UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

II  NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL OFFICE


               wซrt

                        ;'*ป::'•
          f_

          j
  ปsts for Wetland Creation and
  Restoration Projects in the
  llltjlaciated Northeast
             FINAL REPORT

           Work Assignment No. 2
         EPA Contract No. 68-D5-0171
               July, 1997
        Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
               in association with
             The BSC Group

-------
                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                New England Regional Office
 Costs for Wetland Creation and Restoration
	Projects in the Glaciated Northeast

                                           FINAL REPORT

                               Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
                                       (with The BSC Group)
                                     Contract No. 68-D5-0171
                                      Work Assignment No. 2

                                                      1997
                                                For Citation:
         Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., with The BSC Group. July 1997,
       Costs for Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated
               Northeast, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                      Region I. EPA Contract No. 68-D5-017L 56pp.
                                                   Contact:
                                            Matt Schweisberg
                                            U.S. EPA (CWQ)
                                          JFK Federal Building
                                           Boston, MA 02203
                                            Tel: 617-565-4431

-------
 U. S, Environmental Protection Agency • Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 {Task 5 - Final Report)

                                   Table of Contents

                                                                                 Page


 1.0  INTRODUCTION  	1

 2.0  RESEARCH METHODS AND INFORMATION SOURCES	1

 3.0  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	4
     3.1   Costs - Project Tables 	5
     3.2   Variables Affecting Wetland Creation/Restoration Costs  	20
           3.2.1  Design and Construction  	20
           3.2.2  Monitoring  	,	23
     3.3   Detailed Project Examples	25
           3.3.1  Pine Creek Salt Marsh, Fairfield, CT (CT-11 to CT-13 )   	25
           3.3.2  Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT (CT-9)	27
           3.3.3  Post Island Marsh, Houghs, Neck, Quincy, Massachusetts (MA-6)	29
           3.3.4  Third Marsh, Houghs Neck, Quincy, Massachusetts (MA-7) 	30
           3.3.5  Biddeford Connector,  Biddeford, Maine (ME-5)	31
           3.3.6  Route 196, Lewiston, Maine (ME-7) 	32
           3.3.7  Scarborough Connector, Scarborough, Maine (ME-2)	32
           3.3.8  Port Authority of New Hampshire, Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire
                 (NH-8toNH-10)	33
           3.3.9  Three Salt Marsh Restoration Projects, New Hampshire	35
           3.3.10 Route 101/114 Interchange, Bedford, New Hampshire (NH-6)	36
           3.3.11 Route 101, Pine Road Gravel Pit, Epping-Hampton, New Hampshire (NH-2)
                  	37
           3.3.12 Treatment Plant Property, Littleton, New Hampshire (NH-7)	38
           3.3.13 Spaulding Turnpike and Gosling Road, Portsmouth-Newington,
                 New Hampshire (NH-4) 	38
           3.3.14 Route 101, Squamscott River Bridge, Stratham, New Hampshire (NH-3)  ... 39
           3.3.15 Muck Piece, Former McDougal Property, Prattsville, Stueben County,
                 New York (NY-12)	40
           3.3.16 Restoration of Salt Marsh at Galilee, Rhode Island (RI-2)	40
           3.3.17 Route 99, Blackstone River Bridge, Rhode Island (RI-4)  	41
           3.3.18 Other Rhode Island Wetland Creation/Restoration Costs (RI-3, RI-4, RI-5) . . 45

4.0  DATA DISCUSSION	47

5.0  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO COSTS	53

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	54


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Croup                                         Page i

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
 7.0  REFERENCES  	56
Appendix 1:        State of Georgia, Department of Transportation: Wetland Questionnaire
                   Responses of Wetland Creation, Restoration, Enhancement and Preservation
                   Projects nation-wide (Surveys in 1993 and 1995)
                                       List of Tables
                                                                                      Page
Table 2.1:   List of Individuals Contacted 	2
Table 3.1:   Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated Northeast - Data Summary 7
Table 3.2:   Connecticut Salt Marsh Restoration and Wildlife Management Programs -
            Data Summaries  	16
Table 3.3:   CTDOT Wetland Creation Project, Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT	28
Table 3.4:   RIDOT, Rt. 99 @ Blackstone River Bridge, Woonsocket, Wetland Enhancement/
            Restoration Cost Estimate	43
Table 3.5:   RIDOT Wetland Replacement Projects, Major Construction Items	46
                                      List of Figures
                                                                                      Page
Figure 4,1: Total cost (data from Table 3,1) 	48
Figure 4.2: Total cost per acre (data from Table 3.1) 	49
Figure 4.3: Construction cost per acre (data from Table 3.1)  	50
Figure 4.4: Total cost (data from Table 3.2) 	51
Figure 4.5: Construction cost per acre (data from Table 3.2)  	52
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
                               Page ii

-------
 U. S, Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1      	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

 The purpose of Work Assignment No. 2 was to provide a comprehensive investigation of the monetary
 costs for creating and restoring wetlands in the glaciated northeast.  The work assignment was divided
 into five tasks; Task 1, Planning; Task 2,  Comprehensive Literature Search;  Task 3, Telephone
 Survey; Task 4, Office Visits for File Review; and Task 5, Preparation of Final Report.  This Final
 Report synthesizes the data collected in Tasks 2 through 4 into the most comprehensive summary and
 analysis  of wetland restoration costs in the northeast now available.

 2.0 RESEARCH METHODS AND INFORMATION SOURCES

 Task 2,  Under Task 2, Berger and BSC conducted a six week literature search into die monetary costs
 involved in creating and         wetlands in the         northeast,  an               the six New
 England States as well as the State of New York and the northern parts of New Jersey.  The Task 2
 report contained a database of restored and created wetland projects including location, size and type
 of wetland creation or restoration, date of construction completion,  and name of applicable owner,
 agency, or consulting firm.

 Task 3. Under Task 3, Berger and BSC utilized information obtained in Task 2 to perform a telephone
 survey  of                   including                of                and  environmental
 management/protection/services;  private developers; consultants specializing in wetlands science and
 engineering; and wetland nurseries in order to obtain cost information for planning, construction and
 monitoring phases of specific projects.  A list of contacts is presented in Table 2.1.

 Task 4.  Office visits were initially planned as part of this Work Assignment and were to be conducted
 during Task 4; however,  both  public and private agencies discouraged visits, asserting that no
 additional information could be gained by an office visit that could not be obtained by telephone and
 by  fax.  Under Task 4, therefore, Berger and BSC  conducted a four week        in the      of
 literature and in depth telephone surveys in order to obtain a more detailed understanding of selected
 wetland  creation and  restoration projects and to obtain additional planning, construction and
 monitoring cost information for                 and restoration projects listed in Tables 3,1 and 3.2
 of this report.  The primary goal of this Task was to obtain more detailed information on a few, solid
 projects to serve as case studies,  and to obtain additional information to supplement the information
 obtained during the telephone survey (Task 3) and during the literature search (Task 2).
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page I

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1 -
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
Table 2.1: List of Individuals Contacted
Name
Alexander, Mark
Barney, David
Baumert, Dan
Bowen, Marcia
Capotosto, Paul
elingerman, GaU
Crispin, David
Dunne, Ken
Evans, Ray
Golet, Frank
Hadden, Deborah
Horbert, Chuck
Hoskins, Douglas
Karr, Tony
King, Dennis
Ladd, Steven
Lamandola, Joe
Larsen, David
Agency /Firm
Connecticut Department of
Transportation
South Weymouth Naval Air Station
Environmental Division
NRCS, Warwick, R.I.
Normandeau Associates
Yarmouth, Maine
CT DEP, Wetlands Restoration
Biologist, Wildlife Division
New England Division
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
The BSC Group, Inc.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
Waterman Industries
Univ. of Rhode Island, Wetland
Science, Professor
Massachusetts Port Authority
RIDEM Wetlands
CTDEP
Southern Tier Consultants,
Syracuse, N.Y.
Univ. of Maryland, Env. and
Estuarine Studies, Professor
CT Department of Transportation
New York Department of
Fish and Wildlife
New England Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
Phone
Number
860.594,2920
617.682,2884
401.828.1300
207.846.3598
860.642.7239
617.647.8283
617.659.7981
201.678.1960
209.562.4000
401.874.2916
617.568.3504
401.277.6820
x7402
860.424.3019
716.968.3120
410.326.7212
860.594.2930
315.785.2282
617.647.8113
Original
Contact Date
1/17/97
2/11/97
3/12/97
2/12/97
2/12/97
1/7/97
2/19/97
1/29/97
2/14/97
2/20/97
2/19/97
3/12/97
1/15/97
3/3/97
3/10/97
2/18/97
1/17/97
4/23/97
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
                                   Page 2

-------
 U, S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
Name
Laurin, Marc
Lenardis, James
Lowry, Dennis
MacNamera,
Timothy
Marcus, Michael J.
McAvery, Steve
Merrow, Jed
Michaud, Sylvia
Niering, William
Ouellette, Tom
Pierce, Gary
Phillips, Bill
Kendall, Nancy
Rhodes, Lisa
Ribb, Richard
Ruggeri, Carl
Saimnartino, Everett
Agency/Firm
New Hampshire Department of
Transportation
Town of Rockland, Mass.
Fugro/ENSR
Northboro, Mass.
T & M Associates, Inc.
Bedford, N.H,
New England Environmental
Amherst, Mass.
NYSDOT, Region 1
Landscape Achitect
The Smart Associates
Concord, N.H.
ME Department of Transportation
Agusta, Maine
Connecticut College
Long Island Sound Program,
Conn.
Southern Tier Consultants
West Clarksville, N.Y.
Georgia DOT
Office of Environment/Location
New England Environmental
Concord, N.H.
Massachusetts Highway
Department, Boston, Mass.
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Narragansett Bay Program
RIDEM Wetlands
Providence, R.I.
Rhode Island Department of
Transportation, Providence, R.I.
Phone
Number
603.271.3226
617.878.0901
508.393.6779
603.448.1295
413.256.0202
914.431.5729
603.224.7550
207.287,5735
860.439.2000
860.424.3034
716.968.3120
404.699.4434
603.225.4776
617.973.7487
401.277.3961
x7271
401.277.6820
x7413
401,277.2207
X4055
Original
Contact Date
2/7/97
2/7/97
2/12/97
2/12/97
2/5/97
4/9/97
2/12/97
1/15/97
1/15/97
3/10/97
3/11/97
2/4/97
2/12/97
1/15/97
2/10/97
3/11/97
2/3/97
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.  & The BSC Group
                                   Page 3

-------
 U, S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1
Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
Name
Sanford, Gary
Scheirer, Robert
Schwartz, Carl
Smith, Steve
Snarski, Rick
Steinke, Tom
Sullivan, Pat
Taber, Bemadette
Tiner, Ralph
Weiskotten, Kurt
West, Mark
Wheelwright,
Michael
Agency/Firm
Sanford Ecological Services,
Southborough, Mass.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Concord, N.H.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Cortland, N.Y.
Finard Company
Burlington, Mass,
New England Environmental
Services, Marlboro, Conn,
Wetlands and Waterways
Commission, Fairfield, Conn.
Environmental Specialist,
USACOE New York District
National Resource Conservation
Service, Marion, Mass.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
Amherst, Mass.
New York State Department of
Transportation, Water and Ecology
Section
Gove Environmental Services, Inc.
Department of Public Works
Quincy, Mass.
Phone
Number
508.460.9900
603.225.1411
607.753.9334
617.273.5555
860.859.2428
860.256.3071
212.264.7101
508.748.3600
413.253.8200
518.485.5320
603.778.0644
617.376.1901
Original
Contact Date
1/12/97
1/17/97
1/15/97
3/10/97
3/3/97
2/12/97
2/18/97
3/10/97
1/17/97
2/20/97
2/12/97
2/11/97
3.0  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This  section provides a  summary of project costs  associated with recent wetland creation and
restoration projects (see  Table 3.1), a  discussion of variables involved in wetland creation and
restoration, a detailed presentation of wetland projects in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, and a discussion of project limitations.

The motivation for wetland creation and restoration projects is based on regulatory  compliance
(Section 404 permitting under the Clean Water Act of 1972, various state wetland protection acts, and
municipal bylaws), and public and private interests.  Public interest projects include those for flood
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
                                Page 4

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1              Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 control, nonpoint source stormwater management, mosquito control, and wildlife habitat restoration
 or creation. Private interests are frequently directed at protecting or increasing the value of property.
 The study included regulatory-based wetland projects, as well as public interest projects,

 For purposes of this Work Assignment, the following definitions were used:

        Wetland Restoration.  Wetland restoration is the act, process, or result of
       returning a former wetland or a damaged, degraded or otherwise functionally
       impaired wetland to its pre-disturbance or unimpaired condition.  Restored
       wetlands should be persistent and self-sustaining (Wetlands Restoration &
       Banking Program, Watershed Wetlands Restoration Planning Guidance, July
        1,  1996).

        Wetland Creation, Wetlands are created  on sites that previously were upland
       sites. Like restored wetlands, created wetlands should be persistent and self-
       sustaining.

 3.1  Costs - Project Tables

 Cost estimates for wetland restoration or creation, as a result of the literature search and the telephone
 survey including information obtained during Tisk 4, are           in Table  3.1.  The       are
 normalized to 1997 dollars  and are listed for planning and design, construction, and monitoring, as
 available.  Costs were obtained for projects in the six New England states and for New York State.
 All  costs  were normalized to April 1997 prices, using the Consumer  Price Index.   Statistical
 information is provided at the end of the table. Available project-specific issues that may have affected
 the total costs are listed in the Notes section,  following Table 3.1.

 Although  some agencies were able to provide information specifically  for  planning  (design),
 construction and monitoring,  frequently only the actual total price of the wetland creation and/or
 restoration project was available.  In other cases, only one or two of the three     variables were
 available, which always included construction costs.  In order to provide an indication of the project
 costs, the total costs were listed, even if planning, construction and/or monitoring costs could not be
 separated from the total costs.

 A separate table was prepared with         for freshwater and salt      restoration           with
 the following Connecticut Department of Environmental  Protection (CTDEP) programs (Table 3,2):

 •    CTDEP Office of Long Island Sound - Coves and Embayments Program;
 ซ    CTDEP Wetland Restoration Program - Migratory Bird Conservation       Program;
     CTDEP Wildlife Division.

 These projects are all typically inexpensive restoration projects involving little planning and design
 with significantly lower        costs. The Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp Program is a program


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 5

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

designed to restore the wildlife habitat for migratory birds.  The Coves and Embayments Program is
designed to restore degraded salt marshes through increasing tidal exchange in order to improve water
quality, benthic and fish habitat.  All costs were normalized to April 1997 prices, using the Consumer
Price Index.  Statistical information is provided at the end of the table. Any project-specific issues that
may have affected the total costs are listed in the Notes section, following Table 3.2.

The wetland types were identified in accordance with Classification of Wetlands and Deep-Water
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et a/., 1979).
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 6

-------
                                                                                  Table 3.1

                                                     Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated Northeast
                                                                              - Data Summary -









I.D.
&
Note
No.











Project Name
and Location









Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project

Year




O
E
3
o
U
o
c
8
o.
O
Wetland Type

Palustrine
™~(




fe |
| S |
^ QB ^ 2ฃ
S fc i ง
P* 9 v O
O W if, U,





i
3
•g
>



Estuarine
^
— T-
i =
i
]
1
as

f
3
&




•a
1
h 3

E
5
r
5
=.





Ih
1
S.
"3 "Si
3 i
3 *

,a
Wetland
Area






U
c
_e
S
o
•i
s
06






'Z?
5
H
a
U

Total Costs
j
i includes:



1
1
1
& S


' i


•*r 3
i L

ซ-a ป 1 •ง
S.| |I1
u 1 E (3 ^
Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.






3
_S
%
f
E





"ซr
I
g
1
i
2






If
1






TB*1
S
1 1
9 • U
i a
I ! 1
Wetland Costs
(% of Total Costs per acre)








HI
|
E
: J
















8 1 M I

1
5
1 1
1
^
U
1
|S
Connecticut

CT-l

CT-2

CT-3

CT-4

CT-5

CT-6
CT-7

CT-8

CT-9

CT-10
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation,
Ledvard

School, Ledyard

Neck River Farms, Madison
Groton Dredge Spoil Disposal Site,
Groton
Route 187/Couage Grow Road,
Bloomfietd

Route 7, NorwalkCT
1-91, Windsor

Route 9, Cromwell

Mile Hill Road, Newtown

Routes 2 and 32, Norwich, CT

Pequot Tribe

Town of Ledyard

500-acre Subdivision
CT Department of
Environm, Prot.
CT Department of
Transportation
CT Department of
Transportation
CT Department of
Transportation
CT Department of
Transportation
CT Department of
Transportation
CT Department of
Transportation
1997
(est.)

1996

1996

1989

1993

1989
1993

1993

1997

1997

• •

• •

• •

, ,

* *

iJL. 4, .
• .

• *
1
__4,..,-i. — j 	

!•[


















•

—




•












__




!
1
--i 	
1


j
_


1
:
!









—


















-









10,0

1.0
,*™_

i
u].0

20,0

6.0

6.8
6.5

21.5

1.0

2.3

$1,000,000

$48,200


$1,0130,000 *

$49,152 • •
*~ t~ *
$35,600 $36,303 * j • *

$286,841

$212,000

$2,670,000
$837,005

$1,878,988

$130,220
|
$370,117 •
i
$234,740 • •
[
$3,445,162 • •
$926,788 • •
i
$2,080,540 • |*
I
$130,220[* • •
1 !
$190,734] $190,734:* ;• !•

n/a

$1,428

$5,711

n/a

n/a

n/a
n/a

n/a

$100,000

$47.725

$27.533

$i8,506

$29,897

$497,154
$125,547

$96,512
!
$25,000 | $95,220
j
$4.348 ! $74,233

n/a |
I
$0| $49.152
" 	 ~ 	 j
$3.059 j $36,303
1
n/a 1

$9,227


E
$9,4S8_,
$17,035

^
$257 j
I 	 —
$10,000 | $130,220
|
$4.347 1 $82,928



3%

16%










!9%

5%

i
i
J
97% 0%


76%j 8%
j
|

100%

100%


| I
i 1

i
"1
rmrnmi.jjn i



t
73% 8%
1 •" j " 	
90%] 5%
100K

100%
00
^)
      EPAWA2; Final Report (Draft)
Pagel

-------
                                                                                   Table 3.1

                                                      Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in tbe Glaciated Northeast
                                                                               - Data Summary -
I.D.
&
Note
No.
Project Name
and Location

Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
Year
(Completion of Construction)
Wetland Type
Palustrine
:
b 1 |
III ||
ifllil
O ltd :& {ฃ
Riverine Emergent
Est
uar
Intertldal Flat j 5'
Subtfdai Aquatic Bed j
Subt iS (Spen Water" j
Wetland
Area
Restoration (acres)
Creation (acres)
Total Costs
Costs ($)
(during construction year)
includes:
Costs ($)
{adjusted to 1997 prices)
Planning ($)
Construction ($)
Monitoring (S)
Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.
IT
1
Construction (S/acre)
Monitoring ($/acre)
1
1
1
Wetland Costs
(% of Total Costs per acre)


u
i
Total Cost
Massachusetts
MA-l
MA-2


MA-4
MA-5
MA-6


MA-8
MA-9
Emerald Square Mall, Attleboroogh
Route 57, Agawam
South Weymouth Naval Air Station,
Weymouth
Logan Airport Runway Expansion,
Boston
Cumberland Farms, Halifax
Post Island Marsh, Houghs Neck,
Quincy
Thin) Marsh, Hoyghs Neck, Qttincy
Skymeadow Golf Course, Dunstable
Bristol County Jail
Sew England Development
Massachusetts Highway
Department
U.S. Navy
Massachusetts Port Authority
Cumberland Fanns
Town of Quincy, Dept. of
Public Works
Town of Quincy, Michael C.
Wheelwright
Sfcymcadow Condominium
Assoc.
Exec. Office of Admistr. and
Finance, Div. of Capital
Planning Operations
1989
1994
1994
1994
1989
1993
1995
1987
1997
(est.)
• i*
J_ j
Jll^
• •

• •


• •
•









•

•
•










—



i








.j™..,


,i_2.0
12,7
1L3_
1.3
110.0
10.0
20.0 j_
5.0
11.5
$2,210.000
$145,541
$218,362
5715,000
$1,631,400
$95,700
S279.000
$96,000
$1.400.000
$2,851,613 [*_^_ *
!
$157,129 • • •
i
$235,748 1 • | • •
I i
$771,930 [•}• •
1
$2,105,032 • • *
j
S105,%5 [• • •
T""" '""" ' '"
1
$292.913 | ซ * *
$135,211 [• • •
51,427.661 |* •
$645,161
n/a
$41,523
$53,981
$768
$1.107
$1,606
$5,634-
$15,961
$645,161
n/a
$137,330
$431,849
$12.903
$9,190
$12,934
$19.718
$108.183
$135,484
n/a
$2,492
$107,%2
$3,871
$299
$105
$1,425,806
$12,334
$181,345
$593,792
$17,542
$10,597
$14,ซ46
SI ,690 j $27,042
[
i
$0 | $124,144
4S%

23%
9%
4%
10%
11%
21%
13%
45%
.,., 	
76%
73 *
74%
10%
1%
18%
22%
87% | 3%
88%
73%
87%
1%
6%
0%
100%

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
300%
Maine
ME-l
ME-2
ME-3
ME-4
Wells Interchange, Branch Brook
Site, Wells
Scarborough Connector,
Scarborough
T31 MD-2, -3 Aurora and Crawford
Sites, T31 MD
Topsham Fair Site, Topsham,
Brunswick
Maine Turnpike Auth.
ME Department of
Transportation
ME Department of
Transportation
ME Department of
Transportation
1996
1995
1996
1996
: t i
!•! i •
•
•
•




.....






il



t


2.0
21.9 3.5
2.3
7.1
$740.000
$2,092,960
$591.100
$1,207.710
$754,621 • I • j •
{
$2.197,333 * * !•
$602,779 • • !•
$1,231.572 • * jซ
$40,790
$47,034
$65,163
$74,646
S275.3J5
$31,811
$141,033
$61,J85J $377.310
5
j
$7,664 $86,509
$55,883 $262,078
$80.867 S17.948
$173,461
11%
54%
25%
43%
73 Ki 16%j 100%
37%
1
9%j 100%
:
54% 21 %
47% j 10%
100%
100%
ฐฃ    EPAWA2: Final Report (Drift)
Oo

-------
                                                                            Table 3.1
                                               Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated Northeast
                                                                        - Data Summary -
I.D.
&
Note
No.
ME-5
ME-6
ME-7
ME-8
Project Name
and Location
Connector Site, Biddeford
Ichabod Lane Site, Hampden
Route 1% Site, Lewiston
Yarmouth Middle School, Yarmouth
Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
ME Department of
Transportation
ME Department of
Transportation
ME Department of
Transportation
Town of Yarmouth
Year
^Completion of Construction)
1991
1996
1992
1992
Wetland Type
Palustrine
ฃ 1
a g f -n
.


