enhancement could be large. There is currently a policy question regarding how 

existing habitat units should be counted toward BPA’s mitigation requirement. If 

maintenance and enhancement habitat units are counted equally as BPA has 

proposed then there is little reason to differentiate among them. The detailed 

analysis would determine if there is an important reason to differentiate habitat 

units created by maintenance or enhancement and, if so, the potential costs and 

accuracy of methods to split costs. 

6. Pisces costs are not linked to habitat units. Pisces will report measured habitat 

units. However, some enhancement requires large time lags to achieve and the 

link between specific activities and habitat units is often indirect. Any attempt to 

assign habitat units to activities would be an estimate at best. The detailed 

analysis would determine the potential costs and accuracy of methods to associate 

activities and their costs with habitat units. 

The work required to implement 3 through 6 would result in increased costs for BPA and 

for project managers to collect and report data. On the other hand, it is not clear that the 

resulting data would be very useful or accurate. The detailed analyses would examine 

these trade-offs. 

Use of wildlife project cost data from other sources 

There are many other wildlife projects in the region managed by State and federal 

agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Data were collected from these 

managers and compared to the BPA project data. Some projects are not similar to the 

BPA projects in that they are managed as cropland for waterfowl, or they emphasize 

recreation or education, or they do not have an enhancement objective, and there are 

many more unique characteristics. 

Taken together, the other projects provide a useful addition to the information base for 

comparison. Table ES-2 provides a summary of these sources and a finding with respect 

to average costs and costs compared to BPA wildlife project costs. The first row of the 

table labeled BPA/IEAB is the Pisces based data discussed in the first section of the 

paper. Very generally, cost data from these projects suggest that BPA wildlife project 

costs are not far out-of-line. However, detailed analysis as discussed above would be 

required to obtain more robust conclusions. 

The IEAB believes that the set of potential projects for comparison with BPA projects 

could include the projects managed by federal and state wildlife agencies and NGOs. 

Again, cross-project cost comparisons should be detailed and handled on a case-by-case 

basis. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-6 

Table ES-2. 

Summary of Wildlife Cost Data from Other Agencies and Sources 

Data Source 

Number 

Projects 

in 

Sample 

Average 

Acreage 

of 

Projects 

Average 

cost, 

2004$ 

Per acre 

Comparable 

to BPA 

wildlife 

data? 

Finding Relative to 

BPA data 

BPA/IEAB 32 9,746 $24 NA NA 

ODFW 12 11,894 $24 Yes Similar cost structure 

WDFW 26 30,098 $11 Somewhat 

Lower cost per acre 

for similar projects, 

not much O&M yet 

COE 15 949 $38 No 

Most have crop 

production for 

waterfowl feed 

CNLM(2004) 

survey data 10 3,511 $104 Somewhat 

Larger cost per acre 

for similar projects, 

but no shrub-steppe 

and more public 

IEAB land 

trust survey 8 14,579 $14 Yes Similar cost structure 

Cost management and incentives 

The IEAB has engaged wildlife project managers and others to develop general ideas and 

subjective analysis about some alternative ways to achieve more cost effective O&M 

spending. No formal analysis has been conducted, but several concepts deserve more 

consideration. There is a range of experience and approaches in the region. More 

empirical analysis of various funding mechanisms might be useful. 

Annual contracting and inflexible spending rules can be a disincentive to efficient 

spending. Each year there may be incentive to “spend it or lose it.” From the managers’ 

perspective there is no incentive to save funds because unspent funds are lost to the 

project. Wildlife projects need to be able to adjust to unforeseen conditions in the field. 

However, under current spending rules, managers have little incentive to change 

budgeted spending patterns that are no longer efficient. 

The annual contracting process might be modified to allow more flexible spending to 

achieve efficiency. Longer duration budgets, carry-over of funds and more flexible fund 

allocation among project costs might allow projects to create and capture more efficiency 

gains. 

Settlement agreements resulting in a trust fund provide managers the maximum 

flexibility to adjust spending according to conditions. However, there can be a lack of 

accountability regarding how funds are spent and there are significant risks that the funds 

and/or the habitat may be mismanaged. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-7 

There are a number of middle courses between annual contracting and settlement 

agreements that provide accountability, flexibility and an incentive for savings. Project 

contracting could move to a 2 or 3-year cycle. Perhaps the longer cycle could be provided 

for projects with a history of good performance. Projects that are unable to meet their 

budget and performance goals might be returned to the annual contract system. Less 

frequent contracting would reduce the amount of time required for contract planning and 

preparation and could thereby provide more cost savings. 

Benefits to the Fish and Wildlife Program could be realized if funds contracted for a 

specific purpose could be used for more cost-effective methods that accomplish the same 

ends. Annual contract savings could be allowed to be carried over to the following year 

for priority purposes. 

The Fish and Wildlife Program would also benefit from the development and 

implementation of more incentive systems to encourage cost-effective behavior by fish 

and wildlife project managers, employees and contractors. For example, allowing 

projects to capture some of the savings for project use could provide an incentive for cost 

savings within projects. However, there are significant institutional barriers to new 

incentive structures. 

There are two general types of incentive systems: compensation-based and competitionbased. Compensation based systems require a performance standard or criterion to be 

used as a baseline. Incentives are then paid based on a comparison of actual performance 

with the performance standard. 

For reasons previously discussed, performance standards should not generally be based 

on other projects, though case-by-case comparisons will often be useful. Rather, 

performance standards should be based primarily on a projects’ own performance, either 

in relation to the past, or as planned. Own-performance standards may include past or 

planned technologies or methods as well as costs. Incentives are then paid based on a 

comparison of actual performance with the past or planned performance. 

There are major impediments to using incentives for some wildlife projects. Most 

wildlife projects are implemented on State or tribal land. Under Bonneville Purchasing 

Instructions section 11.7.1.2. BPA does not normally seek competitive bids from wildlife 

areas on State or tribal lands. Compensation for State or tribal employees and competitive 

bidding rules are determined by State and tribal standards, not BPA or federal standards. 

Still, competition-based incentives could be implemented at several levels. 

1. BPA could request proposals and bids for existing and new projects targeted to 

high-priority habitat, and BPA would select among projects that provide habitat 

units or acreage at the lowest unit cost. 

2. BPA might request proposals for project management on existing wildlife 

projects. This option would not work for existing projects on State and tribal 

lands. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page ES-8 

3. Project managers could be required to seek more competitive bids for more of 

their wildlife management activities. Possibly the existing project staff would be 

able to bid for the work as well. This incentive could probably only be 

implemented when contracts are renewed. 

All of these options have some potential to reduce program costs. More use of 

competitive bidding is likely to be more successful in combination with manager 

incentives, increased spending flexibility and longer-duration budgeting. A variety of 

possible contracting terms and conditions are discussed in the main report. 

Finally, some efficiency savings might be possible by combining some wildlife projects, 

by combining some project management activities from similar projects, or by more 

sharing of project resources. The analysis of BPA project costs suggests a strong 

economy of scale factor. Small projects that are similarly located and have similar 

management needs might be combined to achieve the economy of scale. Additional 

research might help to identify specific costs that could be reduced by project 

combinations and the types of combinations that would be most successful. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 1 

Investigation of Wildlife O&M Costs 

Introduction 

The purpose of this task was to investigate O&M costs for wildlife projects to help 

develop better ways to further the cost-effectiveness goal of the fish and wildlife 

program. Implicitly, the cost-effectiveness goal is to reduce cost while maintaining or 

increasing habitat values. More cost-effective O&M spending would allow total spending 

to be reduced or more funds could be applied to other projects and other program 

objectives. 

Our focus on wildlife projects does not reflect a belief that these projects are more or less 

cost-effective than other (i.e. fish) projects. Rather, our interest in wildlife projects occurs 

primarily because some historic data exists on wildlife project costs, this data has been 

discussed as a possible basis for cost benchmarking and cost-effectiveness comparisons. 

The scope of this study explicitly did not include land easement or acquisition costs, nor 

did it include fish projects. However, lessons learned from the wildlife projects could 

help promote cost-effectiveness of fish projects. Some types of costs incurred − certain 

improvements in riparian areas, for example − are the same for fish projects as for 

wildlife projects. 

The investigation has proceeded on three independent paths: 1) potential for Pisces 

wildlife project cost data to be used for cost benchmarking, 2) potential use of other 

wildlife area cost data from the region, and 3) cost management and economic incentives. 

Task 1. 

Analyze existing cost information from 2006 projects and investigate the extent to 

which sources of variation in ongoing costs can be identified and quantified 

The purpose of this sub-task was to investigate data from Pisces to see if useful cost 

benchmarking standards could be developed. 

Cost-effectiveness analysis is hard to apply to the Fish and Wildlife Program because 

there are few unambiguous measures of success. For wildlife mitigation, habitat units are 

the preferred measure, but there are disagreements about the counting of habitat units 

supported by maintenance, there are lags between land management and habitat response, 

and there is no method for aggregating or comparing habitat units over different species. 

This report focuses on habitat acreage as a potential measure of wildlife habitat. Habitat 

units may provide better measures for cost-effectiveness analysis in the future. 

CBFWA Wildlife Committee O&M White Paper 

The CBFWA Wildlife Advisory Committee (Wildlife Committee) developed a white 

paper for the IEAB titled “Discussion of Factors Affecting Operations and Maintenance 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 2 

Costs Associated with Wildlife Mitigation Projects Implemented under the Northwest 

Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Scheeler and Pope, 2007). The paper 

describes many reasons why O&M costs differ among projects. 

“Individual mitigation projects are dispersed throughout the Columbia Basin and have 

diverse characteristics including size, approach, ecology, implementing agency, and 

other factors that may affect costs. . . These elements work separately and 

synergistically to cause cost variations. The complex nature of these interactions may 

make standardization or bench marking of mitigation costs impractical and inefficient. 

While standardization may be accomplished through the development of “reasonable” 

or “target” cost ranges for particular activities, those ranges may be so wide as to 

make the value of the exercise questionable.” 

The paper concludes with a summary of factors that affect O&M costs. This summary is 

reproduced in Table 1 below. The IEAB has met with Wildlife Committee 

representatives on several occasions and many of the concerns expressed in their white 

paper are addressed in the discussion which follows. 

Data Revision and Grouping Exercise 

The IEAB worked with BPA and the Wildlife Committee to analyze wildlife project data 

contained in the Pisces database. Pisces is a computer program developed by BPA’s Fish 

and Wildlife Division to improve management of Fish and Wildlife projects, and to 

improve the ability to report information about the Fish and Wildlife Program. Pisces is a 

project management tool and was not directly designed to provide data for economic 

analysis. 

BPA extracted 2006 data from Pisces and developed a procedure to aggregate from 

Pisces work elements to broader cost categories. BPA provided these data to the Wildlife 

Committee whose members provided letters to Council Staff regarding potential 

corrections and improvements. The IEAB reviewed the comment letters and suggested 

some changes to BPA staff. One consistent theme of these letters was that the 

aggregation of work elements to broad cost categories (maintenance versus enhancement 

in particular) was erroneous. The members noted their accounting systems did not 

differentiate between work for maintenance and work for enhancement so BPA’s 

proposed aggregation could not accurately differentiate between these two activities. 

Therefore, the IEAB and the Wildlife Committee agreed that the best indicator for cost 

should include BPA’s “maintenance” and “enhancement” categories. For the analysis we 

evaluate “total cost exclusive of easement or acquisition costs.” Easement or acquisition 

costs include costs of pre-acquisition activities as well as land costs. 

A summary of these data, sorted by acreage is provided as Table 2. Average 2006 cost 

per acre in 2004 dollars exclusive of acquisition and easements costs was $24. Average 

parcel size was 9,746 acres. The costs do not include some funds provided by other 

agencies, so the actual costs per acre are higher. The amount of funds provided by other 

agencies is not believed to be large relative to the BPA contribution. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 3 

Table 1. 

