rec boating twg final report mar05

8/14/2019 Rec Boating TWG Final Report Mar05

1/170

Estimating the Economic Impact of ChangingWater Levels on Lake Ontario and theSt. Lawrence River for Recreational Boatersand Associated Businesses

A Final Report of the Recreational Boating and Tourism Technical Work Group

March 2005

HDRU Series No. 05-1

Prepared by

Nancy A. Connelly, Jean-Francois Bibeault, Jonathan Brown, and Tommy L. Brown

Human Dimensions Research UnitDepartment of Natural Resources

Fernow Hall

Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853-3001


2/170

Estimating the Economic Impact of Changing Water Levels

on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River

for Recreational Boaters and Associated Businesses

A Final Report of the Recreational Boating and Tourism Technical Work Group

By

Nancy A. Connelly, Jean-Francois Bibeault, Jonathan Brown,

and Tommy L. Brown


3/170

i

PREFACE

The International Joint Commission established the International Lake Ontario St.Lawrence River Study Board in 2000 and commissioned them to undertake a comprehensivefive-year study to assess and evaluate the current criteria used to regulate outflows from Lake

Ontario through the St. Lawrence River. The Study Board created technical work groupscharged with gathering scientific data on different interests affected by water levels on LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River. The Recreational Boating and Tourism Technical WorkGroup oversaw the research on recreational boating and related businesses reported herein. Thegroup, comprised of the following members, endorses the findings of the research and supportsthe criteria developed:

Canada United StatesSerge St. Martin Jonathan BrownCanadian Lead U.S. LeadCanadian Power & Sail Squadrons U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

Mont-Saint-Hilaire, QC Buffalo, NYJean-Francois Bibeault Tommy BrownEnvironment Canada Cornell UniversityMontreal, QC Ithaca, NY

Jim Dike Rockne BurnsCouncil of Commodores & Ontario Willow Shores MarinaSailing Association Cape Vincent, NY

Scarborough, ON

Al Donaldson Gary DeYoungOntario Marina Operators Association 1000 Islands Regional TourismPienetanguishene, ON Development Corporation

Alexandria Bay, NY

David Orr David White1000 Islands Association New York Sea GrantGananoque, ON Oswego, NY

Public Interest Advisory Group Liaison

Robert Petipas Al WillCanadian Coast Guard Auxiliary Ontario Sailing AssociationSorel, QC Hamilton, ON


4/170

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The International Joint Commission established the International Lake Ontario St.Lawrence River Study Board in 2000 and commissioned them to undertake a comprehensivefive-year study to assess and evaluate the current criteria used to regulate outflows from Lake

Ontario through the St. Lawrence River. The Study Board created technical work groupscharged with gathering scientific data on different interests affected by water levels on LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River. The Recreational Boating and Tourism Technical WorkGroup (hereafter called RBTTWG) oversaw the research on recreational boating and boat-relatedtourism businesses.

The area of study includes Lake Ontario (and the lower portion of the Niagara Riverwhere boaters enter the water primarily to boat on Lake Ontario), the Upper St. Lawrence River(from Cape Vincent to the Moses Saunders Power Dam), and the Lower St. Lawrence River(from Lake St. Louis to Lake St. Pierre). The RBTTWG was charged with developing: (1) ageneral impact assessment of recreational boating on the study area, (2) performance indicators

that would show the effects of changing water levels on recreational boating and tourisminterests, and (3) ideal criteria for water levels that would best meet the needs of recreationalboaters and associated businesses.

Canadian and U.S. research teams developed a three-pronged approach to study theimpacts of water level changes on recreational boating and related tourism. Each approachinvolved a different audience and a different method to assess the impacts of water levelchanges. The first audience, recreational boaters, was surveyed initially by phone to determinetheir use of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, then by mail for specific information aboutexpenditures and the impacts of high and low water levels on their use of the area. The secondgroup, marina and yacht club owners, was contacted in person and by phone to assess theimpacts of fluctuating water levels and to obtain physical measurements of depths at slips andboat launching facilities. The third group, charter boat and tourboat operators, were surveyed bymail and phone to assess the impacts of fluctuating water levels on their businesses. All data wascollected in 2002 and 2003.

From these studies we estimated that recreational boaters in the U.S. and Canada spent$566 million on boating-related trips taken to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in 2002.These expenditures are exclusive of additional en route expenditures that occurred in areas thatdo not border the study region. U.S. and Canadian boaters received a net benefit or consumersurplus of approximately $393 million in 2002.

Of the $178 million in total expenditures on the US side, $68 million resulted fromtourist-related spending (from boaters residing outside four groupings of counties along the NewYork border of these waters). This tourist-related spending, after considering indirect effects,resulted in total output of $96 million and 1,380 full-time equivalent jobs. Based on a Canadiannational survey, each dollar spent (direct expenses, net import) added another $1.50 throughindirect and induced expenditures. Tourism activity was not measured in Canada, but theToronto and Montreal areas generate substantial economic activity linked with commercial


5/170

iii

boating activities (e.g. tour boats). As an example, for 14 tourboat operators out of 27 contacted,loss of income between 1998 and 2002 related to water levels was estimated at $727,000.

Data from the U.S. boater survey indicated that the majority of boaters (57%) believedthat both natural and man-made factors cause the fluctuating water levels on Lake Ontario and

the St. Lawrence River. Since that is in fact the case, it would be desirable to increase throughinformation and education the percentage even further. However, 30% of all boaters believemostly man-made factors cause fluctuating water levels. This percentage is even greater amongprivate dock owners (40%) and respondents who couldnt go boating at some point in 2002because of low water levels (43%). Over one-third of boaters in eastern Lake Ontario and the St.Lawrence River thought man-made factors were the primary cause. A similar study conductedin 1991-1992 asked the same question of Alexandria Bay boaters, and at that time, a smallerproportion (19%) thought man-made factors were the primary cause. The majority (69%) thenbelieved it was a combination of factors, more so than currently. Perhaps this indicates a shift inbelief that man has more control over nature.

Water level impact relationships can be calculated for all the performance indicatorsdeveloped by the RBTTWG, however we have chosen to focus on two performance indicators total possible boating days lost and net economic value lost (willingness-to-pay). Thesemeasures provide both an estimate of recreational loss and economic loss as water levels change.The economic measure is the one chosen by the economic advisors to the Study Board to bemost comparable to measures used by other Technical Working Groups, and is expected to beused by the Study Board when comparing impacts between different interest groups.

Water level impact relationships were created by reach to reflect the difference in waterlevels between Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and along the St. Lawrence River. TheLake Ontario Reach includes the lake itself and the portion of the St. Lawrence River down toand including Cape Vincent. The remainder of the Upper St. Lawrence River was divided intotwo reaches associated with the water level gauge measurements at Alexandria Bay andOgdensburg. The three reaches on the Lower St. Lawrence River were referenced to thefollowing water level gauges: Pointe Claire for Lake St. Louis, Sorel for Lake St. Pierre, andVarennes for Montreal-Contrecoeur.

Figures 24 and 25 in the main body of the report represent our best estimates of the waterlevel impact relationships for the Lake Ontario Reach. Figure 24 depicts the relationship interms of total possible boating days lost by month and Figure 25 uses net economic value lost(willingness-to-pay) as its y axis. The shapes of the curves are virtually identical; only the y axisscale differs. The graphs are scaled to both feet and meters. Each line represents days or neteconomic value lost during a different month of the boating season. The graphs show thatimpacts of lower water levels would be greater in the summer months of July and August thanearly spring or fall months. Lake Ontario Reach users start to experience losses when waterlevels drop below 247 ft. The losses are minor until about 245.5 ft. when they start to increaseand then show a dramatic increase at 244.8 ft. By way of example, looking at the month ofAugust, we see that if the water level is maintained at 247 ft., for that entire month, boaters couldboat as often as they wished, as no one would be affected by low or high water levels. As waterlevels drop, economic losses would be expected because boats could not launch. Approximately


6/170

iv

$7.5 million in economic benefits would be lost if the water level were 244 ft. for the entiremonth of August (Fig. 25).