*
*
• i •
Riverine Emergent




tntertldal Emergent j M




tntertldal Streamhed [ c



ine
I
=
,,,,



:
1
a
VI
iubtidal Open Water [
*

_.^ 	
Wetland
Area
Restoration, (acres)

1.0
0.8
3.4
<3
o
•S
3
o
1
U
L*
U
3.0
0.5
	
Total Costs
Costs ($>
(during construction year)
$302,100
$372,000
$158,775
$15,249
Costs (ป
(adjusted to 1997 prices)
fanning ($) j_.
Construction !'$) : g
Monitoring ($} j "
;
' $354,890 I
$379,350 1 ป
$181,069 ! •
$17,390 | •

0
*MMป


.
.
Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.

n/a
593,104
$141,411
I
$77,533
$101,976
$71,846
$3,606
Monitoring ($/acre)
1
$40,764
$57,820
$28,168
$1,509
Total Cost ($tae)

$252,900
$241,426
$5,115
Wetland Costs
(% of Total Costs per acre)
1

37%
59%
,

Monitoring
total Cost

40%j 23% I00%
30%{ 12% 100%
i
71% 29% 100%
New Hampshire
NH-l
NH-2


NH-4
NH-5




NH-8
NH-9
NH-10
NH-11
NH-l 2
Route 25, Eflingham, Freedom
Route 101, Pine Road Site,
Brentwood
Route 101 , Squamscott River
Bridge, Stradiam
C W T "1.* t>^ •*ซ th
Ncwinglon
Route 9 Bypass, Nelson, Stoddard
Route 101 & 114, Bedford
Treatment Plant Property, Littleton
NH Marine Terminal, Portsmouth
NH Marine Terminal, Portsmouth
NH Marine Terminal, Portsmouth
Factory Outlet Stores, Tilton
NH International Speedway, Loudon
NH Department of
Transportation
NH Department of
Transportation
NH Department of
Transportation
NH Department of
Transportation
NH Department of
Transportation
NH Department of
Transportation
NH Department of
Transportation
Port Authority of New
Hampshire
Port Authority of New
Hampshire
Port Authority of New
Hampshirs
Charter Oaks Partners
Everett Prescott
1989
1995
1996
1992
1995
1995
1993
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
!
• *

, *
'"" "" '""
,~.*~
. ,
ป ป



* ,
•i* •















.
—

.

..•





......





-


i.
.„.










,._






L
*
, 	 j. 	

2.2
105.0
4.0
2.8

6.2
3.3
3.6
3.4
6,2
0.8
1.6
10.0
3.0
3.4
1.9
$60,000
$9,229.880
$318,000
$246,600
$137,280
$288,720
$181.900
$462,000
$360,000
$2,743.000
SI 05 ,060
$6,000
3
$77,419 | •
$9,6ป,163 !•
$324,283 i •
T "^
S281 ,226 I •
.
"
• •
*
A
•
•
	 ' 	 j
$144,126 ;• • •
$303,118 |ปjป •
i
$201,412 !•
I
$485,039 1 •
I
$377,953 I •
S2 ,879,790 | *
$110,299 |^ป
$6.119 !•
*
ป
* i-*
.
,
r*
.
ป


n/a
$5.000
$5,099
$2,851
$10,604
$39.895
$3.875
$3,150
$41,995
$34,646
$945
$1,658
n/a
$86,287
$53,027
n/a
$1,000
$22,945
$28,396 $0
$33,071 $0
$44,304
$55,363
$62,992
$167,979
$184,777
$29,396
n/a
$0
$0
S3, 150
$26,247
$2,100
$2,100
$35,191
$92,287
$81,071
$31,247
$43,675
$84,199
$59,239
$69,291
$236,220
$221,522
$32,441
i"
i $1,658

5%
6%
9%
24%
47%
7%
5%
18%
3%


i
i
93%| 1%! 100%
65%
28% 100B
91%1 0%
76%! 0%
53%
9395
0%
0%
91 % 5%
71%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ii%! 100%
1
- 	 -4- 	 -
91%f 6%
|
100%
100%

EPAWA2; Final Rtpoit (Draft)
                                                                              Page 3

-------
                                                                                     Table 3.1

                                                       Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated Northeast
                                                                                 - Data Summary -
I.D.
&
Note
No.
NH-13
NH-14
NH-I5
NH-16
NH-17
NH-!8
NH-19
NH-20
NH-21
Project Name
and Location
Rocfcingharn Mall. Salem
Awcomin Marsh, Rye Harbor
Stewart Farm, Stratham


Drakeside Road, Hampton
Locke Road, Rye
Marsh Road. Rye
Meadow Glen, Salem
Garabedian/Spicket River
Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
New England Development
NH Off. of Slate Planning,
ACOE, USF&W
NH Office of State Planning
NH Office of State Planning
NH Office of Stale Planning
NH Office of State Planning
NH Office of Sate Planning
Meadow Glen
Garabedian, Salem, NH
Year
Fnpletion of Construction)
1992
1993
1993
1993
1996
1995
1997
1994
1990
Wetland Type
Pal
~
1
I
.

— •




Emergent |
Scrub/Skr'ub |.
FarestSi
•





-^



. .


Riverine Emergent






....
Intcrtidal Emergent jg)
ffiertidai SiVcaaibed jg
ine
1
:
,*!.. ..,,
*
.
.




--

— •
f
i
Subtidal Aquatic Bed !
Suhiidai Open Water {





|
-f~
i
4.
i
Wetland
Area
Restoration (acres)
1
I
1 5.0
35.0
4.0
40.0

	
22.0
14.0
50.0
3.3
5.6
Total Costs
Costs ($)
(during construction year)
$1,200,000
$100,100
$20,000
$44.400
$30,030
Costs {$)
(adjusted to 1997 prices)
$1 .368,4%
in
1
.
|
$110,837 !•
$22,145
$49,163
$30,623
5
$24.080 j $25,281
._].
$40,000 ] 540,000
f
$92,615 I $99,989
$89,992
$110,166
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
:ludc
s

•
*:
1
7

*
*
• *
. .
. .
ซ .
. .
. .
New York
NY-l
NY-2
NY-3
NY-4
NY-5
NY-6
Route 13/Cปyuga Inlet (PIN
3057.28)
Route 17 (PIN 5006.47)
Route 78 (PIN 51 11.55)
Route 263 - Millersport Highway
(PIN 5668. 10)
Route 16 and Route 3 (PIN
5579.59)
Tiffl Street Bridge (PIN 5752.78)
NY State Departrn. of
Transportation
NY State Departrn. of
Transportation
NY State Depsnm. of
Transportation
NY State Departrn. of
Transportation
NY State Departrn. of
Transportation
NY State Dcparm. of
Transportation
1995
1995
1995
1996
1997
1993



.


.
.
.
—

.
,
*






	









!
"•"•{• 	
i

i
i
_4_
i
0.4
5.0
0.13
3.0
0.37
1.7
$35,000
$85,000
$6,886
$10,000
$33.000
$50,000
$36,745
$89.239
$7,229
$10,198
$33,000
$55,363
..._.



.
i
Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$
n/a = Not available.
'ฃ
LJ
A
~e
$45,617
$631
$692
$138
$163
$189
$90
$1,820
$4,372
1
5
$228,083
$2,215
$4,152
$1,024
Monitoring (S/;icre)
per acre)
1
$0 $273,699
$321
S692
i
$66
$1,066 1 $163
$1,428
$640
$26,780
$13,116
$189
$70
	
$1,700
$2,185
$3,167
$5,536
$1,229
$1,392
$1,806
$800
$30,300
$19,673
Wetland Costs
(% of Total Costs per acre)
:
1
i
u
17%! S3%
20%! 70%
13%
11%
..I5!
83%
12%J 77%
10%
11%
6%
22%
79%
80%
1
S
O
0%
10%
13%
5%
12%
10%
9%
t
88%j 6%
i
67%! 11%
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%




,
.
,
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$91,864
$17,848
$55,611
$3,399
$89,189
n/a ! $32,567
n/a
n/a


n/a
n/a
(1 year)
n/a
n/a
i(5 years)



i
,, 4, ,


1


t








I
       EPAWA2: Final Report (Draft)
Page 4

-------
                             Table 3.1
Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated Northeast
                        - Data Summary -
I.D.
&
Note
No.
NY-7
NY-8a
NY-8b
NY-Sc
NY-8d
MY-9
NY-10
NY-11
NY-12
Project Name
and Location
Roale 17 Interchange, Goshen NY
(PIN 8006.41}
Taconic State Parkway - Hawthorn
Interch- (PIN 8126.40)
Taconic State Parkway - Hawthorn
Interch. (PIN 8126.40)
Taconic State Parkway - Hawthorn
Interch, (PIN 8126.40)
Taconic State Parkway - Hawthorn
Interch. (PIN 8126.40)
Taconic Slate Parkway -
Pudding Street {PIN 8126.09)
Sawmill River Parkway Lawrence
to Ashford (PIN 8390,29)
Route 6 Extension (PIN 9390.29)
Muck Piece
PratBville NY
Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
NY State Departm. of
Transportation
NY State Departm. of
Transportation
NY State Departm of
Transportation
MY State Departm. of
Transportation
NY State Departs of
Transportation
NY State Departm. of
Transportation
NY State Deparim. of
Transportation
NY State Departm. of
Transportation
USFWS Partners for
Wildlife
Year
FDtnpIetion of Construction)
1995
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1990
1995
1996
Wetland Type
ฃ1 " wiBMUwJo
ustrine
1
i
:
I.A
I
• • i • •
•

.

*
.i
i
i
1
•U
1 •
. .
I
•i * *
* 1
Riverine Emergent

™





Estuar
^ S
II
I 5
ji M

._^ 	




— - -
Inlcrtldal Fiat i ='





I




3





M. J 4
1
|
i
Wetland
Area
1 f
I *
1 ^
15.7
1.8
0.7
11.9
3-2j
1.2 1.2
1.2
8.3
50.0 [
Total Costs
Costs ($)
(during construction year)
Costs ($)
(adjusted/a 1997 prices)
$2,229,400 '$2,340,577
5216,000 $264.422
$5,250 $6.427
	
$1,666,000 $2,039,480
$198,400 $242,877
$456,000 S47S.740
5210,000 $257,077
$2,235,600 52,347.087
inc
j
B






luds
	
.
,
.
.
*
.
\
!•
T
$4,500 $4,589 ป •
s:
1



...

i
!
Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$ per acre)
a/a = Nor available.
^
o
1
a/a
n/a
I
*ฃ.
$149,081
$146,901
'
n/a j $9,181
j
n/a 1 $171,385
n/a J 575,899
a/a $199,475
n/a
n/a
$214.231
Monitoring (S/acre)
n/a
(5 years)
n/a
Total Cost ($/acre)


n/a
(3 years) j
(3 years)
n/a
(3 years)


n/a
@ years) j
n/a

|n/a i
$283,465 ](5 years) j
55 j $87
n/i
Wetland Costs
(% of Total Costs per acre)
Planning
Construction
Monitoring
1

f !





1
I



	



Rhode Island
Ri-l
RI-2
RI-3
RM
Ri-5
Bailey Brook, Middletown
Galilee Bird Sanctuary,
Narragansett
Route 138, Jamestown
Route 99, Cumberland and
WocHBOCtet
Route 99, Blackstone River,
Woonsocket
NRCS 319 NFS Grant
Rl Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Rt Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Transportation, U-S Army
Corps of Engineers
Rl Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
1997
1997
1995
1991
1995
*.,
OL
.

• *
i 	







	




;
ซ-



!
'•
4.5
98,2
5.3 0.1
4.1
1.3
$110,000 $110.000
$2,301,650 $2,301.650
$115,080 $120,819
$823,690 $967,624
5252,248 $264,817

•


m
• *
*
*

* *
m m
$5,500
$4,532
S18.944
$18,785
n/a | $22,374
n/a $128.517
$116.026
$65,412
n/a
$122

$23,438
n/a
$107.489
$22.275 $203,713
|
i
19% 80%! 1%
	 f
j

57% 32% 11%
100%


100%
                               Page 5

-------
                                                                                   Table 3.1

                                                      Wetland Creation and Restoration Projects in the Glaciated Northeast
                                                                               - Data Summary -






I.D.
&
Note
No.








Project Name
and Location






Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
Year

e
o

2
a
(3
o
e
fl>
CL
u
Wetland Type
Palustrine
r [ ""







!
L, -A
III
S -
i
5, J |h





7
si
ฃ


R
1
3
1
S
S


Estuarine


1
CA
U
S
3
1
a


1
S
ฃ 3
en ฃ

r r
3 I


1
v
1
5
=
$


1
ฃ

•3
|
^
Wetland
Area



ซ

A

O
cc




y-S
O
ง
a
1
U
Total Costs
; includes;

"n? ^^
S fe.
ii r^
1 ฃ
2 o ซ
S a -•
55 i * 's f

US US C



^N.
ea
o
s
ฃ
3
5
u




3,
4
^
g
Wetland Costs {in 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.




OJ
ฃ
iS
QG
I
i




ซ
'g

1
l
|
i
I ?

5 i S
=ป I ""
I 1 1

ซ Its
Wetland Costs
(% of Total Costs per acre)
j




I
:
U

1
1
H
1
S



|
:
„ 1

? 1
S i 3
Statistics for all Projects
Count
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum




















35 | 40
17.0 i 6.7
5,6 | 2,7
0.4 \ 0.1
120.0? 105.0
68
$749,729
$239,313 ^_
$4,589
$9,690,163
42 65
$37,949 $93,722
$5,049 $55,611
15 $87
$645,161 $645,161
47 42
$16,398 $134,662
$2,100 $54,196
SO $800
$135,484 $1,425,806
39| 40
19%| 73%
13% 1 76%
3%i 30%
59%! 97%
40j 40
9%\ 100%
S%[ IOCS
0%= 100%
29% i 100%
Statistics only For Projects with Complete Cost Breakdown for Planning/Constructum/Monitoring
Count
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum




















24j 20
20.2J 8.1
6.7J 2.7
0.8J 0.5
120.0J 105,0
39
$843,581
$264,827
$22,145
$9,690.163
3?| 39
$40,685 $88,029
$5.099 $47,725
$90 $640
$645,161 $645,161
39 39
$14,956 $143,670
$2,100 $69,291
SO $800
$135,484 $1,425,806
39| 39
19Bi 73%
13% j 76%
3%\ 30%
59% 1 97%
39l 39
8%S 100%
8%j 100%
0%j 100%
28%! !00%
    I
        EPA WAI: Final Report (Draft)
                                                                                     Page 6

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

     Table 3.1 Notes

     Connecticut Projects
     CT-1       Required a large volume of fill to be hauled off site. Complex hydrology and water supply issues.
     CT-2       Construction costs reflect a $5,000 donation of 3,200 herbaceous plants.
     CT-3       Planting costs were $6,000.
     CT-4       The costs are largely excavation costs at $4.00 to $4.25 per cubic yard for 2 to 3 feet of excavated
                material.  The area was allowed to reseed naturally.
     CT-5       Red maple swamp previously filled for tennis court construction. The original restoration occurred
                in 1993 but the hydrology was not correct. Asa result, over 80 percent of the plantings were lost  At
                that time, CTDOT's practice was to dig a hole and plant, with little consideration of hydrology.
                Reconstruction of the wetland occurred in 1995 when channels and drains were installed to correct the
                hydrology. Red maple plantings appear to be doing well although there was considerable damage from
                voles and other wildlife the first winter, in addition to heavy snow cover.
     CT-6       Blasted rock to create a perched wetland system, groundwater fed; manufactured topsoil and peat on
                site. Project cost includes extensive rock excavation.
     CT-7       Three wetlands created: one wetland was groundwater-fed, one was an impounded stream, and one was
                for stormwater discharge.
     CT-8       This project consists of nine mitigated wetland sites; good habitat for bass.
     CT-9       Bids received ranged from $95,000 to $ 132,508.  Site is on adjacent state land and entails extension
                of the palustrine emergent wetland to an adjacent agricultural field. Based on past problems with
                hydrology, they will not plant the site until the following season.
     CT-10      Construction cost includes construction of an access road ($4,774),  site construction ($122,577),
                planting ($36,325), and miscellaneous  extras ($7,000).  Control structures will be  installed for
                hydrology. Piezometers will be installed after the site is excavated and monitored for one year prior
                to planting to get better information on planting zones.

     Massachusetts Projects
     MA-4      Construction oversight costs were $20,000, which are included in the construction costs.
     MA-6      Phragmites australis control. Construction costs included headwall/pump station ($ 18,000), two tide
                gates ($14,000) and chambers ($4,000).
     MA-7      Phragmites australis control. Construction costs included headwall/pump station ($42,000). two tide
                gates ($29,000) and chambers ($16,000).

     Maine Projects
     ME-2       Consists of three separate sites.
     ME-3       This wetland project is associated with the reconstruction of a 1.5-mile section of Route 9 in Township
                31 Middle Division (T31 MD) in eastern Maine.  The reconstruction project is part of an ongoing effort
                by MOOT to upgrade  a 90 mile segment of Route 9 that has become an  increasingly important
                transportation  corridor between  Bangor and the Maritime  Provinces  of Canada.   Construction
                completed in 1996 and monitoring expected to continue through 2000.
     ME-4       Two wetland sites were finally chosen, but these were not without problems. One of the  sites was a
                wetland fill violation.  This prompted MOOT to reconsider that site because they did not want to
                purchase a site that would require remediation or monetary penalties. MDOT decided to proceed with
                that site when the EPA decided not to take enforcement action for the violation.  The second site was
                known to  contain  buried demolition debris.  MDOT suspected that the debris included  hazardous
                materials such as asbestos, and was concerned about the potential liabilities associated with their clean-
                up.  They  spent more than  $11,000 on an intensive assessment of the site. When the tests revealed
                there were no significant hazardous materials, MDOT decided to include the site in  their proposed
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.  & The BSC Group                                                    Page 13

-------
 U. S> Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1               Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

                wetland restoration package.
     ME-8      Total  project costs included  delineation, preliminary report, and final design and development of
                educational curriculum.

     New Hampshire Projects
     NH-I       A 3.1  acre emergent wetland was created in order to mitigate impacts to 5.9+1- acres of pahistrine
                forested wetland due to the reconstruction of NH Route 25,  The wetland creation site consists of two
                replacement sites totaling 2.1+/- acres. Both sites are located adjacent to the new Route 25 alignment,
     NH-2      Estimated costs. This site is still under construction. Approximately 320 acres of land were purchased
                for  $2.2 million; these costs  are not included in the listed total costs. Construction costs include
                hauling fill  and building highway subcourse.  Construction supervision by the contractor was
                approximately $130,000; this cost  is included in the  construction costs.   The  substantial DOT
                supervision costs, however, are not included.
     NH-3       Estimated costs. Construction supervision made up approximately $8,000 of the overall construction
                cost for the project.  There was no need for site acquisition; the site was within the right-of-way.  Costs
                for permitting are not included.
     NH-5       Four sites were developed to offset wetland impacts brought on by the relocation of Route 9 to bypass
                Granite Lake and the village  of Munsonville. The total  area of impacted wetlands was 4.5+/- acres
                (3.5+/- ac hillside seeps, 0.9 ac forested wetland, 0.1  ac Otter Brook wetland)  occurred as a result of
                this project.  Three sites were utilized in  order to mitigate for wetland losses.  A 2.0 ac wetland
                restoration area was located at site  1, and a  1.3 ac wetland creation/enhancement at  sites 2 and 3.
                Construction costs included lining excavated areas with hydric soils and various plantings, to provide
                wildlife habitat at site 1 and creating detention pond and diverting roadway runoff to flow through
                wetland sites 2 and  3 prior to  entering Otter Brook,
     NH-6       Land  acquisition costs were  approximately  $300,000.  Some planting costs are not included in
                construction costs.
     NH-7       See Section 3.3 for  summary.
     NH-15      Funding agencies include NH Office of State Planning,  Rockingham County  Conservation District,
                USF&W, and ACOE.
     NH-16      The $37,000 construction cost entails the installation of a box culvert and excessive earthmoving.
     NH-17      Construction costs include the installation of a box culvert.
     NH-18      Construction costs reflect the cost of the  repercussions  from damaging  a  water pipe during
                construction.
     NH-19      This restoration is scheduled for construction in the fall of 1997.

