vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water Regulations
and Standards
Criteria & Standards Division
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/5-80-081
Water
Economic Benefits
of the
Clean Lakes Program
-------
AN ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF 28 PROJECTS IN THE
SECTION 314 CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM
Prepared in March 1980 for
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Criteria and Standards Division
September 1980
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement of recommendations for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was conducted under EPA Contract Number 68-03-2673,
administered by the Office of Research and Development, Center for Envi-
ronmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio.
The report was prepared by Thomas E. Walton, III, Project Manager.
Contributing authors and investigators were: Faith Halfter Ando, Abigail R.
Bacon, Harry W. Baist, D. Keith Brown, Christopher B. Cryer, Robert W.
Elfstrom, Marjorie J. Fitzpatrick, Gary D. Gindlesperger, John W. Gracey,
Michael H. Levin, Charles R. Marshall, and Michael R. Taylor.
Clean Lakes grant recipients and their consultants, state and local
officials, and EPA regional office staff members too numerous to mention
generously devoted substantial amounts of their time to assisting field
investigators in obtaining information about the various projects and the
status of publicly-owned lakes in the United States.
Detailed reviews of preliminary drafts of this report conducted by EPA
personnel at Headquarters and at Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
were extremely helpful in preparing the final version.
The cover photograph was taken during the site visit to Little Pond
in Lincoln County, Maine, December 18, 1979.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By the end of fiscal year 1979, the Clean Lakes Program had approved
105 grants totalling $40,097,110 -- 23 for state classification surveys and
82 for study and restoration work at specific lakes. Benefits were assessed
for a 28-project sample drawn from the second group.
The 28 projects, involving $15,349,053 in Federal funds and an approx-
imately equal sum from state and local agencies, are producing benefits in
twelve categories: recreation, aesthetics, flood control, economic develop-
ment, fish and wildlife, agriculture, property value, public health, multiple
use (commercial fishing and public water supply), education and research and
development, pollutant reduction, and miscellaneous items such as resource
recovery and reduced management cost. Many benefits could not be measured in
monetary terms, but the present value of those which could is $127,488,500.
This represents a return of $8.30 per Federal dollar expended, or $4.15 per
total project dollar.
Investigators reached two other conclusions besides the obvious
finding that the program has a high benefit yield. First, the successes of
many Clean Lakes projects appear to have been catalysts for other community
activities, some closely related to environmental protection and some not.
Second, at a time when government spending is under continued public scrutiny
and many programs are looked on with at least some disfavor, this one seems
to be almost universally popular among those who have participated in it.
-m-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 11
Executive Summary Ill
Introduction 1
Benefit Assessment Methodology 4
Results and Conclusions 11
Recommendations . . . . 17
Appendix A - Lake Inventory A-l
Appendix B - Clean Lakes Project Summaries B-l
Appendix C - Unit Day Value Method for Estimating Recreation
and Aesthetic Benefits C-l
-iv-
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Lakes Program became a reality on January 6, 1976 with
the award of the first grant. From that date through September 30, 1979,
the Environmental Protection Agency has awarded 105 grants, totalling
$40,097,110, for projects in 37 states. They include 23 classification
grants, awarded to states to survey and determine the condition of their
publicly-owned lakes, and 82 grants to state or local agencies to study and
restore specific lakes with serious water quality problems.
Publicly owned lakes are the only lakes which are eligible for a grant
under Section 314. There are, by conservative estimate, more than 36,800 of
them, with a combined surface area of nearly 11 million acres.* How many
are presently or potentially eutrophic or otherwise so degraded in quality as
to require the corrective or preventive measures typical of a Clean Lakes
project is impossible to estimate, but if the experiences of Wisconsin and
Illinois are mirrored throughout the United States, the number could exceed
10,000.2»3
A lake's quality is closely related to activities in its watershed
and materials transported by its tributaries, which is why Clean Lakes
projects so often include major watershed management and tributary quality
improvement components. The aggregate drainage area of the nation's lakes is
at least 1.5 million square miles - 42 percent of its total surface area -
and those watersheds are drained by approximately 1,400,000 miles of rivers
and streams.
Hydrographic statistics tell only part of the story. Another way of
measuring the importance of lakes in the United States is to describe their
uses. For example, commercial fishing is significant in lakes in a number of
states.^ As another example, the Water Resources Council estimates that
1-See Appendix A for details and sources of this and other statistics in the
Introduction.
^Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, "Assessment and Classification of
Illinois Lakes", Vol. I, December, 1978, p. 52.
-^Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, "Classification of Wisconsin
Lakes by Trophic Condition", April, 1975, p. 4.
^National Oceanic 'and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service unpublished data on commercial fish catches by state.
-1-
-------
between 30 and 40 percent of the nation's public water supply is withdrawn
from lakes. 1 Recreation in many forms is of course the most obvious use of
publicly owned lakes.
It is a striking fact, in a time of energy shortages and rising fuel
costs, that 211,517,000 people, or 99.4 percent of the 1975 population of
the United States, live within 50 miles (one hour's drive) of a publicly
owned lake. Fully one-third of them live five miles or less from a lake -- a
long walk, a comfortable bicycle ride, or a short bus trip. Many of these
70,135,000 people are city-dwellers, for over 2,500 of the country's lakes
may be described as urban. As shown in Figure 1, seven-eighths of the
country's land area lies within the 50-mile radius of at least one lake.2
People who live near the seacoast have a ready alternative to lake
recreation and may prefer to travel to the ocean in their leisure time. It
is thus significant that only 6,000 publicly owned lakes are within 50 miles
of the coastline. The other lakes, nearly 31,000, are located further
inland, valuable recreation resources for the large number of people for
whom a trip to the seashore is either practically or economically impossible.
This report is an assessment of the benefits of the Clean Lakes
Program, the purpose of which is to restore and preserve publicly owned
lakes, a valuable national resource which has been described in several
different ways in the preceding paragraphs. The next section is a descrip-
tion of the methodologies applied in the assessment. It is followed by a
presentation and discussion of findings and a set of recommendations for
continuing assessment of program benefits. At the end of the report are a
series of appendices containing additional details and supporting data.
Hlater Resources Council, unpublished estimates.
^More detailed lake location information would probably result in reduction
of the shaded area.
-2-
-------
f
Figure 1: LAND AREA WITHIN 50 MILES OF A PUBLICLY OWNED LAKE
-------
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The assessment methodology included provisions for sample selection,
information collection, identification of benefits, measurement of benefits,
estimation and projection of benefits, and presentation of results. General
approaches are described in this section. The project summaries in Appendix
B include discussions on the measurement or estimation techniques actually
applied to each specific project.
Sampling Procedures
The list of 82 lake-specific projects was initially reduced to 54 by
eliminating the 28 projects for which grants were awarded during the 1978 and
1979 fiscal years. These projects are so new that it would be unreasonable
to expect measurable results. Time and budget constraints permitted approx-
imately one-half of the 54 projects to be examined, with the hope that
adequate data would be available on at least 20 and that a sample consisting
of 25 percent of the total number of projects would thus be obtained. In
selecting the projects to be reviewed, an effort was made to meet three
criteria:
t A balance between urban and non-urban projects
t A geographic mix representative of the nationwide distribution
of projects
A variety of lake restoration techniques.
The final result was the sample of 28 lakes shown in Table 1. Twelve of them
are in locations which are non-urban in character - rural areas or small
communities distinct from large metropolitan regions. The other 16 can be
described as urban; they are either actually within a city or a densely
populated suburban area or are in parkland close to and intended to serve a
large population center.
-4-
-------
Table 1
LAKES IN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SAMPLE
Restoration Technique
Lake
Annabessacook Lake
Lake Bomoseen
Buckingham Lake
Charles River Basin
Clear Lake
Lake Cochrane
Collins Park Lake
Ellis Lake
59th St. Pond
Frank Molten Lakes
Lake Henry
Lake Jackson
Lake Lansing
Liberty Lake
Lilly Lake
Little Pond
Loch Raven Reservoir
Medical Lake
Mirror and Shadow Lakes
Moses Lake
Nutting Lake
Penn Lake
Rivanna Reservoir
Steinmetz Pond
Lake Temescal
Tivoli Lake
Vancouver Lake
Washington Park Lake
State
ME
VT
NY
MA
MN
SD
NY
CA
NY
IL
WI
FL
MI
WA
WI
ME
MD
WA
WI
WA
MA
MN
VA
NY
CA
NY
OR
NY
Setting
N
N
U
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
N
N
N
U
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
In-Lake
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilution/
Diversion/
Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watershed
Management
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a. U = urban, N = non-urban
-5-
-------
Information Collection
Field investigators obtained contacts for the projects from the Clean
Lakes Coordinator in each EPA regional office and arranged site visits. Each
site visit consumed from one to three days and included interviews with
the grantee and other sources such as cognizant state agencies, local and
regional planning organizations, health departments, realtors, chambers of
commerce, civic and conservation group members, and project consultants. At
the conclusion of each visit results were compiled on a standardized form and
submitted for analysis.
Identification of Benefits'
Clean Lakes project benefits were anticipated in one or more of eleven
areas:
0 Recreation Property Value
Aesthetics Public Health
Flood Control Water Supply
Economic Development Education, R&D
Fish and Wildlife Miscellaneous
Agriculture
A checklist was prepared listing screening questions, key variables, and
likely information sources for each benefit to insure that every investigator
thoroughly covered all possible categories in a reasonably consistent manner.
Measurement of Benefits
The primary objective of the study was to express benefits in mone-
tary terms. However, that is an objective which cannot be met for all
categories. Benefits which manifest themselves as increases in property
values or decreases in management costs can readily be stated in dollars.
There are other benefits, such as increased community awareness of environ-
mental problems, which can only be described qualitatively. Both types were
considered in this assessment.
-6-
-------
Benefits of Clean Lakes projects can accrue in any or all of four
ways. First, lake restoration may increase the extent of one or more exist-
ing uses. Second, it may result in new uses, or the reestablishment of uses
lost through deterioration of water quality. In both cases, benefits are
calculated, where calculation is possible, by multiplying the increase in
usage by an estimate of unit value for the use. This is known to economists
as the "value of activity increase approach".
The third case is that of improvement in quality of an existing use.
This is reflected in an increase in unit value, and the benefit can be
calculated by multiplying the existing usage by the change in value --
another application of the value of activity increase method.
Finally, a common consequence of a Clean Lakes project is that the
present extent and quality of a lake use are protected or preserved. Mea-
surement of benefit in this case is accomplished by determining the existing
level of benefit and estimating the annual rate of decline in usage or value
which would occur in the absence of the project. This increment of loss
prevented is the project benefit, and it is cumulative. In other words, if
boating is expected to become impossible in 10 years because of rapid silta-
tion, the benefit of effective erosion control in the first year is 10
percent of the present boating benefit. In the second year that 10 percent
is still protected and the loss of an additional 10 percent is prevented for
a total of 20 percent.1 In practice, it is difficult to predict the annual
rate of decline, even in the rare instance where there are lengthy historical
records. For this assessment, the highest rate was 10 percent, applied to
small lakes with the kinds of water quality problems which could potentially
eliminate certain benefits in ten years. For larger lakes, or less severe
problems, 1 or 2 percent was the rate applied. Selection of the rate was
admittedly a matter of judgement on the part of the investigator as well as
the individuals interviewed at the site.
In calculating benefits of this type, the loss of benefit that would have
occurred without the project is assumed to increase from zero to the annual
increment selected at a uniform rate over the year. At a 10 percent incre-
ment, the actual benefit in the first year would be 5 percent, the mean of
the January 1 and December 31 values of zero and 10 percent, respectively.
The second year benefit would be 15 percent and the tenth year's, 95 per-
cent. The complete loss of benefit would not have been experienced until
the end of the tenth year.
-7-
-------
It is important to note that there are other categories in which
benefit is measured by dis-benefits which do not occur. A common example is
reduction in lake management expenditures by the municipality as a result of
pollutant loading reduction. Measurement of benefits in this way is known as
the "cost savings approach".
A different approach to benefit measurement which cuts across all four
of the cases just described is the "capitalization approach". It assumes
that the value of all or most benefits associated with environmental quality
improvement are reflected in property value increases near the site. A
number of investigators have shown that the market value of property is in
fact affected by the existence and extent of and proximity to environmental
amenities or nuisances.* ' Consequently, property value changes can be used
as a measure of other benefits, some of which may not be directly measurable
themselves. It is usually difficult to obtain sufficient data to apply this
technique to a relatively new project, but we were able to use it in several
cases. Where it is used in conjunction with any other method, great care
must be exercised to avoid double counting of benefits. For example, it
would not be correct to include property owners in the total number of
recreators if both property value and recreation user-day increases were
included in benefits.
Estimation of Usage and Unit Value
In an ideal situation, benefits can be measured directly from known
changes between pre-project and post-project usage levels and unit values
determined by actual cost or by site-specific surveys of "willingness-to-pay"
for a given benefit. In most cases, however, one or more of the necessary
ingredients is missing and must be estimated.
When complete usage measurements are not available, usage can often
be estimated on the basis of partial records. For example, a rule-of-
thumb stated by the Water Resources Council is that total annual user-days
*For example: David, E. L. and W. B. Lord, "Determination of Property
Value on Artificial Lakes", Department of Agriculture Economic Bulletin 54,
University of Wisconsin, 1969; Knetsch, J. L., The Influence of Reservoir
Projects on Land Values, Journal of Farm Economics. 46:231-243, 1964; and
Schutjer, W. A. and M. C. Hallberg, Impact of Water Recreational Development
on Rural Land Values, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(3):572-
583, 1968.
-8-
-------
for outdoor recreation facilities in areas with seasonal variation can be
approximated by 50 times the design load, where design load is the number of
visitors on an average summer Sunday. 1 Usage can also be assumed to be
equal to capacity, provided that excess recreational demand can legitimately
be assumed to exist in the region.2 Usage at similar facilities nearby can
be used to develop estimates, or pre-project levels at the site in question
can be assumed to be restored by the project. Finally, usage can be esti-
mated on the basis of regional population by using per capita statistics such
as "Recreation Participation: Number of Summer Occasions Per Capita Over 12
Years Old", developed by Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service).3
The unit value to be applied to a given use or resource -- the
willingness-to-pay -- can sometimes be estimated by determining the cost
of the "most likely alternative1'. For example, when confronted with a
taste-and-odor problem in public drinking water, the amount of money an
individual spends to obtain alternative supplies is a measure of the value
of the public supply.
The most common unit value estimating problems are in the areas of
recreation and aesthetics. The method adopted for this study is the "Unit
Day Value" (UDV) method recommended by the Water Resources Council for use
when regional models or site-specific surveys are not feasible.^ The UDV
method provides a means for estimating willingness-to-pay for recreation on
the basis of certain charactersitics of the water resource under study:
Recreation Experience - number of activities available
Availability of Opportunity - proximity to alternative sites
Carrying Capacity - adequacy of facilities
Accessibility - proximity and quality of access routes
t Environmental Quality - primarily aesthetic factors.
CFR 713, Procedures for Evaluation of National Economic Development
(NED) Benefits and Costs in Water Resources Planning (Level C), Appendix
3 to Suhpart K (Reproduced as Appendix C to this report).
218 CFR 713.917.
-^Contained in U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, "Recreation Ready Refer-
ence", August 1977, Chapter 2.
CFR, Appendix 3 to Subpart K.
-9-
-------
A lake can be rated In each category on a point scale developed by WRC, and
the sum of the points assigned can be converted, using another scale, to a
dollar value for a unit day of recreation. By using only the "Environmental
Quality" category, a value can be assigned to aesthetic amenity as well.
Because we have relied heavily on the UDV tables to determine absolute and
incremental recreational values where the grantee did not provide them, they
are reproduced as Appendix C of this report.
Unfinished or uninitiated projects where the grantee has not made
projections of benefits are simply special cases of estimation. Any of the
various estimating techniques described above can be used to project bene-
fits. Whenever this was done, conservative assumptions were made to minimize
the risk of overstating benefits. For example, unless there was good reason
to project an increase, future usage was projected to be a continuation
of present levels. Projections are clearly noted in the individual lake
summaries which appear in Appendix B.
Presentation of Results
To permit comparison to 314 grant amounts, all future benefits to
which dollar values could be assigned were discounted to present value. The
discount rate used, 7-1/8 percent, is that currently in effect for water and
related resources planning, as approved by the Water Resources Council. The
period used in discounting most streams of recurring benefits was 10 years.
This is a much shorter period than that typically used in water resource
planning; it reflects the greater uncertainty associated with predicting
the length of time good water quality will be maintained as opposed to
determining the useful life of a facility such as a flood control dam.
Findings are summarized in the next section of this report. Appendix
B contains individual summaries for each project assessed.
-10-
-------
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the benefits assessment are summarized in Table 3
and are detailed by project in Appendix B. The table lists for each project
in the sample the categories of benefit documented and the forms in which
they are expressed. For benefits which could be expressed in monetary terms,
total discounted benefits and 314 grant amounts are compared. This compari-
son shows that the stream of benefits resulting or projected to result from
the expenditure of $15,349,053 in 314 grant moneys has a present value of
$127,488,500. In other words, each Federal dollar expended has triggered
$8.30, plus significant non-monetary items, in benefits. Taking the local
share of all project funding as exactly equal to the Federal share (in a few
cases it was slightly higher), the total expenditure of $30,700,000 is
returning quantifiable benefits at the rate of $4.15 per project dollar.
It is instructive to break down this result into urban and non-urban
categories. For the sixteen urban-area projects (see Table 1, page 5):
Total Discounted Benefits Total 314 Grants
$90,777,300 $9,414,622
The totals for non-urban projects are:
Total Discounted Benefits Total 314 Grants
$36,711,200 $5,934,431
Each Federal dollar expended on an urban project thus has associated with it
monetary benefits valued at $9.64. The corresponding value for the non-urban
projects is $6.19. Both amounts may be halved to relate monetary benefits to
total project dollars. The "return on investment" in an urban lake tends to
be higher, primarily for the logical reason that some benefits, especially
recreational, add up more quickly in areas with larger populations and thus
more users.
In only three projects in the sample of 28 does it appear that the
Federal share of project funding will exceed the dollar value of benefits to
be realized. Five additional projects show costs in excess of monetary
-11-
-------
Table 3
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS FROM 28 CLEAN LAKES PROJECTS
o
i_
(U
5» H-
Is
3
(O
Q
O)
3C
O
0)
E
to
Total
Discounted
* Benefits9
314
Grant
Amount
Lake « < u- uj u.
-------
benefits if the entries in the "314 Grant Amount" column are doubled to
reflect the state and local share. Two of the three lakes in which the
Federal grant exceeds the present value of benefits are non-urban, as are
three of the five additional lakes added to the costs-exceeding-benefits list
when total project cost is considered.
Recreation and aesthetics account for the largest share of the total
discounted benefits. There are a number of reasons for this, the first and
most obvious being that they were the categories in which grantees most often
had compiled some form of numerical data. Second, the field of water resour-
ces planning has a long history of attempts to quantify recreational and aes-
thetic benefits, during which a number of useful estimating tools such as the
UDV method have been developed for that purpose. This assessment, as a con-
sequence, unavoidably emphasized those categories. It is an emphasis which
is probably appropriate, however, for it is the perceptions and reactions of
shoreline residents and recreational users, who are not trained in limnology,
which most frequently focus attention on lake water quality problems in the
first place and thus trigger the grant application process. Most lake
.restorations programs have aesthetic improvement and maintenance or enhance-
ment of recreational opportunity as primary objectives. Therefore, insofar
as success is measured by progress toward objectives, it will inevitably be
measured in terms of recreational and aesthetic benefit. Among the lakes in
this sample, only Little Pond, restricted to use as public water supply, did
not receive heavy emphasis on recreation.
Recreational benefits include a mixture of preservation or protection,
improvement of quality, and increase in opportunity. At one extreme, for
example, is Lake Bomoseen, in which gradual loss of recreational potential
was the chief concern. It was analyzed as a case of preservation of existing
recreational levels. Ellis Lake, on the other hand, had lost nearly all
recreational value, and the project was seen as restoring benefits. Medical
Lake was experiencing not only great improvement in quality of existing but
limited recreational and aesthetic benefits but also was adding a new oppor-
tunity, trout fishing.
-13-
-------
Perception of water quality and presence or absence of nuisance
conditions - in other words, aesthetic amenity - are factors taken into
account in estimating recreational benefits. In this assessment, aesthetic
and recreational benefits are combined except in cases where there are
clearly two types of users - one group whose use involves recreation in, on,
or close to the lake, and another group for which the lake is only a visual
amenity or a part of the general setting for activities which are unrelated
to the water. Then, separate recreational and aesthetic benefits are esti-
mated, since UDVs and usage levels are usually quite different.
For only four projects could flood control benefits be documented,
and flood control or improved storm drainage appeared to be more than an
incidental benefit in on-ly two of those, Ellis Lake and 59th Street Pond.
Economic development was one of the most difficult categories to deal
with. In eleven projects, some benefits to the local or regional economy
were anticipated, principally in the form of new residential construction,
reclamation of undevelopable land, and a few jobs for Youth Conservation
Corps members or park employees. Numerical data were rarely available for
assessment of primary benefits, and never for secondary effects such as
the demand for goods and services that would be generated by new property
owners, or as a result of increased tourism.
In a sense, fish and wildlife would benefit in the long run from most
of the restoration projects, although they might be adversely affected during
the actual work on the lake. Fish and wildlife benefits were recorded in
this assessment when they were either named as objectives and those objec-
tives were attained, or when a documented condition affecting fish and
wildlife, such as winter kill, algal toxicity, or siltation of spawning area,
was abated by the project.
Most projects did not appear to have agricultural benefits. Implemen-
tation of best management practics was documented as a benefit in only two
cases, Lake Henry and Annabessacook Lake. Nearly one-third of the benefits
projected for Vancouver Lake are in the form of land reclamation for poten-
tial cultivation, and in the case of Ellis Lake, a primary objective of the
project was eradication of a weed with the potential to drastically curtail
California's rice production.
-14-
-------
Changes in property value, as described in the Methodology section,
can be used as an overall measure of perceived and actual lake quality,
although more research on the quality-to-value relationships needs to be
accomplished. Only in the case of Annabessacook Lake and Lake Lilly was
there enough local information to permit realistic computations of property
value increases. In the case of projects which had preservation of lake
quality as their primary objectives -- Lake Bomoseen and Lake Jackson,
especially -- it was possible to estimate benefits in terms of property value
preserved. For most projects, it is premature to try to measure property
value changes; there has not been time for a sufficient number of turnovers
and reassessments to occur.
The most common public health benefits were reductions of fecal
coliform counts and turbidity, the latter a factor in swimming safety. The
benefit was usually measured implicitly as part of improvements in recrea-
tional value or water supply. The one site where beach closing records were
available, Lake Temescal, is the only one in which a quantitative benefit
could be assigned explicity to public health.
In the case of public water supply, benefits could be estimated rather
precisely in terms of savings in treatment costs.
Education, research and development, a documented benefit in almost
every project, took four different forms. First, the lake or the project
could be serving as an educational opportunity for students. Second, the
improved lake could be the main attraction of a nature study program or
facility. Third, the project could include an explicit educational component,
to instruct citizens in some form of best management practice, for example.
Finally, the project could purposely or coincidentally be serving as a
demonstration or pilot study for researchers and practitioners of lake
management and restoration. For instance, the State of Maine has already
implemented the techniques applied at Little Pond in another lake, with no
need for further Federal funding assistance.
Pleasingly evident in most of the projects was heightened awareness
of the value of lakes and other features of the natural environment, and
strengthened commitment to environmental protection. This was included as
an educational benefit wherever it was observed.
-15-
-------
In the "miscellaneous" category were placed such benefits as commer-
cial fishing, reduced lake management costs, reduction in the need for
pesticide use, and non-specific but beneficial use of dredge spoil.
In no particular category but apparent at nearly every lake, was
a phenomenon we have chosen to describe as an improvement in community
spirit. Citizens we spoke with were proud of their projects. Perhaps
the most unmeasurable of the qualitative benefits, it is nevertheless
a very important one. In some cases, it has manifested itself tangibly
in increases in related community activities -- enlarged membership in the
local lake association, for example, or voluntary implementation of best
management practices. One town has applied for and received state aid
for lakeside park improvements and is now applying for HUD funding to aggres-
sively attack urban problems; its successful lake project seems to have been
the catalyst. At other locations, the manifestations were less specific but
no less apparent people simply felt good about the restored lakes.
Part of the reason for this community response to the Clean Lakes
program can be found in looking at those two or three projects where we did
not encounter it. There, the negative feelings were in response to delays,
largely because of administrative problems, which had postponed any notice-
able beneficial result.
The very substantial benefits shown in Table 1 are thus only part of
this assessment; the rest is the observation that the program appears to be
almost universally popular with those that have involved themselves in it,
because it produces tangible results in a reasonable amount of time. Having
had to provide or promote 50 percent of the funding, the participating
communities are committed to their restoration projects, and they have been
rewarded with quick action and visible improvements. Their enthusiasm, while
intangible and unquantified, is nonetheless both real and communicable; after
the site visits, we felt good about the projects too.
-16-
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to maximize the benefits realized from Section 314 funding,
to provide the soundest possible basis for selection of projects for grant
awards from among the many lakes which may be eligible, and to permit evalu-
ation of project results in the most appropriate terms, benefit assessment
should become a permanent, ongoing part of the Clean Lakes Program, inte-
grated into it at the project level and monitored by the EPA Headquarters
staff.
This general recommendation is made on the basis of four characteris-
tics of most Clean Lakes projects. First, they are highly benefit oriented.
In other words, they are often defined, and always perceived, in terms
of desired or expected changes in lake use. Second, actual or projected
benefits are difficult to measure or estimate because of the lack of good
baseline data on existing lake uses and on availability of and demand for
existing and anticipated uses. Third, insofar as benefit assessment has
been possible, it shows that benefits vary widely from project to project,
not only because of differences in lake characteristics and restoration tech-
niques, but also with variations in climate, geographic location, regional
population density, lake surroundings, available facilities, and proximity to
other bodies of water. Finally, public acceptance of lakes projects, and the
local share of their funding, is dependent on perceptions of potential or
actual benefit.
The recommendation can be implemented most effectively in the follow-
ing manner.
1. State classification surveys should include information relevant
to determining potential project benefits, such as description of
geographic and demographic setting, current uses and facilities,
and, when available, data on present usage levels.
2. Applicants for Section 314 funding should be required to state
the objectives of proposed projects in terms of changes or
improvements in lake use.
3. The benefits to result from those changes should be estimated
in order to provide justification for proposed projects. This
-17-
-------
justification should include an approximation of present usage of
the lake and projections of future usage after restoration.
4. In making the projections, proper consideration should be given
to:
(a) Potential demand for projected uses;
(b) Capacity and capability to "deliver" those uses, once
available; and
(c) Existence, proximity, and relative attractiveness of alter-
native supplies of those uses.
5. Comments on the projections from cognizant agencies, such as
local and regional plannning organizations or park and recreation
departments, should be included with the application.
6. When a project is funded, the initially stated objectives in
terms of uses and benefits should be refined and procedures
for monitoring and measuring progress toward them should be
established.
7. Procedures for developing useful, quantitative baseline data on
benefits should be a part of the work plan, to provide the
starting point for monitoring.
8. Upon completion of restoration or preventive activities, a mecha-
nism for monitoring and reporting benefits should remain in
place.
9. EPA Headquarters staff should receive and review reports of bene-
fits achieved and should produce an annual assessment of program
benefits from them.
