ECOSYSTEM ECONOMICS
PO Box 2602, Bend, OR 97709, USA
2855 Telegraph Ave, Suite 400, Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone 541.480.5694
ecosystemx.com
Phone 510.848.8098
stillwatersci.com
An Economic Analysis of Sierra Meadow Restoration
Bruce Aylward
Ecosystem Economics
Amy Merrill
Stillwater Sciences
A report for Environmental Defense Fund under the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation’s Sierra Meadows Initiative
January 2012
Executive Summary
Privately owned meadow ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada provide a range of economic benefits to
landowners and the public. Many of the meadows in the Sierra Nevada are degraded to some extent and
restoration of these ecosystems will alter, and in most cases enhance, the benefits these meadows provide.
This paper seeks to identify, describe and analyze the biogeophysical changes as well as the economic
costs and benefits that could accompany meadow restoration. With this information, an effort is made to
articulate and quantify the potential financial incentives that could motivate landowners to engage in
meadow restoration and to describe the economic rationale for the use of public funds to support such
projects.
The context for this paper is a larger effort to address the rehabilitation and long-term sustainability of
Sierra Meadow Ecosystems by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and other interested
stakeholders. The NFWF Sierra Meadows Business Plan cites the widespread degradation of meadow
ecohydrology, resulting in gullying, dewatering, shrub encroachment and changes in plant species
composition and diversity. In particular, channel incision and the accompanying lowering of streambeds
and groundwater tables represent an important challenge for restoration efforts. In addressing these
problems, NFWF is targeting the enhancement of a wide range of ecosystem benefits.
There are several ecosystem benefits for which technical and economic information is available to assess
the financial private and public social incentives for Sierra meadow restoration. Because meadow
restoration impacts may extend beyond the specific site to its watershed, this analysis examines both on
and off-site benefits. The benefits included in the analysis are forage and beef production, sediment
reduction, downstream flows, and habitat improvements. Using this framework, a literature review was
performed, followed by an investigation of the private (financial) and social (economic) returns using the
case study of a hypothetical “typical” 50-acre meadow restoration project.
A summary of the conclusions of this analysis can be found in Table ES-1. These conclusions represent
the first effort to actually describe, quantify and value the costs and benefits of meadow restoration.
However, it should be noted that the number of generalizations and assumptions necessary to reach these
conclusions suggest that further work is warranted to review, revise and update this effort. Overall, there
was a paucity of data to adequately illustrate the before and after scenarios of meadow restoration
projects. In addition, meadows are not homogenous throughout the Sierra Nevada; therefore
generalization is difficult at best. Each project must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to understand the
actual costs and benefits of restoring a particular meadow.
Meadow Economics
i
Table ES-1. Summary of Economic Valuation Results
Ecosystem Service
A. On-Site Benefits
Forage and beef production
B. Off-Site Benefits
Sediment reduction
Downstream flows
C. On- & Off-Site Benefits
Habitat improvement
Direction and estimate of
change in service with
restoration
Base Case
Scenario
High Scenario
Low Scenario
($/acre)
($/acre)
($/acre)
Positive, medium to large
$900-$2,500
$1,100-$4,500
$600-$700
Positive, small
Positive or Negative, small to
large
$10
$-250
$19
$5,000
$1
$-2,500
Positive, large
Not valued
The conclusion of the financial analysis is that the increase in returns for ranchers might be more
significant than generally expected. Ranchers may earn a significant amount of net income off of restored
meadows. Restoration projects should therefore seek appropriate cost-share levels. With regard to the
question of economic returns and social incentives, the results suggest that the role of habitat and wildlife
may see the most significant positive change.
The off-site hydrological benefits of restoration can generally be summarized as having been overstated in
past efforts. Flood attenuation and sediment reduction are expected to be generally of little consequence,
though such a generalization is awkward given the site-specific nature of the benefits. Considerable time
and effort is devoted in the paper to the topic of downstream flow. No generalization is possible on the
direction of the impacts of restoration. Some original evidence is provided for benefits from restored
meadows during dry years; however, the same data suggests even larger benefits from unrestored
meadows during wet years. It may also be that in some cases the hydrological changes will not be
significant, or cannot be estimated with confidence in advance or determined through post-restoration
monitoring. In such cases this particular impact might be best dropped from inclusion in the analysis of
costs, benefits and incentives. Further applied research is well advised in order to tease out the key
parameters that can assist in developing predictive hydro-economic models of the flow response to
restoration.
In sum, caution may be needed to avoid potential downstream costs. But absent such impacts the
economic picture is favorable for meadow restoration and there exists a clear role for landowner
participation and contribution, as well as the use of public funds to incentivize meadow restoration
projects.
A number of overarching recommendations to support similar future investigations include:



standards and protocols for measuring key variables pre- and post-restoration
better connections between practitioner monitoring and evaluations and academic research
improved, compiled and maintained datasets to facilitate this type of integrated environmentaleconomic assessment
While some aspects of meadow restoration are relatively well understood, others are poorly described
with unexplained, conflicting findings. There is a great paucity in empirical data on downstream flow
effects of restoration that includes long pre- and post-project data sets. Although ground and surface water
flow models exist that could be applied to mountain meadows, the field data needed to parameterize and
ground truth these models has been collected and applied in only a few instances. Moreover there is
uncertainty regarding some of the underlying process controls. These uncertainties need to be clarified
Meadow Economics
ii
and incorporated into existing conceptual and quantitative models of meadow hydrology in order to
develop methods for accurately predicting restoration effects.
With regard to surface and groundwater, studies disagree primarily on the impact of restoration on
groundwater and stream outflow. Ideally, future studies will focus on this issue specifically, answering
the following questions:
 How does variation in bedrock vs. alluvial conductivity affect meadow hydrology?
 What are the major controls on groundwater contributions to downstream discharge (and how can
these be measured)?
 Are there other properties of the meadow or catchment area that affect stream outflow that aren’t
currently being measured or considered?
 Are there reliable proxy variables that can be used to characterize differences in parameters that
are important but very difficult to directly quantify?
Many of the key uncertainties that surround downstream flows could be partially addressed through
improved and consistent monitoring and evaluation efforts. First, in terms of baseline and post project
monitoring, the installation of continuous recorders along channels directly above and below meadows
and more frequent documentation on channel cross section changes is recommended. Also, increased
monitoring duration during the pre-restoration and post-restoration periods is advisable so that multiple
years and a variation in hydrological condition can be captured in response data. We also recommend
that the hydro-economic modeling approach started in this paper be further developed.
Although a growing number of scientific studies on meadow hydrology, vegetation, and forage
production exist, more research is needed on this and several other biological aspects of meadow
restoration. For example, we recommend studies that will:



Clarify the relationship between forage quality, quantity, and cattle production to support an
integrated bio-economic model for range management;
Provide estimates of the restoration effects on long-term above and below ground carbon
sequestration and associated economic analysis to forward development of a market for meadow
restoration carbon credits or offsets;
Identify and field test indicators that link pond and plug restoration approaches to improved fish
and wildlife habitat.
As this is one of the first attempts to apply a financial and economic valuation of these impacts, much
work remains. Due to variability and uncertainty inherent in meadow restoration, the most useful next
step at this point would be to take the approaches developed in this paper and apply them in a case study
framework to ground the analysis in the specifics of particular meadows and their associated economic
contexts.
Meadow Economics
iii
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2. MEADOW ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC FUNCTION IN MEADOWS ..................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Meadow Hydrologic Inputs ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Meadow Hydrologic Outputs ................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Meadow Water Storage ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 MEADOW RESTORATION EFFECTS ON A SELECT SET OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .............................................. 7 2.2.1 Reduced bank erosion and fine sediment storage .................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Improved Productivity for Rangelands .................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Improved Habitat for Target Meadow-Dependent Species .................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Effects on Downstream Flows ............................................................................................................... 18 2.2.5 Increasing Flood Attenuation................................................................................................................. 22 2.2.6 Carbon Storage ...................................................................................................................................... 23 3. REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES............................................................................................................. 23 3.1 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SIERRA MEADOWS RESTORATION AND RELATED STUDIES ............................... 24 3.2 VALUATION OF SIERRA MEADOW RESTORATION COSTS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ................................... 25 3.2.1 Valuation Techniques and Meadow Restoration .................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 Sierra Meadow Restoration Projects ..................................................................................................... 26 3.2.3 Costs of Meadow Restoration ................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.4 Values for Forage and Beef ................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.5 Values for Flow Regime Changes .......................................................................................................... 29 3.2.6 Values for Flow Regime Changes: Flood Protection ............................................................................. 30 3.2.7 Values for Water Quantity for Downstream Water Supply and Storage ................................................ 31 3.2.8 Values for Sediment Reduction .............................................................................................................. 33 4. EVALUATION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MEADOW RESTORATION ............................. 35 4.1 GENERAL PARAMETERS FOR THE EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 35 4.1.1 Discount Rates ....................................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.2 Time Horizon.......................................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 MEADOW RESTORATION: A “TYPICAL” POND AND PLUG PROJECT AND RESTORATION COSTS ...................... 37 4.3 PRIVATE BENEFITS: HAY, FORAGE AND BEEF CATTLE .................................................................................. 37 4.3.1 Hay and Forage Productivity Method.................................................................................................... 38 4.3.2 Forage-AUM Productivity Method ........................................................................................................ 40 4.3.3 Forage-Cattle Productivity Method ....................................................................................................... 41 4.3.4 Conclusions on Private Returns ............................................................................................................. 43 4.4 SOCIAL INCENTIVES: ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS ................................................................................. 44 4.5 SOCIAL INCENTIVES: OFF-SITE COSTS AND BENEFITS. ................................................................................... 45 4.5.1 Sediment Reduction ................................................................................................................................ 45 4.5.2 The Costs and Benefits of Changes in Downstream Flow...................................................................... 46 4.5.3 Improved habitat for sensitive species ................................................................................................... 50 5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 51 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX 1. Conceptual Framework for Evaluation of Meadow Restoration .............................................................. 59 APPENDIX 2. Forage Productivity Studies ..................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX 3. Trout Creek Hydrographs ........................................................................................................................ 67 APPENDIX 4: Detailed Economic Evaluation Literature Review ................................................................................... 71 Meadow Economics
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Ecosystem Services potentially provided by healthy mountain meadows...................................... 3 Table 2. Proposed metrics of ecosystem services provided by healthy mountain meadows ........................ 4 Table 3. Sediment loading effects of meadow restoration in three meadows in the Sierra Nevada. ............ 8 Table 4 Meadow plant community types by hydrologic regime, cross-walked with Ratliff 1985 meadow
classification ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Annual Forage Productivity Statistics based on literature, as detailed in Appendix 2. ................ 11 Table 6. Weight Gain by Meadow Condition ............................................................................................. 12 Table 7. Effects of meadow restoration on downstream (DS) flows. ......................................................... 19 Table 8. Modeling studies on effects of meadow restoration on downstream flood peak flows (flood
attenuation). ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 9. Plumas County Meadow Restoration Projects .............................................................................. 27 Table 10. Cost of Plumas County Pond and plug Projects ......................................................................... 28 Table 11. Summary of Central Valley Water Right Leases, 2000 – 2009 .................................................. 32 Table 12. Municipal Water Treatment Costs due to Turbidity and Sediment ............................................ 34 Table 13. Feather River Pond and Plug Restoration Projects: Statistics..................................................... 37 Table 14. Valuation of Hay and Forage ...................................................................................................... 39 Table 15. Valuation of Forage-AUM Method ............................................................................................ 40 Table 16. Parameters for Forage-Beef Method ........................................................................................... 41 Table 17. Sample Change in Productivity Calculations (for early season mesic stocking rate of 1
animal/acre)................................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 18. Valuation of Forage – Cattle Productivity Method ..................................................................... 43 Table 19. Comparison of Valuation Approaches to the Private Returns to Ranching ................................ 44 Table 20. Social Returns of Ranching with Meadow Restoration .............................................................. 45 Table 21. Economic Benefits of Sediment Reduction ................................................................................ 46 Table 22. Meadow Hydrogeology and Water Productivity – Model #1 .................................................... 48 Table 23. Meadow Hydrogeology and Water Productivity – Model #2 .................................................... 50 Meadow Economics
v
Table 24. Summary of Economic Valuation Results .................................................................................. 52 List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Model for Mountain Meadow Hydrology .................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Annual Forage Productivity........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3. Economic Valuation Methods by Category................................................................................. 25 Figure 4. Average Short-Term Lease Rates by End Use ............................................................................ 32 Figure 5. Cause and Effect: Meadow Restoration and Ecosystem Services/Biodiversity .......................... 51 List of Boxes
Box 1. Central Valley Water Markets ......................................................................................................... 32 Meadow Economics
vi
1.
Introduction
Privately owned meadow ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada provide a range of ecosystem benefits to
landowners and to the public. Many of the meadows in the Sierra Nevada are degraded to some extent
and restoration of these ecosystems will alter, and in most cases enhance, the ecosystem goods, services
and biodiversity (hereinafter referred to simply as “ecosystem benefits” for convenience sake) these
meadows provide. These changes have both financial consequences for the landowner and economic
impacts for society. This paper seeks to identify, describe and analyze both the biogeophysical changes
that accompany meadow restoration as well as the financial (private) and economic (social) costs and
benefits. The intent is to provide a window on the financial incentives that could motivate landowners to
engage in restoration and the economic rationale for the use of public funds to support such projects.
This paper is part of a larger effort to address the rehabilitation and long-term sustainability of Sierra
Meadow Ecosystems by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and other interested
stakeholders. The NFWF Business Plan cites widespread deterioration of meadow ecosystems in the
Sierra Nevada due to road building, over-grazing, mining, logging, urbanization and development, and
catastrophic wildfire. The effects of these changes have altered meadow ecohydrology through gullying,
desiccation, shrub encroachment and changes in plant species composition and diversity. In particular
channel incision and the accompanying lowering of groundwater tables represent an important challenge
for restoration efforts. In addressing these problems, NFWF is concerned with the restoration of a wide
range of ecosystem services, including:
 Increased flood attenuation and flow reliability
 increased late season water flow
 reduced erosion (and downstream sedimentation)
 reduced summer water temperatures
 maintenance of existing habitat, and increased habitat for rare plants, birds, amphibians, fish and
other aquatic species
To this list must be added the potential to provide increased forage from re-managed and re-watered
meadows, particularly in the late summer season.
Meadow restoration is an issue on both public and private lands.. On private lands the focus of economic
valuation is one of providing landowners the incentives to restore meadow function – not just for fish and
wildlife purposes but also for purposes of generating higher returns to ranchers through forage
improvements that may accompany the meadow restoration. The larger question of how this
compensation could be generated must also be addressed. This could include a variety of options: from
restoration enhancements that will increase land value enough to pay for the cost of changed
management, or through a government funded and tracked program like the Farm Bill. An ecosystem
markets approach may also prove to be a critical funding source: with ecosystem service credits being
sold and traded through voluntary or regulated markets, such as currently exist for carbon in the US and
Europe.
In this paper, we are primarily concerned with challenges specific to private meadow restoration, though
our findings may be of some value on public lands as well. From a strictly economic perspective the
policy questions that need to be addressed are:
1. What are the costs and benefits of meadow restoration from the perspective of the landowner?
a. If they are positive but not well understood perhaps telling the economic story will be
sufficient to motivate private investment in restoration?
b. If they are negative then what level of incentive would be necessary to compensate
landowners for any losses they might bear from restoration and serve to encourage them to
either invest themselves in restoration or accept efforts by public and non-profit entities to
engage in restoration on their lands
2. What are the public costs and benefits of meadow restoration, i.e. from the perspective of NFWF
and its public and non-profit partners?
a. If the benefits are greater than the costs and compensation is required by landowners, then
there is cause to develop a program of financial incentives to induce landowners to either
invest in restoration themselves or to accept efforts by other entities to undertake restoration;
b. If the costs and required compensation outweigh the benefits, then providing incentives or
implementing meadow restoration would represent a poor investment of public conservation
dollars.
It is worth noting at the outset that given the difficulty of valuing all of the ecosystem benefits it is
unlikely to be practical to ever actually prove that 2b is the case. However, if it is not possible to
demonstrate either 1a, or 1b and 2a, then presumably there may be better investments for limited
conservation dollars elsewhere.
This paper is divided into three major sections. In the first section, monitoring data and findings from
scientific studies on degraded and restored meadows are summarized and presented to support estimates
of changes in service associated with meadow restoration. In order to fit with the incentives framework
presented above, the impacts are taken in order: first the on-site impacts and then the off-site, or
downstream, impacts. The next section reviews the economic literature pertinent to the economic
evaluation of Sierra meadow restoration and the valuation of meadow benefits. The third major section
compiles the aforementioned information into an assessment of the incentives framework. A hypothetical
“typical” meadow is posited and figures, parameters, models and results from the literature reviews are
applied to the calculate the costs and benefits of meadow restoration. Given the range of meadow
conditions described and the degree of uncertainty over specific parameters, extensive sensitivity analysis
is included. While preliminary and inexact at best, the paper then summarizes the emerging conclusions
on the economics of meadow restoration in the Sierra, particularly with regard to the financial and
economic incentives for restoration going forward. In conclusion, an outline of the ideas for next steps to
improve the information that underpins the analysis is provided.
2.
Meadow Ecosystem Services
Healthy meadow ecosystems provide critical benefits for populations both local and remote (e.g., Bay
Area; Table 1). For example, healthy meadows can provide flood attenuation, reduce erosion to
downstream areas, and act as natural filters that improve downstream water quality. Meadows are
considered biodiversity hotspots in the Sierra Nevada because they provide forage and critical habitat for
a wide range of plant and animal species, including many listed species such as the Willow Flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii), Great Grey owl (Strix nebulosa), Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus), and the Sierra
Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator, recently sited in the central Sierra Nevada) (Saguhan 2010). It has
been widely surmised that healthy meadows also act as natural reservoirs that slowly release stored water
during the dry late summer period, when water demands are highest in relation to supply. Flows during
this period are critical for native fish, amphibians, and other wildlife (Jennings and Hayes 1994) as well
as for agricultural and residential water needs. Yet as detailed in this paper, actual measurements of
increased downstream base flows are few and equivocal. The frequent overbank flooding and high
floodplain connectivity that are characteristic of healthy meadows also results in sediment filtering and
storage. In comparison with elevated sediment loads from actively eroding gullies where overbank
2
flooding rarely or never occurs, restoring incised meadows ultimately may increase the longevity of
downstream dams and reservoirs (Jones and Stokes, 2008). Similarly, increased overbank flooding in
meadows results in attenuated downstream flooding, since the peak flows of a rainstorm or snowmelt
driven flood become distributed over time as the wide meadow floodplain drains back into the channel;
with lower downstream peak flood flows, flood associated damage is reduced. Elevated growing season
groundwater levels in well-managed meadows can also produce high quality late season forage, thereby
providing grazing lands for livestock and supporting the local agrarian economy. Finally, healthy
meadows have important cultural and aesthetic values.
Table 1. Ecosystem Services potentially provided by healthy mountain meadows.
Increase habitat for diverse species
Increase late summer water storage
Decrease flooding
Decrease sediment load and delivery
Improve water quality
Increase late summer base flow
Rich rangelands
Aesthetic value
Protect Native American cultural values
In order to quantify changes in ecosystem services, we must identify metrics that either directly or
indirectly measure the product of each ecosystem service. In Table 2, we propose a first cut at such
metrics and the units of measure that might be used for each one. For all of these, we make the
comparison between pre vs. post-project conditions to quantify the change in ecosystem services that can
be attributed to restoration projects. Overall there is a systematic paucity of data on pre-project conditions
so that the level of certainty for these pre-project or ‘baseline’ values will be less than those available for
post-implementation or ‘project’ conditions.
3
Table 2. Proposed metrics of ecosystem services provided by healthy mountain meadows
Ecosystem Service
Channel condition
Late summer base flow
Metric
Daily flow from mid-July through
mid-September
Decrease flooding
Decrease sediment load and delivery
Improve water quality
Downstream annual peak flow
(difference between pre-project
and post-project in annual
maximum hourly or daily average
flow)
Decrease in downstream sediment
delivery under post-project
compared to pre-project
conditions
Upstream to downstream change
in concentration of (1) pathogens;
(2) nitrate; (3) phosphorous; (4)
fine sediment
Improve water temperature
Upstream to downstream change
in temperature from top to bottom
of meadow
Increase Aquatic Habitat Quality and
Productivity
Vegetation Condition
Increase in forage production and timing
Increase biodiversity
Increase Carbon Storage
2.1
Number of fish per reach length or
number per species of fish, aquatic
invertebrate indicators
Plant production and quality
produced per acre translated to
tons of beef per acre.
Areal extent of suitable habitat
(specific per species) OR
Change in number or frequency of
wildlife sitings
Net input of greenhouse gases and
carbon (nitrous oxide, methane,
carbon)
Units of measure
Cubic feet per second (cfs)
increase in summer flows
over pre-project OR
number of days where
minimum stream flow
exceeded a threshold.
Change in annual peak flow
discharge at site
immediately downstream of
meadow (average daily or
instantaneous) cfs
Tons of sediment per year
based on change in channel
size over time.
Parts per million (or billion)
of pathogens, Total
Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus,
Total Suspended Solids
o
C degree difference in late
summer stream
temperatures OR number of
days where maximum
stream temperature
exceeded a threshold.
Number of fish
Or aquatic habitat
assessment score
Tons of beef
production/acre in early,
mid and late summer
Acres of appropriate habitat
type created times an index
of habitat quality
Tons of net carbonequivalent stored per acre
per year
Hydrogeologic Function in Meadows
One of the most common characteristics of a degraded meadow is channel incision and/or gully creation.
Incision can be caused by a number of different land use practices working alone or in combination. The
most common sources of incision are overgrazing, channelization, construction of roads or railroads, and
logging. It is possible that natural climatic variation can affect the meadow hydrology as well (Helms
1987 and Woodward et al. 1995, Millar et al. 2004, Loheide et al. 2009). When stream channels in
meadows become incised, or when a gully is created in a meadow with no pre-existing channel, the
immediate effect is that water once stored in the rooting zone soil (upper one to three feet) drains down to
4
the incised channel, lowering the water table and releasing groundwater from storage through the eroded
channel or gully. This lowered water table has ramifications throughout the meadow, such as more rapid
snow melt runoff and decreased meadow water storage capacity (Hammersmark et al. 2008; Cornwell and
Brown 2008a). Though the hydrological systems of meadows are complicated and unique to each site, a
general model describing the components of the meadow and their interactions is useful in understanding
the extent of ecosystem disruption caused by channel incision. The various hydrological elements of the
meadow can be described in the terms of a water balance: input, output and change in storage (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual Model for Mountain Meadow Hydrology
Channel inflow
Evapotranspiration Precipitation
Channel overflow and
recharge
Ground
water inputs
to alluvium
Channel
outflow
Down slope groundwater recharge
Notes: This very simplified model reflects the basic types of water inputs (blue) and outputs (yellow) for a ‘typical’
meadow system. Rates associated with each arrow vary with meadow characteristics and water year. The effect of
restoration on these processes is an area of active research.
2.1.1
Meadow Hydrologic Inputs
Mountain meadows receive the bulk of their water input through groundwater and surface water inflows
from upstream sources, so the size and climatic conditions of the contributing area is an important factor
in determining the volume of water flow through the meadow. Because the area of the meadows is usually
small relative to its contributing area, direct precipitation and infiltration are less critical than upstream
and groundwater inputs.
5
The amount and distribution of groundwater inputs are primarily controlled by the geology of the area, in
particular the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the meadow sediments, or alluvium, and surrounding bedrock.
These values can be wide ranging. The relationship between bedrock K, meadow alluvium K, and inflow
rate affects the movement and distribution of groundwater (Hill and Mitchell-Bruker 2010). For example,
if the hydraulic conductivity of the meadow alluvium is lower than the hydraulic conductivity of the
surrounding bedrock, the inflow rate will be slow and last longer (Loheide et al. 2009; Hill and MitchellBruker 2010). Bedrock K values can also vary spatially within a meadow due to differences in the
underlying rock type, as well as the location of features such as fractures and springs; similarly K values
of the meadow alluvium often vary spatially with inclusions of finer or coarser sediment such as clay
lenses. Incision generally does not significantly affect this element of the hydrological system but can cut
through less permeable layers to more permeable ones below, which can affect the rate of water
movement through the system. A study on nine meadows in the southern Sierra showed a common
stratification pattern, where coarse (sand and cobble) layers are overlain by medium sand and silt, which
are topped by fine grained and organic materials (Anderson and Smith 1994). This stratification pattern is
indicated in Figure 1, and could very importantly affect meadow hydrologic response to incision and
restoration (Merrill 2011).
Surface water inputs are controlled by upstream factors, and can take several paths once entering the
meadow system. The water can be lost to surface outflow and evaporation, or contribute to storage by
infiltration in the channel and floodplain. Incised channels are less connected to their historical
floodplains and more confined within increasingly eroded channels. During high flows, the water’s
energy is focused within the incised channel rather than dissipated across the meadow floodplain. This
process results in higher in-channel flow velocities and increased streambank and streambed erosion that
can further erode the incised channel and yield destructive downstream flood flows (Lindquist et al.
1997). Shallower (i.e. restored) channels have a lower bankfull capacity, and therefore, have a higher
likelihood of flooding, saturating, and recharging groundwater levels in the meadow.
2.1.2
Meadow Hydrologic Outputs
Water exits the meadow mainly through evapotranspiration and surface water stream flow.
Evapotranspiration is a function of depth to the water table for two reasons: water closer to the surface is
more likely to evaporate directly, and vegetation communities and their corresponding transpiration rates
are controlled by soil moisture. Incised channels and gullies provide for more rapid drainage of meadow
soils, which profoundly alters seasonal soil moisture conditions and can result in conversion of wet
meadow plant communities dominated by sedges and rushes, to mesic communities dominated by mesic
forbs and grasses, to dry plant communities such as those dominated by sagebrush (Weixelman et al.
2002, Menke et al. 1996). Since there is less soil water available and these dry meadow plant
communities typically have a lower transpiration rate, incision has the effect of decreasing
evapotranspiration (Loheide and Gorelick 2005).
Surface water stream flow removes water from the meadow by acting as a sink for groundwater. In
incised systems, this effect is enhanced because a deeper channel can access more groundwater, and also
increases the rate of discharge by steepening the groundwater head gradient. According to a model
created by Hammersmark et al (2008), restoration decreases total outflow and shortens the duration of
base flow by increasing evapotranspiration and groundwater storage. However, empirical measurements
from Trout Creek in the Tahoe area (Tague et al. 2007) show that restoration can increase stream flow
during the period of snowmelt recession in June and July during some water year types. Work by
Loheide and Gorelick (2007) suggests that the extra groundwater stored in restored systems can move
down the meadow and may result in local groundwater recharge and increase downstream discharge. In
general, the effects of incision and restoration on the timing and amount of stream outflow are site
specific and sources of variation are not well understood.
6
2.1.3
Meadow Water Storage
Groundwater represents the main storage capacity in meadows, and is determined by the overall depth
and texture of the meadow alluvium, and the depth of the channel. Channel incision has the effect of
decreasing storage by draining groundwater from the meadow to the stream, until the water table reaches
the depth of the channel. Perennial (year-round) streams downstream of incised meadows can often
become intermittent or dry due to loss of water storage capacity in meadow aquifers that feed them
(Lindquist, Bowie and Harrison 1997). This positive feedback between channel incision and increased
stream power has led to channel incision exceeding 20 feet in some meadows of the Sierra Nevada
(Lindquist et al. 1997). In contrast, a healthy meadow ecosystem supports mesic to wet vegetation such as
sedges, rushes, grasses, willows and other riparian species that can withstand naturally occurring erosive
conditions and fortify stream banks.
Surface water storage also occurs temporarily in restored or pristine meadow systems either from surface
water flooding or when the water table exceeds the surface of the meadow and ponding occurs
(Hammersmark et al. 2008). This reduces the downstream flood peak and can provide recharge to the
groundwater through infiltration, but is not a long-term storage reservoir. Water passes through a meadow
with an incised channel more quickly, reducing the water’s residence time and minimizing the positive
filtering effects meadows can otherwise have on water quality (Merrill 2006, Stubblefield et al. 2006,
Naiman et al. 2005).
2.2
Meadow Restoration Effects on a Select Set of Ecosystem Services
Scientific understanding of the consequences of meadow restoration is not well developed. And often the
academic, scientific work is not well integrated with the monitoring and evaluation work of practitioners
on the ground. The level of understanding and experience varies across the set of ecosystem services.
Those services that are easy to directly observe and measure – like changes in plant communities, forage
and wildlife – are better documented and understood than services that are more difficult to observe – like
groundwater and water quality.
Restoration of incised meadows has been found to affect downstream flow, increase flood attenuation,
reduce bank erosion, increase sediment storage, and improve rangeland productivity and habitat for
meadow dependent species. Here we present the results and methods of the available research on these
topics. Each service is considered in light of the direction and magnitude of the change brought by
“restoration.” Meadows themselves can vary widely; thus, there will not always be a generalizable result
with respect to these ecosystem services. Furthermore, the specific conditions of a given site may affect
the relative magnitude of these services.
2.2.1
Reduced bank erosion and fine sediment storage
Native meadow sedges have extremely long and dense root and rhizome networks that are inherently
resistant to erosion and that help maintain wet soils through much of the summer (Micheli and Kirchner
2002a, Micheli and Kirchner 2002b, Kleinfelder et al. 1992). Healthy mountain meadows support these
graminoid communities, while hydrologically altered meadows do not (Loheide and Gorelick, 2007).
Channel banks occupied by these sedge species erode much more slowly than channel banks supporting
other vegetation (Micheli and Kirchner 2002a); thus these species help maintain the integrity and shape of
the meadow channel and reduce bank erosion rates. Channels in healthy meadows meander and are
therefore longer than straightened incised channels, but channels in healthy meadows generally do not
increase in depth or width over time.
7
As described above, high flows often overtop the channel in healthy meadows, slowing the water and
allowing for sediment deposition on the meadow floodplain. Thus, hydrologically functional meadows
reduce sediment loading in two ways: bank erosion and sediment input is decreased, and suspended
sediment already in the stream when entering the meadow is captured in the meadow floodplain. By
filtering out suspended sediment, healthy riparian vegetation builds streambanks and increase the seasonal
quantity and quality of water released for downstream ecosystems and human uses (Lindquist, Bowie and
Harrison 1997).
Estimates on erosion rates from incised channels and sediment capture rates from hydrologically
functional meadows are provided in Table 3. We based our estimates of channel bank sediment erosion
rates through comparison of pre-restoration incised versus restored channel sizes (volumes) in the
Feather, Bear-Pit, and South Lake Tahoe (Trout Creek) drainages. Details on these estimates can be
found below.
Table 3. Sediment loading effects of meadow restoration in three meadows in the Sierra Nevada.
Source
Meadow name and
location
Acres restored
2NDNATURE
2NDNATURE
Sagraves, 1998
Cornwell and Brown,
2008
Hammersmark et al.
2008
Trout Creek
Trout Creek
Big Flat Meadow
Clarks Meadow
67
67
47
68
Reduction in annual
sediment loading with
restoration (tons/yr)
491a
198 b
738-1108 b
1804-2706 b
Bear Creek Meadow
568
3607 b
Notes: a This rate includes sediment deposition on the floodplain as well as reduced bank erosion with restoration.
b
This rate only accounts for sediment loading from channel erosion and does not include sediment retention from
overbank flooding.
Trout Creek estimates on suspended sediment storage and reduced channel erosion
Trout Creek drains an area of 106 km2 in the southern part of the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 2001, 2,700 m of
stream channel were restored between Pioneer Trail and Martin Avenue in the city of South Lake Tahoe,
and replaced with 3,400 m of a shallower, meandering new channel. USGS gages above and below the
restoration site provide discharge and sediment load data. 2ndNature LLC has developed a series of
models in order to determine the effects of stream restoration on sediment retention in the stream reach.
Factors include increased storage on the stream floodplain due to higher likelihood of overbank flow, and
a decrease in bank erosion as a result of greater bank stability from vegetation and slower water
movement in the channel. The simplest model uses currently available data and takes into account
sediment loads at different discharge rates and the probability of overbank discharge to calculate sediment
deposition; channel topography and soil bulk density are used to estimate changes in erosion. Simply
decreasing erosion within the channel reduces the load by 198 ton/year. Sediment which enters the
restored meadow from upstream is deposited on the floodplain during more frequent overbank flow
events, reducing the total loading rate by roughly 293 ton/year. The combination of these two factors
results in a total decrease of 491 tons/year. Since this model assumes that all sediment carried onto the
floodplain stays there, total deposition is probably overestimated. This estimate also does not account for
the frequency of different discharge levels, floodplain topography and roughness, more complicated
channel erosion, bank stratigraphy, or differences in lithology.
8
Big Flat Meadow (Sagrave, 1998)
This estimate is based on a rough calculation of the difference in size between the channel before and
after restoration. Information on the pre-restoration channel size is very limited, but estimated to be 10-15
feet deep, 15-100 ft wide, and 3000 ft long, with an estimated capacity of 1,878,000 cubic feet. The new
channel is 1-2 ft deep, 6-9 ft wide, and 4050 ft long with a volume of about 8100 cubic feet. The
difference is 1,869,900 cubic feet eroded over approximately 100 years (based on the historical record),
so the pre-restoration rate of erosion is estimated at 18,700 cubic feet/year. Using a bulk density of
0.06243 tons/cubic foot, this corresponds to 1167 tons/year. This does not take into account any sediment
deposited on the floodplain, and assumes post-restoration erosion is zero.
Clarks Meadow (Cornwell and Brown 2008)
This estimate was calculated similarly to the estimate of erosion rate for Big Flat Meadow. In this case,
the site consists of an upper, restored meadow and a lower, unrestored meadow. Assuming the restored
channel was at one point similar in shape to the unrestored channel, the difference in volumes represents
an approximation of the sediment eroded over the last 100 years. The unrestored channel is about 3 m
deep, 40 m wide with a cross sectional area of 120 square meters. The restored channel is about 1 m deep,
5 m long, with a cross sectional area of 5 square meters, so the difference in areas is 115 square meters.
The length of the stream reach is 1070 m long, so the difference in volume would be 123,050 cubic
meters. It is not known when erosion started so we estimate 100-150 years ago, giving a range of erosion
rates from 1804 to 2706 tons/year, depending on the denominator. This does not take into account any
sediment deposited on the floodplain, and assumes post-restoration erosion is zero.
Bear Creek (Hammersmark et al. 2008)
Prior to restoration, Bear Creek had a cross sectional area of 25 square meters and was 3200 m long
(Figures 3 and 4 in Hammersmark et al. 2008). Post-restoration, the channel cross-sectional area was
reduced to 4 square meters, and the stream reach was lengthened to 3600 m. Erosion has been occurring
since 1960, when Bear Creek was channelized (Poore 2003). The difference in volume is a 65,600 cubic
meters, which corresponds to 3607 tons/year over 40 years. This simple calculation does not take into
account any sediment deposited on the floodplain, and assumes post-restoration erosion is zero.
2.2.2
Improved Productivity for Rangelands
The Sierra Nevada currently support at least 100,000 hectares (over 400 square miles) of meadows, some
of which is rangeland on both public and private lands (CDFG 2005, California Department of
Conservation 2006). Many of these meadows, especially those classified as moist and dry, can support
grazing if it is done appropriately. Meadows that are hydrologically functional (either as a result of
restoration or due to lack of historical impacts) have higher productivity than dried or degraded ones and
therefore generate more forage and can support more livestock than degraded meadows, if grazed
appropriately (SNEP 2006). Studies have shown that grazing systems that are well tailored to a particular
meadow can support more livestock without causing ecological degradation (SNEP 2006).. Much has
been learned about sustainable grazing practices in recent decades, and with appropriate monitoring and
adaptive management, these lands can support local farms into the future (SNEP 2006).
Meadow Plant Communities
Meadow community types were organized by the moisture regime and the key plant species present (see
Table 4). In a degraded meadow where incised channels have affected the hydrogeologic functioning of
the meadow, more of the meadow will be made up of the dry plant communities. Restored meadows will
9
move towards a mix of wet and mesic plant communities. Changes in the extent of these types of
meadow communities can be used to gage changes in onsite productivity in terms of forage quantity and
quality. This paper focuses on the xeric, moist, and wet hydrologic regimes, assuming that the
intermediate types, dry and wet mesic, are bounded by the other three types (Table 4). These
classifications were compared with the well-known publication by Ratliff (1985) in which meadows in
the Sierra Nevada are assigned to five hydro-geomorphic groups. The productivity of meadows vary by
condition in terms of both quantity and quality of forage produced; each of these aspects are quantified
below.
Table 4 Meadow plant community types by hydrologic regime, cross-walked with Ratliff 1985
meadow classification
Hydrologic
regime
Early season
Mid season
Late season
Groundwater levels (cm from surface)
Dry
Dry mesic
-10 to -50'
>-100'
>-100'
0 to -10
-50 to -100
-50 to -100
Moist
0 to -10
-20 to -50'
-50 to -100'
Vegetation Community Types:
common names
Kentucky bluegrass with forbs
Vegetation Community Types: scientific names
(classification sources)
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands (1)
Sagebrush with grass understory
Short-hair sedge
Kentucky bluegrass turf
Small-winged sedge meadows
Kentucky bluegrass turf
Nebraska sedge meadows
Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance
(1, 2)
Carex filifolia Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands (1)
Carex microptera Provisional Herbaceous Alliance
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands (1)
Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Shorthair sedge - Shorthair reedgrass
Plant Association
Tufted hair grass meadows
Corn lily, Arrow-leaved groundsel, largeleaved lupine
Beaked sedge and blister sedge
meadows
Cross-walk to
Ratliff 1985
Xeric
Normal, Xeric
Calamagrostis breweri Vegetative Series (3), Shorthair
sedge - Shorthair reedgrass Plant Association (4)
Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Veratrum californicum Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Normal
Carex (utriculata, vesicaria) Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Few-flowered Spikerush Vegetation
Series; Few flowered spikerush/Primrose Eleocharis pauciflora Vegetation Series (3); Eleocharis
monkey flower Plant Association
pauciflora/Mimulus primuloides (4)
Jones's sedge turf
Carex jonesii Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Wet-moist
Kentucky bluegrass turf
0 to -10
-10 to 20'
-10 to -50'
Wet
0 to -10
0 to -10
0 to -10
Narrow leaved sedge/Kentucky bluegrass
meadow
Tufted hair grass meadows
Beaked sedge and blister sedge
meadows
Slender Spikerush Vegetation Series
Few-flowered Spikerush Vegetation
Series (Ratliff 1985); Few flowered
spikerush/Primrose monkey flower Plant
Association (Potter 2005)
Narrow leaved sedge meadows
Nebraska sedge meadows
Pale spikerush marshes
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands (1)
Carex angustata/Poa pratensis (5)
Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Hanging, Normal
Carex (utriculata, vesicaria) Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Eleocharis tenuis vegetation series
Eleocharis pauciflora Vegetation Series (3); Eleocharis
pauciflora/Mimulus primuloides (4)
Carex angustata (5)
Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Eleocharis macrostachya Herbaceous Alliance (1)
Hanging, Lotic
(1) Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evans (2008)
(2) Not exact fit to published vegetation type
(3) Ratliff (1985)
(4) Potter (2005)
(5) Allen-Diaz (1991)
Meadow Community and Forage Quantity
Figures for forage production rates for dry, moist and wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada emerge from a
number of studies (see Appendix 2 for details) and estimates are presented in the figure and table below.
Assumptions are that wet and moist vegetation community types represent restored meadows whereas dry
vegetation community types represent degraded or unrestored meadows. The data from these studies
suggest that moist meadows produce about five times the biomass as wet meadows and that wet meadows
produce 4 times the biomass of dry meadows. The variability within the sample is large and further effort
may be needed to control for other factors that may underpin these observed differences.
10
Figure 2. Annual Forage Productivity
Table 5. Annual Forage Productivity Statistics.
Meadow Type
Dry
Moist
Wet
Median Productivity (lbs/ acre)
517
2,477
1,922
25% quartile
322
1,654
1,625
75% quartile
666
2,958
2,712
Notes: based on literature, as detailed in Appendix 2
Meadow Community and Forage Quality
Forage quality is another factor that can influence the on-site changes in livestock productivity that occurs
with meadow restoration. Results of work on meadows in the Sierra by Tate et al. (2011) provides an
indication of the increased weight gain in cattle due to increased meadow forage quality as you transition
from dry to moist to wet meadow plant community types. Forage quality is measured in terms of protein,
fiber (digestibility) and phosphorous. The season is divided into early, mid and late seasons as 45-day
increments from June through September. The authors then used existing literature and professional
judgment to estimate changes in forage quality parameters during each season and applied these data to
the Oklahoma State University’s Cowculator (http://139.78.104.1/exten/cowculator/; accessed on 28
Novmber 2011) to arrive at potential weight gain for “stocker” cattle, with unrestricted grazing over a 45
day period (see Table 6).
11
Table 6. Weight Gain by Meadow Condition
Meadow Type
Seasons
Dry
Moist
Wet
2.2.3
Early
1.74
1.86
1.84
Weight Gain (lbs/day
Mid
1.27
1.71
1.68
Late
0.92
1.58
1.27
Improved Habitat for Target Meadow-Dependent Species
Mountain meadows are key habitats for many Sierran animal species because they provide water and
shade availability during the three to six month dry season, promote lower summer stream temperatures,
higher plant productivity, increased insect prey availability, and special vegetation structures such as
willow thickets (Graber 1996). Moreover, these ecologically rich oases often occur along riparian
corridors, linking meadow to meadow and creating movement pathways across the broader landscape.
The health and connectivity of these ecological corridors are critical for maintaining genetic diversity
within species since these corridors facilitate interbreeding among distant populations and because they
enable animals (and, usually more slowly, plants) to find new areas to inhabit. In the face of climate
change and growing development pressures, these corridors can be lifelines for these species. The Sierra
Nevada mountain range includes about two-thirds of the bird and mammal species and about half the
reptiles and amphibians in the State of California (Graber 1996). Meadows and the niches they create are
biodiversity hotspots that animal species, particularly birds and amphibians, frequent for foraging,
nesting, and other important parts of their life cycles (Graber 1996). Ecotones between meadow fields and
forest edges also support many species, including the great grey owl, Swainson’s thrush (Catharus
ustulatus), and the western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii; CDFG 2008). During summer months, montane
meadows are considered the single most important habitat in the Sierra Nevada for birds (Graber 1996).
Meadows with streams that flow through them are also important habitat for native trout and other aquatic
species (Moyle et al. 1996). Mid-elevation meadows have been shown by recent studies to be critical
habitat for several amphibian, mollusk, and invertebrate species (Kattelmann 1996). Soil arthropod and
microorganism communities are commonly highly diverse and complex in meadow ecosystems (Lattin
1990).
12
Photo 1. Meadows, such as this one along Sagehen Creek in Nevada County, support a wide
diversity of plant species. (Photograph by A.G. Merrill)
Approximately 30 rare taxa of vascular plants and bryophytes are found solely in mountain meadows and
plant species are extremely diverse within individual and across several meadows (Weixelman et al.
2000). This diversity is directly related to the elevation and seasonal fluctuations of a water table (AllenDiaz 1991, Ratliff 1985).
Animal species can be grouped as dependant or partially dependant on meadow ecosystems. In the Sierra,
eighty-two terrestrial vertebrate species are considered dependent on riparian and meadow habitat, 24% of
which are at risk (Graber 1996). Nineteen species of high vulnerability, including Swainson's thrush,
long-eared owl (Asio otus), and western red bat, are dependent upon meadow ecosystems. Twenty-seven
animal species of moderate vulnerability are also dependent on meadows and an additional 75 species of
moderate vulnerability are known to use meadow ecosystems either sometime during the lifecycle or
when meadows are accessible. In addition, several Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species
of fishes occur in streams flowing through meadows.
Given the large percentage of native species that depend on healthy meadows, restoration of currently
degraded mountain meadow habitat is expected to have important and broad positive effects on plant and
animal biodiversity for the Sierra Nevada Region. As described in the preceding sections, restoration of
hydrologically impaired meadows can result in a dramatic conversion from dry upland vegetation types to
moist and wet vegetation types. The distribution and likely populations of several meadow dependent
species are limited by the availability of moist/wet meadow habitat. Strategically placed restoration of
moist and wet habitat are therefore likely to positively affect these meadow-dependent species, and the
many other species that are partially dependant on meadow ecosystems.
Improved habitat conditions have been quantified on a percentage of the optimum conditions in several
well accepted and applied methodologies such as the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) used by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Habitat Evaluation Procedure handbook.
http://www.fws.gov/policy/esmindex.html). In the sections below, brief summaries are provided of the