     New York Projects
     Note: All New York construction projects include the costs for excavation for the entire highway project.
     NY-1       The actual project was started in the mid- ] 980s. At that time, it was assumed that wetland creation was
                necessary.  The project was  later advanced  under NWP #3, although the ACOE would  not have
                required creation. A monitoring plan has not been approved yet.
     NY-2       This project required the development of a DOT-DEC Memorandum of Agreement for the acquisition
                of funding for the purchase of property for restoration purposes.  The DEC carried out restoration with
                DOT funding and also administered monitoring of the site.
     NY-3       No monitoring required. Additional ROW was required for creation adjacent to the partially impacted
                wetland.
     NY-4       Creation not possible within DOT ROW.  DEC and ACOE gave DOT credit for 3.0 acres of wetland
                borrow ponds not associated with any permitted activity,
     NY-6       The DOT was able to get permit for the temporary filling of wetlands for construction equipment (i.e.,
                crane pads). All temporarily filled areas were restored.


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                                   Page 14

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

     NY-7      The price per acre is artificially high because of rock excavation on the project. Four wetland areas
                were created within the  interchange ramp system: 8.0 acres - EM/OW, 4.4 acres - FO, 3.0 acres -
                EM/SS, and 0.3 acres - SS.
     NY-8      4 parcels, totaling 17.6 acres: 1.8 acres=OW/EM (created) at $120,000 per acre, 0.7 acres=EM/OW
                (restored)  at $7,500  per acre, 11,9 acres=EM/OW (restored)  at  $140,000 per acre, and  3.2
                acres=EM/OW/SS (restored) at $62,000 per acre. The total project costs of $329,500 do not include
                costs for needed land purchase. Agency interactions were cumbersome due to personnel changes and
                unclear vision of the type creation and/or restoration required.
     NY-9      Construction: 4 sites - $456,000 ($190,000 per acre). Price high because of rock excavation on the rest
                of project.  When an old dump area was excavated for creation of the wetland, organic soils were
                exposed. Wetland vegetation began to sprout from seed stock which could have been buried up to
                sixty years.
     NY-10     Monitoring period nearly  complete. Interim ACOE report indicates that the wetland creation meets the
                permitting requirements;  the F&WS may not agree.
     NY-11     8.28 acres created on 11 parcels: 6.09 acres FO, 1.02 acres EM,  1.17 acres SS
                Construction cost does not include purchase of a 3.37 acre wetland purchase which was deeded over
                to "Forever Wild." The construction cost is high because permits were not secured before the project
                was bid. All wetland creation was conducted "out of contract" and was not bid competitively. There
                also was a problem with plantings which had to be replanted within a power company ROW.

     Rhode Island Projects
     RI-1        Stormwater improvement project in headwaters of a reservoir.
     RI-2        Restoration associated with Route 138, Kingstown (no suitable estuarine sites adjacent lo project area
                so restoration was off-site), to improve tidal flow to a marsh previously blocked by construction of the
                Galilee Escape Road.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                                   Page 15

-------
                                                                                   Table 3,2
                                                     Connecticut Salt Marsh Restoration and Wildlife Management Programs
                                                                             - Data Summaries -
1
I.D.
&
Note
No.
CT-//
CT-12
CT-13
CT-14
CT-15
CT-16
CT-17
CT-18_
CT-19
CT-20_
CT-21
CT-22
CT-23
CT-24
CT-25
CT-26
Project Name
and Location
(Note: Projects in planning
phase ore listed in italics.)
Pine Creek (Phase 1), Faiffield
Pine Creek (Phase II), Faitfeld
Pine Creek (Phase III), Fairfield
Heron Marsh Pachaug State
Forest, Griswold
Menuketesudi River Marsh,
Money Point Marsh. Westbrook
Indian Neck Marsh, Branford
Como Marsh, Culler Street,
Stonington
Lower Connecticut River Marsh
Restoration, Old Lyme, Old
Saybrook & East Haddam
Cromwell Meadows WMA
Marsh, Cromwell
Schubert Marsh, Killingworth
Vineyard Marsh & Long Cove
Marsh CuilTord
Quinnipiac River March (Phase
1), North Haven, Hamden &
New Haven
Davis Pond Wetland
East Lyme CT
Ash Creek
Fairfield CT
Marsh Road Wetland
Groton CT
Lectes Island Wetland
Guitford CT
Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
EPA 319 NP, State
Coves and Embayments
EPA 319 NP, Slate
Coves and Embayments
EPA 319 NP. State
Coves and Embaymenis
CT DEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CT DEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CTDEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CT DEP, Duct Siamp
Program
CT DEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CT DEP. Duck Stamp
Program
CT DEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CT DEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CT DEP, Duck Stamp
Program
CTDEP, Coves *
Embayments Prog.
CTDEP, Coves &
Embayments Prog.
CTDEP, Coves &
Embayments Prog.
Ci'DEf, Coves it
Embaymeruf Prog.
Year
(Completion of Construction)
2000
(ea.)
2001
(est.)
2002
(en.)
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
(est.)
1997
(est.)
1997
(est.)
1997
(esl.)
1994
1988
1993
art-going
Wetland Type
Pal
t
55


.•


._
.



—

ust


^~



__

™~




rim






_..,
1
•2
1
1








r i
i
i
I
:
, i
1
j
Riverine Emergent














Estuarine
_.._
i
If |
ซ 3 — IS
3ฃฃ j
iii!|
11 111
3 S &&
|
j*__ i j
,
. |
i
T""
•
I
ฑ_j_l_
i
Subttdol Open Water |
.
.
*

m
.
•—
• II
. i
I
— i — -j— •
9 ,
,
• 1

*



Wetland
Area
Restoration (acres)
a
o
1
21,0
17.0
14.0
60.0
100.0
10.0
5.0


70.0
6.0
32.0 j
50.0
350.0
15.0
93.0
4.0
/J.O
Total Costs
Costs ($}
(during construction year)
$200,000
$150.000
$150,000
$10,050
$25,250 j
$20,250
$12,750
$45,250
$40,250
$10,250
$25,250
$45.250
$210,000
$30.000
Costs ($)
(adjusted to 1997 prices)
$IS3,028
Planning ($) Tg

udes
K.— ^
g
,
$133,273 •
$129,391

*
$10,551 • •
L $25,749 • •
$20,650 • •
$13,002
$46,144
ฑ

.
$40.250 • •
$10.250 • •
$25.250
545.250
._„.
*
~MMMM,
$226.721 * •
$40,575
$22,333 $24,729
$20,525
$20,525


.
v

.
.

j










	




Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.
1
55
M
1
a/a
Construction ($/acte)
$8,716
nla. j $7,840
n/a
$92
$54
$535
$1.071
$9,242
$84
$204
	 1
$1,530
$1,530
$76 $583
$875 $5,833
$164
$105
$156
$400
j
$15 ! $114
$15.115
n/a
$436
$347 | $5,836
t
S/,568 \designongoirtg
-^
ซ
n/a
Total Cost ($/acre)

	
n/a ;
n/a
$0

$176
j
$0 j $257
t
$0 ! $2,065
$0
.„..!!
$0
$2,600
$659
$6,708
	 i 	
$0 ] S320
$0] $505
ป
$129
$d $15,115
n/a j
$0= $6.182
i
Wetland Costs
(in % of Total Costs per acre)




52%
21%
26%
12%
13S
_SIK_
_2\%_
12%


_ซ
O
1
a
Monitoring
j
'

48%
79%


i



i
0%j 100%
0%
74%! 0%
59S
88%
0%
100%
100%
100%
0% 100%
87%! 0% 100%
49%
79%
88%


94%
	 	
0% 100%
0%i 100%
u 0% 100%

0% 100%
t
: i

0\
        EPA WA2: Final Report
                                                                                     Page I

-------
                                                                        Table 3.2

                                            Connecticut Salt Marsh Restoration and Wildlife Management Programs
                                                                    - Data Summaries -
1
I.D.
&
Note
No.
CT-27




CT-30
CT 31

CT-32
CT-33
CT-34
CT-35
CT-36
CT-37
CT-38
CT-39
CT-40
CT-41
CT-42
Project Name
and Location
(Note: Projects in planning
phase are listed in italics.}
Lighthouse Point Wetland
New Haven CT
Wen River Wetland
New Haven CT
Alewife Cove
New London/Waterford CT
Norwalk Mill Pond
Norwalk CT
Wilson Cove Wetland
Norfolk CT
Holly Pond
Stamford CT
Holly Pond
Stamford CT
Qaiambaug Cove
Stonington CT
Middle Beach Wetland
Weslbrook CT
Cove River-Oid Field Crtek,
Vest Haven CT
Housatonic State Forest
Sharon Mountain Block, CT
Hate Marsh, Natchaug State
Forest. East-ford CT
Wickaboxet Marsh, Pachaug
State Forest. Voluntown CT
Schubert Marsh, Cockaponset
State Forest, Deep River CT
Cedar Marsh, Goodwin State
Forest, Hampton CT
Brown Hill Marsh, Gay City
State Park, Hebron CT

Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
CTDEP, Coves 4
Embayments Prog.
CTDEP, Coves S.
Eaibaymeras Prog.
CTDEP, Coves &
Embaymcnts Prog.
CTDEP, Coves &
Embaymems Prog.
CWEP. Coves A
Embayments Prog.
CTDEP, Coves &
Embaynients Prog.
CTDEP, ISTEA
CTDEP, Coves 4
Embaymems Prog.
CTDEP, Coves &
Emtayments Prog.
CTDEP, Covei 4
Embayitttttti Prog,
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
Year
(Completion oE Construction)
on-going
1993
(study
compl.)
1988
1998
0j
42,0
5.0
8.0
194.0^ 	
194,0
70.0
10.0
100.0
34.0
18.0
15.0 j_
32.0
10.0
1
36.0
Total Costs
Costs ($)
(during construction year}
ncludes:
Cost! ($)
(adjusttlf to 1997 prices)
Planning (S)
Comtintction ($)
Monitoring (S)
K7,316^ $27,316 • _^
$24, Wg
$407,500
S403.SOO
$32,450
$30,000
S250.000
$85,978
S60.750
$115,000
$15.000
$9,575
$7,632
SI 2,256
$3,317
$14,801
$26,694 •
$551,141 • ซj
$392,039 • •
$35,93} •j
$43,7% •
$250.000 j •
$95.201 •
$60,750 • •
$111,650 •
$) 5,296 •
i
$10.337 j[_J •
$8,240 1 •
$13,232 •
S3.581 •
$15,539 Sปl
Wetland Costs (in 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.
9
$5,463
33S1
$1,465
$10,447
$4,491
n/a
n/a
J/J6G
I
u
design ongoing
no construction
planned
$11,658
Monitoring (S/acre)


$0
$67,961 $0
Total Cost (S/acre)


S13.122
$78.408
no construction
planned
S226 n/a
$1,289 n/a
no construction
planned
$6.075
$I.H7
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
amar, aptaetl
$450
$574
j
$0; $6,075
L L 	
$ป
Jฐi 	
S549 Stf
$413
$358
$432
$(>
$0

$0
Wetland Costs
(in % of Total Costs per acre)



11%
13%












J


I
1
i

,
89% | 0%
87%
•
0%

Total Cost

100%
100%
_ ....
1
i
:


j
i-


;
f

-'
1
i
i
i


1
!„,,„,..., ...
;
'






EPA WA2: Final RrpOrt

-------
                                                                                Table 3.2

                                                  Connecticut Salt Marsh Restoration and Wildlife Management Programs
                                                                           - Data Summaries -








I.D.
&
Note
No.

CT-43

CT-44








Project Name
an A Location
(Note; Projects in planning
phase off lilted in italics.)
Gay City Marsh, Gay City State
Park, Hebron CT
Dodge Marsh, Nehantic State
Forest, Old Lyme CT








Agency/
Developer
Funding
Project
CT DEP Wildlife
Division
CT DEP Wildlife
Division

Year


IB'
o
i
o
(Completion of

1995

1995


Wetland Type
Palustrine
i



i
Open Water
EmeirgenT
Scriib/Sn'run™'





forested
.

•





B
CI
a
Ed
Riverine




Estuarine
r

i
s
sr
Intertidal Erne




1
a
[ntertldal Strei









E
1
S





f
j
1 s
-2
.a *
SubtidaJ Aqua
SuStidal Open

i

|
Wetland
Area




„
2
Restoration (at





•ป?
e
1

11.0

3.8

Total Costs



includes:


"^ i j
i"
s
Costs ($)
(during comtru

$13,350

S4.94S
ง !
S. 1

S "d'iS
D w 2 ]M
si I ! if
if in
I
$14,016 •]

$5,195 • !
Wetland Costs (fa 1997 $$ per acre)
n/a = Not available.





K
ฃ
K

n/a

n/a
|

i i


t j
t
u

o
•g-
S
Monitoring (S

$1,274


S
Total Cost ($/

$01

$1,367 $0j
Wetland Costs
(in % of Total Costs per acre)






00










U










I
Jjg
1






Total Cost


Statistics for all Projects
Count
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum




















34J 0
50.6]
19-5i _
3.8!
350. Ol





34!
578,685 !
$27,005_j_
$3,581
$551,141
19
$1.868
$875
$15
$10,447
27* 22\ 14
$5,340 j JO 1 $9,452
$583 i $0 | $2,333
$84 1 $0 | S129
$67,961 1 $0 1 S78,408
12
23%
17%
6%
52%
12! n
77%! 0%
83% 1 0%
48% 1 0%
94% j 0%
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
Statistics only for Projects with Complete Cost Breakdown for Pianning/Consiructton/Monitoring
Count
Mean
Median
Median
Minimum




















12! o
61j
37 1
4!
35^1





12
J100.417
$25,499
$10,250
$551,141
12
$1,270
$255
$ili
$10,447
12 12| 12
$7,991 $0 1 $9,261
$1,056 $0 | $1,362
$84 $0 | $129
567,961 $0 ! S7ซ,408
12
23%
17S
6%
52%
_H,
77%
83%
48%
91%
IZJ 12
0%] 100%
0ปi 100%
0ซj 100%
0*1 100%
   2s
      EPA Wซ; Final Rupore
                                                                                   PageS

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 Notes - Table 3.2 (Connecticut Salt Marsh Restoration and Wildlife Management Programs)

 CT-14     Cattail in the impoundment was sprayed and then moved to open up the site to more open water.
 CT-15      Marshes were grid-ditched with no standing water. Open marsh water management (OMWM) techniques
            include installing ponds, pannes, and certain tidal ditches to bring in salt water flows and wildlife. Six to
            eight ponds were installed at each site. An osprey nest was erected. A blocked tidal channel was excavated
            to allow salt water into this Phragmites aw^rafo-dominated tidal wetland.
 CT-16      A blocked tidal channel was excavated to allow salt water  into this Phragmites dominated tidal wetland.
            A new tidal border channel was excavated with three ponds.
 CT-17      P/ragmtfas in this tidal marsh were first sprayed during the summer of 1995 and then cut down and dozed
            down. The following spring the Phragmites and several inches of marsh surface were moved to the upland
            to expose the marsh surface to sunlight,
 CT-19      Several ponds will be installed, two intertidal and two inland. Purple loosestrife control to be included.
 CT-20      Three ponds and Phragmites control planned.
 CT-21      Phragmites control including spraying and herbicide control is planned,
 CT-22      Phragmites control and some OMWM will be installed in certain areas of the marsh.
 CT-23      Culvert enlargement to improve fish passage, restore tidal creek and wetland.
 CT-24      Culvert repair, self-regulating tide gate installation to restore degraded tidal wetland.
 CT-25      Cleaned tidal ditches, restored degraded tidal wetland. Planning in 1990; Construction in  1993.
 CT-26      Planning study - $21,500; Design - $20,525. Enlargement of culvert to restore degraded tidally restricted
            wetland.
 CT-27      Planning study/design for wetland restoration by removal of historic dredged sediments. Implementation
            planned: will restore pre-dredging elevation and native vegetation,
 CT-28      Planning study of wetland restoration by management of tide gates, wetland surface excavation, Phragmites
            control to improve circulation, water quality, anadromous fisheries habitat. Decided not to go forward with
            design or construction.
 CT-29      Design and construction of dredging and jetty for improved tidal exchange, water quality and  benthic
            habitat quality in tidal creek/embayment
 CT-30      Planning study/design/funding for excavation of contaminated sediment, construction of wetland jetties to
            improve circulation, water quality, sediment quality, fish access and restore wetland habitat.
 CT-3I      Planning study of wetland restoration by deepening, widening tidal ditch to improve circulation, restore
            native wetland vegetation.
 CT-32      Tide gate replacement in former mill dam intended to increase tidal  exchange, improve water quality.
 CT-33      Removal of contaminated road sand to improve circulation, water quality and sediment quality,
 CT-34      Planning study to determine habitat impacts of increased tidal exchange; study showed sedimentation rates
            normal, flushing unrestricted, remediation unnecessary.
 CT-35      Culvert replacement to improve flushing and circulation, restore tidal wetland, reduce back-flooding.
 CT-36      Planning study of wetland restoration alternatives, e.g., tide gate management, channel realignment  to
            improve flushing and circulation, restore tidal wetland, reduce back-flooding.
 CT-37      Herbicide treatment of Phragmites in four marshes.  Phragmitex cut with brush cutters the following year
 CT-38      Replacement of concrete water control structure, 200 feet of riprap facing.
 CT-39      Replacement of a concrete water control structure, dike riprap, an outlet pipe and standard signs.
 CT-40      Replace concrete notch water control structure and installation of dike riprap.
 CT-41      Concrete water control structure installed.
 CT-42      Replacement of an aluminum water control structure.
 CT-43      Replacement of an aluminum water control structure.
 CT-44      Replacement of a concrete notch water control structure.
Louis Berger &. Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                                   Page 19

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 3,2  Variables Affecting Wetland Creation/Restoration Costs

 This work assignment has identified numerous variables inherent in wetland creation and restoration
 which can affect cost  The following presents general cost-related information obtained from various
 sources including the phone survey, BSC and Berger staff, and the literature.

 3,2,1  Design and Construction

 Richard Snarski of New England Environmental Services indicated that a rough average for conceptual
 design of wetland creation would be $5,000 for sites ranging from a half acre to two acres (with a range
 from $3,000 to $7,000). This fee reflects conceptual wetland design, hydrology           (exclusive
 of borings and monitoring  well installation),  and planting        but      not reflect the price of
 producing engineering plans, surveys, and subsurface investigations.  He  added that his wetland
 restoration design services typically run between $2,000 and $3,000 per acre. According to a Natural
 Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 'rule of thumb', design fees represent 20 to 30 percent of the
 construction cost. Neither methodology accounts for the time (and money) entailed in the federal and
 state permitting process.

 Permitting can be a considerable cost factor.  During the  telephone survey conducted for this work
            when queried about the     of a particular project,            might     "for the first time
 the wetland was constructed, or the second?" or, when asked about the cost of project planning and
 design, respondents might reply: "How many meetings do you want me to include? Do you mean how
 much time did we spend on it before the regulations changed and we had to start from scratch again?"
 Another responded that he has bid on one project four times, an indication of the variability associated
 with creating a cost-effective and successful wetland.

 Volunteer labor can  significantly lower the price  of  wetland construction or restoration.   In
 Massachusetts, the Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program (WRBP) uses a watershed approach to
 implement a "proactive"         restoration program.  WRBP         to     volunteers including
 civic groups, schools, and neighbors to  ultimately help with project evaluation, design, construction, and
 monitoring.

Site Selection. Where offsite wetland restoration or creation is required, several variables affect the cost
 of design and construction. A major cost item is the availability of land adjacent to the project  site or
 within the same hydrologic reach.  Other items include  mapping  of the site, property  ownership
 information, collection of hydrologic data, and data gathering from state and local agencies.  In addition,
public participation processes might  be  involved which  could be  lengthy  (and therefore costly)
depending on the acceptance of the project by the neighborhood.