It should still be possible to obtain baseline information, define
objectives in terms of benefits, and monitor achievement in ongoing projects.
This could be accomplished by the grantee, with technical assistance from EPA
as necessary.
For completed projects which have not been reviewed in this study, the
feasibility of obtaining baseline benefits data and monitoring benefits
should be investigated. Projects which were included in the study should be
monitored to determine the extent to which estimates and projections of
benefits are realized.
-18-
-------
Appendix A
LAKE INVENTORY DATA
Table A-l Inventory of Publicly Owned Lakes
Table A-2 Estimate of Population Residing Within Fifty and Five
Miles of at Least One Publicly Owned Lake
Table A-3 Distribution of Urban, Rural, and Coastal Public Lakes
-------
Table A-l. INVENTORY OF PUBLICLY OWNED LAKES
State
EPA Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
EPA Region II
New Jersey
New York
EPA Region III
Delaware
Maryland and DC
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
EPA Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
EPA Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
EPA Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
State Drainage Area
Total3 (mi2 x 103)3
142
3,000
1,302
978
5
19
375
2,822
30
12
193
19
34
83
1,054
74
817
107
97
171
177
271
276
3,326
2,065
207
871?
344
157
160
1,894
240
5.4
15.8
0.8
7.6
0.1
12.1
0.7
21.6
0.2
27.6
8.6
12.2
1.3
45.8
54.2
29.9
4.8
4.6
42.1
18.0
38.8
9.2
11.3
13.7
4.8
16.9
9.9
53.0
12.5
73.5
68.2
224.3
Surface Area
(ac x 103)*>
NA
NA
106.0
169.6
NA
40. 4<*
31.5
NA
2.4
NA
56.4
NA
NA
2.0
1,876.4
NA
65.8
143.9
NA
534.3
653.46
156.1
NA
528.5
NA
118.2
701.3
329.3
610.2
58.4
701.2
NA
Tributary Length
(mi x 103)c
5.0
14.5
0.7
7.0
0.1
11.1
0.6
19.9
0.2
25.4
7.9
11.2
1.2
42.1
49.8
27.5
4.4
4.2
38.7
16.5
35.7
8.5
10.4
12.6
4.4
15.5
9.1
48.7
11.5
67.5
62.7
206.1
A-l
-------
Table A-l. INVENTORY OF PUBLICLY OWNED LAKES (CONTINUED)
State
State
Total9
Drainage Area
(mi2 x 103)a
Surface Area
(ac x 103)b
Tributary Length
(mi x 103)c
EPA Region VII
Iowa 88
Kansas 91
Missouri 102
Nebraska 224
EPA Region VIII
Colorado 271
Montana 86
North Dakota 211
South Dakota 742
Utah 1,863
Wyoming 57
EPA Region IX
Arizona 157
California 4,034
Hawaii 2
Nevada 67
EPA Region X
0.6
66.9
57.4
1.5
57.4
215.8
32.5
9.5
27.3
2.3
0.6
117.0
NA
2.9
NA
48.3
NA
113.9
NA
NA
NA
648.6
394.2
NA
352.6
1,050.1
NA
379.2
0.6
61.5
52.7
1.4
52.7
198.3
29.9
8.7
25.1
2.1
0.6
107.5
NA
2.7
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
83
96
6,6199
717
NA
30.7
0.9
57.0
534.3
NA
587.9
NA
NA
28.2
0.8
52.4
TOTAL
36,832
1,529.8
10,994.4
1,405.8
Estimates based on state-collected data and/or nationally catalogued data
as obtained from the National Water Data Exchange, U.S.G.S.
"Estimates based only on state-collected data which frequently excludes
smaller lakes (less than 100 acres) from consideration. Consequently,
these estimates are very conservative.
cThe mileage of contributing streams and rivers was calculated from the
state's total drainage area (Column 2) using 0.919 as the national average
of the ratio of total channel length to drainage area. This relationship
was derived from estimates given in L. B. Leopold et al., Fluvial Processes
in Geomorphology. W. H. Freeman and Co., 1964), pp. 140-142.
^Excludes Lake Champlain and reservoirs on the Connecticut River.
Information from the Tennessee Valley authority; excludes most lakes not
owned by the T.V.A.
fState inventory excludes lakes with surface areas less than 100 acres.
90regon information includes all lakes having a surface area greater than
one acre.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. ESTIMATE OF POPULATION RESIDING WITHIN FIFTY AND FIVE MILES
OF AT LEAST ONE PUBLICLY OWNED LAKE3
State
Region I
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Region II
NJ
NY
Region III
DE
MD and DC
PA
VA
WV
Region IV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Region V
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
Region VI
AK
LA
NM
OK
TX
Total Land
Area
(1000 mi2)
4.9
30.9
7.8
9.0
1.0
9.3
7.5
47.8
2.0
10.0
45.0
39.8
24.1
50.7
54.1
58.1
39.6
47.3
48.8
30.2
41.3
55.7
36.1
56.8
79.3
41.0
54.5
51.9
44.9
121.4 '
68.8
262.1
Population
(1000's)b
3,100
1,058
5,812
811
931
472
7,333
18,075
579
4,833
11,864
4,980
1,799
3,616
8,283
4,931
3,388
2,342
5,441
2,816
4,174
11,206
5,309
9,116
3,916
10,735
4,577
2,107
3,804
1,144
2,711
12,245
Affected
Land Areac
i (1000 mi2)
50 mi
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
5.8
all
37.8
all
49.6
48.3
49.9
38.5
46.6
48.0
27.4
41.1
all
35.5
all
all
all
51.8
51.7
44.1
97.8
67.9
243.2
5 mi
4.1
27.8
5.1
7.7
1.0
4.6
2.6
38.3
<0.1
1.2
33.7
8.0
2.4
7.1
10.8
8.7
5.7
6.6
3.9
3.6
6.9
8.4
4.3
48.3
43.6
10.2
21.8
7.3
5.4
4.9
9.6
21.0
Affected Population^
(1000's)
50 mi
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
2,819 (58)
all
4,727 (95)
all
3,534 (98)
7,394 (89)
4,238 (86)
3,286 (97)
2,310 (99)
5,349 (98)
2,559 (91)
4,156 (99)
all
5,217 (98)
all
all
all
4,357 (95)
2,096 (>99)
3,735 (98)
921 (80)
2,676 (99)
11,360 (93)
5 mi
2, 635 ,(85)
952 (90)
3,778 (65)
690 (85)
885 (95)
236 (50)
2,566 (35)
14,460 (80)
12 (35)
580 (12)
8,898 (75)
996 (20)
180 (10)
506 (14)
1,657 (20)
740 (15)
484 (14)
328 (14)
435 ( 8)
338 (12)
696 (15)
1,681 (15)
637 (12)
7,749 (85)
2,154 (55)
2,684 (25)
1,831 (40)
295 (14)
456 (12)
46 ( 4)
380 (14)
980 ( 8)
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2. ESTIMATE OF POPULATION RESIDING WITHIN FIFTY AND FIVE MILES
OF AT LEAST ONE PUBLICLY OWNED LAKE* (CONTINUED)
State
Total Land
Area
(1000 mi2)
Affected
Land Areac
Population (1000 mi2)
(10QO's)b 50 mi 5 mi
Affected Population^
(lOOO's)
50 mi
5 mi
Region VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
Region VIII
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Region IX
AZ
CA
HI
NV
55.9
81.8
69.0
76.5
103.7
145.6
69.3
76.0
82.1
97.2
113.4
156.4
6.4
109.9
2,861 52.2 4.5 2,669 (93) 229 ( 8)
2,280 81.6 9.8 2,273 (>99) 274 (12)
4,770 64.8 6.9 4,477 (94) 477 (10)
1,544 76.1 10.7 1,536 (>99) 216 (14)
541 102.2 7.3 2,504 (99) 178 ( 7)
746 141.4 17.5 725 (97) 90 (12)
643 all 10.4 all 96 (15)
683 72.8 10.6 653 (96) 96 (14)
203 57.2 8.2 837 (70) 120 (10)
376 96.1 14.6 372 (99) 56 (15)
2,225 88.8 5.7 1,777 (80) 117
21,202 154.7 46.9 20,982 (99) 6,361
868 0.6 0.1 89 (10) 17
590 96.2 7.7 517 (88) 41
( 5)
(30)
( 2}
( 7)
Region X
AS
ID
OR
WA
569.
82.
96.
66.
6
7
1
6
2
3
364
814
,284
,553
280
.8
all
90
66
.7
.4
28.5
9.9
7.7
10.0
41
all
2,150
3,548
(11)
(94)
(>99)
18
98
183
533
( 5)
U2)
( 8)
(15)
TOTAL 3,536.8 212,873 3,081.7 647.8 211,517 (99) 70,135 (33)
aEstimates of affected land area and population are conservative because
lakes less than 100 acres were not shown on the state maps (Rand MacNally
Road Atlas. 19).
bPopulation figures were based on County and City Data Book, 1977, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
cThis column includes the surface area of all public lakes in each state
and the associated land areas which form a fifty and five mile perimeter
around each lake (as planimetered from the Rand MacNally Road Atlas 19).
No land area was counted twice.
"Number in parentheses is percentage of total population.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-3. DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN, RURAL, AND COASTAL PUBLIC LAKES
State
Region I
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Region II
NJ
NY
Region III
DE
MD and DC
PA
VA
WV
Region IV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Region V
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
Region VI
AK
LA
NM
OK
TX
State
Total
142
3,000
1,302
978
5
19
375
2,822
30
12
193
19
34
83
1,054
74
817
107
97
171
177
271
276
3,326
2,065
207
871
344
157
160
1,894 '
240
Number of Urban
Public Lakes
(% State Total)3
11 (13.2)
0 (0)
36 (2.8)
0 (0)
5 (100)
0 (0)
117 (31.2)
129 (46.0)
3 (10)
7 (58.3)
19 (9.8)
6 (31.6)
4 (11.8)
11 (13.2)
737 (69.9)
12 (16.2)
2 (0.2)
1 (0.9)
15 (15.5)
50 (29.2)
39 (22.0)
17 (6.3)
21 (7.6)
92 (2.7)
115 (5.6)
58 (28.0)
75 (8.6)
4 (1.1)
19 (12.1)
0 (0)
17 (0.9)
31 (12.9)
Number of Rural
Public Lakes
(% State Total )
131 (86.8)
3,000 (100)
1,266 (97.2)
978 (100)
0 (0)
19 (100)
258 (68.8)
2,693 (54.0)
27 (90)
5 (41.7)
174 (90.2)
13 (68.4)
30 (88.2)
72 (86.8)
317 (30.1)
62 (83.8)
815 (99.8)
106 (99.1)
82 (84.5)
121 (70.8)
138 (78.0)
254 (93.7)
255 (92.4)
3,234 (97.3)
1,950 (94.4)
149 (72.0)
796 (91.4)
340 (98.9)
138 (87.9)
160 (100)
1,877 (99.1)
209 (87.1)
Number of Coastal
Public Lakes
(% State Total)5
123 (86.6)
2,977, (99.2)
1,278 (98.2)
19 (1.9)
5 (100)
NA
367 (97.9)
51 (1.8)
30 (100)
9 (75)
2 (1.0)
5 (26.3)
NA
2 (2.4)
873 (82.8)
1 (1-4)
NA
1 (1.0)
9 (9.2)
4 (2.3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31 (19.7)
NA
NA
15 (6.2)
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3. DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN, RURAL, AND COASTAL PUBLIC LAKES (CONTINUED)
State
Number of Urban
State Public Lakes
Total (% State Total)9
Number of Rural
Public Lakes
(% State Total)
Number of Coastal
Public Lakes
(% State Total)b
Region VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
Region VIII
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Region IX
AZ
CA
HI
NV
Region X
91
102
224
271
86
211
742
1,863
57
157
4,034
2
67
4 (4.5)
4 (4.3)
9 (8.8)
5 (2.2)
76 (28.0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (0.3)
0 (0)
2 (1.3)
225 (5.6)
1 (50.0)
41 (61.1)
84 (95.5)
87 (95.7)
93 (91.2)
219 (97.8)
195 (72.0)
86 (100)
211 (100)
742 (100)
1,857 (99.7)
57 (100)
155 (98.7)
3,809 (94.4)
1 (50.0)
26 (38.9)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23 (0.6)
2 (100)
NA
AS
ID
OR
WA
83
96
6,619
717
0 (0)
0 (0)
80 (3.3)
421 (58.7)
83 (100)
96 (100)
6,539 (96.7)
296 (41.3)
178 (38.3)
NA
33 (1.3)
19 (2.6)
TOTAL 36.832 2,527 (6.9)c
34,170 (92.4)C
6,057 (16.4)
aAn urban lake is defined to be any lake within the area compromising of
the 120 most-populated Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (Statistics
for State and Metropolitan Areas; U.S. Department of Commerce, pages 794,
896-901).
bCoastal lakes are located within 50 miles of the Atlantic or Pacific
Oceans, or the Gulf of Mexico.
cThe total of urban and rural is 36,697; 135 lakes could not be classified.
A-6
-------
Appendix B
CLEAN LAKES PROJECT SUMMARIES
-------
This Appendix contains summaries of the 28 projects reviewed during
the course of the benefits assessment. They are arranged in alphabetical
order. Each one follows the same general outline:
0 Lake location, description, and setting
Project objectives
0 Brief project description
Identification and discussion of benefits '
Tabular summary of benefits
t List of data sources
Date of site visit.
Some of the information in each summary was developed from field investiga-
tors' observations and reviews of EPA and grantee project files. General
information from these sources has not been footnoted. Some material was
obtained from published reports which are identified by footnotes corres-
ponding to numbers in the data source list at the end of each summary. Many
specific items of information were gathered in interviews with members of
various state and local agencies and private groups. The sources of these
items are identified, by organization, using the same footnoting convention.
Records of the discussions with each individual are on file at JACA Corp.
The UDV method was applied in estimating recreational benefits at most
sites. In individual summaries, the points assigned in deriving the unit day
values are reported in the same order as in the UDV tables in Appendix C,
using the following convention:
Experience/Availability/Capacity/Accessability/Quality = Total
For example, UDV at Steinmetz Pond is $1.93 (4/3/7/17/10 = 40).
B-l
-------
ANNABESSACOOK LAKE AND COBBOSSEE WATERSHED
Cobbossee Watershed is a 28 lake watershed in Kennebec County, Maine.
Slightly west of Augusta, it is a residential area for local people in the
ten municipalities within the watershed, a bedroom community for part of
Augusta, and a summer home for others. The winter population is 25,550.
In summer, population increases 60 percent to 40,880l»2.
Annabessacook Lake, which covers 1,420 acres, is the most northern of
the three eutrophic lakes that are being funded under Section 314. The other
two are Cobbossee Lake (5,583 acres) and Pleasant Pond (746 acres).
The purposes of 314 funding of the watershed are to improve water
quality in the three eutrophic lakes and to alleviate non-point agricultural
runoff to all of the lakes in the watershed by encouraging the construction
of manure storage facilities.
The Cobbossee Watershed District is well underway in its program.
Annabessacook Lake, which suffered from excessive phosphorus enrichment and
dense algal blooms, has been treated with 100,000 gallons of aluminum sulfate
and sodium aluminate. Visibility has improved dramatically - from 77 days
with less than 2 meters of visibility in 1977 (before treatment) to 0 days of
less than 2 meters of visibility in 1979 (after alum treatment and manure pit
construction).1 Local dairy and poultry farmers have been educated in the
relationship between manure management and water quality. Almost all of
the 39 farmers in the watershed have built or are building manure storage
facilities.^
The benefits of 314 funds are in many areas - recreation, property
values, aesthetics, local economy, agriculture, education, and R&D.
Recreation
Recreational opportunities on the 31 lakes include: swimming, boat-
ing, fishing (open-water and ice-fishing), water skiing, ice skating, and
seaplanes. Activities have been sharply reduced in summer due to poor
visibility.
No records are available of the number of people who used Annabessa-
cook either before or after "clean-up". The local consensus is that probably
B-2
-------
the only users in the recent past have been people with homes on Annabessa-
cook. The same reasoning applies to the other two eutrophic lakes. (The
number of people in the first 1,000 feet from the shoreline on Annabessacook
is 681; on Cobbossee, 2,729; and on Pleasant Pond, 419.1) This usage only
by property owners is due to the fact that there are facilities on nearby
lakes (often within walking distance), that are mesotrophic.
With no information on recreational use,l>4 it would have been impos-
sible to measure recreation except for the fact that local municipal offi-
cials were willing to spend time studying property values.^>6 The information
they obtained permitted the use of property values as the primary benefit
estimation technique in the analysis.
Aesthetics
The beneficiaries of the improved aesthetics on the three restored
lakes in Maine include not only property owners but also any travellers who
see them. Route 202, the main road from Augusta to Lewiston-Auburn, passes
two eutrophic lakes (Annabessacook and Cobbossee) as well as several "clean
lakes" in the same watershed.
No data are currently available on the amount of traffic per day on
Route 202. The Cobbossee Watershed District has requested the State of Maine
to collect this information for EPA's use in the future.* The number is
presumably large -- netting out, of course, current property owners (which
involves double counting). Once a quantity (number of vehicles per day) is
obtained, a "price" per user hour can be estimated for the improved aesthe-
tics to non-property owners. Given this, a dollar value can be assigned to
two things:
The protection of existing aesthetic amenity
t The improved aesthetics.
At present, however, the only aesthetic benefit measured is that which
manifests itself in property value increase.
B-3
-------
Economic Effects
Lake restoration projects usually involve the services of highly
trained personnel, and this one is no exception. In addition, however,
the construction of the manure pits uses unskilled and semi-skilled labor.
Cobbossee Watershed District sent questionnaires in December to each of the
nine builders of these pits. A question asked was how many man-days of
unskilled labor were used - and whether this contributed to a reduction in
area unemployment (whether they would otherwise have been employed). Total
man-days of unskilled labor to-date have been 430. Of these, about 150
man-days are for work they would not otherwise have had.* The income effect
of this increase in employment, at the minimum wage rate is:
150 x 8 hours per day x $3.10 = $3,720.
This will continue as more manure pits are built in the next two years.
In addition, local suppliers of steel and concrete report increases
in total sales due to the pits of $53,506 (concrete) and $35,616 (steel).
This totals $89,122.
Agriculture
The manure storage facilities - in addition to their main purpose
of reducing runoff from agricultural operations - also benefit the farmer.
Among the benefits are: savings of time and aggravation, first in collecting
and then in spreading the manure; reduced tractor cost (depreciation and
fuel); and especially a reduction in the need to purchase additional commer-
cial fertilizer because fewer nutrients are lost from the manure. The sizes
of these benefits to the farmer are considered enough to justify the costs,
over some pay-off period which is as yet undetermined. Quantification of any
savings is not yet possible, because farmers have had at most one year's
experience with this program.1>3>8
B-4
-------
Property Values
It has been demonstrated that lake restoration increases the value
of shoreline property. This is because of improvements in recreational
opportunities and also in aesthetics. The result for property owners will be
a one-time unrealized capital gain which will accrue to them when they sell.
The magnitude of the gain provides a measure of project benefits which are
capitalized in the property values.
The improvement in property values from lake restoration will also
increase local municipal tax revenues each year. When municipalities receive
the implied increases depends on the rapidity with which they respond to lake
improvement by reassessing the property. Generally, of course, there are
institutional lags in both directions -- a slowness to respond either to
declines or increases in values.
This increase in municipal revenues from lake improvement - whatever
the timing - assumes, of course, that the tax rate over all property in the
community remains constant. That is, the municipality does not keep total
tax collections constant after restoration by reducing revenues on non-lake
property. A constant tax rate is a reasonable assumption in the present
economic situation. There has been -- and is likely to continue to be a
high rate of inflation partly attributable to rising fuel costs and partly
attributable to the feed-back from this to wages (via Consumer Price Index
adjustments).* It is unlikely any municipality can afford to "refund" any
gain in revenues to anyone. What the affected communities in Kennebec
County, Maine do, of course, will only be known ex post.
The City of Winthrop, Maine, was selected for some insight into past
deterioration of property values on Annabessacook and in Cobbossee Watershed.
This is because it contains portions of the two largest lakes undergoing
restoration (Annabessacook and Cobbossee) as well as three "clean" lakes.
The tax assessor and local codes enforcement officer compared various mea-
sures of property values on these lakes. Among these were: number of
building permits issued in recent years; turnover in homes; the price of one
*Thus, this argument abstracts from the current high interest rates, which
in turn affect the CPI through the mortgage rate. Even without that,
municipalities are short of funds.
B-5
-------
foot of undeveloped shoreline on different lakes; and the (implied) price per
foot of shoreline on different lakes of developed property based on sales
made. By all measures, the housing markets on Annabessacook and Cobbossee
were "depressed".
The choice of (implied) lower property values is critical because of
length of shore. Data suggested that Annabessacook shoreline property was
selling for anywhere from $25 to $75 per foot compared to $150 per foot on
other lakes. The minimum gain ($75 compared to $150) is used here with
the result that unrealized capital gain from Annabessacook restoration to
property owners is:
$150 - $75 change in 'shoreline value x 71,280' of shoreline = $5,346,000.
Winthrop has a 30 mill tax rate. Depending on size of the changes,
Winthrop would gain from $54,000 to $159,000 per year in taxes. Only 29
pecent of Annabessacook lies in Winthrop, the bulk (71%) being in Monmouth.
The annual increase in tax revenues from restoration of Annabessacook to
Winthrop and Monmouth is from ($54,000 + $132,207) = $186,207 per year to
($159,000, + $389,276) = $548,276 per year. Since each of these towns in the
watershed contributes .0005 of its taxes from shoreline property back to the
Cobbossee Watershed District, this implies that an additional $93 (.0005
times $186,207) will be available each year to the district to protect future
water quality. *
The benefits are staggering when one considers Cobbossee Lake, where
restoration is expected to be completed in 1981 or 1982. In 1979 dollars,
the expected gain to current property owners is $17,028,000 (that is, $75
a foot of shoreline x 227,040 feet of shore). Annual increases in tax
revenues - if proportioned from the $186,207 on Annabessacook - become
$593,104. The watershed district receives $296.55 each year.
Education, Research and Development
There are several educational and R&D benefits that, will result from
314 funding:
B-6
-------
1. There will be an advance in knowledge about methods used
to attack phosphorus loadings in a chain of lakes.1»7
2. The applicability of the Wisconsin experience to Maine - i.e.,
the use of manure storage facilities to control non-point sources
of runoff - will be investigated. A related issue is that soil
conservation experts feel it will also help them to evaluate
"economies of scale" in manure pits. That is, what is the
"cut-off point" in terms of farm size at which benefits no longer
exceed costs.°
3. The ability of Cobbossee Watershed District and its professional
staff - in cooperation with DEP in Maine - to put together this
314 proposal may have a "demonstration effect" on other water-
sheds in Maine. One advantage of Cobbossee has been that it has
its own funding, through local municipalities which contribute
part of their taxes annually to maintain water quality.*»2
4. There is an educational value to the country of knowing that
there are in Maine exceptionally high standards for water qual-
ity. Property values in Maine decline - and the recreational
experience is sharply reduced - by levels of water quality that
may be acceptable elsewhere.
5. Each year students from various universities have studied aspects
of this large watershed as part of their training.
B-7
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
ANNABESSACOOK LAKE AND COBBOSSEE WATERSHED
Recreation
Measured through changes in property values +
Aesthetics
Owners: Measured through changes in property values
Others: large but presently unmeasurable +
Local Economy
Employment and income added: unskilled labor $ 3,700**
Sales by local business of steel and concrete 89,100*
Property Values
Municipal tax revenue increases:
Annabessacook
Annual additional tax revenues 186,200
Cobbossee
Annual additional tax revenues 593,100
Benefits Capitalized in Property Values 22,374,000*
Agriculture +
Education and R&D +
Total First Year $23,246,100
Total Discounted Benefits $26,639,500
314 Grant Amount $ 467,906.50
*0ne time cost, applied to first year only.
**For three years only.
Data Sources:
1 Cobbossee Watershed District
2 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Lakes
and Biological Studies
3 Clemente Farms
4 Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife
5 City of Winthrop, Code Enforcement Officer
6 City of Winthrop, Property Tax Officer
7 EPA5 Region I
8 U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Date of Site Visit: December 19, 1979.
B-8
-------
LAKE BQMOSEEN
Lake Bomoseen occupies 2,634 acres at Castleton, Rutland County,
Vermont. It is primarily a seasonal resort area; a state park with beach
is heavily used during the 100-day season between Memorial Day and Labor
Day, and there are approximately 800 private properties around the lake.
Lake uses include water-skiing, boating, swimming, fishing, limited ice
fishing, skating, camping, and aesthetic enjoyment.
The objectives of the project were to remove weeds from 123 acres,
thus eliminating aesthetic problems (odors, especially of dead fish trapped
in the weeds) and improving swimming and boating, and in so doing, to reduce
the nutrient pool available to aquatic plants and algae. Weed harvesting
equipment was purchased and weeds were harvested during the summers of 1977,
1978, and 1979. The crop of weeds harvested diminished with each succeeding
year, and 1979 was the first year in recent history without a serious algal
bloom.2 Lake Association and town officials estimate an annual operating
cost of $10,000 for harvesting, which must be deducted from benefits.
The principal benefits have been in the areas of recreation, aesthe-
tics, research and development, and community activities. A small incremen-
tal benefit was achieved in pollutant reduction, and a significant benefit
accrued to property owners. The project has been beneficial from a research
and development standpoint as well. These benefits are discussed briefly
below and summarized in the table at the end of this section.
Recreation
One of the portions harvested is the swimming area at the state park,
which has recorded the following use days;l
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Day use: 7,613 12,414 6,548 6,853 7,154 6,704
Camping: 17,679 14,372 14,434 13,594 13,404 11,620
The decline in 1979 is blamed on the gasoline shortages. More detailed
statistics show that between 1976 and 1978, out-of-state visitors accounted
B-9
-------
for 75 to 80 percent of the camping use volume, while in 1979 the out-of-
state volume decline by 2,400 and represented only 70 percent of camping.1
In-state camper totals increased by 700 people in 1979.
In calculating recreational benefits, it was assumed that the project
is protecting existing levels of use. The grantee estimates that 7,500
people use the lake on a peak day, including residents, guests, and park
visitors.1 Assuming 4 people/property x 800 properties are residents and
their guests, 4,300 are visitors. This can be converted to annual non-resi-
dent use by multiplying by 50, in accordance with accepted estimation tech-
niques (see Appendix C) for a total of 215,000 annual use-days. Winter users
add an additional amount not included in the estimate; better summer condi-
tions promote more winter use as well. Using the UDV method, a value of
$2.61 (10/10/14/18/15 = 67) per use-day of general recreation has been
assigned to Lake Bomoseen, for a total annual non-resident recreational
benefit of $561,200.
Recreational benefits to residents can be assumed to be capitalized in
property values and ideally should be estimated through property value
increases. However, no data were available for that purpose. Consequently,
benefits to residents were calculated for a 100-day season using the same UDV
but assuming that each day of residence is equivalent to three non-resident
user-days.
3 x 3,200 x 100 x 2.61 = $2,505,600.
This entire amount, $3,066,800, cannot be assigned to the Clean Lakes
Program. A conservative estimate is that recreational use would decline at
the rate of 2 percent annually because of weed growth in the absence of the
grant. Consequently, the benefit in the first year is $61,300 of recreation
protected. In the second year, an additional 2 percent is protected, and so
on, until in the tenth year, $613,000 is the future value being protected.