Low water levels where significant losses of benefits occur affect the three boatingsegments somewhat differentlymarina users, launch ramp users, and private dock owners. The

larger boats tend to be located at marinas. Low water levels during the boating season may keepthese boaters from boating. If low water levels are predicted for fall, this may require marinas tohaul boats out of the water early, thus shortening the boating season and threatening theeconomic viability of marinas. Launch ramp users have more flexibility. If low water levels area very localized problem for a given launch ramp, boaters may be able to shift to another ramp orlaunch at a marina. For more pervasive low water levels, launch ramp users may shift to otherwaters (e.g., Lake Champlain, Finger Lakes in New York). Private dock users in the short termwould probably lose boating benefits, as their boats are associated with primary residences orsecond home properties, and they have less flexibility to seek alternative places to boat. In timesof high or low waters, media reports often overstate the actual situation, or fail to give adequatecoverage when water levels return to a generally safe range for boating. This situation keeps

many boaters at home and adds to the negative economic impact estimate that would be obtainedsolely from estimating boater days lost when waters are at unsafe levels.

For the Upper St. Lawrence River - Alexandria Bay Reach, there appears to be no waterlevel without any impacts for boaters (Figs. 26 and 27). A few boaters are experiencingproblems with low water at the same time other boaters are experiencing problems with highwater. The least amount of impact appears to occur between 245 ft. and 247.2 ft.

The Ogdensburg Reach of the Upper St. Lawrence River has fewer boaters than the othersections and consequently, estimates of impacts are smaller (Figs. 28 and 29). Impacts appear tobe minimal above 243.8 ft. Impacts due to high water levels are quite small compared with lowwater impacts below 242.5 ft.

The range of acceptable water levels appears to be quite large for all Lower St. LawrenceRiver boaters (Figs. 18 through 23). A possible acceptable range for the Lake St. Louis Reach is21 m. to 22.5 m. (Figs. 18 and 19). For the Montreal-Contrecoeur Reach, a rather large rangeexists from 6 m. to almost 10 m. (Figs. 20 and 21). The range for Lake St. Pierre is thenarrowest, at approximately 4.25 m. to 5.25 m. (Figs. 22 and 23).

The RBTTWG reviewed the performance indicators depicted in the Figures andestablished a range of water levels which we thought would be acceptable for the boatingconstituency overall and which is logically consistent between the Lake and Upper Riverreaches. Consideration was given to developing a range of levels that not only minimizedadverse impacts to boaters but that also provided a reasonable spread in consideration toregulation plan formulation. The RBTTWG reached a consensus that a 1.4-foot variancearound the ideal level of 246.2 ft. (75.04 m.) for Lake Ontario was a reasonable water level rangefor boaters. Taking into account the average difference in water level elevations between LakeOntario and the Upper St. Lawrence River (Table ES-1), we determined that water levels on theUpper St. Lawrence River resulting from the Lake Ontario criteria would also be within anacceptable range. For the Lower St. Lawrence River, the acceptable range is greater considering


7/170

v

that the river flow is not regulated. Differences in Lower River sections are associated withspecific hydrologic conditions and topography of each section.

It is important to note that the critical period during the boating season subject tounacceptable water levels has historically occurred from late August through mid October.

Thus, the greatest incremental gains to recreational boating would be if higher water levels couldbe achieved during the fall. Therefore, the RBTTWG strongly emphasizes that the rangespecified is to be applied for the full extent of the boating season 15 April through 15 October.

Table ES-1 presents the ideal target level by reach along with the acceptable lower andupper bounds.

Table ES-1. Ideal criteria for water levels by reach for recreational boating interests for theboating season 15 April through 15 October. (Chart datum is shown for reference.)

Study Reach Chart Datum Ideal Level Minimum Level Maximum Level

(ft) (m) (ft) (m) (ft) (m) (ft) (m)Lake Ontario 243.3 74.3 246.2 75.04 244.8 74.61 247.6 75.46

Alex Bay 243.0 74.1 245.8 74.92 244.4 74.48 247.2 75.34Ogdensburg 242.5 73.9 245.1 74.70 243.7 74.27 246.5 75.13

Lake St. Louis 66.9 20.4 70.5 21.5 68.6 20.9 74.8 22.8Lake St. Pierre 12.5 3.8 14.8 4.5 13.9 4.25 17.1 5.2

Montreal - Contrecoeur 15.7 4.8 21.3 6.5 18.0 5.5 32.8 10.0

In addition to the criteria above, the Recreational Boating and Tourism Technical WorkGroup makes the following recommendations to the IJC based on the observations of the groupover the course of the study period:

We recommend that the IJC insure that a member of the Board of Control be anindividual with a working knowledge of lake level issues and impacts regardingrecreational boating on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

The IJC should implement a Communications Plan for improving communicationsbetween the St. Lawrence River Board of Control and Lake Ontario and St. LawrenceRiver recreational boating interests. The Communications Plan should include thefollowing:

A. Establish Board of Control liaison to the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence Riverboating community.

B. Develop and maintain a list of Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River boatingcommunity Point Of Contacts.

C. Provide information regarding forecasted extreme levels via early alert systemto boating community and promote subscribing to water levels bulletins toboaters.

D. Provide information from monitoring efforts to boaters on a regular basis.E. Develop education program for all interests to better understand water level issues

including water level control.


8/170

vi

The public generally does not understand the capabilities of the IJC and the Board of

Control nor how they reach their decisions. The decision making process needs to bemore transparent. How the Board of Control reaches consensus rather than majoritydecisions is particularly not well understood. Improved communications and education

are needed. As an example, perhaps a FAQ section on the web site would be helpful tothose interested enough to be seeking more information.

Considering that the data and analysis conducted for this effort will be outdated in thenear future and that the new plan should be adaptive (Study Board Principle), we suggestimplementing a monitoring plan or system for recreational boating.

A cost-effective plan should be based on:A. an actual data collection system with relevant stakeholders;B. focus on the most sensitive areas (e.g., Gananoque area, Lake St. Louis,

Alexandria Bay, North Sandy Pond)C. consider using continuous data collection tools (e.g., Internet short

survey);D. involve boat related associations (e.g., OMOA, Canadian Squadron).E. a periodic review (e.g., each five years) in order to assess trends (e.g., new

needs, adaptation options, etc.) in the boating activity and industry.

Finally, an adaptive management team (or any other relevant institutionalmechanism) should be created to insure a bi-national and coordinated effort.


9/170

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was sponsored by the International Joint Commission (IJC). U.S. fundingwas administered through USGS Cooperative Agreement #143-HQ-97-RU-01553. JonathanBrown, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District Office was the contact person and

provided invaluable help in conducting the research. Canadian research coordination was donethrough a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Environment Canada. The RecreationalBoating and Tourism Technical Work Group provided oversight and valuable feedbackthroughout the research process. The Economics Advisory Committee had input into theselection of comparable performance indicators and provided a valuable review of thisdocument.

For the U.S. research, New York State Sea Grant provided the initial marina inventoryand along with Ohio Sea Grant conducted the charter boat survey, into which we added waterlevel-related questions. This cooperation saved money, prevented duplication of efforts, andprovided additional information to Sea Grant and ultimately to charter boat operators on a topic

(water level regulation) of great importance to them. For Canadian research, the St. LawrenceCentre provided the initial database for the Lower St. Lawrence River section and usefulknowledge for a less well known geographic area. Other work done by the St. Lawrence Centre(e.g. ZIP reports) also helped to screen available information prior to conducting these newstudies.

