Review of Actual Forest Restoration

Costs, 2021
Contract Report prepared for Te Uru Rākau – New Zealand
Forest Service

Prepared for Te Uru Rākau – New Zealand Forest Service

by Forbes Ecology

ISBN No: 978-1-99-102657-6 (online)

March 2022
Disclaimer
While every effort has been made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate,
Te Uru Rākau does not accept any responsibility or liability for error of fact, omission, interpretation or
opinion that may be present, nor for the consequences of any decisions based on
this information.

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0800 00 83 33

This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website at
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/publications/

© Crown Copyright - Ministry for Primary Industries

Review of Actual Forest Restoration Costs, 2021

Dr. Adam Forbes

Contract Report Prepared for Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forest Service

November 2021
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 REPORT PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................ 4
1.2 SURVEY METHOD ................................................................................................................ 4
2.0 FOREST RESTORATION PLANTING ....................................................................................... 6
2.1 RESPONDENT DETAILS.......................................................................................................... 6
2.2 PLANTING DENSITY, CANOPY CLOSURE, SEEDLING GRADES ........................................................... 6
2.3 TRANSPORT, PHYSICAL PLANTING, RELEASING, BLANKING, AND VOLUNTEER HOURS ........................... 6
2.4 COSTS OF FOREST RESTORATION PLANTING ............................................................................... 6
2.5 FENCING ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.6 FACTORS LEADING TO VARIABILITY IN FENCING COSTS ............................................................... 10
2.7 ONGOING COSTS BEYOND THE FOREST RESTORATION PLANTING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD .................. 10
3.0 LAND RETIREMENT AND REVERSION ................................................................................ 11
3.1 RESPONDENT DETAILS........................................................................................................ 11
3.2 NATURE OF LAND RETIREMENT SITES ..................................................................................... 11
3.3 FENCING, LENGTH TYPE AND COST ........................................................................................ 11
3.4 PEST CONTROL IN REVERSION SITES ....................................................................................... 11
3.5 ENRICHMENT PLANTING ..................................................................................................... 12
3.6 NEW INCOME STREAMS ..................................................................................................... 13
3.7 LOST INCOME .................................................................................................................. 13
3.8 PROPORTION OF ACTUAL COSTS MET BY FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................... 13
3.9 FACTORS LEADING TO VARIABILITY IN COSTS OF LAND RETIREMENT AND REVERSION ........................ 13
4.0 REMNANT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 15
4.1 RESPONDENT DETAILS........................................................................................................ 15
4.2 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR REMNANT MANAGEMENT .......................................................... 15
4.3 PEST CONTROL COSTS ........................................................................................................ 15
4.4 OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO REMNANT MANAGEMENT............................................................ 15
5.0 ANIMAL PEST CONTROL ................................................................................................... 17
5.1 RESPONDENT DETAILS........................................................................................................ 17
5.2 ANIMAL PEST CONTROL COSTS ............................................................................................. 17
5.3 VARIABILITY IN COSTS ........................................................................................................ 18
6.0 PLANT PEST CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 19
6.1 RESPONDENT DETAILS........................................................................................................ 19
6.2 COSTS OF PLANT PEST CONTROL ........................................................................................... 19
6.3 VARIABILITY IN COSTS ........................................................................................................ 19
7.0 SUMMARY OF ACTUAL RESTORATION COSTS ................................................................... 21
7.1 FOREST RESTORATION PLANTING .......................................................................................... 21
7.2 LAND RETIREMENT AND REVERSION (INCLUDING ENRICHMENT PLANTING) ..................................... 21
7.3 REMNANT MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 21
7.4 ANIMAL PEST CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 22
7.5 PLANT PEST CONTROL ........................................................................................................ 22

2
APPENDIX: FULL SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES (Digital File)

Tables

Table 1. Actual restoration costs survey and number of responses. ....................................... 5

Table 2. Forest restoration planting actual costs. .................................................................... 8
Table 3. Forest restoration planting actual cost scenarios for planting at 1.5 m spacing, using
the first and second most popular restoration grades, applying minimum, average, and
maximum costs for seedlings, planting, releasing, and blanking. .................................... 8

Author:

Dr. Adam Forbes

Principal Ecologist
Forbes Ecology Limited

Acknowledgements:

We thank the many participants of this survey and Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forest
Service for commissioning this work.

