, 9q .-U, w" nited States Department of 

I Agriculture 

Habitat Improvement Costs 

Forest Service on State-Owned 

NOmea*rn Experiment Station Wildlife Management Areas 

Research Paper NEB21 i n New Y 0 r k 

@ Ronald J. Glass 
- -- 

Abstract 

Estimates of management costs on New York State's wildlife management areas 

indicate that human-use management is more costly than habitat management. 

Agricultural agreements and timber sales make a major contribution to habitat 

enhancement, and a variety of wildlife species benefit. 

The Author 

RONALD J. GLASS is a research economist with the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, Burlington, Vermont. He also has worked with the Economic 

Research Service of the US. Department of Agriculture and the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. He received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in economics 

from the University of Minnesota and the State University of New York at 

Syracuse. 

Manuscript received for publication 28 July 1988 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

370 Reed Road, Broomall, PA 19008 

February 1989 
Introduction I 

I 

There is little reliable information on the costs of providing 

wildlife-related recreational services. Much of the difficulty in 

securing such data is due to the inherent' complexities in 

quantifying interrelationships between haeitat and wildlife 

populations. The state of the art has not yet developed to 

the point where units of input can be specifically related to 

units of output, i.e., basic production functions usually are 

not well established. Even if reliable biopQysica1 data were 

available, the level of human satisfaction bttributable to 

various levels of wildlife ~o~ulations is not clearly 

It should be emphasized that the purpose of this study is not 

to facilitate benefit-cost analysis for public investment in 

wildlife habitat. Benefit-cost analysis has been used with 

varying degrees of success in natural resource planning, but 

has been most effective as a data-collecting system rather 

than a decision rule. The data inadequacies cited, the 

difficulties in specifying where wildlife-related benefits 

accrue, and the inappropriateness of expressing many 

wildlife-related values in monetary terms severely limit the 

usefulness of benefit-cost analysis to justify public 

investment in wildlife habitat improvements. 

understood. As a result, costs of wildiife 

enhancement cannot be readily expressed in terms of their However, reliable estimates of the costs of specific 

influence on wildlife populations or related human wildlife management practices are needed for both public 

satisfaction. There is a dearth of even more basic agency planning and budgeting, as well as the benefit of 

information on the costs of improving wildlife habitat. In this private individuals or organizations that wish to enhance 

study, estimates of the costs of specific inputs to the wildlife wildlife populations through habitat improvement. 

production process are made. 

Figure 1 .-New York State wildlife managdment regions. 
This study concentrates on estimating the costs of specific 

habitat enhancement activities on New York State's wildlife 

management areas (WMA). Until research provides 

information specifying the changes in wildlife populations 

that are attributable to specific actions' and a better 

understanding is developed on the interrelationship between 

wildlife populations and human satisfaction, the results of 

this study can contribute to only one aspect of a complex 

issue. 

The WMA within New York State are under the jurisdiction 

of the Bureau of Wildlife of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, 

Department of Environmental Conservation. The state is 

divided into nine autonomous regions, each of which has a 

regional wildlife manager (Fig. 1). Those regions with WMA 

have staff members with assigned responsibilities for their 

management. Within the context of the Bureau's overall 

responsibilities, the WMA have a relatively minor role in 

terms of budget and manpower assignments. 

Methods 

This study was conducted through a cooperative agreement 

between the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station and 

the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. Initially, all seven of the New York Bureau of 

Wildlife regions which have responsibility for WMA were 

visited and data collected on size of areas, habitat 

management activities, and target species. Additional 

information on funding sources, aggregate costs, and the 

organizational structure were collected at the Bureau's 

headquarters in Albany and the Wildlife Resources Center in 

Delmar. 

Specific data on inputs, costs, and outputs were collected 

during subsequent trips to the Regional Offices. In general, 

records were inadequate for a detailed cost analysis except 

for Region 7, which had more complete data for the 1984-85 

fiscal year. Therefore, the more detailed cost analysis in this 

report is based upon Region 7 data for that fiscal year. 

 conceptual^ Framework of Costs 

A discussion of the conceptual framework of costs provides 

an opportunily to place various costs in the proper 

perspective with respect to the decisionmaking process. 

Costs can be separated into various categories for 

convenience, such as fixed and variable costs. Variable 

costs refer to those that change with the level of output over 

a relevant time period: fixed costs do not. Over long periods 

of time, all costs are variable, that is, mangement is not 

'Wildlife populations also are affected when no managerial 

action (passive management) is taken because the 

environment is likely to change over time through such factors 

as natural vegetative succession. 

constrained by past decisions. As decisions are made that 

cannot be readily altered in the short run, some costs 

become fixed, i.e., they are absorbed regardless of changes 

in the level of output. Even if fixed costs are allocated over a 

period of time, they must be paid regardless of the quantity 

of goods and services produced. As a result, fixed costs are 

not germaine to the short-run decisionmaking process. 

The managing agency can view fixed costs as given in the 

short run and concentrate on decisions that involve that 

portion of the budget which is not previously committed. For 

example, the orginal cost of land should not influence public 

agency management decisions relating to output during a 

given year since the decision for purchase and commitment 

of funds already has been made. The more important 

question relates to the additional benefits that will result from 

the commitment of additional inputs which can be expressed 

as costs. 