 Most project costs researched are exclusive of land costs. It is recognized that the fair market value of
 land could be a major project cost. As observed by Dr. King of the University of Maryland, for projects
 in urban and suburban areas with  high development pressures and limited available land for either
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. &. The BSC Group                                             Page 20

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 wetland        or restoration,, there is pressure to conduct wetland creation in more remote areas with
 lower land costs.

 During discussions with Sylvia Michaud of the State of Maine Department of Transportation and Marc
 Laurin of the State of New Hampshire Department of Transportation, both suggested that if off-site
 creation or restoration is necessary, extensive site research efforts can be a significant factor in the
 ultimate planning and design cost.  They also noted that the site must be agreed upon by all agencies
 involved, both state  and federal, and one agency may require a second site  research effort, thus
 increasing the planning and design cost,

 Hydrology and Geology, Cost variables may be          with determining the following        and
 subsurface data for project design:

 •  Site  mapping and topographic survey. Detailed mapping of the  site, including tributaries and
   downstream reaches. If design is based upon topographical plans with a greater contour interval,
   quantities for soil to be removed can be off substantially,

 •  Depth to groundwater and subsurface geology and chemistry. Although some projects may be
   advanced based on hydrologie benchmarks,, borings and installation of monitoring wells provide
   critical information on subsurface conditions including depth of fill in previously degraded wetlands,
   groundwater table, and characterization of the soil. A water budget may be developed to determine
   the hydrologie regime.  The price of water budget modeling (estimated by Gary Pierce of Southern
   Tier Consulting in New York at $1,000) could be as high as $50,000, depending on user familiarity
   with this methodology. Boring and groundwater monitoring programs are mandatory for federally-
   funded projects to  allow for accurate contract bidding.

 "Wetland Creation vs. Restoration,  Selection of wetland type for freshwater and tidal wetlands
 presents a range of cost variables.   Project goals and the potential of the  site to support wetland
 functions and values      be         to           the     of wetland  to be constructed.   The
 decision to restore a tidal marsh through Phragmites control and         replacement could represent
 significantly lower project costs than  would  be associated with  creation of groundwater-based
 palustrine emergent wetland in an upland, forested location.

 Structure Design, Projects dependent upon upland sources of surface water may require construction
 of a weir to impound a stream.  Other sites may require installation of culverts to improve flow of
 water between two wetland areas previously divided. Salt marsh restoration may require installation
 of self-regulating tide      to maximize tidal flow while protecting adjacent developed areas  from
 flooding.        of           are         by           and bid separately, thereby        a major
 price component to the project.

 Planting Plan. For tidal wetlands, planting represents an additional project variable although one that
 typically constitutes only 3 to 8 percent of the total project cost, according to  Edgar W. Garbisch.
 Planting prices range from $0.00, for a site to reseed itself, to $32,000 per acre. According to  Gary


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 21

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1             Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 Pierce of Southern Tier Consulting, much of the price of planting depends on the density.  As indicated
 below, a        wetland could be significantly less expensive to plant than a shrub wetland,       on
 the spacing required. Depending on density, herbaceous        may be installed for         $5,000
 and $12,000 per acre; bare root shrubs may be installed for between approximately $20,000 and $33,000
 per acre; and bare root trees, planted 10 feet on centers, may be planted for less than $2,500 per acre,

 Numerous wetland scientists advocate reuse of wetland soils and plantings removed from the wetland
 impact site.  Although this reduces the need for planting costs, costs  associated with hauling and
 handling this material may rival the cost of plant materials and installation.  John Rockwell, NRCS
 Wetland Specialist,          cutting off plants (such as bayberry, honeysuckle, and Iva) at between one
 and two    in height to           vigorous branching, prior to excavation. Paul Capotosto, CT DEP
 Wetlands Restoration  Biologist, has indicated that      stock available in the wetland soil may be
 sufficient to reestablish wetland vegetation within one to two growing seasons, especially in tidal areas.

 Ken Dunne of Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. noted that as wetland nurseries become more common,
 offering a greater variety of species suitable for the local area, prices have also decreased.  Projects
 bid and designed in the 1980s may not be representative of the price or success of plantings conducted
 in the mid 1990s.   On highway projects, the price of wetland plantings is frequently not separated
 from             required for the       project.  Planting costs could therefore be under-represented
 in wetland construction

 Site Preparation.  Site preparation also affects the construction costs.  Regular clearing and grubbing
 is typically $1,000 per acre; selective clearing could be conducted for $3,000 per acre.  If wetland
 restoration/creation is selected in an upland wooded area, the cost of tree cutting and stump removal
 could add approximately $10,000 on a per acre basis.

 Earthmoving may account for up to 95  percent of the construction cost of wetland creation and
 restoration.  Elaborate contouring required to  create mound and pool topography could cost an
          $2,000 to $3,000 per acre.  Our                that the primary     of         creation
 is the price of excavating material, stockpiling and hauling. Earthmoving     cited       from $3
 to $8 per cubic yard. For example, for a one-acre creation project that requires the removal of a 3 foot
 thick  layer of soil at $5 per cubic yard,  the excavation cost alone would be approximately $25,000.

 If rock excavation and blasting is required, the price is estimated at $40 per cubic yard. If the material
 is used on-site, handling costs are lowered significantly.  Many of our contacts stressed that the price
 of wetland construction can be an insignificant overall project cost if material excavated from a
 wetland creation site is      as fdl material on site. This is especially applicable to highway projects
 with                of     but     problematic for       private              such  as       and
 office parks.

 State transportation agencies find that the clearing and earthmoving process involved in site preparation
 is tied in with the earthmoving process for the roadway.  Scientists at the Massachusetts Turnpike
 Authority stated that a  significant portion  of the earthmoving for the roadway occurs simultaneously


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 22

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1             Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 with earthmoving for construction of the wetland creation sites. The same equipment is utilized for
 both projects on the      day or during the      week and, as a result, the      are difficult to
 separate.  Further, the New York      Department of Transportation includes the entire      of the
 wetland creation and/or restoration in the entire excavation price on the highway project.  Currently,
 New York DOT does not have the methodology to separate this key component.  They are aware of
 the problem and are attempting to modify their record keeping.

 Another factor which affects the outcome of the  site preparation cost is the utilization of landowner
 equipment for construction.  Wetland restoration areas such as those undertaken by the U.S. Fish and
 Wildlife Partners in Wildlife, in many cases, rely on the landowner, usually a farmer, to use their own
 equipment in order to break tile       and create  earth berms. This significantly reduces the overall
 construction cost.

 Engineering plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E). Grading plans are prepared as part of the
 PS&E package.   The number of sheets in  the plan set is directly proportional to  the price  of
 engineering for a wetlands project. As a 'rule of thumb', each sheet in a plan set may be produced
 for between $3,000 and $7,000, with an average price of $5,000 per sheet. State DOTs require plans,
 profiles, cross-sections,  grading, details, sediment and erosion control plans, landscaping  plans,
 structures plans, utilities, and boundary surveys, among others. The price of engineering design may
 therefore be          on the number of      (and the scale) required in the plan set.  For a project
 specifying a      count of 50 in the     set, the                   fee would be roughly $250,000,
 Many of the same  sheets would be required regardless of whether the wetland project is for  10 or 100
 acres, thereby lowering the costs per acre with increasing wetland size.

 3,2.2    Monitoring

 Many wetland restoration and creation projects are monitored for one or more parameters for a period
 of three to five years after construction.  Based upon our conversations with individuals thus far in the
 work            it        that the     of          wetland           and             is minor
 in comparison to the planning, design, and construction of the project.

 Four major factors affect the overall cost of monitoring a  wetland restoration or creation project.
 These include the level of monitoring, frequency of monitoring, the length of the monitoring period,
 and the number of monitoring reports.  The regulatory agency under which the project is permitted
 (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or state environmental agencies) usually specifies the parameters
 to be monitored.

Level of Monitoring,  The level of monitoring may include a detailed program such as the one
 required for the              Port Authority's Logan Airport Salt Marsh Replication or a broader
 program such as the ones described for freshwater creation projects of the New Hampshire Department
 of Transportation.  Burt Bryan of The  BSC Group, Inc. stated that the monitoring program for the
 Logan Salt  Marsh Replication includes biomass measurements and  stem  counts within numerous
 sampling  plots within the  wetland restoration/creation area and control plots located outside the


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 23

-------
V, S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

wetland restoration/creation area.  The Logan Airport project also includes general observations of the
entire wetland.  Other projects may include some type of aerial photography and photo-interpretation
in conjunction with the sampling program. Freshwater projects, such as those of the New Hampshire
Department of Transportation, incorporate a broader monitoring program. According to Marc Laurin
of that office, most monitoring programs include the monitoring of random vegetative plots for percent
cover, density, and mortality. Further, observations of overall hydrology (quantitative) of the entire
wetland are also included as part of this monitoring process.  Everett Sammartino of the Rhode Island
Department  of Transportation has indicated that avian counts,  groundwater levels,  and  soil
identification may also be specified in monitoring programs.

Frequency of Monitoring.  The frequency of monitoring affects the  cost of monitoring a wetland
restoration or creation area.  The frequency may include monthly monitoring during the growing
season, semi-annual or annual  monitoring, depending upon the requirements of the issued permit.
Naturally,  a more intensive monthly monitoring program is more costly than one that requires only
annual monitoring.

Length of Monitoring,  The length of monitoring required may range  from two years to as many as
10 to 15 years.  Many of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation's wetland restoration and
creation projects have been monitored anywhere from 3 to 10 years, most being monitored for 5 years.
Projects involving restoration  of salt marshes through increased tidal flow, such as the City of
Quincy's Post Island  Marsh and Third Marsh, are required to perform a five year monitoring program
to measure and track the mortality of Phragmites australis,

Number of Reports.   The number of reports required will also impact the overall monitoring costs.
Some restoration or  creation projects may only require an annual report, while others may require
monthly monitoring with multiple reports during the growing season and an additional annual report.
Numerous reports will require more  hours of preparation and  will usually increase  the overall
monitoring cost.

One factor which  is not usually required but is included in many monitoring programs is wildlife and
wildlife habitat observations.  This wildlife observation program may target many species and require
documentation of species such as in Normandeau Associates' vernal pool creation.  If a more detailed
wildlife observation  program is required, it may considerably increase the price of monitoring.

Finally, discussions with staff from many state transportation agencies and with Michael Wheelwright,
planner from the City of Quincy, reveal that monitoring  costs may be built-in  or volunteers may
monitor the wetlands.  If agency staff monitor, as  in many of the New Hampshire Department of
Transportation's  project it is difficult to separate out the monitoring cost because  it may not be
recorded as a separate task.  If volunteers monitor the wetland then the cost of monitoring will most
likely be significantly reduced.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 24

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 3,3  Detailed Project Examples

 Detailed      information and project            were obtained for a      of project types and
 locations.  The projects include salt marsh restoration and creation, eelgrass creation, wet meadow
 restoration and  emergent  and  scrub/shrub creation.  Each project  contains a project description
 contains costs and 15 projects  have been supplemented with tables detailing additional costs.  The
 project ID No. refers to the listing in either Table 3.1 or Table 3.2.

 3.3.1    Pine Creek Salt Marsh, Fairfield, CT (CT-11 to CT-13)

 The Wetlands and Waterways Commission in the Town of Fairfield, Connecticut, has      involved
 in restoration of salt marsh for more than 25 years.  In the 1960s, the salt marsh in Fairfield was
 identified for use as a garbage dump and in 1966, the state approved diking the marshland.  In 1969,
 however, the project was curtailed by a state regulation prohibiting filling tidal marsh.  The town was
 left with a diked-off marsh which had become dominated by Phragmites and was a fire hazard.

 The Town of Fairfield has utilized its advantage as a college town through implementation of a very
 successful program wherein Fairfield University has integrated salt  marsh restoration into several
 academic programs. Several of the marsh restoration projects have been the focus of dissertations;
         and                             manpower for     gathering, monitoring, and cleanup;
    university labs provide analytical services. Project costs are therefore kept low.

 To date,  tidal flushing has been restored to over 300 acres through removal of dikes; cleanup of trash
 and debris; installation of self-regulating tide gates (SRT) and flapper tide gates; channel, ditch and
 reservoir pond excavation; initiation of open  water marsh water management (OMWM) mosquito
 program; and filling of superfluous mosquito drainage ditches. Benefits identified by  the town for salt
 marsh restoration include the  following: restoration of navigation downstream without dredging
 through          scouring; reduction in stormwater surcharge in upland areas; increase in salinity in
 the marsh which             Phragmites growth and mosquito breeding; improved        for
 minnows and killifish, which eat mosquito larvae; and reduction in the         for fire.

 The Town of Fairfield has recently  completed design for the Pine Creek East salt marsh restoration
 project.  The purpose of the project is  to maintain existing coastal  storm flood protection while
 restoring 51 acres of diked tidal  wetlands, thereby eliminating or reducing Phragmites fires, peat fires,
 mosquito breeding, back-water storm sewer flooding, area-side flooding below the dikes, over beach
 flooding  behind the dikes, floatable debris, highly acidic marsh waters, organic enrichment of marsh
 water  above  the marsh community's  capacity to  assimilate  or  export it,  and  odors, while
 simultaneously          the ability of the        to                        export  detritus and
 nutrients to the food web in Long       Sound  and provide       needed habitat for living marine
 resources such as shellfish, waterfowl, fish and wildlife,

 The Town of Fairfield funded the $43,000 planning stage for the Pine Creek East project including
 engineering design,  survey, mosquito sampling, sampling for dissolved oxygen and salinity, and


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc, & The ESC Group                                             Page 25

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 removal of debris.  A critical factor during design was to determine the desired water elevation in the
 marsh. The town has                         for construction through (he EPA Clean Water Act
 319(h) Non-point Source  Program and through the Long        Sound Coves and
 Program,  The program as proposed will be staged in three phases:

     Phase I, Year 1998-2000. Construction of a coffer dam, dike, sewer saddle, three 48" diameter
     culverts, two 48" SRTs, four flapper tide gates, one cross-culvert, cleaning of marshes, clearing
     of channels and installation of OMWM system. 21 acres, estimated construction cost:  $200,000.

     SRTs have float-operated, valves within a standard culvert which allow inflow of tidal water while
     allowing outflow at low tide,          upland freshwater.  SRTs are        to a tide     except
     that two-way flow is maintained; salt is  allowed into the       while draining             of
     storm drainage and freshwater flow.

 •    Phase II, Year  2000-2001.  Installation of a 48-inch SRT, realignment and extension of storm
     sewer system, retro-fitting  of siphon/sumps on catch basins, and construction of storm water
     detention basins.  17 acres, estimated construction cost: $150,000.

     Phase III, Year 2001-2002.  Installation of new cross-culvert and 48-inch SRT, clearing and
     cleaning of the       and implementing an OMWM           control program.  14 acres,
              cost:  $150,000.

 Construction costs include the cost of monitoring for 10 years. The Town of Fairfield is able to utilize
 graduate and undergraduate students at local universities for monitoring all salt marsh restoration in
 the town for approximately  $1,000 per year. This covers the cost of hip boots and waders, steel bar
 for transect points, miscellaneous supplies, and a small stipend or mileage. This price is below typical
 market prices. The Town of Fairfield will provide in-kind services as local contribution for
 construction  funding.  Tasks undertaken by the town include design, engineering,  and survey by a
 wide      of town departments.

 The construction costs also reflect a program to compensate adjacent property owners for salt-kill  of
 freshwater plants, gardens and  ornamentals  growing on  and  along  the edge  of the marsh where
 residents have cleared firebreaks.  To compensate for this loss, the Town has historically provided
 replacement plants, to a maximum value of $500 per lot for planting and in-kind services  if there is
 sufficient space and elevation on the upland portion of the lot to avoid further salt kill. Other losses,
 such as the rust-colored water and dead vegetation in  early stages of marsh restoration, and the
 hydrogen-sulfide odor associated with a restored salt marsh at low tide, are compensated  through a
 reevaluation of the         value of the real property affected by the  project.

 In 1981 the Town of Fairfield also restored 200 acres of salt marsh at Ash Creek by removing a cross-
 channel dike and constructing a new peripheral dike for flood control of adjacent residential  property.
 To achieve full  tidal flow, earthwork was conducted at $100/foot in 1981 (to remove dikes  and build
 new ones). Total construction price to open 30 acres was $260,000 or nearly $9,000 per acre in 1981
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & Tlie BSC Group                                             Page 26

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 costs.  In the             of the project, 90 acres were opened with the instaEation of three SRTs five
 feet in          (at $15,000 per SRT).

 3.3.2    Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT (CT-9)

 The CTDOT recently received three bids, detailed in Table 3.3 below, for the construction of a one
 acre wetland creation site associated with Mile Hill Road in Newtown, Connecticut. A combination
 of open water, emergent, scrub/shrub and forested wetland will be constructed within a fallow field,
 adjacent to an existing wetland.  This wetland will be located on state land approximately 200 feet
       of the Mile Hill roadway right-of-way. The CTDOT is currently negotiating a land acquisition
 fee for the property which is owned by the State of Connecticut. As a result, the     of          the
 property may  be significantly low,

 CTDOT engineers estimated that the construction phase of this project  would be approximately
 $151,960, including earthwork and plantings.  The bid prices which are listed in Table 3.3 were
 received in February 1997 and range  from  $95,270 to $132,508.  The planning and design phase of
 this project has amounted to $25,000 per acre, to date, and monitoring is estimated at $2,000 per acre
 per year for five years totaling $10,000.

 In order to           of the problems which occurred in the Route 187 wetland creation     Table
 3,1 notes, CT-5  for more information), planting of the wetland will be performed one
 after the excavation and  grading of the creation area.  This should allow sufficient time for  the
 hydrologic regime to get established between the existing wetland and the creation site.
Lotas Berger & Associates, Inc. 
-------
                                                                                    Table 3.3

                                                                       CTDOT Wetland Creation Project
                                                                    Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT (1.0 acre)
                                                                   (Bid Prices for Complete Construction Costs)

Description
Environmental Site Improvements
Pond Excavation
Cofferdam and Pumping
Temporary Crossings
Wire Fence with Metal Posts
Wetland Creadon
Hamamelis Virginiana Common
Furnishing, Planting & Mulching
Cornus Amomum Silky Dogwood 3'-4'
Ilex Verticillata Common Winterberry 3 '
Sambucus Canadensis- American Elder
Vaccinium Corymbosum Highbush
Viburnum Dentatum Arrowwood
Viburnum Lentago Nannybeny
Viburnum Pranifolium Blackhaw
Crataegus Coccinea Thicket
Acer Rubrum Red Maple 3'-4f Ht.
Acer Rubrum Red Maple 6'-8' Ht.
Wetland Conservation Mixture
Total Construction Costs

Total Quantity/Unit
1 lump sum
10,000 cu. yrd.
1 lump sum
1 lump sum
730 lin. foot
4,840 sq. yrd
45 each
102 sq. yrd
45 each
45 each
45 each
45 each
90 each
45 each
45 each
45 each
30 each
30 each
180 pounds

Engineer's Prices
Unit Total
Price Price
$1.500 $1,500
$8 $80,000
$10,000 $10,000
$2,500 $2,500
$5 $3,650
$7 $33,880
$12 $540
$125 $12,750
$12 $540
$15 $675
$14 $630
$14 $630
$12 $1,080
$14 $630
$t4 $630
$15 $675
$10 $300
$15 $450
$5 $900
Engr. $151,960
Low Bidder's Prices
Unit Total
Price Price
$2,000 $2,000
$3.50 $35,000
$1,000 $1,000
$4,000, $4,000
$7 $5,110
$3.50 $16,940
$40 $1,800
$45 $4,590
$18 $810
$45 $2,025
$50 $2,250
$35 $1,575
$18 $1,620
$50 $2,250
$50 $2,250
$100 $4,500
$30 $900
$40 $1,200
$30 $5,400
1st Bid $95,220
2nd Bidder's Prices
Unit Total
Price Price
$800 $800
$5^ $50,000
$10,000 $10,000
$1,500 $1,500
$7 $5,110
$2.50 $12,100
$38 $1,710
$45 $4,590
$18 $810
$48 ^ $2,160
$48 $2,160
$35 $1,575
$18^ $1,620
$48 $2,160
$48 $2,160
$95 $4,275
$33 $990
$39 ^ $1,170
$30 $5,400
2nd Bid $110,290
3rd Bidder's Prices
Unit I Total
Price 1 Price
$2,500 | $2,500
$7.40| $74,000
$4,650 1 $4,650
$1,250 | $1,250
$6.50] $4,745
$2.55 1 $12,342
$41 1 $1,845
$48 ! $4,896
$19 | $855
$52 ] $2,340
$52 | $2,340
$38 ! $1,710
$19] $1,710
$53 | $2,385
$53 1 $2,385
$100 ! $4,500
$35 1 $1,050
$41.50] $1,245
$32 | $5,760
3rdBid\ $132,508
    (with permission from Steven Ladd, Connectiticul Department of Transportation)
$
     EPA-WA2: Final Report

-------
 U, S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1              Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 3.3,3    Post Island Marsh, Houghs, Neck, Quincy, Massachusetts (MA-6)

 The following was written fry Michael Wheelwright of the Town of Quincy, Department of Public Works.

