Day Visitors

$46 	$13

	All

$90 	$25

	Estimated Spending, Wages and Employment	 Spending	  Wages	Employment

	  (Mil $)	   (Mil $)

Hotel and Motels

5.5	1.28	93

	Condominiums

0.1	0.01	1

	Friends and Family

4.3	0.98	57

	Camping

	2.6	0.64	40

	Day Visitors

1.1	0.21	15

Total

       13.6	3.12	206

The economic model used to estimate the economic impact of Homosassa Springs-related visitors on Citrus County was described extensively in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee Springs. Table 4.3 contains the necessary information to estimate the total economic impact defined as the estimated spending, wages and employment generated by visitors to Homosassa Springs State Park from outside Citrus County. Spending by accommodation mode and day visitors is a function of attendance, length of stay per visitor in the area and spending per individual. Multiplying these three factors together for motels and hotels as an example yields about $5.5 million spent by these Homosassa Springs-related visitors from outside Citrus County. In addition, we must know what commodities are bought by visitors to estimate visitor-related wages and employment generated by their expenditures. All of these computations are easily implemented by the use of a fairly complicated spreadsheet analysis which can be made available to park researchers.

At the bottom of Table 4.3, the end result of these rather complicated computations are shown by accommodation mode plus day visitors. For the year 2002, it is estimated that Homosassa Springs State Park-related visitors spend about $13.6 million in Citrus County. This is considerably lower than the expenditures generated by Ichetucknee or Wakulla Springs considered in Chapters 2 and 3 above. Based upon the kind of spending by visitors (shopping, restaurants, hotels), it was estimated that these expenditures generated $3.12 million in wages and 206 jobs. Such jobs as discussed before are largely part-time and low skilled based upon the kind of spending by visitors which is true throughout Florida where tourism is the number one industry in terms of employment and wages. Dividing wages by employment generated by visitors, the annual wage rate of those working in the visitor sector averaged only $15,146 per year. As shown in Table 4.1, the average annual earning per job in Citrus County is $23,296.

Table 4.4 shows the distribution of spending by all visitors based upon the overall spending pattern. Each visitor surveyed was asked to provide their spending according to eight commodities shown in Table 4.4. The four largest categories of spending in Table 4.4 are admission fees ($4.22 million); lodging ($3.43 million), evening entertainment ($2.36 million) and restaurants ($1.87 million) or $11.88 million which is 88% of all visitor spending. It should be pointed out that admission fees embrace a host of spending such as charter boats used in Citrus County while the primary purpose is to visit Homosassa Springs.

What is the relative contribution of Homosassa Springs to the economy of Citrus County? In 2000, Citrus County generated $758 million in wage and salaries supporting 30,466 jobs according to the U.S. Department of Commerce (2002), the most reliable source of data on wages and employment. Thus, Homosassa Springs State Park visitors contributed about .4% of wages and salaries ($3.13 million/$758 million), but .6% of total employment (206/30,466). In terms of wages and jobs, Homosassa Springs does not constitute a substantial part of the Citrus County economy. The trend in visitation to Homosassa Springs is decidedly upward based upon our analysis of the secular trend earlier in this chapter. Therefore, more jobs will be added by this attraction in the future. Finally, we have only measured the direct injection of money into this regional economy or what is called the “direct economic effect”. Such outside income injections are subject to a multiplier effect likely to be from 1.1 to 1.3 for a small regional economy. Thus, the primary or direct injection of spending of visitors to Homosassa Springs will probably produce from !0% to 30% more wages and jobs than shown in Table 4.4 of this report. Now, we shall continue on to our last spring to analyze. In Chapter 5, we shall consider the local economic impact of Blue Spring State Park in Volusia County.

Table 4.4:

Estimation of Homosassa Springs Visitors

Citrus County, Florida, 2002

Expenditures by Category, Florida, 2002

Spending Category

Spending

Related

Related Wages

	(Mil $)

Employment

(Mil $)

	Lodging

	3.43

70

0.82

	Restaurants	1.87

49

0.51

	Groceries	0.13

1

0.01

	Admission Fees

4.22

47

0.74

	Evening Entertainment	2.36

26

0.82

	Ground Transportation	0.32

2

0.11

	Shopping

	1.08

9

0.11

	All Other

	0.11

2

0.01

	Total

	13.52

206

3.13

	Note: Aggregate expenditures for all modes including Hotels/Motels; Friends/Families;

         Campgrounds; Condominiums plus Day Visitors to Homosassa Springs Park.

CHAPTER 5

Direct Regional Economic Impact

of Blue Spring State Park, Florida

on Surrounding Areas

Description of Blue Spring

Blue Spring State Park is located in Orange City in the Central East part of Florida. Orange City is in the western part of Volusia County, which has an east coast on the Atlantic Ocean. This county is important for tourists visiting the beaches of Florida whom are also attracted to auto racing. On the western side of Volusia County, springs have been a magnet for humans and wildlife for centuries. Timucuan Indians lived at the springs long before the Spaniards arrived. In the late 1800’s, there was heavy steamboat traffic on the St. Johns River between Jacksonville and Orange City. This was the first path for settlers and visitors to Florida. The “blossoming” of Orange City was typical of the development that occurred all along the St.Johns River in the late 1800’s and early twentieth century. This early regional growth, combined with tourism, provided the economic base for the Golden Age: the steamboat set the pace and style of the era. The “Thursby family” built a landing to receive these travelers. But, this golden age declined as visitors streaming to Florida headed south with the railroad that considerably cut traveling time and extended the travel distances possible in Florida.