The costs of managing WMA can be categorized as land 

procurement, capital improvements, and "maintenance and 

operation." Depending on the situation and time frame, 

elements of each category can be fixed or variable costs, 

though land and capital investments are more likely to be 

fixed in the short run. 

Considering the purchase price of land as a cost of 

production is not particularly meaningful to the management 

of publicly owned lands such as state owned WMA. In some 

cases, land was received as gifts so there were no initial 

explicit costs. If land had been purchased, it would be 

possible to compound the initial investment cost over time 

and allocate a portion of the costs to specific time periods, 

but this information would not be particularly meaningful. 

Further, most lands probably have increased in market value 

since being procured by the state. In these cases, the state 

may have incurred only implicit costs such as opportunity 

costs. 

Opportunity costs represent the value foregone when one 

course of action is chosen over another. If several 

alternatives are sacrificed, the one with the next highest 

value to the course of action chosen represents the 

opportunity cost. Opportunity costs are most often 

expressed in monetary terms but can be expressed by other 

measures. For example, the opportunity cost of a reclaimed 

agricultural land can be expressed in the acreage of 

wetlands lost. On the other hand, agricultural enterprises 

forsaken for the preservation of wetlands often can be 

expressed in monetary terms. 

Opportunity costs can provide useful insights for habitat 

management if they are interpreted within the context of 

their limitations. For example, a logging plan in an unroaded 

area might be developed strictly on the basis of "economic 

efficiency" (i.e., maximizing net revenues) and then be 

altered to retain critical winter range for deer. The difference 
in monetary value between the "economic efficient solution" 

and the alternative solution which retains the deer habitat is 

an opportunity cost. Leaving an area for winter deer cover 

would likely reduce total timber revenues and increase road 

costs per unit of output. The loss in net revenues that would 

result by selecting the alternative that retained the deer yard 

over the highest net income alternative is the opportunity 

cost. This is an oversimplification since the uncertainty of 

future events also must be brought into the decisionmaking 

process. 

With respect to statutorily designated WMA, there are no 

opportunity costs at the Bureau of Wildlife operational level. 

Since the Bureau does not have the option to put the 

management areas into other uses, there can be no 

opportunity cost. However, there are opportunity costs within 

the management realm with respect to specific habitat 

management manipulations, such as eliminating mature 

forests to improve habitat for ruffed grouse. Again, these 

opportunity costs can be identified conceptually, but are 

difficult to measure in the absence of reliable data on the 

effects of habitat changes on wildlife populations and related 

human satisfaction. 

Capital improvements such as roads, dams, dikes, and other 

fairly permanent factors of production are fixed costs once a 

commitment is made to construct or purchase them. As with 

all inputs, capital improvements are variablp costs in the 

long run but become fixed once this commitment is made. 

As a result, capital improvement costs are relevant to the 

decisionmaking process over the period of Ithe expected life 

of the improvement, but represent a fixed cost for shorter 

periods of time. When decisions are being made regarding 

the commitment of funds for capital improvements, costs 

must be compounded over the expected lifb of the 

improvement at the appropriate interest rate. Choosing an 

appropriate interest rate that reflects the oqportunity cost of 

money and considers risk and uncertainty is a difficult and 

largely subjective task, and is beyond the sbope of this 

report. 

While the recovery of capital investment coSts over time can 

be an important consideration in setting usdr fees for such 

facilities as campgrounds (Reiling and Anderson 1983, 

Gibbs 1980), it has no relevance with respect to 

state-owned WMA. The Bureau of Wildlife has not been 

given the mandate to recover these costs and does not 

charge fees for public use. As a result, the costs of capital 

improvements are relevant to long-range planning but do not 

enter into annual budgeting decisions once the initial 

commitments are made. 

For the most part, maintenance and operating costs are 

variable costs, though they might be fixed under certain 

circumstances. The usual case is that outputs are sensitive 

to labor-related inputs and thus are in the category of 

variable costs. The inputs that are responsible for changing 

levels of output are paramount to short-run decisionmaking. 

Given the fixed factors of production, maintenance and 

operating costs have a direct relationship with the quantity of 

outputs. For example, the magnitude of the temporary 

workforce and availability of supplies can be the determining 

factor in the quantity of wood duck nest boxes that are 

installed during a 2-week period. 

