EP 1165-2-1
30 Jul 99
(4) Locally Preferred Plan. A non-Federal sponsor for
recreation development may desire to include recreation facilities
that are not on the checklist, are more elaborate than permitted, do
not meet the "stand alone" principle, exceed the ten percent limit
rule, are not on lands required for the basic ecosystem restoration
project, or cannot be economically justified. Such facilities may be
recommended as the locally preferred plan only if they are compatible
with the ecosystem restoration purpose. Cost of planning and
implementation of facilities provided as the locally preferred plan
must be financed by the non-Federal sponsor, cannot be included in the
benefit/cost ratio, and will not be credited against the sponsors
share of cost shared facilities. Another application of this
principle concerns the case where there is a locally preferred
ecosystem restoration plan that includes a greater land base than
required by the recommended ecosystem restoration plan, extending the
project beyond the real limits of the ecosystem restoration plan. In
this case, the Federal Government can participate in recreation
development of the locally preferred ecosystem restoration plan.
However, Federal participation in recreation development will be
limited to those facilities shown on the checklist and cannot exceed
ten percent of the Federal share of the cost of the recommended
ecosystem restoration plan, and all lands must be provided by the non-
Federal sponsor.
17-4.
Recreation Use Projection and Benefit Evaluation.
a. Projections. Projected recreation attendance is based upon
regional use models, specific site use models, attendance at similar
projects and/or the capacity of the project where excess demand can be
demonstrated. The same methods are used to estimate recreation use
displaced by the project. (See P&G paragraph 2.8.9)
b. Benefit Evaluation. Benefits arising from recreation
opportunities created are measured in terms of willingness to pay for
each increment of supply provided and considers both recreation gains
and losses. There are three generally acceptable procedures to
evaluate proposed projects: travel cost; contingent valuation; and
unit day values. The procedure used depends upon the size of the
recreation benefit created, displaced, or transferred by the project
and the nature of the recreation activities affected. (See P&G
paragraphs 2.8.2 and 2.8.10). When the unit day value method is
applied, for activities such as swimming, picnicking, hiking,
bicycling, skiing, boating, and most warm water fishing, the range of
values for "general recreation activities" should be used. Certain
specialized activities may be assigned higher values. Examples of
such "specialized activities" include big game hunting, white water
canoeing, specialized nature photography, wilderness pack trips and
similar activities for which opportunities are limited and intensity
of use is low. Values for both the "general recreation activities"
and the "specialized activities" are updated annually (and made
available in Economic Guidance Memorandums issued by HQUSACE).
17-5. Cost Participation. Non-Federal participation is required in
the development and administration of recreation opportunities
provided at Corps projects. Public Law 89-72, as amended, and as
supplemented by WRDA 1986 defines the basis for sharing of financial
responsibilities in joint Federal/non-Federal development,
enhancement, and management of recreation and fish and wildlife
resources of Federal multipurpose water projects. Long established
policy precludes cost sharing development of new recreation facilities
at completed water resources projects. (ER 1165-2-400, ER 1105-2-100)
However, new recreation facilities or improvements to existing
17-8
Previous Page