Now, the spring is much more than a scenic wonder for swimming, canoeing, hiking and birding. Blue Spring is well known as a winter home for Florida’s endangered manatee. One can view these mammals each winter between November and March. Blue Spring is one of only three areas in Florida in which a manatee may be “adopted” (i.e., others are at Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park and Tampa Bay). In 1972, the State of Florida purchased Blue Spring as a state park and manatee refuge. For certified cave divers, the spring provides an underwater adventure as another form of recreation. A limited number of fully equipped family cabins are located in the park. The spring maintains a year-around temperature of 72 degrees. However, Blue Spring and its recreational opportunities critically depend on the maintenance of the environment surrounding the area. This aspect will be briefly considered next.

Natural Resource Protection

Historically, many had said that Blue Spring “boils up with great force”. However, dropping water levels in the aquifer have resulted in reduced water flow to Blue Spring. The amount of water discharging from the spring has been declining since the mid-1980’s. The flow reduction threatens the future of Blue Spring as a manatee refuge and recreation area. Blue Spring’s water comes from the same Floridian aquifer as our drinking water. Thus, suburban development within the Blue Spring Basin means more water is being pumped from the aquifer for household and commercial use. That is, increased water use means lower aquifer levels and reduced flow to the Blue Spring. This may produce manatee crowding and possibly death for this creature.

In addition, Blue Spring’s water now carries about 87 tons of nitrates per year according the Florida DEP (2002). This increases the growth of algae and leads to ecological decline. Nitrates and other nutrients come from fertilizer and human waste. Nutrients and other pollutants are picked up by storm water as it flows over lawns, gardens, pastures, agricultural fields, and golf courses. Polluted storm water can flow into sinkholes or work it way through the soil to reach the aquifer. The survival of the delicate spring ecosystem requires good water quality and sufficient water quantity. Recreational visitors to Blue Spring will also be deterred from a diminished water quality via its appearance, adverse impact on the ecosystem and deterrence of manatees from the springs area. A boardwalk and observation deck was built in 1974 to protect the shoreline while allowing visitors to view the manatees and the spring. On the positive side, a record 153 manatees took refuge in the warm spring water in 2001

To protect the environment, water consumption can be reduced; septic tanks can be better constructed and maintained; fertilizer and pesticides can be limited; and the St. John’s River Water Management District should be encouraged to protect and restore the flow of Blue Spring Basin that covers 130 square miles in Volusia County.

Annual Trend and Seasonal Use of Blue Spring State Park

In fiscal year 1992, a little over 360 thousand people visited Blue Spring State Park. However, by the fiscal year 2002, slightly more than 337 thousand people visited this park indicating a 6.4% decline in attendance over the last 11 years. In Figure 5.1. annual park attendance data are plotted over this time period to calculate the annual trend in people attending the park combined with the year to year fluctuations in park attendance. The straight line through the attendance data indicates the annual trend in park attendance where the trend equation (i.e., BLUEATT) is given in the lower right hand corner of Figure 5.1. All attendance data were obtained from the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished, 2002).

The trend equation for Blue Spring State Park attendance shown in Figure 5.1 indicates no annual growth in people attending the park. There is virtually no trend in park attendance. That is, there is really no correlation between park attendance and time.

The RSQ measures how much the passage of time explains park attendance. Further, the attendance trend appears to be headed downward or static in nature. With population growth in the region and increasing tourism in the area over the last 11 years, it would be reasonable to conclude that the trend would be upward for Blue Spring State Park. But, this is clearly not the case. We have pointed out that there are many environmental problems associated with Blue Spring. Nitrates continue to create water quality problems while falling water levels threaten the manatee populations. Further, official are at a loss to explain the obvious flat behavior of park attendance over the last 11 years. The explanation for this finding is beyond the scope of this study, but it is consistent with the economic model which asserts that increasing environmental problems are related to a decline in economic activity as measured by park attendance. As in other chapters, there are considerable cyclical fluctuations in park attendance over the 1992-2002 period. In fact, there appears to be a downward trend in attendance from 1992 to 1997 while there appears to be an upward trend from 1997 to the year 2002. The fall off in attendance from 2001 to 2002 may be due to the terrorist events on September 11, 2001, combined with the poor performance of the U.S. economy. Cycles are usually created by oscillations in economic activity such as expansion in consumer spending or a drop in business spending or a combination of both. It is important to know the cyclical attendance in park attendance due to a need for proper facility planning such as hiring part-time workers, etc. Clearly, we have pointed out a problem at Blue Spring, and can offer a working hypothesis between environmental quality and economic activity.