While the Bureau of Wildlife is involved in the budgetary 

process, its range of options diminishes as the process 

moves forward. Capital construction financing is 

appropriated by the legislature, which may appropriate 

additional funds or commit Conservation Fund monies. Even 

though operation and maintenance funds are administered 

by the Bureau, for the most part, it does not own machinery 

or do the work itself. Tasks are performed by the 

Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of 

Operations, which charges the Bureau for the use of its 

workforce, supplies, and machinery. However, it is difficult to 

trace costs to actual outputs. Each region submits a list of 

work priorities to the Division of Operations in the form of an 

annual "Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Development 

Plan," with the Division completing the selected tasks until 

funding is exhausted. In practice, tasks performed by the 

Division of Operations may be financed one fiscal year but 

accomplished in another fiscal year. The inability to clearly 

trace appropriations to accomplishments in any given year 

contributes to the complications of cost analysis for specific 

activities. 
Management Activities 

As an agency of the Department of Environmental 

Conservation, the Division of Fish and Wildlife receives 

funding from three sources: (1) a Conservation Fund, which 

includes license fees, permits, donations, fish and wildlife 

related fines and penalties, migratory bird stamp revenues, 

and Return a Gift to Wildlife, a state income tax checkoff 

In 1985 there were 80 WMA comprising 174,227 acres 

within seven2 of the nine Bureau of Wildlife regions (Table 

1). Regions 1 (Long Island) and 2 (New York City) do not 

have such areas. Region 6 has the largest number of WMA, 

although not the greatest area devoted to this purpose. With 

respect to total acreage in WMA, Region 7 was the highest 

followed by Region 6. 

donation program; (2) general fund appropriations by the The WMA in New York range in size from an acre to the legislature; and (3) federal aid funds such as those 11,598-acre Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area in originating from the Pittman-Robertson Act. During the 

1984-85 fiscal year, the Division of Fish and Wildlife budget 2The'Bureau of Wildlife manages the Rocky Point Natural 

was $24.7 million. Resources Area in Region 1 (Long Island), but it is not legally a 

WMA. 

Table 1 .-Number and total acres of state-owned wildlife management areas (WMA) 

by Region, New York, 1985 

-- -- - 

Region Counties in region 

Number of 

Number of acres in 

WMA WMA 

1 Nassau, Suffolk None 

2 New York City None 

Dutchess, Orange, 

3 Putnam, Rockland, 

Sullivan, Ulster 

Albany, Columbia, Green 

Delaware, Montgomery, Otsego, 

Rensselaer, Schenectady, 

Schoharie 

Clinton, Essex, Franklin, 

5 Fulton, Hamilton, Saratoga, 

Warren, Washington 

- 

Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, 

Oneida, St. Lawrence 

Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, 

7 Cortland, Madison, Onondaga, 

Oswego, Tioga, Tompkins 

Chemung, Genesee, Livingston, 

8 Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, 

Seneca, Steuben, Wayne 

Allegany, Cattaraugus, 

9 Chautauqua, Erie, Niagara, 

Wyoming 

Total 80 174,227 
Region 7 (Table 2). Slightly more than ode-half of the state's 

WMA are less than 1,000 acres. The average size of WMA 

in this category is 256 acres; in total, they account for only 6 

percent of the total acreage. The seven areas that exceed 

7,000 acres contain over one-third of the total area in WMA. 

The average size of all WMA in New York is 2,178 acres. 

Management activities on WMA can be divided into those 

concerned with improving habitat for wildlife and those 

related to human use. Some management activities can be 

of benefit to both categories, such as roads that provide 

access to facilitate habitat improvement work and also make 

these areas more accessible for hunters and other visitors. 

A large proportion of the inputs and related costs allocated 

to WMA are designed to accommodate human use. 

Property-line boundaries are surveyed and marked. Roads, 

parking areas, paths, and bridges are constructed and 

maintained to improve human access. Gates and fences are 

installed in critical areas to control patterns of human use 

and protect vulnerable habitats from human encroachment. 

On some WMA, boat-launching sites are constructed and 

maintained. There also are observation sites, boardwalks, 

explanatory signs, and sanitary facilities. A few WMA have 

beaches that are maintained in natural condition but often 

used by the public for a variety of water-related sports. On 

most WMA, the activities associated with human use are far 

more time consuming and costly than those designed to 

improve wildlife habitat. 

Efforts to improve habitat on WMA are designed to benefit a 

wide range of wildlife species. On a statewide basis, 

waterfowl were specified most frequently in the survey as 

the target of habitat enhancement. Wood ducks were 

mentioned as the target species in about one-third of the 

cases involving waterfowl. For species other than waterfowl, 

there was more diversity regarding the target species, with 

ruffed grouse and wild turkeys being named most often. By 

contrast, one area, Bog Brook in Region 3, was engaged in 

habitat improvement for the benefit of the bog turtle, an 

endangered species in New York. In many cases, habitat 

enhancement was designed to benefit a combination of 

several wildlife species with similar habitat requirements, 

such as certain associations of song birds. Some species 

such as the bluebird were given high attention regionally 

(Region 3) but were not a major concern statewide, largely 

due to the species' range. 

Table 2.-Size distribution of New York's wildlife management areas (WMA), 1984' 

Acres in 

size class Average no. 