habitat requirements and expected responses to meadow restoration associated with four focal meadow
species in the Sierra Nevada: great gray owl, Willow Flycatcher, the Yosemite toad, and Lahonton trout.
13
Willow Flycatcher
The Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) is a Forest Service sensitive species, a species of special
concern by US Fish and Wildlife, and is listed as a California endangered species by the State. Currently,
half of the California breeding population of the Willow Flycatcher is in the Sierra Nevada. Reduction of
wetland ecosystems combined with widespread meadow degradation has led to a drastic population
decline of the Willow Flycatcher (Green et al. 2003). Willow Flycatcher populations across the West are
facing serious declines based largely upon such habitat loss and degradation.
Willow Flycatchers dwell along higher elevation (4000-8000 ft) streams and wet meadows and depend on
nesting cover and foraging opportunity in willow thickets and similar plant communities that commonly
occur near slow-moving, or still water (Region 2 USFWS, 2002; Green et al. 2003). Willow Flycatchers
eat insects and several studies have linked insect abundance with hydrologic and riparian vegetation
conditions (Gosselink and Turner 1978, Voigts 1976, Weller 1978). Drainage of meadows limits this food
source, and allows trees to encroach, reducing habitat for flycatchers and providing habitat for predators
such as squirrels and weasels; fire suppression has a similar effect. Cowbird parasitism of flycatcher nests
has increased with closer proximity to livestock, agriculture, and other disturbances. Hydrologic
restoration of incised meadows, with plantings of willows along the newly formed channels, can increase
the type of habitat known to support Willow Flycatcher populations.
Habitat isolation is also an issue as suitable land is degraded. However, since meadows are inherently
patchy, it is not known if this will have a significant impact on breeding (Bombay et al. 2000, Green et al.
2003). Current populations of Willow Flycatchers are now very low in the Sierra Nevada, so it would be
important that any restoration project targeting this species ensure access to the meadow by an existing
breeding population (Rodney Siegel, pers. comm. with Amy Merrill April 2011). As part of the Record of
Decision (2005) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, the Forest Service adopted Standards and Guidelines to monitoring existing and historical
Willow Flycatcher habitat, restore degraded meadow habitats that are known to have supported the
species in the past, and protect currently occupied areas from livestock grazing impacts (see S2 in Forest
Service 2005) (accessed online on 28 November 2011 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/finalseis/vol1/appendix-a/aquatic-riparian/wf.html and http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/rod/thedecision/).
14
Photo 2. Willow Flycatcher prefers willow thickets for insect foraging (photographs by M.J. Hopiak
[left] and A.G. Merrill [right])
Great gray owl
Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), designated as Threatened Species by the State of California and a
sensitive species by Region 5 of the Forest Service, requires special management emphasis to avoid
federal listing (Beck and Winter 2000). Great gray owls (GGOW) are dependent on dense forests and
productive meadows. Great gray owl habitat is diminishing because of forest and range management
practices. Green tree and salvage harvest activities can eliminate nest trees and grazing practices remove
cover necessary for GGOW prey (small mammals). Similarly, prescribed burning can remove potential
nest snags and downed woody material needed for small mammal habitat.
Virtually all GGOW recorded in California were found in or near montane meadows (Winter 2000, as
cited in Beck and Winter 2000). Meadows appear to be their preferred foraging habitat because their prey
(small mammals) lives in grass-forb covered areas, which do not occur under the dense canopies of the
Sierra forests (Winter 1986, as cited in Beck and Winter 2000). Grass-forb habitats adjacent to dense
forests rarely exist outside of meadows in the Sierra Nevada, except under thinned or recently burned
forests. Clear-cuts and recent burns provide some structural similarity to a meadow ecosystem for a few
years before the trees or brush shade out the grasses and forbs. Such sites can provide foraging for nesting
GGOWs but only on a short-term basis (Green 1995, as cited in Beck and Winter 2000). Only 17 natural
nests have been found in California, and 16 of those were in large, broken-topped conifer snags (Green
1995, as cited in Beck and Winter 2000). Of the known GGOW pairs in California most nested within
280 yards of a meadow (Winter 2000, as cited in Beck and Winter 2000). Restoration of hydrologically
degraded meadows adjacent to or nearby existing Great gray owl habitat so that graminoid and forb cover
is increased to 90% cover, is expected to importantly improve food availability and therefore habitat
quality for the Great gray owl (USFS FEIS 2004; USFS 2005).
15
Photo 3. Great gray owls (photograph by Beth Davidow [left] and Art McCloud [right])
Notes: Great gray owls depend on meadow edges for roosting depend on lush, dense graminoid and forb
cover in meadows to support large populations of their primary prey: small rodents such as the meadow
vole.
Yosemite toad
Yosemite Toads (Bufo canorus) are small olive-green toads with black spotting, endemic to the Sierra
Nevada Mountains. Their primary habitat consists of ponds used as breeding areas and nearby meadows
that provide food. Yosemite toads rely on different insect and other invertebrate species for their diet;
these generally increase in abundance with increased vegetation cover and water availability. Their
primary habitats include wet mountain meadows, willow thickets and forest borders that range from 4,800
to 12,000 feet (1,460 to 3,630 m) elevation, from Ebbets Pass area of Alpine county south to the Spanish
Mountains area in Fresno County.
The Yosemite Toad has experienced a sharp population decline in recent years. On December 10, 2002,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that it may warrant protection under the
Endangered Species Act. Budgetary constraints precluded the USFWS from listing the toad as threatened
or endangered at the time. It is currently a Forest Service Sensitive Species and a California State Species
of Special Concern. Many studies concluded that livestock grazing can have detrimental impacts on
Yosemite toads through trampling, alteration of meadow habitat, changes in stream hydrology, siltation of
springs, bacterial increase from livestock fecal matter, and lowered water quality. There is also evidence
that chemical toxins (pesticide drift from the Central Valley) is associated with weakening of the immune
system and resistance to other diseases in the Yosemite Toad population (Davidson 2004, Davidson et al.
2002). The current Forest Service policies are to constrain livestock (excluding pack stock) grazing in
meadows with known Yosemite toad populations during the toad breeding and rearing season (USFS
2005).
In summary, restoration of wet and wet-mesic meadow habitat that is near or adjacent to open water
during the first half of the snow-free season, above 4,800 feet elevation and sufficiently close to an
existing population for occupation could provide improved quality habitat for Yosemite toad. However,
16
more specific criteria on minimum size and other physical and biological site characteristics would need
to be incorporated into a habitat quality ‘scoring’ procedure for this species.
Photo 4. Yosemite toads are found in the southern Sierra meadows (photograph by Gary Nafis)
Native Sierra Nevada Trout
Six native California trout species are moderately or highly dependent on having healthy meadows within
their habitats, as interpreted from Moyle et al. 2009. For those six species for which healthy meadows are
a part of their native habitat, restoration and/or altered management (control of grazing along stream
channels) are often recommended as part of the species conservation and recovery strategies. These
species are listed in the following table 7 and summarized in the text below.
Table 7. Trout species native to the Sierra Nevada, their legal status and dependence on healthy meadows
for supportive habitat.
Common name
Latin name
Legal status
California Golden Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
aguabonita
State Species of Special
Concern
Kern River Rainbow Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
gilberti
Oncorhynchus clarki
hensawi
Oncorhynchus mykiss
whitei
Oncorhynchus clarki
seleniris
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.
State and Federally
threatened
State and Federally
threatened
State Species of Special
Concern
Federally threatened
Moderate
State Species of Special
Concern
Yes (Moderate to high)
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
Little Kern Golden Trout
Paiute Cutthroat Trout
Goose Lake Redband
Trout
17
Meadows important
part of habitat?
Yes
Moderate
Yes (High)
Yes (Moderate to high)
California golden trout: This species evolved on the Kern River Plateau, with wide meadows and
meandering streams. Thus, this fish depends on healthy functioning meadows for its natural habitat.
Major threats to the California golden trout include hybridizing with rainbow trout, competition and
predation from non-native brown trout, and degradation of streams from livestock grazing (Moyle et al.
2009). Restoration of streams from livestock grazing is one of the top recommendations for improved
management to save this species from extinction (Moyle et al. 2009).
Kern River Rainbow Trout: Populations of this California species of special concern are limited primarily
by loss of habitat due to dam construction and associated loss of habitat, influx of hatchery fish, and
heavy fishing pressure. Grazing in riparian areas directly adjacent to the streams, including meadows, is
also indicated as a source of habitat degradation. This species is not particularly dependent on small
meandering meadow streams.
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout: This species is endemic to the western Great Basin and parts of the north
eastern Sierra Nevada but occupy an estimated 11% of their pre-European contact habitat. Lahontan
cutthroat trout are listed as threatened at both the Federal and State levels (Moyle et al. 2009). The single
largest factor affecting this species is competition, predation, and hybridization with introduced nonnative trout. Reintroduction to restored habitat is recommended for areas from which all non-native trout
species have been removed. Meadows as part of the important riparian habitat are not mentioned but
grazing impacts in riparian areas are listed as an important threat to this species and restoration of
adjacent meadow floodplains could be locally important for habitat recovery.
Little Kern Golden Trout: This species is endemic to the Kern Plateau best adapted to small meandering
meadow streams and their tributaries. The most important threats to the survival of this species include
hybridization and competition with rainbow and alien trout species, grazing in riparian areas, and
recreational fishing (Moyle et al. 2009). One of the primary conservation recommendations, aside from
removal of non-native trout, is cessation of all grazing activities in adjacent meadow riparian areas
(Moyle et al. 2009).
Paiute cutthroat trout: This rare species was originally listed as Federally endangered in 1967 and
downgraded to Federally threatened in 1973 to facilitate management. Paiute cutthroat depend upon small
streams and back waters, such as occur in mountain meadows, for early rearing. Most prominent threats
to this species include competition, predation, and hybridization with non-native trout, loss of genetic
diversity, and habitat loss. The top recommendation is to restore this species to its historic range and
remove non-native trout species. Restoration of the fish to its native habitat would entail restoration and
proper management of the river channels that run through meadow systems.
Goose lake redband trout: This species, local to Willow and Lassen Creeks and several tributaries to the
Pit River in northeastern California, were declining in the 1980’s but current populations levels are stable
due to implementation of a comprehensive and pro-active conservation strategy implemented over the
past 20 years (Moyle et al. 2009). On-going management actions to sustain this species include
elimination of livestock grazing from riparian areas, as well as removal of non-native fish from current
redband trout habitat (Moyle et al. 2009).
2.2.4
Effects on Downstream Flows
As described above, hydrologically functional meadows allow for groundwater recharge during overbank
flooding in the meadow and increased groundwater storage in the meadow alluvium. This can result in
increased releases to the channel during late season, otherwise referred to as increased base flow.
Maintaining stream flow during the late summer dry season supports downstream aquatic ecosystems and
is also critical for the human urban and agricultural needs, especially under climate change scenarios that
18
predict reduced water storage in the snow pack (Loheide and Gorelick 2006). However, data reported to
date on restoration effects on late season base flow are equivocal and seem to vary with years and the
characteristics of each particular meadow and its contributing area. Variability in the effects of meadow
restoration on downstream base flow is not yet well understood and this is an area for further research
using approaches that involve a combination of both empirical data and hydrologic modeling in a range of
meadow types. The literature supporting this conclusion is presented below, along with analysis carried
out for this study.
Table 7. Effects of meadow restoration on downstream (DS) flows.
Source
Meadow name and location
Feather River Coordinated
Resource Management Final
Monitoring Report 2009
Red Clover/McReynolds Creek
Feather River Coordinated
Resource Management Final
Monitoring Report 2009
Hammersmark et al. 2008 (see
Figure 13)
Big Flat Meadow on Cottonwood
Creek
47
Bear Creek, Fall River Watershed
568
Trout Creek, Lake Tahoe Basin
107
USGS Gage Data and Allander
(2004)
Acres
restored
400
Change in DS flow (cfs)
June -3.1
July -0.88
August -0.99
Sept. -0.95 cfs
No discernable change post
2004 augmentation
Total annual reduction
(most during peak
snowmelt)
2005: 23,308,680 cf
2006: 33,125,157 cf
Increases of from 5 to 20
cfs for pre-and postrestoration scenarios across
wet and dry conditions
Red Clover/McReynolds (FCRM 2009)
Red Clover and McReynolds Creeks run through the 400 acre Red Clover Valley. In 2006, 3.3 miles of
incised channel in the valley were restored with the pond and plug technique. The Feather River
Coordinated Resource Management (FCRM) maintains a continuous recording station at Notson Bridge
on Red Clover Creek, but it is 9 mi downstream of the restoration site and many tributaries join in the
intervening space, so effects of restoration on stream flow is lost in the variability introduced by the
tributaries. Additionally, monthly flow measurements have been made by hand directly above and below
the restoration site for the year prior to restoration and for 3 years post restoration. Based on these
measurements, the downstream flow appears to decrease after restoration (Table 5). While these
measurements are more likely to detect restoration effects than the Notson Bridge gage, it is difficult to
know if the monthly measurement is representative of the entire month. Also, there is only one year of
pre-restoration data from 2005 to use for comparison, and the amount of precipitation has been lower in
the post-project years (2007-09) than it was in 2005. Finally, it has been hypothesized that the reduced
downstream flow effects associated with the pond and plug technique might be temporary (on the order of
a few years), since several years of inflow and reduced outflow might be required to fill the increased
storage capacity created through the restoration project. Understanding the short and long term effects on
downstream flows, and what meadow or landscape characteristics control them, would be another fruitful
avenue of research. Further information can be found in the Red Clover/McReynolds Creek Restoration
Project Monitoring Report 2009, available from the Feather River Coordinated Research Management
group.
19
Big Flat Meadow in Last Chance Watershed (Sargraves 1998)
Big Flat Meadow on Cottonwood Creek lies between the confluences with Fitch Canyon and Stony
Creek. The contributing watershed area is approximately 15.5 mi2, with about 1.1 mi2 inputting directly to
the meadow (Sagraves 1998). Prior to restoration, the channel running through this 47-acre meadow was
incised 15 feet and dewatering the meadow. Restoration in 1995 moved Cottonwood Creek to a newly
constructed, 4050-foot long channel using the pond and plug technique; in 2004 the constructed channel
bottom was raised with the addition of gravel and cobbles. Prior to restoration, stream gages were
installed in Cottonwood Creek in 1994 above and below the meadow restoration site, providing
continuously recorded stream flow data. No significant changes in base flow were recorded. However, the
stage-rating curve used around the time of restoration (1994-1997) is based on only a few site visits due to
access issues from snow and road conditions. The upper site was especially problematic. Since the worst
conditions coincided with times of high flow (winter and spring), the rating curves do not cover the full
range of flow conditions and any measurements over the rating curve were classified as “over rating” and
not used. Due to this and other problems such as changes in channel morphology, we estimate the
accuracy of stream flow measurements to be +15 to 25%. There is also only one year of pre-restoration
data available, from May 1994 to June 1995, which straddles two water years with very different
precipitation regimes (73% and 279% of normal). Comparisons could be made before and after the 2004
modification; however these would not capture the full effect of both the 1995 and 2004 restoration
actions. Further information can be found in the report “Results of Stream Flow and Groundwater
Monitoring in Cottonwood Creek near Big Flat Meadow: 1994- 1997 Water Years” by Timothy Sagraves.
Gage data from 2002-2009 is also available from the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management
group.
Bear Creek Meadow (Hammersmark et al. 2008)
The goal of this study was to quantify the hydrological effects of the pond and plug method on Bear
Creek Meadow in northeastern California. In 1999, a 3.6 km (2.2 mi) reach of Bear Creek was restored
using this technique. Comparing direct observations of pre- and post-restoration conditions is difficult
when only a couple of years of pre- and post-restoration data are available. In order to assess the impacts
of meadow restoration with limited data, Hammersmark et al. (2008) developed a hydrological model of
the 230 ha (568 acre) Bear Creek Meadow. The model was created and run for the 2005 and 2006 water
years, using different floodplain and stream topographies to simulate pre- and post-restoration situations.
This meadow system is somewhat atypical in that the bottom layer is low permeability clay so there is
very little lateral groundwater inflow from the surrounding bedrock to the meadow. Also, Bear Creek is
part of the Fall River watershed, which is heavily spring fed. However, while the exact properties of this
meadow may diverge from other mountain meadows, the trends can still be generally applied.
The model accounts for each aspect of the meadow hydrological system using a combination of field
measurements and values from the literature. Stream inflow and water table elevation was directly
measured in the field. Evapotranspiration was calculated based on vegetation properties and distribution,
depth to water table, and weather data from a station in the meadow. Subsurface stratigraphic units were
surveyed and their hydraulic conductivity was determined by slug test. Other values governing surface
water flow and river aquifer interactions were taken from the literature and adjusted in the calibration
stage. In order to calibrate the model, the post-restoration model was run for the 2005 water year, and
outputs were compared to measured stream flow and water table data. The pre-restoration model was not
calibrated because of insufficient data. Differences between the pre and post restoration model include
altered channel configuration, meadow surface topography, and initial water table level. Empirical
measurements collected under post-restoration conditions during the 2006 water year were used to
validate the model. Both the pre- and post-restoration models were then run for 2005 and 2006.
20
By comparing the results of the two models, this study indicates that restoration resulted in measurable
differences in hydrologic processes. Overall, the shallower channel resulted in higher groundwater levels,
more groundwater storage, and more overbank flow. Also, evapotranspiration was calculated to be higher
as a result of the higher water table and exposed ponds. Evapotranspiration increases are actually
underestimated because this study does not account for the change in vegetation communities that occur
after restoration, e.g. from dryland shrubs and grasses to wet meadow sedges, so the pre-restoration
evapotranspiration values are probably smaller than reported. This increase in groundwater storage and
evapotranspiration also has the effect of decreasing total annual runoff 1 to 2 percent and decreasing the
duration of base flow by approximately 16 days. However, while there is no conclusive data,
observations suggest that groundwater will move down the valley and discharge into the stream lower
down, especially where the restored stream transitions to an unaltered incised channel. Hammersmark and
others (2008) report a small increase in downstream base flow below the restored reach where the channel
is again incised, but this increase in downstream flow is likely due to the incised channel accessing
groundwater stored in the upstream restored area. Thus, were the downstream channel not incised, this
groundwater would not flow into the channel but rather remain stored in the meadow alluvium (pers.
comm. C. Hammersmark with A. Merrill April 25, 2011).
Trout Creek Meadow Restoration (Allander 2004; Valentine 2006; Tague et al. 2007)
Trout Creek drains an area of 106 km2 in the southern part of the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 2001, 2,700 m of
an incised stream channel were replaced with 3,400 m of a shallower, meandering new channel between
Pioneer Trail and Martin Ave. in the city of South Lake Tahoe. USGS gages above and below the
restoration site provide continuous discharge data. Cold Creek enters Trout Creek above the downstream
gage but below the upstream gage. In a master’s thesis, Valentine (2006) examined flows for 1961
through 2005 at the two Trout Creek gages and found that August base flows decreased after restoration
but found no significant change in September base flow. Valentine did find an increase in groundwater
levels and found that the linkage between groundwater depth and stream flow strengthened following
restoration. In a subsequent journal article led by Valentine’s thesis advisor Tague, the authors found the
opposite: that restoration did increase summer water availability in riparian areas (Tague et al. 2008).
However, Valentine does not discuss Cold Creek inputs and Tague et al (2008) state that flow
contributions from Cold Creek are relatively small. This appears to be an incorrect assumption. In his
master’s thesis Allander (2004) gaged Cold Creek over the 2001 to 2003 period demonstrating that Cold
Creek inputs are significant and more or less proportional to the respective drainage areas. Cold Creek’s
drainage area at 9,600 acres is 54% of the size of the Trout Creek drainage above the upstream gage on
Trout Creek. Thus, it stands to reason that Trout Creek inputs are therefore non trivial and need to be
deducted before assessing meadow gains and losses due to restoration. The analysis and conclusion in
Tague et al. (2008) therefore needs further investigation.
To this end Allander’s (2004) work provides a useful input in the form of a significant relationship
(equation) that can be used to derive daily mean Cold Creek inputs to Trout Creek. These inputs are
calculated for the 1990 to 2010 period and then deducted from gaged flows at the downstream Trout
Creek gage. Flows at the upstream gage are then compared to flows at the downstream gage to assess if
there are gains or losses on a daily basis. Data for representative normal (~80% of average), dry (~50%
of average), and wet water (~190% of average) years were selected from before and after the 2001
restoration project for comparison. Charts of the hydrographs and the gain/loss calculations are provided
in Appendix 3.
While the total discharges in each of these compared pairs are roughly similar, timing of rainfall,
snowmelt and initial conditions are different, so the analysis shows only an approximate comparison.
Over all three water year types, the wet year showed the clearest difference between pre- and post-
21
restoration. While both sets of data show a release of water from the meadow in July, the post-restoration
year shows a more rapid decline in the release (<5 cfs), whereas the pre-restoration year shows a larger
and sustained release through the end of August (5-10 cfs). The hydrographs are quite similar for the two
years, with the exception that the pre-restoration year peaks some 6 days later. It seems unlikely that this
could drive the longer period of release flow observed pre-restoration. Thus, the wet year shows a much
higher release of late summer water from the unrestored meadow.
The 80% water year features fairly short-lived peak flows in both years, with the post-restoration year
peaking at twice the flow as for the pre-restoration year (in late May and early June). Both years show
substantial water storage (losses) in the reach during or after these peak flows. Both then show releases
of water for a month to a month and a half immediately thereafter. These releases tail off to near zero by
mid-August. The response is stronger in the post-restoration year (in the 10-20 cfs range) than the prerestoration year (< 5 cfs). This is quite likely related to the strength and duration of the peak flows
observed throughout June. Again, both pre- and post-restoration provide late season water. In this year
the effect is more exaggerated in the post-restoration case, though this is probably in good part due to the
difference in hydrographs between the two years.
Finally, the post-restoration dry year also has a longer duration and higher peak flow input above the
meadow than the pre-restoration dry year. The results suggest that the post-restoration meadow is storing
water in the April to May time frame and releasing it during July and into August (<4 cfs). For the prerestoration scenario the meadow is largely releasing water during the winter and spring months and then
effectively passes water through during the summer months, much as expected. Although the difference
in hydrographs makes this an inexact comparison; the dry year case does provide evidence of storage and
release of flow as per the generic expectations for a restored meadow.
Thus, in dry years, meadow restoration in Trout Creek does appear to increase late season flow; however
it seems that as water years trend towards normal and wet years, this effect diminishes. The surface area
of meadow restored is not cited in the studies reviewed here, but from aerial imagery it appears perhaps to
be on the order of 100 or so acres. Information from the California Tahoe Conservancy suggests that 107
acres were restored. Assuming that changes in evapotranspiration range are approximately 3.6 mm
during peak growing season (July, August through mid-September; Hammersmark et al. 2008), net
summer time changes in losses to evapotranspiration for a 107 acre meadow are roughly one acre-foot per
day. Thus, the flow releases observed in the analysis above would be impacted only to a limited degree by
changes in evapotranspiration from such acreage. If this is an approximately correct figure for the
restored acres, then the explanation to the variability in stream flow response documented in this analysis
of Trout Creek would appear to rest with the role of groundwater inputs through the alluvium,
groundwater storage, transmissivity in the sub-surface, and stream gains and losses.
2.2.5
Increasing Flood Attenuation
Hydrologically functional meadows with perennial and intermittent streams dissipate stream energy from
high flows and enhance floodwater retention and groundwater recharge. Functioning meadow systems
have channels with higher width to depth ratios and therefore flood more readily than incised channels.
As the water flows out over the meadow floodplain, flow velocities are slowed and flood waters infiltrate
and are partially retained in the meadow soils, vegetation, and subsurface aquifers (Ponce and Lindquist
1990, Linquist and Wilcox 2000, Hammersmark et al. 2008). Results from several studies in the northern
Sierra indicate that restoring meadows attenuates peak flows and increases water storage capacity
(Sagraves 1998, Hammersmark et al. 2008, Cornwell and Brown 2008a); however only Hammersmark et
al. (2008) provides quantitative estimate of the downstream flood attenuation through hydrologic
modeling. Flood attenuation provided by meadows has a direct impact on the hydrologic response of the
watershed to seasonal precipitation. Meadows in the headwaters have the potential to increase the
22
systems’ storage capacity, attenuate flood events and reduce peak flows by providing a buffer to water
and sediment transport processes associated with large rain events.
Table 8. Modeling studies on effects of meadow restoration on downstream flood peak flows (flood
attenuation).
Source
Meadow name and
location
Acres restored
Change in DS flood
attenuation (cfs)
Hammersmark et al.
2008
Bear Creek
568
129-179
Bear Creek (Hammersmark et al. 2008)
As described previously, Hammersmark et al. (2008) developed a model of Bear Creek that was run for
the 2005 and 2006 water years for both pre- and post restoration conditions. The study showed that there
was an increase in frequency and duration of flooding due to decreased channel capacity. Surface water
storage on the floodplain increased as well, which reduced the downstream flood peak heights by 129-179
cfs. The floodplain storage was temporary: most of the water returned to the channel downstream, and the
rest infiltrated or evaporated.
2.2.6
Carbon Storage
Sierra meadows experience a change in plant community type and overall plant biomass with restoration:
in many cases sparse cover of annual grasses and forbs and scattered sagebrush is replaced with dense
thatch of sedge and willow species with similarly dense rooting structures (Chambers and Miller 2004,
Lindquist and Wilcox 2000). Studies in restored versus unrestored meadows in the Feather River
watershed show that restoring meadows could provide a one-time increase in below ground Carbon (C)
stores by 110 to 220 CO2e tons per acre over a 2 to 10 yr post-restoration period (Wilcox et. al
unpublished project results 2009). Other studies show slower, but significant on-going C sequestration
rates in healthy meadows (Norton et al. 2011 [`~65 CO2e tons/acre of soil carbon difference between
non-functioning and properly functioning meadows]) and that nitrous oxide and methane emissions from
mountain meadows are likely several orders of magnitude (in CO2e tons acre-1 yr-1) lower than C
sequestration rates (Schlesinger 1997, Merrill 2001). During the initial post-restoration years, these
numbers are comparable to estimated rates of CO2e sequestration for Delta fresh water wetlands and
redwood forests (Fuji 2008; Brown et al. for Winrock International 2004).
3.
Review of Economic Studies
As part of preparation for the case studies an effort was made to collect literature that has attempted to
investigate either the evaluation or the valuation of the costs and benefits associated with Sierra
Meadows, and particularly the costs and benefits of their restoration. The literature found is fairly
limited on the topic of meadows per se, as well as valuation work on specific ecosystem benefits. A few
authors have tried to look at forage and hydrological benefits of meadow restoration, but no work was
found on the economics of gains in fish and wildlife habitat. With regard to changes in economic
productivity that result from meadow restoration, valuation of the quantity changes requires information
on how productivity of the system changes with restoration, as well as how that change is valued (priced)
in the economy. In the case where these changes are in commodities, such as cattle (beef) and water, such
information is available. In others, like flood attenuation and sedimentation, evaluation of the economic
23
consequences of such changes is difficult and very, very site specific. In this section an effort is made to
cover each of the main benefits and report on what can be drawn on from available information sources to
inform the valuation effort in Section 4.
3.1
Economic Evaluation of Sierra Meadows Restoration and Related Studies
There is a large literature on the economic analysis of watershed restoration, including the valuation of
downstream hydrologic impacts (Aylward 2004; Aylward and Hartwell 2010; Clark et al. 1985;
Gregersen et al. 1987; Mouraille et al. 1996). Little to none of this literature, however, pertains directly to
meadow restoration, particularly in the Sierra. Cognizant of the findings of various reviews of this larger
literature, a brief review of literature specifically on meadows was conducted for this paper. Not
surprisingly the literature found is small in numbers consisting just of three papers (Ingram and Loomis
1989; ICF Jones & Stokes 2008; Buckley et al. 2011). A detailed review of each of these papers is
provided in Appendix 4. Perhaps most interesting is the effort in 1989 by Ingram and Loomis. At that
time economic analysis of watersheds was a popular topic in the international literature. In California,
Ingram and Loomis started out with the intent of conducting an economic evaluation of the impacts of the
Red Clover Creek meadow restoration project in the Feather River system. While the report delved into a
number of topics in the end the authors chose not to carry out such an analysis for the reasons stated as
follows:
...it became clear early on that much of the physical and biological data necessary has not been
collected. Nor are all of the requisite predictive mechanisms (quantitative models; methods relying
on professional judgment) available. Although this is in part due to the fact that not all of the effects
of the recently-installed Red Clover project have begun occurring, it is nonetheless clear that the a
prior evaluation of such projects will require certain baseline data, as well as appropriate predictive
capabilities. It is perhaps this report’s main contribution that such prerequisites are clearly identified
(Ingram and Loomis 1989:2).
It is worth remarking that the considerable difficulty experienced in Section 2 of this paper in finding
well-documented case studies that provide reliable and significant analyses of project hydrological (and
other) impacts suggests that there was little uptake of the recommendations put forth in the Ingram and
Loomis paper and that the information that has since been generated is difficult to track down and not
organized into a single library (other than the FCRM website). While the paper covers a wide swath of
ground with respect to the economic methods that may be deployed these methods are clearly not the
impediment to the analysis. In the paper’s recommendations the comment is made that there is a need for
interdisciplinary models (i.e. predictive models). Over 20 years later this remains the case.
The ICF Jones & Stokes (2008) effort is more of an attempt to evaluate a suite of FCRM projects than an
economic analysis. However, it does provide an illustration of an approach to valuing the supposed
benefits of increased groundwater storage and late season flow. Suffice it to say that after some debatable
and heroic assumptions the study suggests that the benefits of restoration outweigh the costs. The study
suffers from fairly simplistic assumptions that all the additional water stored in the ground and not
evapotranspired becomes valued late season flow. This assumption and others make the results unreliable
as documented in the appendix. Despite this limitation, the Jones & Stokes paper does provide an
invaluable source of information on restoration projects and various parameters of importance in meadow
evaluation.
Finally, a recent paper by ECONorthwest sought to value the ecosystem services associated with
restoration of beaver habitat in the Escalante (Buckley et al. 2011). As the paper demonstrates both the
utility and complications involved in such an effort and a number of the benefits are similar to those in the
case of Sierra meadows this paper is reviewed in the appendix as well.
24
In sum, despite early efforts the science of meadow restoration seems to have yet made it to the point
where clear and useful indicators are feeding through into site-specific or generalized economic
evaluation of meadow projects. This paper is another attempt at addressing this gap in the literature.
3.2
Valuation of Sierra Meadow Restoration Costs and Ecosystem Services
This section reviews the ranges of costs and benefits that may be applied in valuing Sierra meadow
restoration projects. Values investigated here are for the types of ecosystem benefits that play into the
financial returns to landowners and the economic returns to the economy as a whole. These values and
the economic incentives framework are covered in depth in Appendix 1. The discussion here is limited to
those costs and inputs for which the change in service level, or outputs, can be measured (as suggested by
the literature review of ecosystem services in Section 2 of this paper).
3.2.1
Valuation Techniques and Meadow Restoration
Economists have long used a variety of valuation approaches to understand and estimate the value of
natural resources – more recently these methods have been applied to value ecosystem services and
biodiversity (Freeman 1993). The principal economic valuation methods can be grouped into four
different categories based largely on two criteria. The first grouping criteria is based on whether
observations of economic behavior take place via participant behavior within ‘real’ markets or whether
the behavior is elicited as a hypothetical response to constructed market scenarios. The second criteria is
determined by whether monetary values derived from the technique are observed directly in markets or
merely inferred from behavior and preferences. These two grouping criteria create four categories:
market prices, stated preferences, revealed preferences, and choice modeling (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Economic Valuation Methods by Category
Observed Behavior:
Market Prices
Direct:
(Direct Observed)
Competitive market prices
Shadow-pricing
Revealed Preferences
Indirect:
(Indirect Observed)
Productivity methods
Avertive (defensive) expenditure
Travel cost
Hedonic pricing
Substitute goods
Source: Aylward et al. (2001)
Hypothetical Behavior:
Stated Preferences
(Direct Hypothetical)
Contingent Valuation (dichotomous choice,
willingness-to-pay, bidding games)
Choice Modelling
(Indirect Hypothetical)
Contingent referendum
Contingent ranking
Contingent behaviour
Contingent rating
Pairwise comparisons
For the purposes of this exercise the use of sophisticated methods is generally not an option, simply due
to availability of resources. Further, in the valuation of ecosystem services per se it is generally
understood that so-called productivity methods are the most attractive approach. In the productivity
approach the change in production of the service is multiplied by the price of the service as an indicator of
the change in value that is generated by a marginal increase/decrease in the service. This approach
highlights that establishing the value of the on- and off-site ecosystem benefits is necessarily part the
domain of natural science – to estimate the changes in production, and part the province of economics –
to estimate the applicable price. In reality economic valuation is about optimizing economic behavior and
understanding changes in quantity and price, however this goes beyond the confines of the information
available for this paper and the attempt to estimate the costs and benefits of meadow restoration.
25
Instead what may be practical is to gather existing data on how meadow systems respond to restoration
activities and try to determine the range of biogeophysical responses. Meadow restoration is a little
unusual in that much of the activity takes place in the stream channel, but the direct effect is to change the
ecoyhydrology of the meadow itself. So many of the changes in ecosystem service can be estimated as
changes that occur per unit area of meadow restored. So for example various indicators of changes in
water quantity and timing would include:
 increase in on-site infiltration and recharge, so water retention during the flood season or flood
events
 increase/decrease in evapotranspiration in the meadow
 resulting changes in the water balance and the release of flow to downstream use by season (or by
month or day . . )
The change in value of these changes in flow will depend on the time of year and what would have
happened to the released flow. The value could vary considerably depending on whether the flow from a
meadow was destined for:
 diversion a short way downstream to irrigate low value pasture,
 diversion/storage further downstream to irrigate high value vegetables
 storage and subsequent transmission and distribution for municipal and industrial use
In the end it may be that the range of values for the change in production – when the possible changes in
production and possible variation in prices are accounted for – will be so great as to fail to yield any
determinative insight into meadow restoration in general. In other words, in some cases the rancher might
have all the incentive needed, in others the rancher might need a substantial incentive. Likewise in some
cases meadow restoration might actually impose net costs on downstream and off-site consumers and in
others it might generate net benefits that warrant the development of an incentive framework.
However, only by making the effort to quantify the relationships and factors involved will it be possible
to draw conclusions regarding these ecosystem services. In all likelihood general statements will be hard
to make. However, the simple exercise of attempting to define the various ranges involved and carrying
out the net return exercises may be useful in beginning to assist in the determination of which services
tend to have positive value and which might have negative value. So just determining the likely direction
of these services based on available information is useful. The next question is whether the order of
magnitude of different services can be established. If so, then light may be shed on which services are the
determining factor in answering the questions posed by the framework. If on-site forage benefits can only
generate, for example, net benefits of from $1-$100/acre and the costs of meadow restoration are
measured in the thousands of dollars then the question of private incentives may well be answerable. If
the analysis goes on and all the off-site benefits are in the $1 to $10/acre range then it would need to be
concluded that there is little economic argument for providing incentives to ranchers to invest in
restoration.
It is therefore hard to predict the outcome here. Only a literature review and common sense modeling of
the likely changes in service provision and the likely values of these changes can assist in this process.
Given the potential variation it may also end up being necessary to carry out a number of case studies to
explore how these ranges of values can vary over sets of contrasting sites and, in this way, work back to
what can or cannot be said in general about meadow restoration on private lands
3.2.2
Sierra Meadow Restoration Projects
A number of approaches to meadow restoration exist. With a primary focus on restoring the
hydrogeologic functioning of meadows, many restoration efforts in the Sierra have emphasized stream
channel restoration as a primary driver of such functioning. The extreme downcutting found in many
26
Sierra meadows has led to the prevalence of the pond and plug approach over other, perhaps less invasive,
stream re-engineering/restoration approaches. A survey of 29 meadow restoration projects in the Plumas
Watershed (Feather River above Oroville Reservoir) found that 24 of these involved the pond and plug
approach (see Table 9). This total of $5.3 million worth of investment is complemented by a further $3.2
million in channel stabilization projects.
Table 9. Plumas County Meadow Restoration Projects
Year
1985-96
1995
1996
1997
1997
1999
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2008
Project Name
Red Clover Demonstration
Big Flat
Bagley Creek II
Boulder Creek
Rowland Creek
Ward Creek
Clarks Creek
Stone Dairy
Carmen Creek (Knuthson Meadow)
Hosselkus Creek
Uppler Last Chance (Matley Ranch)
Elizabethtown/Hwy 70
Carmen Creek (Three-Cornered Meadow)
Greenhorn Creek - New England
Last Chance – PNF
Poplar Creek
Humbug-Charles
Big Flat Modification
Last Chance – Charles
Dooley Creek/Downing Meadow
Jordan Flat Supplemental
Humbug-Charles II
Hosselkus Creek II
Red Clover/McReynolds Creek
Rapp-Guidici
Dixie Creek
Last Chance-Ferris Fields
Smith Creek
Project Type
Rock dams
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Sedimemt traps
Channel structure
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug/Culverts
Pond and Plug
Riffle Augmentation
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug
Pond and Plug/Boulder
Vanes
Riffle Augmentation
2008
Little Last Chance (Ramelli/Goss)
Source: ICF Jones and Stokes (2008)
3.2.3
Land-owner
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Private
Public
Private
Private / Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Public
Private
Private
Costs of Meadow Restoration
The costs of restoration for pond and plug projects consist largely of construction costs involved in
excavating the ponds and replacing the material in plugs. The costs along with indicators of project size
are provided in Table 10. The length of the incised channel restores is a fairly obvious candidate variable
for predicting restoration costs. The depth of the incised channel would appear to be likely explanatory
variables for cost. In the Plumas dataset only groundwater rise is provided and the source of this
information is not explained; nor does it prove to be a terribly significant predictor of cost. The width of
the incised channel is not provided in the dataset. Acreage restored however appears to be a useful
explanatory variable. This may result from a relationship between the size of the meadow, the amount of
stream flow and the cross-section of the channel. When length of channel restored and acres of meadow
are employed to predict project cost in the pond and plug dataset they provide a high degree of
explanatory power (333,146*length – 833*acres=cost).
27
Table 10. Cost of Plumas County Pond and plug Projects
Year
1995
1996
1999
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2008
Project Name
Big Flat
Bagley Creek II
Ward Creek
Clarks Creek
Stone Dairy
Carmen Creek (Knuthson Meadow)
Hosselkus Creek
Uppler Last Chance (Matley Ranch)
Elizabethtown/Hwy 70
Carmen Creek (Three-Cornered
Meadow)
Greenhorn Creek - New England
Last Chance – PNF
Poplar Creek
Humbug-Charles
Last Chance – Charles
Dooley Creek/Downing Meadow
Jordan Flat Supplemental
Humbug-Charles II
Hosselkus Creek II
Red Clover/McReynolds Creek
Rapp-Guidici
Dixie Creek
Last Chance-Ferris Fields
Smith Creek
Average
Standard Deviation
Median
Channel
Length
(miles)
0.78
0.26
0.76
0.81
0.43
1.5
0.28
1.6
0.06
1
Acres
Restored
47
10
165
56
20
200
25
300
5
45
Groundwater Rise
(ft)
3
9
10
4
3
5
7
3
6
5
0.13
4.1
0.15
0.44
0.38
1
0.34
0.4
0.45
4.2
0.4
0.38
0.85
0.76
0.89
1.08
0.45
Cost
$9,000
$220,000
$213,000
$170,000
$250,000
$30,000
$133,000
$5,500
$650,000
$130,000
10
800
15
60
80
80
50
5
35
375
13
12
85
30
105
175
46
4
2
4
7
4
10
5
7
5
7
7
3
9
4
5.58
2.2
5
$201,000
$55,000
$55,000
$64,000
$110,000
$1,300,000
$170,720
$61,000
$139,000
$173,000
$189,000
$9,000
$220,000
$90,000
$188,000
$270,000
$132,000
Source: ICF Jones and Stokes (2008)
3.2.4
Values for Forage and Beef
On-site production from a restored meadow typically results in a change in the plant community and its
productivity, due to the change in hydrogeologic conditions in the meadow. The change in production
can be measured in economic terms by the change in hay production that is harvested, or the change in
forage which results in weight gain for cattle (or in milk production in the case of dairies). Section 2
provided a review of studies that have examined the change in quality and quantity of biomass
production. With regard to the topic of forage, the Ingram and Loomis (1989) report provides a useful
summary of ways to value changes in forage:
 valuation of forage can be undertaken based on market data for similar source of data such as
private rangeland leases and grazing rights on state lands
 the sales of private ranches associated with permits to graze public lands can be used to infer the
willingness to pay for forage, but no studies were cited
28