Seasonal use of a park refers to the month-to-month variation in attendance. Seasonal variation may be due to the nature of the resource and/or man-made events that influence demand for goods and services such as a water resource (e.g., cold versus warm water). We obtained monthly data on Blue Spring State Park from the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This was analyzed from 1992-2002 for Blue Spring. The analysis was done by assuming that no seasonal variation during a year would dictate 1/12 of annual demand (i.e., attendance). Deviations from the 1/12 in any month would identify a seasonal pattern. A detailed example of the calculation of a seasonal index can be read in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee Springs. For Blue Spring, the seasonal index in attendance is plotted in Figure 5.2. One should remember before we review the results that Blue Spring is close to Orlando and provides a haven for visitors to Florida not only for its beaches on the Atlantic Ocean, but NASCAR racing in Daytona. In addition, those seeking to view the manatees should remember that this animal migrates to warmer waters in Blue Spring during the winter months. According to Figure 5.2, the peak seasonal attendance at Blue Springs is December through March of each year. After that period, one other seasonal peak was identified in July. The rest of the months of the year exhibit seasonal “lows”. The influx of tourists to the general area coupled with the seasonal peak in the flow of the manatees as they herd down the St. Johns River to Orange City or Blue Spring as an attractant to visitors may explain the seasonal pattern observed in Figure 5.2. The reader can read the index in the following manner. For example, in January of each year, attendance shows an index of 193.9. This means that attendance for January is 93.9%, higher or almost doubled the number of visitors if there were no seasonal peak (i.e., no seasonal peak would be a January attendance which is 1/12 of annual attendance).

Economic Profile of the Area Surrounding Blue Springs

The thrust of this report is to identify the direct economic impact of natural springs in  particular areas. It is important to look at the economic setting in which springs exists. We have gathered such data available from the U.S. Department of Commerce (2002).

Consider Table 5.1. Volusia County in which Blue Spring State Park exists has experienced an 18.9% growth in population over the 1990-2000 period, which is slower than that for the State of Florida as a whole. This county’s population is the 10th largest in the State of Florida. So the percentage growth may be, in part, a function of the relatively large population base in 1990. Today, nearly one-half million people live in Volusia County. Aggregate personal income changes with the number receiving income and the amount of income per person. Usually, over time, aggregate personal income increases because of growth in population and per capita income that will be discussed below. Total personal income in Volusia County increased by 61.5% over the 1990-2000, which was behind the growth of Florida as a whole.

Of special interest, the growth of income per capita over the 1990-2000 period in Volusia County was nearly 40% which is comparable to the growth in this indicator for the entire State of Florida. Thus, the level of affluence or per capita income has risen in Volusia County at about the state average. However, the level of per capita income in this county still remained nearly 23% below that of the State of Florida. As the state has grown on the shoulders of many high tech industries, Volusia County has relied more on retirement and tourism. Although still very important, such industries have not grown as rapidly as other sectors based on improvements in technology during the last decade. Finally, jobs in Volusia County have grown at about the rate of growth in population, but trailed the rate of growth for the state (19.9% versus 30.4%). Earnings per job in Volusia County has remained below the state average and grew at a slower pace than that in the State of Florida as shown in Table 5.1. The measured unemployment rate is comparable to that of the State of Florida. Of particular significance, the participation rate or the percent of the population potentially able to work is much lower for Volusia County than the state average.

Table 5.1

Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job

in Volusia County, Florida Containing Blue Spring State Park 1990 & 2000

Rank Among 67 Counties

1990	2000	%Change

          in 2000

	Population Growth

    Volusia County	374,200	445,067	18.9	10

	    Florida

13,033,307	16,054,328	23.2	N/A

	Aggregate Income Growth (Thous $)

	    Volusia County	6,219,227	10,046,808	61.5	13

	    Florida 	258,479,049	445,739,968	72.4	N/A

	Per Capita Income Growth ($)

	     Volusia County	16,190	22,574	39.4	31

	     Florida 	19,832	27,765	40.1	N/A

	Employment / Job Growth

	     Volusia County	129,660	155,494	19.9	11

	     Florida

5,802,287	7,566,198	30.4	N/A

	Average Wages / Earnings Per Job ($)

	     Volusia County	19,583	26,484	35.2	35

	     Florida

21,244	30,226	42.3	N/A

	SOURCE: REGIONAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION SYSTEM, U.S. BUREAU OF

     ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (CD ROM, 2002)

Table 5.2

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Volusia County, Florida

Containing the Blue Spring State Park, 2000

Rank Among 67

Recorded Unemployment Rate

%

Counties in Florida

Volusia County

3.1

47

	Florida

	3.75

N/A

Labor Force Participation Rate*

%

	             	Volusia County

68.4

36

	Florida

	78.5

N/A

Poverty Rate (% of Population)

%

Volusia County

14.8

40

	Florida

	15.2

N/A

Components of Per Capita Income

Income	Income From

	Per Capita	Earnings	Cap Inc	Trans Pay

	Volusia County	22,574	11,455	6,337	4,781

	Florida

27,764	16,560	7,005	4,199

* Percent of population in the county between the ages of 15-64 who are employed.

	SOURCE: FLORIDA STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2001, BEBR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (2001)

From Chapter 4, we found this same pattern for Citrus County. We interpreted this as a reflection of retirees moving to Citrus County. This is probably true in Volusia County where the participation rate is 10 percentage points below the state average. Further, there is no difference in the poverty rate when this county is compared to the state of Florida.