Area Number of as percent Total no. of acres Percent of 

(acres) WMA of total of acres per WMA total acreage 

7000 and over 7 ~ 8.8 59,709 8,530 34.3 

-- - - - - - - - -- 

Total 80 100.0 174,227 2,178 100.0 
Specific habitat manipulation practices can be directed for 

the benefit of one species or group of species on a given 

WMA but the same practices are implemented for the 

benefit of different species on other WMA (Table 3). For 

instance, cropland leases to produce wildlife food were 

implemented on six WMA to benefit eight species or groups 

of species of wildlife, but the benefitting wildlife varied from 

area to area. Some activities such as mowing often are 

directed at a wide range of wildlife species, while others are 

designed to benefit a single species. Mowing, the most 

common habitat improvement practice, was conducted on 

31 WMA; installing and maintaining nesting boxes on 29; 

maintaining water-control structures on 16; and timber sales 

to benefit wildlife on 12. In relative terms, habitat 

improvement was not a major effort on most of New York's 

WMA during the 1984-85 fiscal year, partly because of 

budget limitations. 

Table 3.-Wildlife enhancement activities for benefit of target species, 1984 

Number of 

Enhancement activity WMA Target species a 

Number of WMA 

indicating 

target species 

Agricultural 

Cattle grazing 

(goose pasture) 1 

Cropland leases 6 

Growing hay 

Herbacious seedlings 1 

Installing and maintaining 

nesting boxes - 29 

Vegetation control 

Mowing 

Canada geese 

Deer 

Hungarian partridge 

Wild turkey 

Waterfowl (general) 

Ruffed grouse 

Small game (general) 

Upland game (general) 

Upland furbearers (general) 

Waterfowl 

Cottontail rabbits 

Hungarian partridge 

Song birds (general) 

Ground nesting wildlife (general) 

Ruffed grouse 

Pheasants 

Waterfowl 

Wood ducks 

Bluebirds 

Mallards 

Bluebirds 

Waterfowl (general) 

Wild turkey 

Ground nesting wildlife (general) 

Ruffed grouse 

Pheasants 

Upland game (general) 

Song birds (general) 

Deer 

Hungarian partridge 

Canada geese 

Continued 
Table 3 (Continued) I 

I Number of 

Enhancement activiti WMA Target speciesa 

Number of WMA / 

indicating 

target species 

Brush clearing 

Clearing and bulld?zing 

to create grass areas 

I 

Controlled burn 1 

Herbicide treatment 1 

Maintain open areas 

and edge 

I Tree and shrub plaqting 

Timber sales 1 

Water Control I 

I 

I Maintain dikes, dam, 

water-control struaures 

Manipulate water lev'els 

Repair potholes I 

~ 

Small marsh maintenlance 

Birds (general) 

Upland birds (general) 

Woodcock 

Henslow sparrow 

Cottontail rabbits 

Bog turtles 

Ruffed grouse 

Wild turkey 

Wild turkey 

Deer 

Wild turkey 

Waterfowl (general) 

Ground nesting wildlife (general) 

Upland game (general) 

Ground nesting wildlife (general) 

Deer 

Hungarian partridge 

Ruffed grouse 

Small game (general) 

Deer 

Ruffed grouse 

Snowshoe hare 

Small game (general) 

Deer 

Ruffed grouse 

Snowshoe hare 

Small game (general) 

Cottontail rabbits 

Raccoon 

Song birds (general) 

Furbearers (general) 

Waterfowl (general) 

Bog turtles 

Waterfowl (general) 

Wetland furbearers (general) 

Waterfowl (general) 

Small game (general) 

Waterfowl (general) 

Muskrats 

1 Continued 
Table 3 (Continued) 

Number of 

Enhancement activity WMA Target speciesa 

Number of WMA 

indicating 

target species 

Beaver dam water level 

management (piping) 2 Beaver 

Maintain beaver populations 1 Waterfowl (general) 

Muskrat 

Mink 

aAltho~gh specific actions may be undertaken for certain wildlife species, other species 

with similar habitat needs also benefit. 

bAithough not the typical situation, mallards use nesting structures on Howland Island 

Wildlife Management Area in Region 7. 

Habitat Enhancement Costs 

As discussed previously, the Bureau of Wildlife submits its 

annual "Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Development 

Plan" for each WMA to the Division of Operations for 

implementation. The Bureau of Wildlife retains records of its 

work plans, the amount accomplished, and the estimated 

costs of those activities performed by the Division of 

Operations. Whil'e the actual budgetary allocations to the 

Division of Operations are known, accomplishments are 

based on cost estimates made by the agency staff. These 

estimates do not include the inputs of the Bureau of Wildlife 

for planning, supervising, monitoring, and the like. 

Nonetheless, interesting insights are gained from the cost 

records maintained by the Bureau of Wildlife. It is 

noteworthy that no costs are incurred by the Division of 

Operations for two major habitat manipulation activities - agricultural agreements and timber sales. The most costly 

activity per acre ($349) was the general category of "habitat 

work" (planting agricultural row crops), but this involved only 

44 acres statewide. In absolute terms, more money was 

allocated to mowing than to any other activity but the cost 

was less than $24 on a per-acre basis statewide. On a 

per-acre basis, impoundment drawdown can be one of the 

least expensive activities, but little was accomplished during 

the 1984-85 fiscal year due to administrative decisions to 

postpone these activities until the following year and to 

unfavorable water conditions. The nature and extent of the 

costs incurred to manage human use also are noteworthy. 