Aesthetics
Aesthetic benefits have not been separately quantified as they are
included, to a great extent, in recreation. However, it is worth noting
B-10
-------
that murky water and foul odors in near-shore areas have been eliminated
and that of 211 persons questioned by the Lake Bomoseen Association and the
Vermont Department of Water Resources, 185 believed that weed harvesting
had improved water quality for recreation and 183 agreed that the Federal
government should continue to fund such programs.
Research and Development
Lake Bomoseen has been visited by other groups considering harvesting
projects. Research on nutrient cycling in the lake is ongoing.
Community Environmental Activities
Since harvesting began, business memberships in the Lake Bomoseen
Association have increased from 6 to 50 and regular membership from 210 to
500.2 This -js a g00(j measure Of the extent of community concern with lake
quality and environmental protection.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE BOMOSEEN
Recreation Protected $ 61,300*
Aesthetics +
Research and Development +
Community Activities +
Less: Harvesting Costs - 10,000
Total First Year $ 51,300
Net Present Value for 10 Years $1,830,500
314 Grant Amount $ 74,640
*Increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. Vermont Department of Water Resources
2. Lake Bomoseen Association
3. Town Manager, Castleton, Vermont
Date of Site Visit: December 20, 1979
B-ll
-------
BUCKINGHAM LAKE
Buckingham Lake is a four acre man-made lake located in a residential
neighborhood within Albany, New York. The population within the immediate
lake vicinity is approximately 5,000, or 4.5 percent of Albany's total
population of 109,900. The neighborhood within which the lake is located
is one of few in Albany under development, as distinct from redevelopment
supported by government funding.
Before the restoration project was initiated, the lake was "reduced by
severe silting, accumulation of organic debris and aquatic growth to a very
shallow depth completely discouraging any recreational activity. Signs of
sanitary sewage inflow (were) also visible."4 The lake project entailed
draining the lake and, via excavation, removing accumulated silt and muck.l
The project was completed, with the lake filling after drainage, on
February 5, 1977. However, the lake is still eutrophic, with non-limiting
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.1 The volume of nearby residential
construction is a factor in declining lake quality. Sediment due to erosion
of lands at the southwest end which are under residential construction, as
well as surface drainage, continues to enter the lake through two major
stormwater outfalls constructed in 1976 to service in new subdivision.
Three types of benefits resulted from the improvement:
Recreational benefits, due to increased fishing, skating, strol-
ling and picnicking on or near the lake
Aesthetic benefits, which improved the visual amenity of the area
Some educational and economic benefits, due to Youth Conservation
Corps work at the lake in 1977-1979 and the hiring of elderly
men for lake area maintenance.
As the city bought seven areas adjacent to the lake to serve as a
buffer and for recreational uses,^ general area improvement, consisting of
the siting of benches and the planting of a small garden, contributed to some
share of the benefits.
B-12
-------
Recreation and Aesthetic Benefits
Recreation uses of the lake before the program were primarily passive
uses and skating. There was no swimming, boating, or fishing. Recreation
uses after the program included increased passive recreation (strolling and
picnicking), as well as increased use of the area for play by neighborhood
children.?
Major improvements were in skating and fishing uses. The improvement
increased the size of the skating area.? The improvement was a factor in
the stated decision to stock the lake in 1977, as an antecedent step to the
Urban Fisheries Program, beginning in 1980. Under the Fisheries Program, if
the city of Albany decides to undertake a stocking program, there would be
an estimated 7,200 annual angler-trips on the lake for 1980-87, with a large
proportion of the anglers less than sixteen years old.9 it has been estima-
ted that the fisheries program will cost $.53 per recreation day (June
through August), and that it will be continued after 1987.
The unit day value for fishing at Buckingham Lake has been estimated
at $1.99/(5/3/5/10/2 = 25). For at least 1980 through 1987, the value of
annual fishing benefits, entirely due to the improvement, can be estimated as
7,200 (1.99 - .53) = $10,512.
In the absence of other usage records, a conservative estimate is to assume
that, as a result of the improvement, each of the 5,000 neighborhood resi-
dents uses the lake one more time a year, excluding fishing trips. At a UDV
of $1.56 (25 points), this assumption yields an annual value of new recrea-
tional benefits, other than fishing at $7,800. Direct annual recreation
benefits due to the improvement sum to $18,300.
Economic and Education Benefits
Albany has a relatively low unemployment rate of 6 percent. The
project created some employment, as elderly men were hired by the Recreation
Department for general lake area maintenance.? The project also created
employment and education benefits related to Youth Conservation Corp lake
B-13
-------
area work in the summers of 1977-1979.7 Thirty enrollees worked on painting,
clearing debris, and erosion control. With activities in Washington Park
Lake, these activities represented 50 percent of the YCC's programs.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
BUCKINGHAM LAKE
Recreation and Aesthetics $ 18,300
Economic +
Education +
Total First Year $ 18,300
Total Discounted Benefits $127,734
314 Grant Amount $ 23,2bO
Data Sources:
1. Project Report Restoration of Buckingham Lake, Albany County, New
York and Post-Restoration Monitoring of Chemical, Physical, and
Biological Lake Characteristics (1977).
2. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Lakes Office
3. EPA Region II Clean Lakes Coordinator
4. New York Department of Environmental Conservation
5. Albany Budget, FY 1979-1980
6. Albany Chamber of Commerce Statistics
7. City of Albany Departments: Assessment
Recreation
Planning
Human Resources
8. Albany County Public Health Department
9. New York State Urban Fishing Program information.
Date of Site Visit: January 7, 1980
B-14
-------
CHARLES RIVER LOWER BASIN
The Charles River Basin, with a surface area of 696 acres, is the
major fresh-water recreational area for the greater Boston community. The
Basin is heavily utilized throughout the year for a variety of recreational
activities, the most famous being sailing and sculling. Others are boating,
fishing, public concerts, strolling, cycling and jogging, sunbathing and
informal relaxing, sailing toy boats in a lagoon on the Embankment, and
informal picnicking. The Museum of Science is located on the Basin, and
the water can be seen from many of Boston's bridges and highways. The Basin
is easily and quickly accessible by walking or by private or public trans-
portation to anyone in the Boston Metropoliton Area. This includes from
1,174,600 to 2,050,500 people, depending on the definition used.3 One stop
on the MBTA, "Charles", is one block from Community Boating, the Hatch Shell,
and the Embankment.
The 314 grant, which is largely expended, was used to destratify the
Basin by induced circulation using compressed air. The purposes of this
project were (!) to reduce odors from hydrogen sulfide production, and hence,
increase the pleasure of current Basin-related recreational opportunites, and
(2) increase oxygen at lower levels of the Basin to make the situation more
tolerable for game fish.
The 314 funding is only a small part of major Federal and local
efforts in recent years to produce a "joint product" which would result
in a higher quality of water in the Charles River. Other funding was used
to solve sewer problems (201 grants) and to build a new dam (The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers).1»2 The result of these efforts has been to improve
water quality in the Basin from a "D" to a "C" rating, according to the
Massachusetts classification scheme.12 This indicates that the water is
now suitable for boating and fishing but not for swimming.
The benefits of destratification (and other Federal and local work)
are in several categories: recreation, aesthetics, educational, and research
and development.
B-15
-------
Recreation and Aesthetics
Using the UDV method, the Charles Basin is assigned an initial value
of $2.39 per user day (11/14/10/18/2 = 55). This relatively high rating -
even before restoration - is due to its excellent sailing and sculling
facilities, and to its accessibility. A problem in measuring recreational
benefits is the difficulty of clearly separating the benefits of 314 funding
from other aspects of the "clean-up", because the projects are interrelated
in time and design. The compromise chosen is the following:
Recreation: The assumption here is that the Basin has improved
from "11" points to "16" points in "Recreational Experience",
or 9.5 cents per user day.
0 Aesthetics: The assumption is that the Basin has improved from
"2" points to "5" points in "Environmental Quality", or 5.4 cents
per user day.
Second, some recreational experiences are more affected by bad odor or
low dissolved oxygen than others. Fishing is obviously affected, but no data
are available on the numbers of fishermen. It is assumed here that - by
their nature - sailing and sculling are affected the full 9.5 cents per user
day by bad odors. On the other hand, it is assumed other recreational users
are not as bothered as sailors by bad odors, and an average of the recrea-
tional value (9.50 and aesthetic value (5.40) is used to quantify other
recreation activities. This is 7.4 cents.
Third, the length of the user day is assumed to be six hours. This
is critical in cases where data are provided in hours or minutes. A clear
example is cars driving along the Basin, where the assumption is that each
car spends 1/2 hour on Storrow or Memorial Drives but only 10 minutes on a
bridge connecting Cambridge with Boston.
A. Sailing and Sculling
The major recreational activities of high - and perhaps unique -
value on the Charles Basin are sailing and sculling. These are offered
by three groups, the most important of which is Community Boating, Inc., a
B-16
-------
non-profit organization under the jurisdiction of the MDC and open to any
member of the Boston Community who wishes to sail. A second group includes
the universities: MIT, Boston University, and Harvard. The third is the
group of private clubs, the Cambridge Boat Club being best known because
of the annual Head-of-the-Charles Regatta. The benefits of water-improve-
ment to existing users of the sailboats and shells we listed by group,
and by season:
1. Community Boat Club (Sailing Only)5
Peak season: June and July
Weekends:
[(113 boats x 2 passengers/boat x 2 days/week x 9 weeks) x
(1 user-day)] x $.095 = $ 386.46
Weekdays:
[(113 boats x 2 passengers/boat x 5 days/week x 9 weeks) x
(.5 user-day)] x $0.095 = $ 483.08
Other 5 months: April, May, August, September, October.
Weekends:
[(113 boats x 2 passengers/boat x 2 days/week x 22 v/eeks) x
(.5 user-day)] x $.095 = $ 472.34
Weekdays:
[(113 boats x 2 passengers/boat x 5 days/week x 22 weeks) x
(.25 user-day)] x $.095 = $ 590.42
Subtotal $1,932.30
2. Universities (Shells and Sailboats)
a. MIT:13 April 1 to November 15
Shells:
160 people/day x 229 days x .3 user-days x $.095 = $1,044.24
Sailboats:
300 people/day x 229 days x .3 user-days x $.095 = U,957.95
b. Boston University:14 April 1 to November 15
Shells:
150 people/day x 229 days x .3 user-days x $.095 = $ 978.98
Sailboats:
100 people/day x 229 days x .3 user-days x $.095 * $ 652.65
B-17
-------
c. Harvard University:?
Shells:
September 1 to November 30:
375 people/day x 91 days x .3 user-days x $.095 = $ 972.56
April 1 to August 31:
750 people/day x 138 days x .3 user-days x $.095 = $2,949.75
Sailboats:
April 1 to November 15:
340 people/day x 229 days x .3 user-days x $.095 = $ 261.06
Subtotal $8,817.19
3. Private Clubs:
The previous information on Community Boating and the Universities
sets the rowing and sailing experience in some perspective. No attempt
was made to obtain a precise count on private clubs. An exception is the
Head-of-the-Charles Regatta. Participants come from all over the world, and
it has been called "the biggest rowing event in the world". In 1975, there
were 2,577 rowers in 590 boats.1 For the participants in the rowing, the
value of the improved Charles to existing rowers is:
(2,577 people x .3 user-days x $.095) = $73.44
The total value of benefits to existing sailing and rowing users of the Basin
is $10,822.93. This is an underestimate, because all users (especially those
belonging to private clubs) are not quantified.
B. Other Boating
There are two other types of boating by existing users of the Basin
that can be quantified. These are:
1. Pleasure craft (all sizes) coming from Boston Harbor through the
Locks of the Charles River Dam.8
(15,538 pleasure craft x 3 passengers/boat x 1 user-day x $.074)
= $3,449.49
*113,152 is the sum of all user days of the Basin for sailing and rowing
purposes. That is, (113 x 2 x 9 x 1) + (113 x2x5x9x.5)+
B-18
-------
2. Charles River Cruises, Inc., is a sightseeing boat on the Basin.1
(4,489 passengers x .5 user-days x $.074) = $166.09.
The total value of these benefits to existing users is: $3,615.58.
C. Fishing
One result of the destratification project will be an improvement
in the relative amounts of different kinds of fish that are in the Basin.
The increase in dissolved oxygen at lower levels will make conditions more
tolerable for all fish. This, combined with the new fish ladder in the new
Charles River Dam, will make it possible for certain anadrornous fish to
utilize the Basin. A site is being created for and stocked with shad at
the further end of the Basin (near Watertown Dam).l»9 No numbers are avail-
able on the current number of fishermen, so this benefit is not quantified.
D. All Other Recreation
The total number of other recreational users of Basin-related acti-
vities has not been estimated by Boston. There are estimates for three
activities in the Basin.1 The total value of benefits to these existing
users is:
1. Viewing of the Head-of-the-Charles Regatta on the third Sunday in
October (50,000 - 75,000)
(62,500 people x 1 user-day x $.074) = $4,625
2. Total Hatch Shell attendance for free, outdoor concerts (last
estimate: 1977)
(607,000 people x .33 user-day x $.074) = $14,822.94
3. Museum of Science attendance (amount of time spent "outside" the
building assumed to be 1/2 hour)
1,000,000 people x .08 user-day x $.074 = $5,920
The total new benefits to existing users are thus: $25,367.94.
B-19
-------
Aesthetics
Major road traffic in the Boston metropolitan area exists within sight
(and smell) of the Basin itself. Two major roads for commuters to Boston or
Cambridge from the suburbs are separated from the Basin by a narrow strip
of grass. Three major bridges connect the Cambridge (and northern Massachu-
setts) side with the Boston side. The MDC has provided estimates of average
daily traffic per day for the Charles River Basin along these routes.
In general, the observations of drivers are probably indirect -
in terms of the number of sailboats on the Basin or the number of people
enjoying themselves in other Basin-related activities. (Before the massive
clean-up, drivers may have noticed debris, refuse, or obnoxious odors.)
Thus, benefits to drivers are primarily aesthetic and assigned a value of
$.054 per user-day.
Assuming (1) there is only one driver in each vehicle (no passengers),
and (2) either each vehicle spends 1/2 hour on a drive per day JDT 1/5 of an
hour on a bridge; the aesthetic experience to existing drivers, by location,
is:
1. Storrow Drive
(100,000 cars/day x 365 days/yr x .08 user-days x $.054) = $157,680
2. Memorial Drive
(50,000 cars/day x 365 days/yr x .08 user-days x $.054) = $78,840
3. Harvard Bridge
(20,000 cars/day x 365 days/yr x .03 user-days x $.054) * $11,826
4. Longfellow Bridge
(30,000 cars/day x 365 days/yr x .03 user-days x $.054) = $17,739
The total aesthetic benefit to drivers of a cleaner Charles is $266,085.
Educational and Research and Development
Destratification of the Charles River Basin in and of itself is
a relatively straightforward matter. Although the results in Boston are
of some interest, they are not the major educational benefits from the
B-20
-------
314 project. The significance of this project is its demonstration of a
coordinated approach to an enormous water quality problem in an urban area.
Although it is impossible here to assess the benefit/cost ratio of the total
"package", two unquantifiable benefits of a general nature are relevant.
One is that whether they use it or not, Bostonians derive some satisfaction
from the knowledge that their Basin is improved. Another is that all Ameri-
cans derive some benefit from the fact that Boston had deteriorated water
quality, and that this deterioration has been reversed.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
CHARLES RIVER BASIN
Recreational
Sailing and sculling $10,822.93
All others 28,983.52 $ 39,800
Aesthetics 266,000
Educational and Research and Development +
Total First Year $ 327,600+
Total Discounted Benefits $2,286,600
314 Grant Amount $ 387,163
Data Sources:
1. Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
2. EPA - Region I
3. Metropolitan Area Planning Council
4. Charles River Watershed Association
5. Community Boating, Inc.
6. Cambridge Boat Club
7. Harvard University Crew Director
8. Superintendent, Charles River Dam
9. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife
10. MDC Police
11. Massachusetts Department of the Census
12. Plus various published references listed on following pages
13. MIT Crew Director
14. Boston University Crew Director.
Date of Site Visit: December 19 and 20, 1979
B-21
-------
Boston Harbor Coordinating Group. Debris and Refuse in Boston Harbor: the
Problem and the Solution. (Staff work done by William Nuzzo, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency). October, 1974.
Cambridge Community Development Department, City of Cambridge, MA. East
Cambridge Riverfront Plan. May, 1978.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., An Evaluation of the Removal of Salt Water from
the Charles River Bsain. For the Metropolitan District Commission, August,
1976.
Charles Basin Advisory Committee: Sub-committe on the Banks. "Goals and
Policy Guidelines and Recommended for Adoption by the MDC". Approved by
the MDC on March 29, 1978.
Charles River Advisory Committee: The Charles River Boating Conference.
"Goals and Policy Guidelines Recommended for Adoption by the MDC". Drafted
but not yet adopted by the MDC.
Charles River Watershed Association. "Streamer", December, 1979.
Community Boating, Inc. "Learn to Sail and Keep Sailing".
Department of Commerce and Development. Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Eleven selection monographs on population estimates for various years;
population projections; per capital income estimates in 1975; retail sales;
median family income; and cost per pupil. All include data for every city
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Source: Fred Joseph Gibney.
Division of Environmental Quality, Metropolitan District Commission (MDC).
Charles River, 1977. Boston, 1978.
Division of Environmental Quality, MDC. Charles River, 1978. Boston, 1979.
Division of Environmental Quality, MDC. Fishing on the Charles River.
Boston, 1978.
Division of Environmental Quality, MDC. "Water Quality Standards" in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, undated.
Charles River Destratification Project. "Why Are Those Bubbles in the
River?" Undated.
Gramlich, Frederick W. "The Demand for Clean Water: the Case of the Charles
River", The National Tax Journal, June, 1977, 183-194.
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Inter-
ior. What About Clean Water Recreation? Fulfilling 201 Program Recreation
and Open Space Requirements.
B-22
-------
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). (Draft) Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plan for the Metropolitan Boston Area: Submitted in fulfillment
of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act: Amendments of
1972:Part I.Volumes I and II.
MAPC. Lower Charles River Basin: Preliminary Report.
MAPC. The 1976 Regional Open Space Plan: the Program for Metropolitan
Boston.
MAPC. Open Sapce and Recreation Program for Metropolitan Boston: Volume 3:
The Mystic, Charles and Neponset Rivers. April, 1969.
Metropolitan District Commission. (MDC). Annual Reports for the Fiscal
Years ending June 30, 1973; June 30, 1975; June 30, 1976; and June 30,
1977. (No more recent one is even in the planning stages.)
MDC. Charles River Lower Basin: Destratification Project. In partial
fulfillment of the requirements for 314 funding.
MDC. Charles River Basin Destratification Project: Quarterly Report: July
1 to September 30, 1979, and also August 23, 1978.
MDC. "Dams - Boat Locks: Charles and Mystic Rivers", undated.
MDC. "Reservations - Parks - Recreation". Detailed nap, undated.
New England River Basins Commission. Report of the Southeastern New England
Study; Boston Metropolitan Planning Area Report.Undated.
News-Tribune. "What Are Those Bubbles on the Charles River?" Waltham, MA.,
November 30, 1979.
"Riverbend Park" People for Riverbend Park on the Charles, 998 Memorial
Drive, Cambridge, MA 02138.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Interim Report on
Charles River for Flood Control and Navigation: Lower Charles River,
Massachusetts. Waltham, MA, May, 1968.
B-23
-------
CLEAR LAKE
Clear Lake, 614 acres in surface area, is one of the small lakes
associated with glacial moraine in southeastern Minnesota. It is located
within the town of Waseca, in the County of Waseca, 75 miles south of Minne-
apolis. The population of the town is approximately 8,000 and there are
approximately 8,000 residents within the county.
In January of 1976, the murky waters of Clear Lake came under direct
attack when the Waseca City Council approved a grant application to clean up
the lake. This was then estimated to cover 50% of the cost of diverting a
storm sewer which carries runoff and some sanitary waste from Waseca into
Clear Lake. Many storm sewers also drain into Loon Lake which is connected
underground with Clear Lake. The proposal called for diverting these waters
through a ditch to a slough which will be seeded with reed canary grass in
order to reduce runoff. At the north end of the slough, a sluice gate will
be placed to allow water to run into Rice Lake to the north if water level in
Loon Lake becomes too high following a storm. Two pumps will be placed at
the end of the main ditch in order to pump water back into Clear Lake during
periods of high water because the lake is higher than the slough. The
foregoing method should allow substantial reduction in nutrient and sediment
loading to Clear Lake as a result of this biological filtration and should
aid in maintaining the lake in more aesthetically pleasing condition by
reducing the causes of cultural eutrophication which has bedeviled it since
the early 1900s.
The project's primary benefits will be in the categories of recrea-
tion, aesthetics, public health, economic development, pollutant reduction
and reduced lake management costs.
Recreation
Reduction of nutrients and sedimentation input to Clear Lake will
allow continued recreational use and amelioration of the conditions asso-
ciated with eutrophication of Clear Lake which is an integral part of this
city culturally as well as aesthetically. Currently, at least 13,000 user
days are calculated for Clear Lake including angling, boating, ice fishing,
B-24
-------
camping, swimming, and a park setting for both regional and out of state
individuals, the latter reportedly coming from Iowa for free outdoor recrea-
tion. This seems to be the peak demand for recreation at the lake, and a
large increase is unlikely. Consequently, the project is preserving recrea-
tional value which might be lost in 50 more years. Improvements in the lake
as a result of project funding will raise the UDV from approximately $2.00
(12/3/7/11/7 = 40) to $2.70 (16/3/10/11/9 = 49). Restoration benefits can
thus be calculated as follows:
$ .70 x 13,000 = $ 9,100 new benefit
$2.00 x 13,000 = $26,000 benefit protected
The loss of benefit in the absence of the project is assumed to be at the
rate of 2 percent annually. Consequently, $520 would be the first year
increment protected, $1040 the second year, etc.
Aesthetic Enjoyment
Clear Lake is within city limits of Waseca and is enjoyed by every
resident as well as those who appreciate the lake from major roads. If each
township resident as well as travelers utilized the lake once each week,
8,000 people x 52 weeks = 416,000 use days. At an average recreation value
of $1.07 per use day, the lowest value for a unit day recreation value, a
total benefit of 445,120 per year would accrue. This benefit is being pro-
tected at the rate of $8,900 per year, calculated as for recreation. In
addition, approximately $.04 of new benefit (2 points in environmental qual-
ity), or $16,640, is being added through improvement in aesthetic quality.
Economic Development
Benefits of the project will accrue gradually and cannot be quanti-
fied directly. First, Waseca is a community with a vital interest in its
environment and a long history of interest in Clear Lake. Because Waseca is
a year-around town, well diversified industrially, the project will benefit
>v
all residents in that they will not have to travel elsewhere for their
B-25
-------
outdoor recreation. The project itself has allowed the hiring of a master's
educated city limnologist and a person with the Young Adult Conservation
Corps who conduct studies of the lake and of its recreational use. Neither
of these individuals would have been hired without the project. In addition,
businesses, such as motels, were reported to be experiencing much higher
occupancy as a result of the civic pride taken in the lake. Waseca is a
residential town as well, consequently, lake improvement will undoubtedly
be reflected in augmented property values for real estate. As a desirable
place to live, work, and play, the town will derive primary and secondary
benefits from the proposed project, although these benefits were not quanti-
fied.
Fish and Wildlife
Fowl botulism caused by toxins produced from decaying algae (Micro-
cyst is and Lyngbya) and vegetation is likely to be lessened by reducing
nutrient input to the Lake.
Public Health
Diversion and biological filtration of stormwater and other best
management practices will improve conditions for contact recreation and
will reduce incidence of minor infectious problems such as swimmers itch.
Research and Development
The presence of a biologist in City government is likely to have a
positive net economic benefit as the city enters environmental management.
The effect of educating citizens through "Waseca Water Weekend," an inter-
pretive scientific activity for the citizens, is likely to prove stimulatory
to Waseca's overall environmental program.
B-26
-------
Recreation:
New Benefits
Benefits Protected
Aesthetics:
New Benefits
Benefits Protected
Economic Development
Fish and Wildlife
Public Health
Research and Development
Total First Year Benefits
Total Discounted Benefits
314 Grant Amount
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
CLEAR LAKE
9,100
500*
16,600
8,900*
$ 35,100+
$471,500
$358,682
increases by this amount each year
Data Sources:
Town of Waseca, Engineering & Limnology Departments
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Date of Site Visit: January 10, 1980
B-27
-------
LAKE COCHRANE
Lake Cochrane is one of 250 natural lakes in northeastern South Dakota
and serves as a popular recreation area for South Dakota and Minnesota resi-
dents. It is located near the South Dakota-Minnesota border in Deuel County.
It has a surface area of 366 acres. Nearby towns with their respective
estimated population and distance from Lake Cochrane (in miles) include
Astoria, SD (150 and 11), Canby, MN (3,000 and 10), Clear Lake, SD (1,157
and 11), Gary, SD (366 and 5), and Toronto, SD (216 and 12).2
The onset of noticeable eutrophication in 1971, which was caused
by intermittent surface inflow heavily laden with sediment and nutrients,
prompted state and local agencies to seek funding for lake restoration
or preservation.* In 1975 the East Dakota Conservancy Sub-District submitted
a lake restoration grant proposal to the Environmental Protection Agency, and
a grant was awarded January 1, 1976. The project was one of eleven projects
in six states initially funded under the program.
The project objective was to demonstrate a low cost procedure which
would reduce the influx of sediments and nutrients into the lake by building
sediment traps directly upstream from existing and newly constructed lake
perimeter roads. The project was also to demonstrate applicability in
similar conditions throughout the United States. Basically, it required
the construction of 2,658 feet of gravel road which was needed to complete
the lake's perimeter road system; the construction of three sediment traps
which would reduce sediment influx from 66 percent of the lake's watershed;
the development of a new boat access area; and the use of two of the three
sediment trap basins as fish rearing ponds. Various phases of the two-year
project were financed with about $10,000 from the Sub-District, $9,000 from
the EPA grant, $3,000 from the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks, and $3,000 from Norden Township.
*Jerry Siege!, prime coordinator for the Lake Cochrane project from the East
Dakota Conservancy Sub-District, feels preservation rather than restoration
is the proper term to use for this project, because Lake Cochrane was of
high quality compared to other northeastern South Dakota Lakes when the
project began. Therefore, the idea was really to maintain quality and
prevent further eutrophication.
B-28
-------
Since the project ended in 1977, very limited follow-up studies have
been done to evaluate the project's net impact on water quality. Concurrent
activities, such as the construction of lakeside housing, the development of
the north end of the lake into a state park, and a four year area drought
which ended in 1977, partly masked those benefits attributed to the sediment
traps.2»3,10 However, benefits are projected in seven areas - recreation,
aesthetics, fish and wildlife, property value, education, and pollutant
reduction.
Recreation2*3
Types of warm season recreation include picnicking, swimming, fishing,
sailing and other small boating, hiking, and camping. On an average summer
weekend, 70 percent of the lakeside cottages will be occupied and on a heavy
day up to 200 people can be expected to enjoy the lake for its various uses.
With the exception of camping in the park (which is proposed to receive state
park status and will be described below) no user fees are collected. For a
camp lot rental space and electrical hook-up $2.00 per night is charged.
Fifteen electrical outlets are presently available and plans have been made
to double these units within the next couple of years. The park is open
Memorial Day through Labor Day. Due to severe weather in later fall through
early spring, recreation is mainly limited to ice fishing and some snow-
rnobiling and cross-country skiing during this time.