On the U.S. side, Human Dimensions Research Unit Staff (Meg Faville, Krista Guerrero,and Karlene Smith) and an intern from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Doug Gorecki)collected field data at marinas and yacht clubs. Karlene Smith also spent considerable timemailing questionnaires to boaters and recording their responses on computer. Margie Peech andCristina Faustino assisted with preparation of this final report. Cornells Computer AssistedSurvey Team (CAST) completed almost 6,000 telephone interviews for the boater portion of ourstudy. Paul Yu, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Buffalo District Office, developed a computerprogram to assign drafts to boats at marinas and yacht clubs based on the distribution of draftsobtained from the boater survey.

On the Canadian side, field work was done in collaboration with Germain Brault andliane Paquet (field technicians), Jean-Franois Jett (assistant), Marcel Houle and StphaneRenou (GIS specialists) for the Lower River and through contracts with CH2M Hill and ScottDuff for the Upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The preliminary survey with selectedmarinas and yacht clubs in Lower St. Lawrence River was done by Hlne Boudier (M.Sociology and Economics) and Karine Menezes (M. Sc. Environment). The survey of tour boatsand cruising boats for the Lower River was done by an intern Nicolas Audet (assistant, M.Sc.Environment in collaboration with Chaire dtudes sur les ecosystems urbains, Universit duQubec Montral). The impact survey for marinas and yacht clubs was done through a contractwith Zins Beauchesne et Associs for the Lower River and McCullough and Associates andDiane Mackie and Associates for the Upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. For the moreextensive socio-economic analysis (boater survey, marinas survey and boat tour survey) and inorder to have a similar year of reference for all the areas, this work was done with a contract toGardner Pinfold Consulting. Close collaboration with Jim Dike, David Orr and Al Donaldson of


10/170

viii

the Recreational Boating and Tourism Technical Work Group also helped to correctly integratedata for the Upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Robert Petitpas and Serge St-Martin(Canadian co-lead of the Technical Work Group) helped with their contacts to insure an adaptedmethodology for boaters on Canadian side.


11/170

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................................... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................... xiv

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................................1

STUDY BOARD AND TECHNICAL WORK GROUP ASSIGNMENT......................................................1

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT............................................................................................................1

U.S. RESEARCH .......................................................................................................................... 3

METHODS.........................................................................................................................................5

Boater Survey.................................................................................................................................. 5Sample Selection..................................................................................................................5

Implementation ....................................................................................................................6

Weighting of Data................................................................................................................6

Estimating Days Boated, People per Boat, and Expenditures.............................................7

Estimating Net Economic Value ..........................................................................................7

Boaters Estimates of Days Lost Due to High or Low Water..............................................8

Private Dock Depth Measurements .....................................................................................8

Marina, Yacht Club, and Boat Launch Ramp Survey..................................................................... 8

Inventory ..............................................................................................................................8Personal Interviews .............................................................................................................9

Depth Measurements and Calculation of Useable Water Levels ........................................9

Charter Boat Operators Survey.................................................................................................... 10Regional Economic Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 10Water Level Impact Relationships ............................................................................................. 13

Performance Indicators .....................................................................................................13

U.S. Reaches ......................................................................................................................13

Launch Ramp Estimates.....................................................................................................15

Private Dock Estimates......................................................................................................15

Marina and Yacht Club Estimates.....................................................................................15

Charter Boat Estimates......................................................................................................16Aggregation of Data by Reach...........................................................................................17

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................17

Boater Survey................................................................................................................................ 17Boater Screening Telephone Interview Response..............................................................17

Boater Mail Questionnaire Response ................................................................................17

Response Bias ....................................................................................................................17

Estimated Number of Boats ...............................................................................................17


12/170

x

Boater Characteristics.......................................................................................................18

Boating Days......................................................................................................................18

People per Boat..................................................................................................................20

Expenditures ......................................................................................................................20

Net Economic Value...........................................................................................................24

Boater Estimated Impact of Loss Due to High Water........................................................24Boater Estimated Impact of Loss Due to Low Water.........................................................28

Boater Beliefs Regarding Water Levels.............................................................................30

Boater Information Needs..................................................................................................34

Marina, Yacht Club, and Boat Launch Ramp Survey................................................................... 34Inventory ............................................................................................................................34

Marina Costs Associated with High and Low Water Levels..............................................34

Charter Boat Operators Survey.................................................................................................... 38Charter Boat Operator Characteristics.............................................................................38

Charter Boat Captains Estimates of Impacts of High and Low Water Conditions..........38

Regional Economic Impact........................................................................................................... 39

Water Level Impact Relationships ............................................................................................. 41Boat Launch Ramp Users ..................................................................................................42Private Dock Users............................................................................................................42

Marina and Yacht Club Users ...........................................................................................46

Charter Boat Operations ...................................................................................................46

Aggregated U.S. data.........................................................................................................46

Forecast for Recreational Boating ............................................................................................... 52

CANADIAN RESEARCH.......................................................................................................... 56

METHODS.......................................................................................................................................57

Boater Survey................................................................................................................................ 57Marina and Yacht Club Surveys ................................................................................................... 59Tour Boat and Excursion Craft Survey......................................................................................... 59Water Level Impact Relationships ............................................................................................. 60

Performance Indicators .....................................................................................................60

Marina and Yacht Club Estimates.....................................................................................62

Private Dock Estimates......................................................................................................62

Launch Ramp Estimates.....................................................................................................62

Aggregation of Boater Data...............................................................................................63

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................63

Survey of Canadian Power Squadron Boaters ............................................................................. 63Boater Characteristics.......................................................................................................63

Boating Days......................................................................................................................65

Expenditures ......................................................................................................................65

Net Economic Value...........................................................................................................66

Marina and Yacht Club Surveys ................................................................................................... 66Inventory ............................................................................................................................66

Economic Impact of Changing Water Levels.....................................................................68

Adaptation and Mitigation Costs.......................................................................................71

Tour Boat and Excursion Craft Survey......................................................................................... 73Water Level Impact Relationships ............................................................................................. 75


13/170

xi

Lake Ontario and Upper St. Lawrence River Reaches ......................................................75

Lower St. Lawrence River Reaches ...................................................................................77

Forecast for Recreational Boating and Its Regional Impact........................................................ 77

U.S. AND CANADA AGGREGATED WATER LEVEL IMPACT RELATIONSHIPS. 88

METHODS.......................................................................................................................................88

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................88

Additional Performance Indicator Curves.................................................................................... 88

ASSESSMENT OF VALIDITY OF WATER LEVEL IMPACT RELATIONSHIPS ..... 95

CRITERIA SELECTION .......................................................................................................... 97

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................97

Plan 1958D with Deviations......................................................................................................... 97DEVELOPING CRITERIA FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING AND TOURISM TECHNICAL WORK

GROUP ...........................................................................................................................................98

Performance Indicators and Initial Criteria................................................................................. 98

Refined Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 99RBTTWG RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IJC............................................................... 101

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 103

APPENDIX A: U.S. BOATER MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE .110

APPENDIX B: WATER LEVEL IMPACT RELATIONSHIPS .123

APPENDIX C: CRITICAL AREAS AND TIMES IDENTIFIED BY TOUR BOAT

OPERATORS FOR WATER LEVEL PROBLEMS ....151

APPENDIX D: EXAMPLE OF A COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ..153


14/170

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 U.S. performance indicators 14

2 Length and type of boats owned by boaters who responded to the mailquestionnaire 193 Average days boated per boat and estimated total days boated on Lake Ontario

and the St. Lawrence River in 2002overall and by selected characteristics19

4 Mean expenditures per day per boat by expenditure category in NYS countiesbordering Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and in areas outsidebordering countiesoverall and by primary access method

22

5 Average expenditures per day per boat and estimated total expenditures in 2002in NYS counties bordering Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and in areasoutside bordering countiesoverall and by selected characteristics

23

6 Net economic value per day per boat and estimated total net economic value

associated with boating Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in 2002overall and by selected characteristics

25

7 Boater confidence in willingness-to-pay estimateoverall and by primary accessmethod

26

8 Impacts of high water levels on boaters of Lake Ontario and the St. LawrenceRiver in 2002overall, by primary access method, and by region

27

9 Impacts of low water levels on boaters of Lake Ontario and the St. LawrenceRiver in 2002overall, by primary access method, and by region.