Finally, at the bottom of Figure 5.2, we have a breakdown in per capita income that may tell us a lot. It tells us that earnings from labor in Volusia County are much lower than the state average, which reflects the industrial structure of this county (i.e., lower paying jobs in the visitor and retirement sectors). Capital income per capita reflects the amount of interest, dividends and rents flowing to residents. This is below the state average indicating that retirees from out of state and those retiring from jobs in Volusia County are somewhat below state averages. Finally, transfer payments that include social security and retirement income are much higher in Volusia County where the average age is over 42 years of age compared to about 39 years for the State of Florida. How does Blue Spring fit into this economic pattern? With substantial growth in Volusia County, it makes the amazing static attendance in Blue Springs even more puzzling. Adding to this, the influx of tourists to this county should have the usual fraction that wish to take this opportunity to see the manatee population which gathers at Blue Spring during the peak of the tourist season in the first quarter of the year (i.e., January-March). We have no answers to this riddle, but will have to wait for further research.

Direct Economic Impact of Blue Springs: The Model

In Chapter 2 dealing with the economic importance of Ichetucknee Springs, we developed an economic model in which to calculate the spending; employment and wages generate by visitors coming from outside the area of economic impact. We wished to see how much economic activity and benefits are generated by the springs from having individuals visit the area (e.g., county) surrounding the park. The model is the same for all four springs considered in this report. The impact of visitors is based upon springs attendance and a sampling of the spending habits of those visitors to the spring in question. Spending or sales to these visitors are also broken down into kinds of good and services (i.e., industries) supported in the surrounding area by these purchases. The model or framework in which to develop these basic economic impact variables for the springs in question was extensively discussed in Chapter 2. We advise the reader to return to Chapter 2 if he/she has not read this previous chapter and is interested in greater detail. A reader not interested in the technical model may skip such sections and find the numbers reflecting the sales (i.e., expenditures); wages and employment and a breakdown of the kind of industries benefiting from such spending in Blue Spring State Park. It is the choice of the reader as to which way the results of our analyses may be absorbed.

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Blue Spring

In the last part of 2002, a survey of attendees to Blue Spring State Park was conducted. The initial intent of the survey was first to determine what percentage of park attendance comes from outside Volusia County. The next step was to interview visitors from outside the immediate area of Volusia County in terms of size of party; length of stay during their trip and kinds of expenditures made during their visit to Blue Springs. This was the same method employed in Chapter 2 dealing with the economic impact of Ichetucknee Springs State Park. In total, 809 visitors were interviewed to get an economic profile to use in conjunction with attendance to obtain the total economic impact on Volusia County discussed in some detail above. Consider Table 5.3.

In fiscal year 2002, 337,356 individuals were attracted to Blue Spring State Park. From our sampling, it was estimated that about 65% of these individuals could be designated as from outside Volusia County. Thus, in Table 5.3, it is estimated that 219,282 visitors injected money into the local economy. These visitors were divided into five classifications based primarily on accommodation mode. One category was included for day visitors coming to the spring from outside the county. According to our sample, the two primary modes were (1) hotels and motels and (2) day visitors, constituting 84.5% of all visitors from outside Volusia County. In Table 5.3, we can see that among these categories there was not too much variation in party size running from 2.63 (Condominiums) to 3.36 (Day visitors). There was a large variance in length of stay as camper stayed in and around the park for nearly 14 days compared to only a little over 5 days for those using hotels and motels. Of course, day visitors by definition stay in the area for only one day.

Of interest, spending per party day varied from $142 for those using condominiums to only $17 per day for day visitors in Volusia County. As a group, visitors spent only about $61 per party day which is the lowest found among the four springs in this study. Not only does Blue Spring State Park raise questions as to the trend in attendance discussed above, but for some reason it has the lowest spending per attendees observed among our four spring-parks examined in this study. At the end of our economic analysis of the four springs in northern and central Florida, we shall compare the spending among the springs and how our study compares with other similar studies. This will be presented in Chapter 6.

Table 5.3

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated

with Blue Springs, Florida, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

	All People	X	Percent of	=	Estimated

	Attending

Attendance

 Outside Area

	  Springs

Visitors

Visitors

	Non-Resident Visitors to the Springs	337,356

0.65

219,282

Percent of Visitors from Outside the Springs      Sample Size	Percent Visitors	Party Size	Length of

by Accommodation Mode & Other Statistics	N	(k)	(VIS)	(SP)	Stay(LS)

Hotels and Motels

	130	0.160	35,237	3.08	5.09

Condominiums

	24	0.030	6,505	2.63	7.71

Friends and Family

	86	0.106	23,311	3.12	5.80

Camping

15	0.019	4,066	2.73	13.47

Day Visitors

	554	0.685	150,163	3.36	       1

	Total

	809	      1	219,282	3.26	2.60

Estimated Spending Per Party and Individuals	$EPPD	$EPPED

by Accommodation Mode

	(Daily Spending	(Daily Spending

	Per Party)	Per Person)

Hotel and Motels

$97 	$32

Condominiums

$143 	$55

Friends and Family

$28 	$9

Camping

	$74 	$28

Day Visitors

$17 	$5

	All

$61 	$19

Estimated Spending, Wages and Employment

 Spending	  Wages	Employment

	  (Mil $)	   (Mil $)