 The wetland restoration of Post Island Marsh's once impounded 10 acre salt marsh helped to rebuild
 its  estuarine ecosystem.   By reestablishing the tidal flow, the soil  salinity was increased, thus
 encouraging indigenous animal, Fish, shellfish and birds to reestablish themselves.

 To      this                with Yigorous mowing has        in        Phragmites amtralis, thus
 reducing spot fires and eradication of mosquito larvae beds.  Interplanting of smooth  cord
 (Spartina alterniflord) helped to complete the  restoration, included as a portion of the planting costs.

 Problem.  The subject marsh had been cut off from regular incursions of sea water for nearly  six
 decades, resulting in an overgrowth of nuisance Phragmites australis that posted a serious fire hazard.
 Further, existing                had        clogged, and                 developed and
 mosquito breeding habitats.

 Lacking sufficient tidal water, the marsh became brackish, this was accelerated by fresh water runoff
 from adjoining upland property leading to the overgrowth by the Phragmites australis that colonized
 the disturbed site.  This unwanted plant material was extremely voracious, growing in very dense
       and providing little wildlife value and  maximum fire hazard.

 Solution, By reestablishing tidal action and increasing the soil salinity of the marsh the common reed
 was stressed  and subsequent crops were stunted.  In their place indigenous plant material was
 encouraged (e.g., smooth cord grass which in turn promoted a habitat in which flora, fauna, fish,
 shellfish and invertebrates could begin to reestablish themselves.

 Back-Up Strategy. A resource management strategy, that is being held, in abeyance, is the use of
 plastic sheeting which will be laid down after the final mowing of Phragmites to dramatically increase
 the temperature of the root zone, further inhibiting growth, if needed.

Field Demonstration.  The remedial portion  of the project has had educational and cultural benefits
 as well,  The Harvard Graduate School of Design            Ecology)         have studied the rate
 and effects of salinization of the soil as part of an ongoing field demonstration.  In addition, European
 and  South  American scientists have visited die marsh on tour in connection with wetland studies
focusing on the hydrological functioning of wetlands and ground water development sponsored by the
Applied Science Department of Harvard University.

 Summary.  Reintroducing tidal flow to restricted              not produce vegetative         over
night but the process is effective over time.  All parties involved are            by the       to date,
 The self regulating  tide gate  in tandem with intensive plant material  modification and  long term
estuarine management  was the first to be implemented on this  scale  in the Commonwealth  of
Massachusetts.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The SSC Group                                              Page 29

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1              Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 Costs,   $47,000     Construction
         $18,000     Headwall/Pump
        $14,000      Tide Gate
        $10,000      Engineering Services
         $ 4,000      Chambers
         $ 2,700      Phragmites Strategies

 3.3.4    Third Marsh, Houghs Neck,  Quincy, Massachusetts (MA-7)

 The following was written by Michael Wheelwright of the Town of Quincy, Department o/ Public Works.

 This is the second  project of this type in the city.  It probably holds the same ranking within
 Massachusetts as the earlier Post Island Marsh Project.   Both involve the restoration  of  tidal
 marshlands md are         in the  Houghs Neck section of the city. The Third Marsh covers a total
 area of roughly 20 acres, making it           larger      the Post Island

 Problem.  Being low and next to'the shoreline, this area was originally a salt marsh subject to tidal
 flooding from Quincy Bay. In the 1940's homes were built around these marshlands, necessitating
 construction  of drainage and flood protection facilities, including  seawalls,  street  drainage, and
 installation of one way tide     to mitigate mosquito and flood hazards for abutters.

 The one-way tide gates were installed at the mouths of marshlands to block incoming tides.  Once
 installed, the tide gates allowed only the discharge of direct rainfall and storm runoff  from tributary
 areas,  resulting in the killing of salt marsh flora, fauna,  and other wild life habitat.  This gradually
 converted the area to freshwater ecology.

 Solution,  The restoration        has                   flushing of the       on a regular basis,
 thereby saturating the soils with salt water, which in turn promotes the growth of salt  water species,
 By planting  indigenous salt  water species,  removing  all debris and  extraneous materials, and
 continuously monitoring, it is expected that the environmental balance will be restored.

 The entire project  can be divided  into two distinct marsh areas.   Part I is  the main marsh
 (approximately 15       located west of Rock Island Road.  The main work in this     relates to the
 restoration of marshlands to salt water conditions. Part II covers the partially developed area    of
 Rock Island Road (approximately 5 acres).  The main problem relates to providing  adequate  internal
 area drainage  while protecting abutters from tidal flooding.   The project design in Part I will
 disconnect this area from the Edgewater Drive tide gate system and all inflow/outflows in this area will
 be regulated Ihrough a new automatic level control gate system at Spring Street.  This gate opens and
       at                         so that nearby       will not be flooded.

 In addition, about 500 feet of dike was  constructed at Rock Island Road to  protect homes located to
 its east. Planting indigenous  species, creating interior irrigation  ditches  and  cleaning  up and
 continuously  monitoring the area is expected to cause salt water vegetation growth in the marsh area.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
Page 30

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Vforf: Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 Flood          and         of Part II involved           this section from Part I by plugging the
 culvert      Rock Island Road.  All inflow/outflows from         are controlled through the new
 automatic level control tide           installed at Edgewater Drive,

 Internal area drainage has been achieved by cleaning wetland areas and drainage in low spots through
 a drain line discharge into the existing channel leading to the new tide gate chamber.  To keep the
 outfall pipe clean, it was necessary to modify the outlet structure at its mouth to minimize blockage
 and silt deposition.

 Cost,   $159,000.00       Construction
         $
         $  30,600.00
         $  29,400.00       Two Tide Gates
         $  16,000.00       Chambers
         $  2,000.00       Phmgmites Strategies

 3.3.5    Biddeford Connector, Biddeford, Maine (ME-5)

 According to the report by Woodlot Alternative, Inc., published in March 1996, An Evaluation of the
 Maine Department of Transportation Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program, the
 site is           with the construction of a new connector             the       Turnpike and U.S.
 Route 1. A 1986 plan prepared by MDOT (in conjunction with Maine Division of Fish and Wildlife)
 called for the relocation of 1,100 feet of Richardson Brook and the creation of 0.7 acres of wetland
 to improve fisheries habitat and to mitigate for the impacts. This work was completed in the spring
 of 1988. Subsequently, the Corps, EPA, and USFWS ruled that this wetland creation project did not
 constitute adequate compensation under Section 404(b)l regulations, and they requested that MDOT
 submit a plan for additional 1:1 functional replacement for 2.4 acres of impact before a Corps permit
 would be granted.  MDOT agreed to additional compensation. A proposed  1988 off-site wetland
 creation         canceled for various reasons.  After an extensive and protracted site       effort,
 MDOT          another wetland  plan, which was          in August of 1989 by the EPA. Final
 plans were approved by the Corps in January 1991. The final plans called for on-site wetland creation
 in eight individual  wetland basins, enhancement of upland riparian  habitat adjacent to Richardson
 Brook, and preservation of 0.6 acres of on-site wetland. Cost information for approximately 3.0 acres
 of wetland creation are listed in Table 3.1 of this report.

 Intensive monitoring began immediately thereafter and continued until 1994.  In the spring of 1992,
 the Corps conducted an unannounced site inspection and compiled a report stating that the wetland
 creation effort had not      successful. MDOT responded by       a consultant to perform an in-
 depth review and        of the wetland project to rebut the Corps* report.  As i result, a        and
 third plan were developed.

 Stream relocation alone was estimated at $125,000 in one MDOT report, and it was estimated by
 Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. in their 1996 report that site selection, preliminary mitigation, preliminary
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 31

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Fitwl Report)

 engineering, and construction             for this project cost MDOT an additional $25,000 to
                            expected from                MDOT)

 3.3.6    Route 196, Lewiston, Maine  (ME-7)

 The Lewiston/Route 196 wetland restoration project was associated with the widening of three miles
 of Route 196 in the towns of Lewiston and Lisbon.  As discussed in Woodlot Alternative, Inc.'s,
 article, An Evaluation of the Maine Department of Transportation Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
 Program, published in March 1996, affected wetlands were under Corps jurisdiction, but the impact
 acreage was          from Federal mitigation requirements by applicable Nationwide Permits.  A
     of 0.74     of MDEP Class 2 and 3 wetlands were         by the project, with all but 0.09
 acres exempt from MDEP mitigation requirements.  Most                       narrow, stream-
 associated floodplains and vegetated roadside drainage ditches.

 MDEP required MDOT to have an approved conceptual wetland replacement plan before they would
 issue the permit to widen the road, rather than just prior to construction as had previously been agreed,
 This placed unplanned time constraints on the widening project, and prompted MDOT to hire wetland
 consultants to search for sites and prepare plans. After considering some 41 potential sites, MDOT
         a preliminary    to MDEP to perform en-site mitigation by removing historic man-made
 fill from the floodplain of No Name Brook,                    floodplain to  improve the stream
 buffer,      preserving the entire 3,4-acre  parcel to protect it from development.  A permit for the
 widening project and the wetland restoration was then quickly approved,

 This effort  greatly exceeded MDEP's wetland restoration  requirements (0.09 acres owed after
 exemptions vs. 3.4 acres of restoration), MDEP specified that banking credits would be allowed only
 for future impacts within the No Name Brook watershed.  MDOT decided to go ahead with the full
 wetland restoration project because they estimated that the cost for the 3.4 acre project would not be
 significantly greater than if they just undertook 0,09 acres of restoration, and that it would not be a
 significant percentage of the highway project cost.

 The Lewiston/Route  196  wetland project was accomplished at the  highest  per-acre-owed cost
 ($1,759,237) including 0.8 acres  of restoration listed in Table 3.1  and 2.65 aces of floodplain
 enhancement not discussed in this report. The highest project costs were incurred in the construction
 phases, due primarily to land acquisition, excavation/grading, and planting costs. The planning and
 design cost of $124,000 per acre reflects the cost of acquiring the site.

 3.3.7    Scarborough Connector, Scarborough, Maine (ME-2)

 As          in Woodlot Alternative,  Inc.'s,  article, An Evaluation of the        Department of
 Transportation Compensatory  Wetland  Mitigation Program,  published  in  March  1996,  the
 Scarborough Connector wetland restoration/creation project resulted from the construction in  1992-
 1994 of a new interchange on  the Maine Turnpike in Scarborough and a new access road connecting
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The ESC Group                                            Page 32

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1              Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 the interchange to U.S. Route 1.  The interchange/connector was mandated by the Maine legislature
 in 1982 to improve       to the Scarborough Industrial Park and to facilitate a safer Turnpike,

 The first conceptual wetland restoration/creation plan was submitted in May 1988, MDOT and its
 engineering consultants explored several alternative alignments in an effort to avoid  and minimize
 wetland impacts.  The final alternative was chosen after  numerous interagency  meetings and field
 visits.

 The Federal          (the Corps, EPA, and  USFWS)          the plan,        that it would not
 adequately compensate for impacts to wildlife habitat.  In an effort to meet Federal  requirements,
 MDOT initially identified several potential wildlife habitat restoration sites.

 Due to  the  extensive nature  of the  proposed  wetland  restoration/creation,  final  planning  and
 construction     place in              over 3 years. There were six separate sites;

 •    Sites  1  and 2 involved removing two existing turnpike access ramps to restore 3.2 acres of
     previously filled wetlands;
 •    Site 3 involved restoring 0.7 acres of wetland that were previously impacted by a road;
 •    Sites 4 and 5 involved creating 3,5 acres of wetland in the in-field loop of the new interchange;
 ซ    Site 6 involved restoring 18      of floodplain and wetland and upland riparian habitat along a
     recently                of Mill Brook, a                     that was considered by MDEP
     to be  a Class C minor drainage (the lowest of four water quality classes for  freshwater streams
     and rivers).

 The costs of most phases of the wetland restoration/creation, particularly in preliminary planning, land
 acquisition,     construction (including construction monitoring) were much higher than for other
 MDOT projects in this study.   The high cost of preliminary planning         to  have  resulted from
 extensive agency involvement and the need to  develop very detailed plans for agency review. Land
 acquisition costs were high, as expected in that  area.  The high costs of construction monitoring were
 not anticipated, resulting from problems with landscape materials, the planting contractor, changes in
 consultant personnel, and the overall complexity  of the plans.  For example, the consultant's initial
         for            monitoring     $81,000 in 1991, but this task cost MDOT nearly $324,000
 when completed.  When the post construction monitoring  is completed at the end of 1998, the time
 span for this wetland restoration/creation project from start to finish will be approximately 13 years
 (assuming no remediation will be necessary).

3.3.8    Port Authority of New Hampshire, Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire (NH-8 to NH-1Q)

 The following information was obtained from Dr. Fred and Catherine Short's Article, The Pan that Supports, in the
Spring 1997 issue of Conservation Matters, Conservation Law Foundation,

The Port Authority of New Hampshire proposed to expand the State Port Facility by  adding a new
pier, containment structure,  wharf, and two-lane connecting bridge which would  result in an  impact
Louis Merger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 33

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1             Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 to estuarine habitat.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New Hampshire Wetlands Board
       a permit for construction.  However,      and federal resource protection agencies stipulated
 wetland restoration/creation for the projected       loss, and that the        restoration/creation was
 required to meet specific criteria before actual port construction could begin.

 The restoration and creation sites are located along the Piscataqua River and in Little Bay, both part
 of the  Great Bay Estuary and have a total cost of approximately $3,500,000 for planning and design,
 construction and planting.

 According to the article, finding sites for the wetland restoration/creation was a major preliminary task
 and has not been accounted for in the planning costs.  In the case of eelgrass, several locations  were
 chosen along  the Piscataqua River and in Little Bay, in the quieter areas of these heavily traveled
 waters. Transplants put into intertidal sites largely failed,  as eelgrass there was scraped  away during
 the following       winter by            of tidally driven ice. Creating new mud flat meant finding
 previously filled upland      that could be            and put back        water. Tracing  land
 ownership and negotiating with town officials is time consuming.

 A unique aspect of the wetland restoration/creation project  was its replacement not only of eelgrass
 habitat, but of potential habitat as well. Construction of the port would have affected areas which  were
 very         for          growth, even though no         was actually growing there.   Any
 construction would      permanently destroying the possibility of         growth.  The regulatory
 agencies, therefore, considered compensation for this potential habitat loss as they formulated the
 permit for port construction.  As a result,  more of each kind of habitat was created or enhanced than
 was projected  to be lost to construction of the new port facility.  For eelgrass, the created to impacted
 ratio was 1.4 to 1, for salt marsh 2 to 1, and for mud flat 1  to 1.

 Dr.  Frederick Short       that the $160,000 per acre construction cost for the 1.6     salt marsh
 creation involved the removal of material to the correct elevation after initial construction. Further,
 construction costs associated with the eelgrass beds within the Piscataqua  River were approximately
 $360,000 per acre because  of the complexity involved  in developing the terrace.  Terrace construction
 involved adding sediment to the river bottom with a total cost of $300,000 per acre.  The remaining
 $60,000 per      involved purchasing and planting the plants.

 The multi-year wetland restoration/creation project combined the efforts  of the University of  New
 Hampshire, Dames and Moore, and Great Meadow Farms, a salt marsh restoration company based
 in Massachusetts.  The University of New Hampshire's Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, located on
 Great Bay, was the headquarters for the project. All aspects of the work involved research as well as
 practical application.
Louis Berger <& Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 34

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region I              Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 3.3,9     Three Salt Marsh Restoration Projects, New Hampshire

 Following are three summaries of salt marsh restoration projects funded by the New Hampshire Office of Stale
 Planning, published in their September 1996, Coastal Program Bulletin, At this point detailed     are not available,

 Sandy  Point Salt  Marsh,  Stratham  (NH-18): Although most restoration focuses upon marshes
 adversely affected  by human intervention, salt marshes can also deteriorate due in part to natural
 causes,  such as severe  storms  or increased  rates of sedimentation.   Sandy Point salt  marsh in
 Greenland/Stritham is an example of a       which has               by both natural and human
 causes.  The marsh is located on the southern shoreline of Great Bay and is a feature of the Sandy
 Point Discovery Center.  The marsh is part of lands which are protected under the Great Bay National
 Estuarine Research Reserve.  The prevailing winds transport a great deal of natural and human-made
 debris to Sandy Point.  Over time this debris had accumulated to partially fill the upper portions of a
 tidal creek and to create a low-relief berm parallel to the shoreline.  The choked channel and berm
 limited  the amount of salt water reaching the marsh behind the berm, and trapped      water draining
 from the upland. The resulting soil salinities encouraged Phragmites to colonize the area.

 The goal of the restoration project was to halt the further spread of Phragmites into the marsh. With
 the help of volunteers, tidal creeks through and behind the dike were hand-dug in an effort to increase
 tidal flushing and freshwater drainage of the marsh.   Students in Dr. Breck Bodwen's Field Wetland
 Ecology course at the University of New Hampshire determined soil salinity levels in the       before
 and  during the restoration project, and discovered that the salinity levels did increase after the creeks
 were excavated. Continued  monitoring of tidal flooding, soil salinity levels, fish use, and changes in
 the plant community of the marsh  is being  carried out by  students and scientists at the Jackson
 Estuarine Laboratory. Funding for this restoration project was provided by a U.S.  Fish & Wildlife
 grant secured by the NH Coastal  Program.

Awcomin Salt Marsh, Rye (NH-14); This large marsh      directly borders Rye Harbor on the Gulf
 of Maine. In 1941 and  1962, sediments dredged from the harbor were deposited and contained in
 areas surrounded by dikes.  The 1941 dike, although not tall, surrounded a large area of roughly 35
 acres. The 1962 dike  was placed on top of a portion of the 1941 area.  It surrounded a smaller area,
roughly 10 acres, but was taller than the 1941 dike. These deposited dredge spoils raised  the level of
 the marsh,                    the frequency  of     flooding.   The 1962 dike was so tall mat it
 effectively eliminated any tidal flooding of the area within it. The soil within the dikes became less
 and  less saline,  and by the late 1980's most of the area within the 1962 dike had been colonized by
Phragmites, This stand of Phragmites had also spread outside the 1962 dike into areas contained by
the 1941  dike.  Resource managers in the state were concerned  that Phragmites would  continue to
 spread out into the healthy part of the Awcomin Marsh, so they began to explore restoration efforts
that would halt its spread.

The goal of the restoration work was to  increase the tidal exchange within the marsh,  to promote
freshwater drainage and to halt and possibly reverse the spread of the Phragmites.  Restoration work
began in  1992 with funds from the  NH Coastal Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Louis Merger & Associates, Inc, & The BSC Group                                             Page 35

-------
 U. S, Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the cooperation of several other federal,
 state, and local agencies. A portion of the 1962 berm was removed, and a large tidal "loop" channel
     dug in the 1941        area.  Several "fanner's ditches"           dug to help lid with the
 infusion of salt water that would promote die growth of salt meadow hay (Spartina patens) and to
 remove fresh water.   Additional restoration work was completed in  1993 when a large amount of
 dredge spoil was excavated from the filled portion of the marsh, Following the restoration work, most
 Phragmites       were     vigorous, and its spread appeared to have been stopped.  By the spring
 of 1994, glasswort and cordgrass had begun to colonize the excavated areas, indicating mat the marsh
 elevation and the soil salinity were more suitable for the growth  of salt marsh plants.

 Stuart Farm, Stratham (NH-15): Mill Brook, a tributary to the  Squamscott River (at Stuart Farm),
 had once been bordered by a tidal marsh, but tidal flow to this       was eliminated in the 1960's
 when a driveway to the farm was upgraded,  An undersized culvert and a tidal gate were installed in
 one branch of the saltwater creek, allowing for drainage of fresh water from the farm, but no reverse
 flow for tidal waters.  Eventually the salt marsh became a fresh  water wetland, parts of which were
           by purple loosestrife.

 In the fall  of 1993 a project to reintroduce tidal flow to the marsh began with funding from the NH
 Coastal Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The filled branch of the creek was excavated,
 a larger culvert was installed,  and the flap valve on the tidal gate in the  other creek branch was
 removed.  The marsh is now flooded daily by tidal waters, and                  drain      rapidly,
 Salinity levels  have increased, and salt meadow hay, black grass  and rough cordgrass (Spartina
pectinata) are replacing the invasive purple loofestrife.  Alewives had been found in the downstream
 areas prior to restoration work but were denied access to their upstream spawning areas by the tidal
 gate. Perhaps the restoration efforts at Stuart Farm will     to a self-sustaining population of alewives
 in this marsh,

 3.3 JO  Route 101/114 Interchange, Bedford, New Hampshire (NH-6)

Much of the following information was obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Bureau of
 the Environment's Fact Sheet.

 This wetland creation site  was created to replace wetlands lost due to the construction of the New
 Hampshire Route 101/114 interchange project.  The total wetland  impacts as a result of the project are
 1.7+/-      (l.Bac forested/scrub shrub, 0.2 ac emergent, and 0.2  ac      water). The
 creation site is located on an 8.1 +/- acre parcel, of which 2.8 acres were disturbed (containing a large
 storage pile, several construction ditches and  culverts, and degraded wetland pockets).  The land
acquisition cost for this parcel was approximately $300,000.