Cover photograph:

Forest restoration planting, Nelson.

3
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Report purpose and scope

Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forest Service engaged Forbes Ecology Limited to undertake a
review of actual costs of the main native forest establishment methods. Forbes Ecology
undertook a national survey of restoration practitioners seeking empirical costs from actual
restoration projects.

This report presents the results of this review. The full survey is appended to this report
(digital file).

The main native forestry modes covered in this review were:

1. Forest restoration plantings1 – to include different valid densities, given the

importance of seedling cost in upfront costs,
2. Natural regeneration2,
3. Enrichment planting of natural regeneration3,
4. Remnant management4 - to include breakdown of specific management actions and
costs.

The scope includes an investigation into the causes of variability. Geographical patterns in
cost were attempted but too few responses were obtained across many regions to provide a
basis for inter-regional comparisons.

1.2 Survey method

Questions were prepared covering items 1-4 above plus specific questionnaires on plant and
animal pest control (Appendix), making six surveys in total. Surveys were hosted on
SurveyMonkey and distributed via email directly to 73 recipients who have practical
experience in implementing native forestry/restoration. These recipients included:

• Private landowners/farmers,

1
Forest restoration planting refers to planting native tree and shrub seedlings at a density adequate to create
a closed-canopy native forest in time.
2
Natural regeneration refers to the process of native tree and shrub species spontaneously establishing to
form a naturally established forest stand.
3
Enrichment planting refers to actively planting old-growth tree species (or other desirable species) into
existing vegetation to diversify and successionally advance the existing vegetation.
4
Actively managing existing vegetation cover, being either primary or secondary forest remnants.

4
 • Ecological consultants,
• Pest control providers,
• Councils,
• Trees That Count/Project Crimson,
• Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust,
• QEII Trust,
• AUT,
• An ecosanctuary and a public park,
• Native plant nurseries,
• Restoration planting contractors.

In addition, the surveys were circulated nationally around the Regional Council Biodiversity
Working Group and were also hosted on the publicly available New Zealand Plant
Conservation Network (NZPCN) website. From these sources, the surveys were
subsequently discovered by additional parties. The survey was open from 30th September to
18th October 2021.

In total 59 responses were received (Table 1).

Table 1. Actual restoration costs survey and number of responses.

Survey topic Number of responses
Forest restoration planting 23
Land retirement and native forest reversion 12
Enrichment planting 3
Remnant management 6
Plant pest control 8
Animal pest control 7
Total 59

5
2.0 Forest Restoration Planting

2.1 Respondent details

Twenty-three surveys were returned. Surveys related to: Northland (5), Canterbury (5),
Nelson (1), Auckland (2), Waikato (1), West Coast (1), Wellington (1), Bay of Plenty (1),
Hawke’s Bay (2), Tasman (1), Top of the South (1), NZ wide (1), South Island (1).

2.2 Planting density, canopy closure, seedling grades

Across 21 respondents, mean planting density was 4,417 stems/ha which equates to a
slightly wider than 1.5 × 1.5 m planting spacing (Table 2).

Average time to >80% canopy closure ranged from 3.5 years at fastest sites, to 4.4 years in
typical sites, and 5.5 years at slowest sites, although for some slow sites 7-10 years to
canopy closure was stated.

The three most popular seedling grades used in restoration plantings costed on average
$2.69, $3.84 and $5.14. Seedling costs ranged $0.6-$10.23. When all seedling grades were
combined, the average cost per seedling was $3.77.

2.3 Transport, physical planting, releasing, blanking, and volunteer hours

Transport costs to move seedlings between the nursery and restoration site were on
average charged at $2.26/km per truckload of seedlings.

Physical planting costs were on average $7,044/ha, but these costs were highly variable
(range = $1,250-$21,717/ha). Costs for site preparation where not isolated by the survey
but are expected to be incorporated in planting costs.