29

10 Boaters perception of the cause of fluctuating water levelsoverall and byselected characteristics

31

11 Response to belief statements regarding water levelsoverall and by selectedcharacteristics

32

12 Boaters primary sources of information about water levelsoverall and byselected characteristics

35

13 Boaters interest in additional information about water levels on Lake Ontarioand the St. Lawrence Riveroverall and by selected characteristics

36

14 The best ways to reach boaters with information on water levels 3715 Output and employment estimates from spending by recreational boaters on the

New York portion of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in 2002, bycoastal region

40

16 Output and employment estimates from spending by charter boat customers onthe New York portion of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in 2002, bycoastal region

41

17 Results from the scaling survey, estimating the number of boaters in each region 5818 Canadian performance indicators 6119 Primary access location of recreational boaters surveyed, 2002 6420 Number of boaters (respondents) who own a second home/cottage in the study

area65

21 Estimated number of boats by geographic area and required draft 6722 Typical seasonal occupancy rates at marinas and yacht clubs by geographic area 68


15/170

xiii

LIST OF TABLES (continued)Table Page

23 Location of marinas and yacht clubs interviewed for economic impact survey 6924 Percent of slips and moorings unoccupied because of high or low water levels,

2001 and 2002

70

25 Cost of mitigating low water levels, 1999-2002 7126 Total estimated costs of potential high water mitigation strategies 7227 Total estimated costs of potential low water mitigation strategies 7328 Impact and costs estimated in 2002 for high or low water level damage 7529 Revenue of boat dealers and marinas in 2001 by region (million $) 8630 Recreational boater expenditures in 2001 by region (based on 1988 data) (million

$)86

31 Difference in elevation between Cape Vincent and Alexandria Bay at variousflows & at selected elevations on Lake Ontario

98

32 Difference in elevation between Cape Vincent and Ogdensburg at various flows

& at selected elevations on Lake Ontario

99

33 Differences in average elevations between Lake Ontario and Ogdensburg andbetween Lake Ontario and Alex Bay by boating season month

99

34 Ideal criteria for water levels by reach for recreational boating interests for theboating season 15 April through 15 October. (Chart datum is shown forreference.)

100


16/170

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Map of study area showing reaches and marina locations 22 Map showing New York State county groupings used in regionaleconomic impact analysis

12

3 Distribution of days boated in 2002 by month 214 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible boating days lost by

month for US Lake Ontario Reach boat launch ramp users43

5 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for US Lake Ontario Reach boat launch ramp users

44

6 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for US Lake Ontario Reach private dock users

45

7 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost by

month for US Lake Ontario Reach marina and yacht club users

47

8 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for US Lake Ontario Reach charter boat operators

48

9 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all US Lake Ontario Reach users

49

10 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all US Upper St. Lawrence River-Alex Bay Reach users

50

11 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all US Upper St. Lawrence River-Ogdensburg Reach users

51

12 Number of boats registered in New York State and those indicatingprincipal use in a county bordering Lake Ontario or the St. LawrenceRiver between 1993 and 2000

54

13 Year-to-year percent change in national boat registrations for personalwatercraft and all other boats

55

14 Percent of respondents who listed these categories as part of total revenue 6915 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost by

month for all Canadian Lake Ontario Reach users76

16 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all Canadian Upper St. Lawrence River-Alex Bay Reach users

78

17 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all Canadian Upper St. Lawrence River-Ogdensburg Reachusers

79

18 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible days lost by monthfor all Canadian Lower St. Lawrence River-Lake St. Louis Reach users

80

19 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all Canadian Lower St. Lawrence River-Lake St. Louis Reachusers

81

20 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible boating days lost bymonth for all Canadian Lower St. Lawrence River-Montreal ContrecoeurReach users

82


17/170

xv

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)Table Page

21 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all Canadian Lower St. Lawrence River-Montreal Contrecoeur

Reach users

83

22 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible boating days lost bymonth for all Canadian Lower St. Lawrence River-Lake St. Pierre Reachusers

84

23 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all Canadian Lower St. Lawrence River-Lake St. Pierre Reachusers

85

24 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible boating days lost bymonth for all US and Canadian Lake Ontario Reach users

89

25 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all US and Canadian Lake Ontario Reach users

90

26 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible boating days lost bymonth for all US and Canadian Upper St. Lawrence River-Alex. BayReach users

91

27 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all US and Canadian Upper St. Lawrence River-Alex. BayReach users

92

28 Water levelimpact relationship using total possible boating days lost bymonth for all US and Canadian Upper St. Lawrence River-OgdensburgReach users

93

29 Water levelimpact relationship using net economic values lost bymonth for all US and Canadian Upper St. Lawrence River-OgdensburgReach users

94


18/170

1

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

The International Joint Commission (IJC) oversees the management of waterlevels on the Great Lakes for the United States and Canada. In 2000, the IJC established

the International Lake Ontario St. Lawrence River Study Board and commissionedthem to undertake a comprehensive five-year study to assess and evaluate the currentcriteria used to regulate outflows from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River.The study board was asked to examine the effects of water level and flow variations onall users and interest groups and determine whether it is possible to establish betterregulation criteria than those set by the IJC in 1956.

Study Board and Technical Work Group Assignment

The study board is comprised of experts and decision makers from the UnitedStates and Canada. It supervises Technical Work Groups (TWGs) charged withgathering scientific data on different interests affected by water levels on Lake Ontario

and the St. Lawrence River. Among these interests are coastal processes, commercialnavigation, domestic water uses, environment/wetlands, hydroelectric power, andrecreational boating and [boating related] tourism. Each TWG contains U.S. andCanadian members listed in the preface. The Recreational Boating and Tourism TWG(hereafter called RBTTWG) oversaw the research reported herein. This group met on aregular basis starting in 2001 and concluded their work with this report in 2005.

The area of study, shown in Figure 1, includes Lake Ontario (and the lowerportion of the Niagara River where boaters enter the water primarily to boat on LakeOntario), the Upper St. Lawrence River (from Cape Vincent to the Moses SaundersPower Dam), and the Lower St. Lawrence River (from Lake St. Louis to Lake St. Pierre).The RBTTWG was charged with developing: (1) performance indicators that wouldshow the effects of changing water levels on recreational boating and tourism interests,and (2) ideal criteria for water levels that would best meet the needs of recreationalboaters and associated businesses in the study area. To do this, a variety of data wasrequired, both in the United States and Canada. This report presents and summarizes theresults of the U.S. and Canadian research conducted for the RBTTWG. It describes thedevelopment of performance indicators and criteria and shows the relationships betweenwater levels, performance indicators, and criteria.

Organization of Report

The remainder of this report is organized into five major sections. The first twosections describe the results of U.S. and Canadian research, respectively, conducted forthe RBTTWG. The third section shows how that research was aggregated acrosscountries to produce water level impact relationships for shared water bodies (e.g.,Lake Ontario). The fourth section assesses the validity of the water level impactrelationships. The fifth section of the report describes how the RBTTWG selectedcriteria that would best meet the needs of recreational boaters and associated businesses.It further describes recommendations the group made as a result of participating in thestudy.


19/170

Figure1.

Mapofstudy

areashowingreachesandmari

nalocations.