While statewide data do not reflect all of the costs incurred 

for specific activities conducted on WMA, Region 7 made a 

special effort to collect this kind of information for the 

1984-85 fiscal year (Table 4). From these data it is possible 

to calculate variable and capital improvement costs 

associated with specific activities. For example, records 

maintained on the actual accomplishments of the Division of 

Operations during that fiscal year indicate that habitat 

improvement costs were $42,436 compared to $76,504 for 

human management (Table 5). Thus, human use-related 

activities such as boundary maintenance, trash pickup, 

parking area and road maintenance, and sign placement 

account for nearly two-thirds of the costs of the work 

accomplished by the Division of Operations. 

For actual wildlife management activities in which the Division 

of Operations was involved, mowing was the largest cost item. 

However, this resulted from the extent to which mowing was 

practiced, not from the unit cost ($47 per acre). While mowing 

costs in Region 7 were $23 higher than the statewide costs, it 

is expected that there would be considerable variation among 

regions and WMA due to accessibilty, physical differences, 

and location relative to other areas serviced by the Division of 

Operations. Other than mowing, the remaining activities of the 

Division of Operations were directed, at least in part, toward 

waterfowl. Mowing also is used to enhance waterfowl habitat in 

some locations. 

Besides monies paid to the Division of Operations, the Bureau 

of Wildlife incurred costs for planning, monitoring, and other 

management activities. However, these data are available for 

Region 7 alone (Table 5). During the 1984-85 fiscal year, the 

total labor cost incurred by the Bureau of Wildlife the region for 

the management of WMA was $39,577. Of this, $25,566 (64.6 

percent) was spent on habitat management and the remainder 

on activities related to users and two wildlife population 

studies. In total, variable costs for uplands management 

($1 6,046) exceeded those for wetlands ($9,520). 
Table 4.-Costs charged by the Division of Operations for work activities on New York's wildlife management areas 

(WMA), Region 7, 1984-1985 fiscal year 

Average cost per 

unit of output 

Labor cost Nonlabor cost including labor and 

nonlabor costs 

No work 

Number activity No. of Salaries Fringe Excluding Including 

Work activity of WMA units mkn-days and wages benefits Total Travel Supplies Overhead Total overhead overhead 

Human management 

Boundary maintenance, 

roadside 

Boundary maintenance, 

other 

Gates and barriers, 

maintenance 

Parking area maintenance 

Public roads, 

maintenance 

Signs, identification 

Signs, rules and 

regulations 

Trash pickup 

Vehicle bridge 

maintenance 

19.8 miles 

50.9 miles 

27 units 

97 units 

22.1 miles 

36 units 

50 units 

42 units 

4 units 

.------------ Dollars. 

5,210 1,889 

13,738 4,983 

1,970 714 

4,954 1,797 

4,677 1,696 

2,626 953 

803 291 

6,129 2,223 

584 212 

Subtotal 557.7 30,727 9,964 40,691 14,758 7,727 13,428 35,913 

Habitat improvement I 

Dikes, maintenance 6 78 units 154.6 3,008 976 3,984 2,064 792 1,315 4,171 88 105 

Drop inlet box 6 36 units i 8.3 457 148 605 219 120 200 539 26 32 

maintenance 

Mowing 9 665acres 226.1 12.457 4,040 16,497 5,983 3,278 5,444 14,705 39 47 

Overfill spillway 4 14 units 3.2 1 76 57 223 85 46 77 208 26 32 

maintenance 

Wood duck boxes 1 43 units 10.8 595 193 788 286 160 260 706 29 35 

maintenance 

Subtotal 303.0 16,693 5,414 22,107 8,637 4,396 7,296 20,329 

I 

Total 860.7 47,420 15,378 62,798 23,395 12,123 20,724 56,242 

Table 5.-Labor input and costs by Burequ of Wildlife staff for activities on wildlife management areas (WMA), Region 7, 

1984-85 fiscal year I 

Activity 

I Biologists Technicians Seasonal 

Number of Number of Number of Total 

$andays costsa man-days Costsa man-days Costsa cost 

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 

Habitat management 

Uplands 

Agricultural agreements 1.7 184 2.8 193 - - 377 

Coordinate with Operations Unit 4.4 477 18.6 1,283 - - 1,760 

Develop snag plan I 0.9 98 - - - - 98 

Forest products sales , 38.8 4,210 31.1 2,146 - - 6,356 

Mowing, burning, and clearing I 

from forest products sales ( 11.1 1,204 42.8 2,953 - - 4,157 

Update management plans 1 7.7 835 35.7 2,038 - - 3,298 

Total 1 64.6 7,008 131 .O 9,038 - - 16,046 ~ 

Continued 9 
Table 5 (Continued) 