Releasing and blanking were on average $2,649 and $667 ha/annum, although both these
components were highly variable among respondents. Releasing and blanking could be
expected to diminish over the years following planting ceasing when canopy closure is
obtained.

Where volunteers were used, on average their input made up 274 hrs/ha, however, this
contribution was also highly variable (range = 5-800 hrs/ha).

2.4 Costs of forest restoration planting

From these data, minimum, average and maximum forest restoration costs can be inferred.
Assuming the typical planting density of 4,444 stem/ha (1.5 × 1.5 m planting spacing), and

6
assuming seedling supply from a commercial nursery, professional planting crew, and one
year of commercially implemented releasing and blanking, typical costs can be indicated by
the survey data (Table 3). Taking average costs for seedling supply, planting, releasing, and
blanking – use of the most popular restoration grades results in average forest restoration
planting cost of $22,314/ha, which equates to a simple costing of $5/seedling (i.e.,
$22,314/ha / 4,444 seedlings/ha = $5/seedling). The same scenario, but only for the second
most popular seedling grade, results in an average forest restoration cost of $27,425/ha (or
$6.2/ seedling)5.

Scenarios where all components are priced at the minimum and maximum costs result in
relatively cheaper and more expensive restoration costs, however both of these extreme
scenarios appear unlikely to occur in reality making these extreme values unrealistic and of
little use.

Where seedlings can be grown privately, and where volunteers can undertake planting and
post-planting maintenance, per hectare costs would be reduced. Also note that these
scenarios exclude cost of seedling delivery which for a nominal 100 km distance would on
average cost c.$226.

5
It is noted that fencing and some planting on farms are likely to be tax deductable and that aspect of the
costing has not been isolated through this survey.

7
Table 2. Forest restoration planting actual costs.
Density Seedling cost Transport Planting Volunteer Releasing Blanking
(stems/ha) ($) ($/km) ($/ha) (hours/ha) ($/ha/annum) ($/ha/annum)
Grade popularity All grades
1st 2nd 3rd
Minimum 1500 0.60 0.92 1.36 0.60 0.50 1250.00 5 40 300
Average(±SD) 4417±2960 2.69±1.48 3.84±1.87 5.14±2.71 3.77±2.24 2.26±1.67 7044±7023 274±304 2649±3406 667±433
Maximum 10000 5.00 8.50 10.23 10.23 5.00 21717.00 800 12500 1500
Count 21 19 14 14 50 8 11 11 14 6

Table 3. Forest restoration planting actual cost scenarios for planting at 1.5 m spacing, using the first and second most popular restoration
grades, applying minimum, average, and maximum costs for seedlings, planting, releasing, and blanking.
Cost Density Seedling cost Planting Releasing Blanking Total fee ($/ha)
range (stems/ha) ($) ($/ha) ($/ha/annum) ($/ha/annum)
Grade Grade popularity
popularity
1st 2nd 1st $/seedling 2nd $/seedling
Minimum 4444 0.6 0.92 1250 40 300 4256 0.96 5678 1.3
Average 4444 2.69 3.84 7044 2649 667 22314 5.02 27425 6.17
Maximum 4444 5 8.5 21717 12500 1500 57937 13.04 73491 16.54

8
2.5 Fencing

The following fencing types and costs were identified by respondents.

Post and batten:

• 8 wire post and batten $22/m

• Post and wire $32.5/m
• 7 wire $35/m
• 7 wire batten $36
• 7 wire post and batten $26/m
• 7 wire steel post $15/m
• 5 wire no battens $15/m
• 4 wire and post $21/m

Average across the above costs is $26.7/m.

Electric:

• 4 wire electric, 3 hot $16/m

• 3 wire electric $14.75/m

Average across the above costs is $15.4/m.

Netting:

• 1 m net fence, barbed top wire $40/m

• Netting curved $24.35/m
• Netting with top hotwire with 6 m posts $18/m
• Netting $17.3/m
• Post and netting $15.5/m
• Hare proof $15/m

Average across the above costs is $21.7/m.

Earthworks for fencing was stated to cost:

• $1,000/day
• $920/day
• $1,200/day
• $320/day

Average across the above costs is $860/day.