Ale

x.Bay

Reach

LakeOntarioReach

Ogdensburg

Reach

LakeSt.PierreReach

Montreal-Contrecoeur

Reach

LakeSt.LouisReach

2


20/170

3

U.S. RESEARCH

Recreational boating has been popular in the study area for most of the pastcentury and some older marinas were created in 19th century. Early statistics are not

available but by 1971, 395,000 boats were registered in New York compared to 504,000today. Boating in the study area has grown by a similar rate. Marina expansion has beenlimited along the shoreline, due to either topography, lack of road access, or sensitiveenvironmental areas (i.e., wetlands). However, with the advent of salmon and troutintroductions into Lake Ontario in the 1970s, thousands of people from all over theNortheast trailered their boats to the Lake. Several new boat ramps were constructed andthe entryway to the Salmon River at Pulaski was improved. In the 1970s and the 80s,major dredging occurred on the Lake and for Upper River marinas. The St. LawrenceRiver, especially in the Thousand Islands area, contains thousands of second homes andcottages, many of which are undergoing conversion to year-round residences. Boating inconjunction with other summer activities has been a long tradition there. In addition, the

Thousand Islands area contains several state parks that provide boating access.Communities along New York waters vary from very rural areas (the case of the

vast majority of the shoreline) to small cities (Oswego, Ogdensburg, and Massena), andfinally to the metropolitan center of Rochester. Rural communities along the shorelineare much less diversified economically, the unemployment rate tends to be higher (7% to9% compared to 5% in Rochester), and they are much more dependent on tourism thanlarger urban areas. Rural portions of Lake Ontario and the Thousand Islands area areheavily dependent on tourism.

Marinas tend to be small businesses with low profit margins. This is in partbecause many marinas started as Mom and Pop businesses whose owners typically donot have business degrees. Moreover, marinas can only operate in warm-weathermonths, and they face numerous risks peculiar to the industry (e.g., weather, quality offishing from year to year, water levels), as well as economic conditions that affect allbusinesses.

A recent study of the economic impact of recreational boating in New Yorkestimated that registered boaters spent $2.4 billion in the state on boating-relatedexpenditures in 2003 (Connelly et al. 2004). Total expenditures associated with trips toGreat Lakes water bodies (Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, St. Lawrence River, Niagara River)exceeded $126 million. The economic impact on the local economies was estimated at$148 million.

Past research on water level impacts to recreational boating in the study area hasbeen limited. However one major work, the IJC Great Lakes Levels Reference Studycompleted in 1993, lays much of the groundwork for this study.

Specifically, the purpose of the Reference Study was to "to examine and reportupon methods of alleviating the adverse consequences of fluctuating water levels in the


21/170

4

Great Lakes - St Lawrence River Basin." Recognizing the complexity and unprecedentedscope, the study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was initiated in June 1987 and wascompleted in the fall of 1989, with a Progress Report and seven annexes. It identifiedproblems related to the management of water level issues and explored potential avenuesfor problem-solving. The Phase I Progress Report provided the foundation for the Phase

II study effort by identifying some of the major issues that would need to be addressed inorder to adequately respond to the Reference. The primary objectives of the recreationalboating component of the Levels Reference study was to measure the impacts offluctuating lake levels on American and Canadian recreational boaters located on theGreat Lakes and St. Lawrence River; obtain their opinions and attitudes about the causesof fluctuating water levels; obtain their attitude and opinions on the effectiveness ofvarious measures to deal with fluctuating water levels; evaluate the economic impacts onrecreational boaters of implementing various measures; and finally develop a report ofthese impacts to assist in evaluating and ranking the effectiveness of various measures toameliorate the impacts of fluctuating water levels on the full spectrum of Great Lakesinterests (hydroelectric, recreational, commercial navigation, public water supply,

environment etc.)A subsequent International Joint Commission report, Methods of Alleviating the

Adverse Consequences of Fluctuating Water Levels in the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver Basin, 1993, recommended the inclusion of criteria for the regulation of LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River to minimize the adverse impacts of fluctuating waterlevels in recreational boating interests.

Recreational Boating Criteria For Regulation Plans

The Citizens Advisory Committee recommends examination of thepractice of adjusting releases in the St. Lawrence River to provideadequate water to Montreal Harbour when large container ships are inport, and to allow for equitable apportionment of water, both upstreamand downstream of Cornwall, for recreational boating at other timesduring the fall season. This would involve consultation among allaffected parties. The Citizens Advisory Committee believes that such apractice may provide greater overall benefits to both shipping andrecreational boating interests in the St. Lawrence River.

International Joint Commission, Report on Methods of Alleviating the Adverse Consequencesof Fluctuating Water Levels in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, 1993.


22/170

5

A study conducted in the Oswego River basin estimated impacts of changing

water levels for recreational boating (Dawson and Brown 1979). While the results of thisstudy are out of date the methodology used to measure water levels and construct waterlevel impact relationship curves is applicable today and was used extensively in the

studies reported herein.Methods

In coordination with our Canadian counterparts, the U.S. research team developeda three-pronged approach to study the impacts of water level changes on recreationalboating and related tourism. Each approach involved a different audience and a differentmethod to assess the impacts of water level changes. The first audience, recreationalboaters, was surveyed initially by phone to determine their use of Lake Ontario and theSt. Lawrence River, then by mail for specific information about expenditures and theimpacts of high and low water levels on their use of the area. The second group, marina

and yacht club owners, was contacted in person to assess the impacts of fluctuating waterlevels and to obtain physical measurements of depths at slips and boat launchingfacilities. The third group, charter boat operators, was surveyed by mail in January 2003to assess the impacts of fluctuating water levels on their businesses.

Data from all three groups were used to create water level impact relationships.Each relationship shows the impacts in terms of performance indicators such as losses tothe local economy and losses in days of use to the recreational community as the waterlevel decreases or increases. These relationships can be used in conjunction with otherrelationships created by other Technical Working Groups to assess the overall impacts ofdifferent water level and flow regulations on all interests in the area.

Boater Survey

Sample Selection

A database of boats registered in New York in 2002 was obtained from the NewYork State Department of Motor Vehicles. Boats whose registrants indicated one of theeight counties bordering the St. Lawrence River or Lake Ontario as the county ofprincipal use were eligible for the study. (We realize that some boats were launched inLake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River in 2002 whose county of principal use wasanother New York State county. However, we expected the number of such boats to beso small in comparison to the number of boats registered in those counties that the cost of

finding those boats through a screening process would be extremely inefficient from acost perspective. It is also possible that boats registered outside New York State werelaunched on the Lake or River. We inquired about non-NYS registered boats in oursurvey of marina operators and found them to be a very small percentage [


23/170

6

addresses. The sample was stratified by boat length using Coast Guard designatedcategories (


24/170

7

crucial. After weighting by size class, region, and access facility, respondent data wasexpanded to represent all boats using the lake and river in 2002.

Estimating Days Boated, People per Boat, and Expenditures

Estimates of days boated on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River were made

from data collected in the mail questionnaire. Respondents indicated the number of daysboated each month on the Lake and on the River. By summing days boated by month, itwas clear that some respondents recorded the same days for both the lake and the river,indicating they had boated in both locations on any given day. To reflect a more accuratetotal days boated for the combined waterways, we divided the sum of days in a givenmonth by 2 if the sum was greater than the number of days in that month. A slight butstatistically significant upward nonresponse bias was observed for total days boated, andas a result, total days boated was multiplied by a factor of 0.953 to compensate for thisbias. For later construction of water level impact relationships, days per boat had to becalculated from respondent data of days per boater. This was accomplished by dividingdays per boater by the number of boats owned.

Respondents were asked to estimate the number of people on their boat and theirexpenditures on a typical trip. The expenditures were divided by the number of days on atypical trip to get expenditures per day per boat. The data were examined for valuesconsidered out of range. For example, seven individuals indicated they spent between$3,600 and $6,000 per day at marinas and yacht clubs. These outliers were deleted in thecalculation of mean expenditures and the outliers were replaced with the mean value inthe dataset. Expenditures by category were added to get total expenditures.