the fees paid for access to grazing fees (in AUMs) could be used but these are generally agreed to
be considerably lower than the actual market value of the forage
the use of substitute goods and prices, such as that for hay, to value forage results is
“unsatisfactory” due to the high prices of comparable amounts of hay
other methods include a ranch “budget” method whereby the value of the forage is taken to be the
residual once all other costs and revenues are included, as well as a variant on this in which the
budget is optimized through the use of a linear programming model.
To this list must be added the change in productivity approach, where the estimated change in forage
productivity is valued in terms of the expected change in the marketable commodity (whether pounds of
beef cattle or volume of milk production).
In terms of actual figures, Ingram and Loomis (1989) report the following based on their literature
review:
 for the Red Clover Creek restoration project the Soil Conservation Service (ex-NRCS) estimated
an increase in forage such that animal units maintained on the land could double, going from two
to four AUMS (animal-unit-month) per acre; so that the reported increase in forage of 10% would
increase AUMS by two AUMS/acre.
 private land lease rates in the area that includes Plumas county was $6.75 per head-month, or
pair-month (i.e. for cow-calf) and for yearling cattle the lease rate was $4.75 per head-month
 based on ranch appraisal data the value of forage on public land is reported (in 1984) as
$6.40/AUM for cattle and horses over 18 months old, $4.50/AUM for yearling cattle under 18
months old and $1.05/AUM for sheep
 the Soil Conservation Service suggest a value of $10.00/AUM for cattle.
In the case of hay, cattle and milk, these are marketed commodities with established prices so there is no
need to employ non-market valuation techniques to assessing the value of production changes.
Unfortunately, an abundance of market data does not mean that valuation is simple. The market prices of
these commodities varies substantially over time and with the type and quality of product offered to the
marketplace. In addition the location in the supply chain were the prices is selected is important.
Typically, for the purposes of valuing land productivity the “farmgate” price is the desired price. This
adds more complexity as, for example, auction prices for cattle might need to be adjusted for
transportation to auction and hay prices may be for delivered hay (rather than at the farm). These issues
are not the subject of this paper and, thus, are not pursued further. In Section 6 rough approximations for
these market prices are selected, along with high and low estimates in order to assess the sensitivity of
results to the coarse assumptions necessary here.
3.2.5
Values for Flow Regime Changes
Based on the discussion in Section 2, it is hard to generalize regarding the changes to the hydrologic
regime. Flow regime changes will be site specific, responding to local conditions and determinants of
surface and sub-surface flow. Generally, it appears that there are three types of changes in the regime that
may have economic consequences, even if their impacts will be situation dependent. Largely, these
impacts will be felt downstream as changes to the hydrogeologic regime on the meadow lead to a change
in the water balance and timing of water movement off the meadow and on downstream. These changes
are summarized below from the perspective of the direction and magnitude resulting from undertaking
meadow restoration projects, particularly of the pond and plug types:

reduction in downstream instantaneous (flood) flows due to increased on-site storage; this effect
will vary with size and depth of meadow and amount of meadow storage restored
29

change (typically an expected reduction) in spring-time flows due to increased on-site storage:
this effect will vary with the increase in extent of meadow storage

change (either an increase or a reduction) in late season flows due to the balance between the
increase in evapotranspiration resulting from increased access by plants to stored groundwater
and the release of stored groundwater as channel discharge and downstream flow.
The latter two items can be summarized by saying that overall outflow from the meadow may increase or
decrease over the year. However, in terms of value it may be important to examine how this change
breaks out between early and late season. This is important as “extra” water during the spring may be
excess to needs at the time and may or may not be able to be stored into the summer when water may be
in shorter supply, and, therefore, more valuable. Implementing such an analysis does require splitting the
water year in two, a task that ultimately is arbitrary in nature. However, putting changes in flood season
flows in one basket and late summer flows can be accomplished by choosing an appropriate mid-summer
break in the water year. Once this is done then the changes in water volumes and their implications for
water uses can be tracked through to costs and benefits.
This set of changes to the hydrologic regime resulting from meadow restoration can have impacts on a
wide range of economic activities downstream. Based on Aylward’s (2004) review of the literature these
are organized below to reference the direct driver of the damage proceeding from upstream to
downstream impacts. They type of cost or benefit affected is also specified:
 changed flow regime in downstream waterways affecting
o aquatic habitat and biodiversity (tourism and recreational benefits)
o irrigation outtakes (crop and livestock benefits)
o offstream run-of-river hydroelectric power production (hydropower benefits)
o flood risk immediately downstream (flood damage costs)
 changed storage regime for reservoirs affecting
o hydroelectric power generation (seasonal shift in hydropower benefits)
o water withdrawals for irrigation production (crop and livestock benefits)
o flood control storage (flood control costs and flood damages)
o navigation opportunities associated with water supply reservoirs used to supply water to
canals and locks (navigation costs and benefits)
o aquatic habitat (tourism and recreational benefits)
 changed flow regime to delta, estuarine and coastal areas affecting
o harbor and port operations and shipping (transport benefits)
o subsistence or commercial fisheries production (fisheries benefits).
o aquatic habitat (tourism and recreational benefits)
The implication of this discussion is that there are a larger range of possible impacts, costs and benefits of
meadow restoration related to the change in flood regime. In order to simplify the discussion somewhat
these are discussed below in terms of the value of flood protection, and the value of units of water (water
quantity) for downstream water supply and storage. In terms of meadow restoration, the latter may be
more amenable to quantification, whereas the former will typically be much harder to identify, quantity
and value.
3.2.6
Values for Flow Regime Changes: Flood Protection
A number of economic valuation techniques have been (and could be) used to quantify the economic
impact of land use change on flood protection downstream:
 market values – estimates of the loss of damage to property due to higher probability of flood
events, particularly the higher probability of significant, large flood events
30