A year round estimate of the number of people using the lake per day
is 75. Using a unit day value of $1.86 (10/3/6/10/8 = 37) per person,
75 x 365 x $1.85 = $50,917.50.
Because the objective of the project is primarily preservation, and the lake
is in relatively good condition, it is assumed that 2 percent of this bene-
fit, or $1,018, would be lost each year in the absence of the project.
Aesthetics
The aesthetic quality of the lake is also being preserved. Benefits
are incorporated in the recreation estimate.
B-29
-------
Fish and Wildlife
As originally planned, the sediment trap basins did provide excellent
conditions for rearing walleye and northern pike fry in two separate years.10
One year's accounting of stocking benefits looks quite good. About 180,000
fry were stocked in both ponds combined at a cost of $540 (at $3.00/1,000
fry).3 At a 10 percent survival rate, 18,000 fingerlings (at $.20/finger-
ling) were subsequently released into Lake Cochrane.3 The net benefit,
excluding minor maintenance and supervision costs was:
$.20 (18,000) - $540 = $3,060.
Property Value Benefits^
In 1975 when the East Dakota Conservancy Sub-District submitted the
restoration grant proposal to EPA, approximately 75 percent of the shoreline
had been developed and 150 dwellings existed around the lake. Five percent
of the homes were permanent, 12 percent summer, and 83 percent summer or
weekend cabins. Nearly all of the shoreline has been developed since then
with about 14 percent increase in the number of homes. There are currently
only 6 permanent homes. It is not possible to attribute monetary benefit to
any changes in property value which might have resulted from the restoration
project.
Education, Research and Development?
The Lake Cochrane project has served as a technical and organizational
demonstration project. Restoration work being done in Lake Herman (75 miles
southwest of Lake Cochrane) is incorporating similar sediment trap/lake
perimeter road designs. Success at Lake Cochrane, in terms of funding
allocation through multi-agency coordination, has sparked the Oakwood Lakes
and Lake Kampeska projects (35 miles southwest and 45 miles west of Lake
Cochrane, respectively).
B-30
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE COCHRANE
Recreation Protected $ 1,000*
Aesthetics +
Fish and Wildlife 3,000
Property Value +
Education, Research and Development +
Total First Year $ 4,000+
Total Discounted Benefits $52,500
314 Grant Amount $9,906
increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. EPA Region VIII
2. East Dakota Conservancy Sub-District
3. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks
4. South Dakota Department of Environmental Protection
5. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
6. South Dakota Department of Natural Resources Development
7. Deuel County Commissioners
8. Norden Township
9. First Planning and Development District, Watertown, SD
10. University of South Dakota (Dr. Lois Haertel)
B-31
-------
COLLINS PARK LAKE
Collins Park Lake is located in the town of Glenyille and the Village
of Scotia, Inc., Schenectady County, New York. The Village of Scotia is
located directly across the Mohawk River from Schenectady which is the
source of most of the lake's users. Collins Park is located adjacent to the
Mohawk River and is immediately visible to visitors entering town from the
Schenectady area. The park and lake have always been the major drawing card
for visitors to the Village of Scotia. The population of Scotia is 7,500,
while the population of Glenville is 28,954 and the population of the area
within a five-mile radius of the lake is 160,000.2 The lake users are 32
percent from the Village of Scotia, 58 percent from the Schenectady area and
10 percent from other areas.3 The lake covers about 54 acres.
Before restoration, Collins Park Lake had been plagued by sediment and
nutrient loadings from storm sewer outfalls and surface runoff which resulted
in rapid sediment buildup, increased turbidity and excessive growth of
aquatic vegetation. The lake restoration project included reducing nutrient
input through the elimination of both lakeside dumping of organic material
and elimination use of fertilizer on adjacent lawns, improving maintenance of
a flapper valve at the lake outlet to keep Mohawk River flood waters out, and
dredging out about 100,000 m^ of sediment.3 Sediment was pumped to a nearby
6-acre spoils area which was enclosed by dikes. A 1,000 nP area around the
lake outlet and storm sewer end of the lake was dredged to a depth of about 3
meters.^ This area was left vegetated and is to serve as a nutrient and
sediment trap for inputs from both the sewer and the outlet flapper valve.
The area will serve to trap and eventually flush out nutrient and sediment
inputs. Dredging of the lake proper took place during the summers of 1977
and 1978. The fine grained sand in the bathing area was replaced with
coarser sand to help alleviate the turbidity problem.
Benefits from the improvement consisted of:
t Improved recreation potential, with swimming and skating
made safe, boating less hindered by weeds and fishing expected to
improve
t Education benefits, with Union College involved in the project
B-32
-------
t Increased community pride and interest in the park
Potential use of spoils and sediments for municipal projects.
Intangible aesthetic benefits included a decreased odor problem and the
vegetation of an unsightly dump area with dredge spoils.
Recreation Benefits
Recreation uses of the lake after the project are the same as those
before the project, although of improved quality due to weed control and
decreased turbidity. Activities, with use and season estimates when avail-
able, are:
Activities Use Season
Swimming 800-900 bather/day (weekend)' Summer^
Fishing 939 trips (1977) April-Oct.5
Skating - 2 months**
Boating 3-8 boats/day
Picnicking
The swimming usage can be converted to a seasonal total by means of the Water
Resources Council method described in Appendix C, page C-4:
50 x 850 = 42,500 use days
Fishing is already expressed as an annual total. Boating can be
converted to annual usage by assuming a 100 day boating season, similar to
that for swimming. An average of 5.5 boats per day for 100 days yields 550
boating use days.
The project is estimated to have increased the UDV for general recrea-
tion from $2.15 (10/3/10/16/7 = 46) to $2.32 (10/3/10/16/12 = 51). The
corresponding increase in general fishing UDV is from $2.42 to $2.53.
Recreation benefits are thus
$.17 x (42,500 + 550) + $.11 x 939 = $7,422
B-33
-------
Aesthetics
The increase in recreational benefit is, to a great extent, the result
of improvements in aesthetic quality of the lake. Aesthetic benefits are
thus incorporated in the recreation total.
Education Benefits
One hundred students at nearby Union College were involved in the
project, including technical and tutorial work.3 The improvement served as
an educational tool as:
40 theses were written on the lake
t A seminar, field trips and public presentations were given
An extensive computer program for monitoring was developed
0 Continuing student interest was fostered.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
COLLINS PARK LAKE
Recreation $ 7,400
Aesthetics +
Education +
Total First Year $ 7,400+
Total Discounted Benefits $51,700
314 Grant Amount $79,355
*Increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. New York Department of Environmental Conservation
2. Mr. Cal Welch, former Scotia Chairman of Park Commission and
Project Coordinator
3. Dr. Carl George, Biology Department, Union College
4. State of New York, Amsterdam District Health Office
5. NYDEC Urvan Fisheries Program
B-34
-------
ELLIS LAKE
Ellis Lake, actually three interconnected lakes* with a combined
surface area of 37.5 acres, is located in the City of Marysville, Yuba
County, California. Its setting is urban; it is within the Marysville
business district, and most of its shoreline has been developed as city
park. The lake and park are important aesthetic and recreational resources
not only for the 9,600 citizens of Marysville but also for nearby Yuba City
(population 18,400) and, to a lesser extent, for others among the 100,000
residents of Yuba and Sutter Counties.1 Prior to the development of the
various problems which prompted the city to seek a Clean Lakes grant, swim-
ming, boating, fishing, picnicking, and aesthetic enjoyment were popular
uses.2
Marysville is located in the rice-growing area of California's Central
Valley, at the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers. The city is
protected on all sides by levees and, from the air, appears an island during
serious floods. The river water is used for irrigation by rice-growers and
other types of agriculture.
The primary objective of the Ellis Lake project was the erradication
of Hydrilla verticillata, a rooted aquatic plant which had so infested Ellis
and North Ellis Lakes that most forms of recreation had become virtually
impossible. Classified as a noxious weed by the California Department of
Agriculture, Hydri11 a posed a serious threat to the $256 million per year
rice industry as well as to navigation in California waterways. Related
objectives were general improvement of water quality and appearance through
reduction of pollutant and debris loadings.
Ellis and North Ellis Lakes were drawn down and approximately 2 to 3
feet of sediment were removed and landfilled. The lake bottom was treated
with herbicides prior to refilling. Special weirs were designed for storm
sewer outfalls which formerly carried virtually all of Marysville's storm-
water into the lakes; now in operation, the weirs divert the first 15 minutes
of major storms and the total flow of smaller events, and also collect debris
and sediment. The diverted stormwater flows by gravity through the levee,
*Ellis Lake, North Ellis Lake, and East Lake.
B-35
-------
where the outfall is protected by a tide gate. Stormwater had previously
been pumped out of the city. A settling basin for this discharge is cur-
rently under design. A vacuum truck was purchased to clean storm sewer catch
basins, and a number of other stormwater quality management practices were
instituted. Finally, the cobblestone rip-rap at the lake margin had to be
refurbished and lakeside walks repaired after the dredging equipment was
removed; both were improved in the process. A well to replace the Feather
River as a source of supplemental water for the lake is to be constructed.
Abatement of sanitary sewage discharges had not been a part of the
project scope, since no such discharges to the lake were suspected. However,
three illegal discharges were discovered during the storm sewer work, and
their owners have since complied with orders to connect to the muncipal sewer
system.2 This action, coupled with the stormwater diversion and best manage-
ment practices, is expected to make possible the restoration of contact
recreation in the lakes.1 Swimming had been prohibited by city ordinance
since 1969.4
With the lake only recently (December 1979) refilled, the extent to
which desired benefits will be realized is not known with certainty. How-
ever, fairly firm projections can be made. Benefits are projected in the
categories of recreation, aesthetics, flood control, economic development,
fish and wildlife, agriculture, public health, research and development,
pollutant reduction and reduced lake management costs. These are discussed
briefly below and summarized in the table at the end of this section.
Recreation
Removal of Hydrilla, improvement in water quality, and recent fish
stocking make possible restoration of recreation from essentially zero to
75,000 use-days per year, valued by the grantee (using Water Resources
Council UDV method) at $1.92 per use-day, for an annual benefit of $144,000.
All pre-project uses, plus contact recreation, will be possible.5
B-36
-------
Aesthetic Enjoyment
Because of its setting, Ellis Lake is the most significant feature of
Marysville and is probably seen daily by every resident. The grantee calcu-
lated 16,900 passersby each day, 365 days a year, with a value per use-day of
$.73.5 This appears to overstate the benefit in monetary terms, although it
is an important aspect of the quality of life in Marysville. A more conser-
vative calculation would be 16,900 * 2 passersby (assuming a round-trip as
one use-day) multiplied by 240 days (assuming weekend use is included under
recreational benefit) at a value of $.18 (UDV method to show improvement in
aesthetic quality), for a total benefit of $365,000 per year.
Flood Control
Storm drainage modifications have reduced the incidence of nuisance
street flooding to nearly zero. Substitution of gravity flow for pumping at
the levees except during flood conditions will save $1,800 in pump operation
and maintenance costs annually, by the grantee's estimate.2
Economic Development
Developable land within the levees is limited, and housing is in short
supply. Disposal of dredge spoil in a low, undevelopable area has added 15
acres of developable land. Conservatively this could permit construction of
50 residential units, average value $70,000. At an effective tax rate of 1%,
this can be valued at $35,000 per year in new city revenues, plus capital
gains and secondary benefits which could not be quant ified.l
Fish and Wildlife
Prior to drawdown, game and panfish and ducks were removed from the
lakes. Now that they are refilled, stocking with bass, catfish, and sunfish
has been accomplished and ducks are being captured elsewhere and returned to
the lake.2
B-37
-------
Agriculture
Losses to rice-growers if Hydrilla escaped from strategically-located
Ellis Lake are conservatively estimated at $1,000,000 annually. Since the
weed has been known to be in the lakes since 1976 and has so far apparently
been successfully prevented from escaping into the rice fields, it seems
legitimate to include this cost-savings as a project benefit.^
Public Health
Elimination of illegal sewer connections, diversion of stormwater, and
best management practices have improved water quality to the point that con-
tact recreation will no longer be precluded by unsanitary conditions.2 The
ordinance prohibiting such activities is expected to be rescinded in 1980.1
Research and Development
Prior to discovery of Hydrilla in Ellis Lake, its presence had not
been suspected in California. The Ellis Lake experience prompted further
investigations, and the plant has since been found in the Imperial Valley
and in ponds near Santa Barbara.2 Aggressive control measures now underway
may save California from expenditures similar to Florida's $10-$12 million
annual budget for partial control of Hydrilla in its waterways.4
Reduced Lake Management Costs
Marysville had been spending $50,000 annually for weed control, debris
removal, etc. Current estimates are for a budget of only $3,000, a $47,000
benefit in cost savings.2»5
B-38
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
ELLIS LAKE
Recreation
Aesthetics
Flood Control
Economic Development (Housing)
Fish and Wildlife
Agriculture
Public Health - Abatement of Unsanitary Conditions
Research and Development - Early Warning of Hydrilla
Lake Management Cost Savings
Total First Year
Total Discounted Benefits
314 Grant Amount
$ 144,000
365,000
1,800
35,000
+
1,000,000
47,000
$ 1,592,800+
$11,123,000
$ 1,625,000
Data Sources:
1. City of Marysville, City Administrator
2. City of Marysville, Department of Public Works
3. U.S. EPA Region IX
4. 314 Grant Application
5. Supplement to 314 Grant Application, Appendix A
Date of Site Visit: January 9, 1980
B-39
-------
59TH STREET POND
The four acre man-made lake is located at the southwest corner of
Central Park, New York City, New York, at one of the major park entrances
(see attached map). There are eight other distinct bodies of water in this
park of approximately 750 acres. A population of 231,650 lives within
the immediate vicinity of the park, which also attracts a large number of
tourists.
The pond's condition before the project was initiated reflected a
major problem common to all areas of Central Park: erosion. The pond was
heavily silted, as well as eutrophic. The pond margin was also somewhat
unsafe, due to the poor conditions of the riprap and the sidewalk.
The project, undertaken to restore and preserve the lake's ornamental
value as an integral feature of Central Park, is expected to be completed in
spring 1980. It entails lake draining and dredging, with the bottom of the
lake to be made impermeable to prevent entrance of remaining bottom nutrients
into the water column. In addition, the bank riprap is being repaired and
clogged stormwater drainage pipes are being cleaned.5
A complementary $2 million landscaping project is currently underway
in the immediate park vicinity (area bounded by Center and East Drives). The
landscaping project, expected to be completed in 1981, is directed towards
the green and skating rink areas.6
Direct benefits from the improvement are expected to fall into three
categories: recreation, flood control, and public health. There are also
aesthetic benefits which may affect park attendance and, through visual
amenity, nearby hotels and the park's historic value. There are no signi-
ficant economic or property value benefits associated with lake improvement,
primarily because area hotels and restaurants are well-established and
property values in the vicinity are already so high.6
Recreation Benefits
Pre-improvement recreation uses of the pond area were primarily
passive, including substantial lunchtirne use by individuals employed in the
area. No changes in pond use are expected after the improvement, with the
exception that there may be limited boating.
B-40
-------
W69ST
W67ST
W66ST
ETHICAL
CULTURE
SOCIETY
* CENTRAL PARK SOUTH
7th A AVENUE OF
E69ST
E67ST
E 66 ST
E65ST
E64ST
E61 ST
E60ST
* «* E 59 ST
GRAMdJBMy PLAZA
FOUNTAIN
Map based on original research by
Christina Balas & Garry Kandler
for Pratt Institute, The NYJL & The CPCF,
design by Oliver-Beckman, Inc.
B-41
-------
It is important to note that the pond is not the only recreational
feature in this part of Central Park. Also available are:
Birdwatching near Promontory
Ice skating at Wollman Rink
Roller skating, with concession located in the Mineral Springs
Building approximately 10 blocks away
a Picnicking on nearby tables.1
According to the most recent estimates2 there were 12.8 million visits
to the park (approximately 3.3 million different visitors) in 1973. Thirty
percent or 3.8 mil ion spent their time south of 66th Street. Forty percent,
according to a sample, cite this area as their favorite, in part because the
zoo is nearby. Also, according to a sample, 60 percent of park attendance
is for passive recreational purposes, such as walking and reading. Conse-
quently, of the 3.8 million in the pond vicinity, 2.3 million may be involved
in passive recreation. This total must be reduced by numbers of users of
facilities other than the pond. At the adjacent ice rink, annual attendance
for the seasonal activity was 94.6 and 96.8 thousand for 1978 and 1979,
respectively.^ Average summer daily usages of the zoo, children's zoo, and
Hecksher Playground are 300, 55, and 108, respectively, totalling 463 per
day.2 Assuming this rate prevails throughout 6 months, total annual usage
is approximately 83,300. Subtracting these results from the 2.3 million
yields an estimated pond usage of 2.1 million user-days per year.
The UDV for the pond is expected to increase by $0.33 as a result of
improvements in capacity (safety) (+ 10 points), accessibility (+ 3), and
environmental quality (+ 5). Multiplying estimated annual usage by this
amount yields an annual value of recreation benefits of $693,000.
Aesthetic Benefits
The pond improvement is expected to have four impacts on aesthetic
amenity. The estimate of the resultant benefit is incorporated in the
recreation estimate.
B-42
-------
Odor problem: A reported odor problem is expected to be elimi-
nated by the improvement.
Park access: The pond serves primarily an ornamental value at
one of the park's most extensively used entrances. According to
the Savas study, approximately 30 percent of all visits to the
park were made through park entrances between 59th and 66th
Streets.
Visual amenity to nearby hotels: The visual quality of the pond
is an amenity to neighboring hotels. However, while a signifi-
cant deterioration would have marginally impacted hotels, since
a view of Central Park and the pond act as a drawing card for
tourists, improvement is not expected to substantially improve
hotel business. Neighboring restaurants are too well-established
to be impacted by pond's visual quality.
Historic value: Because the pond is integral to Central Park as
a whole and contains a number of historic points of interest,
pond improvement will serve to maintain the historic character of
Central Park.
Flood Control
The pond improvement is expected to reduce a flooding problem which
became severe during heavy rain. Pond silting created a back-up on 65th
Street Transverse Road, which was sometimes closed by police in heavy rain
periods.!
Public Health
The improvement is expected to diminish a reported mosquito problem.
B-43
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
59TH STREET POND
Recreation $ 693,000
Aesthetics +
Flood Control +
Public Health +
Total First Year $ 693,000+
Total Discounted Benefit $4,837,000
314 Grant Amount $ 498,035
Data Sources:
1. Central Park Community Fund
2. A Study of Central Park by E. S. Savas (December 1976)
3. Study of tollman Rink, for Central Park Community Fund (May 1979)
4. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Lakes Office
5. EPA Region II Clean Lakes Coordinator.
6. City of New York, Department of Parks and Recreation, including
Department of Parks Maintenance
Date of Site Visit: December 20, 1979
B-44
-------
FRANK MOLTEN LAKES
Lakes #1, 2, 3 of Frank Molten State Park, East St. Louis, St. Clair
County, Illinois are waterfilled remnants of a single abandoned meander
scroll of the Mississippi River. Together the lakes comprise approximately
65 acres broken down as #1, 53 acres; #2, 4 acres; #3, 8 acres. They are
relatively shallow, averaging some 5' in depth for Lake #1, 16' in depth for
Lake #2, and 6' in depth for lake #3. The lakes are surrounded by a 1,125
acre park which also occupies the "flood plain" of the meander scroll.
Topography of the park is level and the water table rises to within a few
feet of the soil surface which consists of sediments with poor internal
drainage. Because the lakes are remnants of a meander of relatively recent
age, a natural tributary system to the lakes has not developed. Lakes #1
and #2 are interconnected, and Harding Ditch, a man-made feature draining
urban land, flows into Lake #3. Preliminary fisheries investigations dating
to 1959 revealed that turbidity was a major factor accounting for the pre-
sence of large numbers of rough fish, but strong populations of largemouth
bass, white crappie, carp and buffalo fish were also present. Decline in
fish populations occurred over the next 12 years until sampling was termi-
nated in 1971 due to the "unmanageable nature of the lakes in their present
condition."
In 1976, funds were requested for lake improvements. Planned actions
include dredging of the three lakes, construction of an inverted siphon under
Harding Ditch to connect Lake #2 with Lake #3, removal of accumulated silt
and nutrients from Hoi ten Lakes by dredging, relocation of Harding Ditch
around Lake #3 and isolating the ditch from the lakes by construction of an
inverted siphon. Isolation of the lakes from Harding Ditch reportedly will
eliminate the primary source of silt and nutrients and prevent infestation of
the lakes with undesirable fish species. The project will further enhance
current uses of Frank Holten State Park by restoring depth to the lakes,
allowing improved fisheries management and, consequently, improving healthful
recreation opportunities for the public.
Principal project benefits are in the areas of recreation, aesthetics,
economic development, public health, research and development, pollutant
reduction, and improved lake management.
B-45
-------
Recreation
Prior to the program there was some fishing in the park. Camping in
the park has been discontinued for various sanitary and social reasons. Ice
comes into the lakes in December and goes out in March leaving approximately
245 days of ice-free water. Park use, however, constitutes 12 months of
activity and the park is an active center for recreational opportunities.
Creel census for 1967 determined 159,000 days of recreational use
of the lakes for fishing. At an average value of $2.51 per use day (17/3/
8/11/11 = 50), a total value of $399,090 existed. As a result of the pro-
ject, fishing use could increase by 50,000 days/year and increase in value
to $2.96/use day (25/3/12/14/18 = 72). The recreational benefit is:
($2.93 - 2.51) x 159,000 + ($2.96 x 50,000) = $214,780
Aesthetics
Because of its setting, Frank Molten Lakes are principal features
of the park. No usage records for recreational use other than fishing exist.
(These uses include picnicking, boating, nature study, golf and baseball.)
However, an estimate can be derived from national statistics on outdoor
recreation participation, which indicate that for every 3.3 user-days of
fishing by a person over the age of 9, participation in boating, birdwatch-
ing, playing outdoor games and sports, nature walks, and picnicking totals
26.4 user-days.* This suggests that
x 26.4 = 1,672,000
user-days of other recreation are associated with the 209,000 project user-
days of fishing. Not all of this would necessarily take place within the
park, but it is safe to assume that the usage for general recreation is at
least twice that for fishing, or 400,000 user-days. As a result of the lake
*U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "The 1970 Survey
of Outdoor Recreation Activities Preliminary Report". 1972.
B-46
-------
improvements, the increase in UDV from aesthetics (7 points in environmental
quality) is $.13 and the new aesthetic benefit is therefore $52,000 annually.
Economic Development
The lakes are in a neighborhood in which most residents are minori-
ties. The restoration program appears to be creating more than the usual
number of construction and related managerial jobs. The park itself employs
4
8 people, at present, and expansion of the facilities will ensure both their
own as well as other jobs.
Overall improvement of the lakes will undoubtedly elevate property
values in Centreville, E. St. Louis, and Alorton which border on the park.
There is some developable land in the vicinity, and it is also likely to
escalate in value.
Public Health
Diversion of stormwater and other best management practices will
ensure healthful activities within the park. Any chemical residues will
be proportionately reduced.
Research and Development
It is likely that the experience of rejuvenating and managing this
urban lake will provide knowledge and skills applicable to other similar
projects and, consequently, be of R and D value.
It is entirely possible that a now defunct nature interpretive program
will be reinstituted after the program is completed, since this is a major
urban park.
Reduced Lake Management Costs
The project will eliminate the necessity for dredging within a plan-
ning horizon of 2-5 years. But management costs, particularly periodic moni-
toring and restocking of fish will increase. Consequently, it is thought
that there will be a small but unmeasurable net benefit.
B-47
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
FRANK MOLTEN LAKES
Recreation $ 214,800
Aesthetics 52,000
Economic Development (All General) +
Public Health +
Research & Development +
Lake Management Cost Savings +
Total First Year $ 266,800+
Total Discounted Benefits $1,862,300
314 Grant Amount $ 927,000
Data Sources:
1. Illinois EPA, Water. Pollution Control
2. Illinois Dept. of Conservation
3. Frank Molten State Park
Date of Site Visit: January 14, 1980
B-48
-------
LAKE HENRY
Lake Henry is located on the edge of the town of Blair, Wisconsin.
The lake has a surface area of 43 acres and is situated in Trempeleau County.
The population of Blair is 1,036 while the combined population of Trempeleau
and the contiguous counties is 289,600. The general area consists of farmland,
Approximately one third of the lake perimeter consists of a town park
with camping, sports, picnicking facilities, and one boat launch. The lake
is the primary recreational water body in the area. At its peak, Lake
Henry was used for swimming, boating, fishing, water skiing, ice fishing,
and hydroplaning. However, in recent years use had been almost entirely
restricted to ice fishing.
Soil from the 116,000 acre watershed had settled in Lake Henry and
had curtailed or limited the recreational use of the lake. The lake had
become so shallow that in the winter the water froze to the bottom except
for a small channel. The purpose of the restoration project was to deepen
Lake Henry and to take certain measures for preventing soil losses in the
watershed. Two miles of riprap was placed along upstream banks along with
one-half mile of fencing to prevent cattle from access to the stream. A
diversion system was also installed to divert feedlot nutrient-laden runoff.
The dredged amount was 220,000 yd^ which was placed in three spoils sites.
The dredging is estimated to have increased Lake Henry's life by 70 years.
The project was completed in late summer, 1979.
The benefits achieved by the restoration project include increased
recreation, reduced soil erosion, education, fill material, reduced main-
tenance costs, and community spirit.
Recreation and Aesthetics
The project has restored boating, fishing, and swimming as recreation
uses. Water skiing will become possible if a variance from the Wisconsin
no-wake law for lakes under 100 acres is obtained. To-date, there has been a
yearly increase of 351 user days for non-fishing boating and a projected
additional increase of 234 user days for a total of 585 user days per year
which, at a UDV of $1.93, are valued at $1,130 (13/2/7/8/10 = 30).1
B-49
-------
Since dredging, the lake was stocked with 6,000 largemouth bass
fingerlings, the first such stocking in many years.3 In addition, the town
is applying to DNR for a variance to the no-wake law in Wisconsin for lakes
less than 100 acres. If granted the City will install another boat launch.1
Fishing user days have already increased by an estimated 619 per year
and are projected to increase by another 619 days.1 The annual benefit of
increased fishing user-days is 1,238 times $2.28 (40 points), or $2,820.
Education
A local high school teacher was responsible for sample collection and
some testing during the restoration project. During the project he taught
students how to perform this work, and he has since created an ecology course
in his school. The lake is used for a lab. This is a non-quantifiable
benefit.
Fill Material
The dredged sand is of a quality that can be sold at $.10/yd3 accord-
ing to a local sand and gravel supplier. The price is also what Blair now
pays for purchased sand as cover for their landfill.1 The value is $22,000.
The value of the land taken out of use as a spoil area (26 acres x $500/acre
= $13,000) has not been deducted because it can be returned to other uses as
the spoil is removed.
Reduced Lake Maintenance Costs
The soil loss prevented by implementation of watershed management
practices is estimated at 4,150 tons per year-6 If 50 percent of that amount
would have eventually settled in the lake in the absence of the project, the
220,000 cubic yards dredged from the lake would have been replaced in 18
years (assuming 6 cubic yards per ton). Because the lake's useful life is
estimated to be 70 years after the project, the benefits of soil loss preven-
tion can be estimated as the difference between the present value of repeat-
ing the dredging, at a cost of $285,000, in 18 years and in 70 years, or
$80,300.