Activity 

Biologists Technicians Seasonal 

Number of Costs a Number of Costs a Number of Costs " Total 

man-days man-days man-days cost 

Wetlands 

Agricultural agreements 

Coordinate with Operations Unit 

Forest inventory 

Maintain dikes, ditches, 

and control structures 

Mowing and burning 

Monitor and maintain duck 

nesting structures 

Rehabilitate wetland 

structures 

Update management plans 

Update and revise maps 

Water level control 

Dollars 

195 

184 

- 

271 

423 

33 

11 

1,747 

22 

22 

Dollars 

55 

304 

90 

1,504 

97 

2,236 

925 

428 

228 

745 

Dollars 

250 

488 

90 

1,775 

520 

2,269 

936 

2,175 

250 

767 

Total 

All habitat management 91.4 9,916 226.8 15,650 - - 25,566 

Human management 

Administer field trials 

Boundary line maintenance 

and development 

Controlled waterfowl hunts 

Establish regulations 

Maintain roads, parking 

areas, and trails 

Rehabilitate roads, parking 

areas, and trails 

User survey, WMA 

Total 30.3 3,298 93.2 6,430 11 572 10,291 

Wildlife populations 

Canada goose productivity 

survey of WMA 

Waterfowl banding productivity 

study on WMA 

Total 

- 

All activities 

- 

aBased on daily wages of $108.50 for biologists, $69 for technicians, and $52 for seasonal employees as reported by Bureau 

of Wildlife, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany. 
Adding the costs charged by the Division of Operations to boundary maintenance, so it was necessary to combine these 

those incurred by the Bureau of Wildlife gives the total variable categories. Thus, an average cost of $543 per mile was 

costs for specific actions accomplished in region 7 (Table 6). calculated for boundary-line maintenance, though it can be 

Since data were not maintained in a similak manner by these expected that roadside maintenance is somewhat lower than 

two Divisions of the Department of Environmental that for less accessible areas. 

Conservation, it was necessary to consolidate some 

categories of work accomplishments. For ekample, the Bureau It must be considered that some activities are completed over 

of Wildlife did not differentiate between roadside and other several years, but only the 1984-85 portion of the expenditures 

Table 6.-Summary of variable costs of specific activities on wildlife management areas (WMA), Region 7, 1984-85 

fiscal year I 

Work Cost to Cost to Total Variable 

activity Division of Bureau of variable cost per 

Work activity units Operations Wildlife cost unit 

Habitat management 

Uplands 

Agricultural agreements 

Coordinate with Operations Unit 

Develop snag plan a 

Forest products sales 

Mowing, burning, and clearing 

from forest products sales 

Update management plans 

250 acres - 377 377 1.51 I - 1,760 1,760 - 

; 1 report - 98 98 98.00 

5,55 acres - 6,356 6,356 1 1.45 

b2 acres - 4,157 4,157 79.94 I - - 3,298 3,298 - 

Subtotal - - 16,046 16,046 - - - 

Wetlands 

Agricultural agreements 

Coordinate with Operations Unit 

Forest inventory 

Maintain dikes and 

control structures 

Mowing and burning 

Monitor and maintain duck 

nesting structures 

Rehabilitate wetland 

structures 

Update management plans 

Update and revise maps 

Water level control 

70 acres 

- 

1 area 

1 14 structures 

665 acres 

63 structures 

(3 structures 

13 areas 

1- 

13 improvements 

66 acres 

I 

Subtotal I , - 42,436 9,520 51,956 - I 

Total 1 - 42,436 25,566 68,002 - 

I 

Human management I 

Administer field trials 22 trials - 282 282 12.82 

b Boundary line maintenance 

and development 7 .7 miles 35,377 2,91 9 38,396 543.00 

User survey 6 """ - 1,631 1,631 1,631 .bO 

Establish regulations and post 5 signs 1,519 33 1,552 31 .OO 

1 Continued 

11 
Table 6 (Continued) 

Work activity 

Work Cost to Cost to Total Variable 

activity Division of Bureau of variable cost per 

units Operations Wildlife cost unit 

Controlled waterfowl hunts 

General maintenance and 

trash pickup 

.................................... Dollars--- ............................... 

4 areas - 2,232 2,232 558.00 

13 areas 39,608 3,194 42,802 3,292.46 

Subtotal 76,604 10,291 86,895 - 

Wildlife populations 

Canada goose productivity 

survey on WMA 2 areas - 788 788 394.00 

Waterfowl banding productivity 

study on WMA 2 areas - 2,932 2,932 1,466.00 

Subtotal - 3,720 3,720 - 

Total 

a Only seasonal report on month-year project accomplished during 1984-85 fiscal year. 

Most work accomplished during 1983-84 fiscal year. 

are included here. For example, the forest inventory listed 

under wetlands was undertaken on Cicero Swamp Wildlife 

Management Area, and most of the work - and thus costs - 

were incurred during the 1983-84 fiscal year. 

Much of the management activities on uplands were related to 

agricultural agreements and timber sales. While these 

involved costs to the Bureau of Wildlife for staff work, they did 

yield net monetary returns and provide for additional 

accomplishments through habitat manipulation and services in 

kind. 

For wetlands management, the role of the Division of 

Operations in providing services to the Bureau of Wildlife was 

relatively greater. Maintenance of dikes, of which there were 

69 covering 28,424 feet in total length, and water-control 

structures, of which there were 45, was second to mowing and 

burning by measure of total variable costs. Nonetheless, this 

maintenance cost only amounted to slightly more than $100 

per unit for the fiscal year. The total variable cost for all wetland 

management activities in Region 7 for the fiscal year was 

$51,956. 