Approximately 3.6 acres of emergent, and scrub/shrub wetlands were constructed as a result of the
construction of Route  101/114 interchange project. The New Hampshire DOT attempted to create
diversity of cover and vegetation types to enhance wildlife habitat, create dense stands of emergents
to retain sediments, develop the vegetative communities with a varied planting scheme, create several
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 36

-------
U, S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

tiers of wetland hydrological zones: temporarily flooded, saturated slope, seasonally flooded, and
seasonally saturated, semi-permanently flooded, and permanently flooded, provide hydrology by both
groundwater discharge and surface water runoff (watershed of 65+/- acres). Further, the construction
costs included  lining  excavated areas with a minimum of 12 inches of humus removed from the
impacted wetlands.

3.3.11   Route 101, Pine Road Gravel Pit, Epping-Hampton, New Hampshire (NH-2)

Much of the following information was obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Bureau of
the Environment's Fact Sheet.

The Pine Road wetland creation site is being developed to offset impacts associated with the upgrading
of a  17.6 mile segment of NH Route 101/51 between  Epping  and Hampton, New Hampshire.
Approximately 103 wetland areas  were  impacted. Although it  is only one  element of a more
comprehensive  wetland creation plan, to date, the Pine Road site is the largest wetland creation effort
to be  undertaken by the New  Hampshire Department of Transportation.  The site  consists  of
approximately 380 acres located south of the proposed relocation of NH Route 101 and west of Pine
Road in Brentwood, NH.

Initial site conditions included:

•    approximately  117 acres disturbed by gravel mining;
•    disturbed areas were unvegetated or sparsely covered with herbs and shrubs;
•    undisturbed portions are largely  covered by wetlands, though some uplands and open water areas
    exist; and
•    the site overlays an expansive high yield aquifer.

The creation area included approximately 105 acres of wetland emergent, scrub/shrub and open water.
The project's goals included providing wildlife habitat, floodflow  alteration, sediment and toxicant
retention,  nutrient removal and groundwater recharge  and to promote education, recreation, and
improved visual quality.

New Hampshire DOT along with their consultant Normandeau Associates, Inc.  created a variety of
wetland communities  including: aquatic bed, emergent marsh, scrub/shrub, open water and forested
wetlands within the one, 105 acre wetland.  They were able to excavate enough material to utilize the
underlying aquifer as the primary water source. Finish grading was used to form mound and pool micro-
topography to facilitate growth of woody species and simulate natural conditions.  During construction
of the site, according to Marc Laurin of the New DOT, they were able to utilize hydric and upland soils
harvested from  project construction within the creation area.

Additional costs, although  minimal in comparison to the overall cost, include funding for  the
construction of an observation platform to be used for educational and recreational purposes.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                            Page 37

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

3.3.12    Treatment Plant Property, Littleton, New Hampshire (NH- 7)

Much of the following information was obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Bureau of
the Environment's Fact Sheet,

Two wetland creation sites were created to replace wetlands lost due to (1) reconstruction of US Route
302/Meadow Street,  (2) construction of a new bridge over the Ammonoosue  River,  and (3)
construction of an access road to Littleton Industrial Park,  Approximately 1.1+1- acres (1.4 ac
palustrine, 0.3 ac riverine & open water) of wetlands were impacted as a result of these projects.

Two wetland creation sites were created in  order to mitigate for the wetland impacts involved in this
project.  The first site is located on the north bank of the Ammonoosue (half of site is reverting field,
the other half dominated by pioneer species) and consists of 2,8+1- acres of forested scrub-shrub
wetland.  The second site is located between B&M Railroad & South Street and is adjacent to a former
salvage yard contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (remediation of contaminated soil was done
prior to construction and is not reflected in the costs) and consists of 0.6+/- acres emergent wetlands.

Planning and design costs for this project do not include site acquisition costs.  Both wetland creation
sites were located on town property and therefore did not require purchase.  Construction costs reflect
excavation for wetland construction only, final and finish grading and setting final grade elevation to
provide saturation/inundation period during the growing season, planting various wetland tree and
shrub species at site 1, planting a mix of annual and perennial grasses at site 2, placing a base of 6"-
12" of loam or humus throughout site 1, placing a base of organic soil throughout site 2 and finally,
stabilizing and preventing erosion of newly planted area at site 1 by planting a mix of annual and
perennial grass seed.

3.3.13    Spaulding Turnpike and Gosling Road, Portsmouth-Nemngton, New Hampshire (NH-4)

Much of the following information was obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Bureau of
the Environment's Fact Sheet.

This wetland restoration/creation site was created to replace wetlands lost to the widening of the
Spaulding Turnpike and construction of a full diamond interchange at Gosling Road.  The total wetland
impacts as a result of the project are 10+/- acres. Approximately 11.4 acres of restoration, enhancement
and creation were constructed in order to mitigate for wetland impacted by this project.  The restoration,
enhancement and creation totaled:

                      Wetland types	Area (acres)
                      Open Water                         1.0
                      Shallow Marsh                      3.2
                      Deep Marsh                         1.8
                      Scrub/Shrub                         M
                      Total                               9.0
Louis Berger &. Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 38

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 Construction costs for this project totaled approximately $24,900 per acre and reflect restoring the
 vegetative communities with a varied planting scheme, creating several tiers of wetland hydrological
 zones: temporarily flooded, saturated slope, seasonally flooded, seasonally saturated, semi-permanently
 flooded, and permanently flooded (grading), providing hydrology through a spillway from Newfields
 Ditch (Hodgson  Brook) during high flow periods, and on-site seasonal  groundwater discharges,
 excavating the Phragmites dominated area, and over-excavating the wetland creation areas and lining
 with 12 inches of organic soils, from impacted wetlands.

 The NH DOT had an engineering consultant perform monitoring for one year and produce a final report
 for $2,000. Otherwise the monitoring costs have been built in to routine schedules of the scientists at
 the NH  DOT's Bureau of the Environment.

 3.3.14   Route 101, Squamscott River Bridge, Stmtham, New Hampshire (NH-3)

 Source:  Barry and Garlo, 1995

 Restoration of a brackish tidal marsh in Stratham, New Hampshire, was required as a result of the
 expansion of the Squamscott River Bridge, Excavation of approximately ten feet of fill from this site
 in the summer of 1993 was accomplished over a period often days with an excavator and a bulldozer.
 Dry conditions enabled work to  proceed quickly.  Erosion controls included coconut fiber rolls and
 pallets or mats.

 Project  chronology:

 October 1993     Planting consisted of 990 saltmeadow bulrush and 750  saltmarsh hay plants rooted
                  in coconut fiber 2-inch pots. The fiber rolls were also planted with plugs of smooth
                  cordgrass and saltmeadow bulrush on approximately two foot centers.

 Winter  1993/1994 The bulrush and saltmarsh hay plants were uprooted and replanted.

 May-June 1994    4,300 narrow-leaved cattail, 1,000 saltmeadow bulrush, and 2,000 saltmarsh hay
                  plants were installed on three foot centers.

 July 1994         1,500 cattail root clumps were collected from the adjacent marsh and used to fill  in
                  areas seemingly having difficulty getting re-established.

 July-August 1994  Coconut fiber rolls with cordgrass/bulrush plugs did not provide enough contact
                  with soil and roots had dried out. Pallets were removed and the area was replanted
                  with cattails which had been harvested from the adjacent marsh.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 39

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

3.3.15   Muck Piece, Former McDougal Property, Prattsvitte, Stueben County, New York (NY-12)

This former potato field, located in Steuben  County., had been fanned for at least twenty years.
Infestation with golden nematode had reduced the agricultural capability of the acreage, making it a
prime candidate for wetland restoration (golden nematode can be eliminated without pesticides by
saturating the soil). Originally the site had been a forested wetland.  To divert hillside drainage, a stream
had been channelized and diversion ditches has been cut on three sides of the field. Clay tile  drains,
measuring 6-inches in diameter with IS-inch length, had been installed on 50-foot centers across the
field. The goal of the wetland restoration project was to incorporate the site into a refuge system for
wildlife management.  The project entailed two fields, this 50 acre site and a 30-acre site across the
street.  The "muck piece" site is the wetland restoration of the 50-acre parcel.

A "back of the envelope" sketch design was developed in the field by USFWS staff in one day.  Travel
time to the site accounted for half the design cost.  Construction costs  included the  cost of hiring an
excavator for 44 hours at $85 per hour and the cost of a USFWS technician at $20 per hour for 25 hours
to direct the start of work, as needed during  construction, and at the end to acknowledge project
completion. Construction included cutting a trench perpendicular to a drain outlet to determine the clay
tile spacing (found to be 50-foot on center), removal of lengths of clay pipe drains in the field, opening
up the original drainage ditch, berming peripheral drains along the foot of the hillside, and creating a
hummock and dip topography.

Hydrology was rapidly restored through removal of drains. As the site became saturated the excavator
became stuck in the mud.  It became too difficult to work with the equipment as planned. Excavator ruts
helped create the intended "hummock and dip" topography; the spot where the equipment was stuck
became open water. Exposed soil was seeded with a standard mix of wet and dry species including red
fescue, trefoil, and a little reed canary grass.  Original ground cover was "quack grass"  and teasel.
Within one growing season the site revegetated in accordance with the new hydrology.  Vegetation
includes rush, sedge, plantain, and cattail.

3,3,16   Restoration of Salt Marsh at Galilee, Rhode Island (RI-2)

Source: David Larsen, New England District, Corps of Engineers

The Galilee Saltmarsh Restoration project is the first New England project to be funded under Corps of
Engineers Section 1135 authority. This authority allows the Corps to become involved  in environmental
restoration to enhance the environment in areas where prior Corps  actions have caused degradation of
the environment.   Section  1135  projects must have a non-federal sponsor  providing  25 percent
participation for construction. Other Section 1135 projects in the planning stages include Sagamore
Marsh restoration in Massachusetts, and a project in  Portsmouth, Rhode Island to restore an area of
previous dredge disposal.

The  128-acre Galilee Bird  Sanctuary, located in Narragansett,  is  managed by the  Rhode  Island
Department of Management (RIDEM). Eastern and western project areas have been identified for


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 40

-------
 U, S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1              Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 saltmarsh restoration.  The total acreage of the restoration project is 98 acres, including 84 acres of
 mtertidal         habitat, with 14      proposed is open water and intertidal channels. The 34-acre
 western       of the Galilee          had previously been    for the        of dredge       from
 the adjacent Point Judith federal navigation project. During construction of the Galilee       Road
 in the mid-1950s, tidal flow from the saltmarsh northward was restricted to two small culvert pipes.
 Restoration of the 64-acre eastern side of the saltmarsh is a compensatory measure for filling associated
 with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) construction of the western approach for
 the Jamestown Bridge (Route 138) in Narragansett. The western side of the marsh was designed by the
 Corps of Engineers; the eastern side is under design by RIDEM,

 Participating             for the           of the Galilee  Saltmarsh include the RIDOT and RIDEM,
 Additional partners include Duck Unlimited for the construction of a  viewing     at the top of the
 former disposal area and an interpretive walkway along an old causeway through the marsh, and the
 University of Rhode Island for environmental awareness of ecological processes within the saltmarsh.

 The project goal is to restore the natural channel. A large culvert will be constructed beneath the Galilee
 Escape Road and a self-regulating tide gate (SRT) will be installed. Project proponents  are concerned
 about flooding of adjacent residential properties during storm tides (realistically, these areas would be
 subject to washover over the road during storm events regardless of saltmarsh restoration). The Corps
 completed all hydrological analysis including topographical survey, tidal investigation, water level
 documentation necessary for       structures and for establishing calibration. A feasibility report was
 conducted for $215,000; preparation of plans and specifications      completed for $230,000 for both
 eastern and western sections.  The engineer's  construction estimate was $1,345,000 for the western
 section and $755,000 for the eastern section. Bid prices for the entire construction (east and west) was
 $1,844,650 (approximately $300,000 below the government estimate).  Monitoring is not required for
 this project; no wetland planting is proposed. Operation and maintenance costs projected for this site
 are $12,000 annually to maintain gates, remove debris, occasionally deploy stop logs, and to monitor
 water levels.

 The construction contract was awarded in August 1996 with a 12-month construction period anticipated.
 Twin 6-foot by 10-foot culverts are now under construction at the eastern and western project
 beneath the  Galilee Escape Road.

 3.3.17   Route 99, Blackstone River Bridge, Rhode Island (RI-4)

 Everett Sammartino of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation provided cost estimates for
 wetland creation/restoration associated with construction of a new bridge across the Blackstone River
 in Woonsocket.  This project consisted of riverine floodplain enhancement of a 0.6 acre area  and
 restoration of wetland of an additional 0.7 acre area, for a total     of 1.3 acres. The river bank had
 been covered with riprap; project design called for establishment of grass, sedges, and burreed with knoll
 and pool topography in open water. As indicated in Table 3.4, project design associated with wetland
 creation/restoration was invoiced from 1983 to 1993,  Over the ten year period, design fees totaled
 $143,669.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 41

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

To determine the construction cost of wetland restoration/enhancement, unit costs were pulled off
contract books and averaged for the station numbers within the wetland area. Items included within the
cost estimate, including RIDOT item codes, are listed in the table. Major items included removal of
Class "C" and "D" riprap,  costs associated with installation and removal of modified silt fence and
special silt curtain, backfilling of the site with loam, site survey to maintain grade, and planting and
seeding.  Construction monitoring was conducted routinely by RIDEM.

Monitoring was conducted for two years after construction. Reports were prepared four times per year
over the period in accordance with the Section 404 permit.  Items included vegetation counts, avian
monitoring, water table levels in observation wells, and soil  profiles.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 42

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region J
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
                                            Table 3.4
                            Rhode Island Department of Transportation
                           Rt 99 @ Blackstone River Bridge, Woonsoeket
                          Wetland Enhancement/Restoration Cost Estimate

                          Size: 1.3 Acres Riverine Floodplain Enhancement
| DESIGN COSTS
(Design Total = $143,669
1
(1983to 1993} |
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Item
Removal of Class "C" Rip-Rap
(Item Code 9 17,9905)
Removal of Class "D" Rip-Rap
(Item Code 917.9906)
Removal of Temporal)' Access Road Liner
(Sta34+/-to35 + 91)
Removal of Erosion Controls (Silt Fence)
(Sta. 34+/- to 35 + 91) Item Code: 206.0220
Scarify Exposed Substrate
(Sta 34+7- to 35 + 91)
Seed Disturbed Area with Wetland Seed Mix (Sta
34+/- to 35 + 91) Item Code: L02.9901
Removal of Rip-Rap Through Open Water at
Wetland (Sta 34+/- to 35 + 91)
Stake/Flag Limits of Work Around Wetland
Restoration/Enhancement Area
For a three person field crew
For office work $38/hr
Install Erosion Control Devices Around Wetland
Restoration/Enhancement Area
Modified Silt Fence: Item Code:206.9905
Special Silt Curtain: Item Code:206.9906
Unit Cost
$7,50/CY
S7.50/CY
Amount
2,200 CY
1,200CY
Total Cost
$16,500
$9,000
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
S2.60/LF
800 LF
$2,080
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
S0.10/SY
8,715 SY
$871.50
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
Done by RIDOT survey crew. No item or
reference found in contract book.
$600/Day
$300/Day
2 Days
1 Day
$1200
$300

S4/LF
S10/LF
1,OOOLF
60/LF
$4,000
$600
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
                                  Page 43

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
#
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
IS
19
20
Item
Unit Cost
Amount
Total Cost
RIDOT's recommended sequence of excavation for the wetland Restoration/Enhancement Area
A & B: Excavation
C: Remove Rip-Rap from Sta. 33 + 41 to 32+/-
D: Removal of Temporary Access Road Liner (Sta.
32 to 33 +41)
E : Remove Erosion Control Devices
B/W Sta. 32 & 33 + 41 (Item Code: 206.0220)
F: Excavate Wetland Under Temporary Access Road
to Appropriate Grades
R & D Excavated Material Removed from
Enhancement Area
Dewatering
Survey to Verify Grades After Excavation Before
Loam Placement
Field days
Office days
Backfilling of Restoration/Enhancement Area
W/Loam (Item Code LO] ,9902}
Compaction Survey to Verify Final Grades
Field days
Compaction/Final Grading of Loam Islands In
Enhancement/Restoration Area
Seeding Enhancement Area After Loam Compaction:
Assume a 50% re-seeding
(Item Code: LO-2,9901)
Plantings
Guarantee of Plant Materials
Erosion Control Removal at wetland
restoration/enhancement area
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
$2.60/LF
280 LF
$728
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
No item or reference found in contract book:
Assume paid for under rip-rap removal.
N/A
Done by RIDOT survey crew.
$600/Day
$300/Day
$9/CY
1 Day
0.5 Days
494 CY
$600
$150
$4,446
Done by RIDOT survey crew
$600/Day
0.5 Days
$300
No specific item found in contract book: Assume
paid for under backfilling w/loam.
0,10/SY

4,358 SY

$436
$39,785
Not factored into cost.
Cost included in installation.
Construction Total $80,997
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
                                   Page 44

-------
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
 MONITORING COSTS
 Monitoring Total -2years      $27,582
Cost Summary -
Design Total
Construction
Monitoring Total
Total
1.3 Acres Wetland
$143,669
$80,997
$27,582
$252,248
Enhancement




3.3.18   Other Rhode Island Wetland Creation/Restoration Costs (RI-3, Rl-4, RI-5)

In addition to Route 99 (Blackstone River Bridge), Table 3.5 presents information on major cost items for
two  more RIDOT  projects:  Route 138 in Jamestown (highway constructed along new and existing
alignment),  and Route 99 in Woonsocket and Cumberland (highway on new alignment).  Key costs
associated with these projects are earth excavation (prices range from $2.20 per cubic yard to $11.00 per
cubic yard for stockpiling, rehandling, hauling and spreading wetland soil), and planting costs.
   Louis Berger & Associates. Inc. & The ESC Group
                                Page 45

-------
                                                                            Table 3.5

                                                               RIDOT Wetland Replacement Projects
                                                                     Major Construction Items
Project
Area
Total Costs
Design
Construction
Monitoring

Description
Wetland soil stockpiled, rehandled,
lauled & spread
Organic-rich Soils for Wetland
Restoration & Replication Area
Plantable Soil 4" Deep
Native Grass Seed Mixture
Selective Clearing
Earth Excavation
Hay bales, silt fence, special silt
curtain, including removal
Planting
Excelsior Matting
Removal of Class "C" & "D" Rip-Rap
Backfilling of Restoration/
Enhancement Areas
Survey
Route 138,
Jamestown
Restored 5.3 acre Palustrtne scrub/shrub
wetland; Created 0.1 acre emergent marsh
[stormwater detention)
n/a
Mo design cost available
$115,080 ($21,300 /acre)
So monitoring required

Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost
$11.00 /CY 1.194CY $13,134
$2.00 /SY 19,360 SY $38,720
$0.70 /SY 1,171 SY $820
$0.70 /SY 19,360 SY $13,552
$3,000.00 /AC 2 AC $6,000
$3,17 /CY 7,400 CY $23,458
$5,195



$9.00 /CY 494 CY $4,446

Route 99,
Cumberland and Woonsocket
Created 4. 1 acres paluscrine emergent
wetland and open water
n/a
No design cost available
$448,700 ($109,439 /acre)
$375,000 ($91,463 /acre; for 5 years)

Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost

$2.00 /SY 28,947 SY $57,894
$0.70 /SY 7,402 SY $5,181
$0.70 /SY 14,457 SY $10,120

$2.20 1C 65,137 CY $143,301
$25,330
$147,704
$2.00 /SY 5,474 SY $10,948



Route 99 @ Blackstone River Bridge,
Woonsocket
1.3 acre riverine floodplain enhancement
$252,248 ($194,037/acre)
$143,669 ($110,515 /acre)
$80,997 ($62,305 /acre)
$27,582 ($21,217 /acre; for 2 years)

Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost



$0.10 /SY 13,073 SY $1,307


$7,408
$39,785

$7,50 /CY 3,400 CY $25,500
$9,00 /CY 494 CY $4,446
$2,550
I
  EPA WA-2: Final Report

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1              Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 4.0  DATA DISCUSSION

 As previous  studies      found,  there is a very large       in      per unit      for wetland
 restoration and creation projects, depending on numerous factors including those discussed in Section
 3.2. Size of wetlands in the database in Table 3.1 ranges from 0.1 to 120 acres, and total costs range
 from $4,600 to $9,690,000 per project, and from $800 to $1,426,000 per acre (Figure 4.1; see also
 statistical summary at the end of Table 3.1). In Figure 4.2, wetland area in acres is  compared  to cost
 per acre, shown on a logarithmic scale. In order to better display the data, an expanded scale  for the
 wetland      was provided  in the lower half of the       Costs per      decline gradually with
 increasing wetland size, for both restoration and creation projects, although for any specific     range
 there is such a wide range of costs as to make precise prediction impossible on the basis of size alone.

 Size does have an influence on the extremes of the cost range. Although the costs per acre range from
 $800 to $1,426,000,     the     of projects from 0.7 to 120 acres, the only projects costing over
 $300,000 per      are       two      or less in        and the only projects       less than $5,000
 per acre are large in extent (larger than 14 acres).