	Hotel and Motels

	5.6	1.33	106

	Condominiums

	0.9	0.21	18

	Friends and Family

	1.2	0.29	16

	Camping

1.5	0.38	23

	Day Visitors

	0.8	0.17	11

	Total

	10.0	2.38	174

The economic model used to estimate the economic impact of Blue Spring-related on Volusia County was described extensively in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee Springs. Table 5.3 contains the necessary information to estimate the economic impact defined as estimated spending; wages; and employment generated by visitor to Blue Spring State Park. Spending by visitors is a function of attendance; length of stay per visitor in the area and spending per individual per day. When these three factors are multiplied together it calculates the spending by any group or all visitors to the area under analysis. In addition, we must know what goods and service are bought by visitors to estimate visitor-related wages and employment. All these computations are implemented by the use of a fairly complicated spreadsheet analysis which can be made available to park researchers.

At the bottom of Table 5.3, the end result of these rather complicated computations are shown by accommodation mode plus day visitors. For the year 2002, it is estimated that the Blue Spring-related visitors spent $10 million in Volusia County. This is the lowest spending figure among our four springs under analysis in the report despite the fact that the total attendance for Blue Spring exceeds the other three springs. Much is due to the low percentage of attendees that live outside Volusia County coupled with the relatively low spending per person day as discussed above. Based upon the spending by good and services (e.g., shopping; restaurants; grocery stores, etc), it is estimated that this spending by visitors generated $2.38 million in salaries and wages and 174 full and par-time jobs. As discussed in earlier chapters, such jobs are largely part-time and low skilled based upon the kind of spending by visitors which is true throughout Florida where tourism is the number one industry in terms of employment and wages. Dividing wages by employment generated by visitors to Blue Spring, the annual wage rate of those working in the visitor sector averaged only $13,678 per year.

Table 5.4 shows the distribution of spending by all visitors based upon the overall spending pattern. Each visitor surveyed was asked to give their spending by the eight categories shown in Table 5.4. The four largest categories of spending in Table 5.4 are lodging ($5.67 million); evening entertainment ($1.26 million); shopping ($.95 million) and restaurants ($.94 million) or 88% of all spending by visitors to Blue Spring. These spending categories represent the benefactors of having Blue Spring State Park located in Volusia County.

What is the relative contribution of Blue Spring to the economy of Volusia County? In 2000, Volusia County generated $3.9 billion in wages and salary disbursements supporting over 155 thousands jobs. Obviously, Blue Spring State Park is not going to be a major industry in such a large economy. This economy is several times the size of the other three or four counties we have considered in conjunction with the other three springs discussed in Chapters 2-4. Blue Springs constitutes only .061% of wages and .11% of employment in Volusia County’s economy, which represents a relatively small contribution. Finally, the industries supported by Blue Spring is a rather low paid, averaging only $13,678 per year compared to $26,484 for Volusia County has a whole. This concludes our economic analysis for Blue Spring.

In the last chapter of this report, we shall compare and contrast the economic contribution of the four springs considered in Chapters 2-5. This will give us a composite of all four parks and form, if we assume these springs are reasonably representative of all springs in Florida, a general idea of the average economic contribution visitors to a springs-based park have upon rural economic development in an immediate surrounding area.

Table 5.4

Estimation of Blue Spring Visitors by Category in

Volusia County, Florida, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Spending Category

Spending

Related Employment

Related Wages

(Mil $)

(Mil $)

	Lodging

	5.67

115

1.35

	Food & Beverages(Restaurants)	0.94

24

0.25

	Food & Beverages(Groceries)	0

0

0

	Admission Fees

0.69

8

0.12

	Evening Entertainment	1.26

14

0.44

	Ground Transportation	0.34

2

0.11

	Shopping

	0.95

8

0.09

	All Other

	0.15

3

0.02

	Total

	10.00

174

2.38

	Note: Aggregate expenditures for all modes including Hotels/Motels; Friends/Families;

         Campgrounds; Condominiums plus Day Visitors to Blue Spring Park.

CHAPTER 6

A Comparison and Conclusions of

the Direct Economic Impact for

the Four Springs State Parks In This Study

Introduction

In Chapters 1-5, we have presented extensive material related to the direct economic impact of springs-based parks on the local economies in which they exist. In this final chapter, we shall summarize this information so the reader can compare the relative results for the four spring-related state parks in Florida. This sample of such parks was determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to be, in their opinion, representative of the nearly 70 percent springs-related state parks in Florida. We shall compare and contrast the estimated direct economic impact of the sample of four springs. Hopefully, this study will aid park management in evaluating the economic impact of other parks in Florida. We have also pointed out various situations that need further examination such as the static nature of attendance at Blue Spring State Park and the role of the environment (e.g., habitat for the manatee) in influencing the economic prosperity of a local area (i.e., state parks as a leading economic indicator of the development of the local economy). We also think that the Division of Recreation and Parks can use this report to better analyze how the park system serves the patrons and how much the park system adds to the local economy. Our analysis of attendance trends and seasonal behavior of attendance can be a management tool to evaluate where the parks have been, and to project future attendance so that planning may be implemented for facilities and services.