9
2.6 Factors leading to variability in fencing costs

The following sources in cost variability were identified by respondents:

• Consent conditions,
• Livestock type (sheep, deer, etc),
• Topography/terrain, aspect,
• Fencing timber prices, fluctuating materials costs,
• Busy fencing quoting higher prices, lack of competition, desire to provide for high
quality,
• Whether tractor/rammer is provided by landowner,
• Seasonality/wetness of soil,
• Curved fencing is more expensive due to additional strainers and labour,
• Earth conditions, rock substrate, seepages, springs,
• Remoteness, access,
• Floodgates,
• Optimal alignment might be longer or shorter than expected,
• Stock type,
• Vegetation cover.

2.7 Ongoing costs beyond the forest restoration planting establishment period

The following ongoing activities and costs beyond the establishment period were identified
by respondents:

• Monitoring,
• Plant pest surveillance and control,
• Browser control,
• Predator control,
• Enrichment planting,
• Access tracks,
• Fence maintenance.

Costs given for plant pest control beyond the establishment period were $200, $500, and
$575/ha/annum.

10
3.0 Land Retirement and Reversion

3.1 Respondent details

Twelve respondents returned questionnaires on land retirement and reversion. Responses

represented Canterbury (9), Kaikoura (1), West Coast (1), and Auckland (1).

The average size of land retired for native forest reversion was 87±149 ha and reversion
areas ranged 2.5-540 ha.

3.2 Nature of land retirement sites

Land cover at the time of retirement was described among sites as:

• Pasture infested with gorse,

• Tussocklands, scrub, shrubland, treeland, forest and wetland associations,
• Established/regenerating forest,
• Farmland,
• Rough pasture, native shrubland and mixed kanuka-broadleaf-podocarp forest on
steep hill country,
• Dryland pasture with scattered native trees,
• Pasture and shrublands.

3.3 Fencing, length type and cost

Examples of fencing given for retirement and reversion include:

• Average fencing cost from 15 conservation covenants was $595/ha.

• A recent deer fence installation in north Canterbury erected for reversion was 6 km
long and cost $210,000 at $35/m.
• 1.2 km of 8 wire post and batten fencing cost $36,000.
• Wooden post 4 m, 3 wooden battens, 5 plain wire top and mid-bar wire, many angle
posts, 2 gates, 3 flood fences, 4 days dozing fence bench, 2,400 m @$30.96/m
($27.50 excluding dozing) equated to a fencing cost of $74,304 to retire 10 ha on
Banks Peninsula ($7,430/ha).

3.4 Pest control in reversion sites

A range of pest species were identified by respondents in relation to their retirement area,
although much of the work was funded by in-kind/volunteer inputs. Species identified by
respondents included:

11
Plant pests

• Wilding conifers,
• Ash,
• Sycamore,
• Old Man’s Beard,
• Hawthorne,
• Cherry,
• Wattle,
• Willow,
• Alder,
• Barberry,
• Exotic grass in dryland,
• Gorse,
• Broom,
• Gunnera,
• Ragwort,
• Blackberry,
• Kikuyu.

Animal pests

• Deer,
• Goats,
• Hares,
• Rabbits,
• Rats,
• Mice,
• Stoats,
• Possums,
• Pigs.

3.5 Enrichment planting

Half the respondents indicated they had done no supplementary planting. Two respondents
indicated they had done organised enrichment planting:

• Planting at 3,000 stems/ha at $4/plant plus maintenance equated to $15,000/ha.

• Planting at 1,500 stems/ha at $4.60 (including plant and planting) equated to
$6,900/ha.

12
3.6 New income streams

Two thirds of respondents had not derived income streams from the retired land. A third
indicated an interest in entering the native regeneration forest in the Emissions Trading
Scheme. Other avenues for income streams mentioned associated with the retirement area
were tourism and visitor accommodation.

3.7 Lost income

Several respondents indicated they had forgone agricultural income to achieve retirement
and reversion, with figures given (per year per ha) being $100, $300, $600 and $13,000.

Other respondents noted the agricultural income from the retired land was minimal under
agricultural management or the land was already de-stocked meaning there was no change
in income due to the reversion project.