Summary Outline of Cost Factors from Attachment A of “A Discussion of Factors Affecting 

Operations and Maintenance Costs Associated with Wildlife Mitigation Projects 

Implemented Under the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980”

1. Mitigation Goals, Objectives and Strategies 

a. Habitat types based on loss assessments establishing mitigation obligations 

b. Protection vs Restoration/Enhancement vs Conversion 

c. Degree of self sustaining and naturally functioning ecologies inherent in project 

2. Project Site Specifics (many are mitigation obligation driven) 

a. Topography 

b. Soils 

c. Climate 

d. Project size 

e. Project continuity and configuration 

f. Existing habitat types and conditions (note link to mitigation objectives) 

g. Travel and access infrastructure 

h. Adjacent land use and condition 

i. Other peripheral threats 

j. Distance to implementing agency facilities 

k. Distance to major population centers 

l. Local Economies 

m. Surrounding and overlaying jurisdictions (local, state, federal, tribal) 

n. Cultural Resources 

o. TES Species 

p. Environmental Hazards 

3. Implementing Agency (efficiency and approach) 

a. Indirect rate 

b. Organizational structure 

c. Job Classifications and requirements 

d. Staff seniority 

e. Management philosophy/mandates 

f. Existing institutional protocols 

g. Inherent capacities and authorities 

4. Financial Resources/Rate of implementation 

a. Initial restoration/enhancement funding levels 

b. Funding availability/prioritization and affect on baseline management plan 

funding 

c. Funding vehicles (trusts, funding streams, annual appropriations) 

The data suggest that, as project size increases, BPA cost per acre generally decreases. 

There are many reasons for this, only some of which are related to economies of scale. 

Taken together, the projects appear to have some cost components that are not much 

affected by acreage. Some of the large acreage projects have habitat types or purposes 

that do not require intensive management. Some of the larger projects may not be funded 

at levels sufficient to provide the quality of management that is obtained on some of the 

smaller projects. 

Using Table 2, a very general description can be provided regarding the range of costs to 

be expected for different project sizes and types. This general description should not be 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 4 

used for cost benchmarking. Large (10,000 acres plus) projects on shrub-steppe/grassland 

or watershed projects typically have costs in the range of $5 to $20 per acre per year. 

Medium sized projects (5,000 to 10,000 acres) of these types have costs in the $20 to $40 

range, but there are just a few observations. Projects in this size range that are not 

steppe/grassland or watershed projects typically have costs in the $25 to $100 per acre 

per year range, but again there are few observations. There are no shrub-steppe/grassland 

or watershed project types less than 5,000 acres and there are no projects at all in the 

range of 3,000 to 5,000 acres. Below 3,000 acres, projects greater than 900 acres 

typically cost $50 to $300 and projects less than 900 acres are typically $100 to $800 per 

acre per year. 

The Wildlife Committee suggested ways to group projects into categories that might 

affect observed costs (Pope 2007). Three grouping schemes were recommended; 1) based 

on size, 2) based on cover type, and 3) based on proximity to population centers, to 

capture cost factors.. The projects were grouped into six cover types; riparian wetland, 

desert wetland, shrub-steppe grassland, eastside forest/meadow, wetland/upland 

prairie/riparian, and watershed. Distances to towns or cities were provided (Pope, 2007). 

Econometric Analysis 

Statistical analysis can be used to summarize important sources of variation in the cost 

data based on the hypothesized sources of variation as provided by the Wildlife 

Committee. Across projects, a simple examination of the data shows that cost per acre is 

obviously negatively related to total acreage. Wildlife projects may have a large fixed 

cost component so average cost per acre declines as the fixed cost is spread over more 

acres. With this cost structure, cost per acre and acreage is best described by a 

logarithmic function. The adjusted R-square of the simple regression of the log of cost 

per acre on log of acreage is 0.78. The coefficient on the log of acreage is highly 

statistically significant. This function is shown as a solid line in Figure 1. 

Information about the cover types does not explain much more of the variation in cost per 

acre over the acreage alone. Preliminary analysis indicated that only the shrub-steppe and 

watershed cover types taken together are significantly different from the other types. A 

dummy variable for the shrub-steppe/grassland and watershed cover types is significant 

(p = 0.03). The distance variable explains little more of the variation. A log of distance 

variable is almost significant, so it is retained in the selected equation. With the cover 

type dummy variable and the log of distance included the adjusted R-square for this 

multiple regression increases to 0.83. The F-statistic for the equation is 50.2. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 5 

Project Number Project Title 

Project 

Sponsor

Habitat 

Type 1.

Total Cost 

per Acre 

without 

Acquisition/ 

Easement

Acreage 

Managed 

Under the 

Project

Distance to 

Nearest 

Population 

Center

1990-044-01 Lake Creek Land Acquisition CDAT RW $640 150 201995-057-01 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation IDFG EFM $96 166 101992-061-00 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation KTOI EFM $856 211 120

2000-016-00 Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Additions USFWS RW $516 232 1

1991-078-00 Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation ODFW RW $224 417 201992-059-00 Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands TNC WUR $153 494 11991-060-00 Pend Oreille Wetlands Acquisition (Flying Goose O&M) KT RW $157 600 602000-021-00 Ladd Marsh ODFW RW $48 940 12006-003-00 Desert Wildlife Area O&M WDFW DW $214 1,000 16

2001-033-00 Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration CDAT RW $156 1,100 401992-061-00 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation CDAT EFM $237 1,207 45

1992-068-00 Willamette Wildlife Mitigation ODFW WUR $328 1,668 42000-009-00 Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation BPT EFM $39 1,760 40

2003-012-00 Shillapoo Wildlife Area WDFW RW $64 2,371 1

1992-061-00 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation IDFG EFM $161 2,739 90

1990-092-00 Wanaket Wildlife Area CTUIR DW $68 2,817 251992-061-00 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation KT EFM $111 2,995 1001995-057-02 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation SBT EFM $64 5,013 501995-060-01 Iskuulpa Watershed Project CTUIR WS $26 5,937 25

2000-027-00 Acquisition of Malheur Wildlife Mitigation Site BPT SG $36 6,385 601995-057-00 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation IDFG EFM $79 6,681 502002-014-00 Sunnyside Wildlife Mitigation WDFW RW $25 8,391 6

2000-026-00 Rainwater Wildlife Area CTUIR WS $24 8,678 202006-005-00 Asotin Wildlife Area O&M WDFW SG $14 10,105 141994-044-00 Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Mitigation WDFW SG $19 10,171 15

1996-094-01 Scotch Creek Wildlife Mitigation WDFW SG $18 15,469 111996-080-00 NE Oregon Wildlife Project (Precious Lands) NPT WS $23 16,286 801991-061-00 Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area O&M WDFW SG $10 20,065 521992-062-00 Lower Yakima Valley Riparian/Wetland Restoration YN RW $33 21,000 301998-022-00 Pine Creek/Wagner Management CTWSI WS $4 33,557 1201992-048-00 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range CCT SG $11 54,600 702006-004-00 Wenas Wildlife Area O&M WDFW SG $2 74,020 7Data not currently usable for analysis Average $24

1992-068-00 Green Island Willamette Wildlife Mitigation ODFW WUR 856 4

1992-068-00 Big Island Willamette Wildlife Mitigation ODFW WUR 54 1

1992-068-00 Muddy Creek Willamette Wildlife Mitigation ODFW WUR 220 1

1998-003-00 Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation STOI No data $39 4,377 no data

1. RW = Riparian/wetland, EFM = Eastside forest/meadow, WUR = Wet/Upland Prairie/Riparian, DW = desert wetland, WS = watershed, SG = shrubsteppe/Grassland

Pisces does not 

provide data for 

each

Table 2. 2006 Data for Statistical Analysis of Wildlife Project Costs (No Easement or Acquisition Costs), 2004 dollars
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 6 

The selected regression equation is: 

1. Log(Cost/Acre) = 3.84 - 0.6138Log(Acres) - 0.3462(SG or WS) + .15Log(Dist) where 

• Cost/Acre is the 2006 project cost per acre, not including acquisition or 

easement costs, in 2004 dollars 

• Acres is the project acreage as corrected by BPA as of April 2007 

• SG or WS = 1 if the land is shrub-steppe/grassland or watershed, 0 otherwise. 

• Dist = Distance to nearest population center in miles 

The standard errors for the coefficients on the log of acreage, the cover type dummy, and 

distance are 0.092, 0.139 and 0.077, respectively. 

The regression can predict an expected cost per acre for any parcel based on acreage, 

cover type and distance from population center. Actual and predicted cost per acre is 

plotted in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 also shows results of the simple regression. The 

variation explained by cover type and distance can be seen as the difference between the 

actual and predicted data points relative to the simple regression. 

Figure 1. Actual Cost per Acre and Acreage, Predicted Cost per Acre at Each Acreage, and 

Simple Regression of Cost per Acre on Acreage

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Acreage

$/Acre Cost, no Acquisition or Easement

Series1

Series2

Series3

Actual

Simple 

Regression

Predicted

Table 3 shows projects that have an actual cost per acre more that 150 percent of the 

predicted value, and projects with an actual cost less than 50 percent of the predicted 

value. Reasons why these projects may be more or less costly per acre than predicted by 

the regression equation were provided by project managers. The large number of 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 7 

different factors mentioned reflects the large variation in conditions under which these 

projects operate. Managers also mentioned issues concerning the accuracy of cost data. 

For the Willamette and Tualatin Projects: 

Most of the projects in the Willamette are in restoration or enhancement phases hence 

the higher management and treatment costs. Additionally the Willamette is faced with 

some unique climatic (moderate year-round growing seasons) factors and 

anthropogenic factors that require more maintenance and operations costs for 

restoration projects. The year-round growing season and wet climate results in a 

serious battle to contain and eradicate invasive plants including reed canary grass, 

blackberry, Japanese knot weed, etc. Additionally, there is an extensive seed bank (in 

the soil) of grassy exotics (bent grass, velvet grass, etc.). Most of the projects involve 

land that was disturbed through farming activities for over 70 years so the conversion 

to native conditions may require 3-10 years of intensive pro-active management. 

Additionally, many of the projects involve some wetland component and the cost of 

such work is very high in the Willamette. Additional factors are the cost of native 

seeds. The native Willamette species are very difficult to cultivate and grow 

commercially for restoration work. Also many of the project sub-contractors are 

learning as they go because the methods for the restoration work are fairly new and 

untested (Pope 2007c). 

Table 4 shows costs per acre for all other projects in the sample and the statistical 

confidence interval associated with the predicted costs is shown. The confidence 

intervals show that, even if the predicted cost happens to be close to the actual cost, there 

could still be a wide range of cost per acre to be expected if a high level of confidence is 

required. 

For example, suppose that we wished to estimate the expected cost per acre for a project 

with the same acreage, cover type and distance as the Asotin Wildlife Area. The 

regression equation would predict a cost per acre of $15.17, quite close to the actual 

Asotin cost per acre of $13.43. However, the confidence bounds for this estimate indicate 

that we can only be 95 percent confident that the cost per acre should be between $4.53 

and $58.59, a very wide range. Even if less confidence is accepted the range in potential 

costs is still large. 

Findings 

This investigation concludes that there is no simple set of numbers or an equation that 

can be used for cost benchmarking without substantial potential for error. Table 1 showed 

that there are many reasons for the large variation in project costs. Only three of these 

reasons (size, habitat type and distance) have been included in the regression equation. 