Estimating Net Economic Value

After boaters were asked about the length of a typical trip and expenditures made

on such a trip, they were asked a series of questions regarding how much they wouldhave been willing to pay for a typical trip. They were asked if they would be willing topay two, three, or four times as much as they actually paid for the trip. These questionsgave respondents an opportunity to think about how much they would be willing to pay.The final question in the set asked specifically for the maximum amount the boatinggroup would have been willing to pay before they decided not to go on the trip. Theanswer to this question, divided by the number of days on the typical trip, formed thebase for the net economic value analysis.

In calculating net economic value (willingness-to-pay), certain standardassumptions were made that resulted in modifications to the data set. First, outliers were

eliminated. The 13% who indicated they were not willing to pay the amount theyactually paid or any more than this amount were eliminated. Respondents whosemaximum amount was considered out of range (unrealistic) also were eliminated. Thelatter adjustment affected the less than 1% of respondents who were willing to pay morethan $1,400 per day. The maximum cut-off value of $1,400 was determined by using thesame relationship to mean expenditures as was used in the 1996 and 1988 New YorkStatewide Angler surveys (Connelly et al. 1997). Second, strategic bias may also be aproblem when asking boaters about their willingness to pay for boating. To address this


25/170

8

bias, respondents were asked to indicate if they inflated the amount they reported as theirmaximum willingness to pay because they wanted to indicate that boating was importantto them. Thirty-two percent of respondents indicated they had inflated their estimate.Their value was replaced with the mean per day value of those who did not indicate suchan inflation.

Boaters Estimates of Days Lost Due to High or Low Water

Boaters who were affected by either high or low water conditions were asked toestimate by month the number of days they couldnt boat. Those who were unsure of thenumber of days were permitted to write in a ?. The mean value by month wassubstituted for these responses. To create a performance indicator that estimates totalpossible days boated unconstrained by water level, actual days boated in 2002 was addedto days that would have been boated, by month, if it were not for high or low water. Thehypothetical nature of the estimate of additional days raises the possibility that boaterswould not have gone boating on all of these days. Since they were being asked after thefact what they would have done, we can be more certain that days were constrained by

water level and the estimate of additional days is approximately accurate.

Private Dock Depth Measurements

Boaters who used a private dock to access Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence Riverwere asked to recall the depth under the keel of their boat on Labor Day (Sept. 1), 2002.They could check a category (with 1 foot ranges), write in the exact depth, or indicatethey didnt know. Approximately 1% reported they didnt know the depth and were notincluded in further analysis. Respondents were also asked how confident they were thattheir depth estimate was accurate. Eighty-two percent indicated they were veryconfident; 18% were moderately confident and less than 1% were not very confident. Nodifferences were found in depth measurements based on level of confidence, thus all of

the data from private dock owners were used in water level impact relationship analysis(n=479).

Marina, Yacht Club, and Boat Launch Ramp Survey

Inventory

An inventory of all marinas, yacht clubs, and state or privately run boat launchramps was conducted during the summer of 2002 by Cornell Universitys HDRU. Usinga 1997 inventory conducted by New York Sea Grant and subsequently updated by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a base list, marinas and yacht clubs were contacted andinterviewed between May and August, 2002. Marinas not on the 1997 inventory but

observed in the field were also contacted and interviewed by field staff. Each marina andyacht club fitting the following criteria was included in the inventory:

The business must have ten or more slips for rent, either seasonally or overnight. The business must be accessible by the public (e.g., not a communal dock shared by

neighboring residents).


26/170

9

Personal Interviews

Personal interviews conducted by field staff inventoried services provided at eachmarina and yacht club. Operators were asked about impacts to their business from bothhigh and low water conditions. If marinas were impacted, we inquired about the type ofimpact, if any steps were taken to mitigate the impact, the cost of those actions, and if any

revenue was lost.

Depth Measurements and Calculation of Useable Water Levels

At the conclusion of the personal interview, depth measurements were taken atselected slips and launching facilities and used to determine the point at which the slip orlaunch ramp could not be used and thus benefits would be lost. Losses estimated fromdata in the boater survey were multiplied by the number of slips/ramps lost to facilitatethe construction of water level impact relationships, as discussed in detail below.

Depth measurements were taken at selected representative slips in each marinaand entered into an excel spreadsheet. Depths at slips not measured were interpolatedfrom depths at slips measured directly. A few docks were considered unsafe or wereunderwater at the time of measurement. The depth under these docks was estimatedbased on nearby depth measurements. Elevation measurements at the nearest gauge,taken within the hour the measurements were made at the marina, were used to calculatethe bottom depth and top of dock elevations at each slip. Seasonal and transient slips ateach marina were ordered from deepest to shallowest.

Marina fleet composition by length and propulsion type was determined duringthe interview with the marina or yacht club operator. For the few marinas where aninterview could not be conducted, the composition of the marina was assumed to besimilar to a neighboring marina of similar size. The number of slips (seasonal and

transient) counted by field staff was used as the definitive number of slips. Boats wereassigned to slips using the proportions given by the owner or operator. All permanentslips were assumed to be occupied for the calculation of the water level impactrelationships. As an alternative measurement, total slips could be reduced to theoccupancy rate (88.4%) calculated for the summer of 2002.

Boat draft was determined by using the length-draft distribution provided byrespondents to the boater survey regarding the boats they used in the study area. For eachlength class and propulsion type, mean draft and standard error were calculated fromrespondent data. A random distribution of draft was calculated for each lengthclass/propulsion type at each marina. Boats with the deepest calculated draft at that

marina were assigned to the deepest slips. Boats were assigned to all seasonal slips.Water level elevations at which the slip would become unuseable (zero clearance underthe keel) were calculated for each slip.

Depth measurements at moorings were not taken. Boats at moorings wereconsidered useable at the mooring at all water levels. However, a moored boat could notbe removed from the water if the haul out area (travel lift, boat hoist) became too shallowor was inundated. Thus, the depth at the haul out area becomes the critical factor for


27/170

10

moored boats. All moored boats at marinas with haul out areas were assigned a bottomelevation using the depth at the haul out area and calculated as above.

Depth measurements were taken at the end of the hard surface of boat launchramps owned by a marina or operated by a New York State agency. Small town and

village ramps were not measured. The elevation measurement at the nearest gauge takenwithin the hour the measurement was made at the launch ramp was used to calculate thebottom depth elevation at the ramp. While ramps could be considered unusable when thedepth dropped below the design standard of 3 ft. (Ramsey and Sleeper 2000), manyramps were observed in operation when the depth was below 3 ft. Therefore, a depth of 2ft. was chosen based on the work of Dawson and Brown (1979) in the Oswego Riverbasin. Measurements to assess inundation were not taken.

Data from the boater survey were used to estimate use at each boat launch ramp.Boaters who indicated a ramp not measured in the inventory were assigned to the nearestmeasured ramp. Boaters who could not recall the name of the ramp they used most often

were not assigned to any specific ramp. Total days boated was apportioned to themeasured ramps using the proportions derived from boaters who did identify a ramp.When water levels dropped below 2ft. at the end of the ramp, the ramp was consideredunusable until water levels increased. Thus, all benefits (days, economic benefits) werelost during the low water period.

Charter Boat Operators Survey

The New York and Ohio Sea Grant programs surveyed by mail 305 licensed NewYork charter boat captains in January and February of 2003. Using a modified totaldesign method (Dillman 1978), up to three reminder letters were sent to those who hadnot yet responded. The questionnaire asked about business characteristics, economics,

trips taken, and educational information needs. Inserted with the questionnaire was aone-page form for Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River captains asking about water-level concerns. The insert was designed by Cornell HDRU staff and asked specificallyabout launching sites, problems with low or high water conditions, and the costsassociated with adaptations made for changing water levels.