 There is  a  larger database of projects for which at least construction costs are available, but  not
 necessarily  all associated costs. When construction  costs are plotted vs.  wetland area for  the 65
 projects for which construction costs are available, the trend appears similar to that  for total costs, at
     for restoration projects (Figure 4.3).  It is to be expected that construction costs would follow a
 trend similar to that of total costs, since construction costs comprise a median of 76 percent of the total
 cost of all projects. The per-acre construction costs of creation projects do not appear to decrease with
 size, based on the limited data available, but remain close to$100,000 per acre.  This  is probably
 because in  the case of creation projects, construction is a higher portion  of the total project cost
 (median of 79 percent in the projects in our database) than is the case with restoration projects (median
 of 69 percent).  In the      of           projects, a       or other         may  be restored to its
 original function by opening up circulation and restoring the original water balance to an area,  so that
 large areas may be restored with little more effort than smaller areas, creating an economy of scale,
 and decreasing the cost per acre for larger projects.  With a wetland creation project, all of the area
 must undergo some construction, so that unit costs tend to remain the same for larger projects.

 As            in Section 3.1, a        table, Table 3.2, was prepared for freshwater and salt
 restoration projects of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP).  These  are
 typically inexpensive restoration projects with significantly lower planning costs.  These projects,
 however, also show considerable variety in their total costs and cost per acre  (Figures 4.4 and 4.5 and
 38; see also statistical summary at the end of Table 3.2).  The CTDEP costs fall into two patterns.
 One group of projects maintains consistently relatively low total cost and low cost per acre as project
 size  get larger, and        group  has      relatively                     with low acreage. The
 notes following Table 3.2 indicate that those projects which maintain low costs even with high acreage
 involve removal or repair of culverts or tide gates and sometimes ditch realignment,  all techniques by
 which  a large area of marsh can be restored through increased circulation, with only minor amounts
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                              Page 47

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

                                                      Figure 4.1

                                         Wetland Restoration & Creation Costs from Table 3.1

                                                     Total Costs
         ฃ10.000,000
         Sl.000,000  ••
                    - -o u ** '
                   03
                    *
                   a   •



                     iS
       in
       0
      ฐ   S100,000  -•
      a
           $10.!
            51,000
                   ftj
                      	I	(	,	1_


                  0      10     20     30     40
                                                          i     ' i	1	1-
                                                  50     60     70    80


                                                 Wetland Area (acres)
                                                                            90     100    110
        $10,000.000
         51.000.000
      
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)


                                                 Figure 4.2


                                   Wetland Restoration & Creation Costs from Table 3.1

                                         Total  Costs  per Acre
     S10.000.OOD
      51.000,000
O!
O)
 in
 O
 O

 3
 o
       5100.000 -
        510.000 •
         31,000
                      I     •  1	I-
                     10     20     30
                                          "10     50     60      70     BO



                                                Wetland Area (acres)
                                                            90     100    110    120    130
   S10.000.000
    51.000.000
 o
•Si
\f>
™   S100.000


J3  •
in
O
O
      $10.000 •
       S 1,000
D

 +

 D
o
a
                                        (Expanded scale for Wetland Area)
                                                 10                15


                                               Wetland Area (acres)
                                                                                     20
                                                                                                       25
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.  & The BSC Group
                                                                                       Page 49

-------
 V. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1
Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)
                                                Figure 4.3
                                      Wetland Restoration & Creation Costs from Table 3.1
                                      Construction Costs per Acre
S1.000.000 n
0)
b
•S
K S 100.000 •
o>
a
o -—
u
c "I
o
o
i 510,000 -
in
E
o
o
$1 rtnn j

ฐ * Rest
a
0 D Crea
D n
9 ฐ
K *ฐ
Kn ; *
* D
QQ - *
" <
* *
3 	 • 	
*
f 	 	 _!-*_ 	 	 1 	 * 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	
oration
tion




4
— i 	
                0     10    20     30     40     50     60     70     GO     90    100    110    120    130

                                             Wetland Area (acres)
                                           (expanded scale for Wetland Area)
SI.UUU.UULT '


OJ
O
-S
ป
r*~ ^iftn nnn
> 9 ] 'J'J.k/UU
O)


V)
o — .
O

o
75
3 c^ri nnn
^ 5 I y.UUU
73
E
O
O
si nnn .
0
D D ซ Rest
o o D Great
V ฐ ฐ • o
n o * ^
O O
1 ^ a OD *
o * ป
J D ซ
* a
o fli -_ ป
o ป a ^
] *
* I ป
* *
"ct 	 * 	


•**
*
	 , 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 *_
oration
ion
















                                               10              15

                                             Wetland Area (acres)
                                                                               20
                                                                                               25
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
                                  Page SO

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)


                                               Figure 4.4


                                   Wetland Restoration & Creation Costs from Table 3.2
                                Conneclicul Sail Mafsri Resloraiion and Wildlife Managemenl Programs

                                               Total Costs




c>
o
>—
fl
U
o
o
"ro






c-
CFJ
01
O
O
O




5500 000 •
540Q 000 -
5300 000 •
5200 000 •
S100000 •
SO •
0
5250 000



5150 000 -
' S100 000 -


c

ป ป Restoration


ซ " ' 	 * 	
*
*
•*
*
* * * ซ *
** • ป ซ
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4C
Wetland Area (acres)
(expanded scale for x- and y-axes)

* * Restoration

*
*
*
**
** * ซ * * *
20 40 60 BO 100 1;
Wetland Area (acres)








0







0
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group
Page 5]

-------
 U, S. Envirormeraal Protection Agency - Region I
                    Work Assignment No. 2 jTask 5 - Final Report)
          $70,000
          $60,000 ••



       "sf

       ฃ  $50,000

       i^-
       O5
       en

       — $40,000

       S
       
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

of construction. These projects typically have per-acre costs of well under $1,000,  Those projects
which have high costs per unit area often involve excavation and jetty construction, and the single
project with by far the highest cost per acre, the Norwalk Mill Pond at $68,000 per acre, requires
excavation of contaminated soil as well as construction of wetland jetties,

5,0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO COSTS

Additional information on wetland restoration and creation costs nation-wide has been compiled by
the Georgia Department of Transportation for a Federal Highway  Administration project during
questionnaire surveys in 1993 and 1995 (Appendix A). This information was compiled as a first step
in pursuing a region-wide wetland banking agreement between FHWA and federal resource agencies,
The Georgia database with wetlands larger than one acre with cost information includes 289 projects
from several widespread areas of the country.  The database does not contain information on projects
from New York and only few projects from New England.  The mean and median cost per acre of all
Georgia  study  projects, $46,000  and  $8,000 respectively,  is much lower than the $135,000 and
$54,000 mean and  median for the northeastern projects in Table 3.1.  There appear to be regional
trends in wetland costs, as the figures for the Georgia study are brought down by a large number of
very low-cost projects in Mississippi, as well as some  in Arkansas and Iowa, whereas the highest per-
acre costs are found in those states closest to the northeast, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Dr. Dennis King of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies has
produced several studies for  the Environmental Protection Agency addressing the cost of wetland
creation and restoration (King and Bohlen,  1994a,b,c.; King et. al, 1993). Dr. King indicated that
there  are a wide range of costs  associated with wetland restoration/creation, depending on the
individual site.  He points toward an inverse relationship between cost per acre and project size for
wetland  projects, as a result of economy  of scale. Some of King's preliminary conclusions on the
analysis of cost data for wetland restoration projects undertaken throughout the United States are as
follows (King and Bohlen, 1994c).

•   Restoration success depends on the level of spending on restoration and the motivation of the
    restoration provided, as well as the state of restoration science and site-specific conditions,

•   Site-specific differences can cause  the cost of apparently similar projects to differ significantly,
    sometimes by a factor of five or ten.  However, predictability and reliability increases substantially
    if only a few basic facts are known about the restoration site.  So far, analysis suggests that cost
    adjustment factors based on simple indicators of site conditions can reduce cost estimating error
    within acceptable bounds.

•   Wetland restoration is an emerging  field of applied  science with very few  engineering or
    performance standards, and the range of skills and experience among restoration specialists is
    enormous. This is reflected in a wide range of costs and success rates for most types of restoration
    projects.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 53

-------
 U. S, Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 6.0  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., in conjunction with The BSC Group, Inc., has  conducted a
 literature and in depth telephone survey in order to obtain as inclusive a survey as possible of the
 monetary costs  of wetland creation and restoration projects in the glaciated northeast, and to obtain
 a more detailed understanding of selected wetland creation and restoration projects.

 The wetlands for which we gathered information, exclusive of 34 projects under the auspices of the
 State of Connecticut, included 35 restoration projects and 40 creation projects.  Total      for
 projects ranged from $4,600 to $9,690,000, with a median of $239,000, and cost per acre ranged from
 $800 to $1,426,000, with a median of $54,200.

 Some of the conclusions reached with regard to influences of project costs were as follows:

 ป   Permitting can be a          part of project         and is included in the planning costs, which
    ranged from 3% to 59%, with a median of 13%, of total project costs.

 ซ   Site selection can also be a major part of project costs if wetland creation occurs off-site.

 ซ   Variation of project goals, i,e,, of the type of wetland desired, can greatly influence project costs,
    as              influence to a salt marsh, for example, typically           less              of
    a palustrine emergent wetland requiring grading.

 ซ   The necessity of building structures, site preparation, and earthmoving can add greatly to project
    costs, and can comprise up to 95 percent of construction costs.

 ป   Engineering  plans, part of the         process, can      up to $5,000 per       and can be
    expensive if many are required.  A small project will require almost as many plans  as a large
    project, creating an economy of scale.

 •   Monitoring costs can vary greatly depending on agency requirements, but are generally a small
    part of project costs, a median of 8  percent in the projects studied.

 *   Cost per acre for wetland projects decreases slightly with project size, although there is too much
    variation in any one size range to make reliable predictions on size alone.  The most  expensive
    projects on a per-acre basis are the smallest, and the ones costing the least per acre are the largest.

 ป   Construction cost per unit area tends to be more independent of project  size in creation projects
         in           projects, probably         construction typically involves the whole site in
    creation projects, and may only involve part of it in restoration projects.

 Office visits were planned as part of our data-gathering procedure; however, both public and private
 agencies tended to encourage telephone interviews and follow-up and discourage office visits, stating


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                             Page 54

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No. 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 that no           inforamtion could be obtained from such a visit.  Our contacts consisted mainly of
 individuals within     and federal          private             and developers/owners. Extensive
 telephone follow-up with      key         enabled Berger and BSC to develop
 to designate  15 projects as case studies, discussed in Section 3.3 of this report and to provide
 additional monetary cost information for Table 3.1 and 3.2 of this report.  The validity of our data,
 as presented  in Table 3.1, is limited to the validity of information received from these  points of
 contact. Berger and BSC staff wish to thank representatives of agencies, consulting firms, and wetland
 nurseries who graciously cooperated with this data quest.
Louis Berger & Associates, lac. & The BSC Group                                              Page 55

-------
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1	Work Assignment No, 2 (Task 5 - Final Report)

 f.O

 Bader, Charles D. 1996. Creating and          Wetlands, Erosion Control, p, 22-27,

 Barry, W.J., and A.S. Garlo. 1995.  Restoration of a brackish tidal marsh in New Hampshire. Land
      and Water, p. 20-23.

 Garbisch, Edgar W.  1995. The Dos and Don'ts  of Wetland  Planning, Environmental Concern
      Wetland Journal, Volume 7, Number 4, p. 13-15,

 Green, Colleen. Nov./Dec. 1996. The Wetlands           Revolution. Erosion Control, p. 24-37.

 King, Dennis M. and Curtis C. Bohlen. 1994a.  A Technical Summary of Wetland Restoration Costs
      in the Continental United States. University of Maryland, CEES Technical Report UMCEES-
      CAL-94-048, April 1994.

 King,  Dennis M. and Curtis C.  Bohlen,  1994b.  Estimating the costs of restoration.  National
      Wetlands Newsletter, May-June 1994, p, 3-8.

 King,  Dennis M, and Curtis C. BoMen.  1994c.  Making       of Wetland Restoration Costs,
      Research funded under; Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement No. CR-
      818227-CI and Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC22-92MT920G6 with University of
      Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies.

 King, Dennis M., Curtis C. Bohlen,  and Kenneth J.  Adler.  1993.  Watershed Management and
      Wetland Mitigation: A Framework for Determining Compensation Ratios.  Review Copy (July
      19, 1993).  University of Maryland System Draft Report #: UMCEES-CBL-93-098.

 New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Bureau of the Environment,  Fact
      Summarizing Wetland Restoration/Creation Projects,

 New Hampshire Office of State Planning. September  1996.  Coastal Program Bulletin.

 Special Duck Stamp Project Report. Sept./Oct.  1996. Connecticut Wildlife.

 Wetlands Restoration & Banking Program. 1996. Watershed Wetlands Restoration Planning Guidance.

 Wheelwright, Michael J.  1996.  Fact       Summarizing the Restoration of Post Island and Third
     Marshes, Quincy, Massachusetts.

 Woodlot Alternative, Inc.  1996.  An  Evaluation of the Maine Department  of Transportation
      Compensatory  Wetland Mitigation Program,   Prepared for the  Maine Department  of
     Transportation Office of Environmental Services. Augusta, ME.


Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. & The BSC Group                                           Page 56

-------
                      Appendix 1
                       State of Georgia
              Department of Transportation:
     Wetland Questionnaire Responses of Wetland
          Creation, Restoration, Enhancement,
          and Preservation Projects nation-wide
                      (Surveys in 1993 and 1995)
  Please note that the costs for these projects are not as well constrained as the costs for the projects
  listed in the main part of the report. For example, the total costs listed for the projects compiled
     by the Georgia DOT may or may not include planning costs and land acquisition costs.
    However, since construction costs are typically the main part of the total costs, the large data
base provides useful estimates of the ranges of costs associates with different types of wetland projects.
            All projects listed in the table are projects exceeding 1 acre in size.
                         Information provided by:
                        Bill Phillips, Georgia DOT,
                      , Office of Environment/Location

-------
       Georgia DOT Study: Wetland Size and Cost Information of Projects nation-wide
State
Project Name
Ureation I
Kcstoratroii "j
finfiaricmerii |
Preservation ]
No. of Acres 1
Mitigated
total Costs
^original cnsts,
unadjusted for inflation)
Total Costs
(original costs.
adjusted to 1997 prices)
(*>
Questionnaire Survey from 199S
Arkansas ISBR-27-3
Arkansas JR60119
Arkansas 60559
Arkansas
Arkansas
Florida
norida
"lorida
"lorida j
Georgia
Georgia t
!owa
iowa
R60101
R60101
Baj'meidow Road Extension
SR. A-l-A
Lejuene Rd. Interchange
Hw)' 20 Bridge
EDS-565(2) Effinjham Co.
NH-165-H49) Cobb/Cherokee
Black Hawk (21$)
Louisa 70
[owa =Linn 100
iowa Des M Dines 61
Iowa ^Wash, 22
Iowa [Dalles 141
Iowa iMafiBSka 163
Iowa ISlory 30
Iowa 'Wash. 218
Iowa JBremer
[owa IBremer
Kansas 1
Maine iMiJbridee-Machiasport
Maine JR|, 9 Phase 1 (4 silcs)
Michigan fM-5 Hagjerty Road
Michigan [M-28 Covingion
Mississippi US 98 Perry Greene Co.
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
US 45/Liuderdak
US 45/LOWNDES
US 98/Lamar
US 84/Jones
Mississippi llJS45/ciarke
Mississippi JUS 63/Geof|e
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
US 45/Clarke
US 45/Clarkc
US 72/Benlon
Mississippi JUS 45/Monroe
Mississippi JUS 82/Webster
Mississippi TSR i 27/Lawrencc
Mississippi !US 72/Benton
Mississippi iUS72/Benion
Mississippi SR 26/Pearl River
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
US 61 /Tunica* Coahoma
US 61 /Tunica
US el/DeSota
Mississippi JUS 98/Pike
Mississippi Isfli sWikSoto
Mississippi JUS 82/Websler
Mississippi iSR iWMonroe
Mississippi ;SR 278/Monroe
Mississippi JSR 8/Chiekasaw
Mississippi iUS 72/Tippah
Mississippi ISR 35/Leake
Montana t
Montana j
Nebraska IpR#F-2-i(i09)/F-2-Mi6iOJI
New Jersey 11-287 (Northern Seciion)
New Jersey jl-287 (Centra) Section)
New jersey
New Jersey
1-287 (Southern Seciion
Rt. 152
•

•
•






*
•

•
•
•
*
*
•
•
*
*


•
•



















1444







*
•

*
I !








•














*






















	







• ;


•i

*
*
•


t
:
• I
!






i
	 | 	
	 |
• '

\
\



I


1
1

i


I

i







i





. ..i..,.
[

"1 	

3.0
28.0
12.0
36.0
14.0
9.5
1.8
1.0
642.0
17.1
3.2
23.3
18.6
20.0
10.7
9.7
10.9
15,0
1.6
11.4
21.0
21.0
19.3
64.0
2.3
15,0
5.0
27.3
6.9
18.4
1.5
3.5
26,3
31.0
40.1
33.2
2.9
5.6
4.0
2.6
4.1
11.6
2.0
12.8
5.7
1.9
2,9
21.6
2.0
19.1
3.3
3.8
39.4
2.7
27,0
4,4
15.6
32.6
10.0
49.4
24.1
$4,500
$56.000
$24,000
S72.ix#
S4.737
$58,947
$25,263
$75,789
S28.00S $29.474
$2"85,OQ0j $300.000
$102,000 j $107,368
$28,480
$428,347
S252.359
$2,500,000
$75,557
$29.979
$450,892
$265j641
$2,631,579
$79,534
$33.083 $34,824
1268.805 i S282.953
$84.022 [ $88,444
$70.213
$79,57)
$o'i ,993
S'24.978
$71 ,682
$73.908
j'83,759
$65.256
S26.M3
$75.455
$152,760 j $160.800
$152.760 f $io0.800
il"73 .337 | S 182.460
$43.495 1 $45.784
5571.929 $602,031
$600,000 $631,579
$92.146 | $96,996
SJ4,5ซ) $15.653
$3.600 i $3.789
SI !, 3001 $11.895
$8(X) $842
SI .800
$i3,800
SI .895
li 4,526
$io:,200 Si 7,053
$21,000
$17.400
$1.900
$3.600
$22,105
$18,316
$2, (300
$3.789
$2,600 $2,737
$'i,7ixi i si.789"
S3 ,900
$34,800
$i.3
$8.100
$3,600
$1.200
$1.800
$!37.000
$1,300
$12.200
$4.105
S36.632
$1.368
$8.526
$3.789
$i ,263
$1 ,895
JiS.i'ili
$"i.36g
$12,842
$6.5S6 1 $6.842
$8,000 $8,421
$73,200 $77.053
$9,800
$128.369
$35,583
$10,316
$135,125
$37.456
$310.905 $327,268
$4,130,000; $4,347.368
$2,700.0001 52,842,105
$i4,40Ci,"6oO 1 $15,157 .895
S2,5o6,o6o J2,63i.J79
Total Costs/ai-rc
tail project;
!997prices)
Total Costs/acre
fCrtaihn;
I997prices)

SI, 579
$2.105
$2,105
$2,105
$i'. li>5
$31 ,579
$60.319
$29.979
S702
$15.535
$822,368
$3.413
$1,872
$14,148
$8.266
$7,627
S7.684
S4.350
$16.433
$6,6-i"9
$7.657
$7,657
$9.454
S715
$2fil.7S"2
S42.105
519,399
$552
$547
$645
$561
$544
$553
$550
$551
$552
$685
$678
"$683
$683
$1.004
$3,152
$684
$666
$662
S675
$658
$6,673
$684
$671
$2.08"6
$2,199
$1.954
S3,S2"i
S5.005
$8,493
$20.965
$133.355
$284,21)
$109,194
$1,579

$2.105
$2,105

$31,579




S822.368
$3,413

$14,148
SB.266
'$7,627
$7,684
$4,350
$16,433
$6.6)9
S7.657
S7.657
$9,454


$42,105
$19.399



'•"""""" 	 "*•"•


























S133.355
$284,211

$109.194
E K
^s S ^ S1? t ^> o*
S ฅ ฃ 'sฃ y. i ฃ

i
T s'z.ios

* 	 y....,-.,. 	
i $2,105'
I

$29.979'
	 j"02.
	 [ 	


] SJ ,872
i

I ""

	
™
	
, >„„„,„„„,. ซ. i
I
	 I .
T ^

""T" 	 "™"
	 i 	
	 i 	
1
	 t 	 "
1

' " ' 	 ?' 	 ' ' '
!

r
i
j
„.„.„..,...-.... ,.„!„„„„, 	 	
t

	 	 	

r
	 „ 	 i 	 	
*
	 "' '1

	 i 	
:

t" " + 	 T 	
}
f
I

j
	 ' 	 T 	
i


:
Total Costs/acre
(Combination for n/aj;
IWlprirts)