There are many other variables that affect wildlife project costs (Table 1) for which data 

are not readily available. Furthermore, the data as provided by Pisces and developed for 

the statistical analysis has a number of known deficiencies. Still, case-by-case 

comparisons are recommended and are discussed under Task 3. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 8 

Table 3. Projects with Actual Cost per Acre More than 150 Percent or Less than 50 Percenand Possible Reasons Why Project Title 

Total Cost 

per Acre 

without 

Acquisition/ 

Easement 

Predicted 

Total Cost 

per Acre 

without 

A/E 

Actual as 

a Percent 

of 

Predicted 

Possible Reasons Wh

Cost/Acre is More or Les

Willamette Wildlife Mitigation $328 $88 373% Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge Additions $516 $244 211% 

See text abo

Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation $856 $532 161% 211 acre project, Altered natura

administrative/management i

Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range $11 $7 158% 

Properties were never prepared boundary fences, surveys, asse

completed while operation and 

took place. (Berg

Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation (IDFG) $161 $106 152% 

This project is actually about 12 

which are just in one contract, P

Table 1). Complex managemen

need good fences. Weed con

management are expensive. On 

expensive wetlands restoration o

(Servheen 20

Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation (CDAT) $237 $157 151% 

Benewah Creek, which is actua

included. Two miles of stream, ve

grading, recreating floodpla

compressed into 3 years rather th

2007) 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 9 

Table 3. Continued Project Title 

Total Cost 

per Acre 

without 

Acquisition/ 

Easement 

Predicted 

Total Cost 

per Acre 

without A/E 

Actual as 

a Percent 

of 

Predicted 

Possible Reasons Wh

Cost/Acre is More or Les

Wenas Wildlife Area $2 $4 47% 

 Not adequately funded for the 

couple of important work eleme

been reported by Pisces. They 

funds, but they are critical fo

maintenance of the w

State of Washington pays Pay

(PILT), not paid by BPA. This w

onto the numerator.(P

Ladd Marsh $48 $103 46% 

O&M costs are shared with proje

recently had success in acquirin

funding from various non-BPA so

been used to offset costs of s

management and may not continu

2007). 

Pine Creek/Wagner Management $4 $11 42% BPA has not approved a manage

and until one is approved, little f

Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation $39 $123 32% 

 The Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigatmaintenance phase. The pristine reduces maintenance costs as weminimal concern. Enhancements completed with funds other than tand are therefore not tracked in Ppersonnel and equipment sharing and the Malheur River Wildlife Mitto reduce costs.(Speten 2007) 

Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation $96 $424 23% 

This plot “the Krueger Property” o

as part of Boise River Wildlife Ma

33,000 acres total. The plot is a

“project” because it happens to 

region. Also, its actually shrub-ste

2007) 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 10 

Table 4. Expected Costs (No Acquisition or Easement) for Projects of Different Size and Habitat Types 2006 Cost Estimates, $/Acre 

95% Confidence 

Bounds 

Name Acreage

Miles to 

Population 

Center Actual Predicted Lower Upper 

Lower Yakima Valley Riparian/Wetland Restoration 21,000 30 $28.41 $23.64 $6.63 $98.64 Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area O&M 20,065 52 $9.50 $12.08 $3.63 $46.48 NE Oregon Wildlife Project (Precious Lands) 16,286 80 $21.38 $14.66 $4.37 $56.71 Scotch Creek Wildlife Mitigation 15,469 11 $16.51 $11.25 $3.33 $43.25 Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Mitigation 10,171 15 $18.14 $15.26 $4.52 $58.31 Asotin Wildlife Area O&M 10,105 14 $13.43 $15.17 $4.53 $58.59 Rainwater Wildlife Area 8,678 20 $22.39 $17.57 $5.21 $67.22 Sunnyside Wildlife Mitigation 8,391 6 $23.18 $32.75 $9.53 $131.25 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 6,681 50 $74.32 $51.74 $15.45 $203.82 Acquisition of Malheur Wildlife Mitigation Site 6,385 60 $33.59 $25.03 $7.30 $96.67 Iskuulpa Watershed Project 5,937 25 $24.59 $22.97 $6.81 $89.18 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 5,013 50 $59.78 $61.78 $18.50 $239.17 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation 2,995 100 $102.81 $94.17 $27.92 $364.45 Wanaket Wildlife Area 2,817 25 $64.28 $79.51 $24.31 $299.88 Shillapoo Wildlife Area 2,371 1 $60.37 $54.68 $15.54 $222.87 Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration 1,100 40 $141.45 $152.42 $46.65 $575.75 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 11 

Task 2. 

Identify and acquire other sources of information on land management costs and 

describe why they can or cannot provide useful information for cost benchmarking 

for fish and wildlife program costs 

This section reviews cost data provided by other wildlife agencies in the region and 

compares the projects and their cost data to the BPA projects and data. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program 

The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) provides technical assistance to 

landowners and cost-share payments through cooperative agreements for approved 

practices. Data on WHIP approved costs for Washington, Idaho and Oregon are provided 

in Appendix 1. These data do not represent actual prices paid; they are offer prices that 

may not be accepted by any landowners. There is substantial variation in types and dollar 

amount of reported costs by State. Still, these data may be helpful for cost comparisons 

involving specific items and custom work. 

ODFW Wildlife Areas 

Data were obtained from ODFW (Rickerson, 2007). ODFW personnel (Anglin, 2007) 

stated that funding levels in recent years have been inadequate for routine maintenance 

and some needed work has been deferred. Therefore, the costs in Table 5 below probably 

understate the amount needed to achieve the intended purposes. Average cost per acre 

was $24. Average parcel size was 11,894 acres. This cost per acre is about the same as 

the cost for the BPA Fish and Wildlife projects, for about the same size projects. The 

apparent economies of scale shown in the BPA data also occur in these data, resulting in 

similar costs for projects of similar size. 

Table 5. 

ODFW Wildlife Area Budget Summary, Average of 2005 and 2006 Data, 

2004 Dollars, Areas with Designated Staff 

Wildlife Area Acres 

Personnel 

Services 

Service & 

Supplies 

Capital/ 

Contractual Total 

Budget 

Total 

Cost/ 

acre 

Jewell Meadows 1,117 $238,666 $143,355 $0 $382,021 $342 

EE Wilson 1,683 $144,554 $67,530 $0 $212,084 $126 

Denman 1,860 $78,894 $31,538 $0 $110,432 $59 

Klamath 3,717 $123,880 $47,785 $573 $172,238 $46 

Ladd Marsh 5,970 $135,453 $47,785 $0 $183,238 $31 

Elkhorn 8,674 $227,355 $71,035 $71,678 $370,068 $43 

Sauvie Island 12,000 $424,341 $170,540 $113,728 $708,609 $59 

Fern Ridge 12,716 $112,788 $88,880 $0 $201,668 $16 

Wenaha 17,087 $108,556 $62,338 $7,646 $178,540 $10 

Summer Lake 18,677 $184,912 $82,171 $7,646 $274,728 $15 

PW Schneider 25,000 $150,095 $91,138 $0 $241,233 $10 

White River 34,224 $218,865 $144,939 $98,031 $461,835 $13 

Average 11,894 $179,030 $87,420 $24,942 $291,391 $24 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 12 

WDFW Wildlife Areas 

Cost data for Washington wildlife areas in 2006, provided by WDFW, are displayed in 

Table 6 below (Dahmer, 2007). The following notes were provided with the data: The 

costs do not include capital budget dollars used for facility maintenance, repair, and 

replacement for fences, roads, gates, buildings, irrigation structures, fish passage 

structures, etc. The two-year (07/09) capital budget for wildlife areas statewide exceeds 

$5,000,000. The numbers also do not include administrative costs or grants that are 

regularly used to maintain and enhance the areas (RMEF grants, State Lands Restoration 

& Development grants, etc.). A very basic level of equipment costs is included. 

Average property size is 30,098 acres and average cost per acre is $7.47. This includes 

indirect costs of $0.62 per acre. If capital costs are included, at an average of $2.5 million 

per year, cost per acre is $10.66. This cost per acre is about half of the BPA wildlife 

project costs, but the WDFW projects are more than three times larger on average. These 

projects appear to be less expensive than expected based on the BPA data. Perhaps some 

of the WDFW projects receive a low level of management compared to the BPA projects. 

COE Lower Snake River Compensation Plan on-site lands 

DeHerrera and Key (2002) compiled O&M cost data from Corps of Engineers (COE) 

O&M maintenance contracts for Wildlife Habitat and Structures in Southeastern 

Washington and Northern Idaho, and Wildlife Habitat and Structures for Lower 

Monumental and Ice Harbor Dams and McNary Lock and Dam. Data are provided in 

Table 7. Detailed data for these projects are provided in Appendix 2. 

Average cost per acre with joint costs was $49. Average parcel size was 949 acres. These 

projects are generally intensively managed lands that produce food for wildlife. Most of 

the costs are O&M of irrigation systems on a small share of the acreage, or establishment 

of annual food plots on actively managed acreage. The cost per acre actively managed is 

$371. These projects are not generally comparable to the BPA projects. 

FERC license mitigation requirements 

Most if not all utilities with FERC-licensed hydropower projects have license conditions 

requiring the acquisition (through fee simple purchase or easement) of land to mitigate 

the effects of the hydropower projects on wildlife. Nationwide there are over 1,000 

FERC-licensed projects as of April 2007, including 48 in Idaho, 18 in Montana, 26 in 

Oregon, and 52 in Washington. Cost data are not available in a standard format, but 

some observations about costs are below. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 13 

Table 6. 

Washington Wildlife Areas Budget Figures and Cost Per Acre 

Calculations, 2004 Dollars 

Wildlife Area or Activity Acres 

Total 

Funds with 

Indirect 

Applied, 

2004$ 1.

Cost 

$/Acre 

Statewide O&M Activity Budgets 

Equipment Purchases $122,070 

Vegetation Management Team $215,792 

Grading $30,257 

Weed Control $113,766 

Subtotal 2. $481,885 

Individual Wildlife Area Budgets 

Desert 3. 1,000 $195,920 $195.92 

Shillapoo 3. 2,371 $217,772 $91.85 

St. Helens 2,941 $53,696 $18.26 

Lake Terrell 3,814 $192,580 $50.49 

S. Puget Sound/Scatter Creek 6,700 $104,694 $15.63 

Wells 8,170 $236,004 $28.89 

Sunnyside 3. 8,391 $275,917 $32.88 

Sherman Creek 9,396 $63,768 $6.79 

Asotin 3. 10,105 $148,777 $14.72 

Sagebrush Flat 10,171 $214,275 $21.07 

Olympic 10,364 $283,704 $27.37 

Cowlitz 13,940 $283,568 $20.34 

Klickitat 13,948 $102,791 $7.37 

Scotch Creek 3. 15,469 $248,530 $16.07 

Wooten 16,000 $125,226 $7.83 

Skagit/Snoqualmie 18,864 $333,844 $17.70 

Sinlahekin 19,144 $216,436 $11.31 

Swanson Lakes 3. 20,065 $189,249 $9.43 

Chief Joseph 22,900 $215,968 $9.43 

Methow 31,000 $208,872 $6.74 

Chelan 32,536 $114,331 $3.51 

Oak Creek 47,200 $178,261 $3.78 

Wenas 3. 74,020 $293,800 $3.97 

Colockum 91,603 $198,108 $2.16 

L.T. Murray 100,442 $227,014 $2.26 

Columbia Basin 192,000 $438,807 $2.29 

Total 782,554 $5,843,797 

Average 30,098 $224,761 $7.47 

1. Includes indirect costs at 28.89%. 2004 dollars are 2006 dollars times .939 

2. $481,886 of O&M funding are allotted under statewide codes which are not 

captured when looking at individual wildlife area budgets. 

3. Includes costs funded by BPA 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 14 

Seattle

• Settlement agreement on Skagit project for a 20-year license period. 

• As of 2003 about 8,400 acres had been acquired 

• About $500,000 - $1,500,000 available for “enhancement and management”, 

depending on how much is spent on acquistion; $450,000 spent to date since 1995. 

• Therefore, cost per acre per year is about $5 

• A Land Management Committee decides how to spend the money. 

• Seattle contracts with outside companies for discrete large projects (e.g., bridge 

removal) that are beyond the scope of utility staff, and it uses utility crews for tasks 

when union rules mandate and crews are in the area anyway. 

Table 7. 