B-50
-------
Community Spirit
The people of Blair are very proud of the Lake Henry restoration
project. The town held a lake restoration dedication ceremony, and two
project workers (the manager and the SCS representative) were recipients of
Wisconsin DNR awards. All local project funding votes were unanimous, and
the local and regional papers have carried stories commending the citizens
of Blair for their pilot lake rehabilitation project.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE HENRY
Recreation and Aesthetics $ 4,000
Agriculture +
Education +
Reduced Maintenance Costs 80,300*
Community Spirit +
Value of Dredge Spoil $ 22,000*
Total First Year $106,300+
Total Discounted Benefits $134,200
314 Grant Amount $220,000
*0ne-time benefit assigned to first year only.
Data Sources:
1. Lake Management District of Blair
2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
3. Wisconsin Fisheries Management
4. Trempeleau Agricultural Agent
5. Soil Conservation Service
6. Soil and Water Conservation District
7. Local Realtors
Date of Site Visit: December 17-19, 1979
B-51
-------
LAKE JACKSON
Lake Jackson, located 6 miles north of Tallahassee, Florida, has a
surface area of 4,000 acres. With approximately 100 private homes in its
vicinity, the lake serves a Tallahassee population of 140,600 and a greater
metropolitan area population of 390,980. The region's population is growing
rapidly, accompanied by increased demand for housing.
Lake Jackson has been adversely affected by runoff from construction
and residential development. The project, intended to reduce sediment and
nutrient inputs from Megginnis Arm Watershed, is still in the early stages,
with no construction underway at this time. It involves construction of
marsh detention ponds. Property acquisition took place in fall, 1979, with
property acquired 'costing $13,000 to $20,000 per acre. Primary benefits
expected from the improvement are:
Protection of the lake's important bass fishing activity
Preservation of recreational activities and property values.
The types of recreation uses of the lake, which are typically year
round, are not expected to change after the improvement. They consist of
fishing (for which the lake is nationally known), water skiing, boating, some
swimming and bird hunting. The project is expected to preserve and improve
the quality of uses, rather than increase the number of users.
Recreation
The most important recreation use of the lake is bass fishing, which,
in July 1979, was the subject of Field and Stream's cover story. The mone-
tary value of the lake's fish population has been estimated in a report by
the Florida Department of Administration, Bureau of Land and Water Management
at $11.4 million. A 2.46 benefit:cost ratio has been estimated for the
project's contribution to fishing returns.* Fishing benefits are estimated
*Water quality contributes directly to the quality of fishing, as sediment
blankets the sandy bottom used by bass to spawn their young.
B-52
-------
on the basis of the assumption that deterioration in water quality would
reduce the fish population's value by 2 percent annually, or $228,000. Other
recreational benefits are estimated under Aesthetics, since it is aesthetic
conditions which most directly affect participants in activities other than
bass fishing.
Aesthetics
Besides water-related recreation, the lake area is used for relatively
passive activities. These include hiking and picnicking in Indian Mounds
State Park, which overlooks the affected arm of Lake Jackson. The lake's
water quality affects park use through its impact on aesthetics, as the park
is roughly 20-50 yards from the water. Usage estimates for the 66 acre park
Year Florida Other
1977 17,852 642
1978 16,783 670
1979 19,553 590
Averaging these values yields a mean annual park usage of 18,700. At a UDV
for general reaction (since fishing use is evaluated separately) of $2.71
(16/6/11/14/15 = 62), annual recreational benefit to park users is:
18,700 x 2.71 = $50,677
In addition, the occupants of approximately 100 dwellings near the
lake derive similar benefits. Since this is not a vacation community but
one which houses year round residents, one can assume that residential usage
of the lake, even if just for aesthetic enjoyment, is at the rate of one
user-day per resident, rather than at a more intensive rate of two or three.
Consequently, assuming 35 members per household, annual aesthetic benefits
to residents are:
100 x 3.5 x 365 x $2.71 = $346,200
B-53
-------
Total annual aesthetic benefits are therefore $396,800. If 2 percent
of this amount would also be lost each year in the absence of this project,
the annual increment of benfeits protected would be $7,900.
Property Value
The water quality of Lake Jackson has undoubtedly had a direct impact
on lakefront property values. Owners have complained about degradation due
to sediment and debris. However, there were not sufficient data to permit
estimation of benefits using the property value technique.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE JACKSON
Recreation (fishing) $ 228,000*
Aesthetics (other recreational uses) 7,900*
Property Value +
Total First Year $ 235,900+
Total Discounted Benefit: $7,309,800
314 Grant Amount: $ 725,663
increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2. Northwest Florida Water Management District
3. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Date of Site Visit: January 7 and 8, 1980
B-54
-------
LAKE LANSING
Lake Lansing, a 450-acre lake in Ingham County, Michigan, had been
described as "the only major surface water resource for recreation in the
Lansing metropolitan region.* (There is another large lake, 300-acre Lake
Geneva, but its shoreline is entirely in private ownership.3) Approximately
350,000 people live in its vicinity.2 The lake has historically been used
for sailing, swimming, and fishing, but its usefulness has been limited by
shallowness (5 to 6 feet over much of its area), aquatic weed growth, and the
general perception by the public that it is "dirty". While property values
in much of Meridian Township have been appreciating rapidly, lakefront
properties have not kept pace and in some cases have actually deteriorated.3
This is a good indication that obvious nuisance conditions exist there.
The watershed was sewered in the 1960's, with a noticeable improvement
in water quality.3 it is described as "stabilized in terms of erosion".*
The objective of the lake restoration project is to improve and expand lake
uses through dredging to a depth of 12 feet. Dredging is currently in
progress.
Benefits are expected in recreation, aesthetics, economic development,
property value, and research and development.
Recreation and Aesthetics
After project completion, the lake will be deeper, more attractive in
appearance, and less weedy. Sailing and fishing are expected to improve,
water skiing and power boating will become possible, and swimming should be
more attractive.2»4,5
Most visitors to the two county parks on the lake use the beaches or
the nearby picnic areas. Both facilities are currently being used at 100
percent of capacity on weekends and 70 to 80 percent on weekdays. Annual
visitor days determined by car count in 1979 were 18,4000 for Lake Lansing
South and 37,000 for Lake Lansing North. New park facilities are under
development to expand capacity, but the size of the expected increase in
usage is not known.5
B-55
-------
There is no adequate public boating access on the lake at present, but
a facility with parking space for 65 cars is about to be constructed. It is
expected to be used to capacity at most times, thus adding a daily increment
of 65 boaters, or 11,700 use-days over a six-month season.5 A state survey
has shown a steady increase in boating in Ingham County:
1971 10,000 use-days
1974 10,000 use-days
1977 23,500 use-days
More than half of these use-days are probably spent on Lake Lansing, since
the only public body of water large enough to constitute a reasonable alter-
native is Grand River.6
State fishing surveys probably understate actual use; they are based
on a sample of licensed fishermen, and persons under 17 years of age or
spouses of license-holders are not required to be licensed themselves.
Fishing use-days for Lake Lansing from the most recent years for which
statistics are available are:
1975 32,130
1976 5,280
1977 20,447
1978 14,480
The variability of these records is probably the result of the small sample
size (1 percent of licensed fishermen statewide) used in the survey.7
Consequently, the mean for the last four years, 18,000, will be used in this
analysis. Bluegill, northern pike, muskellunge, yellow perch and crappie are
the commonly-taken secies.
The post-restoration UDV for general recreation at Lake Lansing is
estimated at $2.30 (9/8/9/14/10 = 50), an increase of $.62 from a pre-project
$1.68 (5/8/5/10/2 = 30). Corresponding UDVs for general fishing are $2.51,
up $.44 from $2.07. These values can be used to estimate recreational
benefits. For beach and park use, assuming 1979 usage levels continue, the
benefit is
B-56
-------
$.62 x 221,000 = $137,000
For existing boaters (1977 total), assuming conservatively that 50 percent of
Ingham County boating takes place at Lake Lansing
$.62 x 0.5 x 23,500 = $7,300
New boaters expected to use the lake when access is provided will add an
additional benefit of
$2.30 x 11,700 = $26,900
However, because an unknown part of that benefit must be assigned to the
launching facility construction, we have chosen to include only half the
amount, or $13,400, in the Clean Lakes project benefits. Benefits from
improved fishing can be estimated at
$.44 x 18,000 = $7,900
Total annual recreation benefits are therefore an estimated $165,600.
Economic Development
The lake restoration project is expected to make living near the lake
more attractive, leading to new residential construction and resulting
secondary benefits. No specific value could be assigned.
Property Value
Meridian Township has observed a reversal of the declining trend in
property values for houses bordering the lake. There were not sufficient
data to permit assigning a numerical value to the increases, however.
B-57
-------
Education, Research and Development
Education benefits from the project are expected to be substantial.
Michigan State University began a five year study in April, 1978 to examine
the impact of the dredging on the production of r.iacrophytes, algae, inverte-
brates, and fish, and to evaluate the ecological impact of dredged materials
on spoil sites. Data on the dredging will be used to develop a handbook for
selecting future dredging methodologies.1
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE LANSING
Recreation and Aesthetics $ 165,600
Economic Development +
Property Value +
Education, Research and Development -
Total First Year $ 165,600
Total Discounted Benefit $1,555,900
314 Grant Amount $800,000
Data Sources:
1. McNabb, C. D., "Evaluation of Dredging as a Lake Restoration Tech-
nique, Lake Lansing, Michigan", Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University
2. Meridian Township Manager
3. Environmental Impact Assessment for FWPCA Grant Application 16010,
Lake Lansing Lake Board of Ingham County, 1971
4. Ingham County Drain Commissioner
5. Ingham County Road Commission
6. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Law Enforcement Division
7. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surveys and Statistics
Dates of Telephone Interviews: January 16, February 27, 1980
B-58
-------
LIBERTY LAKE
Liberty Lake is a 713-acre body of water in the town of the same name,
approximately 20 miles east of Spokane, Washington. The lake is situated in
one of the more scenic locations in the Spokane area - in a basin formed in
the foothills of mountains visible further to the east. The relief of the
site varies from about 2,000 feet to 4,500 feet in elevation. Most of the
watershed is relatively undisturbed forest. The lake is inhabited by a
variety of waterfowl, including grebes, gulls and terns. Hiking trails
and a marsh observation platform are maintained by Spokane County.
Direct uses of the lake include swimming, fishing, and boatiny. The
site includes facilities for picnicking, camping, and golf. Prior to the
project, many of these uses were being made less attractive by heavy summer
blue-green algae blooms. The nutrient enrichment which caused the blooms was
attributed to nutrient loadings from tributaries, septic tank seepage, urban
runoff, and poor solid waste disposal. *
The 314 project's objectives were to reduce or eliminate nuisance
blooms, to improve water clarity, to ameliorate problems asociated with
decaying algae and aquatic plants, to meet Federal and state water quality
standards, and to implement watershed management to perpetuate improved
water quality. To date, sewer installation and modification of Liberty
Creek's channel have been completed. Stormwater management, dredging, and
alum treatment for phosphorus precipitation are scheduled for 1980. Benefits
are expected to be achieved in two years, without the need for repeat alum
treatments which would otherwise be required biannually to produce the same
water quality results.!
Benefits are projected in six categories - recreation, aesthetics,
property values, public health, education, and pollutant reduction.
Recreation
Fishing season runs from April through November; all other recrea-
tional activities are May through October. Pre-restoration recreational
volume in use-days per year is tabluated below:3»4
B-59
-------
o Swimming 24,800
o Picnicking 21,200
o Fishing 13,000
o Boating 15,200
o Camping 11,200
o Golf 18,000
Total 103.400
Historical records show that fishing activity used to average 27,000 use-
days; the volume declined because of poor water quality and associated
adverse publicity.l»3 Analogous statistics are not available for other forms
of recreation, but it is reasonable to assume that swimming and boatiny
were similarly affected.
When the project is completed, one can assume a return to at least the
recreational volumes experienced before the deterioration of the lake. In
other words, a gain of 14,000 use-days for fishing and a similar increase for
swimming:
Mi x 24-800 26>700
Total swimming use-days should thus increase to approximately 51,500. It is
more difficult to project the likely boating increase, but, assuming it is
one-half that for fishing:
x 15-200 = 8-200
Assuming no increase in other recreation activities (a conservative assump-
tion), and using UDV's of $1.81 and $2.18 (10/3/7/8/7 = 35) for recreation
and fishing, respectively, the new recreational benefit produced by the
project is:
26,700 x 1.81 = $48,300
8,200 x 1.81 = 14,800
14,000 x 2.18 = 30,500
$93,600
B-60
-------
In addition, existing levels of benefit are protected from further
deterioration. If one assumes complete loss of benefit in 50 years, or a
2 percent annual loss, the incremental benefit from avoiding this loss each
year is:
Fishing: .02 x 13,000 x 2.18 = $ 566.80
Boating: .02 x 15,200 x 1.81 = 550.24
Swimming: .02 x 24,800 x 1.81 = 897.76
$2,014.80
Since a new increment of loss is prevented each year, the benefits increase
by the same increment from one year to the next.
Aesthetics
Improvements in perceived water quality obviously are a major factor
in the increase in recreational benefits. However, aesthetic improvement
also benefits park users who do not use the lake directly. Assuming an
improvement of 10 points (UDV method) or $.18 in aesthetic quality, this
benefit can be estimated at:
50,400 x $.18 = $9,100
Following the same reasoning as for recreation, there is also an
aesthetic benefit being protected. Using the lowest UDV value as a conser-
vative estimate, and assuming 2 percent annual loss in the absence of the
project:
0.02 x 50,400 x $1.07 = $1,078
Property Values
A significant increase in property values is anticipated at Liberty
Lake. In fact, this- phenomenon is currently under study by researchers from
Oregon State University. However, no quantitative results are yet available.5
B-61
-------
Public Health
Among the nuisance algae in Liberty Lake were Gloeotrichia echinulata,
believed to be a cause of "swimmer's itch", and Anabaena flos-aquae which
can form toxic compounds in the process of decay.1 These problems should
be eliminated by the restoration project.
Education, Research and Development
Liberty Lake is under intensive study by limnologists, sociologists,
and economists from Washington State University and Oregon State University
under EPA grants, and the restoration project and post-restoration monitoring
should produce valuable information for use elsewhere.
A citizens' advisory committee was formed to educate the public about
the restoration program.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LIBERTY LAKE
Recreation
New Benefits $ 93,600
Benefits Protected 2,000*
Aesthetics
New Benefits 9,100
Benefits Protected 1,100*
Property Values +
Public Health +
Education, Research and Development +
Total First Year $ 89,900+
Total Discounted Benefits $813,000
314 Grant Amount $577,975
increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. Michael A. Kennedy Engineers
2. Town of Liberty Lake
3. Spokane County Parks Department
4. Washington Fish and Game Department
5. Liberty Lake Sewer District
Date of Visit: January 9, 1980
B-62
-------
LILLY LAKE
Lilly Lake is situated in the southeast corner of Wisconsin, 20 miles
west of Kenosha. The population in the immediate vicinity is 2,565 while the
Kenosha County population is 125,000. Lilly Lake is 88 surface acres in size
and prior to dredging had a mean depth of 4.7 feet with a maximum of 6.0
feet. The watershed is 384 acres.
The community is a lake resort which developed in response to the
attractiveness of the area. Approximately 80 percent of the shoreline is
occupied by private homes. The remaining shoreline has a public beach,
which supports about 150 people, and a commercial beach which supports 125.
Approximately 36 percent of the land nearby is cropland, 47 percent wetlands
and woods, and the rest for residential, transportation and communication
uses. Prior to the lake restoration project, water activities included
limited boating and swimming, fishing, water skiing and ice skating. A boat
launch is provided at a public park as is a small boat rental livery.
The water quality problems of Lilly Lake were silting, weeds, and
other organic growths, fish kills and aesthetic unpleasantness. The silting
caused 43 percent of the surface area to be unavailable for boating. The
oxygen demand from decomposing sediment caused such a dissolved oxygen
depletion, particularly in winter, that fish kills occurred frequently.
Weeds were inhibiting swimming as well as boating and were presenting an
unaesthetic appearance.
To overcome these water quality problems a dredging restoration pro-
ject was initiated and completed in the fall, 1979. The dredged material was
either placed on cropland as a soil conditioner or in an unused gravel pit.
The benefits of the Lilly Lake restoration project are recreational,
property value enhancement, aesthetic amenity, improved land for wildfowl,
and educational.
Recreation
The number of user-days on Lilly Lake is expected to increase by
10,200: 8,400 non-fishing recreation at a UDV of $2.11 (10/6/8/11/11 = 46)
and 1,800 fishing at a corresopnding UDV of $2.42, for a total new recrea-
tional benefit of $22,080.1
B-63
-------
In addition, the volume of improved recreation to existing users must
be calculated. Assuming a 10 point increase in environmental quality, or
$.18 increase in UDV, pre-project users, estimated at 4,600 user-days,1
experience an annual benefit of $828.
Total recreation benefit is thus $22,900. This total will not be
included as a benefit to be compared to cost since property value increases
in theory already count that value. To the extent that the user days are
attributable to out-of-area recreators, a proportional value could be added.
A Sportsman Fishing Club was just formed with a present membership of
15. It is expected to expand to 60 members.4
Considerably more boating is expected including water skiing, accomo-
dated by a new public ramp that will be built by the Lilly Property Owners
Association.2 Th.is group also plans to double the beach area and provide
additional parking. Also, Wisconsin DNR plans to stock the lake.
Aesthetics
Since the project, Lilly Lake has become the cleanest lake in Kenosha
County. The dredging has removed the unsightly muck and vegetation from the
lake. Also, the increased depth will eliminate winter fish kills. In the
past, droves of dead and malodorous fish were found on the shoreline in the
spring. Overall, the aesthetics of the lake have improved considerably.
Also, approximately 109,500 cars pass Lilly Lake per year which at
$.10 per car would yield an annual benefit of $10,950/yr.1 Again, because of
property value theory, this figure is already considered to be included in
property value increases.
Property Values
The local realtors2 indicate that lakefront property has already
increased in market value from $340 per foot to $500 per foot as a direct
result of the project. Some lakefront houses have had their assessed values
go up $9,000. Since 81 percent of the 1.3 mile shoreline is properties, the
footage increase is 5,560 (.81 x 1.3 x 5,280 ft.) x ($500 - $340) = $889,600.
B-64
-------
It Is also likely that the 90 homes set back from the lake have
also increased in value. A conservative estimate of 25 percent of the
above value (which applied to 80 homes) would add another $222,400 for
a total of $1,112,000.
The clearest method of assessing property value increase benefits is
to use the approximately 40 percent value by which all homes in the area are
expected to increase due to the restoration project. The 180 houses average
approximately $40,000 for a total value of $7.2 million.2 The total project
benefit is 40 percent of $7.2 million, or $2,880,000.
Fish and Wildlife
The gravel pit to which spoils were piped now contains an attractive
pond with water. Next year the pond will be used for waterfowl production.
Education, Research and Development
This was a pilot project for the hundreds of lakes in the area that
have the same problem of siltation. Already people from nearby Brown's Lake
and Paddock Lake have visited Lilly Lake to learn about the program. The
spreading of the sediment on the farm fields was part of an experiment
conducted by the DNR to seek various methods of silt disposal. The estab-
lishment of a lake district and other work by local people increases their
knowledge of environmental matters.
The local project director also receives many telephone inquiries
about the program and visits from other lake district representatives.
B-65
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LILLY LAKE
Recreation** +
Aesthetics** +
Property Values $2,880,000*
Fish and Wildlife +
Education, Research and Development +
Total Annual Benefits (approximate) $2,880,000
Total Discounted Benefits $2,880,000
314 Grant Amount $ 350,000
*Applied to first year only.
**Actual values not included, since property value increase was used to
estimate total benefits for this lake.
Data Sources:
1. Lake Management District Project Manager
2. Interviews with local realtors
3. Interviews with local business people
4. Local fishing club
Date of Site Visit: January 18-19, 1980
B-66
-------
LITTLE POND
Little Pond is a 68 acre lake in Lincoln County, Maine. It serves
as a water supply source for the 550 households (2675 people) in two Maine
towns: Damariscotta and Newcastle. Little Pond was closed to fishing by the
State of Maine in 1952, and its use is currently restricted to management as
a public water supply.1
The 314 funding was sought by the State of Maine in order to alleviate
the taste and odor problems (and even filter clogging) caused by heavy
growths of zooplankton and algae in Little Pond. The restoration technique
used was biological control of zooplankton by the introduction of alewives
into Little Pond.
Because of the restrictions on the use of Little Pond, recreation and
aesthetics will be discussed only briefly. Primary emphasis is on benefits
in commercial water treatment and in R&D.
Recreation
Use of Little Pond is restricted to supplying drinking water to
Darmariscotta and Newcastle. At present, there is no pressure from the com-
munity to lift the restriction, because four other lakes are available for
recreation. However, residents of the community do claim that some game-fish
are reappearing in Little Pond since its restoration was completed in 1978,
and the pond thus has the potential to offer recreational benefits should
its use be changed.1»2
Aesthetics
Little Pond is a lovely lake in a wooded area a few miles outside
Damariscotta. From all reports from the local citizens, the lake has been
free of zooplankton since project completion. Community interest in the
project has been high, and one may assume that everyone in the water supply
area has been there to assess the improved condition of the lake.
One factor contributing to pollution in Little Pond had been a local
dump about a mile away. In connection with the Clean Lakes work, the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection in the State of Maine also regulated the
B-67
-------
dump, requiring weekly covering and forbidding open burning. The former
regulation reduces the number of gulls visiting the dump (and moving on to
increase nutrient loading to the lake), and the latter requirement has
reduced particulate matter in air and water.1»4
Commercial Water Treatment!»2
A substantial portion of the benefits from 314 funding of the restora-
tion of Little Pond can be quantified. These include both benefits to the
water company and to the users of the water.
The annual cost to the water company of unacceptable drinking water
becomes a large part of annual benefits when the problem is eliminated.
These costs were of three types.
First, additional chlorine was required to alleviate taste and odor
problems. The Superintendent estimated the net additional use of chlorine
by the company due to algal related problems; 11.5 additional pounds of
chlorine were used per day from May to November [(11.5 net additional Ibs
x 214 days) = 2,461 Ibs]. Five additional pounds of chlorine were used per
day the rest of the year [(5 Ibs x 151 days) = 755 Ibs]. Chlorine cost the
company $35 for 100 pounds in 1975. Yearly savings in chlorine:
1214 x U'4)ioo(151 x 5'°' * $35 $1-126
Second, time was spent in answering complaints over the telephone.
Assume each of 550 households called once a month during the seven "peak"
months, and that each call took 5 minutes of an employee's time. Thus, for
each month,
550 * 5 x $3.30* x 7 = $1,059
DU
is the amount now saved and thus a benefit of the project.
*This is the Bureau of Labor Statistics average hourly earnings in manufac-
turing in nearby Lewiston-Auburn area of Maine in 1975.
B-68
-------
Third, time was spent in making some house calls to assess the seve-
rity of reported problems. The water company superintendent estimates the
time required for each house call at about 1-1/4 hours. This time (plus
truck depreciation and gas) is $10 an hour. Each trip thus cost $12.50. He
made 241 housecalls in 1975 for more severe issues raised in these 3,850
phoned complaints. The cost now saved is $3,012.
Similarly, households using the water from Little Pond during periods
of high zooplankton growth had costs associated with poor quality drinking
water. They can best be measured by first, time spent in making complaints
by phone to the water company, valued at an amount equal to water company
cost, $1,059. Second, time was spent in receiving calls from the Superin-
tendent. The number of visits 241 is, of course, the same as those for the
Superintendent, but the length of time to receive the call is 3/4 of an hour,
and the "opportunity cost" (or implied wage) is only $3.30 an hour. Yearly
time spent in receiving calls is 241 x .75 x $3.30 = $596.
Third, many customers paid the cost of obtaining alternative drinking
water, either purchasing water in stores or dipping buckets in a spring.
Since most did the latter, cost is estimated on the basis of these assump-
tions: (1) each of the 550 households, on average, made at least one trip
per week during the worst three months to the stream to get '"drinkable"
water; (2) each trip took one hour; (3) the implied wage of one member of the
household is, again, $3.30 an hour. The annual cost of obtaining alter-
native drinking water is 550 x 13 x $3.30 = $23,595.
The total annual benefits of 314 funding to commercial water treat-
ment are $30,400. This, incidentally, does not include the cost avoided by
eliminating the need for the water company to install filters, which it
presently does not use.
Research and Development or Pilot Project Aspects
Biological control of zooplankton through the use of alewives in
Little Pond was an innovative approach to the problem. Previous measures
had included annual applications of copper sulfate to Little Pond. This
was costly, its benefits were of limited duration, and it was considered
responsible for a partial kill of the game fish in Little Pond.^
B-69
-------
Alewives are an anadromous fish that is easily available to the State
of Maine's Department of Marine Fisheries. This makes it possible to restock
Little Pond cheaply (approximately $100} if the zooplankton propulation
should reappear.*»2
Perhaps more important, the results of Little Pond are now being
applied with State funding to a second water supply source in Maine. This
is the Boothbay Harbor Water System, and its water source is Adams Pond,
Boothbay Harbor, Maine.6
Miscellaneous Benefits
Benefits of lake restoration also include the knowledge by the commu-
nity that an acceptable solution to the algal bloom problem had - at last -
been found. The condition of Little Pond had been a source of great irrita-
tion and concern by the citizens of Damariscotta and Newcastle, the commu-
nity found previous chemical approaches to the algal problem unacceptable.
Copper sulfate had been applied in past years to reduce algal problems. The
benefits of these applications were short-lived and resulted in partial kills
of the game fish in Little Pond. Chlorine, on the other hand, not only
introduced a taste and odor of its own but also did not eliminate the zoo-
plankton which clogged dentist's drills and was sometimes non-filterable.
People in other parts of the country may not understand the community's
concerns (given their own water supplies), but this irritation by the Dama-
riscotta/Newcastle community is understandable to other residents of Maine,
where water quality standards are high (see the discussion in Cobbossee).
B-70
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LITTLE POND
Aesthetics +
Commercial Water Treatment $ 30,400
Pilot Study Benefits +
Total First Year $ 30,400+
Total Discounted Benefits $212,200
314 Grant Amount 9,946.50
Data Sources:
1. Matthew Scott, Chief Biologist, Director of the Division of Lakes and
Biological Studies, Bureau of Water Quality Control, Deparment of
Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine.
2. Raymond C. Gudrow, Superintendent, Damariscotta/Newcastle Water Supply
Company, Damariscotta, Maine, and his staff.
3. Ron Manfredonia, Director of the Clean Lakes Program, Region I, EPA,
John F- Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA
4. Mower, Barry, Utilization of Juvenile Alewives to Control Lake Water
Quality Problem, EPA Grant Number S 804272010. WTT.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings: States and
Areas, 1939-1975, pp. xix, 320, 323.
6. Letter of January 2, 1980, from Matthew Scott, Chief Biologist, State
of Maine.
Date of Site Visit: December 18, 1979.
B-71
-------
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
Loch Raven is a 2,400 acre reservoir located in Baltimore County
but owned and operated by the City of Baltimore as a source of water supply.
(It serves the equivalent of one million people.) It is also a recreational
resource for both Baltimore City and Baltimore County residents, the estima-
ted population of which was 1,524,056 in 1979.3 It is only a 12 mile drive
from downtown Baltimore, and it can be reached by private transportation by
anyone in the greater Baltimore area within 30 minutes.
