9. Estimating Monitoring Costs
9.1 Breaking down the cost elements
These will always be difficult to predict. Nonetheless, it is essential that sufficient resources are planned within the project budget. By planning-in monitoring at project conception there is more chance that this will be achieved.
9.1.1 Planning
Planning the monitoring – particularly setting well-defined objectives – is absolutely critical to saving money, time and effort in the latter stages. As such, one should explicitly budget sufficient resources to this phase. The cost of effective monitoring should not be underestimated and in some cases a budget of around of 10-20% of the full project should be considered as appropriate for detailed monitoring but this will vary significantly depending on the input and interest from local groups.
9.1.2 Data collection
Unless large amounts of data can be collected remotely, or early assessments of risk and scale indicate that only minimal monitoring is required, the actual on-the-ground data collection activities are likely to take up most of the monitoring budget.
Table 9.1, on the following pages, gives some indications of costs for a range of methods and scales of projects. Note also the potential savings of data collection in partnership with wider interest groups, as mentioned in Section 10.2 (Who should be involved in monitoring and why).
9.1.3 Interpretation and reporting
Ideally data should only be collected for the purpose of specific planned analyses which will relate directly to the monitoring objectives. In this way, the costs of interpretation can be limited. Cost of interpretation can quickly escalate. For example:
- Where data collection is inconsistent since not initial clearly defined(see Shopham Loop case study)
- Where dissemination is necessary for a number of audiences which may require multiple outputs.
- Where detailed scientific analysis is required.
9.1.4 Estimating costs for data collection and analysis
Table 9.1 provides some outline costings related to different monitoring techniques. These are based on information collected from a range of sources. These are aimed to give some generic ideas of costs and are only here to provide some initial project estimates. More research and investigation will be necessary to provide detailed costs. For the purpose of Table 9.1 it is assumed that your river is less than 10m wide; larger than this can significantly affect cost estimates. Costs include data analysis and reporting but do not include equipment costs.
Note costs and lengths initially collated from questionnaires completed at a monitoring workshop in 2010. If you would like to contribute to updating this, please email RRC. |
| Method | Length (KM) | Cost | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed Point Photography | 1 | £200 - £1,000 | |
| RRC Rapid Assessment | 0.5 | £200 | |
| Habitat mapping (biotope) | 0.5 | £200 | |
| Habitat mapping (RCS) | 0.5 | £200 | |
| Citizen Science Macro-invertebrates | 5 | £100 - £300 | |
| Unit-time invertebrate survey | 1 | £2,000 | |
| Unit-area invertebrate survey | 1 | £2,000 | |
| River Habitat Survey | 0.5 | £170 | |
| Urban River Survey | 0.5 | £150 | |
| Expert fisheries observation | 5 | £500 | |
| Angler catch | 2 | £150 | |
| Electro-fishing | 0.2 | £750 per day | Equipment costs can amount to approximately £5,000 |
| Fish netting | 0.05 - 0.2 | £750 per day | Equipment costs can amount to approximately £2,000 |
| Fish trapping | 10 | £10,000 per year | A fixed position fish trap will only occupy a few metres of river channel length and width, but effectively monitors upstream fish migration into whatever length of river exists upstream of that position. Cost of equipment can be inexpensive for temporary traps (£100s) or considerable for permanent traps (10s of thousands of pounds).
Fyke nets inexpensive (£100s of pounds). |
| Hydro-acoustics | 10 | £750 per survey | Equipment costs can easily amount to over £10,000 |
| Fish Counter | 10 | £3,000 - £5,000 | A fixed position fish counter will only occupy a few metres of river channel, but effectively monitors upstream fish migration into whatever length of river exists upstream of that position. Does not include equipment costs which can easily amount to 10s of thousands of pounds. |
| Fish tagging | 1 | £200 per day | Equipment costs can easily amount to over £10,000. Length in the context of assessing habitat use in restoration schemes. |
| Macrophyte Survey (LEAFPACS) | 1 | £400 | |
| JNCC Survey | 1 | £400 | |
| Quadrat/NVC | 0.01 | £20 | |
| Aerial Photography | 0.001 - 5 | £2,000 | |
| GeoRHS | 5 | £130 | |
| Topographic survey | 5 - 10 (ha) | £2,000 - £4,500 | Based on easily accessible floodplain area |
| Repeat Cross Section | 1 | £2,000 - £4,500 | Approximately 20 cross-sections |
| Geomorphological Mapping | 1 | £3,000 | |
| Fluvial Audit | 5 | £1,000 | Typically requires 2 people |
| LiDAR | 20 | £6,000 | |
| Trash Lines | 1 | £250 | |
| Water levels | £595 | ||
| Spot gauging | £30 - £50 | per gauge | |
| Velocities | £30 - £50 | per gauge | |
| Rainfall-runoff modelling | £5,000 - £10,000 | per site |