Summary of Data on O&M Costs for COE Wildlife Mitigation 

Projects, 2002 Dollars

Name Acreage $ Cost $ Cost/Acre 

Upper Goose Pasture HMU 32 $17,364 $543 

Lower Goose Pasture HMU 47 $7,426 $158 

Ridpath Bar HMU 64 $20,494 $320 

Chief Timothy HMU 66 $23,134 $351 

New York Bar HMU 210 $32,558 $155 

Willow Bar HMU 232 $10,201 $44 

Central Ferry HMU 296 $7,773 $26 

Rice Bar HMU 330 $14,127 $43 

Swift Bar HMU 526 $63,420 $121 

Hellsgate HMU 650 $14,027 $22 

John Henley HMU 967 $18,189 $19 

Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Areas 1. 2,032 $170,282 $84 

Lower Monumental Lock and Dam Areas 1. 2,486 $109,956 $44 

Nisqually John HMU 3,077 $4,954 $2 

McNary Lock and Dam Areas 1. 3,213 $29,624 $9 

Average 949 $36,235 $38 

Average with joint costs $46,460 $49 

Average for managed acres only 125 $46,460 $371 

1 Data are for a year of January 1 to September 30. All others are from March 1 to 

September 30 

Snohomish

• License conditions require land acquisition: 4,863 acres under management. 

• 2004-06 costs varied from $250,000 to $375,000. 

• Therefore, cost per acre per year is roughly $60 

• Increases due to relicensing support; some projects shifted between years. 

• Forest thinning is put out to bid; bidders pay Snohomish for wood products. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 15 

Cowlitz

• License settlement: 525 acres @ $27/acre/year in maintenance for fee-simple lands, 

$13.50/acre/year for maintenance of easements. 

• Some settlement parties view terms as employment opportunities, which implies 

potentially higher-than-optimal labor intensity. 

Land trusts and conservancies 

The Center for Natural Lands Management completed a survey of long-term conservation 

management practices at 28 preserves in Arizona, California and Oregon (CNLM 2004). 

The subject projects were chosen to illustrate a variety of situations. They are owned by 

public agencies, private non-profits or private parties in mitigation banks. Their lands 

may have been acquired through either the conservation (grants, conservation purchases, 

gifts etc) or habitat mitigation process. 

Although the cost of stewardship cannot be predicted accurately from the size of the 

preserve, the economies of scale are dramatic. Costs range from around $1,000 an acre 

per year for many smaller projects to well under $100 per acre for the larger projects. 

The costs per acre depend on the activities that take place on the land. The least costs per 

acre are for large projects and are basically maintenance with minimal amount of 

enhancement efforts. 

The Oregon part of the survey included ten separate parcels (Table 8). The smallest was 

14 acres of wetland restoration. The largest, at over 26,000 acres, was the Umatilla 

National Wildlife Refuge that is maintained as a wildlife management area for activities 

that include site restoration, wildlife viewing, hunting, and nature education services. 

Annual management costs averaged $104 per acre per year for 10 projects. The range in 

cost per acre per year is $29 to more than $980. The projects that include enhancement 

efforts, monitoring and research, and public education programs are the most expensive 

at $441 to $983 per acre annually. These projects appear to be more expensive than 

expected based on the BPA data. 

Survey of Several PNW Land Trust NGOs 

There are several non-government organizations (NGOs) in the Pacific Northwest that 

manage or convey land for ecosystem benefits. Several of these organizations were 

contacted to provide information on annual land management costs (Table 9). The land 

trusts provide several functions, which range from simply receiving land (or functions of 

the land) into their trust and enforcing the agreement, to providing monitoring of existing 

species, enhancement of present functions, and research and public education. The 

annual costs per unit vary greatly according to the services provided. As monitoring and 

enhancement/restoration programs increase, costs increase according to the level of 

service provided. Active public use, which may include research and education, 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 16 

increases annual costs per acre dramatically to over $500 per acre. As properties are 

being prepared for conveyance to public entities, the costs (legal etc) may reflect only a 

short-term cost flow. Average acreage was 14,579 and average cost per acre was $14. 

These projects appear to cost about the same as similar BPA projects. 

Summary of usefulness of other sources of cost information 

This section has shown that there are many sources of information outside of the fish and 

wildlife program that could provide a useful basis for comparison with BPA wildlife 

projects. The data suggest, generally, that costs of BPA projects are comparable to other 

projects in the region. However, some other “wildlife” projects are not similar to the BPA 

projects in terms of their purposes and management. For example, the COE projects are 

generally more like farming projects than wildland management. Other agencies have 

much higher levels of interaction with the public than most BPA projects. Very generally, 

projects that are most similar to the BPA projects are probably those managed by ODFW 

(Table 5), WDFW (Table 6) and some of the projects managed by others (Tables 8 and 

9). Because of the wide variety of objectives and functions for conserving wildlife land, 

any comparison of costs (per acre or per habitat unit) among projects should involve 

projects that share objectives, functions, and comparable physical characteristics. This 

similarity should be established on a case-by-case basis. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 17 

Table 8 

Pacific NW – Oregon Sites in a Natural Lands Management Cost Analysis, 2004 

Dollars

Property 

Description Location Ownership 

Major 

Habitat 

Method of 

Management Acres 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

per 

Acre 

Weather’s 

Wetland 

Mitigation Site 

Keiser, 

Salem, 

Willamette 

Valley 

Private/conservation 

easement 

wetlands Restoration, 

monitoring 

14 $4,959 $354 

Roberts Island 

Preserve 

Eugene, 

McKenzie 

River 

McKenzie River 

Trust 

Islands, 

wetlands, 

river channels 

Monitoring, 

enhancement 

20 $3,648 $182 

Agate Desert 

Preserve 

Medford, 

Rogue R. 

Valley, SW 

Oregon 

The Nature 

Conservancy (fee 

simple and 

easement) 

Native 

grassland 

Monitoring, 

enhancement 

53 $25,242 $476 

JacksonFrazier 

Wetland 

Corvallis, 

Willamette 

Valley 

Benton County Wetlands Monitoring, 

research, public 

education 

144 $141,481 $983 

Camp Polk 

Meadow 

Preserve 

Sisters, 

Central 

Oregon 

Deschutes Basin 

Land Trust (fee 

simple and 

easement) 

Meadow, 

wetlands 

Restoration, 

enhancement, 

public education 

148 $65,300 $441 

Mud Slough 

Mitigation 

Salem, 

Willamette 

Valley 

Private/Conservation 

Easement 

Wetlands Restoration, 

monitoring 

396 $19,983 $50 

Blind Slough 

Swamp 

Preserve 

Mouth of 

Columbia R., 

NW Oregon 

Owned by State of 

Oregon/managed by 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Sitka Spruce, 

swamp 

Monitoring, 

enhancement 

928 $27,219 $29 

Denman 

Wildlife 

Medford, 

Rogue R. 

Valley, SW 

Oregon 

State of Oregon 

ODF&W 

Grassland, 

wetlands, 

woodlands 

Wildlife 

management; 

monitoring by 

The Nature 

Conservancy; 

mitigation by 

USFWS 

1920 $226,000 $118 

South Slough 

National 

Estuarine 

Research 

Reserve 

Coos Bay, 

SW Oregon 

Oregon Dept of 

State Lands 

Wetlands, 

tidal marsh 

Restoration, 

research, 

monitoring, 

education 

4,770 $1,957,104 $410 

Umatilla 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge 

Umatilla, 

Columbia R., 

NE Oregon 

Federal: US Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Marsh, 

shrub/steppe, 

islands 

Wildlife 

management, 

restoration, site 

maintenance 

26,715 $1,194,000 $45 

Average 3,511 $366,494 $104 

Information taken from “Natural Lands Management Cost Analysis – 28 Case Studies.” Prepared for the 

Environmental Protection Agency by Center for Natural Lands Management, Fallbrook CA, October 2004. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 18 

Table 9 

Informal Survey of Several Land Trusts in the Pacific Northwest, 2004 Dollars

Property 

Description Location Ownership 

Major 

Habitat 

Method of 

Management Acres 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

per 

Acre 

Green Island Eugene, 

Willamette 

Valley 

McKenzie 

River Trust, 

funds from 

BPA and 

others 

River island, 

wildlife 

habitat, farm 

and forestry 

Monitoring, 

enhancement 

400 $11,268 $28 

Willow Creek 

Wildlife 

Mitigation 

Project 

Eugene, 

Willamette 

Valley 

The Nature 

Conservancy, 

City of 

Eugene, BPA 

Funding 

Low-lying 

prairie 

lands/wetlands 

Wildlife habitat 

units, mitigation, 

management and 

restoration 

405 $204,862 $506 

Tenmile Creek 

Valley 

Florence, 

Oregon 

Coast 

McKenzie 

River Trust, 

NGO and 

private 

property 

Riparian 

forest habitat, 

endangered 

species 

Conservation 

easement 

enforcement 

560 $6,790 $12 

Middle Fork 

John Day 

Grant 

County, SE 

Oregon 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Riparian area 

for salmon 

Management, 

monitoring, 

restoration 

1,600 $115,794 $72 

Williamson 

River Delta 

Klamath 

Basin, SE 

Oregon 

The Nature 

Conservancy, 

funding from 

various sources 

Wetlands 

/estuary for 

Klamath Lake 

Monitoring, 

restoration fish 

and wildlife 

7,440 $377,007 $51 

Boardman Columbia 

Basin, NE 

Oregon 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Shrub steppe 

wildlife 

habitat 

Mitigation for 

water 

withdrawal, 

monitoring, 

restoration 

22,690 $207,132 $9 

Zumwalt 

Prairie 

Enterprise, 

NE Oregon 

The Nature 

Conservancy, 

funding from 

BPA and other 

agencies 

grasslands Management, 

monitoring, 

research on 

grazing etc. 

33,000 $342,210 $10 

Sycan Marsh Klamath 

Basin, SE 

Oregon 

The Nature 

Conservancy, 

funding from 

various sources 

Marsh, 

wetlands, 

grazing, 

forests 

Restoration of 

fish and wildlife, 

controlled cattle 

management 

50,539 $325,948 $7 

Average 14,579 $198,876 $14 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 19 

 

Task 3. 

Describe cost-benchmarking numbers or equations that may be useful for 

comparison with proposed project costs in the future. 

There are currently no cost-benchmarking numbers or equations that can generally be 

used for quickly assessing costs of prospective wildlife projects. The cost data in Pisces 

are misleading because of (a) exclusion of cost shares paid by partner agencies and (b) 

mixing of annual O&M with up-front investment costs. Even where these errors are 

avoided or can be corrected, there are often more variables that affect cost than there are 

wildlife projects to analyze. In this situation, statistical techniques can not isolate the 

effect of each variable and the amount of prediction error for the statistical cost estimate 

is large. 

Direct cost comparisons to assess cost effectiveness of competing projects should be 

approached on a case-by-case basis. For any one project there may be another project that 

is so similar that cost comparisons will be useful. The list of potential projects for 

comparison includes the projects in Tables 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9. There is no guarantee that 

such an approach would work for all projects, because some projects differ in structure, 

magnitude or complexity from all others, making comparison of costs meaningless. 

The cost bench-marking approach requires a relatively detailed understanding of the 

unique situation for each project and information on how to make adjustments for 

differences in the variables that affect cost. For the acreage, habitat type and distance 

variables, the cost equation developed in the Task 1 section (Equation 1) might provide 

some help. Equation 1 could be used to estimate the expected difference in cost per acre 

from a similar project but with a known difference in acreage, cover type or distance. 

For projects with similar objectives in terms of habitat units and species, future costeffectiveness comparisons should be based on habitat units, not acreage. It would not be 

wise to compare costs of projects with completely different objectives unless weights for 

the different objectives can be provided. 

A more detailed approach might utilize cost data that is more disaggregated than that 

available in Pisces. With detailed cost data, individual projects could be viewed by their 

cost components. Two projects that are not totally comparable may have comparable 

components, so some costs or project features might be excluded from the comparison. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 20 

Task 4. 

Scope of work for additional work needed to obtain better cost benchmarking 

estimates. 