$60,319


$15.535













i'ieij'sz


S552
$547
$645
$561
$544
$553
$550
$551
S552
$685
S678
$683
S683
SI, 004
$3,!52
$684
S666
S662
S675
5658
$6,673
$684
$671
S2.086
S2.I99
$1,954
$3,82)
$5,005
$8.493
$20.965


$306,846

GEORGIA.AP1
                                          Pagel

-------
       Georgia DOT Study: Wetland Size and Cost Information of Projects nation-wide
i
i
state Project Name
, H- , • 4 ., „ ,
^ew Jersey 
-------
       Georgia DOT Study: Wetland Size and Cost Information of Projects nation-wide
i
State I Project Name
jBRS-1 808(103) Piney Woods Ck. and
Alabama iPolby Br., Conecun Co.
INH-40 Henryville to Bucas Cap Gap,
Alabama {Marshall Co,
Alabama ! M -75 1 6<3 ) M obi le Co . Uni verity Blv d .
Arizona ;
Arkansas {Project No. 20071
Arkansas 'Project No. 2M71 - Continued
Arkansas jProjcct No. 5944
Arkansas (Project No. 601 10
Arkansas -Project No. 601 10 - Continued
Arkansas jProject No. R70054
Arkansas jProjcct No. R70060
Arkansas [Project No. 7940
Arkansas jProject No. 800J2
Arkansas {Project No. R00063
Arkansas ^Project No. R00079
JHUM.DN-101-125.6/R135.0RO.O/R0.5
California ;Park Bypass
California JMEN-1 -M. i/6S. i' Cleonc Miration Site
]LAX-5mOT.5 Anderson Marsh St.,
California jPark Site
{MEN-i3t-30.&56.2 JForeyihe Creek
California j Re-vegetation
JSHA 299 7.2 ,'8,5, 9.0 Crystal Creek
California fCurve Realignment - Continued
JSCM52 21 .8/27.2 Widen/Realign
California {Highway Pacheco Pass
California lscฃ-237 R3.2/9.4 Freeway Upgrade
California iSCL-85 RO.O/R17.0 Coyote Creek
California ]iscT-85'R'0.67R 17.0 Cojiote Creeii -
JS3D-83 0.6/0.8 Euclid Ave. Rehab (AC,
California {Widen)
{SBD-30, 330 20.2/32.6, 28,7/30.2 30/3.10
California : Freeway Project
California lSJ-12 Potato Slough' Bridge
California iORA-1 Dunes Restoration
California JORA-74 Hot Springs
Connecticut 1 Route 187 Proi. ii-i36
Connecticut 'RouicTProj. 102-1 90
Connecticut (Route 7 Proj. 102-190
Connecticut 11-91 Pro;. 164-178
Connecticut ;[-91 Project 164-178
Connecticut iRoute 9 Proj 33-103/104
j Relocated Rt. 896 over Muddy Run,
Delaware ! G tasgow Bypa ss
Delaware ]SR 896. Summit Bridge to 1-95
Delaware iSR i , Relief Route, Early Action Phase
fli's liS At St. Jones River Barkers
Delaware i Landing
Delaware JBR 7 Over Christina River & Eagle Run
Florida } S R 60 @ W ed nyak ap ica
Florida lUS 17Waudiuca
Florida TSR951 Phase 1
Florida iBear Island @ SR 29
Florida ISR-io? Nassau County
Florida 1SR-9A iones Creek A Ginhouse Creek
Florida jSR-15. LliS-i? in Puiram & Gay Counlics
|
.

•



*

*

•

*

•
.
•
*
.
.

*
*
•

*



*
•
*
•
*

,

ป
*
*
•
*


•

•
{Restoration I




















m






ป














'


;

j

9

*

•

•



*

*










,

*







*

*





*
ป



Preservation ]




*






























...









•

F' >. of Acres
itigated
4.0
5.2
5.0
28.0
5.0
10.0
16.0
10.0
65.0
4.0
8.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
60
1.5
2.5
12.0
2.7
55.0
50.0
13.0
24.0
1.5
1.9
6.0
24,0
1,0
6,0
1,8
4.4
3.6
2.9
21.5
3.0
6.0
300.0
7.0
8.5
2.5
11,5
2.000.0
5.000.0
1.2
110.0
14.0
Total Costs
(original costs,
unadjusted for inflation)
$10,000
$15.600
$10,000
$200,660
$6.770
521,540
$15,000
$15,600
$56.400
$2,000
$18,832
ss'.ooo
$8,062
$4,000
$8,000
$88.000
s'ilUKXJ
$16,000
5171,091
$70,000
5313,600
$11,200
$744.600
$91,000
$10.000
S16.000
510,500
$290,000
$53.000
$162,000
$263,000
52.700,000
$254.6oo
$484,000
$1,874.000
$96,456
$103,800
$750,000
$154.428
$2,674,450
$52,045
$317.233
$59,560
$74,309
$93.600
$330.000
S78.000
Total Costs
^original costs,
idjusted to 1997 prices)
f*)
Sll.lll
$17,333
'sTi.'iii
$222,222
$7.522
slw'S
$! 6,667
$17,333
$62.667
$2,222
$20.524
55,556
$8.958
$4,444
S8.889
$97.778
$22.222
S17.778
$190,101
$77.778
$348.444
512,444
$827,333
sioi.ni
$11.111
$17,778
$11.667
'imSi
$58,889
$180,000
S292.222
$3,000,000
$282.222
$537.778
$2.082.222
$107.173
$115,333
$"833,333
$171.587
$2,971,611
$57.828
$352,481
$66,178
$82.566
$104,000
$366'.667
$86,667
Total Costs/acre
{all project;
!997prim)
$2.778
$3,333
$2,222
$7,937
$1,504
$2,393
$1,042
$1,733
$964
$556
$2.616
$1,111
$2,986
$2,222
$2,222
$16,29fi
$14.815
$7.111
$15,842
$28.807
$6,335
$249
$63,641
ฃ4,2 i 3
$7,407
$9,357
$"[,944
113,426
$5S.S89
$30,000
$162,346
$681,818
$78,395
$185,441
$96,848
$35,724
$19,222
S2.778
$24.512
$349,601
$23.131
$30,704
$33
$17
$88,889
$3.333
56,190
Total Costs/acre
{Creation:
! 997 prices)
$2,778

$2,222



$1,042

S964

$2,616

$2.986

$2.222
$16,296
$14,815
$7, 111
$15,842
$28.807

$249
$63,641
$4,213

S9.357



$30.000
$162,346
$681.818
$78.395
SI 85 .441

535.724

$2,778
$24.512
$349,601
$23.131
$30,704


$88,889

S6.190
3 ^ d>







.




	







$6.335




	

$13.426
: $58.889


















Total Costs/acre
(Enhancement/
Preservation,
1997 prices)

$3,333

S'7,937
$1.504
$2.393

J1.733

J556

si ,i i i

$2,222










$7,407

$1,944







$96,848

$19,222





533
$17

$3,333

Total Costs/acre
(Combination for nfal;
!997prires>












	


































GEORGIA AP1
                                         Page 3

-------
       Georgia DOT Study: Wetland Size and Cost Information of Projects nation-wide
State
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Project Name
SR-15, US-17 In Pumarne &Clay
Counties, Continued
1-295. 1-10 lmerchan|e
SR-9A. Sawmill Slough
i-295. i-95 to Buekman Bridge
Florida jMerril Barber Bridge
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Merrill Barber Bridge - Continued
Consent Order for (-595 Violation
Pond Apple Slough Mitigation
Qkeechcbee Blvd. From SR-7 to Fl.
Turnpike
Florida JSR-A1A Burnt Bridge
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
1-595 Mitigation
1-595 Mitigation- Continued
1-595 Mitigation - Continued
15 Miles West of CR-512 to 1-95
i-595ฎ US 1, Ongoing
CMS Canal Wetlana Creation for SR 706
Widening Impacts

	 	
Continued
Seminole WP1 5157501 thru 5157514
Seminoic W!>F 5157501 ifiro 5157514'
Seminole WP1 S1S7501 thru 5157514
Veterans Expressway - Continued
Florida 'Veterans Exrterssway - Continued
Florida
Florida
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Veterans Expressway - Continued
Veterans Expressway - Continued
U.S. 84. Thomas Co. EDS-S4(ii
Limcrocli Road, Houston Co. 01?-
Waynesboro Bypass, Burke Co.
EDS-555(3)
jSylvania Bypass, Screven Co.
Georgia jED5-565<5)
Georgia ;CJ'ark'e Avenue Exl.
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Afiapulgus Bypass, Decatur Co.
EDS-27(116)
Blakely Bypass. Earl^ Co. EDS-27^129^
Ocrnuljee Road, Wilcox/Dodge Co.
BRF-030-2(14)
iWaikinsviltc Bypass, Oconee Co.
Georgia fNH-002-5(4!)
Georgia
Wartdnivillc Bypass, Oconee Co.
NH-002-5(41)- Continued
Georgia ]SR .51 ' Biss/j ones/Twigs JFLF'-S40(i )
West TbomisviUe Bypass, Thomas Co
Georgia NH-033-K51)
Georgia ]u.S, 84 Wayne/Long EDS-84(i jj
Has: Cuthbcrt Bypass, Randolph Co.
Georgia EDS-27
-------
       Georgia DOT Study: Wetland Size and Cost Information of Projects nation-wide
State
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
<
s
Project Name ^
Alexander-Bailey^i lie 3306.00
Alexandcr-Baileyville 3306.00 - Cont.
Biddefor 615. 10; 615.1 1:615.12; 615.13
Fal mouth 4079.00
Lewis ton 2914.00
Scarborough 2935.00: 2935,1 1:2935,21;
2935.22:2935.42
District One: fifty Projects



i:::::::::":::::::::::::::


	








F-2-K1010), Antioch East to Lakeside
F-BHF-2-2(105), Thomas County,
Thedford West <
F-2-3(1013>, Elaine County, Dunning
to Anselmo
F-14-2(112), Merrick County, Central
City South <
F-20-3(1006). Rock County, Basselt East <
F-BRF-26-l(127), Garden County,
Oshkosh to Lewellen <
F-30-5UQ25). Merrick County, Silver
Creek to Duncan <
F-75-2(ii6), Sarpy County, Capehari Ret <
F08 102(1 010), Butler County, N-64 lo
Plane River <
F-9J-60002) & (1003), Colfax County.
Howells East Si West and Leigh East <
70, 12A. 13B <
37"(86) <
J147(JC, IE) <
\ \


F-2S1-2(100S) Hall County & F-2S1-
2(1009) Howard Co <
iEACF-BR-BW -281^(1 07), Holt Co.,
O'Neill So <
!F-383-3(1007). Morrill Co. Angora <
Route 522 <
1 Washington Co. SR 1125, Sec 830, M
Valley Expressway *
SR 6060. See A04, Uniontown Bypass,
Fayette County
'TN DOT
i6008-A09, Rl 8 So. Brakleyville Venango
!Co.
2040-OOD, Meadville, Spring St. Ext..
Crawford Co.
',.:.,..,, 	 , 	 ..,. ,j
Restoration j

•
*


.

















i

t
t
i
1
1
t
ป
ป
ป
ป
t
1


ป
t
ป
ป
ป
ป

t
>
EntLancrnent 1
























,



















•


e
5
A


•
•































•
•









No. of Acres
Mitigated
22.5
4.5
3.0
4.1
3.0
3.9
378.6
4.5
6.1
2.5
7.6
4.9
2.4
13 4
2.6
1.1
4.0
6.6
4.2
1.5
13.3
28.0
15.6
3.2
2,4
8.1
17.7
1,7
7,4
1.3
6.9
8.5
1.0
2,8
26.5
17,0
34.5
50.0
12.5
6.7
1.5
14.9
5.0
2.8
214.0
2.5
5.0
Total Costs
(original costs,
unadjusted for inflation)
522,000
$202,682
$360.000
Jl 99,665
571,578
11 .400,000
SI ,500.000
52,370
S3 .209
$1,300
$3.979
$2,590
$1.521
18,510
$1,661
$700
$2,514
$3,911
$2,674
$923
$7,905
$16.592
$310,905
$40,141
S197,044
$99,473
$51,971
$10,022
$23,625
$18.998
$93,501
$93,620
$100.000
S500.000
$4.000.000
$400,000
$16,029
$23,250
S20.284
$146,850
$3,250
5898,000
5750,500
$241 .000
$1.500.000
$135.000
5400,000
Total Costs
^original costs,
adjusted to 1997 prices)
(*)
$24.444
S225.202
$400,000
$221,850
179,531
51,555,556
$i, 666, 667
S2.633
$3,566
$1,444
$4,421
$2,878
$1.690
59.456
$1.846
$778
S2.793
S4,3"46
$2 .971
SI ,026
$8,783
518.436
$345,450
$44,601
$218,938
$110,526
$57,746
$11,136
$26,250
$21.109
$103,890
SI 04 ,022
Sill. Ill
$555,556
S4, 444, 444
$444 444
$17,810
$25,833
$22,538
$163,167
$3,611
$997,778
$833.889
$267,778
$1.666.667
$150,000
$444,444
Total Costs/acre
fall project,'
1997 prices)
$1,086
$50,045
$133,333
554,110
526,510
$398,860
$4,402
S583
$583
$582
$582
J583
$707
$707
$707
$707
5707
$658
$707
$707
$658
$658
$22,130
$14.114
$93,165
$13,679
$3,259
$6,550
$3,533
$i 6, 753
$15,166
$12,267
$111.111
$198,4 13
$167,715
126. i 44
$516
$517
SI, 807
$24,281
$2,457
$67,010
$167,784
$95,635
$7,788
$60.000
H " 	 h
$88,889
Total Costs/acre
(Creation;
1997 prices)






$4,402
$583
$583
$582
$582
S583
$707
$707
$707
$707
S707
S658
$707
$707
$658
$658
$22.130
$14.114

$13.679
$3,259
$6.550
$3,533
$16,753
$15.166
$12,267
$111. 111
$198,413
$167.715
$26,144


51,807
524,281
S2,457
$67,010
$167.784
$95,635

S60,000
$88,889
Total Costs/acre
(Restoration;
! 997 prices)

S50,045
5133,333


$398,860









































Total Costs/acre
(Enhancement/
Preservation;
1997 prices)
51,086


554.110
S26.510



















S93.165











S516
$517






$7,788


Total Costs/acre
(Combination for n/u];
f 997 prices)






























	
















GEORGIA AP1
                                         Page 5

-------
          Georgia DOT Study:  Wetland Size and Cost Information of Projects nation-wide
i
State i Project Name
Pennsylvania J1I26-C05, Rl. 17, Erie Co.
Pennsylvania IMowhair Co.. 47bi5-004, PP and L
Pennsylvania jLicoming Co, 3032-A1 1, Beauty's Run
Virginia !0003-lll-102-C504i VGP-9 1-0925- 1 5(6)
Virginia J0095-029-114-PE103; VGP-9H036(9)
Virginia ]Oo37io2^221-C5bi-B663: VOP-92^4oi'6(
Virginia I6017-016-1M-D610; VGP-90-402K6)
1605 8-087 -E03 (Franklin Bypass);
Virginia !VGP-90-4067(5)
ICourtland Bypass. 60658-Q87-E04;
Virginia ! CO E-90- 1683 -15(5)
Virginia ! 6360-066- 103-PE106-C5 10: VGP-91-401
t6058^04b-E05, PE102, C503;
Virginia ! VGP-9. 1-405 8 (5)
Washington ISR 16 Mullenix Interchange
Washington ISR 16 Mullenix Interchange
Creation 1
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
*
o

Q
Washington iSR 2 Snohomish River to Cavalero Corner
Washington jSR 2 Snohomish River to Cavalero Comer
Washington SSR 527 208ih to 164il)
W. Virginia [Corridor H Lorente to Sand Run
W. Virginia ^Corridor H Lorente to Sand Run - Cont.
W. Virginia ^Corridor H Lorente to Sand Run- Cont.
W. Virginia =Corridor H Sand Run to Elkins
W. Virginia ^Corridor H Sand Run to Elkins - Cont.
10401(19) Baggs-Encampment Baggs
Wyoming Jsection. Carbon County
Wyoming IBear River Information center
(4875(2) Evanston Streets, Washington
Wyoming tAve., Uinta County
[0302(33) Sheridan-Gillette Ucrass
Wyoming [West Section. Sheridan County
*


•

•
•
•


STATISTICS (1993 and 1995 Surveys comb
j Count
[Mean
IMedian
jMinimum
i Maximum



Restoration 1

























Ejihancmenl 1











•


*


•





•
•
Preservation 1













•


•


•





med)
i


No, of Acres 1
Mitigated
12.5
3.6
3.9
4.0
2.5
3.0
3.1
27.8
12.2
1.8
9.0
1.0
1.6
10.0
15.0
5.1
1.0
2.0
13.0
5.0
30.0
5.0
2.0
3.3
3.5

289.0
68.6
6.7
1.0
5,000
Total Costs
'original costs,
unadjusted Tor inflation)
S430.000
55,500
J246.2JO
$240,788
$27,772
$30,300
SI 13,721
5430,482
$187,764
5289,120
1733.914
si 5. 600
imoob
S70.000
si, i 60 .600
SI. 755.000
$5.000
$5,000
SI ,075 .000
S10,000
SI, 200,000
S32,000
18,000
122,000
$19.187
Total Costs
[original ousts,
idjusted to 1997 prices)
O
5477,178
sib.iii
$"273.567
$267,542
S30.858
ฃ33,667
SI 26.357
S478.313
$208,627
S321 .244
S815S460
516,667
5322.222
S77.778
51,222,222
SI, 950,000
$5.556
$5,556
SI, 194.444
jii,iii
$1,333,333
$35,556
$8,889
$24,444
Total Costs/acre
(all project;
! 997 prices)
$38,222
$1,688
S70J45
S66.719
Si 2, 544
$i 1 ,075
$40,241
$17,212
$17,087
$183.568
$90,607
SI 6,667
$201,389
S7,778
SSI ,481
$382,353
$5,556
52,778
$9i, 880
52.222
544,444
57.111
54.444
57.430
$21.319 $6.091

289 289
SS91.616 $46.224
$80,000 $8,333
$79 SI 7
539,198,081 Sฐll,583
Total Costs/acre
(Creation;
1997 prices)
538,222
51,688
570,145
566,719
$12,544
$11,075
$40.241
$17,212
$17,087
$183.568
$90.607

$201,389


$382.353


$91.880

$44,444
$7,111
S4.444



165
S64.S27
$20,000
$69
$911,583
Total Costs/acre
{Restoration;
199? prices)


























8
$87.611
$35,022
$6,335
$398,860
Total Costs/acre
(Enhancement/
Preservation:
1997 prices)











$16,667

$7.778
$81.481

$5,556
$2,778

S2.222



$7.430
S6.091

75
$15.025
$2,393
S17
$115,737
Total Costs/acre
{Combination for tt/a];
1997 prices)


























38


          (*1 The original prices were adjusted to 1997 prices using the consumer price index. Since information of the year of eons [rue [ion
             of the individual projects was not readily available, all prices were adjusted for the years of the two questionnaires, i.e., 1995 and 1993,
             respectively.  This adjustment is considered sufficient for this level of analysis, which was designed to merely provide rough estimates of the
             ranges of costs associated with wetland projects in other parts of the country.
GEORGIAAP1
                                                               Page 6

-------
    $100,000,000
     $10,000,000
      $1,000,000
 S      si 00,000
                        Wotltnd Croillon, Rtilonilon. Enhinetminl I Prwtrvปllon - Gtornli DOT Study
                                                Total Costs
         $10.000
          11.000
           $100
            $10
    si oo.oo o.ooo
     $1 o.ooo.ooo
                           ซ*
                             1000         2000          3000         4000
                                                Wetland Area (acres)
                                                                                   5000         6000
                                                               (expanded scale Tor VVcllniid Area)
            $10
    *100,000.000
    $10,000.000
     $1,000.000
$      $100.000
        $10,000
         $1,000
          $100
           $10
                          50        100       150       200       250       300       350        400
                                                Wetland Area (acres)
                                                          (ludhorc\pandcd soulv tur Wclland Area)

                                    10        15        20        25         30
                                                Watland Area (acres)
                                                                                       35        40

-------
                      WMIind Cnitlon, RMtonUon, EnhinctHunl * Prturvtllon. Qtorgli DOT Study
   $1.000,000
                                       Total Cost per Acre
    $100,000
     $10,000
g     $1.000
o
        1100
              r
              *   *
                        1000        2000         3000        4000         5000         6000
                                          Wttlind Area (acres)
   $1,000,000
              *t       +
                                                      (expanded scale for Wetland Area)
                      50        100       ISO      200       250       300      350       400
                                          Wetland Are* (acres)
  } 1,000,000
   (100.000
    J10.000
     $1,000
       1100
       $10
                 •  •  *     .
              ซ  ..            ป
               \ *ป  ,       ซ
                                                  (further expanded scale for Wetland Area)
                      ซ   *f      •  •       ปซ
                      ซ                  * ป
                              10        15       20       25
                                         Wetland Ar*> (acres)
                                                                             35

-------
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
         in association with
      The BSC Group

-------