avertive expenditure – measuring savings in expenditure (i.e. on flood protection) as a measure of
the benefits caused by a shift in the flow regime to delay storage (i.e. on flood storage)
However, no efforts were found in the literature to value this in the case of Sierra Meadows. Moreover,
give the small size of these meadows there remains the question of whether the flood attenuation function
– however valuable for restoring onsite hydrogeologic function – is of a magnitude that is of significance
to flood protection. This issue arises as typically only large floods are associated with economic damage,
making small or marginal changes in flood attenuation – particularly those high in a watershed – of little
consequence in downstream flood protection.
3.2.7
Values for Water Quantity for Downstream Water Supply and Storage
A number of economic valuation techniques have been (and could be) used to quantify these economic
impacts as follows (with examples):
 market values – the use of market data on temporary or permanent trades for water that can be
used for a given use and at a given time and place provides important information on the value of
water gained or lost due to restoration activities
 productivity methods – estimating the change in production (i.e. power generation) and change in
associated revenues/benefits (power revenues) associated with a shift/change in water
regime/availability during the year
 contingent valuation and travel cost approaches – estimating change in value (i.e. recreational) for
hypothetical changes in stream or river flows
In terms of a first approximation of the value of changes in water it is useful to examine data gathered on
market transactions. A couple of recent publications provided a thorough rendering of the Central Valley
water market and federal efforts at acquiring water for environmental purpose and are excerpted in Box 1
below (Aylward et al. 2010; Green and Aylward 2011). For water that would go to agriculture in the
Central Valley a median value for leases over the last decade is $125/acre-foot (AF). However, when
water is scarce its value can reach or exceed $200/AF for temporary (annual) trades. Regarding the
seasonal use of water there is no reliable information of market value for early versus late season water.
In part this is because the water that is traded is often storage water where the use of marketed water by
season is not tracked. However, the range of values specified above may be used as an indication of this
change in value. In other words, it may be assumed that an additional increment of water made available
in the late season is worth $200/AF. An increment made early in the season could be worth $125/AF if
put to use at that time or if it is spilled from dams below meadows and moved to the delta – where it may
still be pumped into storage (for example in San Luis Reservoir). In other words it is unlikely that there is
a time when water spilled over a dam on its way out of the Sierra has no economic value. Whether the
water is used for drinking water, industrial purposes, irrigation or environmental purposes it has an
economic value. But it is possible to suggest that water that is released late in the season or that can be
stored into the late season may command a higher value.
These are of course values averaged over different users. As the box indicates urban users typically pay a
higher rate than farmers, who in turn pay more than environmental users. Where downstream uses of
water produced through meadow restoration are specified this information could also be deployed.
However, it is possible that these observed price disparities are themselves a function of the particular
conditions of the end use and the buyer’s ability/willingness to pay. Therefore, in cases where the end use
and the impact of a change in flow regime is known it may be more useful to explore these values directly
rather than relying on a Central Valley-wide price level.
31
Box 1. Central Valley Water Markets
In the Central Valley, water users leased approximately 7,380,000 AF through 392 agreements observed
between 2000 and 2009. These leases transferred a mean volume of 18,825 AF for an average annual
price of $152/AF/yr. Annual lease rates ranged from $18/AF/yr to $554/AF/yr (see Table 11). Rates
vary by end use with agriculture paying an average lease rate of $166 over the period, urban users paying
$188 and environmental users paying $124 (see Figure 4). Regional specific supply and demand
characteristics of the market, along with heterogeneity among water entitlements contribute to this wide
variation in prices.
Table 11. Summary of Central Valley Water Right Leases, 2000 – 2009
Volume (AF)
Annual Lease Rate ($/AF)
Average
18,825
$152
Median
10,000
$125
Min
22
$18
Max
160,000
$554
Count
392
392
Source: Water right transactions database maintained by WestWater Research, LLC
Average Annual Lease Rate ($/m3/
yr)
Figure 4. Average Short-Term Lease Rates by End Use
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0.16
$0.14
$0
$0.12
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Urban
Agriculture
Environmental
Source: Water right transactions database maintained by WestWater Research, LLC
Water right values have increased over time in the Central Valley (Aylward et al. 2010; Green and
Aylward 2011). This price appreciation trend is attributable to the rising demand for water and a threeyear drought beginning in 2007. Recent environmental restrictions have also contributed to price
increases as water supply from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has been constrained. On average,
water lease prices have increased by approximately 6 percent annually (Aylward et al. 2010).
32
3.2.8
Values for Sediment Reduction
Meadow restoration techniques that re-engineer or fill downcut channels can lead to a decrease in
downcutting (deepening of the streambed) and lateral migration (cutting away of streambanks) (Ingram
and Loomis 1989). The material that is eroded will take the form of suspended sediment and bedload, the
former carried downstream along with stream flow and the latter migrating down the bottom of the
channel.
A large number of impacts and economic costs and benefits associated with the downstream flow and
accumulation of sediment are possible. Based on Aylward’s (2004) review of the literature these are
organized below to reference the direct driver of the damage proceeding from upstream to downstream
impacts. They type of cost or benefit affected is also specified:
 Suspended sediment levels in waterways affecting
o municipal and industrial use (treatment costs)
o aquatic habitat and biodiversity (tourism and recreational benefits)
o irrigation outtakes (maintenance costs)
o offstream run-of-river hydroelectric power production (maintenance costs and capital
replacement)
 Sedimentation of reservoirs and loss of storage capacity affecting
o hydroelectric power generation (hydropower costs and benefits)
o withdrawal of water for irrigation production (crop and livestock costs and benefits)
o flood control (flood control costs and flood damages)
o navigation opportunities associated with water supply reservoirs used to supply water to
canals and locks (navigation costs and benefits)
o aquatic habitat (tourism and recreational benefits)
 Sedimentation of estuarine and coastal areas affecting
o harbor and port operations and shipping (maintenance costs)
o subsistence or commercial fisheries production (fisheries benefits).
o aquatic habitat (tourism and recreational benefits)
A number of economic valuation techniques have been (and could be) used to quantify these economic
impacts as follows:
 avertive expenditure – measuring additional maintenance (i.e. dredging costs) and treatment costs
as a measure of the damages caused by suspended sediment and sedimentation
 productivity methods – estimating the change in production (i.e. hydropower generation) and
change in associated revenues/benefits associated with increase in sediment
 productivity methods – estimating the change in length of life of a facility (i.e. useful storage life
of a hydropower reservoir) and the resulting loss in associated production in the future
 contingent valuation – estimating change in value (i.e. recreational) for hypothetical changes in
water quality
 replacement cost – estimating maintenance (i.e. dredging costs) and treatment costs that would be
necessary to remove sediment, though this has yet to occur
The difficulty with measuring the economic damages associated with suspended sediment and
sedimentation is that they are exceedingly site specific (Aylward 2004). It is therefore not possible to
generalize that a cubic meter of sediment is associated with a specific dollar cost. It will be necessary to
at least qualify any such statement with an understanding of the mechanics of downstream flow, storage
and water usage.
33
For example, the threat posed by sedimentation to reservoirs and their storage capacity will vary with a
number of contextual variables. In a small watershed with low erosivity and a large reservoir with a large
dead storage capacity (volume below the outtake) erosion and sediment levels may be low and have little
to no economic consequences. Further if the dam is designed with a sediment flushing capability (i.e.
allowing water to escape from the bottom of the reservoir and not just the top) then the costs of managing
sediment will be very low. Alternatively, a small reservoir in a large watershed susceptible to erosion
may be at high risk. Similarly the lack of a large dead pool may mean that sedimentation will impact
storage and production very quickly. Finally, with respect to storage reservoirs, there are virtually no
studies examining the complicated nexus of optimizing a response to sediment in terms of how to balance
changes in production, changes in length of life, and the variety of mitigation expenditures (like dredging)
that might be undertaken. For example, changes in production might be significant and expensive, but if
mitigation (like flushing) is inexpensive then using the change in production as the indicator of
downstream economic damage would not be defensible.
With respect to changes in suspended sediment and effects on direct withdrawals of water, the impacts on
water supply for municipal and industrial use are often taken to be particularly important. Unfortunately,
there is only a limited empirical literature on this topic (Aylward and Hartwell 2010). This line of
argument stems from the popular perception that maintaining a tree covered watershed above a city
provides additional, clean water supplies. The magnitude of this benefit will obviously vary with the type
of land uses and land management practices. Aylward and Hartwell (2010) conclude that while in the
extreme case, the impacts would likely be catastrophic, in many cases, the existence of installed water
treatment facilities mean that marginal changes in land use and suspended sediment would lead to
marginal economic consequences. In other words, instead of imposing large retrofits and capital costs on
service providers, such changes simply cause higher operating costs (labor, materials, etc).
In the few rigorous studies carried out so far these costs tend to be relatively low, as shown in Table 12.
Figures of between $0.02/m3 and $0.05/m3 are found in the literature where such studies can be traced
back to sediment volumes (Dearmont et al. 1998; Forster et al. 1987; Holmes 1988). Converting to
weight, this equals between one to two and a half cents per ton of sediment. So an annual increase in
erosion per acre of ten tons would imply a cost of $0.10. This is not a large cost when agriculture can
earn revenues per acre measured in the thousands of dollars. For the other studies listed in the table, the
figures can be used in conjunction with estimates of urban populations in both the US and the UK leads to
the conclusion that the per person costs of water treatment associated with agricultural water pollution
varies from $4 (US) to $8 (UK) (Clark 1985; Pretty et al. 2000).
Table 12. Municipal Water Treatment Costs due to Turbidity and Sediment
Study
Location
Total Costs
(million)
Clark et al. (1985)
USA
$1,075
Holmes (1988)
USA
$685
Variable Water
Treatment Costs
Elasticity
Other results
$0.023/m3
0.07 (T)
cost of $0.033/ton (S)
3
Forster et al. (1987)
Ohio
$0.045/m
0.12 (T)
elasticity 0.40 (SE)
Dearmont et al. (1998)
Texas
$0.031/m3
0.27 (T)
cost of $0.040/m3 for
groundwater contamin.
Pretty et al. (2000)
UK
$427
Notes: Elasticity figures are the % increase in expenditure associated with a 1% increase in water quality. Water quality as an
explanatory variable is measured either as Turbidity (T), Sediment (S) or Soil Erosion (SE) in these studies. All figures in 2006
dollars, adjustments are made based on the year of the data employed, exchange rate at that time and inflation using the US
Consumer Price Index.
Source: Aylward et al. (2010)
34
In terms of the Sierra Meadows literature little quantification of the economic impacts of sedimentation or
sediment reductions due to meadow restoration were found. In one case, Ingram and Loomis (1989) cite a
prior study conducted by Loomis for the City of Quincy. The study examined impacts of increased
turbidity from logging. The study found that by purchasing lands (presumably to avoid logging and its
impacts) the city would save $25,000 a year or $35 per year per customer. These costs were derived from
the costs of moving from surface water to groundwater and reflected the avoided costs of pumping
groundwater. This example demonstrates the difficulty of conducting valuation of these impacts. The
use of engineered replacement alternatives may produce significant cost figures. In this case the increase
in turbidity may have been significant to mean that the existing treatment system could not cope.
However, this is not clear from the Ingram and Loomis paper and, thus, it is hard to evaluate the degree to
which the $25,000 reflects the real economic damages of the potential increase in turbidity.
In a review of program effectiveness of meadow restoration in Plumas County, the benefits of reduction
in erosion in sedimentation is cited as being regarded as “substantial by “most investigators” (ICF Jones
& Stokes 2008). No citations, however, are provided to studies enumerating these benefits in economic
terms for the Oroville Reservoir.
4.
Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Meadow Restoration
In this section the information compiled in the prior sections is used to apply the economic framework to
illustrate the potential costs and benefits of meadow restoration, from both private and social perspectives.
The intent is to arrive at best estimates of the ranges in expected direction and order of magnitudes of the
costs and benefits from these two perspectives. Putting these figures together should be useful in
providing a rough reckoning with respect to:
 the private incentives to engage in meadow restoration
 the justification for proving financial incentives to landowners to engage in restoration (for the
production of off-site, benefits)
 the likely downstream beneficiaries and, thus, potential contributors to an incentives program
In addition, the analysis may shed light on key parameters that will drive the economics of meadow
restoration. Given the preliminary nature of this effort to compile the requisite information from existing
studies, this effort also provides guidance on what information gaps are most limiting to understanding
the economics of meadow restoration. These are enumerated in the concluding section of the paper.
The evaluation is based on a hypothetical “typical” meadow, but attempts to incorporate a range of
potential conditions through the use of a wide range of values from Section 2 and 3 in the sensitivity
analysis. As highlighted above the variability in direction and magnitude of the hydrologic response is a
key limiting factor to this analysis and one requiring thorough sensitivity analysis. The general economic
parameters are first reviewed followed by a formulation of a “typical” meadow for evaluation purposes.
Then the evaluation of the incentives framework from the perspective of the landowner (financial
analysis) and society (economic analysis) is carried out.
4.1
4.1.1
General Parameters for the Evaluation
Discount Rates
For the private analysis the discount rates should reflect the cost of capital for landowners, should they
engage in funding the meadow restoration project on their own (without public assistance). If the
landowner were to use their own capital then they would be foregoing the returns from investments they
35
might otherwise make with the funds. If they could borrow the funds then the cost would be the interest
rate on the loan or other financing vehicle. The private discount rate would therefore vary from one
rancher or farmer to the next. In addition, these rates will vary over time with market conditions and the
economy. As a simplifying assumption the long run return from the stock market may serve as an
indicator of the private opportunity cost of capital. This rate also varies with the market level at the time
it is selected.
An analysis undertaken in 2003 found that the compounded average nominal market return for 1926-2000
was 10.7%. (Ibbotson and Chen 2003) Approximately 3% of this was due to inflation. In the evaluation
of meadows no inflation is built into future private or economic flows so it is first necessary to subtract
out inflation. This yields a “real” return of just over 7%. This is similar to the 6.55 to 7% figure derived
from an investigation over the 200-year period beginning in 1802 (Siegel 2007). Efforts by Ibbotson and
Chen (2003) to forecast returns suggest an inflation free market return figure of from 2.5% to 6% going
forward. Siegel (2007) suggests a range of from 4.5 to 5.5%. For the purposes of reflecting opportunity
costs the 6% number is used as a best estimate with 4.5 % as a lower and upper bound in the sensitivity
analysis. For a high estimate a rather arbitrary 10% figure is used to allow simulation of how investments
in meadow restoration would appear to ranchers with better investment opportunities and therefore higher
opportunity costs of capital.
For social discount there are no generally agreed upon rates, in part because the social discount rate
cannot itself be observed but must be inferred or calculated based on a number of factors. Generally it is
agreed that the social rate will be less than the private rate. It is also increasingly suggested that the time
path of the rate is “hyperbolic” in that at some point in the future the rate should gradually be decreased
each year. The latter approach is needlessly complicated for the purposes of this analysis. Instead a
longer time horizon is used to ensure that values far out into the future are not omitted from the analysis
alongside a lower rate. Here, a figure of 4% is used as the central figure for the real social discount rate
bound on either side by a 2% and a 6% rate.
4.1.2
Time Horizon
The time horizon selected for the analysis is largely guided by two factors: changes in services that might
play out over time, particularly any significant changes, and the selected discount rates. With respect to a
Business as Usual Scenario continued degradation of incised channels could cause continued loss in
groundwater storage capacity and possibly increase erosion rates. Forage function could also worsen over
time with the worsening of the meadow hydrologic regime. The difficulty is establishing how these rates
would change over a long time horizon as opposed to current levels. If such changes are deemed
significant they can be incorporated into a more nuanced analysis over time. At present however the
assumption is that the current situation is maintained out into the future. As a result it is likely that the
benefits of restoration are under-estimated in the model.
The driving force for selection of a time horizon is the discount rate. A $1 impact 100-years out in the
future at a 2% discount rate is worth $0.13 in present value terms. Using a 40 or a 60-year time frame
thus may leave considerable value from future cost and benefit streams unaccounted for in the analysis.
From society’s perspective the consideration of whether or not to restore a meadow is very much a
sustainability decision. That the decision typically involved the use of public funds makes the case for
taking a broad and long view of the costs and benefits of such projects even more persuasive. For this
reason all present value figures of future annualized cost and benefit figures for the social analysis are
carried out for a 100-year time horizon.
36
For the private analysis, the discount rates are higher and individuals will typically have a shorter time
horizon. To reflect this a 20-year time horizon is used for the private analysis. This does truncate present
values as 20 years out at a 6% discount rate $1 is valued at $0.30 in present value terms.
4.2
Meadow Restoration: a “Typical” Pond and Plug Project and Restoration Costs
A number of passive and active restoration techniques exist for addressing the limiting factors associated
with channel incision. These techniques seek to restore hydrological function and as a consequence
restore downstream hydrological and on-site ecological function. Some of these techniques include
methods for restoring stream function through modification of existing channel structure and their
hydrodynamics, as well as a pond and plug approach whereby the incised channel is physically plugged at
periodic intervals creating a plug-pond-plug-pond sequence down the length of the incised channel. The
pond and plug approach does not attempt to fix and restore existing incised channels (located in the
meadow low points) but rather to use the plugs to raise the groundwater table, thereby rewatering the preincision sinuous channel network that was abandoned with the formation of the straighter incised channel.
As many of the meadow restoration projects depend on restoration of hydrogeological functioning and the
pond and plug approach predominates in practice, this approach is selected for analysis.
Based on the FCRM dataset in ICF Jones & Stokes (2008) a typical pond and plug project is taken to be a
50-acre restoration project with a channel length of 0.5 miles. These values are based on the median
values from the Feather River dataset for pond and plug projects where the median acreage and channel
length was 45 acres and 0.45 miles, respectively. With an assumed sinuosity for the main channel of 1.2
this yields a meadow length of 2,200 feet with an average width (or thickness) of 955 feet. Again, based
on the Feather River dataset a groundwater rise of 5 feet (the median value) is assumed.
For the purposes of exploring the range of values from the Feather River dataset additional statistics are
presented in the table below.
Table 13. Feather River Pond and Plug Restoration Projects: Statistics
Metric
Median Minimum 25th Percentile
Size (acres)
46
5
15
Channel Length (miles)
0.45
0.06
0.37
Groundwater Rise (ft)
5
2
4
Notes: Based on data from ICF Jones and Stokes (2008)
75th Percentile
81
0.89
7
Maximum
800
4.2
10
The costs of meadow restoration are estimated to be $125,000 based on the Plumas County data set
provided above in Table 13. A 20% variance is used to generate lower and upper values for sensitivity
analysis of $100,000 and $150,000, respectively.
4.3
Private Benefits: Hay, Forage and Beef Cattle
For the landowner the primary financial returns from meadow restoration will accrue in terms of the
quantity, quality and timing of biomass production on the restored meadow. Across the Sierra, meadows
are found in a variety of biophysical situations and are devoted to a range of production approaches. It is
difficult to therefore generalize to a “typical” meadow. However, given the paucity of empirical work
examining how restoration affects on-site productivity and returns to landowners it is worth exploring a
few different approaches in order to gain some insight into the ranger of magnitude of such returns. The
three systems that are valued here are:
37
1. Hay and Forage-Productivity Method – for the bulk of the season the meadow is not grazed and a
cutting of hay is harvested, before putting stock out on the meadow to use the forage for the
remainder of the season; this approach come from Northern California and is reported by Sloat
(pers. com. 2011)
2. Forage-AUM Productivity method – in this simple approach the expected gain in AUMs after
restoration is valued using the price of an AUM to arrive at the expected gains from a restored
meadow; this approach is based on information in Ingram and Loomis (1989)
3. Forage-Cattle Productivity method – in this approach changes in quantity and quality of forage
between pre- and post- restoration meadows (made up of dry, mesic and wet meadow
communities) are used along with stocking estimates to generate weight gain estimates and their
market value; this approach is based on information in Tate et al. (2011) and the analysis
provided in Section 4.3.2.
4.3.1
Hay and Forage Productivity Method
This approach contrasts hay and forage quantities from a degraded and a restored meadow based on
experience in the Pit River (Sloat pers. com. 2011). These figures are not representative of all meadows
but demonstrate the valuation approach. The “best” or middle of the range values are elaborated here to
explain the method. Table 14 includes these figures as well as those for the high and low range of key
variables as part of the sensitivity analysis. Hay sales are reported by Sloat (pers. com. 2011) to be in the
range of 2 tons/acre from a single late season cutting on restored meadows. Due to the low quality of the
hay (as opposed to a grain or alfalfa hay) the price fetched by the hay is expected to be around $80/ton.
In comparison, irrigated alfalfa fields may produce 8-12 tons/acre of hay valued at $160-$240/ton in 3 to
4 cuttings. For the degraded meadow it is assumed that haying is unattractive given the limited biomass
and its poor quality (i.e. including sagebrush).
Once the hay is cut Sloat (pers. com. 2011) reports that cattle are brought on late in the season from lower
pastures to graze, as late as October/November. The date can be expected to vary with the elevation and
the rotation established by the rancher. Stocking rates are typically 1 animal per acre and they may
remain on the ground for a month on average. In order to calculate the weight gain under degraded and
restored conditions the dry and mesic weight gain for late season is used from Tate et al. (2011) as shown
in Table 6. Cattle prices (in $/lb) were taken from the USDA statistics collected by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service as reported in the California Livestock Review and found in their online
database. Over the last ten or so years the low price reported was around $0.80/lb and the high price
about $1.30/lb. Prices reported in late 2011 or the U.S. as a whole were in the $1.15/lb range.
The income earned from haying and grazing is calculated for the degraded and restored meadow on an
annual basis for the 50-acre meadow (and per acre) in Table 14. The present value of this income over
time is also calculated using the 6% discount rate and the 20-year time horizon. The present value
increase in total income from the meadow in the base case comes to about $117,000. Information on the
change in operational costs was not available to allocate these returns to costs and profit. A simplifying
assumption that the operation has a 50:50 cost to profit structure is used to estimate the profit that accrues
to the landowner as a result of restoring the meadow. This figure is around $59,000 or about 47% of the
up-front cost of restoring the 50-acre meadow in present value terms. With much more optimistic
assumptions about the productivity gains this figure rises to 77% of costs under the high value scenario.
For the low value scenario this drops to 13%.
38
Table 14. Valuation of Hay and Forage
Restored Meadow
Scenarios
Base
High
Haying
Hay Sales (tons/acre)
Hay Price ($/ton)
Grazing (Late Season)
Days on Pasture
Stocking (Animals/Acre)
Gain per day (per animal)
Weight Gain (lbs/acre)
Cattle Price ($/lb)
Returns ($/Meadow)
Annual
Hay
Grazing
Total
(per acre)
Degraded Meadow
$
$
$
$
3
120
2
80
1
40
60
1
1.86
111.60
1.30
45
1
1.71
76.95
1.15
30
1
1.58
47.40
0.80
18,000
7,254
25,254
505
$
$
$
$
High
Haying
Hay Sales (tons/acre)
Hay Price ($/ton)
Grazing (Mid Season)
Days on Pasture
Stocking (Animals/Acre)
Gain per day
Weight Gain (lbs/acre)
Revenues ($/Meadow)
Annual
Hay
Grazing
Total
(per acre)
Net Returns
45
1
1.74
78.30
2,000
5,090
7,090
142
$
$
$
$
High
Annual
Change in Revenues
(per acre)
Present Values
Private Revenues
Private Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Economic Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
8,000
4,425
12,425
248
Scenarios
Base
1
40
$
$
$
$
Low
$
$
$
$
2,000
1,896
3,896
78
Low
-
-
30
1
1.27
38.10
15
1
0.92
13.80
2,191
2,191
44
Scenarios
Base
$
$
$
$
552
552
11
Low
$
$
18,165
363
$
$
10,234
205
$
$
3,344
67
$
$
154,645
115,983
77%
3,093
226,387
151%
4,528
$
$
117,382
58,691
47%
2,348
125,391
100%
2,508
$
$
52,130
13,033
13%
1,043
36,030
36%
721
$
$
$
$
$
$
39
$
$
$
4.3.2
Forage-AUM Productivity Method
One way to measure the increase in forage availability and quality is to simply assess the gain in AUMs
or animal unit months that result from restoring a meadow. Then this gain can be converted into a value
by applying estimates of the market value of these AUMS (as described in Section 3). Ingram and Loomis
(1989) report that there is an increase of 2 AUMs from meadow restoration (from 2 to 4 AUMs) based on
a single source. For the low and high scenarios analysis the change in AUMs is varied from 1 to 3
AUMs. The productivity change that results from this is fairly low at between 55 and 165 AUMs for the
low and high scenario and 110 for the base case scenario. Ingram and Loomis (1989) report on various
methods of pricing AUMS, with figures ranging from $5 to $10 per AUM. In 2011 USDA (2011)
reported an average AUM price in California for 2010 of $16.40. A figure of 20% above and below the
average price is used to reflect potential price dispersion of AUM leases.
The forage returns are net returns as they reflect what the landowner could lease the acreage for, without
incurring any input costs. The results in the base case suggest that over 20 years the additional forage
returns are just over $20,000 and cover only about one-fifth of the up-front investment costs. The high
and low scenarios return between 8% and 25% of the investment cost. As noted earlier, a number of
studies have suggested that quantity gains in terms of biomass are fivefold in mesic meadow communities
compared to dry meadows communities. The doubling of AUMS/acre or even an increase of 3
AUMS/acre may understate the upside potential of meadow restoration. In a further sensitivity analysis,
therefore, the gain in AUMs is projected to be 10 AUMS/acre. This result increases returns to 82,000 or
66% of the investment cost, just above the hay and forage results obtained above.
Table 15. Valuation of Forage-AUM Method
Forage Productivity Changes
AUMS/acre (Prior)
AUMS/acre (After)
Change in AUMs/acre
Change in Quality
Total Change in AUMs/acre
Total Changes in Aums
Net Returns
Price of an AUM
Annual Figures
Change in Revenue ($/year)
(per acre)
Present Values
Private Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Economic Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Sensitivity
Scenario
Analysis
High
Base
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
5.0
4.0
8.0
3.0
2.0
10%
10%
10%
8.8
3.3
2.2
440
165
110
Sensitivity
Scenario
Analysis
High
Base
$
16.40 $
19.68 $
16.40 $
$
$
7,216
144
$
$
3,247
65
$
$
1,804
36
$
$
$
82,767
66%
1,655
176,828
141%
3,537
$
37,245
25%
745
53,960
36%
1,079
$
20,692
17%
414
44,207
35%
884
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40
$
$
$
$
$
$
Low
2.0
3.0
1.0
10%
1.1
55
Low
13.12
722
14
8,277
8%
166
31,100
31%
622
4.3.3
Forage-Cattle Productivity Method
A third approach to valuation relies on estimates of changes in forage quality and quantity, as well as a
number of other assumptions about the meadow in order to derive the change in productivity in terms of
the increase in cattle weight due to restoration. The market price of cattle is then used to quantify the
change in revenues to the rancher. The variation in meadow forage quantity and quality presented earlier
in Section 2 is deployed here as shown in Table 16. The figures from Tate et al. (2011) for changes in
forage quality are used alongside estimates of the increase in productivity based on the literature. Based
on the latter studies a multiplier of 5 is used to reflect the increase in quantity of biomass produced in
mesic vs. dry communities. A multiplier of 1.2 is derived for mesic vs wet communities. From a
degraded to a restored state the proportion of the meadow with dry, mesic and wet communities is
assumed to change, largely towards a preponderance of mesic and wet communities. The figures used are
shown in the table. Stocking on the meadow is also an important parameter. Stocking rates and durations
for each community are indicated for early, mid and late season grazing at the end of the table.
Table 16. Parameters for Forage-Beef Method
Cattle Weight Gain Potential by
Season and Condition
Dry
Mesic
Wet
Meadow Forage Productivity
Dry Weight Forage Production (lbs)
Dry
Mesic
Wet
Derived Productivity Multipliers
Mesic over Dry
Mesic over Wet
Productivity Ratios
Mesic vs. Dry
Mesic vs Wet
Allocation of Acreage by Meadow
Condition
Dry
Mesic
Wet
Stocking
Season (lbs per cow per day)
Notes
Early
Mid
Late
1.74
1.27
0.92 From Tate et. Al (2011)
1.86
1.71
1.58
1.84
1.68
1.27
Median
25th
75th
Notes
517
2477
1922
322
1654
1625
666
2958
2712
4.8
1.3
5.1
1.0
4.4
1.1
5.00
1.20
Before
Restoration
85%
10%
5%
Early
Stocking Rate (animals/acre)
Dry
Mesic
Wet
Grazing Duration
Dry
After
Restoration
0%
85%
15%
Season
Mid
0.20
1.00
0.83
0.16
0.80
0.67
45.00
45.00
Mesic
45.00
45.00
Wet
45.00
45.00
41
Notes
Assumed figures
Notes
Late
0.12 Assumed figures
0.60 with mesic/wet having
0.50 higher stocking rates
45.00 Assumed figures
Assumed that rate is
45.00
sustainable
45.00 over 3 periods
The information presented thus far can be combined in order to generate the weight gain on the meadow.
Weight gain before and after restoration is calculated for each community and each season. The weight
gain can then be summed and the increase seen on the restored meadow calculated. A sample calculation
using the values from Table 16 is provided in Table 17. The stocking rate is a key variable and the
different stocking rates shown in Table 16 are all indexed off of the stocking rate for the mesic
community in the early season. This parameter is set at 1.0 for the base case scenario, but varied between
1.5 and 0.5 for the high and low scenarios in the ensuing analysis of returns to ranching. So, for each
scenario the calculations in Table 17 must be repeated to generate the change in productivity due to
restoration (as appears at the outset of Table 18).
Table 17. Sample Change in Productivity Calculations (for early season mesic stocking rate of 1
animal/acre)
Totals
Cattle Weight Gain - lbs per acre
Before Restoration
Dry
Mesic
Wet
Total
After Restoration
Dry
Mesic
Wet
Total
Improvement under Restoration
Early
Season
Mid
Late
25.3
18.8
7.4
51.5
13.3
8.4
3.5
7.8
6.2
2.5
4.2
4.3
1.4
159.7
22.2
181.9
130.4
71.1
10.4
52.3
7.6
36.3
4.3
When the variation in stocking rates is combined with the fairly wide potential variation in cattle prices
(as introduced earlier) the change in revenue ends up spreading across a large range of values. In present
value terms the change in revenue is $86,000 for a 50-acre meadow for the base case, with expected profit
of $43,000, which is equal to 34% of the upfront costs of meadow restoration. With the high scenario
parameters up to 54% of the cost is covered, while at the low end of the range just 10% is covered.
42
Table 18. Valuation of Forage – Cattle Productivity Method
Net Returns
Stocking Rate for Early Mesic
Change in Productivity
Weight Gain Before (lbs/acre)
Weight Gain After Restoration (lbs)
Change Due to Restoration (lbs)
Cattle Price ($/lb)
Annual Figures
Change in Revenue
(per acre)
Present Values
Private Change In Revenue ($)
Private Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Economic Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
4.3.4
Sensitivity
Analysis
51
182
130
1.15
High
1.50
Scenarios
Base
1.00
Low
0.50
77
273
196
1.30
51
182
130
1.15
26
91
65
0.80
$
$
7,500
150
$
$
12,717
254
$
$
7,500
150
$
$
2,609
52
$
$
86,022
43,011
34%
860
91,891
74%
1,838
$
$
108,267
81,201
54%
1,624
158,495
106%
3,170
$
$
86,022
43,011
34%
860
91,891
74%
1,838
$
$
40,666
10,167
10%
203
28,107
28%
562
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Conclusions on Private Returns
For ease of reference Table 19 provides a brief summary of the results from the three approaches to
valuing the private returns to ranching. Comparing the annual change in revenue provides a simple and
straightforward way of examining the figures. However, since the AUM method provides revenue figures
that are also profit figures it is more useful to contrast the present value of the changes in private profit.
The base case scenarios vary from $20,000 to almost $60,000. However, if the sensitivity figure for the
AUM method is employed with the higher change in productivity that matches that employed in the
Forage-Cattle Method then the results are still relatively dispersed but in a higher range, from $43,000 to
$83,000. Taking all the approaches and scenarios the contribution that private profit would make over the
20-year period and at the private rates of discount would be from 8% to 77%. Again, taking the higher
AUM Method estimate generates a range of from 34% to 66% for the contribution made by ranching
returns to the costs of restoration.
Thus, the general finding from applying the evaluation framework to private returns is that relying on the
private forage benefits alone is not going to be sufficient to promote restoration of private meadows. It
does appear that landowners should however have a substantial motivation to participate in a material
way, such as in cost sharing or making in-kind contributions, on such projects due to the magnitude of the
forage benefits. Analysis of the social returns to ranching will be taken up in the next section.
43
Table 19. Comparison of Valuation Approaches to the Private Returns to Ranching
Scenarios
Base
Results
High
Annual Change in Revenue ($/year)
AUM Method
Hay and Forage Method
Forage-Cattle Method
Present Value Change in Profit
AUM Method
Hay and Forage Method
Forage-Cattle Method
Percent Contribution to Capital Costs
AUM Method
Hay and Forage Method
Forage-Cattle Method
4.4
Low
$
$
$
3,247
18,165
12,717
$
$
$
1,804
10,234
7,500
$
$
$
722
3,344
2,609
$
$
$
37,245
115,983
81,201
$
$
$
20,692
58,691
43,011
$
$
$
8,277
13,033
10,167
25%
77%
54%
17%
47%
34%
8%
13%
10%
Social Incentives: Economic Costs and Benefits
The so-called “private” costs and benefits of meadow restoration that accrue to the landowner are unlikely
to reflect the full sum of impacts on the economy (as explained further in Appendix 4). Evaluation of the
full set of costs and benefits accruing to society is necessary to understand the economics of meadow
restoration. Given that the prior sub-section concludes that the private returns to meadow restoration fall
short of the costs, a wider economic evaluation is useful to identify whether there is a rationale for society
to contribute funds to restoration projects. Identifying the recipients of off-site impacts of such projects
may also help with design of efforts to help pay for such projects.
The next two sub-sections therefore examines the case of the “typical” meadow from two perspectives.
This sub-section briefly considers the distortions that may drive a wedge between how a private
landowner evaluates the on-site costs and benefits of meadow restoration. In the next sub-section the offsite impacts of meadow restoration are considered and, where feasible, valued in economic terms.
Evaluation is driven by the perspective of the decision-maker. This perspective is defined by the time
horizon over which costs and benefits are considered. The time value of money to the decision-maker is
also important. The distinction between the perspective of the private landowner and society with respect
to the on-site costs and benefits of meadow restoration is examine here by deploying different time
horizons and discount rates. As described earlier, the private landowner is assumed to have a shorter time
horizon, at 20 years, than society, which is assigned a 100-year time horizon. With regard to the time
value of money, the private landowner is assumed to place more importance on current as opposed to
future consumption and is assigned a 6% discount rate, whereas society is assigned a lower, 4% rate.
The results of the analysis of ranching benefits using the three methods covered in the prior section are
presented in the table below. The only changes to the figures used in the prior table is the change to the
lower discount rate and longer time horizon. Meadow restoration costs are assumed to take place in the
first year and thus these changes do not affect the $125,000 cost of restoring the “typical” meadow under
the base case. However, lowering the discount rate and extending the time horizon mean that the benefits
counted in the present value calculation increase. The results suggest that this increase is quite
significant. For example, for the base case of the forage-cattle productivity method the net profit to the
landowner was $43,000. The social benefits are much higher at $91,000
44
Table 20. Social Returns of Ranching with Meadow Restoration
Results
Scenarios
Base
High
Present Value Change in Benefits
AUM Method
Hay and Forage Method
Forage-Cattle Method
Percent Contribution to Capital Costs
AUM Method
Hay and Forage Method
Forage-Cattle Method
$
$
$
53,960
226,387
158,495
$
$
$
36%
151%
106%
44,207
125,391
91,891
35%
100%
74%
Low
$
$
$
31,100
36,030
28,107
31%
36%
28%
Across the board the extent to which these benefits cover the restoration costs rises. For the base case the
three valuation methods suggest 35%, 74% and 100% coverage of the restoration costs. The lower value
scenarios increase but still generate benefits much less than the costs, varying from around one-quarter to
one-third of the costs. For the high value scenarios the gains in ranching value would be sufficient to
warrant investment in the meadow restoration project under two of the three valuation approaches.
This brief consideration of the social returns of ranching with meadow restoration suggest that if society’s
perspective is employed then the ranching returns would play a much more encouraging role in the
promotion of meadow restoration. This finding then helps to bolster the claim that meadow restoration is
in the public interest, even if private landowners are unlikely to finance the costs of restoration
themselves. However, in order to have a full discussion on whether or not public incentives for meadow
restoration are warranted the on-site costs and benefits need also to be included in the evaluation.
4.5
Social Incentives: Off-site Costs and Benefits.
In this section two off-site benefits of meadow restoration are valued explicitly: downstream sediment
reduction and downstream flow regime changes. Two other categories of values, that of fish and wildlife
habitat and carbon storage, are not valued as the science to estimate changes in productivity is not wellestablished (see Section 2). These values are included in the discussion as they bear on the likely
direction and magnitude of off-site costs and benefits.
4.5.1
Sediment Reduction
As described in Section 2, employing the pond and plug approach on the “typical” meadow may lead to a
reduction in sediment released from the meadow. The examples cited in that section are used to derive
annual change in sediment per lineal foot of channel that is treated with the pond and plug approach. This
yields the following results:
 Trout Creek, 0.02 to 0.06 tons/ft
 Big Flat Meadow, 0.39 tons/ft
 Clarks Meadow, 0.77 tons/ft
 Bear Creek Meadow, 0.35 tons/ft
While these figures vary considerably they provide a workable range for valuation purposes. For the
“typical” meadow the length of the meadow as suggested above is taken to be 0.5 miles or 2,640 feet.
Adjusting for an assumed sinuosity of 1.1 gives a channel length of 2,904. As shown in the table below
the reduction in sediment release can be calculated for the range of rates of annual sediment reduction to
range from 145 tons to over 2,300 tons.
45
Table 21. Economic Benefits of Sediment Reduction
Sediment Productivity Changes
Erosion-Prior (tons/ft)
Erosion-After (tons/ft)
Change in Erosion (tons/ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Sediment Reduction (tons)
Net Returns
Price of a ton of Sediment
Annual Figures
Change in Benefits ($/year)
(per acre)
Present Values
Economic Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Sensitivity
Scenario
Analysis
High
Base
0.4
0.8
0.4
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.4)
2,904
2,904
2,904
1,161.6
2,323.2
1,161.6
Scenario
Sensitivity
Analysis
High
Base
$
0.50 $
0.025 $
0.018 $
$
$
$
$
581
11.62
$
$
58
1.16
14,233 $
11%
285 $
$
$
965 $
1%
19 $
20
0.41
Low
0.05
(0.1)
2,904
145.2
Low
0.010
$
$
1
0.03
498 $
0%
10 $
63
0%
1
As discussed in Section 3 the economic value of changes in sedimentation will be variable depending on
the services and infrastructure downstream and how the sediment plays into the economic productivity of
water uses downstream. However, for the purposes of illustration the figures cited from the literature of
$0.01/ton to $0.025 are used here to reflect the cost of higher sediment loads.
The results (in the table above) show annual changes in benefits due to meadow restoration of the
“typical” meadow of from $1 to $58. When converted to present values the range is $63 to $965. This
amounts to 1% or less of the costs of meadow restoration. In other words, subject to the assumptions
made here it appears unlikely that in the “typical” meadow that sediment reduction benefits will make a
significant impact in terms of covering restoration costs.
Given the methods employed the estimates of sediment reduction are approximate but appear reasonable.
Dry meadows themselves are unlikely to be significant sources of erosion given their limited use for
grazing. The incised channel will be the primary source of erosion and this is well accounted for in the
figures in Section 2. It may be that the damage costs are underestimated and, in a given case they may
well be. To examine this issue further the sensitivity analysis is run with a price per ton of sediment that
is 50 times the low value and 20 times the high value. With a price of $0.50/ton of sediment the present
value increases to almost $15,000 or just over 10% of the base case cost of meadow restoration. Further
investigation of specific Sierra Meadows cases would greatly assist in confirming these results, but it does
appear that sediment reduction will be of limited benefit.
It is worth emphasizing that this reflects only the impact of the sediment as a solid and its impacts on
downstream uses. To the extent that meadow restoration reduces nutrient concentrations downstream this
may be another element of the total economic value of meadow restoration.
4.5.2
The Costs and Benefits of Changes in Downstream Flow
A number of experts and sources were consulted in an effort to find applicable parameters and develop a
workable model of the hydrogeology of meadows pre- and post-restoration. After consulting the sources
reviewed in Section 2 a simple groundwater model (using MODFLOW software) was prepared by Greg
Pohl of the University of Nevada in an attempt to simulate some of the key meadow inputs and outputs.
The model illustrated the relationship between stream flow input, the conductivity of meadow soils and
46
evapotranspiration. However, such a simple model did not adequately reflect the boundary conditions
and the potential for groundwater flow from the sides of the meadow. Given the resources available for
this work, no more detailed model could be developed. Instead, the various sources and the MODFLOW
simulations were used to develop two very simple water balance models for the meadow that can be used
to illustrate potential value changes in downstream flows due to meadow restoration.
In the first model the evapotranspiration (ET) increase is derived from the Hammarsmark (2008) data and
the MODFLOW simulations. These suggest that after restoration the move to mesic and wet plant
communities can lead to an increase of ET of around 12 inches, or one acre-foot per acre. Again using
the MODFLOW simulations these changes in ET can be broken into spring (March to June) and summer
(July to October) portions. As shown in the table below it can be expected that as the ET increases it will
reflect greater availability of water later into the season. Thus, for the two models the higher the ET the
higher the water loss from the meadow in the summer months.
The increased storage capacity for the “typical” meadow is then calculated based on the geometry of the
meadow. Applying a variety of specific yields (from 0.2 to 0.4) suggest that restoration, i.e. raising the
channel 5 feet will produce from 25 to 50 additional acre feet of storage for the meadow.
The argument that meadows provide value in terms of downstream flow rests on a number of
presumptions. On the economic side the basic presumption is that early, or spring, season irrigation water
is of lesser value than water that arrives in the summer, or later in the irrigation season. As discussed in
Section 3 such a divergence can be represented by assigning a price for spring water of $125/AF and
$200/AF for summer water. In order then to backtrack and complete the valuation exercise it is necessary
to know how much spring and summer water the meadow produces pre- and post-restoration. As shown
in Table 22 below this is accomplished by using the information on ET and storage. The underlying
assumption is that inflows to the meadow do not change, but the loss of water to ET and the gain/loss to
storage will drive changes in flows downstream of the meadow. Using the base case as an example, the
50 AF increase in ET post-restoration is evenly divided between spring and summer. The 40 AF of added
water storage capacity is considered to be filled during the spring due to peak flows and snow melt. Thus,
during the spring months there is a 65 AF loss of downstream flow. In the summer months if it is
assumed that the added storage is released then there is a 40 AF gain in water. However, the 25 AF of ET
must be deducted in order to calculate the net change in downstream flow. In this case there is a gain of
15 AF.
47
Table 22. Meadow Hydrogeology and Water Productivity – Model #1
Water Productivity Changes-Model #1
Changes (Pre- to Post-Restoration)
ET Increase (AF/Acre)
ET Increase (AF)
Spring (Mar-Jun)
Summer (Jul-Oct)
Water Storage Volume Increase (AF)
Additional Spring Storage (AF)
Downstream Flow Change (AF)
Spring (ET plus storage)
Summer (ET less storage release)
Net Returns
Price of Spring Flows ($/AF)
Price of Winter Flows ($/AF)
Water Benefits ($/yr)
Value of Spring Flows ($/AF)
Value of Winter Flows ($/AF)
Annual Figures
Change in Benefits ($/year)
(per acre)
Present Values
Economic Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Sensitivity
Analysis
High
1.00
50.00
25.00
25.00
40.00
40.00
1.50
75.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Scenario
Base
1.00
50.00
25.00
25.00
40.00
40.00
(65.00)
(75.00)
(65.00)
15.00
15.00
Scenario
Sensitivity
Analysis
High
Base
$
46 $
100 $
125 $
$
200 $
200 $
200 $
$
$
(2,990) $
3,000 $
0.75
37.50
25.00
12.50
25.00
25.00
(50.00)
12.50
Low
50
75
(7,500) $
$
(8,125) $
3,000 $
(2,500)
938
(7,500) $
(150) $
$
$
10
0.20
(5,125) $
(103) $
(1,563)
(31)
$
245 $ (124,632) $ (125,588) $
0%
-83%
-100%
5 $
(2,493) $
(2,512) $
(67,341)
-67%
(1,347)
$
$
$
Low
When the 50 AF of spring loss is valued at $125/AF and the 15 AF of summer gain is valued at $200/AF
there is a net loss in value of over $5,000 per year. In other words although there is a moderate gain in
the more highly valued summer flow when offset against the lower value but higher volume spring loss
the balance is negative. This applies also for the high and low scenarios using this model. The sensitivity
analysis can be used to explore this approach further. With the base case flow values the price of spring
water would have to be below $45/AF for the scenario to yield a positive economic outcome. In this
regard it is worth noting that it may be incorrect to make the standard assumption that additional water
received downstream and spilled from dams would be of no economic value. This, as downstream
ecosystems, such as the Bay-Delta are imperiled. There is, thus, likely to always be an economic value
for spring water. Indeed, the extent to which spring water is valued differently than summer water is
uncertain and, therefore, different premia are explored in the low, base and high scenarios.
Thus, Model #1 suggests that changes in downstream flows may represent costs rather than benefits.
This fits somewhat with anecdotal reports and concerns of water rightholders located downstream from
meadow restoration projects. However, this model excludes some potentially important hydrogeological
parameters. It has been noted by hydrologists that one of the key issues with regard to meadows
provision of post-restoration downstream flows is the rate with which stored water can move through
meadows. If the rate is too slow, it is possible that the summer release of storage will not occur.
Another factor not taken into account in Model #1 is that the meadow may not function like a reservoir
that fills once and then releases its water. In Model #1 there was a simple assumption that at peak flows
in the spring the meadow would fill and that, thereafter, the meadow would simply be draining.
However, if the meadow is connected to surrounding geology then there is the possibility that as the
48
meadow drains during the summer it may also refill. Indeed, depending on how fast water moves through
the meadow it may or may not release more or less than the actual storage capacity. In Model #2,
therefore, this refill factor is included in order to simulate these processes. It is called the “Summer
Storage Release Multiplier” in Table 23. In the low value scenario the multiplier is set to 0.5 meaning
that only half of the stored water moves through the meadow and is released. In the base case a value of
1.0 assumes just a single turnover of storage. In the high value scenario the multiplier is set to 1.5. In
other words the water is moving quickly and 1.5 times the actual capacity is released.
For this second model, there is also an assumption that while the meadow might only flood during peak
flows, it does remain saturated for the full year due to sub-surface flow from the surrounding geology. To
a certain extent then Apportioning a debit for the storage thus makes little sense as it will always be more
or less full. Indeed, it could be argued that just as with a reservoir, the idea of a debit for water stored is
only applicable immediately after the restoration is completed and the meadow needs to fill for the first
time. So, in Model #2 the debit for the change in storage for spring and summer seasons is removed from
the model. As a result the change in downstream flow in the spring is assumed to be only the increased
loss in ET. During the summer months the change is the increased ET as well as the increase in release of
water stored (at the appropriate multiplier rate).
The changes made to the geohydrology of the “typical” meadow in Model #2 improve the water balance
in favor of restoration. The change in the losses in the spring months are considerably less and the
possibility of late season gains stand out more clearly. Looking at the values in the table from right to left
shows that with a low release multiplier there is still a loss in value, although in the base case there is
effectively no net change in value. For the high scenario, with a multiplier of 1.5 the meadow generates
strong positive returns of $2,500 per year. The present value for this scenario is $250,000, considerably
higher than the restoration costs. Again, sensitivity analysis is used to explore how pricing matters.
Using the high scenario water figures a set of lower values for water is used. With just a $50 gap between
spring and summer water values the result is a present value of $125,000, which would just cover the
costs of meadow restoration.
49
Table 23. Meadow Hydrogeology and Water Productivity – Model #2
Water Productivity Changes-Model #2
Changes (Pre- to Post-Restoration)
ET Increase (AF/Acre)
ET Increase (AF)
Spring (Mar-Jun)
Summer (Jul-Oct)
Water Storage Volume Increase (AF)
Summer Storage Releae Multiplier
Downstream Flow Change (AF)
Spring (ET only no storage)
Summer (ET less storage release)
Net Returns
Price of Spring Flows ($/AF)
Price of Winter Flows ($/AF)
Water Benefits ($/yr)
Value of Spring Flows ($/AF)
Value of Winter Flows ($/AF)
Annual Figures
Change in Benefits ($/year)
(per acre)
Present Values
Economic Profit
(proportion of social cost)
(per acre)
Sensitivity
Analysis
Scenario
Base
High
1.50
75.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
1.50
1.50
75.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
1.50
1.00
50.00
25.00
25.00
40.00
1.00
(25.00)
(25.00)
(25.00)
25.00
25.00
15.00
Sensitivity
Scenario
Analysis
High
Base
$
50 $
100 $
125 $
$
100 $
200 $
200 $
$
$
(1,250) $
2,500 $
$
$
$
$
1,250
25.00
$
$
125,000 $
100%
2,500 $
(2,500) $
5,000 $
2,500
50
$
$
250,000 $
167%
5,000 $
Low
0.75
37.50
25.00
12.50
25.00
0.50
(25.00)
Low
50
75
(3,125) $
3,000 $
(1,250)
-
(125) $
(3) $
(1,250)
(25)
(12,500) $ (125,000)
-10%
-125%
(250) $
(2,500)
The valuation models explored here are quite crude and generalized. However, they do provide some
insight into the potential range of economic costs and benefits that could be associated with changes in
downstream flow attributable to meadow restoration. The results here are not conclusive. To the extent
that meadow restoration slows down the movement of water through the meadow there may be real costs
associated with such projects from a downstream perspective. However, under opposite circumstances
with meadows releasing larger amounts of water during the summer then such increases in flows would
more than cancel out the loss of spring season flows and provide large economic returns. These returns
would be sufficient to warrant public provision of incentives to landowners to engage in such projects.
Further integrated hydro-economic modeling of some of the key parameters that respond to meadow
restoration is warranted to gain a better understanding of where most meadows would be on this
continuum of value.
4.5.3
Improved habitat for sensitive species
Providing improved and increased extent of habitat for listed species is considered a public good. In the
case of meadow restoration, the improved habitat conditions could occur either on or off-site. While the
landowner will be in a position to capture some of these benefits many will accrue to other adjacent
landowners and the public as a whole, rather than specifically to the personal gain of the land owner.
Methods for quantifying changes in habitat quality have been applied by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
since the 1980’s to assess environmental impacts of proposed projects on plant, fish, and wildlife habitat.
50
5.
Conclusions
The paper builds on a large amount of technical and economic information to try and assess the private
and social incentives for restoration Sierra meadows. This is done by investigating first the private
(financial) returns to restoration and then the social (or economic) returns of a number of cascading
impacts of meadow restoration on ecosystem services and biodiversity (see Figure 5). A “typical” 50acre meadow restoration project is used to investigate these propositions. The conclusion of the private
analysis is that the increase in returns from haying and ranching might be more significant than generally
expected. Ranchers may earn a significant amount of net income off of restored meadows. Restoration
projects should therefore seek appropriate cost-share levels.
Figure 5. Cause and Effect: Meadow Restoration and Ecosystem Services/Biodiversity
Investment in Pond and Plug Meadow projects alters Channel Condition producing:
Reduced bank erosion and fine sediment storage (on-site) leading
Reduction in sediment load and delivery downstream
Change in water storage (on-site) and evapotranspiration which lead to
Improved rangeland productivity
Change in above and below ground carbon storage
Decrease in peak flood flows downstream
Change in timing of flow releases downstream
Improved habitat for meadow-dependent species
Restores of original or side stream channels (on-site)
Restore flow, change water temperature
Increase Aquatic Habitat Quality and Productivity
Notes: Direct Drivers; Services Valued; Services Described Only
With regard to the question of economic returns and social incentives the results suggest the need to focus
on on-site issues and the role of habitat and wildlife. When societies longer time horizon and emphasis
on future consumption are considered the on-site ranching returns assume an even more significant
importance. The rationale for providing incentives to private landowners to engage in restoration may
also include the long-term economic productivity of meadows for ranching. The off-site hydrological
benefits of restoration are explored in the paper and can generally be summarized as having likely been
overstated in past efforts. Flood attenuation and sediment reduction are expected to be generally of little
consequence, though such a generalization is awkward give the site specific nature of the benefits.
The paper spends considerable effort on downstream flows and finds no generalization possible. Some
original evidence is provided for benefits from restored meadows during dry years; however, the same
data suggests even larger benefits from unrestored meadows during wet years. It may be that in many
cases the changes are not of significance but there is room for these changes to be both significantly
positive and negative in economic terms. Further applied research is therefore well advised in order to
tease out the key parameters that can assist in developing predictive hydro-economic models of the flow
response to restoration. And, finally, changes in fish and wildlife habitat are likely to generate both
private and social returns. How, significant these may be in dollar terms was not explored in this study.
However, given the significance of the on-site benefits it is clear there is room for significant habitat
benefits. Unfortunately, the question of jointly realizable habitat and livestock benefits from meadow
restoration appears to be largely unexplored.
51
Table 24. Summary of Economic Valuation Results
Ecosystem Service
A. On-Site Benefits
Forage and beef production
B. Off-Site Benefits
Sediment reduction
Downstream flows
C. On- & Off-Site Benefits
Habitat improvement
Direction and estimate of
change in service with
restoration
Base Case
Scenario
High Scenario
Low Scenario
($/acre)
($/acre)
($/acre)
Positive, medium to large
$900-$2,500
$1,100-$4,500
$600-$700
Positive, small
Positive or Negative, small to
large
$10
$-250
$19
$5,000
$1
$-2,500
Positive, large
Not valued
In sum, caution may be needed to avoid potential downstream costs. But absent such impacts the
economic picture is favorable for meadow restoration and there exists a clear role for landowner
participation and contribution, as well as the use of public incentives to empower restoration projects.
A number of general recommendations for further work include:
 Standards and protocols for measuring key variables pre- and post-restoration
 Academic research needs to be better connected to practitioner monitoring and evaluation (and
vice versa)
 Dataset on impacts needs to be improved
While some aspects of meadow restoration are well understood, studies disagree primarily on the impact
of restoration on stream and groundwater outflow. Ideally future studies will focus on this issue
specifically (and sources of temporal and spatial variation in downstream flow response), possibly with
other water budget modeling efforts or before and after studies of restoration projects. Questions include:



How does variation in bedrock vs. alluvial conductivity affect meadow hydrology?
What are the major controls on groundwater contributions to downstream discharge (and how can
these be measured)?
Are there other properties of the meadow or catchment area that affect stream outflow that aren’t
currently being measured?
With regard to the key uncertainties surround downstream flows recommendations fall into a monitoring
and an evaluation context. First, in terms of baseline and post project monitoring, the installation
continuous recorders along channel directly above and below meadows and more frequent documentation
on channel cross section changes to support the rating curve is recommended. Also, increased monitoring
duration during the pre-restoration and post-restoration periods is advisable so that multiple years and a
variation in hydrological condition can be captured in response data.
It is recommended that the hydro-economic modeling approach taken here be pursued further. Such an
integrated approach would first take an existing meadow MODLFOW model and ensure that is inputs and
outputs are consistent with economic modeling of scenarios. The model would then be used to simulate
conditions and scenarios associated with restoration. Key data needs for transference of the model to
other meadows would be derived. The model would then be linked to changes in economic productivity
approach for valuing water and, potentially, changes in water quality parameters, including sediment.
Then case studies in a variety of watershed contexts would then be needed; i.e. examining value of
changes in flow (and sediment) for different downstream economic uses of water.
52
Further work is also recommended on forage, carbon and habitat:
 The uncertainty over relationship between forage quality and quantity – and cattle production
needs to be resolved and a comprehensive model of such integrated with the economics to create
a replicable bio-economic model of the restored meadow
 Estimates of the long-term effects of restoration on above and below ground carbon needed
before demonstrating the economic value of this ecosystem service
 Linkages between pond and plug restoration approaches and fish and wildlife habitat, with an
emphasis on discrete indicators is needed.
REFERENCES
2NDNATURE. 2010. Quantification and Characterization of Trout Creek Restoration Effectiveness SLRT
Methodology: Final Characterization Plan.
Allander, K. 2004. An Estimate of the Contributions of Stream flow and Nutrients to Trout Creek, South Lake
Tahoe, California. Master’s Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.
Allen-Diaz, B. H. 1991. Water table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. American Midland
Naturalist 126: 30–43.
Anderson, R.S. and S.J. Smith. 2011. Paleoclimatic interpretations of meadow sediment and pollen stratigraphies in
California. Geology. V. 22, p. 723-726. August 1994.
Aylward, B. 2004. Land Use, Hydrological Function and Economic Valuation. In Forest, Water and People in the
Humid Tropics, edited by M. Bonnell and L. A. Bruijnzeel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aylward, B., J. Berkhoff, C. Green, P. Gutman, A. Lagman, M. Manion, A. Markandya, B. McKenny, K.
Naudascher-Jankowski, B. Oud, A. Penman, S. Porter, C. Rajapakse, D. Southgate, and R. Unsworth. 2001.
Financial, Economic and Distributional Analysis. Cape Town: World Commission on Dams.
Aylward, B., and R. Hartwell. 2010. Sustainable Ecosystem Management and Water: the Benefits of Hydrological
Services. In Importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Economic Growth and Equity in Latin America
and the Caribbean: An Economic Valuation of Ecosystems, edited by A. Bovarnick, F. Alpizar and C.
Schnell. Panama: United Nations Development Program.
Aylward, B., H. Seely, R. Hartwell, and J. Dengel. 2010. The Economic Value of Water for Agricultural, Domestic
and Industrial Uses: A Global Compilation of Economic Studies and Market Prices. Report for UN FAO.
Bend: Ecosystem Economics.
Beck, T. W., and J. Winter. 2000. Survey protocol for the great gray owl in the Sierra Nevada of California.
Prepared for the USDA Forest Service
Bombay, H. L., T. M. Ritter, and B. E. Valentine. 2000. A Willow Flycatcher survey protocol for California, June 6,
2000. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 50 pp.
Buckley, M., T. Souhlas, E. Niemi, E. Warren and S. Reich. 2011. The Economic Value of Beaver Ecosystem
Services: Escalante River Basin, Utah. Eugene: ECONorthwest.
California Department of Conservation. 2006. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program. Private and public lands used for and/or converted to grazing or agriculture. Accessed
off the web at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/.
53
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2005. Draft meadow polygon layer provided to Sierra Meadows
Project Team by Chris Stermer in November 2005. Resource Assessment Program, CDFG.
CDFG. 2008. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships database. Version 6.0. CDFG, Sacramento, California
Clark, E.H. 1985. The Off-Site Costs of Soil Erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40 (1):19-22.
Cornwell, K. and K. Brown 2008a. Physical and hydrological characterization of Clark’s meadow. California State
University, Sacramento, Department of Geology. Submitted to The Natural Heritage Institute, Moutain
Meadows IRWMP project. Funded by The Department of Water Resources Integrated Regional
Management Plan Program. February 1, 2008.
Cornwell, K. and K. Brown 2008b. Flood attenuation conditions at Clark’s meadow in the Last Chance Watershed,
Plumas County, California. California State University, Sacramento, Department of Geology. Submitted to
The Natural Heritage Institute, Moutain Meadows IRWMP project. Funded by The Department of Water
Resources Integrated Regional Management Plan Program. February 15, 2008
Davidson, C. 2004. Declining downwind: Amphibian population declines in California and historic pesticide use.
Ecological Applications 14:1892-1902.
Davidson, C., H. B. Shaffer, and M. R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat destruction, UV-B
and climate change hypotheses for California amphibian declines. Conservation Biology 16: 1588-1601.
Dearmont, D., B.A. McCarl, and D.A. Tolman. 1998. Costs of Water Treatment due to Diminished Water Quality:
A Case Study in Texas. Water Resources Research 34 (4):849-853.
Dudley, T. L., and W. E. Dietrich. 1995. Effects of cattle grazing exclosures on the recovery of riparian ecosystems
in the southern Sierra Nevada. Technical Completion Report UCAL-WRC-W-831. Davis: University of
California, Water Resources Center.
Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress , Vol. II, assessments, commissioned reports and background
information. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group. 2009. Red Clover/McReynolds Creek Restoration Project
Monitoring Report.
Forster, D.L., C.P. Bardos, and D. Southgate. 1987. Soil Erosion and Water Treatment Costs. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 42 (1):349-352.
Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington DC: Resources for the
Future.
Good, D. F. Wingham, and R. L. Simpson, editors. Freshwater wetlands. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Gosselink, J.G. and R.E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems. In R.E. Good, D.F.
Whigham and R.L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 63-78.
Graber, D. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol.
II, chap. 25. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Green, B., and B. Aylward. 2011. The Central Valley Project and Environmental Water Transactions: Summary,
Status, and Institutional Framework. Prepared for National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Bend: Ecosystem
Economics.
54
Green, G.A., H.L. Bombay, and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the Willow Flycatcher in the
Sierra Nevada.
Gregersen, H.M., K.N. Brooks, J.A. Dixon, and L.S. Hamilton. 1987. Guidelines for Economic Appraisal of
Watershed Management Projects. FAO Conservation Guide. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization.
Hammersmark, C. T., M. C. Rains, J .F. Mount. 2008. Quantifying the hydrological effects of stream restoration in a
montane meadow, northern California, USA. River Research and Applications 24: 735–753.
Hammersmark, C.T. 2008. Assessing the Hydroecological Effects of Stream Restoration. Doctoral Dissertation.
Davis: University of California.
Helms, J. A.. 1987. Invasion of Pinus contorta var. murrayana into mountain meadows at Yosemite National Park.,
California. Madrono 34: 91–97.
Herbst, D., and R. Knapp. 1995. Biomonitoring of rangeland streams under differing livestock grazing practices.
Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society 14 (1): 176.
Hill, B. and S. Mitchell-Bruker. 2010. Comment on “A framework for understanding the hydroecology of impacted
wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, USA”: paper published in
Hydrogeology Journal (2009) by Loheide et al. Hydrogeology Journal 18: 1741-1743.
Holmes, T.P. 1988. The Offsite Impact of Soil Erosion on the Water Treatment Industry. Land Economics 64
(4):356-366.
Ibbotson, R.G., and P. Chen. 2003. Long-Run Stock Returns: Participatin in the Real Economy. Financial Analysts
Journal (January/February):88-98.
ICF Jones & Stokes. 2008. Consultant's Report: Plumas Watershed Forum Program Review. Prepared for Plumas
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Sacramento: ICF Jones & Stokes.
Ingram, W., and J. Loomis. 1989. Valuing Watershed Restoration Projects. Prepared in cooperation with Pacific Gas
and Electric Company. Davis: University of California at Davis.
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Contract
No. 8023. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
Kattelmann, R. 1996. Hydrology and water resources. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress,
vol. II, chap. 30. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Lattin, J. D. 1990. Arthropod diversity in northwest old-growth forest. Wings. Xerces Society newsletter.
Liang, C.T. 2010. Habitat modeling and movements of the Yosemite toad (Anaxus (=Bufo) canorus) in the Sierra
Nevada, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. 126 pp.
Lindquist, D. S., L. Bowie, and L. L. Harrison. 1997. Red Clover Creek erosion control demonstration project tenyear research summary 1985–1995. Produced in cooperation with the Feather River Coordinated Resource
Management Committee, Plumas County, California and PG&E.
Lindquist, D.S. and J. Wilcox. 2000. New Concepts for Meadow Restoration in the Northern Sierra Nevada. Feather
River Coordinated Resource Management Group.
Loheide, S.P. II, et al. 2009. A framework for understanding the hydroecology of impacted wet meadows in the
Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 17: 229-246.
55
Loheide, S.P., II and S.M. Gorelick. 2005. A local-scale, high-resolution evapotranspiration mapping algorithm
(ETMA) with hydroecological applications at riparian meadow restoration sites. Remote Sensing of
Environment 98: 182 – 200.
Loheide, S.P., II and S.M. Gorelick. 2006. Quantifying Stream-Aquifer Interactions through the Analysis of
Remotely Sensed Thermographic Profiles and In Situ Temperature Histories. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:
3336-3341.
Loheide, S.P., II and S.M. Gorelick. 2007. Riparian hydroecology: A coupled model of the observed interactions
between groundwater flow and meadow vegetation patterning. Water Resources Research 43: W07414,
doi:10.1029/2006WR005233
Menke, J. W., C. Davis, P. Beesley. 1996. Public rangeland/livestock grazing assessment. Chapter 22 in Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final report to Congress. Vol. III. Available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-43/VOL III/VIII C22.PDF
Merrill, A. G. and T. L. Benning. 2006. Ecosystem type differences in nitrogen processes and controls in the riparian
zone of a montane landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 145–161.
Merrill, A.G. 2011. Can restoring mountain meadows ameliorate the effects of climate change in a Mediterranean
landscape? Invited Presentation, Medicos XII Linking Science with Resource Management. UCLA;
September 6-9, 2011
Micheli, E. R., and J. W. Kirchner. 2002b. Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion. 1.
Remote sensing measurements on streambank migration and erodibility. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 27: 627–639.
Micheli, E.R. and J.W. Kirchner. 2002a. Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion. 2.
Measurements of vegetated bank strength and consequences for failure mechanics. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 27:687–697.
Millar, C. L., R. D. Westfall, D. L. Delany, J. C. King, L. J. Graumlich. 2004. Response of subalpine conifers in
the Sierra Nevada, California, U.S.A., to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability. Arctic,
Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36: 181–200.
Mouraille, C., I. Porras, and B. Aylward. 1996. La Protección de Cuencas Hidrográficas: Una Bibliografía Anotada
de Hidrología, Valorización Económica e Incentivos Económicos. CREED Costa Rica Notas Técnicas. San
José: Centro Científico Tropical.
Moyle, P. B. 1996. Status of aquatic habitat types. Pages 945-952. In Sierra Nevada
Moyle, P. B., J.A. Israel, S.E. Purdy. 2009. SOS: California’s Native Fish Crisis: Status of and solutions for
restoring our vital salmon, steelhead and trout populations. A report commissioned by California Trout.
Naiman, R. J., H. Decamps, and M. E. McClain. 2005. Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of
streamside communities. Elsevier Academic Press. Burlington, Massachusetts.
Odion, D. C., T. L. Dudley, and C. M. D’Antonio. 1990. Cattle grazing in southeastern Sierra meadows: Ecosystem
change and prospects for recovery. In Plant biology of eastern California, edited by C. A. Hall and V.
Doyle-Jones, 277–92. Los Angeles: University of California, White Mountain Research Station.
Ponce, V.M. and D.S. Lindquist. 1990. Management of base flow augementataion: a review. Journal of American
Water Resources Assoc. 26: 259-268.
56
Poore, R. 2003. Floodplain and channel reconnection: channel responses in the Bear Creek meadow restoration
project. Pages 253-262 in P. M. Faber, editor. California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplain
Management, Ecology, and Restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings.
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
Pretty, J.N., C. Brett, D. Gee, R.E. Hine, C.F. Mason, J.I.L. Morison, H. Raven, M.D. Rayment, and G.v.d. Bijl.
2000. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural systems 65 (2):113-136.
Ratliff. R. D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84.
Berkeley, California. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Albany, California.
Sagraves, Timothy. 1998. Results of flow and groundwater monitoring in Cottonwood Creek near Big Flat Meadow:
1994 through 1997 water years. Report to Plumas Corporation.
Sahagun, Louis. 2010. L.A. Times. Sept 7, 2010. Existence of rare red fox confirmed. (louis.sahagun@latimes.com)
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/07/local/la-me-0907-red-fox-20100907
Siegel, J. 2007. Stocks for the Long Run: The Definitive Guide to Financial Market Returns and Long-Term
Investment Strategies (4th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sloat, T. 2011. Personal communication. Todd Sloat Biological Consulting, Inc. September 30, 2011
SNEP (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project). 2006. Volume 1. Chapter 7: Rangelands in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project, Final report to Congress. University of California: SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants.
Stubblefield, A. P., M. I. Escobar, and E. W. Larsen. 2006. Retention of suspended sediment and phosphorus on a
freshwater delta, South Lake Tahoe, California. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14: 287–302.
Tague, C., S.Valentine, and M. Kotchen. 2008. Effect of geomorphic channel restoration on stream flow and
groundwater in a snowmelt dominated watershed. Water Resources Research 44: W10415, doi:
10/1029/2007WR006418.
Tate, K., L. Roche, D. Lile, and H. George. 2011. Forage and Cattle Response to Sierra Meadow Restoration.
University of California Cooperative Extension: Davis.
USDA. 2011. California Livestock Review. US Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Sservice:
Sacramento.
USFS. 2005. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (Record of Decision (2005) for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement; http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/vol1/appendix-a/aquaticriparian/rca.html
Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance in relation to changing marsh vegetation. American Midland
Naturalist 95: 313–322.
Weixelman, D. et al. 2002. Aquatic conservation strategy meadow study plan.
Weixelman, D., G. Bakker, and J. Fites. 2003. USFS Region 5 Range Monitoring Project 2003 Report. Adaptive
Management Services, U.S. Forest Service, Nevada City, California.
Weller, M. W. 1978. Management of freshwater marshes for wildlife. Pages 267–284 in R. E.
Wood, S. H. 1975. Holocene stratigraphy and chronology of mountain meadows, Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D.
Dissertation. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.
57
Woodward, A., Schreiner, E. G., and Silsbee, D. G., 1995: Climate, geography, and tree establishment in subalpine
meadows of the Olympic Mountains, Washington, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research, 27: 217–225.
58
APPENDIX 1. Conceptual Framework for Evaluation of Meadow Restoration
The analysis seeks to identify market and policy incentives critical to land use decision-making in Sierra
Meadows, in particular those that lead landholders to continue livestock production on holdings currently
dedicated to pasture. Ranchers are assumed to be profit maximizers, operating in an environment in which
market and policy conditions may not always lead to decisions that consistently maximize both
landholder profits and economic welfare. For convenience the term “rancher” is used to refer to the land
use decision-maker, who may be either a rancher or a dairy farmer (or engaged in a combination of both
activities). This section lays out the framework and steps necessary to identify potential conflicts between
these two viewpoints using a quantitative, cost-benefit approach and consists of four steps divided into
three phases, as presented originally in Aylward et al. (1995) and explained below.
Private Incentives
The first step is to determine the benefits and costs of ranching from the private perspective, BP and CP,
that is, how ranchers view them. The costs and benefits are discounted intertemporal returns, i.e. net
present values, though the formulation is simplified here. The result is the private returns (RP)to ranching:
R  B C
Normally the expected financial value of these returns should be positive for ranchers actively engaging
in ranching. However, in actuality there may be some non-financial benefits perceived by the rancher that
make up the difference for the individual in the event that ranching is not truly a profit-making exercise
from the individual perspective. These benefits labeled here as “quality of life” benefits are not
technically part of the equation as formulated but could be loosely considered to be part of the BP.
Regardless that these non-financial benefits (and motives) exist should be remembered as the framework
is presented and evaluated.
The expected returns for the rancher can be portrayed under a business as usual approach (BAU) and a
meadow restoration (MR) alternative.
R P BAU  B P BAU  C P BAU
R P MR  B P MR  C P MR
The key question then is whether the net returns from meadow restoration – as opposed to business as
usual management – are positive or negative:
If R MR  R BAU then the landowner should be motivated by their own self-benefit to turn to meadow
restoration.
If R MR  R BAU then the landowner is presumed to be unmotivated of their own accord to adopt meadow
restoration and would require an incentive, I, such that I  R BAU  R MR to adopt meadow restoration.
So what changes for the rancher in adopting meadow restoration. It is these changes that will determine
how attractive meadow restoration is or is not to the rancher. The first most obvious change is that the
initial restoration activities need to be performed. These can be simplified to design, permitting and
construction of the restoration project, such as plug-and-pond. These can be considered as the
investment costs of the restoration project, ICMR. Then in subsequent years there may be additional
59
operations and maintenance activities on the project, CMR. For example, the rancher may actively
encourage the change in plant ecology by seeding new grass species. Or the rancher may remove dead
brush or trees that can no longer survive in the wet meadow. All of these costs will accompany the normal
variable costs of ranching, CR.
On the output or benefit side a number of aspects of the ranching operation are likely to change. Rising
groundwater table will lead to a change in the mix and prevalence of grasses and shrubs that will inhabit
the pasture and at what period they will be available as forage to livestock. Ideally meadow restoration
will either promote more palatable species, make more forage available, or make forage available later in
the season when lower non-irrigated altitude pastures see declining productivity. This increase in forage
productivity should lead to an increase in weight gain by livestock over the course of the time they spend
on the meadow during the season. The end result would be a change, and presumably an increase, in the
amount of financial benefit from the sale of livestock between the BAU and meadow restoration
scenarios, RB.
A number of additional ecosystem service and biodiversity benefits, ES, compared to the BAU situation
may accrue to the landowner under meadow restoration:
 a reduction of bank erosion and maintenance of grazable land area
 a reduction in soil or wind erosion due to a wetter pasture during the later summer months
 increase in wildlife habitat providing increased aesthetic and hunting opportunities on the private
meadow
So in order to more fully map out the returns under business as usual management and the meadow
restoration alternative we have the following expressions for the returns to each alternative:
R BAU  RB BAU  RC BAU
R MR  RB MR  ES MR  RC MR  IC MR  C MR
Grouping key terms the net returns to moving to the alternative of meadow restoration can be specified as
follows:
NR MR  (RB MR  RB BAU )  ES MR  (RC MR  RC BAU )  (IC MR  C MR )
The direct costs (investment and O&M) costs of meadow restoration will be negative and it is assumed
that changes in on-site ecosystem services are beneficial on net. Thus, key questions in terms of the
direction of change under restoration include:
 is there an increase in livestock benefits under restoration?
 is there a change in ranching variable costs under restoration?
If it is assumed that the on-site ecosystem service values will be relatively low and that the change in
ranching variable costs will be negligible the question of net returns simplifies to whether the change in
livestock benefits outweighs the direct costs of meadow restoration. If it does then the landowner may
not need an incentive to change behavior and invest in meadow restoration.
However, it is quite possible the even though the net returns of meadow restoration may be positive little
adoption is witnessed. How can this be? Inertia can be caused either by transaction costs or economic
hysteresis. The adoption of meadow restoration can be viewed as a transaction that the landowner must
enter into. The process of searching for, entering into, and supervising/monitoring/enforcing improved
land management projects represent transaction costs not captured in the project economics covered
above. These costs form another hurdle that a project must overcome to make adoption worthwhile to the
60
landowner. Typically, an important role played by public agencies and non-profit groups is to minimize
these costs by conducting outreach and education, as well as carrying out project implementation for
landowners. And finally, economic hysteresis simply refers to path dependency associated with the
business as usual scenario. In order for a landowner to adopt a new practice it is typically not enough that
the net benefits be positive, they must be significantly positive. This is because the costs of adopting new
practices are often irreversible, the outcomes are uncertain, and there is no urgency – the landowner can
choose to wait and see.
In sum, the livestock benefits must be significantly larger than the restoration costs for the landowner to
take action.
Private and Societal Incentives Given Policy Distortions and On-Site Market Imperfections
The second phase of economic evaluation should involve the adjustment of the net benefits of ranching
under the two scenarios to reflect the removal of policy or on-site market imperfections (not including
off-site changes in ecosystem services and biodiversity) that factor into private decision-making. This
phase involves two distinct steps: (1) standard economic project evaluation adjustments for distortions of
input and output prices and (2) “environmental” adjustments to account for land-related distortions or
imperfections. It is not clear that these distortions will represent a significant factor in the case of
meadow restoration in the Sierra; however, at least a cursory investigation of these distortions or
imperfections is needed in order to provide a comprehensive framework for economic analysis. The point
of this analysis is to indicate whether or not, for example, it would be better public policy to simply
provide incentives for the rancher to stick to business as usual (BAU) practices. In other words, if the
playing field was leveled, the rancher might have enough incentive to pursue restoration for his/her own
benefit.
Removal of Policy Distortions. First, benefits and costs as currently perceived by ranchers should be
reviewed to determine whether or not market distortions introduced by policies are driving a significant
wedge between actual market prices and “economic” prices. This transformation of market prices to
“economic” or shadow prices involves examination of any distortions in input and output prices and the
use of social rates of discount in place of private rates. The result adjusts the returns to BAU and meadow
restoration to their economic, as opposed to financial, values. For the purposes of the current project such
an investigation could be carried out or the literature surveyed. However, the overarching NFWF
Business Plan is probably not of requisite scale to warrant expecting a change of state or federal policies
affecting beef prices or the prices of fuel or other agricultural inputs. Such a step would therefore be of
limited practical impact in delivering technical assistance or financial incentives to landowners to adopt
meadows restoration. In sum, we will leave any existing policy distortions in place, and therefore they do
not need to be independently quantified.
Removal of On-site Market Imperfections. There may also exist policy distortions and market
imperfections that induce ranchers to ignore important land and environmentally related impacts of their
land use on production and, thereby, fail to achieve a level of production that would be privately efficient
in the absence of such failures. Four processes may be driving ranchers to make less than perfect
decisions in this regard: (1) conditions in capital markets that lead to a private discount rate that greatly
exceeds the social discount rate, (2) insecurity over land tenure, (3) a failure of the asset markets for land
to accurately reflect land values and (4) a lack of information regarding the long-run impact on
productivity of current land husbandry practices.
The existence of these conditions could lead to a disparity between the rate at which the rancher “uses”
the soil resource and that at which society would prefer the resource to be “used.” The intertemporal
“loss” of productivity that results is called the “user cost” of soil erosion, and in practical terms reflects
61
the value of lost future productivity incurred by ranchers who degrade their soil resource faster than is
economically optimal, as measured with the social rate of discount. If these failures exist, then by
implication the economic returns to ranching are not adequately reflected in the previous equation.
Instead it is necessary to also include the user cost of soil erosion, UC, into the equation. The economic
returns to ranching then become:
R BAU  RB BAU  RC BAU  UC BAU
Arguably, the adoption of meadow restoration puts the rancher back on a sustainable trajectory and would
reduce or eliminate these user costs. The practical question is whether in this case policies that create
user costs exist and whether these are large enough to lead to soil erosion rates that greatly affect the
long-term sustainability of Sierra meadows. At first glance this does not appear to be the case in terms of
erosion off of lands. However, channel erosion in degraded meadows is significant. While it is true that
overtime this reduces the land area available for livestock it is not clear that this is a large enough impact
to warrant further investigation. Of the four causal factors listed above probably only (1) and (4) may
apply in this context. Causes linked to capital markets suffer from the same issue as policy distortions.
The issue is too large for this project to resolve. But the implications can be explored in terms of the
potential divergence of private and social value.
The issue of long-term impacts and understanding is one that this project could address – in part by
quantifying and valuing the loss of usable grazing area due to channel incision and bank erosion over
time. If better information regarding the long-run impact on productivity of current and alternative land
husbandry practices were made available to ranchers, it might importantly their land use decisions and
increase their overall productivity and alter the manner in which they evaluate meadow restoration
opportunities.
Societal Incentives and Off-site Costs and Benefits
The next step in the framework is to incorporate off-site, or external, costs and benefits associated with
business as usual and the meadow restoration land use practices in the watershed. Given the debate over
whether meadow restoration harms or helps downstream water users in the Sierra it is particularly
important to keep in mind that downstream changes may have a direction that is either positive – i.e.
creating benefits or negative – creating costs. Changes in off-site costs and benefits by definition have an
impact on other consumers and producers and not the landowner. Generally, then the market provides no
incentive to ranchers to incorporate these off-site impacts of their land use into their own profitmaximizing framework. These off-site costs and benefits are included, however, in the analysis of returns
from society's perspective, R*. The full specification of the economic returns from ranching under either
business as usual or meadow restoration must also include the external costs and benefits of ranching, EC
and EB:
R BAU *  B BAU  C BAU  UC BAU  EC BAU  EB BAU
R MR *  RB MR  ES MR  RC MR  IC MR  C MR  EC MR  EB MR
Again, grouping key terms, the net returns to moving to the alternative of meadow restoration can be
specified as follows:
NR M R *  ( RB M R  RBBAU )  ES M R  ( RC M R  RC BAU )  ( IC M R  C M R )  ( EB M R  EB BAU )  ( EC M R  EC BAU )
If the net economic returns to meadow restoration are negative, once external costs and benefits are
included, then as stated above there is no economic rationale for pushing restoration on to private
62
landowners. On the other hand if the net economic returns are positive then the market failure that
precludes the internalization of these external effects into the farmer's land use decision framework is
leading to net economic losses to society. In other words if the net external benefits accrued to the rancher
and not to society broadly speaking the rancher would have the incentive to invest in restoration.
Compared with the private returns (and reclassifying the change in external costs and benefits caused by
moving from BAU to restoration as ) it is the net external benefits, NEB, that is the tipping factor in
determining the net returns to meadow restoration. These net economic benefits are represented as
follows:
More to the point, these external costs and benefits stem from the off-site change in ecosystem services
and biodiversity that result from meadow restoration. These were discussed earlier based on the NFWF
business plan but can be restated and added to based on an economic concept of value: As represented
earlier but slightly reformulated these are likely to include changes in hydrological and ecosystem
function downstream affecting a number of specific services, including:
 amount and timing of flow, Q
 levels of suspended sediment, SS
 downstream sedimentation, S
 downstream water temperatures, T
 habitat for fish and wildlife, HD/S
Other offsite but not necessarily downstream changes in service levels may include:
 feed, refugia and other habitat benefits for birds and wildlife, HOS
 carbon storage, above and below ground, CS
Taking note of each of these individually then the net external benefits can be reformulated as the value of
the change in provision of these functions:, as represented by the change in service level multiplied by the
economic price for the service:
Note that changes in Q can be described in many different ways, all of which reflect the idea that more or
less water during a specific time period imposes costs or benefits on downstream consumers – whether
these are the benefits/costs of an increase/reduction in late season water availability or the incremental
reduction in damages of having a less flashy hydrograph (i.e. flood attenuation benefits).
If it is assumed that the private incentives to engage in meadow restoration are lacking then obviously a
substantial and countervailing net external benefit is necessary to argue that market failure is pertinent
and that there is an economic argument for providing incentives that achieve incentive compatibility, i.e.
that motivate ranchers to pursue a course of action that is aligned with the common good, and not just the
rancher’s self-interest.
Clearly, the economic framework presented above is a fairly simplistic and utilitarian approach to what is
a very complicated problem, including, as it does, socio-economic, biophysical and institutional
components. However, the discussion makes two points clear with regard to the assumed need for
incentives to motivate ranchers to engage in restoration on their lands:
63