3.8 Proportion of actual costs met by funding sources

Government (1BT & Regional Council contributions) and NGO (QEII) contributions (often
when combined) covered the following proportions of actual restoration costs:

• 30%,
• 40%,
• 40%,
• 50%,
• 70%,
• 77%,
• 82%,
• 84%.

3.9 Factors leading to variability in costs of land retirement and reversion

Main factors leading to variability in land retirement and reversion projects were noted as:

• Maintenance costs,
• Plant and animal pests,
• Carbon credits,
• Ability to fence,
• Seed source availability,
• Area to edge ratio for fencing,
• Topography and impact of cost on fencing,
• Fencing type,

13
• Rainfall/climate,
• Plant losses due to drought,
• People risks, proximity to population,
• Whether work is outsourced or done by landowner.

14
4.0 Remnant Management

4.1 Respondent details

Six respondents returned questionnaires on remnant management. Responses came from

Wellington, Top of the South Island, West Coast, Canterbury, and Otago.

Remnants were stated to be 2-9 ha in area, and in addition responses were given for QEII
covenants across north Canterbury and Wellington Regional Council Key Natural Ecosystem
sites.

4.2 Management activities for remnant management

Management activities in relation to remnants were:

• Pest control ranging from 1080 bait to small scale weed control,
• Revegetation,
• Fencing/stock exclusion,
• Monitoring,
• Limiting public assess.

4.3 Pest control costs

Respondents noted this to be variable depending on the need/threat to the forest and
whether the work was outsourced to a commercial contractor.

Costs given were:

• Control of mice, rats, mustelids, cats, possums $1,600/ha/annum,

• Vine weed control costs $69/hr for a contractor to complete the task,
• Weed control, chainsaw, and poison approximately $500/ha.

4.4 Other aspects relating to remnant management

Supplementary planting was undertaken to return lost species however due to the small
scale this was not out-sourced and costs were not given.

Carbon credits and ecotourism were income streams referenced as relevant to remnant
forest.

15
Overall estimates given for remnant management on a per ha per annum basis were $2,875
and $1,200. Costs were stated to vary depending on the nature of activities requiring
management.

Councils in many cases provide financial support for remnant management, as does QEII for
covenanted sites. Levels of support ranged from nil to 84% of actual costs (QEII & Council
support combined).

16
5.0 Animal Pest Control

5.1 Respondent details

Seven respondents provided information on their animal pest control experience.

Respondents represented Auckland, Canterbury, Otago, Southland, West Coast, the North
Island specifically Taranaki and the East Coast.

5.2 Animal pest control costs

One respondent provided this useful general statement about determining pest control
costs:

• “The price depends on several factors. The initial one to look at is what is the purpose
of the culling operation (i.e., annual control to a specified level, a one-off cull to
provide a "knock down" on the animal or total eradication). Annual control obviously
has ongoing costs this however can easily be budgeted for and is good for keeping
the target animals at a specified population density. One off culls are only ever useful
when new trees are being planted. This method is only good for short term pest
control. Eradication campaigns are good. However, they incur large costs and still
need long term control to ensure there is no reinvasion. Cost of the project or per
(Ha) depends on the animal density, vegetation/topography, is it annual control, a
one off, or eradication, and has there been pressure from recreational hunters (this
always makes it harder). I could not provide an accurate price per Ha as there are too
many variabilities. Also, it is cheaper and far better to target pigs, goats and deer at
the same time. From our experience, we have found that when you reduce the
numbers of one of the three, the others will flourish.”

Animal pest control in native forests were conducted for the following species and at the
costs given:

• Feral deer – shooting, shooting with dogs, thermal shooting, aerial shooting. Costs
range $5-$40/ha.
• Feral goats – shooting, shooting with dogs, aerial shooting, night hunting. Costs
range $5-$55/ha.
• Feral pigs – shooting, shooting with dogs, thermal shooting, aerial shooting, night
hunting, trapping. Costs range $1.5-$10/ha.
• Possums – poisoning and trapping. Costs range $20-$200/ha.
• Rabbits/hares – Shooting using thermal equipment and at night. Strong doses of
1080. Use of dogs. Costs range $2-$8/ha.