BPA has conducted studies to examine contracting and reporting policies to achieve a 

more cost-effective fish and wildlife program (Moss Adams 1997). Recently, reporting 

and accounting procedures have been emphasized. BPA began important accounting 

changes in 2002 to comply with Federal accounting standards and Sarbanes-Oxley 

mandates. BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Program Process Improvement Initiative began in 

2004 to provide more robust reporting on F&W program expenditures and greater 

financial controls for F&W contracts, to make program data more standard, transparent, 

and accessible, and to enable reporting on program performance (BPA 2007). Work 

elements were defined and Pisces initiated in 2004. Pisces was first used in 2005 and its 

applications have expanded since to include cash flow predictions, streamlined 

accounting, and more sophisticated program reporting. 

Pisces was not designed for economic analysis, and the cost accounting system embodied 

in Pisces is less than complete for cost benchmarking purposes. Some of these omissions 

would be expensive to change, and the quality of resulting data is not clear. Furthermore, 

wildlife projects are more complicated than some other types because the habitat unit 

metric is complicated. Metrics for some other project types; e.g. hatcheries, are more 

straight forward. 

The following changes to Pisces and related accounting methods are recommended: 

1. Pisces should include all costs, not just the share funded by the Fish and Wildlife 

program. 

As of July 2007, BPA is working on potential methods to include the other cost shares 

(Zelinsky 2007). The simplest option, which is likely to be adopted for now, is to include 

data on expected cost shares plus a text box. The IEAB also recommends that Pisces 

disaggregate cost shares for different work elements. On average, the share of costs paid 

for wildlife projects from sources other than BPA are small. This improvement may have 

more effect on some other project types such as fish habitat and hatchery projects. 

2. Pisces does not consider the expected life of an investment. It would be useful to 

associate an expected life with each expenditure so that annualized costs can be 

derived. 

Much of the cost data is useless for cost-effectiveness analysis without information on the 

expected life of investments. Some maintenance activities must be done annually while 

others can be done very infrequently. Some expenditures may be cost-effective even 

though their investment cost per acre is higher. For example, high-quality fencing costs 

more per acre but its cost per acre per year may be less. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 21 

There is no action forthcoming on this issue (Zelinsky 2007), largely because it’s hard to 

convince people that the additional data collection will be worthwhile. Information on the 

expected life of investments would be useful for planning as well as economics because 

future replacement costs and their timing could be estimated. 

The following changes to Pisces and related accounting methods should be investigated: 

3. Pisces was not designed to count enhancement costs as opposed to maintenance 

costs. If the council wishes to examine these, then the maintenance baseline must 

be established and activities that contribute to enhancement must be 

differentiated. 

To differentiate costs and amounts of maintenance and enhancement, the accounting must 

establish a baseline maintenance habitat level, and it must differentiate the activities that 

contribute to maintenance and enhancement. 

New functionality in Pisces that allows wildlife crediting to be included will enable 

comparisons of costs to habitat units in the future. The measure of habitat units will be 

actual, as measured by the HEP team, after improvements have been implemented. 

Enhancement habitat units are the measured increase over baseline levels. The system 

will track increases in habitat units associated with a parcel and what work elements were 

conducted. 

To obtain costs of maintenance HUs and enhancement HUs, additional work will be 

required to estimate the share of each work element cost that is intended for 

enhancement. This would definitely be more work for project managers, and the result 

for most projects might be a rough estimate. Furthermore, some planned habitat levels 

will not be realized for years, even decades. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not useful 

information on costs of HUs obtained by maintenance versus enhancement should be 

developed. 

This potential value of differentiating maintenance and enhancement is unclear because 

of different perspectives regarding what share of baseline habitat units should be credited 

to the fish and wildlife program. Apparently, BPA counts all acquired and protected 

habitat as mitigation while the Council has recommended that only half of these units be 

counted. Much of the reason for counting enhancement versus maintenance habitat units 

would be lost if BPA’s policy is accepted by everyone. 

4. The disaggregation of costs that can currently be provided by BPA is not accurate 

enough for economic analysis. For this analysis, BPA attempted to differentiate 

costs by grouping work elements into habitat maintenance, habitat enhancement, 

and other activities - environmental compliance, planning and coordination, 

project administration, acquisition and easement, and other – but this exercise did 

not provide accurate accounting. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 22 

There may be a need to disaggregate costs more according to their function. One project 

manager provided this opinion: 

Pisces may “someday” be utilized as a cost-effective and standardization 

methodology, but only if F&W managers can agree on appropriate 

compartmentalization of meaningful implementation categories (Planning and 

Design (P&D), Construction and Implementation (C&I), O&M, RM&E), 

understanding of variable costs (i.e., “Work Element” categories, implementation 

categories like % of O&M per Work Element), and related measures (i.e., habitat 

types, geography, etc.) rather than a one-size-fits-all approach (Soults, 2007). 

Planning and Design (P&D), Construction and Implementation (C&I), and Research, 

Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) are not part of O&M costs. Presumably, these types 

of costs should be differentiated from the existing work element types that are focused on 

the type of resource rather than the purpose of the work. The detailed analysis would 

investigate alternative ways of categorizing and reporting cost data and decide if changes 

are justified. 

5. There is no accounting of costs in relation to specific types of habitat units. When 

expenditures are associated with a single focal species or a subset of project 

species the accounting could include this information. 

This problem is similar to 3. above. There is no tracking of costs in relation to planned 

habitat units. Rather, actual HUs will be determined from HEP surveys. More work 

would be required to estimate which work elements on a parcel contributed to which HU 

types. It is not clear that this would be useful since the assignment of costs to the HU 

types might be unclear. Also, the HUs to be reported are measured, not ultimate, so 

information about how time lags might affect future habitat values can not be considered. 

6. Some work elements are so broad that they encompass a large number of different 

types of improvements; for example, “create, restore or enhance wetland.” Some 

disaggregation may be required for meaningful cost analysis. 

This problem pertains more to some work elements than others (“enhance floodplain” is 

another). New work would be required to estimate potential gains from disaggregation, 

to develop the new disaggregation, and project managers would need more time to report 

results. 

It is not clear how important these specific work elements are to the overall program. 

“Create, restore or enhance wetlands” and “Enhance floodplain” are each 4.0 and 0.4 

percent, respectively, of all 2006 wildlife costs, so additional disaggregation could not 

provide much more improvement in total cost accounting. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 23 

TASK 5 

Investigate the potential for reducing ongoing costs through cost management and 

incentives. 

Cost management refers to the application of cost accounting and management changes 

to reduce costs. BPA and wildlife project managers already practice sophisticated cost 

management practices, but further improvements might be possible through changes or 

additions to existing practices through the use of new cost-management tools and 

economic incentives. 

The cost-accounting tool Pisces was discussed in the previous section. This section 

focuses on other cost management opportunities. 

BPA cost management requirements 

BPA follows a number of federal criteria in negotiating contracts and determining 

reimbursement costs. Some of these are described in the Bonneville Purchasing 

Instructions Manual (BPI). The principles and procedures in Appendix 13-A “Contract 

Cost Principles for Commercial Organizations” are used in pricing most negotiated 

contracts and contract modifications with commercial organizations. BPI Appendix 13-A 

must be incorporated by reference in contracts with commercial organizations as the basis 

for determining reimbursable costs. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State 

and Local Governments,” sets forth the principles for determining the allowable costs of 

contracts and subcontracts with State, local and federally recognized Indian tribal 

governments. These principles are most pertinent to wildlife areas since most of the areas 

are owned by States or tribes. OMB Circulars No. A-21 and A-122 provides principles 

for determining the costs applicable to work performed by educational institutions and 

non-profits, respectively, under contracts with the Government. 

State and Tribal current cost management systems 

States typically have laws that govern contracts with other governments and private 

businesses. For example, the new Oregon Public Contracting Code (ORS subchapters 

279A, 279B, and 279C) became effective March 1, 2005. Revised Code of Washington 

Title 39 covers contracting procedures in that State. 

Merit Pay 

It is unusual for public employees to be compensated based on measured cost savings or 

similar accomplishments above a standard, especially if the standard is measured in 

dollars. Teachers in some states can receive incentive pay. Oregon has a school 

Superintendent Performance Incentive Program. In North Carolina, an Incentive Pay 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 24 

Program provided annual bonuses to groups that achieved cost savings targets (SGPRC, 

1981). The group could share up to 25 percent of any demonstrated cost savings. In the 

first year of the program some participating employees received $250 to $585 each. 

Federal and BPA Performance Pay 

The federal government uses incentive pay to improve performance in several ways. The 

Merit Pay System for managers in GS grades 13, 14, and 15 was replaced by the 

Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) in 1984. PMRS attempted to 

resolve Merit Pay System problems involving funding, acceptance, performance 

measurement, and administration, but was terminated in 1993. Currently, the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) oversees demonstration projects and agency award 

programs. 

Title VI of the Civil Service Reform Act, now codified in 5 U.S.C. 4703, authorizes 

the OPM to conduct demonstration projects that experiment with new and different 

human resources management concepts to determine whether changes in policies and 

procedures result in improved Federal human resources management. (Federal 

Register 1999). 

The GAO (2004) recently noted that: 

Prior work has identified nine key practices for effective performance management 

based on experiences in public sector organizations both in the United States and 

abroad. Among these practices, there is a growing understanding that the federal 

government needs to fundamentally rethink its current approach to pay and better link 

pay to individual and organizational performance. Federal agencies have been 

experimenting with pay for performance through the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM) personnel demonstration projects. 

BPA uses several programs to provide incentives for employees including individual 

awards, an Organization-Level Team Share Recognition Award Program, and the 

Success Share Recognition Award Program. The latter provides cash payouts to 

employees if BPA meets pre-designated target goals established each year. All eligible 

employees share equally in the payout. Payments under these programs were nearly 

eliminated following the budget crisis of 2004 (Beckett 2004). 

For 2007, any payout under the BPA Success Share awards was to be contingent on 

achieving both the Treasury payment target and at least $5 million in modified net 

revenue. Incentives were to be based on performance against the equally weighted targets 

below. 

• Transmission and generation reliability 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 25 

• Transmission system, hydro generation system, and energy efficiency/demand 

management 

• Regional Dialogue implementation 

• ESA compliance long-term action plan 

• Stakeholder satisfaction (Power, Transmission and EE customers; constituents; 

tribal governments) 

• Treasury payment and modified net revenue 

• Internal operating costs 

• Safety (BPA 2007c) 

New economic incentives 

Economic incentives would reward BPA managers, wildlife project managers, 

contractors or project staff for more cost-effective project management. There are two 

general types of incentives: compensation-based and competition-based. Compensationbased incentives are based on a performance standard with the manager, contractor or 

employee receiving a share of the cost savings relative to the standard. With competitionbased incentives, multiple parties are given the opportunity to bid for work and the 

lowest-cost bid that will complete the work is selected. 

Compensation-based incentives

There is a large economic literature about the use of compensation to induce efficiency. 

The most common economic incentives are the prospect of being demoted because of 

poor performance (a negative incentive) or the potential for additional salary in the future 

based on superior performance (a positive incentive). 

The wildlife O&M question in this task is similar to a situation in which a principal 

(BPA) cannot observe the behavior of an agent (the manager), and thus cannot tie 

compensation directly to performance. Economic theory points to strong effects of payfor-performance on output and quality of the agent, but empirical confirmation of the 

theory is weak. 

Using objective criteria such as cost-effectiveness for evaluating performance runs the 

risk that the agent will pay “too much” attention to those criteria and “too little” to others 

that may be important but harder to evaluate. Using subjective criteria, on the other hand, 

runs different risks, because agents may engage in non-productive behaviors that are 

aimed at influencing the subjective decisions. 

Any measure that provides information on performance can be used in the compensation 

package as a payment vehicle. Compensation can be “non-linear.” Performance by the 

agent below some threshold can lead to lower pay. Non-linear compensation can create 

incentives for inefficient behaviors; compensation should be closely related to the actual 

achievement of goals. Compensation should change with measures of performance, but 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 26 

must also take into account “noisiness” of measures, marginal returns to effort, and risk 

tolerance of agents and principals. 