Loch Raven is used for recreation that is consistent with correct
management of a drinking supply source. Thus, swimming and gas-powered boats
are excluded. Uses include warm water fishing, boating (electric motors
only), picnicking (no fires including charcoal), skeet shooting, horseback
riding, golf, jogging, cycling, and walking. These recreational experiences
are made especially enjoyable because of a city-owned buffer-zone of land
around the reservoir which varies from a minimum of 400 feet from the water
to as much as 1/2 mile. The area is wooded, partly because that is its
natural state and partly because the city continues to plant white pines
in the area.1'2*4*5
The purpose of the 314 grant to Baltimore City Department of Public
Works was to install an aeration system in the reservoir to prevent strati-
fication and to ameliorate algal and manganese problems in the water supply.
Simultaneously, 208 money was used to identify and monitor pollution sources
in Loch Raven's watershed. A watershed plan is almost complete.*
The benefits of 314 funding for commercial water supply are primary.
In addition, the aeration system will have an effect on fishing, other types
of recreation, and aesthetics.
Recreation
Loch Raven Reservoir is a free source of recreation to the greater
Baltimore community year-round. Unfortunately, "hard" estimates of reservoir
*The planning group hopes to interest the University of Maryland and the
USDA in using Loch Raven's watershed for a pilot study of agricultural,
non-point pollution.
B-72
-------
use are not made, and one must rely largely on qualitative statistics.
"Typical" overall park use on weekends between March 15 and October 31 is
estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000 users a weekend.2 The UDV method
of estimating year-round use requires an estimate of "the number of visitors
to a recreation area on an average summer Sunday" (in the case of Loch Raven,
an average Sunday during the fishing season),* which is multiplied by 50.
Assuming 7,500 to be average Sunday volume, one gets an annual estimated use
of 375,000 use-days of recreation. This is probably an underestimate of
park use.
The chief recreational activity of Loch Raven is fishing. Laryemouth
and smallmouth bass, some northern pike, bluegills, and crappies are caught.
The director of the city's boat launch (for which a 50 cent fee is charged)
states that 19,700 people used the center for fishing in 1979, and 200 to 300
pounds of fish are caught on average each weekend from March 14 until the
center closes on October 31. This is 33 weeks, which means 8,250 pounds of
fish are caught from boats (250 Ibs x 33 weeks). Fishing on the shoreline is
considered to be as good as that from boats, and fishermen are thought to be
about 1/2 of park attendance.
The approach taken here to value the benefits of aeration to fishermen
is the UDV method. Aeration improves fishing, because it increases the
dissolved oxygen in lower portions of the reservoir. This makes conditions
more tolerable for fish in summer months. One result of aeration may be that
pike are no longer "marginal" fish in the reservoir, and that better game
fish will increase in their shares relative to the total fish population.
The value of Loch Raven per user day of fishing before restoration is $2.51
(12/3/8/15/12 = 50). This relatively high valuation is due to the yood
access both to the site and within it. Aesthetics are also high (and can
only improve) because of Baltimore City patterns of land ownership and
management practices around the reservoir.
Assuming that the recreational experience increases from 12 to 15
points for the existing fishermen in terms of their "recreational exper-
ience", the improved quality for existing fishermen is:
*That the opening 'of the fishing season is relevant is confirmed by Litter
Statistics collected by Baltimore Parks and Recreation. Ten-thousand pounds
per month are collected from March 15 to October 31, but 27,000 pounds are
collected between March 14 and April 30.
B-73
-------
187,500 x $.06 = $11,250.
In addition, because there would be some deterioration in Loch Raven
because of increasing algae without aeration one can assume some fishing
benefits would be lost each year without the 314 project. For fishermen,
assume a 2 percent loss of benefits each year. The increment of potential
benefits is:
0.02 x 187,500 existing fishermen x $2.51 = $9,412
Aesthetics
The aesthetic experience is already good at Loch Raven. This is
because of the wooded area surrounding the reservoir, the tasteful signs,
and the limited duration of algal blooms. The aeration grant may improve
aesthetics somewhat (one or two "points", or 2-4£), but aeration will pri-
marily retard further decline in water quality as it affects use for drinking
water.
Since jogging* and all other recreational activities at Loch Raven
except fishing are land-based, the recreational benefit to the other half of
park users (187,500 per year) is primarily aesthetic. Using the UDV method,
one can assume the aesthetic benefit of improved water quality on Loch Raven
is only half that for fishermen - or $.03 per user day. Thus, improvement to
existing users other than fishermen:
187,500 user days x $.03 per day = $5,625
Assuming aesthetic experience would otherwise deteriorate by two percent a
year, the annual increment of aesthetic benefits protected is:
*A favorite year-round activity at the reservoir is jogging and walking.2'6
Loch Raven is the destination each December of the Maryland Marathon, which
attracts about 4,000 runners. It is also used for various walk-a-thons for
charity. Each Sunday the city closes 1-3/4 miles of reservoir road to
traffic in order to facilitate jogging and strolling. Throughout the
winter, it is a favorite location for winter hikes in the greater Baltimore
area.
B-74
-------
187,500 user days x .02 x $2.30 = 8,625
In addition, some commuters from the suburbs to Baltimore cross the
four bridges over Loch Raven in order to get to work. Of these, the State of
Maryland^ has estimates only for the average daily use of the Delaney Valley
Road Bridge. Eight thousand vehicles per day use it. The aesthetic value to
these commuters is: (8,000 vehicles per day x $.03 per day x 365 days) =
$87,600.
Commercial Water Treatment
The benefits of improved water quality to the city accrue both to the
water company (indirectly to consumers) and also directly to users of the
water supply. Each is considered in turn.
The benefits to the water company are of three types. One is savings
in chlorine costs each year to handle the water quality problems. Balti-
more's Public Works Department estimates that the cost of additional chlorine
in 1979 due to manganese problems was $22,820 at its Montebello treatment
plants. These figures come from the 153 days (August 1 through December 31)
of higher manganese and therefore higher chlorine use - totalling more than
100 tons at $175 per ton. Thus, in 1979 prices, the annual saving in chlor-
ine costs due to aeration would have been $22,820.
In addition, the city saves time and money in answering complaints
about water quality. The city estimates that there were 33 days of algal
related taste and odor complaints between August 13 and September 15, 1979.
Some of the complaints by customers could be handled over the telephone.
These complaints to the "water quality" division and to the "water distri-
bution" division totalled about 500 in 1979. Each complaint took about 10
minutes of secretarial time, and the wage rate was approximately that for
average hourly earnings of manufacturing production workers in Baltimore in
1978, namely, $6.18 per hour. Thus, benefits to the water company in averted
complaints (1978 wage rates) is: (500 complaints x .17 hours x $6.18) =
$525.30. This is an annual saving. Public Works has also priced out com-
plaints that cannot be handled over the phone using 1979 data on wages (for
technicians, laboratory analysts, and those who do the flushings, when
B-75
-------
required), and for gasoline and truck depreciation. The total cost of the
150 complaints was $2,121.89 in 1979. Assuming that this cost is eliminated
by the aeration system, the annual benefit of aeration in reduced complaint
costs is $2,121.
In addition to costs to the company, there are dis-benefits to the
consumers of Baltimore's water supply without aeration. One is the nuisance
of using unpleasantly tasting and smelling water. Water is purchased for
drinking purposes in order to avoid drinking "bad" water. There is no way
to obtain estimates of the number who purchase water in a city the size
of Baltimore. Assuming half of the one million customers of Loch Raven
Reservoir purchased one gallon of water per week during the four weeks of
the 33 day algal .bloom and that each gallon costs $.75, the cost to them
was (500,000 x $.75 per gallon x 4 weeks) = $1,500,000. This is an annual
cost.
In addition, customers who made complaints have an "opportunity cost"
for the time spent making calls and receiving house visits. The "opportunity
cost" is the 1978 Baltimore wage rate used earlier, namely, $6.18, and time
spent averages 10 minutes. For telephone compliants (only) the cost is:
(500 complaints x .17 hours x $6.18) = $525.30.
For customers calling and then receiving house visits, the cost is:
(150 complaints x 1 hours per complaint x $6.18) = $927. Both become annual
benefits of aeration.
Education, Research, and Development
Education and R&D benefits from the reservoir are of two types. One
is knowledge of the impact of aeration on a really big reservoir with both
algal and manganese problems. In addition, there will be educational bene-
fits to laymen in the Baltimore area. The city plans to build an observation
deck near the site of the aeration project. School children as well as
adults may find this study of "bubbles" on Loch Raven useful in understanding
pollution problems and a way to alleviate them.
B-76
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
Recreation
Improvement for existing users $ 11,200
Protection of recreational benefit for existing users 9,400*
Aesthetics
Improvement for existing recreational users 5,600
Protection for existing recreational users 8,600*
Improvement for existing commuters 87,600
Commercial Water Treatment 1,526,900
Education and R&D
Specialists +
Laymen (through the observation deck) +
Total First Year $ 1,750,100
Total Discounted Benefits $11,944,100
314 Grant Amount $ 150,900
*Increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. Division of Water Quality, Department of Public Works, City of Bal-
timore, MD.
2. Department of Parks and Recreation, city of Baltimore, MD.
3. Budget and Fiscal Office, City of Baltimore, MD.
Various brochures, including:
4. City of Baltimore, Department of Public works, Bureau of Opera-
tions, Watershed Regulations: Regulations Governing Loch Raven,
Prettyboy, and Liberty Reservoirs, 9/1/79.
5. Maryland, Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Administra-
tion, A Fisherman's Map of Loch Raven Reservoir.
6. McKerrow, Stephen. "For Families: Winter Hiking". The Evening
Sun. January 10, 1980.
7. Maryland State Highway Department.
Date of Site Visit: January 4, 1980.
B-77
-------
MEDICAL LAKE
Medical Lake is located in a town of the same name, about 14 miles
west of Spokane, in Spokane County, Washington. The lake is entirely spring-
fed and is unusually deep - 60 feet at the deepest spot, and 33 feet average
depth. It received its name because of the belief that its waters had
medicinal properties; they are, in fact, high in sodium bicarbonate. In
the early part of the 20th Century, spas and bathing pavillions were in
operation there.
The population of Medical Lake is 2,600.1 However, users are drawn
from throughout Spokane County, population 320,000. A relatively small
portion of the shoreline (approximately one-third) is in private ownership.5
State institutions own and permit public use of at least one-third, and the
town operates boat launching and swimming facilities on parkland. Prior to
the restoration project, lake use was relatively low, primarily because of
massive blue-green algae blooms and resulting low dissolved oxygen, obnoxious
odors, and general unattractiveness. Rooted aquatic plants interfered with
use of the public beach area.l»2
The project consisted of chemical treatment of the lake with aluminum
sulfate to precipitate phosphorus and particulate matter and to form a bottom
seal. The only remaining known point source, a cooling water discharge high
in phosphorus, was eliminated. The work has been completed, with dramatic
results: water has been clear and bloom-free for two seasons, and rainbow
trout, stocked by the state, are thriving in water which previously would
not support them.4
The alum treatment produced almost immediate benefits in terms of
recreation, aesthetics, and fish and wildlife. It is also having a positive
impact on property values and has acted as a catalyst for additional commu-
nity projects.1*5 The benefits are discussed briefly below and summarized in
the table at the end of this section.
Recreation
Long-term residents of Medical Lake who were interviewed stated that
only within the past two years have they found the water attractive enough
B-78
-------
for swimming. The largest number of people using the park on a weekend for
any purpose was 100 prior to the restoration project. Since its completion,
shorefront homeowners swim in the lake and weekend park usage has risen to
between 750 and 1,000. Two lifeguards have been hired for the town beach.
The lake has not yet been opened to fishing, pending the outcome of biolo-
gical and chemical monitoring, but when it is, usage is expected to be
limited by regulation from 7,500 to 10,000 angler-days per year. (The
maximum could be as high as 25,000 to 30,000, if no limit were imposed.)
Before restoration, approximately 50 people used the lake each weekend
day during the seven-month season. Assuming that half as many would visit
the lake on a weekday, one can calculate pre-restoration use as:
(60 x 50) + (154 x 25) = 6,850
Using a UDV of $1.44 (2/3/5/10/0 = 20) to evaluate pre-project benefits:
6,850 x $1.44 = $9,864
Following similar reasoning for post-project benefits, and incorporating an
increased UDV of $1.93 (12/3/5/10/10 = 40) because of improved quality,
[(60 x 375) + (154 x 188)] x $1.93 = $99,302
The project thus produced $89,400 in net new benefits. To this can be added,
beginning in 1981, benefits of 7,500 angler-days of fishing at a UDV of $2.28
(40 points):
7,500 x $2.28 = $17,100
Aesthetics
In addition to the impacts on recreation described above, the absence
of obnoxious odors from the lake, which could pervade the entire town,
has been of definite benefit. This benefit, not explicitly measured, is
reflected in property value increases.
B-79
-------
Fish and Wildlife
Game fish were unable to survive in Medical Lake prior to the project,
principally because of dissolved oxygen depletion during and after algal
blooms.4»6 Since the project, rainbow trout fingerlings stocked by the state
have grown to two-pound size and the lake appears to be developing a balanced
fish community.
Property Values
In the early 1970's, a lot with a 50-foot frontage at the lake was
valued at about $1,000. In 1979, the same lot was worth approximately
$10,000. If one assumes that half of that increase was due to inflation
and general appreciation of land values, one is left with a conservative
50 x $4,500 = $225,000
increase in the value of the approximately 50 lakefront properties. As the
owners and occupants of these properties were probably not counted among park
users, this value can be added to total project benefits.
Research and Development^
The apparent success of the alum treatment and the results of the
monitoring programs being conducted have attracted considerable attention
among lake restoration specialists and in the scientific literature. EPA has
in progress a capsule report to publish the project as a case study. It will
thus serve as a prototype for other restoration projects.
Community Environmental Activities
All individuals contacted have felt that the project was a resounding
success. The Mayor of Medical Lake describes the town's share of the project
as "the best money we've ever spent." With the improvement in the lake, the
town has been able to attract state grant money for park improvement.
B-80
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
MEDICAL LAKE
Recreation $ 89,400*
Aesthetics included in property value and recreation
Fish and Wildlife included in recreation
Property Values $225,000**
Research and Development +
Community Environmental Activities +
Total First Year $314,400+
Net Present Value, 10 Years $931,700
314 Grant Amount $128,217
*17,100 annual fishing benefit can be added beginning in third year; inclu-
ded in net present value.
**A one-time benefit added in first year although not realized until sale.
Data Sources:
1. Town Administrator, Medical Lake
2. Mayor, Medical Lake
3. Medical Lake Chamber of Commerce
4. Washington State Fish and Game Commission
5. James S. Black, Realtors
6. Dr. Ray Saltero, Eastern Washington University
Date of Site Visit: January 7, 1980
B-81
-------
MIRROR AND SHADOW LAKES
Mirror and Shadow Lakes are side-by-side, separated by a short stream
by which the smaller lake, Mirror - 13 surface acres, empties into Shadow -
43 surface acres. They are considered as one project because the restoration
techniques applied to Mirror have an effect on both Mirror and Shadow, in
addition to the effects of separate restoration techniques on both lakes.
The lakes are situated on the edge of the rural town of Waupaca, in north-
central Wisconsin. The town of Waupaca has a population of 4,342, and there
are 425,000 people within a one-hour drive of Waupaca.
Mirror Lake has a public park along approximately twenty percent of
its shoreline. The remainder of the shoreline is approximately 20 older
houses. The lake has a mean depth of 26 feet and a maximum 43-foot depth.
Recreation activities on the lake consist of boating, fishing, swimming, and
winter activities, while the facilities in the park provide for picnicking
and boat launching.
Approximately one-third of Shadow Lake's shoreline is public area and
includes a public bathing beach, a public park and a boat launch facility
with parking. The lake is used for swimming, boating and winter sports.
During the winter a skating rink is created on the ice and receives extensive
use. Ice fishing is also conducted on the lake. Three shelter homes are
also contained in the park.
Mirror Lake was showing degradation in water quality attributable to
the nutrient loadings from the sewered stormwater. The eventual effects of
the nutrients were to cause algae blooms and depress dissolved oxygen in the
hypolimnion. Shadow lake had better water quality although it was showing
signs of deterioration including reduced dissolved oxygen levels. Oscilla-
toria rubescens was the dominant algae present and was even in the ice,
giving it a red color and an odor when melting.
The restoration techniques utilized for Mirror focused on reducing
the nutrient loading, improving mixing, and blanketing the nutrients in the
bottom. The two storm sewers feeding Mirror Lake were diverted to the
Waupaca River. An aerator was purchased and is turned on for short periods
of time in spring and fall to assist mixing. Alum was applied to precipitate
nutrients and seal the bottom. Although the only restoration technique
B-82
-------
applied to Shadow Lake was alum treatment, the effects of the Mirror projects
will be felt in Shadow.
The benefits that have accrued from this project are recreational,
long-term property value protection around Shadow Lake, improved public
health, reduced pollution, and education.
Recreation and Aesthetics
Mirror and Shadow Lakes are the only lakes for which site-specific
recreational and aesthetic benefit survey results were discovered. A study
conducted by economists from the University of Wisconsin under on the lake
restoration R&D grants made available through EPA's Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory has produced the following preliminary results:?
Approximately 80,000 user-days will be spent at Mirror and Shadow
Lakes annually.
Users surveyed indicated willingness-to-pay $.62 and $.91 for a
day of recreation at Mirror and Shadow, respectively, in their
pre-project condition.
The same sample would be willing to pay $1.14 and $1.51 for
the same recreational experience if water quality were excellent.
This information can be used to estimate recreational and aesthetic
benefits. The value of improved water quality is evidently $.52 ($1.14-$.62)
at Mirror Lake and $.60 ($1.51-$.91) at Shadow Lake. Assuming that 80,000
user-days are distributed equally between the two lakes, the mean of the two
values, $.56, multiplied by 80,000, yields an estimated annual project
benefit of $44,800.
Property Value
The Waupaca tax assessor^ and a local realtor indicate that property
values around the lakes have not increased in market value nor have they been
assessed higher as a result of the project. However, they both estimate that
in the case of Shadow Lake the project was necessary to protect the long-run
B-83
-------
property values. The houses surrounding Mirror Lake are old. The long-term
protection value for the homes around Shadow Lake could not be quantified.
Public Health
Prior to the project swimmers in the lakes were bothered by infec-
tions. Since the project, there have not been any infections from the
water.6
Educational
The Univers.ity of Wisconsin uses the lake as a field research sta-
tion. 2 in addition, the Wisconsin DNR has a research and demonstration grant
for this project.*
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
MIRROR AND SHADOW LAKES
Recreation and Aesthetics $ 44,800
Property Value +
Public Health +
Education +
Total First Year $ 44,800+
Total Discounted Benefits $312,700
314 Grant Amount $215,000
Data Sources:
1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2. City of Waupaca
a. Water Department
b. Recreation Deparment
c. City Clerk
d. Tax Assessor
3. Local Realtor (Petersen)
4. Chamber of Commerce
5. Bait Shop
6. Local Residents
7. Lowell Klessig and Steve Lovejoy, University of Wisconsin, unpublished
data.
Date of Site Visit: January 9-10, 1980
B-84
-------
MOSES LAKE
Moses Lake is a 6,800 acre lake located in Moses Lake, Washington.
Approximately 20,000 live in the general vicinity. The central location of
the lake makes it a popular recreational area for local residents and
tourists.
In recent years, nutrient enrichment of Moses Lake has threatened
its use as a recreation site. The first stage of restoration began in 1977
when dilution water was added to Parker Horn via Crab Creek. Construction
of a transmission line to add dilution water to Pelican Horn is scheduled
to begin in 1980. A third stage, addition of dilution water to the main
lake, is still under discussion. The success of Parker Horn dilution is
currently being evaluated through water quality testing.
Projected benefits from the improvement in water quality are pri-
marily in areas of recreation and aesthetics.
Recreation and Aesthetics
A number of parks, including three parks run by the City of Moses
Lake, an Irrigation District Park, Moses Lake State Park, and Big Sun Resorts
(a private campground), are adjacent to the lake. Recreation uses before the
improvement were all water-related activities and included swimming, fishing,
water skiing, ice fishing, and sailing. Recreation uses after the program
are expected to be the same, but of higher quality, due to aesthetic improve-
ments.
Usage, capacity, and fee estimates for the parks are as follows:
Park Use or Capacity
(1) Irrigation District 50 trailers/busy weekend*
est. 500 trailers in 1979
(2) Moses Lake State Park 159,463 day users in 19793
(3) Cascade Park
Fees
(4) Big Sun Resorts
40 unit capacity
est. 1560 (1978)
est. 1270 (1979)
50 spaces, full hookup
6 spaces, heat3
$2.00/trailer1
$3.75-$4.75/unit
(increase to
$4.50-$6.50)
in 1980)2
0 $5.50-$5.75
$4.003
B-85
-------
While Big Sun was full during the 1978 season, it was not in 1979, due to the
gasoline shortage.
State park officials estimate a 5 percent to 10 percent4 increase
after the project, or, assuming an increase of 7.5 percent, an annual in-
crease of approximately 12,000 day users. Assuming the following factors
yields a supplementary projection of 6420 users:
No increase at Big Sun or Irrigation District
An annual increase of 290 trailers at Cascade Park, to the 1978
level, or, assuming 4 campers per trailer, an annual increase of
1160 lake site users
With the restoration of McKosh Park, as currently planned by city
officials anticipating significantly greater lake use due to the
improvement, an annual increase of 5260 users.
The estimate of 18,420 increased users due to the improvement is conserva-
tive, in part because it excludes users at a new private campground built
near the lake last year. Applying the estimated $2.19 after project unit day
value (10/10/9/10/8 = 47) to the user increase yields an annual benefit level
of $40,340.
The UDV before the project was estimated at $1.97 (10/10/9/10/2 = 41).
Consequently, existing lake users experienced an increase in recreational and
aesthetic benefit of $.22 per user-day. Using 1979 statistics and the
assumptions made in projecting the new increment of usage, existing usage was
approximately 165,000 user-days. The increased benefit to existing users was
therefore
$.22 x 105,000 = $36,300
Agriculture
Although the lake is used to irrigate approximately 3000 acres of
farm land, improved water quality will not significantly affect local agri-
culture. In addition, 40 acres of lawn at Moses Lake State Park are irrigated
from the lake. Low acreage farms in the area grow alfalfa, wheat, potatoes,
B-86
-------
and corn and, while farmers are highly conscious of BMP, there was no farmer
involvement with the project. It is held that nutrients in the lake irriga-
tion water are actually good for the crops.1
Property Value
While^ with at least five new developments, there is much new develop-
ment around the 105 mile lake shoreline, it is not expected that the improve-
ment will increase property values. Property values are already high in
that, for example, a lot which sold for $8,000-$11,000 several years ago now
sells for $25,000. The lake is used, however, as a selling point for the
area.^
Commercial Fishing
There are indeterminant commercial fishing benefits from the improve-
ment. One fisherman, with an annual catch of 1000 tons, uses the lake.6
There may also be minor educational benefits, as a local college uses the
lake as an outdoor laboratory.
Economic Development
While no economic benefits are expected to result from the improve-
ment, in part because the town is not highly dependent on tourism, local
officials generally feel that the lake is underused and that the improvement
will significantly improve lake use. While the resultant benefits are
primarily recreational, related benefits are aesthetic and non-quantifiable.
However, both water clarity and the diatom population increased after the
pilot dilution water was added.6 There is some concern that water weed,
brought in by the dilution water, will hurt recreational lake uses.^ There
is also some concern, based in part on a 1979 accidental sewage spill which
brought about beach closings, about the lake's point source, a sewage plant
with a 2mgd capacity.5 However, while the plant contributes 4.4% of the
lake's nitrogen levels and 19.7% of its phosphorus levels, it is currently
being improved under another grant.6
B-87
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
MOSES LAKE
Recreation and Aesthetics
New users $ 40,300
Existing users 36,300
Commercial Fishing +
Educational +
Total First Year $ 76,600
Total Discounted Benefits $ 534,700
314 Grant Amount $3,251,000
Data Sources:
1. Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District
2. City of Moses Department: Parks and Recreation, Health
3. Big Sun Resorts
4. Region III Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Grant County Health District
6. "Moses Lake, 1977 Pilot Project" Vol. I and II
7. Ebel and Associates Real Estate
Date of Site Visit: January 14, 1980
B-l
-------
NUTTING LAKE
Nutting lake is a 78 acre largely spring-fed lake in Billerica,
Massachusetts. Billerica, a town of about 40,000 residents, is about 20
miles northwest of Boston and in the vicinity of Lowell.
There are about 35 year-round residents with property on the lake.
There are 634 houses in Nutting's small watershed of 372 acres. 1 Most of
these houses are former summer residences which have been converted to year-
round use. They are now low-to-moderate income housing and generally need
substantial work. The area was sewered in 1975 with 201 funds allocated
to the Concord River watershed, and some homes are still not connected to the
system.1
Nutting Lake was basically unusable for any warm-weather recreational
purpose at the time of 314 funding. It was only 4 feet deep, was so over-
grown with aquatic vegetation that it was impossible to launch a boat; and
had deep organic sediment accumulation. Swimming was explicity prohibited
by the Board of Health.
The objective of the project is to improve recreational possibilities.
The major in-lake restoration technique is dredging. Money has also been
spent by the City to purchase 15 additional acres of wetlands for conserva-
tion purposes and for a second, public beach area, and also for educating
the residents of the watershed in good land management practices as they
relate to water quality.
The benefits of the project are in these areas: recreation, property
values aesthetics, education, area unemployment, public health, and R&D.
Recreation
Nutting Lake is expected to improve from its 1975 condition in which
it was an aesthetic "eyesore" to the community and a recreational disaster
(zero use in summer) to a lake with a full range of recreational activi-
ties. These regained opportunities will be swimming; fishing (at least bass,
perch, and pickerel); boating, especially rowboats and sailboats; and strol-
ling in the city-owned 41.5 acres of land.
B-89
-------
Last summer, dredging was completed on one portion of the lake,
doubling the depth to about 11 feet. Already boating has picked up, and
there was, by coincidence or not, a return of wildlife (Canada geese and blue
herons) to a protected nesting sanctuary on a small island in the lake.
The benefits to recreation of restoring Nutting Lake can be quantified
using the UDV method. The value of Nutting Lake per user day prior to res-
toration was about $1.44 (2/7/3/7/1 = 20). Recreation and aesthetics are
positive numbers only because Nutting Lake was used in winter for ice skating
and some ice-fishing. Direct impacts of the 314 grant are in three areas:
recreation, access, and environmental quality. Recreation will improve so
that a full-range of summer activities, including swimming, are again pos-
sible. Access has been improved by the purchase of land for a new beach area.
Environmental quality is improving as dredging removes the heavy vegetation.
Because federal funding of Nutting Lake continues to be interrelated
in time and design, however, an improved Nutting Lake will be a joint product
of 314, 201, HUD and other federal funding. Thus, it is difficult to assess
the impact on user day value of only 314 money. Omitting HUD financing,
however, the value of Nutting Lake per user day will probably increase 18
points (9/7/6/10/6 = 38), to $1.88.
There is considerable speculation about the numbers of people who
will actually use Nutting Lake when its water quality is restored. The
nearest source of freshwater swimming to Bill erica is Wai don Pond in Concord,
Ma. The range of potential users varies from those in the watershed itself
(about 2400 people) to those in Billerica and five surrounding communities
(population: 135,000).2 Given the small size of the lake and also the
low-income housing in the area, local expert opinion**2 speculates that the
chief users of the restored lake may only be watershed residents and their
friends.