The total variable cost for habitat management alone on all 13 

WMA in Region 7 for fiscal year 1984-85 was $68,002, an 

average of $5,231 per management area. The total variable 

cost for all activities, including both habitat and human-use 

mangement, was $1 58,617 or $1 2,201 per WMA in the Region 

for the fiscal year. 

To facilitate habitat improvement with restricted budgets, 

agricultural leasing of land and timber sales have provided a 

means to acMeve many desired management objectives and a 

source of net revenues, though the latter are not returned to 

the specific management areas, Regions, or even the Bureau 

of Wildlife, but go to the state Conservation Fund. However, a 

maximum of 50 percent of the revenues from timber sales may 

be taken in the form of services. In Region 7 during the 

1984-85 fiscal year, an agricultural lease of 320 acres provided 

$3,500 in services to the WMA, enabled desired habitat 

diversification to be realized, and was the source of net 

revenues in the amount of $1,550 (Table 7). This was 

achieved with managerial costs of $377 for that fiscal year. 

However, the lease was for 5 years so it can be expected that 

start-up costs, which tend to be considerably higher, were 

incurred at the outset. Costs over the 5-year period are not 

available. Timber harvesting alone provided a means of 

gaining habitat diversification by returning woodlands to earlier 

stages of succession, providing openings, and securing 

uneven-age management. In addition, services in kind 

received from these timber sales included road construction, 

mowing, brush clearing, parking area construction, and timber 

stand improvement. Again, cost information for earlier years is 

not available but the Bureau of Wildlife no doubt obtained net 

revenues from these sales. 

Records on the costs of capital improvements are not available 

for the fiscal years prior to 1984-85 so appropriate shares of 

previous investment commitments cannot be allocated to that 
Table 7.-Cash incoye from sales and leases of wildlife management area (WMA) 

resources to improve wildlife habitat, Region 7, 1984-85 fiscal year 

Value of 

Nvmber of Number Units of Cash services Total 

Product WMA involved of acres output income provided income 1 

Timber sales 

Firewood 6 304 1,520 cords 23,790 23,790 

Poles , 1 33 1,141 trees 5,268 5,268 

Pulpwood 2 130 651 cords 2,604 2,604 

Sawtimber ; 2 13 3.9 Mbf 195 195 

Seed tree and I 135 Mbf and 

selection cut 1 75 600 cords 11,122 8,500 19,622 

Maple taps I1 44 taps 20 20 

Apiaries 2 82 hives 396 396 

Agricultural lease ; 2 320 1,550 3,500 5,050 

Total 8 49,945 12,000 56,945 

fiscal year. As discussed previously, this is not an important 

consideration once funds are committed and no attempt is 

made to finance future capital investments through user fees. 

However, information on initial investment costs, compounded 

end costs, and equal annual equivalent costs are important 

ingredients in making the initial decisions on the merits of a 

given capital investment. 

During the 1984-85 fiscal year, a lim~ited number of 

investments were made for capital improvements in Region 7 

(Table 8). To make meaningful allocative (decisions, these 

costs must be considered over the expected life of the 

improvement and the initial costs compounded at an 

appropriate interest rate. In this case, the discount rate used 

by the U.S. Water Resources Council for 1984 (8 percent) is 

used. If data were availble on returns, a comparison of costs 

and revenues compounded to the final year of the expected 

life, or discounted to the initial year, would be a useful planning 

tool. Comparisons also can be made on an annual basis 

through the use of equal annual equivalent net revenues 

(Christianson 1979) but, again, more reliable data on costs 

and returns are needed. Of course, both capital improvement 

costs and variable costs are relevant since the time period is 

sufficiently long that the level of output varies with both. 

Table 8.-Cost of capital improvements implemented in 1984 over expected life using 

&percent interest rate, Region 7 

I Initial cost Equal amount 

Capital Initial Year cost Expected compounded over equivalent 

improvement cost incurred life expected life cost 

- 

dollars years ----------------- Dollars ----------------- --- 

Parking area --I ,000 1984 15 3,172 117 I 

Public use survey 1,743 1984 10 3,763 260 

Road rehabilitation 17,000 1984 10 36,703 2,538 

Slash burn 1,182 1984 10 2,552 176 
Discussion 

During the 1984-85 fiscal year, nearly two-thirds of the variable 

costs incurred by WMA in Region 7 were directed toward 

human use compared to wildlife habitat enhancement. By 

comparison, the revenues from agricultural agreements and 

timber sales nearly equaled the expenditures allocated to all 

other habitat improvements, though these monies are not 

returned to the WMA but go to the Conservation Fund. Since 

the 1984-85 fiscal year may represent a low budget situation, it 

would be useful to examine expenditures over a longer period. 

Since historical data are not available, it is not possible to 

examine the implications of some long-run capital 

investments. Such calculations are most meaningful when 

deciding whether to make specific capital improvements and 

have little relevance to annual budgetary planning unless cost 

recovery from users is an objective, which is not the case with 

New York's WMA. Historical data can provide insights with 

respect to plan formulation for future investments. 