Compensation schemes can have unintended consequences. Some agents might find or 

think that the resulting distribution or amount of compensation is unfair to them, and 

conflict among competing managers could be inefficient. Rewards for “aggregate 

measures of performance” help to avoid this problem. 

Since BPA must contract with State and tribes for wildlife projects on States and tribal 

lands, there is little potential for cost savings based on compensation incentives unless 

• the State and tribes are able to provide incentive pay, or 

• BPA can provide compensation to State employees above their State 

compensation. 

Below, some concepts for incentives are discussed without consideration of how cost 

savings might be distributed within the project or among project managers or staff. 

Base performance standards on groups of similar projects: This type of standard has 

been discussed. Based on the quality of information included in Pisces this approach does 

not appear to be generally applicable. BPA Fish and Wildlife projects operate in a wide 

range of purposes, ecosystems, and institutional settings. This diversity makes it difficult 

to establish benchmarks or numerical performance standards across projects to measure a 

project performance against. 

However, case-by-case comparisons may be useful. The comparability of two or more 

projects should be established on a case-by-case basis. 

Base performance standards on past costs or technology: The performance standard 

would be based on savings relative to past expenditure levels. Past expenditure levels, 

adjusted for inflation, would become the performance standard for the project. This 

standard has potential for application in BPA wildlife projects. 

Managers, given financial incentive to cut costs, may find new ways to do so. The 

incentive might be structured as an annual bonus for cost savings measured relative to the 

past years. The incentives program should also include verification that the cost savings 

were not created by a reduction in present or future habitat value. Possibly, verification of 

specific actions taken to cut costs would be required. For example, an incentive would be 

paid for a change in technology that is known to have the same or more habitat benefit 

for less cost. Incentives based on verifiable technical changes might also generate 

information about ways to cut costs in other projects. 

Base performance standards on planned costs or technology: This approach would 

provide additional compensation to workers or contractors who are able to reduce costs 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 27 

below planned levels. Similar to above, but the performance standard would be based on 

planned costs rather than past costs. Verification that habitat values are not being 

compromised should be included. Possibly, verification of specific actions taken to cut 

costs would be required. 

Base performance on habitat and costs: Some types of changes might reduce costs 

very little or not at all, but the amount or quality of habitat might be increased. These 

types of cost-effective improvements should not be neglected, but development of 

performance standards would require some work. To qualify for the incentive, an 

increase in habitat production would have to be demonstrated and the change would have 

to be shown to be cost-effective. 

Incentives for more cost-effective use of employee time: Most of the costs of many 

wildlife projects are for personnel. Therefore, incentives for cost-effective use of 

personnel are essential. Rewards or bonuses might be provided for personnel who are 

able to identify technologies or other methods for obtaining cost savings. 

Incentives to leverage funds: Managers should be rewarded for finding new sources of 

funds or other resources such as volunteer labor that can reduce Program costs. The 

performance standard is simply the amount of funds obtained, or savings from volunteer 

labor or other gifts could be based on past or planned costs that are avoided. 

Incentives to share resources: Some wildlife projects may have equipment or other 

technologies that could be applied in other projects to save costs. Incentives might be 

developed to reward managers of both projects for sharing of resources that result in cost 

savings. 

Conclusions about compensation issues 

• BPA is constrained with respect to salary-based incentives because wildlife 

project managers and staff are not BPA employees; they must often be 

compensated according to State or tribal laws or standards. 

• Proceed cautiously in making changes to compensation practices. 

• Use subjective and objective criteria and “learn by doing.” 

• Reduce “noise” in measures of performance. 

• Do not try to distinguish between “O&M” and “enhancement” activities and their 

associated costs. 

Competition-based incentives 

Opportunities for more use of competitive bidding to obtain cost savings occur at several 

points in contracting and management. The types of work required by the Program should 

be examined to determine the types of work that would most likely be provided at lower 

cost by bidding. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 28 

BPA generally writes cost-reimbursable contracts. If costs turn out to be more than 

expected BPA will generally cover it. Cost-reimbursable contracts provide little incentive 

for managers to overstate funding requests because of a risk that costs may come in 

higher than expected. However, incentives to overstate funding requests might include 

the potential for precedent, operational flexibility, and the potential for using excess 

funding for increased compensation, if possible. There could be some incentive to 

understate costs if managers believe their realistic budget request will be cut back but 

their chances of obtaining more funds in the future, perhaps with better documentation, 

are good. 

Since most wildlife areas are owned by the States or tribes, BPI section 11.7.1.2 applies 

and competitive bids are not obtained. Under BPI section 11.7.1.2. BPA can not normally 

seek competitive bids from wildlife areas on State or tribal lands. However, BPA could 

work with the State and tribal managers to identify work that should be put out to bid. 

A 1997 study found that: 

There is a lack of competition in the procurement process. When a project involves an 

entity that has the responsibility to manage the property or resource to be affected by 

the services to be performed, BPA exercises its ability to conduct noncompetitive 

transactions under Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI) 11.7.1.2. Practically, 

BPA cannot expect to receive competing proposals when this clause applies. 

Unless permission is granted to another organization, only the entity with 

responsibility for managing the targeted property is likely to have authority to perform 

work on the property. 

However, many of the contracts with public entities encompass sizable subcontracts 

with other public entities and private firms. BPA should not be limited in its ability to 

receive proposals that contain competitively bid subcontractor services. 

Recommendation: Assess the feasibility of modifying the Bonneville Purchasing 

Instructions to acquire subcontractor services by competitive procurement. At a 

minimum, this should require receipt of three proposals for services or, if three 

proposals were not able to be obtained, evidence that bids were solicited from at least 

three firms. All other contracts should be competitively bid in accordance with 

requirements established in the BPI (Moss Adams LLP 1997). 

To implement this recommendation, BPA will need to consider what types of costs 

should be competitively bid. This information could be compared to project plans and 

costs to determine discrete activities that should be bid. Guidance on competitive bidding 

to be required in a contract under 11.7.1.2 could be added to the BPI. The language might 

require the contractor to make use of competitive bidding to the extent authorized by their 

own State or tribal laws and policies. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 29 

Competitive bidding works best when a product is purchased repeatedly and when there 

are multiple bidders qualified to produce the good or service. The nature of the contract 

terms offered affect the quality of the contractors attracted to bid on the work. For 

example, shifting from fixed wage to piece work may increase the average quality of the 

workers. This is because workers who can benefit more from piece work will be 

attracted to the offers of compensation by piece.2 Each bid is developed by bidders 

having different cost structures and different information about how to accomplish the 

work cost-effectively. 

Contractors should be required to own their equipment, because that increases the 

incentive to maintain the equipment, compared with the case in which the principal 

provides the equipment. 

Some theory suggests that long-term contracting relationships promote efficiency. 

Dynamic agency contracts are renegotiated over time based on previous performance. 

Such contracts can encourage “honest behavior” because both sides have a lower 

incentive to “cheat” on the arrangement if the contract has a chance of being renewed 

(presumably the original contract created value for both counterparties, or it would not 

have been entered into in the first place). In a repeated contracting relationship (i.e., 

where principal/agent arrangements are renewed over time), future rents will provide an 

incentive for both counterparties to act in an honest manner, and the higher the future 

rents, the stronger the incentive. 

Under a quota system project sponsors would be paid based on a minimum production 

target. Quotas have nonlinear effects: if the agent has exceeded the quota, the incentive 

for further effort disappears. Similarly, if the agent has no or little chance of meeting the 

quota, the incentive is also substantially weakened. Incentives should be based on 

continuous measures of achievement, not quotas. In the case of wildlife, measures to use 

for quotas would be problematic. Therefore, contracts that include quotas are not 

recommended for wildlife projects. 

OMB Circulars No. A-87 encourages Federal agencies to test fee-for-service alternatives 

as a replacement for current cost-reimbursement payment methods. The National 

Performance Review's (NPR) recommended the fee-for-service approach to reduce the 

burden associated with maintaining systems for charging administrative costs to Federal 

programs and preparing and approving cost allocation plans. This approach was expected 

to increase incentives for administrative efficiencies and improve outcomes. These 

recommendations may be applicable within BPA’s contracting process. 

 

2

 A relevant study might be Harry Paarsch and Bruce Shearer. Tree planters in British Columbia displayed 

a positive output elasticity with respect to changes in rates for piece work. “The Response to Incentives 

and Contractual Efficiency: Evidence from a Field Experiment”, Centre interuniversitaire sur le risqué, les 

politiques économiques et l’emploi, Working Paper 07-01, January 2007. Available at 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=962146. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 30 

Conclusions about contracting issues 

• Program expenses should be examined to determine potential opportunities for 

cost savings through competitive bidding. 

• For most wildlife projects, competitive bidding is limited because projects are on 

State or Tribal land, but BPI 11.7.1.2 might be changed to encourage more 

competitive bidding within projects 

• Proceed cautiously in making changes to contracting practices. 

• For eligible lands, invite proposals for land O&M compensated based on 

“dollars/task” or “dollars/acre” with performance standards based on past or 

planned habitat values 

• Do not try to distinguish between “O&M” and “enhancement” activities and their 

associated costs. 

• Agents contracted to conduct O&M should be required to own and provide their 

equipment. 

• Because of the problems with timing and non-linear incentives, quotas for wildlife 

projects should be avoided. 

Cost management tools 

Additional cost management tools discussed here are more flexible funding, combining 

resources, additional research on cost-effectiveness, and value engineering. 

More flexible funding 

Project managers have noted situations where inflexible BPA funding has resulted in lost 

opportunities for cost savings. BPA’s annual budgeting process might be modified to 

allow more flexible spending to achieve efficiency. Annual budgeting can be a 

disincentive to efficiency when budget savings cannot be used in future years. Each year 

there may be an incentive to “spend it or lose it” even if the spending has become less 

desirable or efficient. The funds are available this year, so they are spent this year. From 

the manager’s perspective there is little incentive to save funds if unspent funds are lost 

to the project. Wildlife projects should be able to capture some of their annual savings 

with the remainder returned to the program. In some cases it may be efficient to delay 

spending until next year when conditions are more appropriate for the activity. In these 

cases managers should be able to document why the spending should be delayed and the 

funds should be held over. 

Inflexible spending rules can also be a disincentive to efficient spending. If funds cannot 

be transferred among activities there is no incentive to respond to the changing relative 

efficiencies of alternative activities. Wildlife projects need to be able to adjust to 

unforeseen conditions in the field. Weather conditions, habitat conditions and 

opportunities change in ways that can not be foreseen in advance. Under current spending 

rules, managers have an incentive to spend according to their budget even if this spending 

pattern is no longer efficient. Perhaps some alternative method would now cost less, but 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 31 

there is little incentive to use it because it’s not in the plan and the project can not capture 

any of the cost savings. 

Settlement agreements resulting in a trust fund provide managers the maximum 

flexibility to adjust spending according to conditions and, if the managers care about the 

projects, provide an incentive to save funds. However, there can be a lack of 

accountability regarding how funds are spent and there are significant risks that the fund 

and/or the habitat may be mismanaged. 

There are a number of middle courses between annual budgeting and settlement 

agreements that provide accountability, flexibility and incentive for savings. Funds that 

are budgeted for a specific purpose should be allowed to be used for more cost-effective 

methods that accomplish the same ends, and projects should be able to capture some of 

the savings for project use. 

Project budgeting could move to a 2 or 3-year cycle. Perhaps the longer cycle could be 

provided for projects with a history of good performance. Projects that are unable to meet 

performance standards might be returned to the annual budget system. Multi-year 

agreements might include a clause to allow renegotiation. Less frequent budgeting would 

reduce the amount of time required for budget planning and preparation and could 

provide more cost savings. 

Combining resources 

There appears to be some potential for cost savings by combining resources among 

wildlife projects. The regression analysis of BPA project costs indicates a strong 

economy of scale factor; apparently each project requires similar management resources 

regardless of size. Possibly, similar small projects could be combined and the amount of 

management and administrative resources reduced. A few agencies and tribes each 

manage multiple projects; perhaps some of the management functions of these projects 

could be combined. One project, Albeni Falls, is managed by multiple agencies. Perhaps 

the project should be aggregated into one project managed by one agency, or some of the 

management functions could be assumed by one management group. It is possible that 

combinations of projects across project sponsors could create new transactions costs that 

might outweigh the benefits. 