If one assumes (conservatively) that the only users are watershed
residents, future lake usage is 2409 people (634 houses x 3.8 people per
household).2 If all 2409 people use it each Sunday in summer and if 50
times this is an acceptable measure of year-round use, the value of increased
recreation use is:
(2,409 people per summer Sunday x 50 x $.36) = $43,465.60
B-90
-------
Aesthetics
Nutting Lake will dramatically improve from its present distasteful
appearance with lake restoration. An estimate of a gain in "environmental
quality" from "1" to "6" is clearly warranted even before homes on the
shoreline are rehabilitated with HUD money. The impact of changed aesthetics
affect residents of the watershed more severely than non-residents.
Given the street plan of the watershed, residents must drive past
Nutting Lake even for groceries or schools. Assuming each person makes 3
trips past the lake each week (3 x 52 = 156 trips/yr.), the value of the
improved aesthetics to existing home-owners is:
(2409 people x 156 trips per year x $.10) = $37,580.40
Assuming aesthetics would further deteriorate without restoration by 2
percent a year, the value of protecting the existing benefit is:
(2409 people x 156 trips per year x .02 percent decline x $1.44) = $10,823.16
The 2 lane Middlesex Turnpike (Route 3A) passes Nutting Lake (in fact,
it "divides" it in half). Anyone travelling on this 35 mph road can clearly
see the signs of deterioration in water quality. Five thousand vehicles per
day used Route 3A in 1975. The Northern Middlesex Planning Commission feels
that at least 7,500 vehicles per day passed the lake in 1979 because of the
enormous growth in population in Billerica and surrounding communities.
Using this figure, both the value of improved aesthetics and of pro-
tecting benefits for existing drivers can be calculated. It is assumed there
is one person per car. Thus, the value of improved aesthetics to existing
drivers (non-lake residents) is:
(7,500 cars per day x 365 days x $.10) = $273,750
The value of protecting this benefit assuming a 2 percent decline a
year is:
(7500 cars per day x 365 days x .02 percent decline x $1.44) = $78,840
B-91
-------
Economic Development
The 314 grant encouraged HUD to consider Nutting Lake and its water-
shed for a $291,000 grant to rehabilitate its housing. This grant award
(under the Small Cities program) was made in early January, 1980. The
program will finance some final sewer hook-ups; will give rebates to some
homeowners who improve their property; and will subsidize home improvement
loans to others. (The amount available to each homeowner varies with his
income level and his need to remove housing code violations.)2
Although much of the dredging and spoil containment area work is a
matter for skilled personnel, this 314 project has also used a number of
local people who would otherwise be unemployed. Six Youth Corps members of
the Billerica community have found employment for 13 weeks each summer with
the restoration work. This is an "employment" effect of adding six to the
labor force, and the program will last five years. In monetary terms, the
addition to Billerica total income statistics is:
6x13 weeks x 40 hours x 3.10 = $9,672
In addition, four CETA people have been used in the past, 1 for 18
months and 3 for 3 months. However, since they are paid with Federal grant
funds, the direct benefit cannot be included.!
Property Values
The restoration of Nutting Lake should have a significant impact on
property values in the watershed. One or two people have already improved
the siding on their homes in anticipation of improved water quality. With
HUD rebates and low-interest rate loans, many more property owners in the
Watershed are expected to improve their housing.
The result of these joint activities in the Watershed area may be a
substantial gain in property values. No one in Billerica (tax assessors or
local real estate agents) can hazard a guess about the dollar value of these
future property improvements.
B-92
-------
Education and R&D Benefits1*2*3
The 314 restoration of Nutting Lake has considerable R&D benefits.
The entire dredging operation is considered a pilot project by the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts* because it is the first dredging operation in the
state. The floculation process is of special interest, because there will
be chemical treatment of water before it is released into Mill Brook.
Reforesting the nutrient-rich dredged spoil at the completion of the dredging
process is a pilot project. The University of Massachusetts will attempt to
re-forest the spoil with high-quality, deciduous trees - oak, cherry, walnut,
and hickory - and will monitor their growth.
There will be some educational, or "demonstration," effects to other
lakes in that part of Eastern Massachusetts. Most of them are badly pollu-
ted, and most of them have mill workers' former summer homes, which have been
converted to year-round use. Nutting Lake's ability to "pull itself up" or
as the local newspaper put it, "From Resort Mecca to Shantytown to..." - may
encourage other Eastern Massachusetts towns with the same problem to attempt
to solve it.
B-93
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
NUTTING LAKE
Recreation
Protecting Existing Use +
Increased Use $ 43,400
Property Values +
Aesthetics
Residents of Watershed:
Aesthetics Improved 37,600
Aesthetics Preserved 10,800*
Non-residents of Watershed:
Aesthetics Improved 273,800
Aesthetics Preserved 78,800*
Public Health +
Unemployment and Income Effects: 9,700**
Education and R&D Benefits +
Total First Year $ 472,200+
Net Present Value $5,292,100
314 Grant Amount $ 241,159
increases by this amount each year.
**First five years only.
Data Sources:
1. Billerica Conservation Commission
2. Northern Middlesex Regional Commission
3. EPA, Region I.
4. Census Division, Commonwealth of Mass., 1975 Decennial Census
5. Michael Medeiros, Natural Resource Lands of Billerica. BCC.
6. Purcell and Taylor. Interim Report on Water Quality Analysis.
Aquatic Vegetation Analysis and Containment Area Preliminary
Design October 1977
Date of Site Visit: January 11, 1980
B-94
-------
PENN LAKE (LOWER)
Penn Lake is a shallow, 31-acre body of water having its origin
as a small lake associated with glacial moraine. It is located within the
City of Bloomington, a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota and there is a
population in excess of 160,000 in the immediate vicinity.
In March of 1976, Federal assistance was requested, in order to
restore Penn Lake. The majority of the work was to be directed towards
construction of sedimentation basins, access areas, and improvement of lake
waters aesthetically. Lower Penn Lake receives urban runoff directly and
from upper Penn Lake as well. Prior to the project, the lake fell to low
level during mid-summer, creating exposed sediment flats with decaying
organic matter and a general unsightly appearance.
Because the lake receives urban runoff and will continue to in the
future, a pumping system has been installed at the north end of the lake.
This pump withdraws groundwater at a rate of 300 g.p.m. from a deep aquifier.
It then runs down a stepped race and is deposited, following aeration (up to
12 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen) in Penn Lake. The presence of an aerated fresh
water source enables fish to survive during periods of low oxygen during
summer and winter and will, it is hoped, prevent winter kill of fish in this
shallow lake. Placement of sediment traps which permit access and cleanout
will undoubtedly reduce the distribution of sediments with their enriching
nutrients. It remains to be seen whether these measures will be enough to
slow eutrophication in the Penn Lake ecosystem over the long term.
Principal benefits are recreation, aesthetics, economic development,
fish and wildlife, and reduced lake management costs.
Recreation
Before the program was initiated, neither fishing nor boating were
possible on Penn Lake. The lake is free of ice for approximately one half
year, or 180 days. No values are currently available on recreational use of
the Lake, however, as many as 25 individuals have been seen fishing at the
lake on Sundays.3 Facilities in the vicinity of the lake include public
access, parking, a fishing pier and beach (although there is no swimming).
B-95
-------
Boating is reported to be a fairly common activity on the lake. No values
are available which would indicate the extent of this use, but national
statistics indicate that it would occur at 75 percent of the fishing usage,
or 19 user-days on Sunday.* Both usages can be multiplied by 50 to estimate
total annual usage.** There are thus 1,250 use days of general fishing
annually, plus an unknown amount of ice fishing. At a UDV of $2.60 (18/8/10/
11/7 = 54), this represents a benefit of $3,250. A corresponding UDV of
$2.37 for general recreation, times 950 boaters, yields a benefit of $2,250.
Aesthetic Enjoyment
Because of its location in a suburban setting, Penn Lake is enjoyed
by hundreds of people each day. Correspondingly, if the lake is an eyesore
a vociferous minority will be manifestly displeased and make known their
unhappiness to responsible officials. If it is assumed that only 500 people
per day take pleasure in seeing the lake in a healthy state then 500 x 365
days = 182,500 persons per year. Assuming the increase in UDV is $.09 (5
points in environmental quality), then $16,425 is the value of the general
aesthetic experience.
Flood Control
Initially there was some manipulation of the outfall. However,
the citizens did not approve . Consequently, the outfall which was lowered
1 foot was restored to its present level. The City is sensitive, however,
to any flood control measures that may need to be taken.
Economic Development
Both Bloomington and the area around Penn Lake are well diversified
commercially and industrially. The project itself will generate local jobs.
It would also be expected that the project will benefit local businesses.
*U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "The 1970 Survey
of Outdoor Recreation Activities Preliminary Report". 1972.
**See Appendix C for Methodology.
B-96
-------
Fish and Wildlife
Reduction of winter kill and water level and dissolved oxygen fluctua-
tions will help in the maintenance of a balanced fish community in the lake.
Research and Development
Although there is no research program per se on Penn Lake, it is
likely that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Fisheries Division
of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, will take a much greater
interest and will dedicate staff and facilities to urban lake management
problems.
Reduced Lake Management Costs
The project will slow cultural eutrophication and consequently reduce
the necessity for and difficulty of dredging Penn Lake. The construction
of sediment traps within the lake should reduce the costs of future dredging
by localizing sediment deposits within easy access - by 50 percent, one can
assume - from $3.00 per cubic yard to $1.50 per cubic yard. Watershed manage-
ment is expected to reduce phosphorus loading by approximately 50 percent; if
the same reduction is experienced for sediment, dredging would be needed only
half as often. Assuming that 50,000 cubic yards will have to be removed from
the lake in 20 years without the project, the project would postpone dredging
until the passage of 40 years. The benefit is the present value of the
savings resulting from postponing dredging for 20 years and reducing costs
by one-half:
(50,000 x $3 x 1.07125-20) . (50,000 x $1.5 x 1.07125-40) = $33,100
B-97
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
PENN LAKE
Recreation $ 5,500
Aesthetics 16,400
Economic Development +
Fish and Wildlife +
Research & Development +
Reduced Lake Management 33,100*
Total First-Year $ 55,000
Total Discounted Benefits $186,000
314 Grant Amount $ 87,900
*Present value of a one-time benefit, applied in first year only.
Data Sources:
1. City of Bloomington, Dept. Public Works
2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
3. Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota)
Date of Site Visit: January 9, 1980
B-98
-------
RIVANNA RESERVOIR
Rivanna Reservoir is a 390-acre reservoir located in Albermarle
County, Virginia. Holding 1.76 billion gallons of water, it is owned and
operated by the City of Charlottesville as the only public water supply
to the city and to the county.* Rivanna is also a recreational resource
for both the city and the county. The total estimated 1980 population of
Charlottesville is 43,250, and that of Albermarle County 52,800.1»3
The 314 grant was used for two purposes. One was to install an
aeration system in the reservoir to reduce taste and odor problems resulting
from algae blooms. The other was to analyze and monitor pollution problems
in the watershed due to point (24 percent) and non-point (76 percent) dis-
charges. Certain projects in the 155,000 acres of the reservoir's watershed
are now completed - specifically, studies of the effects of agricultural
grassed waterways and of a residential sedimentation pond.
There are several benefits from the 314 project to Charlottesville
and Albemarle County. The primary ones are in current commercial water
treatment and in research and development as it will impact future water
treatment. In addition, there are some recreation benefits.
Recreation
Recreation activities on Rivanna are largely warm-water game fishing.
There is also some boating, mostly by fisherman but also by the crew of the
University of Virginia which has a boat house on the reservoir. A local
conservation group, Ivy Creek Natural Areas, has bought 80 acres of land on
the reservoir in order to provide nature trails to the community. 1
With the exception of the Ivy Creek Natural Area, public access to the
reservoir is limited. Most of the land around the reservoir is privately
owned. One exception is the land by the aeration system and dam, where there
is a narrow road maintained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and also
a boat launching ramp. The other is by Route 29N, where there is also a boat
launching facility.
*Some people in Albemarle County have wells and do not use the commercial
water supply.
B-99
-------
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Game and Inland Fisheries
has up-to-date estimates of the kinds of fish in the reservoir (collected
from two types of samples) and also a rough estimate of the number of fisher-
man per year. The fish are largemouth bass, bluegill, both black and white
crappie, channel catfish, and both yellow and brown bullhead. Existing
annual fishing usage is estimated by Virginia to be 30,000 user-days.
Using the UDV method, Rivanna is given an initial value per user day
of $1.68 (4/5/4/5/12 = 30). This relatively low value is partly due to the
necessary restriction of recreational opportunities on a commercial water
supply source. Rivanna also has only fair access roads and public boat
launching facilities.
Recreation is judged to increase 3 points ($.06) after aeration. This
is for two reasons. One is increased fishing opportunity that results from
raising the concentration of dissolved oxygen in they hypolimnion making the
situation more tolerable for fish in summer. The other is due to the land
purchased by a private group for nature trails, an additional recreational
opportunity to the community. While the latter was not paid for by the 314
grant, it coincided with - and was reinforced by - Federal and local interest
in improving water quality in the Reservoir.
Recreation
The benefit per year of improved water quality to the existing 30,000
fishermen is:
30,000 fishermen x $.06 = $1,800
Assuming that fishing opportunities would have deteriorated by 2
percent each year without aeration and reservoir management, the annual
benefit to existing users of protecting fishing are:
30,000 fishermen x .02 x $1.68 = $1,008
Boating on Rivanna is primarily by fishermen.1'5 An exception is the
crew of the University of Virginia, which has a boat house on Rivanna. The
B-100
-------
estimate is that 50 people per day use shells from September 1 - November 15
and also from March 1 - May 15, a total of 152 days.^ The value to the crew
of improved water quality is:
50 people per day x 152 days x $.06 = $456
Since there would have been deterioration of 2% a year without the
grant, the annual benefit to protecting the reservoir for the crew is:
50 people per day x 152 days x .02 x $1.68 = $255.36
Commercial Water Treatment*
Some of the benefits to commercial water treatment of 314 funding
have already been realized. There was no algal bloom in 1979 after the
aeration system was working. In previous years, there had typically been a
four-to-six-week period of taste and odor problems.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority estimates savings in three
areas. One is savings in chemicals to treat the algae; for example, $3,500
worth of copper sulfate was used in 1977.
Secondly, there is savings of time and money to the authority in
answering complaints. Rivanna estimates there were, on an average, 20
complaints a day for 30 days each year, or 600 complaints in all. Roughly
500 of these complaints could be handled over the telephone. The bulk of
these required only secretarial/clerical time to assure the caller that the
taste and odor problems were known to the authority. Others required more
technical explanations, thus requiring the time of the superintendent or
chemist in answering the phone. These calls each take from 10 to 30 minutes.
In the absence of records, Rivanna feels it is fair to say that the 500 calls
answered over the phone cost an average of $2.50 per call (a weighted average
of 20 minutes of technical and non-technical time, in wages). Thus, an
average annual implied benefit of aeration in costs of telephone complaints
saved is:
500 calls x $2.50 per call = $1,250
B-101
-------
The 100 complaints that could not be handled over the phone required
the Water and Sewer Authority to collect a sample of the water from the
household or business and then to analyze it. Rivanna estimates this cost
at $11.75 per complaint, broken down as follows: $2 in clerical time, $.25
in materials, $5 of a chemist's time, $2.50 in travel costs (gas and depre-
ciation of vehicle), and $2 to analyze. The annual implied benefit of
aeration in averted house visits is:
100 x $11.75 = $1,175
Finally, for those 30 days, an unknown number of customers by-passed
the water for drinking purposes. Assuming 40,000 customers have purchased
water at $.75 a gallon* for 4 weeks, in the absence of the project, the
saving is: (40,000 x $.75 x 4 weeks) = $120,000.
Education, Research & Development
The 314 funding of aeration and of pilot projects in Rivanna Watershed
has several educational benefits. It will increase knowledge of how this
reservoir responds to changes in reservoir and watershed management. A major
result of 314 funding - together with all other studies by the University of
Virginia and outside consultants - is the development at this time of a
formal watershed management plan for Charlottesville and Albermarle County.
*A price of $.09 a gallon for purchased water has been suggested by a number
of reservoirs - including Rivanna. This is clearly a "wholesale, bulk-
purchase" rate. Spring water is currently selling for about $1.09 a gallon
in retail outlets in Philadelphia.
B-102
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
RIVANNA RESERVOIR
Recreation
Fishing:
Recreational Improvement for Existing Users $ 1,800
Recreational Benefit Protection 1,000*
Crew - University of Virginia:
Recreational Improvement for Crew 500
Recreational Benefit Protection for Crew 300*
Commercial Water Treatment 124,400
Education, and Research and Development +
Total First Year $128,000
Total Discounted Benefits $923,500
314 Grant Amount $ 63,835
increases by this amount each year.
Data Sources:
1. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority.Char!ottesville, VA
2. USDA, Soil Conservation Service Charlottesville, VA
3. Engineer fl Run-off Control Official, Albemarle County, VA
4. Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, Commonwealth of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA.
5. Crew President, University of Virginia
6. F. X. Browne and Assoc., Rivanna Reservoir Restoration Project May,
1979.
7. Betz Environmental Engineers. Water Quality Management Study of the
South Rivanna Reservoir and Tributary Area, June 1977-
8. J. Harvey Baily. Report on Albemarle County Runoff Control Ordinance
February 14, 1979.
9. Public Works, Charlottesville
Date of Site Visit: January 20, 1980.
B-103
-------
STEINMETZ POND
Steinmetz Pond, located in Steinmetz Park, Schenectady, New York, has
a 2.87-acre surface area. Approximately 78,000 people live in Schenectady,
with 15,000 in the immediate park vicinity in Northern Schenectady.2 Most
of the pond users are area children who walk to the pond from adjoining
neighborhoods.
The pond was completely drained over the winter of 1977-78 to allow
for compaction and dessication of the bottom sediments. The sludge was
bulldozed out of the pond during the spring of 1978 and by July, 1978, 1.5-2
feet of bottom sediments had been removed, two storm sewers were rerouted and
the pond bottom was covered with sand. The lake was refilled with chlori-
nated city water. The sludge removal and pond restoration resulted in weed
elimination, decreased turbidity, elimination of storm sewer pollution and
improved pond water quality due to use of makeup city water to supplement the
spring water feed. Orthophosphate concentrations were reduced to one-third
of pre-restoration lands.^ The Union College Department of Civil Engineering
was deeply involved in the project's engineering and monitoring technique, as
well as associated research.
Benefits due to the improvement included improved pond quality for ice
skating and swimming, improved public safety, improved public health, educa-
tional benefits and aesthetic benefits. In addition, the project served to
improve local attitudes toward lake and lake area upkeep.
Recreation
The project improved the quality of swimming by increasing the lake
area available to swimming by 50 percent, with the beach area increasing by
15 percent.4 In 1974 and 1975, swimming attendance in July and August
averaged 310 daily. By 1977, the lake was on the verge of being closed for
health and safety factors, and swimming usage was essentially non-existent.
Current use estimates are 350-400 swimmers/day on weekends.4
Other lake recreation uses before and after the program are fishing,
which will be insignificant as there is no planned restocking, and ice
skating, the quality of which improved due to the project because the skating
B-104
-------
area increased with the higher water level. The city may also light the pond
for nighttime skating. No estimates of skating usage were available.
Assuming that weekend users are evenly distributed over both weekend
days, weekend one-day usage can be approximated as
1 350 + 400 1RR
n X s - loo
Seasonal use can be estimated as*
50 x 188 = 9,375
The post-restoration UDV is estimated to be $1.93 (4/3/7/16/10 = 40).
Consequently, annual swimming benefits are approximately
$1.93 x 9,375 = $18,094
This value will have to serve as an estimate of total recreational benefit,
since skating usage was not known.
Aesthetics
Under aesthetics, in addition to improving recrational quality, the
restoration not only reduced odor and mosquito problems, but served as an
impetus for the removal of debris and litter around the site, as well as the
improved maintenance of surrounding lawns.
Flood Control
The associated storm sewer diversion may reduce street flooding.
*See Appendix C, page C-4 for methodology.
B-105
-------
Public Health
The increase in swimming is due in part to public safety and health
benefits due to the improvement. There were two drownings, pre-improvement,
due to the lake weeds and turbidity. The improvement significantly reduced
the coliform count from a pre-improvement level as high as 5,000 total, 1,050
fecal.5 The value of these benefits is included in the recreation estimate.
Education, Research and Development
Another major benefit of the project was its educational aspect. With
respect to education (as well as economics), 15 paid Youth Conservation Corp.
enrollees worked at the lake site. Twenty-five Union College students and
affiliates worked on lake monitoring, with several classes studying the
project. The project had related research and development benefits, as the
engineering and dredging techniques served as a pilot for other projects.
Miscellaneous Benefits
Dredged material was used as fill for a football field base.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
STEINMETZ POND
Recreation, Public Health and Safety $ 18,100
Aesthetics +
Flood Control +
Economic +
Education +
Public Health +
Total First Year $ 18,100+
Total Discounted Benefits $126,300
314 Grant Amount $ 36,680
Data Sources:
1. New York Department of Environmental Conservation
2. Mr. Tom McCauley, Schenectady City Planner
3. Mr. Bill Cook, former Schenectady City Planner
4. Mr. Bob Frederick, Schenectady Parks and Recreation
5. Mr. Don Klotz, Schenectady Department of Public Health
6. Dr. Phil Snow, Union College, Civil Engineering
Date of Site Visit: January 9, 1980
B-106
-------
LAKE TEMESCAL
Lake Temescal is a 10-acre lake located in a park operated by the
East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. It is heavily used
by residents of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, combined population 1.6
million, for swimming, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and picnicking.
The park is 8 minutes from downtown Oakland (population 330,000) by public
transportation, and transit service is increased during the summer. San
Francisco residents also travel to it.
The lake's 2.4-square-mile watershed contains steep land which has
been and is being developed for residential use. Sediment loadings due to
erosion from both graded lots and active construction sites has been sub-
stantial, and Temescal's primary problem has been siltation. High nutrient
concentrations producing algal blooms and coliform counts which necessitated
beach closings also contributed to the reduced usefulness and attractiveness
of the lake.
A 314 grant was obtained by East Bay Regional Park District primarily
to remove sediment from the lake, to make physical changes which would reduce
the rate of siltation, and to identify and control pollutant sources in the
watershed. During 1978 and 1979, 47,200 cubic yards of sediment were removed
from Lake Temescal, which was deepened to 18 feet at its inlet end. A
72-hour detention and settling pond was constructed on Temescal Creek, one of
the two tributaries, and a temporary pond with a lake by-pass system was
built on Caldecott Creek, the other tributary, for use during the rainy
season. A pollutant source identification, monitoring, and control program
was initiated and is ongoing; the U.S. Geological Survey is cooperating in
that effort.
Primary benefits of the Lake Temescal project are in the categories of
recreation, aesthetics, public health, research and development, pollutant
reduction, and community environmental activity. These are discussed briefly
below and summarized in the table at the end of this section.
B-107
-------
Recreation
Typical park use volume has ranged from 500,000 to 750,OOO1 use-days
per year, with the park open all year and swimming available from May 1
through September 30. A fee of $1.00 per adult and $.50 per child is col-
lected for swimming. Receipts were $30,000 for the May-September period in
1978 and $27,500 for July-September (swimming prevented by dredging in May
and June) 1979.! Prior to the project, algal blooms, sediment, debris and
high coliform counts were reducing swimming use. These conditions have been
ameliorated, and the lake is now of such quality that it has been stocked
with trout, thus adding a recreational use not previously available.
Assuming that twice as many children as adults use the lake for
swimming, 1978 swimming volume can be estimated at 40,000 use-days, based on
the $30,000 total of fees. In 1979, one can project $46,000 in fees had the
dredging not been in progress for two of the swimming months, or an increase
to approximately 60,000 use-days, as a result of the project. The Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation's analysis in "The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation
Activities, Preliminary Report" (1972) shows that residents of metropolitan
areas fish 2.9 days and swim 11.3 days per year. Fishing activity at Lake
Temescal would thus be expected to be at a level of 25 percent of swimming,
or 15,000 use days, as a result of the project. Direct lake use has there-
fore increased from 40,000 to 75,000 use-days per year.
At the same time, the attractiveness of the lake has increased. Using
the UDV method, values of $1.73 (4/3/8/15/2 = 32) before and $2.32 for
general recreation and $2.53 for fishing after the project (15/3/8/15/10 =
51) seem reasonable. Consequently, the following monetary values can be
assigned to direct annual lake recreational benefits:
Increased general recreational use
20,000 use-days x $2.32 = $46,400
Improved quality for existing users
40,000 use-days x ($2.32 - $1.73) = $23,600
Fishing use
15,000 use-days x $2.53 = $37,940
B-108
-------
In addition, because the lake was rapidly deteriorating, it can be assumed
that some recreational value would be lost each year in the absence of the
project. Assuming a 10 percent loss of benefits each year, this yearly
increment of benefit can be calculated at:
.10 x 40,000 x $1.73 = $6,900
Total direct lake recreational benefits the first year are thus $114,850.
The present value of the 10-year benefit stream is shown in the table at
the end of this section.
Aesthetics
It can be assumed that all of the average of 625,000 park users derive
some benefit from improvement in the lake. For those who are not direct lake
users, this benefit will be primarily aesthetic, and its annual monetary
value can be calculated, using the UDV method, on the basis of an improvement
in aesthetic benefit of $.14 (moving from 2 points to 10 points in the UDV
scale).
(625,000 - 75,000) x $.14 = $77,000
Public Health
Prior to the project, Lake Temescal was closed to swimming an average
of 4 days per year because of coliform counts in excess of standards.! In
1979 there were no closings. The actual benefit in health terms cannot be
quantified, but the annual benefit through the elimination of beach closings
can be calculated hy:
(4 4 150 days) x 60,000 swimmers x $2.32 = $3,712
B-109
-------
Education, Research and Development
The source control portion of the project has already added to the
store of information concerning non-point sources in urbanizing areas. The
whole project has been examined by groups concerned with similar lake prob-
lems elsewhere. A day care center next to the lake may use it for educa-
tional purposes now that its quality has improved.
Community Environmental Activities
A survey conducted before the dredging began indicated public support
for the project. Since then, citizens and contractors have demonstrated
continued support By voluntarily implementing various best management prac-
tices and the City of Oakland is enforcing erosion controls more strictly.
The source control program, with monitoring at a number of stations in the
watershed, is the primary cause of this increased attention to non-point
source control.
Miscellaneous Benefits
The material dredged from Lake Temescal, 47,200 cubic yards, was used
as fill at another park in the district. Park officials estimate that they
would have had to pay $1.50 per cubic yard to purchase fill.1 This one-time
benefit can be calculated as 47,200 x $1.50 = $70,800.
B-110
-------
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE TEMESCAL
Recreation Protected $ 6,900*
Recreational Use Increase 84,400
Improved Recreational Quality 23,600
Aesthetics 77,000
Public Health 3,700
Education, Research and Development +
Community Environmental Action +
Miscellaneous (Value of Dredge Spoil) 70,800**
Total First Year $ 266,400+
Total Discounted Benefits $1,112,500
314 Grant Amount $ 315,618
*Increases by this amount each year.