Comparison and Contrast

In Table 6.1, we have pulled together some of the prominent statistics that were developed in previous chapters. For 2002, estimated spending by visitors at the four springs-related state parks varied from nearly $23 million at Ichetucknee Springs in Suwannee County to only $10 million at Blue Spring. It is important to note that this is spending by visitors who live outside the economic area of economic impact. This kind of spending is an export industry that drives the local economy. Residents of the area not only benefit from having the park for their enjoyment, but also benefit by having visitors contribute to job creation in their area. Local resident spending is the result of this impact and not the impetus. This is true since bringing money into the local economy by selling good or providing services to tourists results in eventual multiplier effects which support income received by local residents. They, in turn, spend some of this money on attending the park. Of further interest, Table 6.1 shows that Ichetucknee Springs and Wakulla Springs have approximately the same level of spending at about $22 million and have about the same total attendance. However, Ichetucknee Springs has about one-third more estimated visitors (i.e., from outside the area) than Wakulla Springs as shown in the bottom of Table 6.1. As measured by spending per party and per person day, Wakulla Springs visitors spend much more than those visiting Ichetucknee Springs which account for the parity in overall spending between the two parks (e.g., spending per person day is $89 in Wakulla Springs compared to only $34 in Ichetucknee Springs). This is shown near the top of Table 6.1. We do not know why there is such a difference in spending. One working hypothesis may be found in the nature of the two springs-related parks. Ichetucknee Springs appeals to those desiring tubing down the river while Wakulla Springs is more “up-scale” with a grand lodge, an outstanding restaurant and glass bottom boats set against the history of being part of the Tarzan and Creature

Table 6.1

A Summary of the Direct Economic Impact of

Ichetucknee; Wakulla; Homosassa and Blue

Springs State Parks on the Local Economy, 2002

Springs

	Ichetucknee	Wakulla	Homosassa	Blue	Average Per Spring

Spending Expenditures (Mil $)	22.7

22.2	13.6	10.0	17.13

Spend Per Party Day ($)	215

409	90	61	193.75

	Spend Per Person Day ($)	34

89	25	19	45.50

Spending (Mil $)

	       Hotel & Motel

4.1

15.3	5.5	5.6	7.63

       Condos

1.5

1.8	0.1	0.9	1.08

       Friends/Family

12.3

4.3	4.3	1.2	5.53

       Campers

3.2

0.1	2.6	1.5	1.85

       Day

	1.6

0.7	1.1	0.8	1.05

Spending by Category (Mil $)

	         Lodging

1.44

4.01	3.43	5.67	3.64

         Restaurants

3.86

3.42	1.87	0.94	2.52

         Groceries

1.76

2.11	0.13	0	1.00

         Fees

4.34

1.21	4.22	0.69	2.62

         Evening Enter

2.31

2.51	2.36	1.26	2.11

         Transportation

2.95

1.47	0.32	0.34	1.27

         Shopping

3.75

3.56	1.08	0.95	2.34

         All other

2.27

3.99	0.11	0.15	1.63

Wages & Salaries (Mil $)	5.09

4.33	3.13	2.38	3.73

Employment

311

347	206	174	259.50

Other Characteristics

	        Party Size

6.4

4.6	3.6	3.3	4.48

        Length of Stay

2.7

2.1	3.3	2.6	2.68

Attendance

188,845

180,793	265,977	337,356	243,243

         Visitors

169,962

126,555	169,962	219,282	171,441

          Residents

18,883

54,238	96,015	118,074	71,802

          Percent Visitors (%)	90

70	64	65	70.48

from the Black Lagoon traditions. Homosassa and Blue Spring are at the lower end of the total spending estimates with $13.6 million and $10 million respectively in 2002. These parks are more heavily attended by visitors as shown in the bottom of Table 6.1. But, here again, the spending per visitor party and per person day is relatively low for these two parks. In our sample of parks, Blue Spring exhibited the lowest spending per visitor, which was directly responsible for its relatively low economic impact (i.e., $10 million). Another working hypothesis is that springs located in relatively rural areas (e.g., Wakulla Springs) and immersed in varied natural resources may be more appealing to more affluent visitors wishing to spend more time in the area. In urbanized areas such as Blue Spring just a short distance from Orlando and Daytona Beach may attract a vast cross-section of tourists willing to spend only a fraction of their time in this area while in Florida. If the four springs this study are representative of other springs in Florida, it would appear that visitors spend a little over $17 million at the “typical spring” as shown in the simple average column of Table 6.1. Spring visitors average about $194 per party and about $46 per person day. The reader should remember the $46 per person day since it will be compared to an ad hoc study done by Gregory (2002) discussed below.

Among the accommodation modes and day visitors in Table 6.1, spending varied greatly. For example, the simple average of spending by those visitors using hotels and motels was more than $7.6 million which was only about one-half of that spent at Wakulla Springs with the $15.3 million in spending, mostly at the lodge and restaurant we suspect (i.e., sample respondents were not asked at what hotel or motel they stayed). Overwhelmingly, most of the spending by mode was done on hotels and motels or with friends and family (i.e., 77% of the total for all modes/day visitors). This does indicate that visitors to springs use friends and family as a mode of accommodation. Even though the hotels and motels do not benefit from this group, other merchants in the area do.