Research into cost-effective alternatives 

Another approach to cost management would directly increase the amount of investment 

in research that would identify cost-effective alternatives. Evaluations that will search for 

lower-cost options could be required as part of project proposals. This approach can be 

combined with incentives, and the incentives approach provides managers and others a 

reason to do the research to find more cost-effective options. Value engineering, 

discussed below, is an example. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 32 

Value engineering 

Value Engineering (VE) was developed at General Electric Corp. during World War II 

and is widely used in industry and government, particularly in areas such as defense, 

transportation, construction, and healthcare. VE is defined as "an analysis of the functions 

of a program, project, system, product, item of equipment, building, facility, service, or 

supply of an executive agency, performed by qualified agency or contractor personnel, 

directed at improving performance, reliability, quality, safety, and life cycle costs." The 

OFPP (Office of Federal Procurement Policy) Act requires every Federal agency to 

maintain a Value Engineering program. 

The purpose of the Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) Program is to induce 

contractors to propose contract modifications which reduce cost without reducing product 

or process performance. The VECP is the formal document a Contractor uses to submit a 

cost saving recommendation to the government in accordance with the VE contract 

provisions. A VECP must be submitted under an existing contract and must result in a 

change to that contract. In addition, the change must result in a reduction in the system's 

life cycle cost. To induce better analysis, VECP can be combined with economic 

incentives. 

Value engineering is often done by systematically following a multi-stage Job Plan. Four 

basic steps in the Job Plan are: 

1. Information gathering - This asks what the requirements are for the job. Function 

analysis, an important technique in value engineering, is usually done in this 

initial stage. It tries to determine what functions or performance characteristics are 

important. It asks questions like; What does the job do? What must it do? What 

should it do? What could it do? What must it not do? 

2. Alternative generation - In this stage value engineers ask; What are the various 

alternative ways of meeting requirements? What else will perform the desired 

function? 

3. Evaluation - In this stage all the alternatives are assessed by evaluating how well 

they meet the required functions and how great will the cost savings be. 

4. Presentation - In the final stage, the best alternative will be chosen and presented 

to the client for final decision. 

5. Steps to ensure identification of cost-effective alternatives. 

6. Changes in funding patterns over time. 

7. Cooperative multi-project management. 

8. Reward structures for managers. Here, the incentives should be addressed. 

Value engineering can be viewed as a formal method for cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Given the expense of implementing such a process it might be best applied to some of the 

larger structural components of the fish and wildlife program rather than land 

management. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 33 

References 

Beckett, Godfrey 2004. Building and Sustaining a Recognition Culture. Recognition 

at the Bonneville Power Administration. DOE HR Conference. June. 

Berger, Matt, 2007. Personal Communication, Colville Confederated Tribes. September. 

BPA. 2007. Bonneville Purchasing Instructions Manual. 

BPA 2007b. Process Improvement History. 

BPA 2007c. Strategic Vision Brochure 2007. BPA’s Strategic Direction with Key 

Agency Targets for Fiscal Year 2007 Targets strengthen the “four pillars” 

Center for Natural Lands Management, 2004. Natural Lands Management Cost Analysis 

– 28 Case Studies. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency. Fallbrook CA, 

October. 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 189/Thursday, September 30, 1999/Notices. Agency: 

Office of Personnel Management. Action: Notice of modification to Department of 

Commerce Personnel Management Demonstration Project. 

IEAB, 2006. Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information. Document IEAB 

2006-2, June 20. 

Mikkelsen, Anders. 2007. Personal Communication, CDAT, September. 

Moss Adams LLP. 1997. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Management 

Review of Contracting Processes. Document 98-1. December. 

Nowak, Kathy. 2007. Personal Communication, ODFW, September. 

Paarsch, Harry and Bruce Shearer. 2007. “The Response to Incentives and Contractual 

Efficiency: Evidence from a Field Experiment”, Centre interuniversitaire sur le risqué, 

les politiques économiques et l’emploi, Working Paper 07-01, January. 

Pamplin, Nate. 2007. Personal Communication. WDFW. September. 

Pope, Michael 2007a. Project Groupings for IEAB Task #116. Memo from CBFWA 

Wildlife Advisory Committee. June 12. 

Pope, Michael. 2007b. Subject: Spreadsheet of Wildlife Areas. Sent: Wednesday, July 

11, 2007. To: Roger Mann. 

Pope, Michael 2007c. Personal Communication, August 30. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 34 

Scheeler, Carl A, and Michael D. Pope. 2007. A Discussion of Factors Affecting 

Operations and Maintenance Costs Associated with Wildlife Mitigation Projects 

Implemented Under the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 

Prepared by the CBFWA Wildlife Committee for The Independent Economic Advisory 

Board, January. 

Servheen, 2007. Personal Communication, IDFG, September. 

Soults, Scott. 2007. Personal communication. RE: IEAB Regression results and 

explanation for variation. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish and Wildlife Department. E-mails 

received September 14 and October 19 2007 

Speten, David. 2007. Personal Communication, Burns-Paiute Tribe, September 12. 

State Government Productivity Research Center. 1981. Improving Productivity through 

Monetary Incentives: North Carolina’s Bonus Experiment. Council of State 

Governments. 

United States General Accounting Office. 2004. Report to Congressional Requesters. 

Human Capital. Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel Demonstration 

Projects. GAO-04-83. January. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2007. Evolution of Federal White-Collar Pay 

Strategic Compensation Policy Center, Washington. 

Zelinsky, Ben, 2007. Personal communication. BPA. July. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 35 

Oregon Idaho Washington

BPA Work Element and WHIP Practice Name Component

Unit Type

Unit 

Cost Practice_Name Component

Unit Type

Unit 

Cost Practice Name 

Conduct Controlled Burn

Brush Management Burn ac $10

Remove Vegetation

Brush Management (Ac.) Brush Management, Biological Acre $15

Brush Management (Ac.) Brush Management, Chemical Acre $100 Brush Management Chemical ac $25Brush Management (Ac.) Brush Management, Mechanical Acre $175 Brush Management Mechanical ac $25Brush Management (Ac.)

Brush Management, Mechanical, Difficult Acre $200

Brush Management (Ac.) Brush Management, Piling Acre $60

Practice No-till and Conservation 

Tillage Systems

Conservation Cover (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Native Acre $300 Conservation Cover Native Vegetation ac $140

Conservation cover seedbed preparation 

Conservation Cover (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Non-Native Acre $150

Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Native Acre $300

Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Non-Native Acre $150

Cover Crop (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding Acre $75

Upland Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control

Grassed Waterway (Ac.) Erosion Control Fabric SqFt $4Grassed Waterway (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Native Acre $300

Grassed Waterway (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Non-Native Acre $150

Grassed Waterway (Ac.) Shaping and Site Preparation Acre $200Grassed Waterway (Ac.) Shaping and Site Preparation CuYd $6

Plant Vegetation

Range Planting (Ac.)

Range Planted, Broadcast, Introduced Acre $100 Range Planting

Native, Site Prep, Seed and Seeding ac $100.00

Range Planting (Ac.) Range Planted, Broadcast, Native Acre $150Range Planting (Ac.) Range Planted, Drill, Introduced Acre $90Range Planting (Ac.) Range Planted, Drill, Native Acre $150Critical Area Planting (Ac.) Erosion Control Fabric SqFt $4 Critical Area Planting

Critical Area Planting (All components with shaping) Not to exceed 5 ac. ac $250

Critical area planting grading shaping 

Critical Area Planting (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Native Acre $350 Critical Area Planting

Critical Area Planting (All components with moderate shaping) Not to exceed 5 ac ac $475

Critical area planting plugs aplanting 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Cost Lists , 2007, abbreviated and organized by BPA Work Element
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 36 

Oregon Idaho Washington

Plant Vegetation

Critical Area Planting (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Non-Native Acre $200 Critical Area Planting

Critical Area Planting (All components with heavy shaping) Not to exceed 5 ac ac $690 Critical area planting site prep 

Critical Area Planting (Ac.) Shaping and Site Preparation Acre $100Critical Area Planting (Ac.) Shaping and Site Preparation CuYd $6

Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats Range Site Planting ac $100.00Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats Forest Site Planting ac $300.00Riparian Forest Buffer Riparian Forest Buffer ac $1,500 Riparian forest buffer site prep 

Riparian forest buffer damage protection Riparian forest buffer oregon white oakRiparian forest buffer tree/shrub Riparian forest buffer tree/shrub

Riparian forest buffer tree/shrub 

Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Moisture Conservation, Intense Acre $150Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Moisture Conservation, Non-Intense Acre $75Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Moisture Conservation, Tree Matts Sqft $1Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Site Prep, Tree/Shrub, Planted Acre $400Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Tree/Shrubs Bare Root, Planted Each $2Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Tree/Shrubs Cuttings, Planted Each $2Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Tree/Shrubs Live Stakes, Planted Each $1Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.)

Tree/Shrubs, 1 gallon Container, Planted Each $5

Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.)

Tree/Shrubs, 2 gallon Container, Planted Each $10

Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.)

Tree/Shrubs, 5 gallon Container, Planted Each $14

Riparian Forest Buffer (Ac.) Tree/Shrubs, Container, Planted Each $5Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Native Acre $300 Riparian Herbaceous Cover

Riparian Herbaceous Cover Seed Bed Preparation, Seed and Seeding ac $300.00

Riparian herbaceous cover site prep 

Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Ac.)

Seedbed Preparation, Seed & Seeding, Non-Native Acre $150

Tree/Shrub Establishment (Ac.) Animal Damage Control, Barrier Each $2 Tree and Shrub Establishment Without Vexar or Chemical ac $320.00Tree/Shrub Establishment (Ac.) Animal Damage Control, Cage Each $15 Tree and Shrub Establishment

With Vexar or Chemical (Pronone) ac $610.00

Tree/Shrub Establishment (Ac.) Animal Damage Control, Repellant Acre $75Tree/Shrub Establishment (Ac.) Moisture Conservation, Intense Acre $150

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Cost Lists , 2007, abbreviated and organized by BPA Work Element
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 37 

Oregon Idaho Washington

Install Fence

Fence (Ft.) Fence, All Types Foot $3 Fence Electric ft $1.25 Fence cattle guard 

Fence (Ft.) Fence, Barbed Wire Foot $2 Fence Wire, 3 Strand ft $1.75 Fence electric charger for fence Fence (Ft.) Fence, Buck & Pole Foot $20 Fence Wire, 4 Strand ft $2.00 Fence fence CorraFence (Ft.) Fence, Electric, Permanent Foot $2 Fence Wire, 5 Strand ft $2.30

Fence fence - includes gates}{\insrsid11404049 Ft 

Fence (Ft.) Fence, Electric, Temporary Foot $1 Fence Jack (wood rail) ft $5.75 Fence fence

Instal

steep 

Fence (Ft.) Fence, Smooth Wire Foot $2 Fence Woven Wire ft $4.50Fence (Ft.) Fence, Woven Wire Foot $3.50 Fence Corral (Metal Rails & Posts) ft $15.00Fence (Ft.) Gate Each $300 Fence Corral (Wood Panels & Posts) ft $8.00Fence (Ft.) Solar Panel System Each $350

Develop Pond

Pond (No.) Concrete Work, Non-Reinforced CuYd $150

Pond (No.) Concrete Work, Reinforced CuYd $250Pond (No.) Excavation/Fill, Import CuYd $8Pond (No.) Excavation/Fill, Import, Difficult CuYd $12Pond (No.) Excavation/Fill, On-Site CuYd $4Pond (No.) Excavation/Fill, On-Site, Difficult CuYd $5Pond (No.) Geotextile Fabric SqFt $1Pond (No.) Gravel, Sand CuYd $25Pond (No.) Pipe, All Types DiaInF $2Pond (No.) Pond Each $5,000Pond (No.) Rock CuYd $35

Develop Alternative Water Source

Pumping Plant (No.) Livestock Water Pump Each $850

Pumping Plant (No.)