**A one-time cost included in first year only.
Data Sources:
1. East Bay Regional Park District
2. Grubb Realtors
3. "Lake Temescal Pollution Identification and Source Control Program"
(August 1979)
4. "The Economic Benefits Generated for the East Bay Community by its
Regional Park System" (June 1978)
5. Various park brochures
Date of Site Visit: January 9, 1980
B-lll
-------
TIVOLI LAKE
Tivoli Lake is located in the Arbor Hill Section of Albany, NY,
bordered by Route 90, Route 9, and Livingston Avenue. The population within
the immediate lake vicinity is 38,000, with 109,900 in Albany and 500,000 in
the Albany-Troy-Schenectady area.2 Before the restoration, 90% of Tivoli
users had been from within five blocks of the lake.2 Projected usage will
show increases in visitors from the larger Albany-Troy-Schenectady urbanized
area. The main lake is 4.75 acres, with 80 acres of associated wetlands,
ponds, fields, and uplands.
The Tivoli Lake area is currently under development as a pilot urban
wildlife sanctuary which will serve as a model, if successful, for other
sites. Restoration techniques will include lake dredging, wetland develop-
ment to retard storm water runoff, bank stabilization and planting, and
earthen dike reconstruction. The dredging of the lake to a maximum depth of
8 to 10 feet is ongoing and expected to be completed in April 1980. The lake
was drained early in 1979. Reconstruction of the main lake's dike has been
completed, as has the regrading of banks and upland areas around the lake.
The project also includes rerouting of two storm sewer lines which emptied
into the lake and plugging abandoned sanitary sewer lines.2
The lake and surrounding area received less than optimal use before
the improvement because of sewage contamination and possible safety problems.
Although there was some fishing and hiking, vandalism, motorcycling, and
other destructive uses were common. The area was not patrolled adequately.
Other aspects of the Urban Wildlife Environmental Unit's program for
Tivoli include:
o Fish stocking program
o Revegetation of 10 acres of surrounding soil
o Construction of two wildlife blinds
o Introduction of interpretative materials, such as guides and signs
o The establishment of a continuing management program
o Development of educational trail system around lakes and wetlands
o Installation of picnic tables.
B-112
-------
Because the restoration and development package is designed to provide
a package of improved recreational opportunity, aesthetic quality, and educa-
tional experience, these benefits are considered in combination. Other
benefits are in the areas of flood control, economics, and public health.
Recreation, Aesthetics, and Education
Pre-improvement recreation activities included strolling, fishing,
and birdwatching. Post-improvement activities will include skating, as
the city is planning to maintain the lake as a skating area, and wildlife-
related activities. While 475 fishing trips were made to the lakes in 1977,
fishing is expected to improve, with two stocking plans currently under
consideration.^
In terms of aesthetics, alleviation of the following problems will
make the area more attractive to users:
Raw sewage input, accumulated slugde, and stormwater runoff
0 Odor
Algae
0 Indirectly, dumping and vandalism
0 Bare or disturbed soil.
Educational groups for which the improvement is likely to increase
attendance include the Philip Livingston Junior High School, Albany Boys'
Club, and Youth Conservation Corps.
It is estimated that daily attendance will increase from 3 visitors/
day (1977 survey results) to, by September 1982, 41.2 While The Urban
Wildlife Environmental Unit computed approximately a $2 per visit cost for
1982, the post-improvement unit day value for Tivoli Lake has been estimated
to be $2.43 (20/6/10/11/10 = 57), a $.65 increase over the pre-improvement
level of $1.68 (10/6/2/11/1 = 30). This higher value can be said to have
resulted primarily from the improvement, as a complement to the wildlife
sanctuary development. Assuming a year-round increase in usages of 13,870
(38 times 365) yields an annual value of benefits increase in recreation,
education, research and development of $33,700. The existing users (3 x 365
= 1,095) will enjoy increased benefits of $.65 each, or $700.
B-113
-------
Flood Control
The project will alleviate erosion problems due to nearby Patroon's
Creek flooding,2»3 occurring several times annually, and certain Tivoli
floodings into nearby Pearl Street.
Economic Benefits
Economic benefits concern Youth Conservation Corps employment at the
site, notably for work on planting and bank stabilization in the summer of
1980.4
Public Health
Public health benefits for site users will result from the project's
sewage sludge removal as well as the partial alleviation of mosquito prob-
lems, while safety will be improved through the covering and filling of
manholes and water system vaults.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
LAKE TIVOLI
Recreation $34,400
Aesthetics included in recreation
Flood Control +
Economic Development +
Public Health +
Education included in recreation
Total First Year $ 34,400+
Total Discounted Benefits $240,100
314 Grant Amount $202,645
Data Sources:
1. New York Department of Environmental Conservation
2. Urban Wildlife Environments Unit, NYDEC
3. Albany City Plannning Commission
4. Albany Bureau of Human Resources
5. Albany City Dept. Parks & Recreation
6. Albany Assessor Department
7. NYDEC Urban Fisheries Program
8. Albany County Health Department
Date of Site Visit: January 7, 1980
B-114
-------
VANCOUVER LAKE
Vancouver Lake, with a surface area of 2,600 acres, is situated at
Vancouver, Clark County, Washington, in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan
area. Clark County's population is 185,000, but the lake draws visitors
from a much wider area in Washington and Oregon, with a population of 1.3
million.
The uses of the land around Vancouver Lake include agriculture (truck
crops, grains, hay, dairy and beef), game production, urban development and
vacant land zoned industrial and residential. The State of Washington, Clark
County, and the Port of Vancouver are major landowners. At present, much of
the land is prone to flooding, but a 350,000-acre Corps of Engineers diking
project is planned for the area which will increase the amounts of land
available for agriculture and development.
Current uses of Vancouver Lake and its adjacent lands include duck and
pheasant hunting, fishing (primarily carp and crappies), picnicking, hiking,
bird watching, and limited sailing. Swimming and high-quality fishing are
not possible because of water quality, extensive boating is precluded by
shallowness, and camping and other lakeside activities are not available
becuase of lack of facilities.
Vancouver Lake is highly eutrophic and silted in with nutrient-
enriched sediment. The project's objectives are to meet water quality
standards, improve recreational capacity, and, in conjunction with an active
208 program, to reduce non-point source pollutant loadings from the water-
shed. It involves extensive dredging, construction of a flushing channel
to bring Columbia River water through the lake, and implementation of best
management practices.
Only pilot dredging has been completed, so all benefits to be dis-
cussed below are projected by the grantee on the basis of present use and
regional demand. They include improvements in quality and increases in
variety and volume of recreation, aesthetic improvement, benefits to the
regional economy, agricultural improvements, public health, and- education
and research and development.
B-115
-------
Recreation
The county park at Vancouver Lake is presently under-utilized. When
the lake restoration project is complete, it will be the keystone of a total
land-and-water recreational complex already developed to serve the region.
In 1978, approximately 120,OOO3 people used the Bounty park at the lake, and,
in 1974, 120,OOO5 use-days were estimated for the state game lands bordering
the lake. Using a UDV of $1.66 (10/6/5/6/2 = 29) for pre-restoration general
recreation and $9.005 for hunting, the existing annual recreational benefit
is $1,279,200. The grantee projects the following post-project benefits and
UDVs, which seem reasonable in light of present use, intended improvement,
and regional demand:
Activity Use-Days5 UDV5 Benefits5
Camping 24,000 $2.00 $ 48,000
Picnicking 36,000 2.00 72,000
Swimming 940,000 2.00 1,880,000
Sightseeing 250,000 2.00 500,000
Fishing 70,000 2.25 157,500
Boating 100,000 5.00 500,000
Hiking 250,000 2.00 500,000
Biking 500,000 2.00 1,000,000
Total 2,080,000 $4,657,500
Since the quality of the lake is already so poor, one can assume that the
existing levels of recreation would not decrease without the project. Conse-
quently, existing benefits must be deducted from projected totals to deter-
mine the increment assignable to the Clean Lakes project. Because the pro-
jected total was calculated in 1976, it must first be adjusted for inflation,
using the Consumer Price Index (1976 = 170.5, mid-1979 = 216.6); it becomes
$5,916,800 in 1979 dollars. Projected recreation benefits are therefore
$5,916,800 - $1,279,200 = $4,637,600. Hunting has been excluded from the
incremental benefit, since the projected total in use-days for that activity
was the same as the 1974 recorded volume.
B-116
-------
Aesthetics
The lake presently emits unpleasant odors which will be eliminated
by the project. The benefits of this and other aesthetic improvements are
included in the calculations for recreation.
Regional Economy
t
This project, coupled with work being accomplished under 208 and
work contemplated by the Corps of Engineers, will encourage agricultural,
commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational development, all of
which are of vital interest to Vancouver and Clark County. In addition,
dredge spoil can be used to reclaim land for development (see Agriculture).
The actual monetary benefit has not been projected.
Agriculture
Spoil to be removed from the lake will be suitable for farming. It
can be used to elevate low-lying lands, to construct dikes, and to condition
soil. Soil improvement will permit two crops per season instead of one, and
coupled with flood control, conversion from pasture to cultivated crops.
Approximately 10 million cubic yards will be available.^ A conservative
estimate of the benefit is the one-time cost of obtaining fill, which can be
assumed to be $1.50 per cubic yard. Actual benefit could be much greater and
longer-lived, depending on the uses of the filled land.
10,000,000 x $1.50 = $15,000,000
Public Health
Typical fecal coliform counts in the lake range from 1,300 to 9,500^
colonies per 100 ml., making the water unsafe for contact recreation. The
best measure of benefit from elimination of this problem is $1,880,000,
already included as the value of project swimming use under Recreation.
B-117
-------
Education, Research and Development
A film has been made on the lake to heighten public awareness of its
problems and the project. New dredging techniques and equipment will be
tested during the project. Other lake groups have contacted the Port of
Vancouver to determine applicability to their situations. Area colleges
have used the lake as an outdoor laboratory.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
VANCOUVER LAKE
Recreation
Aesthetics
Regional Economy
Agriculture
Public Health
Education, Research and Development
Total First Year
Total Discounted Benefit
314 Grant Amount
$ 4,637,000
included in recreation
+
$15,000,000*
included in recreation
+
$19,637,600+
$47,370,000
$ 3,468,328
*Included in first year only.
Data Sources:
1. Port of Vancouver
2. Clark County Board of Realtors
3. Clark County Parks Department
4. Clark County Regional Planning Commission
5. "Vancouver Lake Reclamation", Port of Vancouver, April, 1976
6. "Vancouver Lake Rehabilitation", Dames and Moore, 1977
7. "Pilot Dredge Program, Vancouver Lake", Dames and Moore, April, 1977
Date of Site Visit: January 11, 1980
B-118
-------
WASHINGTON PARK LAKE
Washington Park Lake is a lake of approximately 5.8 acres located in
90-acre Washington Park, Albany, New York. The park, one of ten major parks
in Albany, attracts primarily passive recreational activities, such as
picnicking and strolling, and is the site of two major city fairs held
annually, as well as numerous arts and crafts fairs throughout the summer.^
Before its deterioration, the lake was the major park amenity., The lake and
park are accessible to Albany's population of 109,900, with an additional
population of 176,800 residing in the county. There is little tourist use of
the lake area.
Before the restoration rpoject was initiated, the major problem was a
"build-up of decaying organic matter", reducing lake depth and volume.3 The
lake contained relatively little algae, but its fish population had been
reduced by the growth of rooted aquatic plants.
The lake was drained and the bottom sediment removed by dredging. The
project was completed in August 1977. While levels of nitrogen and phos-
phorus are still high enough to support algae growth and possible aquatic
weed growth, the lake is relatively clean, although classified as meso-
eutrophic.2
The lake is the discharge point for stormwater in the park, including
runoff from the disposal area for fall leaf collections, with fifteen dis-
charge points located along the shoreline. It is likely that watershed
management and/or diversion of stormwater will eventually be necessary to
maintain long-term benefits.
The project yielded recreational, educational, and aesthetic benefits.
Recreation Benefits
Recreation uses of the lake, which did not change after improvement,
consist of strolling, picnicking (including extensive lunchtime use by
individuals working in the area), and fishing.* The project improved the
quality of the activities, but, except for fishing and 4-H camper use, did
not affect the number of users.
In 1978 and 1979, a pilot project sponsored under the Urban Fisheries
Program for the lake resulted in 5,099 angler trips in 1978 and 2,833 trips
B-119
-------
in 1979.7 If the city supports a stocking program, it is estimated that
there will be 10,800 annual angler trips in 1980-87. While there was limited
fishing on the lake before the improvement, no use estimates are available.
Consequently, it will be conservatively assumed that the improvement will
directly result in an annual increase of 3,966 angler trips (the average of
1978 and 1979 levels) in 1980-87. Since these are new visits generated to
the lake, the value can be estimated as the full unit day value times 3,966.
Applying the post-improvement general fishing UDV of $2.26 (10/5/8/11/5 = 39)
yields an annual benefit increase (1980-87) of $8,963.
It is expected that the improvement will increase lake visits by
children from two 4-H day camps located nearby.6 Conservatively, assuming
that camper visits are increased by one visit annually, this yields an annual
benefit increase of (250 x 2.26) = $565.
Education Benefits
The improvement resulted in educational benefits during the summers of
1977-1979, when Youth conservation Corps enrollees worked at the lake site.*
With work at Buckingham Lake, the Washington Park Lake project represented
approximately 50 percent of the Youth Conservation Corps program during the
three years.
Aesthetic Benefits
Aesthetic benefits due to pollutant reduction are large unquantifi-
able. Lake quality impacts the attendance at some special park events, such
as recently instituted trial concerts.^ There are still community pres-
sures for lake improvement and, reportedly, odor is a problem. There are no
estimates of the number of visits impacted by aesthetic considerations,
before and after the improvement. It has been estimated that the increase in
Washington Park Lake UDV due to improved aesthetics (environmental quality)
was $.09 (a 5-point improvement in environmental quality). If it is further
assumed that, due to the improvement, there was one more annual visit to
the lake area by Albany residents greater than 13 years old, the value of
increase aesthetic benefits is:
B-120
-------
109,900 x .78 x .09 = $7,715,
where the U.S. ratio of population older than 13 to total population, 78
percent, has been applied. This age distribution has been assumed to avoid
double counting, as a large proportion of the anglers and all of the 4-H
campers are children.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
WASHINGTON PARK LAKE
Recreation
Fishing $ 9,000
Day camp 600
Education +
Aesthetics 7,700
Total First Year $ 17,300
Total Discounted Benefits $120,800
314 Grant Amount $ 23,250
Data Sources:
1. City of Albany Departments: Assessment
Recreation
Planning
Human Resources
2. Project Report Restoration of Washington Park Lake, Albany County,
New York and Post-Restoration Monitoring of Chemical, Physical,
and Biological Lake Characteristics (1978)~
3. Environmental Protection Agency Region II, Clean Lakes Coordinator
4. City of Albany Chamber of Commerce Statistics, Albany City Budget,
FY 1979-80.
5. Washington Park Association representative
6. 4-H Club representative
7. New York Urban Fisheries Program information
Date of Site Visit: January 7, 1980
B-121
-------
Appendix C
UNIT DAY VALUE METHOD
FOR
ESTIMATING RECREATION AND AESTHETIC BENEFITS
Appendix 3 to Subpart K
18 CFR 713
-------
Appendix 3 to Subpart KUnit Day Value Method
Note.This appendix is provided for background information
only. Adherence to material presented in this appendix is not
required, and shall not be considered binding.
The unit day value (UDV) method for estimating recreation
benefits relies on expert or informed opinion and judgment
to approximate the average willingness to pay of users of
Federal or Federally assisted recreation resources. If an
agency can demonstrate that more reliable TCM or CVM
estimates are either not feasible or not justified for the
particular project under study, as discussed under
applicability criteria, the UDV method may be used; by
applying a carefully thought-out and adjusted unit day value
to estimated use. an approximation is obtained that may be
used as an estimate of project recreation benefits.
(a) Implementation. [1] When the UDV method is used for
economic evaluations, planners will select a specific value
from the range of values provided in the most current
published schedule. Application of the selected value to
estimated annual use over the project life, in the context of
the with- and without-project framework of analysis,
provides the estimate of recreation benefits.
(2) Two categories of outdoor recreation days, general and
specialized, may be differentiated for evaluation purposes.
"General" refers to a recreation day involving primarily
those activities that are attractive to the majority of outdoor
users and that generally require the development and
maintenance of convenient access and adequate facilities.
"Specialized" refers to a recreation day involving those
activities for which opportunities in general are limited,
intensity of use is low, and a high degree of skill, knowledge,
and appreciation of the activity by the user may often be
involved.
(3) Estimates of total recreation days of use for both
categories, where applicable, will be developed. The general
category comprises the great majority of all recreation
activities associated with water projects, including
swimming, picnicking, boating, and most warm water fishing.
Activities less often associated with water projects, such as
big game hunting and salmon fishing, are included in the
specialized category. A separate range of values is provided
in a conversion table (Table 1) for each category and for
fishing and hunting to facilitate adoption of a point system in
determining the applicable unit values for each individual
project under consideration.
Table K-3 1 - Conversion of Points to Dollar Values
POINT VALUES
30
80
90
100
General 1.07
Recreation
(Points from
Table X-3 2)
General Fishing 1.57
and H.i-iting
(Point* fron
Table <-3 21
1.25 1.44 1.68 l.M 2.30 2.43 2.67 2.85 3.04 3.22
i.74 1.90 2.07 2.29 2.51 2.73
2.94 3.06 3.17
3.10
Specialized
Fishing and
Hu-itiig
-------
Table K-3 3 - Guidelines for Assigning Points tor Specialized Recreation
Criteria
a) Recreation
Experience &J
Total
Points: 30
Point Value:
b) Availability
of
Opportunity 77
Total
Points: 18
Point Value:
c) Carrying
Capacity !_/
Heavy use or
frequent crowd-
ing or other
interference
with use
0-4
Several within
1 hr. travel
time; a few
within 30 min.
travel time
6-3
Minimum faci-
lity develop-
ment for public
health and
safety
Moderate use,
other users
evident and
likely to
interfere
with use
5-10
Several within
1 hr. travel
time; none
within 30 min.
travel time
4-6
Basic facilities
to conduct
activity(ies)
Judgment
Moderate use.
some evidence
of other users
and occasional
interference
with use due to
crowding
11-16
One or two with-
in 1 hr. travel
time; none with-
in 45 min. travel
time
7-10
Adequate facili-
ties to conduct
without
deterioration
of the resource
or activity
Factors
Usually little
evidence of
other users.
rarely if ever
crowded
17-23
None within
1 hr. travel
time
11-14
Optimum facili-
ties to conduct
activity at site
potential
Very lovT^TT.
dence of
other users,
never
crowded
24-30
None within
2 hr. travel
time
15-18
Ultimate
facilities
to achieve
intent of
selected
alternative
experience
Total
Points: 14
Point Value:
d) Accessibility
Total
Points: 18
Point Value:
a) Environmental
Quality
0-2
Limited access
by any means to
site or within
site
0-3
Low esthetic
factors J5_/
exist that
significantly
lower
quality 6/
3-5
Fair access,
poor quality
roads to site;
limited access
within site
4-6
Average esthe-
tic quality;
factors exist
that lower
quality to minor
degree
6-8
Fair access,
fair road to
site, fair
access, good
roads within
site
7-10
Above average
esthetic
quality; any
limiting fac-
tors can be
reasonably
rectified
9-11
Good access,
good roads to
site; fair
access, good
roads within
site
11-14
High esthetic
quality; no
factors exist
that lower
quality
12-14
Good access,
high standard
road to site;
good access
within site
15-18
Outstanding
esthetic
quality; no
factors
exist that
lower
quality
Total-
Points: 20
?oint Value:
0-2
3-6
7-10
11-15
16-20
I/ Value should be adjusted for overuse.
2J Value for water-oriented activities should be adjusted if significant seasonal water level
changes occur.
3/ General activities include those that are common to the region and that are usually of
"~ normal quality. This includes picnicking, camping, hiking, riding, cycling, and fishing
and hunting of normal quality.
jj High quality value activities include those that are not common to the region and/or
Nation and that are usually of high quality.
SJ Major esthetic qualities to be considered include geology and topography, water, and
vegetation.
k/ Factors to be considered in lowering quality include air and water pollution, pests, poor
climate, and unsightly adjacent areas.
1J Likelihood of success at fishing and hunting.
9j Intensity of use for activity.
-------
Table K-3 2 - Guidelines for Assigning Points for General Recreation,
Criteria
Judgment Factors
a) Recreation
Experience
Two general
activities 3/
Several general
activities
Several general Several general
activities; one activities; more
high quality than one high
value activity 4/ quality high
activity
Numerous higV
quality value
activities;
some general
activities
Total
Points: 30
Point Value:
b) Availability
of
Opportunity TJ
Total
Points: 18
Point Value:
c) Carrying
Capacity IJ
Total
Points: 14
Point Value:
d) Accessibility
0-4
Several within
1 hr. travel
time; a few
within 30 rain.
travel time
0-3
Minimum faci-
lity develop-
ment for
public health
and safety
0-2
Limited access
by any means to
site or within
site
. 5-10
Several within
1 hr. travel
time; none
within 30 min.
travel time
4-6
Basic facilities
to conduct
activity(ies)
3-5
Fair access
poor quality
roads to site;
limited access
within site
11-16
One or two within
1 hr. travel
time; none within
45 min. travel
time
7-10
Adequate facili-
ties to conduct
without
deterioration
of the resource
or activity
experience
6-8
Fair access,
fair road to
site; fair
access, good
roads within
site
17-23
Kone within
1 hr. travel
time
11-14
Optimum facili-
ties to conduct
activity at site
potential
9-11
Good access,
good roads to
site; fair
access, good
roads within
site
24-30
None within
2 hr. travel
time
15-18
Ultimate
facilities to
achieve in-
tent of se-
lected
alternative
12-14
Good access,
high standard
road to site)
good access
within site
Total
Points: 18
Point Value:
0-3
4-6
7-10
11-14
15-13
e) Environmental Low esthetic Average esthe- Above average
Quality
Total
Points: 20
Point Value:
factors 5_/
exist that
significantly
lower
quality _6/
0-2
tic quality; esthetic
factors exist quality; any
that lower limiting fac-
quality to minor tors can be
degree reasonably
rectified
3-6
7-10
High esthetic
quality; no
factors exist
that lower
quality
11-15
Outstanding
esthetic
quality; no
factors exist
that lower
quality
16-20
1_/ Value should be adjusted for overuse.
2J Value for water-oriented activities should be adjusted if significant seasonal water level
changes occur.
3_/ General activities include those that are common to the region and that are usually of
normal quality. This includes picnicking, camping, hiking, riding, cycling, and fishing
and hunting of normal quality.
A./ High quality value activities include those that are not common to the region and/or
Nation and that are usually of high quality.
5_/ Major esthetic qualities to be considered include geology and topography, water, and
vegetation.
i/ Factors to be considered in lowering quality include air and water pollution, pests, poor
climate, and unsightly adjacent areas.
TJ Likelihood of success at fishing and hunting.
8/ Intensity of use for activity.
-------
(B) The unit day values to be used for both the general and
specialized recreation categories should be further adjusted
to reflect additional quality considerations expected to
prevail at various project sites in various regions of the
Nation, and weighted according to their importance to users.
For example, a reservoir that is expected to carry a relatively
heavy load of suspended silt or is expected to be used
beyond optimum capacity would be less desirable, and
therefore of lower unit value, than one that will have clear
water and be less crowded.
(C) Hunting and fishing may be treated either as general
recreation (Table 2) or specialized recreation (Table 3)
depending upon whether it is associated with developed
areas or back country areas, respectively. In either case, the
recreation experience (criterion "a" in the tables) will be
given points according to the additional consideration of the
chances of success; the midpoint of the value range is
associated with the region's average catch or bag. Other
criteria may be modified if appropriately based on available
evidence about the preferences and willingness to pay of
hunters and fishermen for different recreation quality
factors.
(D) The degree to which alternative nonproject
opportunities are available to users is also considered in the
assignment of values. Higher values should be assigned if
the population to be served does not have existing water-
oriented recreation opportunities. If water-oriented
recreation opportunities are relatively abundant, as
compared to other outdoor recreation opportunities, lower
unit values should be assigned, even if a large number of
visitations are expected at the proposed development.
(E) The choice of a unit day value must account for
transfers to avoid double counting of benefits. The net value
of a transfer of use from one site to another is the difference
in unit day values for recreation at the two sites. If
recreation activities at the two sites are comparable, travel
cost savings are the only NED benefits associated with the
transfer. Use at the site must therefore be disaggregated
according to the proportion of total estimated use that is
activity that would not have occurred without the project
and the proportion of total use-that represents transfers from
existing sites. The respective types of uses must then be
assigned different daily values as indicated.
(iii) Establishing specific values within each range. Unit
values selected are to be considered net of all associated
costs of both the users and others in using or providing these
resources and related services. Agencies will be encouraged,
through review procedures, demonstration projects, and
educational workshops, to adopt the TCM and CVM
techniques for project evaluations that would otherwise
have used UDVs. As agencies gradually adopt CVM and
TCM and develop a more comprehensive set of regional
models, reliance on the UDV can be expected to diminish.
(b) Estimating use in the UDV method. (I) Using the
ranges of values requires first the study of estimates of
annual use foregone and expected at recreation sites. Use
can be estimated by a use estimating equation or per capita
use curve as discussed above, but these means are available,
the second step of the travel cost methods should generally
be used instead of UDVs to derive the benefit.
(2) The capacity method is an alternative method of
estimating use, but it has severe limitations. The capacity
procedure involves the estimation of annual recreation use
under without-project and with-project conditions through
the determination of resource or facility capacities (taking
into consideration instantaneous rates of use, turnover rates,
and weekly and seasonal patterns of use). Seasonal use
patterns are dependent on climate and culture and probably
account for the greatest variation in use estimates derived
through this method. In general, annual use of outdoor
recreation areas, particularly in rural locations and in areas
with pronounced seasonal variation, is usually about 50
times the design load, which is the number of visitors to a
recreation area or site on an average summer Sunday. In
very inaccessible areas and in those known for more
restricted seasonal use, the multiplier would be less; in
urban settings or in areas with less pronounced seasonal use
patterns, the multiplier would be greater. In any case, the
actual estimation of use involves an analytical procedure
using instantaneous capacities, daily turnover rates, and
weekly and seasonal use patterns as specific data inputs.
(3) Because the capacity method does not involve the
estimation of site-specific demand, its use is valid only when
it has been otherwise determined that sufficient demand
exists in the market area of project alternatives to
accommodate the calculated capacity. Its greatest potential
is therefore in urban settings where sufficient demand
obviously exists. Additionally, its use should be limited to
small projects with (i) a facility orientation (as opposed to a
resource attraction), and (ii) restricted market areas that
would tend to make the use of alternative use estimating
procedures less useful or efficient.
(c) Calculating values. The estimates of annual use are
combined with die selected unit day values to get an
estimate of annual recreation benefits. The value assigned to
each activity or category of activities is multiplied by the
number of recreation days estimated for that activity. The
products are then summed to obtain the estimate of the total
value of an alternative. Recreation days to be gained and
lost or foregone as a result of a particular alternative are
listed and valuated separately, not merely shown as net
recreation days. Transfers of recreational users to or from
existing sites in the region must be calculated, and the net
regional gain or loss used in the final benefit estimated.
Adequate information must appear in the discussion of the
use estimation and valuation procedure or elsewhere in the
report concerning the alternative being considered, so that
the reader can derive a similar value for each activity.
a U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 341-085/39"
------- |