Regional Economic Impact Analysis

The scope of the recreational boating RBTTWG was expanded early in the studyprocess to include tourism, and the name of the RBTTWG was expanded to RecreationalBoating and Tourism. Realizing that it would be impossible to do an in-depth study of alltourism activities that occur within the study region, the RBTTWG narrowed its scope to

recreational boating and boating-related tourism. The recreational boating portion ofthe RBTTWGs mandate included developing estimates of boaters expenditures andconsumer surplus, how net benefits to boaters change with fluctuating water levels, andhow marinas and yacht clubs are affected by fluctuating water levels. Boating-relatedtourism was defined to further include the economic impact of boaters expenditures onsubregions of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River study area, so that the totalcommunity and regional impacts of fluctuating water levels affecting boating could beestimated.


28/170

11

The trip-related expenditures of boaters serve as the starting point for economic

impact analysis. As boaters spend money in local communities along Lake Ontario andthe St. Lawrence River, portions of those expenditures remain in the area for additionalrounds of spending and are used to purchase products that are produced locally, and also

to pay salaries and wages of proprietors and workers of marinas, restaurants, motels, andother retail and service establishments.

Economic impact analysis describes and provides quantitative estimates of theportion of boating-related expenditures that stays within a defined subregion (one to threeadjacent counties) of the study area for at least one round of additional spending (i.e., topay owners or workers or to buy goods [either wholesale or retail] or services that areproduced within that subregion). The significance or interpretation one places oneconomic impact analysis is closely associated with ones concept or definition of animpacted region. At the national level, for example, all of the effects of boatersspending is internal (within region), except for dollars Canadian boaters spend in the U.S.

and vice versa. However, several coastal counties bordering Lake Ontario and the St.Lawrence River are rural and have economies that are highly dependent on tourism.To adequately capture this tourism while also recognizing that most local economies bymany considerations are broader than one county, we used groupings of one to three-county contiguous areas as subregions for this analysis (Fig. 2).

Economic output is shown in tables with columns for the direct effect, indirecteffect, induced effect, and total output. The direct effectwith respect to tourist spendingrepresents the total new expenditures that occur within the subregion. The indirect effectrepresents the amount of additional spending that occurs from those direct effectexpenditures as marinas, restaurants, lodging places, and other sectors where boaters havespent money re-spend these dollars to buy goods and services produced within thesubregion. The induced effect represents other portions of those direct effectexpenditures that are received and used by households and proprietors as wages andincome, and as they in turn make household or personal expenditures within thesubregion.

To make these estimates of economic impact, we use a computerized input-outputeconomic model called Impact Analysis and PLANning (IMPLAN). This modelestimates the technical relationships between the producing sectors of the economy(inputs) and the consuming sectors (outputs). IMPLAN divides the economy into over500 business sectors (MIG Inc. 2000). The version of IMPLAN we used, from 1999,defined economic sectors based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system.The 2004 version, using 2001 data, was released after completion of this analysis, andused the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). However, thesectoring of these two systems is very similar for retail and service sectors where boatersand other tourists spend money.

IMPLAN allows input-output analysis at the statewide level, at the single countylevel, and it also allows the researcher to group adjacent counties to form regions and


29/170

Jefferson-St.

Lawrence

O

rleans-Monroe-Wayne

Niagara

Cayuga-Osw

ego

Figure2.

Mapshowin

gNew

YorkStatecountygr

oupingsusedinregionaleconomicimpactanalysis.


30/170

13

perform regional input-output analysis. The parameters for economic impact estimatesfrom IMPLAN used in this study are output and employment. Output is simply the totaldollar value of direct effect, indirect, and induced expenditures. Employment ismeasured in jobs. We have converted the IMPLAN output from the weekly hours typicalfor each sector to 40-hour week equivalents.

To develop IMPLAN models for regional analysis, the trip-related expenditurecategories must be matched with IMPLAN sector categories. Some expenditure sectorssuch as meals and lodging match up quite well, while a number of marina and boat-related purchases had to be placed in broader categories that included boat dealers, enginerepairs, etc. We used our knowledge of where boaters most frequently purchaseparticular items to make the best sector choice possible. Economic impact analysis wasperformed for both recreational boaters who used their own boats and for those who usedthe services of charter boat operators.

Water Level Impact Relationships

Performance Indicators

An important goal of this research is to estimate loses to boaters and boating-related businesses as water levels vary from ideal conditions for boating. Performanceindicators were calculated based on the data collected and associated with different waterlevels to construct water level impact relationships. Twelve performance indicators,described in Table 1, were conceptualized by the RBTTWG to measure losses in practical(e.g., days lost) and economic terms. All calculations were done using Excelspreadsheets. The first six performance indicators were based on average days boated in2002 by month. Days boated were multiplied by the economic indicators for estimates ofeconomic benefits lost. The second set of six performance indicators were based on

average days boated in 2002 plus boaters estimates of the number of additional days theywould have boated by month if water levels had been sufficient. This estimate can bethought of as the maximum number of days that could have been boated in 2002assuming acceptable water levels. Total possible days boated and its associatedeconomic indicators are preferred as performance indicators because they take intoaccount days lost primarily in the fall due to low water levels. Since boater use varies bymonth, performance indicators and the associated water level impact relationships werecreated by month to reflect those differences.

U.S. Reaches

Water level impact relationships were created by reach to reflect the difference

in water levels between Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and along the St.Lawrence River. The Lake Ontario Reach includes the lake itself and the portion of theSt. Lawrence River down to and including Cape Vincent. The remainder of the St.Lawrence River was divided into two reaches associated with the water level gaugemeasurements at Alexandria Bay and Ogdensburg. Marinas and boat launch rampsbelow Cape Vincent, including Alexandria Bay and as far down river as Chippewa Bay,were included in the Alexandria Bay Reach. Marinas and boat launch ramps belowChippewa Bay to the Moses Saunders Dam were included in the Ogdensburg Reach. For


31/170

Table 1. U.S. performance indicators.

Performance Indicator Method of Calculation

Days boated in 2002People-days boated in 2002 Days boated in 2002 3

Boater expenditures made in local area Expenditures/day days boated in 2002

in 2002

Net economic value in 2002 Net economic value/day x days boated in 2002

Sum of values in 2002 Local expenditures + net economic value

+ indirect & induced impacts

*****************************************************************************

Total possible days boated Days boated in 2002 + days that would have been

boated if water levels were sufficient

Total people-days boated Total possible days 3

Boater expenditures made in local Expenditures/day total possible days

area

Net economic value Net economic value/day total possible days

Sum of values Total local expenditures + total net economic value

+ total indirect & induced impacts

14


32/170

15

private dock users, only two reaches could be established because we knew location onlyas specific as county of principal use. The Lake Ontario Reach extends down the St.Lawrence River, essentially encompassing the Alexandria Bay Reach, to the Jefferson St. Lawrence County line near Chippewa Bay, with the Ogdensburg Reach covering theremainder of the river.

Launch Ramp Estimates

Total days boated from boat launch ramps were apportioned to each ramp where adepth measurement was taken, as discussed above. Total days were apportioned bymonth based on the distribution derived from the boater survey for boat launch rampusers. Boat launch ramps were ordered from deepest to shallowest for each reach andgraphs were created showing accumulated days lost as water levels dropped. Losses dueto inundation could not be calculated because measurements were not taken at the top ofthe dock. Graphs showing water level impact relationships were created for eachmonth. Days lost by month were multiplied by the average number of people per boat to

get a measure of people-days lost. Similarly, days lost by month was multiplied by theother metrics (e.g., local expenditures, net economic value) to produce additional waterlevel impact relationships.