17
5.3 Variability in costs

Causes of variability in animal pest control were identified as:

• Effectiveness of methods such as different trap types,

• Pest population numbers,
• Presence of pests on neighbouring properties,
• Purchase and development of new equipment (e.g., PAPP bait stations),
• Accessibility,
• Vegetation cover,
• Topography/terrain,
• Attitude of local people to the work,
• Presence of non-target animals needing protection (e.g., kea),
• Poor project management,
• Weather delays,
• Helicopter availability,
• Level of control required (suppression vs. eradication),
• Mast years boosting pest numbers.

18
6.0 Plant Pest Control

6.1 Respondent details

Eight responses were received in relation to plant pest control. Responses represented
Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Wellington, top of the South Island, Canterbury, and Otago.

A large number of exotic species were described as potentially requiring control.

6.2 Costs of plant pest control

Costs per ha given were:

• Woody weeds, $36/ha,

• Vine weeds typically by cut and paste, $68/ha,
• Drill and fill method, $68/ha,
• General cost after initial knockdown, $300/ha,
• Kikuyu blanket spray, $700/ha. Spot spray around planted trees $1.8/tree,
• Wilding conifers - cut and paste, tree felling, spraying - $20-$500/ha,
• Gorse and broom - spraying - $15-$150/ha,
• Cotoneaster - cut and paste - $45-$250/ha,
• Sycamore - cut and paste - $45-$250/ha.

6.3 Variability in costs

Factoring causing variability in plant pest control costs in relation to native forestry were
given as:

• Weed species present,

• Density of vegetation,
• Terrain, slope,
• Native species present,
• Weather,
• Soil conditions underfoot,
• Access to the location,
• Transport,
• Internal access,
• Means of control (aerial, ground, manual, tools).
• Required selectivity and need to avoid non-target damage,
• Health and Safety considerations,

19
• Timing/funding conditions and constraints,
• Landowner preferences,
• Farming operations,
• Labour costs.

20
7.0 Summary of Actual Restoration Costs

7.1 Forest restoration planting

Planting at 4,444 stems/ha (1.5 m spacing), using the two most popular restoration grades
and outsourcing seedling supply, planting, releasing, blanking the actual costs returned
were $22,314-$27,7425/ha. Summarised by incorporating these costs into a per seedling
rate, this equates to a cost range of $5.02-$6.17/seedling.

Additional would be the following costs (typical/averages presented):

• Transport – typically $2.26/km,

• Fencing – dependant on type and circumstances but average costs for the main
fence types were:
o Post and batten = $26.7/m,
o Electric = $15.4/m,
o Netting = $21.7/m.
• Earthworks to create level ground for fence alignment = $860/day.

Respondents identified at least 14 factors that might lead to variability in forest restoration
planting costs.

Beyond the establishment period ongoing maintenance costs would be variable depending
on management needs. Standard per ha per annum rates for maintenance ranged $200-
$575.

7.2 Land retirement and reversion (including enrichment planting)

Responses related to retirement areas ranging 2.5-540/ha, in pasture with differing degrees
of exotic and native plant colonisation.

The main costs relate to fencing ($595-$7,430/ha), pest control, and enrichment planting
($6,900-$15,000/ha).

Costs associated with land retirement and reversion are highly variable (12 causes of
variability were identified) as costs are driven by site-specific circumstances.

7.3 Remnant management

Costs associated with remnant management are highly variable as costs are driven by site-
specific circumstances. Pest control costs were given variously as $69/hr, $500/ha, and

21
$1,600/ha/annum. Overall remnant management costs were estimated at $1,200-$2,875
ha/annum.

7.4 Animal pest control

Animal pest control costs ranged from $2-200/ha depending on a range of factors. Costs are
highly variable, and 14 reasons were identified as potentially causing cost variability.

7.5 Plant pest control

Plant pest control costs ranged from $15-500/ha. Costs are highly variable, and 16 reasons
were identified as potentially causing cost variability.

22
APPENDIX: ACTUAL RESTORATION COSTS SURVEY DATA (MSEXCEL FILE)

23