Even if more reliable data were available on land acquisition, 

they would not be particularly relevant to current planning and 

budgetary efforts. Land acquired in the past represents a fixed 

cost and likely is worth more in today's market than when 

obtained. Neither are opportunity costs relative to land use 

appropriate considerations, since the public sector is restricted 

with respect to the alternatives that it can pursue, and has a 

broader spectrum of objectives. In the initial planning stage, 

the anticipated flow of costs and returns over time might 

provide useful input, though it is difficult to measure returns in 

terms of public objectives. 

The information that is most readily available through Bureau 

of Wildlife records pertains to variable costs and these are 

most relevant to short-run decisionmaking. It would be helpful 

to have data on both a wider range of management activities 

and a greater number of observations for those cost 

components analyzed. Costs of implementing specific habitat 

improvement measures can be useful to budget planning, but 

there is an obvious need to relate specific actions to changes 

in biophysical outputs and related changes in human 

satisfaction. 

Since the inception of this study, the Bureau of Wildlife has 

developed a cost-accounting system for the share of WMA 

costs paid by Pittman-Robertson funds. While this system 

meets the Bureau's reporting needs, the cost estimates reflect 

only payments to the Division of Operations and do not include 

costs absorbed by the Bureau of Wildlife. 

To achieve cost data on a statewide basis similar to that 

collected in Region 7, the recording system must be modified. 

This might be done on a sample basis and yield adequate 

information to enhance decisionmaking. Information required 

on the Bureau's time and attendance reports is too general to 

relate to specific management accomplishments. Records 

must be kept relative to actual inputs to specific jobs, but would 

not necessarily be a continuous process. Once more accurate 

cost estimates are established, periodic monitoring would 

likely be sufficient to detect significal'it changes. Likewise, 

Division of Operations can be monitored more closely to 

determine actual expenditures for specific work activities. 

Again, a simple sampling process can facilitate such data 

collection at a minimal cost. Together, more realistic operating 

cost estimates for the Bureau of Wildlife and Division of 

Operations will enable agency staff to plan more effectively to 

maximize accomplishments within budgetary constraints. 

Simulation modeling is an alternative approach to developing 

more accurate cost estimates for specific wildlife enhancement 

mabipulations. An advantage of this technique is that many of 

the factors responsible for cost irregularities can be identified 

and neutralized. 

Besides land acquisition and investment in large-scale 

structures, both of which have numerous payoffs in addition to 

wildlife enhancement, the amounts expended to manage New 

York's WMA is relatively low. In Region 7, the total variable 

cost for the management of wildlife habitat, as well as human 

use, averaged $2.60 per acre during the 1984-85 fiscal year. If 

revenues received from agricultural agreements and timber 

sales are,considered, the net cost of management was only 

$1.96 per acre. It should be noted that these figures can vary 

considerably from year to year, particularly if budgets are 

sufficient to accomplish additional management practices 

identified by agency staff. Low costs can be a manifestation of 

the available funding rather than a reflection of the costs to 

operate at the optimal level. Again, it would be advantageous 

to examine costs over a longer period so that irregularities 

between the incidence of costs and the time that 

accomplishments are recorded could be overcome. 
Literature Cited I 

I 

Christianson, Neils 8. 1979. Models for timle adjustments of 

cost and revenues. Chapter 12: Forest resource 

management. Duerr, William A.; Teegu'rdens, Dennis E.; 

Christensen, Neils, 6.; Guttenberg, Sam, pds. Philadelphia, 

PA: W.B. Saunders Company. 

Gibbs, Kenneth C. 1980. Public campgrounds: are they 

profitable? Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 466-468. 

Reiling, Stephen D; Anderson, Mark W. 1963. Estimation of 

the cost of providing publicly-supported outdoor 

recreation facilities in Maine. Bull. 793. Orono, ME: 

University of Maine. 
Glass, Ronald J. Habitat improvement costs on state-owned wildlife 

management @reas in New York. Res. Pap. NE-621. Broomall, PA: U.S. 

Department of !,A{ griculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

station. 15 p. 

Estimates of mar 

indicate that hum 

Agricultural agree 

enhancement, an1 

ODC 156.9 

Keywords: Wildli 

iagement costs on New York's wildlife management areas 

(an management is more costly than habitat management. 

bents and timber sales make a major contribution to habitat 

Q a wide variety of wildlife species benefit. 

habitat; costs; state-owned areas 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in Broomall, Pa. 

Field laboratories are maintained at: 

0 Amherst, Massachusetts, in operation with the University of Massachusetts. 

0 Berea,-Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College. 

0 Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont. 

-0 Delaware, Ohio. 

'0 Durham. New ~am~shire.'in moperation with the University of New Hampshire. 

0 Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University. 

0 Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University, 

Morgantown. 

0 Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, Orono. 

0 Parsons, West Virginia. 

Princeton, West Virginia. 

0 Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University, 

Syracuse. 

0 University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State 

University. 

Warren, Pennsylvania. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition $re welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services 

of the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and 

should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.