Nose, Ram, Sling, Other Similar Pump Each $800

Pumping Plant (No.) Solar Panel System Each $6,000Watering Facility (No.) Reservoir Stand BdFt $4 Watering Facility

Watering Facility (open steel tank) no $850.00

Watering Facility (No.) Tank or Trough Each $1,500 Watering Facility Storage Tank (new) gal $2.50Watering Facility (No.) Tank or Trough Gallon $3 Watering Facility Storage Tank (used) gal $0.25Watering Facility (No.) Tank or Trough, Difficult Gallon $4 Watering Facility Watering Facility (Heated) no $1,500Spring Development (No.) Collection Pipe Foot $5 Spring Development Spring Development no $2,350Spring Development (No.) Concrete Work, Reinforced CuYd $250Spring Development (No.) Excavation/Fill, On-Site CuYd $50

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Cost Lists , 2007, abbreviated and organized by BPA Work Element
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 38 

Oregon Idaho Washington

Develop Alternative Water Source

Spring Development (No.) Geotextile Fabric SqFt $1

Spring Development (No.) Gravel, Sand CuYd $25Spring Development (No.) Rock CuYd $35Spring Development (No.) Spring Collection Box Each $750Spring Development (No.) Spring Development Each $3,000

Water Well

Livestock Water Only - Max $10,000 cost share ft $40.00

Wildlife Watering Facility (No.) Wildlife Watering Facility Each $1,200 Wildlife Watering Facility Wildlife Watering Facility no $780.00

Create, Restore, and/or Enhance 

Wetland

Wetland Creation (Ac.)

See Restoration below, most practices apply CuYd $8 Wetland Creation Wetland Creation ac $5,000

Wetland Enhancement (Ac.)

See Restoration below, most practices apply CuYd $8 Wetland Enhancement Management Practice ac $35.00

Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Drain Tile Removal Foot $3 Wetland Enhancement

Management Practice plus Structures ac $2,000

Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Excavation/Fill, Import CuYd $8 Wetland Restoration Management Practices ac $35.00Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Excavation/Fill, Import, Difficult CuYd $12 Wetland Restoration

Management Practice plus Structures ac $5,000

Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Excavation/Fill, On-Site CuYd $4Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Excavation/Fill, On-Site, Difficult CuYd $5Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Geotextile Fabric SqFt $1Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Gravel, Sand CuYd $25Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Invasive Species Control Acre $150Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Pipe, All Types DiaInF $2Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Rock CuYd $35Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Site Preparation Acre $200Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Structures/Tide Gate, Removal Each $1,000Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Wetland Herbaceous Plantings Acre $400Wetland Restoration (Ac.) Woody Debris Placement Each $300

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Cost Lists , 2007, abbreviated and organized by BPA Work Element
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 39 

Appendix 2. 

Detailed Cost Data for COE-maintained Wildlife Mitigation Areas Collected by Herrera and Key 

(2002). 2002 Dollars. 

Contract Year is March 1 to September 30. 

John Henley HMU (967 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 10 AC $600.00 $6,000.00 

Mowing with residue removal 12 AC $165.00 $1,980.00 

Mowing without residue removal 12 AC $80.00 $960.00 

O&M of irrigation sets 5 MO $1,600.00 $8,000.00 

Litter collection 7 EA $82.00 $574.00 

Mowing trails, roads, & risers 1 JB $200.00 $200.00 

Fertilize pastures 4 AC $120.00 $480.00

 TOTAL $18,194.00 

COST/ACRE $18.81 

Ridpath Bar HMU (64 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 3 AC $600.00 $1,800.00 

Mowing with residue removal 12 AC $165.00 $1,980.00 

Mowing without residue removal 12 AC $80.00 $960.00 

O&M of irrigation systems 5 MO $2,900.00 $14,500.00 

Litter collection 7 EA $82.00 $574.00 

Mowing trails, roads, & risers 1 JB $200.00 $200.00 

Fertilize pastures 4 AC $120.00 $480.00

 TOTAL $20,494.00 

COST/ACRE $320.22 

New York Bar HMU (210 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 8 AC $600.00 $4,800.00 

Mowing with residue removal 21 AC $165.00 $3,465.00 

Mowing without residue removal 21 AC $80.00 $1,680.00 

O&M of irrigation sets 5 MO $4,200.00 $21,000.00 

Litter collection (incl. N.Y. Island) 7 EA $82.00 $574.00 

Mowing trails, roads, & risers 1 JB $200.00 $200.00 

Fertilize goose pastures 7 AC $120.00 $840.00

 TOTAL $32,559.00 

COST/ACRE $155.04 

Central Ferry HMU (296 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 9 AC $600.00 $5,400.00 

Litter collection 7 EA $82.00 $574.00 

Fertilize rangeland/pastures 15 AC $120.00 $1,800.00

 TOTAL $7,774.00 

COST/ACRE $26.26 

Rice Bar HMU (330 acres) 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 40 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 10 AC $600.00 $6,000.00 

Mowing of fireline w/o residue removal 5 AC $80.00 $400.00 

O&M of irrigation sets 5 MO $800.00 $4,000.00 

Litter collection 43 EA $82.00 $3,526.00 

Mowing trails, roads, and tree plots 1 JB $200.00 $200.00

 TOTAL $14,126.00 

COST/ACRE $42.81

 

Willow Bar HMU (232 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 17 AC $600.00 $10,200.00

 TOTAL $10,200.00 

COST/ACRE $43.97 

 

Swift Bar HMU (526 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 31.5 AC $600.00 $18,900.00 

Mowing with residue removal 46.5 AC $165.00 $7,672.50 

Mowing without residue removal 46.5 AC $80.00 $3,720.00 

O&M of irrigation sets 5 MO $6,000.00 $30,000.00 

Litter collection 13 EA $82.00 $1,066.00 

Mowing trails, roads, & risers 1 JB $200.00 $200.00 

Fertilization of rangeland/pastures 15.5 AC $120.00 $1,860.00

 TOTAL $63,418.50 

COST/ACRE $120.57 

 

Nisqually John HMU (3,077 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Fertilization of rangeland 20 AC $120.00 $2,400.00 

Litter collection 31 EA $82.00 $2,542.00

 TOTAL $4942.00 

COST/ACRE $1.61 

 

Chief Timothy HMU (66 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 3 AC $600.00 $1,800.00 

Mowing with residue removal 12 AC $165.00 $1,980.00 

Mowing without residue removal 12 AC $80.00 $960.00 

O&M of irrigation sets 5 MO $2,900.00 $14,500.00 

Litter collection 37 EA $82.00 $3,034.00 

Mowing trails, roads, & risers 1 JB $200.00 $200.00 

Fertilization of pastures 5.5 AC $120.00 $660.00

 TOTAL $23,134.00 

COST/ACRE $350.52 

 

Hellsgate HMU (650 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 2 AC $600.00 $1,200.00 

Mowing without residue removal 5 AC $80.00 $400.00 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 41 

O&M of irrigation systems 5 MO $1,500.00 $7,500.00 

Litter collection 43 EA $82.00 $3,526.00 

Mowing trails, roads, & risers 1 JB $200.00 $200.00 

Fertilize rangeland 10 AC $120.00 $1,200.00

 TOTAL $14,026.00 

COST/ACRE $21.58 

 

Upper Goose Pasture HMU (32 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 1 AC $600.00 $600.00 

Mowing with residue removal 19.5 AC $165.00 $3,217.50 

Mowing without residue removal 19.5 AC $80.00 $1,560.00 

O&M of irrigation systems 5 MO $1,500.00 $7,500.00 

Litter collection 43 EA $82.00 $3,526.00 

Fertilization of pastures 8 AC $120.00 $960.00

 TOTAL $17,363.50 

COST/ACRE $542.61 

 

Lower Goose Pasture HMU (47 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 6.5 AC $600.00 $3,900.00 

Litter collection 43 EA $82.00 $3,526.00

 TOTAL $7,426.00 

COST/ACRE $158.00 

This contract also featured other work requirements that were spread among the HMUs. These 

work requirements are listed in the following table. 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Chemical weed control, land-based spraying 1500 HR $64.95 $97,425.00 

Chemical weed control, aerial spraying 250 AC $63.50 $15,875.00 

Routine inspection/maint. of goose nest structures 79 EA $50.00 $3,950.00 

Fence maintenance (panels) 100 PA $45.00 $4,500.00 

Inspect/maint. gallinaceous guzzlers 44 EA $79.25 $3,487.00 

Winterization of irrigation systems 1 JB $5,000.00 $5,000.00 

Dewinterization of irrigation systems 1 JB $5,000.00 $5,000.00 

Sterilization of parking lots 1 JB $5,006.53 $5,006.53 

Mowing of food plots (late winter) 5 AC $120.00 $600.00 

Tree removal 30 EA $300.00 $9,000.00 

Litter collection at Tucannon HMU 43 EA $82.00 $3,526.00 

The following projects have a contract year of January 1 to September 30. 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 42 

McNary Lock and Dam Areas (3,213 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 1 AC $630.00 $630.00 

Mowing without residue removal 5 AC $85.00 $425.00 

Litter collection 20 EA $80.00 $1,600.00 

Fence maintenance (panels) 10 EA $48.00 $480.00 

Inspect/clean/repair gallinaceous guzzlers 1 EA $85.00 $85.00 

Tree removal 80 HR $125.00 $10,000.00 

Chemical weed control 200 AC $82.00 $16,400.00

 TOTAL $29,620.00 

COST/ACRE $9.22 

 

Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Areas (2,032 acres) 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 27 AC $630.00 $17,010.00 

Mowing w/residue removal 40 AC $170.00 $6,800.00 

Mowing w/o residue removal 40 AC $85.00 $8,000.00 

Litter collection 100 EA $80.00 $8,000.00 

O&M of irrigation sets – Big Flat HMU 6 MO $5,570.00 $33,420.00 

O&M of irrigation sets – Lost Island HMU 6 MO $2,550.00 $15,300.00 

O&M of irrigation sets – Hollebeke HMU 6 MO $4,100.00 $24,600.00 

Fence maintenance (panels) 20 EA $48.00 $960.00 

Inspect/clean/repair gallinaceous guzzlers 17 EA $85.00 $1,445.00 

Fertilization of goose pastures 12 AC $120.00 $1,440.00 

Winterization of irrigation systems 1 JB $4,000.00 $4,000.00 

Dewinterization of irrigation systems 1 JB $4,000.00 $4,000.00 

Tree removal 100 HR $125.00 $12,500.00 

Chemical weed control 400 AC $82.00 $32,800.00

 TOTAL $170,275.00 

COST/ACRE $83.80 

 

Lower Monumental Lock and Dam Areas 

(2,486 acres) 

 

O&M Activity Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

Establishment of annual food plots 5 AC $630.00 $3,150.00 

Mowing w/residue removal 15 AC $170.00 $2,550.00 

Mowing w/o residue removal 15 AC $85.00 $1,275.00 

Litter collection 20 EA $80.00 $1,600.00 

O&M of irrigation sets – Skookum HMU 6 MO $4,430.00 $26,580.00 

O&M of irrigation sets – 55-Mile HMU 6 MO $3,950.00 $23,700.00 

Fence maintenance (panels) 10 EA $48.00 $480.00 

Inspect/clean/repair gallinaceous guzzlers 11 EA $85.00 $935.00 

Fertilization of goose pastures 7 AC $120.00 $840.00 

Winterization of irrigation systems 1 JB $3,016.42 $3,016.42 

Dewinterization of irrigation systems 1 JB $3,020.00 $3,020.00 

Tree removal 80 HR $125.00 $10,000.00 

Chemical weed control 400 AC $82.00 $32,800.00

 TOTAL $109,946.42 

COST/ACRE $44.23 
IEAB Wildlife O&M Costs Page 43 

_______________________________________ 

q:\tm\ww\ieab\task_116_report103007.doc