First, make sure incentives are needed, i.e. examine the on-site benefits of meadow restoration
and examine whether they should be sufficient to motivate adoption of restoration approaches

Second, make sure incentives are warranted, i.e. examine the off-site net benefits of changes in
ecosystem services and biodiversity before assuming that financial incentives should be provided
to ranchers to adopt restoration approaches
64
Van Dyke and
1 Darragh 2006
Kauffman et al.
1 2004
Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana
Shrubland Alliance (1)
xeric
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous
Stands (1)
xeric
1 Cole et al. 2004
Carex filifolia Herbaceous Alliance (1)
xeric
>100
1 Cole et al. 2004
Carex filifolia Herbaceous Alliance (1)
xeric
>100
Gaylor Lakes basin
602 (Yosemite/Sierra Nevada)
1 Ratliff 1985
Carex filifolia Herbaceous Alliance (1)
xeric
>100
285 Sierra Nevada
xeric
>100
West and west-central Sierra
200 Valley and Goodrich Creek
1 Murphy 2009
>100
2 Dwire et al. 2004
2 McIlroy 2008
Carex microptera Provisional Herbaceous dry mesic
2 Murphy 2009
2 McIlroy 2008
432 South central Montana
Middle Fork John Day River,
4853 Oregon
Gaylor Lakes basin
687 (Yosemite/Sierra Nevada)
>100
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous
Stands (1)
dry mesic
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous
Stands (1)
dry mesic
2 Dwire et al. 2004
-63 +- 24'
-56 +-23'
West Chicken Creek in Eastern
5834.85 Oregon
Limber Jim Creek in Eastern
4576.88 Oregon
Sierra National Forest,
2315 Stanislaus National Forest
West and west-central Sierra
400 Valley and Goodrich Creek
mesic
Veratrum californicum Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Sierra National Forest,
4453 Stanislaus National Forest
mesic
2 McIlroy 2008
Veratrum californicum Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Veratrum californicum Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
2 McIlroy 2008
Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Alliance
(1)
mesic
mesic
Sierra National Forest,
2873 Stanislaus National Forest
2 Cole et al. 2004
Calamagrostis breweri Vegetative
Series(2), Shorthair sedge - Shorthair
reedgrass Plant Association (3)
Normal'
Ratliff 1985
2391 Tuolumne Meadows
2 McIlroy 2008
mesic
-53.76
4283 Stanislaus National Forest
mesic
-37.69
2987 Stanislaus National Forest
mesic
2 Cole et al. 2004
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous
Stands (1)
mesic
Calamagrostis breweri Vegetative Series
(2), Shorthair sedge - Shorthair reedgrass
Plant Association (3)
mesic
2 Allen-Diaz 1991
Project location
Production Total Dry
lb/acre
Water Table Depth
(cm) and/or Ratliff
hydrologic class
Hydrologic regime
Vegetation Type Class
Citation
Meadow type code
APPENDIX 2. Forage Productivity Studies
-61.7 to 25.8
Sagehen Creek Basin, northern
2264.8 Sierra Nevada
Normal'
Ratliff 1985
1450 Tuolumne Meadows
2 Ratliff 1985
Calamagrostis breweri Vegetative Series
(2), Shorthair sedge - Shorthair reedgrass
Plant Association (3)
mesic
Normal'
Ratliff 1985
1065 Sierra Nevada
2 Allen-Diaz 1991
Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
-93.8 to -6.4
Sagehen Creek Basin, northern
2563 Sierra Nevada
mesic
65
Hanging,
wet-mesic Normal
Hanging,
wet-mesic Normal
4 Ratliff 1985
Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Hanging,
wet-mesic Normal
2405 Sierra Nevada
wet-mesic
-37.82
3293 Stanislaus National Forest
wet-mesic
-37.03
3283 Stanislaus National Forest
Project location
Production Total Dry
lb/acre
Water Table Depth
(cm) and/or Ratliff
hydrologic class
Hydrologic regime
Vegetation Type Class
Citation
Meadow type code
4 Cole et al. 2004
Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
4 Cole et al. 2004
3323 Harden Lake
3248 Harden Lake
4 McIlroy 2008
Carex (utriculata, vesicaria) Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Carex (utriculata, vesicaria) Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
4 Allen-Diaz 1991
Poa pratensis Semi-Natural Herbaceous
-50.4 to Stands (1)
wet-mesic 18.6
Sagehen Creek Basin, northern
3085.16 Sierra Nevada
4 Allen-Diaz 1991
Carex angustata/Poa pratensis (4)
-51.2 to wet-mesic 31.7
4 McIlroy 2008
Carex jonesii Herbaceous Alliance (1)
wet-mesic Wet-mesic
4 McIlroy 2008
wet-mesic Wet-mesic
Few-flowered Spikerush Vegetation
Series (2); Few flowered
spikerush/Primrose monkey flower Plant
Hanging,
Association (3)
wet-mesic Normal
Sagehen Creek Basin, northern
2750.91 Sierra Nevada
Sierra National Forest,
2177 Stanislaus National Forest
Sierra National Forest,
2004 Stanislaus National Forest
4 McIlroy 2008
4 Ratcliff 1985
4 McIlroy 2008
Eleocharis macrostachya Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Eleocharis macrostachya Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
Kauffman et al.
4 2004
Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Alliance wet
4 Allen-Diaz 1991
Carex angustata (4)
4 Ratliff 1985
Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Alliance
(1)
wet
4 McIlroy 2008
4 Murphy 2009
4 McIlroy 2008
4 McIlroy 2008
1145 Sierra Nevada
wet
-12.1
2712 Sierra National Forest
wet
-17.03
Wet -- high
water near
surface all
year
('anaerobic)
2314 Sierra National Forest
wet
wet
Few-flowered Spikerush Vegetation
Series (2); Few flowered
spikerush/Primrose monkey flower Plant
Association (3)
wet
Eleocharis macrostachya Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
wet
-36.0 to -2.9
Normal,
hanging,
lotic
Lotic
Middle Fork John Day River,
6317 Oregon
Sagehen Creek Basin, northern
2953.41 Sierra Nevada
2805 Sierra Nevada
West and west-central Sierra
1950 Valley and Goodrich Creek
-5.28
1922 Sierra National Forest
-11.4
1893 Sierra National Forest
4 McIlroy 2008
Carex (utriculata, vesicaria) Herbaceous
Alliance (1)
wet
Few-flowered Spikerush Vegetation
Series (2); Few flowered
spikerush/Primrose monkey flower Plant
Association (3)
wet
4 McIlroy 2008
Few-flowered Spikerush Vegetation
Series (2); Few flowered
spikerush/Primrose monkey flower Plant
Association (3)
wet
-35.74
4 Murphy 2009
wet
Lotic Normal
1477 Sierra National Forest
West and west-central Sierra
1350 Valley and Goodrich Creek
Lotic
1010 Sierra Nevada
4 Ratcliff 1985
5 Ratliff 1985
Slender Spikerush Vegetation Series (2); wet
lotic
1650 Sierra Nevada
-4.12
66
1625 Sierra National Forest
APPENDIX 3. Trout Creek Hydrographs
Figure 3-1. Trout Creek Hydrograph, 1990-2010
67
Figure 3-1a. Wet Water Year Hydrographs
High Flow Year ‐ 1993 vs 2005
150
Stream Flow Above Restored Reach in CFS
1993
130
2005
110
90
70
50
30
10
‐10
1‐Jan
1‐Feb 1‐Mar
1‐Apr
1‐May
1‐Jun
1‐Jul
1‐Aug
1‐Sep
1‐Oct
1‐Nov
1‐Dec
Figure 3-1b. Wet Water Year Comparisons
High Flow Year ‐ 1993 vs 2005
20
1993
Gain (Loss) in Restored Reach
15
2005
10
5
0
1‐Jan
1‐Feb
1‐Mar
1‐Apr
1‐May
1‐Jun
1‐Jul
1‐Aug
1‐Sep
1‐Oct
1‐Nov
1‐Dec
‐5
‐10
Notes: Gains/Losses at the downstream Trout Creek gage pre-restoration vs post-restoration
68
Figure 3-2a. 80% Water Year Hydrographs
Figure 3-2b. 80% Water Year Comparisons
Notes: Gains/Losses at the downstream Trout Creek gage pre-restoration vs post-restoration
69
Figure 3-3a Dry Water Year Hydrographs
Figure 3-3b. Dry Water Year Comparisons
Notes: Gains/Losses at the downstream Trout Creek gage pre-restoration vs post-restoration
70
APPENDIX 4: Detailed Economic Evaluation Literature Review
Ingram, W., and J. Loomis. 1989. Valuing Watershed Restoration Projects. Prepared in cooperation with
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Davis: University of California at Davis.
This report appears to have had the original intent of conducting an economic evaluation of the impacts of
the Red Clover Creek meadow restoration project in the Feather river system. The report includes
literature review and methodological suggestions, but in the end does not carry out such an analysis for
the reasons stated as follows:
...it became clear early on that much of the physical and biological data necessary has not been
collected. Nor are all of the requisite predictive mechanisms (quantitative models; methods relying
on professional judgment) available. Although this is in part due to the fact that not all of the effects
of the recently-installed Red Clover project have begun occurring, it is nonetheless clear that the a
prior evaluation of such projects will require certain baseline data, as well as appropriate predictive
capabilities. It is perhaps this report’s main contribution that such prerequisites are clearly identified
(Ingram and Loomis 1989:2).
It is at least worth remarking that the considerable difficulty experienced in Section 2 of this paper in
finding well-documented case studies that provide reliable and significant analyses of project
hydrological (and other) impacts suggests that their was little uptake of the recommendations put forth in
this paper and that the information that has since been generated is difficult to track down and not
organized into a single library (other than the Feather CRM website). While the paper covers a wide
swathe of ground with respect to the economic methods that may be deployed these methods are clearly
not the impediment to the analysis. In the paper’s recommendations the comment is made that there is a
need for interdisciplinary models (i.e. predictive models). Over 20 years later this remains the case.
More to the point is that what is lacking is the data and empirical analyses necessary to underpin a
predictive model.
In the literature search conducted for the report Ingram and Loomis (1989) found little literature relevant
to livestock grazing and erosion. Most of the valuation literature they found was related to agriculture or
timber harvesting and impacts on water quality/quantity. This literature is not informative with respect to
the impacts of meadow restoration projects. The results from other studies for these services cited in the
report cannot be extrapolated or used to derive relevant parameters for the valuation of meadow
restoration projects. However, the report does contain a number of (now somewhat dated) observations
on how to value specific ecosystem services as well as some literature and figures pertinent to forage and
water in Sierra Meadows and California. These findings are reported later in the next sub-section under
the appropriate subject heading.
Jones and Stokes. 2008. Consultant's Report: Plumas Watershed Forum Program Review. Prepared for
Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Sacramento: Jones & Stokes.
The report notes that reducing sedimentation of reservoirs and increasing late season base flow from the
Feather River head waters can both provide benefits to state water contractors that can be valued at the
marginal price of new water supply. The report states that it does not analyze the water law implications
of any such changes.
For the biophysical analysis a number of interesting points of relevance include:
 specific yield of Feather River sites is taken as 33% but includes sensitivity analysis down to 20%
 grossing up of mm/day ET differences between incised and restored meadows suggests 1.7 AF of
ET loss (presumably per acre); this is a very large number but the study suggests this parses out
71

as 0.17 AF per foot of restored storage and thus leaves 83% of new storage available for “delayed
stream flow augmentation”
relying on a single study of Last Chance late season flow (June-October) in a wet year is taken to
be equal to the new groundwater storage created; there is no discussion of how this would work
in dry/normal years – arguably the groundwater reservoir would be lower in such years and thus
not discharge (or spill) as much water
With respect to the economic analysis the evaluation criterion chosen is Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), using
discounted costs and benefits. While the exceptions may not apply here it is well recognized that BCR is
an inferior approach to using net present value as it can lead to incorrect decisions (Jenkins and Harberger
1989). The paper goes on at length about the selection of an appropriate discount rate. Jones & Stokes
ends up selecting the rates recommended by the Office of Management and Budget of 7% while exploring
the impacts of a lower 3% rate.
The paper goes on to calculate water supply benefits for the upper Feather River as follows:
 576,000 AF of total dewatered sediment volume due to incisions
 applying specific yield (effective porosity) gives 190,000 AF of groundwater storage lost due to
incision
 based on Feather River CRM estimates that only 70% of the incised area can feasibly be restored
gives 133,000 AF of storage that could b restored
 ET loss of 17% gives a total of 110,000 AF that could end up as base flow augmentation
For the costs and benefits the following figures were used and calculated:
 costs of restoration were expected to be $550 AF based on Feather River CRM project data and a
0.50 shape factor
 total costs to completely restore available sites over 50 years was $4.4 million
 a value for water is derived from the environmental water account at $150 per AF
The BCR for a 7% discount rate is 1 (break-even) if benefits are included for 50 years, rising to a BCR of
1.14 if 100 years of benefits are included. In other words, given the assumptions made the benefits
outweigh the costs and restoration is justified. The costs of restoration per acre foot of augmented base
flow are also stated to be $2,008 per AF. Given the $550/AF number cited a number of times it appears
that perhaps the $550/AF number is gross storage volume before all the conversions. In other words it
costs $2,008 to produce a single AF of effective base flow.
Based on sensitivity analysis the authors suggest that the factors that drive the results (apart from scale of
the problem) are:
 discount rates, thought lower rates improve the BCR
 specific yield, with lower yield dropping the BCR
 a higher shape factor improves the BCR
 higher price for water improves the BCR
There are a number of other caveats or limitations that apply here and would affect the net present value
(NPV) of restoration in general, including:

the 17% ET factor by depth seems odd given that CRM projects vary in terms of groundwater rise
from 0 to 10 feet – the ET loss would be better expressed by unit area, this would lower the NPV
since most of the projects have a lower rise in groundwater than that off of which the 17% is
based
72

wet years by definition happen only a little less than half of the time, thus there is a need for some
guesstimate of what would happen on average in terms of the release of stored groundwater, this
would lower the NPV

it is implicit that the storage volume is never filled without restoration, and this volume depends
on the shape factor – the accuracy of these assumptions/parameters are not clear and might vary
across wet and dry years

the time to fill groundwater storage is not included – this would presumably impose costs
downstream and lower the NPV

the year(s) during which groundwater storage is filling would presumably produce less late
season flow downstream and this would lower the NPV

in dry years, if not normal years, presumably all the water is stored and used, and thus the value
of groundwater storage should be any increase in value between water that is stored in reservoirs
and used versus that water which is provided as stream flow in the late season and then used as
natural flow (or carried over in storage), this would lower NPV

the seniority of water rights to stored water and natural flow and the impact that might have on
realized water values is not included, this could increase or decrease NPV

the value of water is sorely under-estimated if it is intend to be the marginal cost of new supply,
this would greatly increase NPV
The paper also briefly considers the reduction in sedimentation of reservoirs but finds that there is no
monitoring data for sediment yield. Assuming that progress has been limited the paper assumes that the
impact in terms of reduction in sediment yield is positive and significant but makes no effort to value it.
Buckley, M., M. Souhlas, E. Niemi, E. Warren, and S. Reich. 2011. The Economic Value of Beaver
Ecosystem Services: Escalante River Basin, Utah. Portland: ECONorthwest.
This report is relevant because to some extent beavers are a substitute for physical restoration approaches
in stream systems. Beaver dams hold back water just as do pond and plug approaches. In forecasting a
beaver “build-out” scenario Buckley et al. (2011) prognosticate that with beavers could place between 11
and 22 dams per mile of waterway resulting in ponds of 0.5 to 1.5 acres in size. As a result many of the
potential impacts identified by this study are quite similar to those identified above for restoration of
meadow ecosystems. These impacts are reproduced below by extracting Table ES1 from the publication.
73
The table from the paper simply reinforces the difficult nature of arriving at a standard set of ecosystem
services. In particular, the water quantity impacts probably reflect the same concerns as those expressed
in this paper but are broken into seven different types of impacts.
The paper uses a number of physical and chemical parameters to estimate how saturating Escalante
waterways with beaver dams would affect surface water storage, groundwater recharge, the surface water
flow regime and a number of water quality indicators (including sediment storage), as well as habitat and
other outcomes. In doing so the study relies on an extensive scientific literature on beavers and their
impacts on hydrogeology and ecosystems. The study then goes on to examines the potential benefits of
these services with respect to a “with” beavers scenario (saturating the landscape). The paper quantifies
the following “process effects” based on the number of dams and their size:
 water storage
 sediment capture
 water temperature
 habitat creation
The paper then goes on to monetize the following services:
74








water storage,
sediment retention,
pollutant storage
temperature reduction
riparian habitat
wetland habitat
aquatic habitat
recreation
The paper emphasizes the economic impacts of increased dam building by beavers in terms of the avoided
costs of water storage, habitat restoration and water quality treatment. Monetary indicators (per-unit
values) arrived at for the Escalante case are provided in Table ES-1 reproduced below.
The per unit values are combined with net impacts from the saturation of the landscape to yield watershed
wide estimates of the potential benefits of ecosystem services that could be created by beavers. The
resulting numbers suffer are often overly large, but demonstrate the method of combining natural science
estimates with value estimates to arrive at rough values for ecosystems services from restoration efforts.
This approach is similar to that being attempted for meadows in this paper, except that the ECONorthwest
paper does not examine the incentives issues and the distribution of costs and benefits.
75
Unfortunately the section on benefit valuation suffers from a number of limitations. Thus, there is no
point in going through it in detail. However, a number of relevant observations on the valuation analyses
in the paper include:
 the study assumes that all the sediment stored by beaver dams would be dredged at $2 per cubic
yard, however cite no evidence that any dredging occurs currently so this is an unreliable estimate
using the replacement cost approach (results suggest over $2 billion in value, though numbers in
the text differ from those in the tables) instead of a good example of the use of the avertive
expenditures approach.
 Similarly, one calculation values stored water based on the cost of a dam retrofit project (again
replacement cost) as versus calculated losses in productivity
 the paper cites studies showing high per household dollar values for improved water quality for
boating, fishing and other uses and arrives at a figure of $100,000 per one percent improvement
in water quality, however the expected low response of water quality to beaver dams leads
ECONorthwest to conclude this service might not be large in value
 the paper cites a Portland, OR example of the water filtration benefits at $3,000/ acre; however
the city has since been required to install a water treatment facility by EPA rule, thus, the
example has little merit anymore
 the values attributed to riparian habitat are on the order of several hundred million to $1.4 billion
but suffer from taking various assumptions of value and then applying them to all the acres and
river miles in the basin.
 the cited values associated with wetland ecosystem services span a huge range from $18 to
$183,000; by taking a mid-range estimate of $8,000 the issue of whether all wetlands are of such
low or high values is assumed away
 the cited values associated with aquatic habitat from beaver ponds of $2,000 to $6,000/acre seem
to be derived from contingent valuation studies of river-fed wetlands, but it is unclear why
inhabitants of the basin or tourists would value each of 30,000 created beaver pods at thousands
of dollars each
In conclusion the ECONorthwest study suffers from the problem of trying to separate out a series of
services as well as types of ecosystems across a large area and then applying unit values to what must be
very different circumstances across the Escalante basin. To its credit, the study does not try and add these
values up which would simply compound the error. The results could be off by several orders of
magnitude but it is hard to tell give the presentation. The paper certainly is indicative of the difficulties
encountered in conducting analyses of this kind.
76