Private Dock Estimates

Depth under the keel, as measured by private dock owners, was subtracted fromthe water level at noon on Labor Day (Sept. 1), 2002 to estimate the depth at which theboat would hit bottom and be unusable. An alternative measure of when the boat mightbe unusable is when there is less than a 6 inch safety margin of water under the keel.Either measurement can be used for calculating and displaying water level impactrelationships. The relationships would have the same shape, just moved half a foot up or

down on the water level axis. We used the zero clearance measure in results reportedherein.

Each boater who responded to our survey and who used a private dock representsa certain number of private dock boaters, based on boat size, boat type, and regionboated. Expansion factors were calculated based on these characteristics. Average daysboated, people-days, and the other metrics were multiplied by expansion factors to obtainaggregate estimates on a per boat basis. All measures were apportioned by month basedon the distribution derived from the boater survey for private dock users. Private dockusers were ordered from deepest to shallowest for the Lake Ontario Reach and for theOgdensburg Reach. Graphs were constructed based on water level associated with a

specific boat and its associated accumulated loss metrics. Graphs showing water level impact relationships were created for each month. Losses due to inundation could not becalculated because measurements were not taken at the top of the dock.

Marina and Yacht Club Estimates

Because we essentially had a complete inventory of all slips in the area, averagedays boated and the other metrics were assigned to slips based on boat size, boat type,and region. No expansion factors were necessary. All measures were apportioned by


33/170

16

month based on the distribution derived from the boater survey for marina and yacht clubusers. Slips were ordered from deepest to shallowest by reach. Graphs were constructedbased on water level associated with a specific boat and its associated accumulated lossmetrics. Graphs showing water level impact relationships were created for each month.Top of dock measurements were taken for fixed docks, which allowed us to construct

graphs showing losses due to inundation. Docks were considered inundated and unusablewhen the water level reached the top of the dock.

Charter Boat Estimates

Charter boat captains indicated the launch ramps and/or marinas they used duringthe 2002 season and the percent of time at each location. To simplify calculations, weselected the launch ramp or marina where they spent the largest percentage of their time.For captains using launch ramps, we used the depth measurement taken at their mostfrequently used launch ramp. For captains using marinas, we matched their boat lengthand draft with a similar boat listed at that marina and took the depth measurementassociated with that boat and assigned it to the captain. Because not all captains

responded to the survey and of those that did, not all provided complete information,expansion factors were calculated by reach and applied to respondents with completeinformation to most accurately represent the charter boat population.

Performance indicators comparable to boaters were ultimately needed for charterboats for the aggregation of boater and charter boat data. For charter boats, the numberof trips taken was considered comparable to the number of days boated. The number oftrips taken times the number of clients per boat (avg. = 3 clients, Dave White [pers.comm.]) was considered comparable to the number of people days for boaters. Charterboat revenue per trip was the closest metric to boater expenditures in the local communityper day. Charter boat captains were not asked about the willingness to pay of their

clients, so no comparable measure of net economic value exists. To arrive at an indirectestimate of willingness-to-pay, we assumed that the proportion of boater localexpenditures to willingness-to-pay would be similar to that of charter boat clients. Forestimates of regional economic impact, charter boat revenue was multiplied by thepercentage of clients the operator estimated came from over 50 miles away. It wasassumed this revenue would be considered new money in the local economy. AnIMPLAN model was run using the expenditures in each regional economy used in theboater analysis. The resulting indirect and induced estimates were divided by the numberof trips to get an estimate of the per trip value, which was added as a performanceindicator.

All measures were apportioned by month based on the number of trips eachcaptain indicated he took. Charter boats were ordered from deepest to shallowest byreach. Graphs were constructed based on water level associated with a specific boat andits associated accumulated loss metrics. Graphs showing water level impactrelationships were created for each month.


34/170

17

Aggregation of Data by Reach

The four sources of data (marinas, launch ramps, private docks, and charter boats)were aggregated by reach to form one very large database that measured accumulatedlosses as water levels varied up or down from ideal. This permitted examination ofaggregated water level impact relationships by reach (3), by month (8), and by

performance indicator (12) -- a possible 288 curves.

Results and Discussion

Boater Survey

Boater Screening Telephone Interview Response

From the 2002 New York boat registration listing, we identified 94,747 boats thatmet the criteria for our survey (primarily those indicating a county bordering the Lake orRiver as their county of principal use). We drew an initial sample of 10,382 boat ownersand sent them letters indicating we would contact them for the telephone screening stage

of our survey. We attempted to contact each boat owner and found roughly 10% (1,042)with disconnected or wrong numbers. We reached 63% of the remaining boaters andsuccessfully completed an interview. Only 2.5% of those we reached on the phonerefused to be interviewed.

Boater Mail Questionnaire Response

Of the 3,553 boaters interviewed on the telephone who indicated they boatedLake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River in 2002, 3,412 were sent mail questionnaires inOctober or November 2002; the remainder indicated on the phone that they did not wantto receive a questionnaire. Of the 3,412 questionnaires mailed, 9 were undeliverable and2388 completed questionnaires were returned. This resulted in an adjusted response rateof 70%.

Response Bias

Respondents to the mail survey were compared with nonrespondents based ontheir answers to questions from the telephone interview. As was expected, respondentsspent more days boating on the Lake or River than nonrespondents (29.8 versus 27.3days). To account for this bias, all estimates of days boated have been reduced by 4.7%.

One would also expect that respondents to the mail survey would be more likelyto report problems with water levels than nonrespondents, which was the case, but only

among smaller boat owners (


35/170

18

for boats 26-39 in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River). Thetotal number of boats estimated on the lake or river in 2002 was 48% or 45,783 boats.

Over half of the boaters (57%) we reached on the phone who had not boated thelake or river in 2002 had done so in a previous year. Therefore, we can conclude that

most boaters who list one of the lakeshore counties as their county of principal use havesome experience with Great Lakes boating. Of those who had gone boating on the lakeor river but not in 2002, about one-quarter indicated that high or low water had at sometime prevented them from going boating when they wanted to. Those with larger boats,especially those coming from the eastern basin or the St. Lawrence River (37-40%), weremore likely to have been affected by high or low water levels.

From the telephone data, we estimated that 41% of boats (18,876 boats) accessedthe Lake or River from boat launch ramps. Slightly over one-third (36% or 16,402 boats)used private docks and the remaining 23% (or 10,519 boats) gained access via marinas oryacht clubs.

Boater Characteristics

Respondents to our survey were typically male (95%), middle-aged (mean=56years old), and did not have children living at home (71%). The median householdincome in 2001 was in the $60,000 to $65,000 range. Respondents appeared to havesubstantial experience boating Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River--over 80% hadboated at least 10 years in the area, and had boated there for a mean of 27 years. Users ofboat launch ramps were slightly younger (mean=53 years old), and had fewer years ofexperience in the area (mean=24 years). Forty-one percent of boaters owned a secondhome or seasonal cottage in one of the counties bordering the lake or river that they usedwhen boating in the area. Half of these boaters (52%) owned a second home or cottage in

Jefferson County.

One-third of boaters owned at least two boats that they used on Lake Ontario orthe St. Lawrence River in 2002, and 4% owned three or more boats. These additionalboats were similar in size to the primary boat (Table 2). The secondary boats wereslightly more likely to be sailboats than motorboats, compared with the primary boatdistribution.

We estimated 45,783 boats used Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River in 2002.With a number of boat owners owning more than one boat, we estimated 32,702 boatowners accessed the Lake or River in 2002.

Boating Days

Boaters using Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River boated an estimated 1.3million days or an average of 28.4 days per boat on these waters in 2002. The averagenumber of days boated varied by primary access method, boat length, and region (Table3). Boaters who accessed the water from marinas, yacht clubs, or private docks b

rec boating twg final report mar05

Documents