In Table 6.1, we see a breakdown of spending by visitors. This varies considerably from spring to spring. Out of the eight categories, lodging, restaurants, admission fees and shopping constitute about two-thirds of all spending. Spending on these categories has a varied impact in terms of creating wages and employment. For example, restaurants are a very labor-intensive industry. This greatly contrasts with shopping where only a sales clerk is needed. The reason we mention this is that the economic impact of spending as measured by wages and employment will vary depending on how labor-intensive the pattern of spending happens to be. Also, how much is spent on each category is an important factor as well.

In terms of wages and salaries, Ichetucknee Springs generated the most wages as might be expected since spending was highest among this spring. Generally, the generation of wages was positively related to spending as the reader can see from Table 6.1. Note that employment generated by this spending from spring to spring generally followed this pattern, but more employment was generated in Wakulla Springs (i.e., 347) than in Ichetucknee (i.e., 311) due to spending pattern in the former being more labor intensive than the latter (e.g., lodging is very labor intensive with a restaurant, etc).

In general, springs exhibited visitors that had a party size of between 4-5 individuals and spending about 2-3 days as shown in the simple average column in Table 6.1.

Finally, the typical spring-related park in this study had more than 243 thousand visitors of which 172 thousand or about 70 percent of all visitors are from the outside of the area. In terms of important ratios that could be used to extrapolate to other springs, using the data in Table 6.1, there is one job created by $65,865 of spending by visitors from outside the area of economic impact. Or, $1 million in spending would create about 15.2 jobs based upon our sample of parks. Wages average about 22% of all spending. That is, $1 million in spring-related spending would create $220,000 in wages and salaries. The annual wage rate per employee in the visitor sector was be about $14,474 or $220,000 divided by 15.2. Thus, if we knew the attendance for a particular spring, all we would need to know would be what percent of the attendees are from out of the area of economic impact. A sampling of license plates in the parking lot might be a rough indicator of what percent are from outside a particular county. However, the use of such “averages” may obscure differences between springs as explained and shown below.

A Comparison with Another Study

How much have we learned from the study of these four springs? It has raised some important policy questions, but has yielded a database that could be used by the Division of Recreation and Parks, DEP. Gregory (2002) of the DEP puts out estimates of the total direct economic impact of all of the parks in the Florida system. He uses attendance, expenditures per person day and a ratio of jobs to spending. This can be compared with our very specific study of four springs to see how close Gregory’s study comes to on-site sampling. Of interest, he uses the same spending per person-day and jobs per $1 million in total spending among all parks in the system. He uses spending per person-day of $42.20 and employment generated per $1 million in spending of 20 jobs. Of great interest, with our on-site sample using just four springs in Florida, we find that the simple average of spending per person-day is $ 45.50. Spending at the $1 million level would create a little over 15 jobs. Thus, it would appear that this study comes strikingly close to those ratios used by Gregory (2002). He estimates out of area visitors represent 65% of all total park visitors, which is close to our finding of about 70%. Total spending between the two studies can be compared as follows:

Springs Study	Spending (Mil $)	Employment

Bell & Bonn (2003)

 Ichetucknee	22.7	311

	Wakulla 	22.2 	347

 	Homosassa 	13.6 	206

 	Blue 	10.0 	174

 Gregory (2003)

 	Ichetucknee 	7.4 	160

 	Wakulla 	4.9 	150

 	Homosassa 	7.3	 184

 	Blue 	9.2 	194

By looking at the statistics, it is apparent that using overall averages may miss great individual variations at any site such as spending per party; size of the party or length of stay. Given that the sampling is done properly, it is apparent that on-site studies may be more accurate since variations in parameters may be great from spring to spring (see Table 6.1). Spending numbers from the Gregory study are lower since he limited all visitors to one day in the area. The Bonn and Bell (2003) study counted all days visitors stayed in the area because of the importance the springs had upon their trip purpose.  This means that one cannot apply the average of the four springs in this study to other springs not studied in order to estimate the economic impact on an area. This is because there is too much variance in spending per party; size of the party and number of days spent in the area based upon the findings from this study. As we saw in the trend and seasonal analysis of attendance data, there is too much variation from spring to spring. Of course, each spring is so unique and has different factors that attract visitors. This completes our summary of our spring studies and the discussion of our results. We have also compared our study to the approximation used by the Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection.

References

Scott, T. M.,  P. G. #99, Means, G. H., Means, R. C., and Meegan, R. P., 2002. First Magnitude Springs of Florida – Open File Report No. 85: Florida Geological Survey.

Rosenau, J. C., Faulkner, G. L., Hendry, C. W., Jr., and Hull, R. W., 1977. Springs of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 31 Revised.

Bonn, Mark A. and Frederick W. Bell, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL THROUGH 2015 FOR THE SUWANNEE RIVER COUNTIES IN FLORIDA, Report for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida States University, College of Business and Department of Economics, November 7, 2002.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, Statistical

Abstract of Florida,  2002.

Cook, Sandy, Park Manager, Wakulla Springs State Park (Personal

Correspondence, 2003.

Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, Unpublished Monthly and Annual Park Attendance Data, 1992-2002,

Tallahassee, Florida, 2002.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Let’s Protect Blue Springs, May

2002.

Florida Atlas and Gazetteer, 2002 Delorme Six Addition, Yarmouth, Maine, 2002

Florida County Maps and Recreational Guide, Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, 1990.

Gregory, Albert, Florida State Park System Economic Impact Assessment for Fiscal Year 2001/2002, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, October 7, 2002.

Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group, Protecting the Ichetucknee,

Ichetucknee Springs, Florida, 2000.

Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Fort White, Florida, Natural Resource

Management, Restoring the “Real Florida”, 2000.

Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Fort White, Florida, Ichetucknee Springs State

Park, Fort White, Florida, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Florida’s Most Pristine Springs Fed River, 2000.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and J. M. Bowker, “Linking the Economy and

Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay – Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida Keys/Key West.” Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, NOAA and Outdoor Recreation Assessment Group, USDA-Forest Service, respectively,  October, 1997.

Linley, Tom, Park Manager, Homosassa Springs, Personal Correspondence, 2003.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Business, Washington, D.C. 1997.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Florida Springs Visitor Survey 2003

Appendix B: Ichetucknee Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix C: Wakulla Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix D: Homosassa Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix E: Blue Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix F: Springs Visitor Study Overall

Appendix A: Florida Springs Visitor Survey

Surveyor’s Initials________

Q01	Date: ______________________

Q02	Site (circle one): WS   IS    HS   VB

Q03	Gender:	1=Male	2=Female

What is your:

Q04	City: ______________________

Q05	County: ____________________

Q06	State: ______ Country: _______

Q07	Zip Code: __________________

Q08	What best describe your reason for 	today’s visit? _________________

Q09	Number of nights spent in the area during this trip: __________

Q10	Where did you stay overnight?

	1=  Locally

	2=  In another county

3=  Other (specify)___________

Q11	Accommodations Used:

	1=  No nights spent in area

	2=  Hotel/Motel

	3=  Condominium

	4=  Private Home

	5=  Other _______________

Q12	How many people are in your travel party? ________

Q13	How many in your travel party are NOT county residents? _______

Q14	Is this your first visit to this spring?  Y      N

Q15	If Y, how did you hear about this spring? _______________________

Q16	Will you come back to this spring in the near future? Y    N

Q17	If Y, Within the next 6 months?

       Y     N

Within the next year?		                               Y     N

During the past 24 hours, please indicate the amount spent by your party:

Q18	$_____   Lodging

Q19	$_____   Restaurant Meals/Beverages

Q20	$_____   Grocery/Convenience Stores

Q21	$_____   Admission Fees

Q22	$_____	  Evening Entertainment

Q23      $_____	Ground Transportation

Q24	$_____   Shopping

Q25	$_____   All Other

Q26	Please rate your visit to this spring:

	Poor     1     2   3   4    5     Excellent

Q27	Ethnicity:

	1=  Caucasian

	2=  African-American

	3=  Hispanic

	4=  Asian

	5=  Other_______________

Q28	Education:

	1=  High School Graduate

	2=  Technical School

	3=  Some College/College Graduate

4=  Post Graduate Degree

Q29	Total Household Income:

	1=Under $20,000	2=$20,000-49,999

3=$50,000-$79,999	4=$80,000+

Q30	Marital Status:

	1=Married  2=Single  3=Widowed/Divorced

Q31	How much more would you be willing to spend on the entrance fee for each visit if you knew the money would go to the maintenance and protection of this natural spring?    $________

Appendix F: Springs Visitor Study Overall 2003

	Ichetucknee	Wakulla	Homosassa	Blue	Overall

Gender (%)

	Male	41.4	56.5	36.0	38.7	43.1

Female	58.6	43.5	64.0	61.3	56.9

	Ethnicity (%)

	Caucasian	87.4	82.5	89.3	93.9	88.3

African American	1.0	3.8	2.7	2.7	2.6

Hispanic	5.3	9.1	3.3	2.4	5.0

Asian	3.3	4.6	1.4	0.0	2.3

Other	3.0	0.0	3.3	0.7	1.7

	Marital Status(%)

	Married	59.3	68.3	79.4	82.8	72.5

Single	31.8	23.5	11.0	8.5	18.6

Divorced/Widowed	8.9	8.2	1.6	1.7	5.1

	Education (%)

	College Grad.	50.9	63.9	40.1	53.3	52.1

Post Graduate	11.9	17.2	30.8	22.0	20.5

High School	25.3	8.0	3.8	5.6	10.6

Tech. School	10.9	10.9	18.1	12.1	13.0

	Income (%)

	<$20,000	10.1	6.6	2.7	3.6	5.7

$20K-$49,999	33.3	32.5	25.3	24.7	28.9

$50k-$79,999	25.2	39.1	33.8	47.7	36.5

>$80,000	20.4	21.9	20.9	13.3	19.1

	Accommodation (%)

	No Overnight	48.9	9.4	41.2	38.5	34.5

Hotel/Motel	11.8	38.2	17.0	30.3	24.4

Private Home	18.8	47.4	31.7	21.8	29.9

Campground	18.5	0.9	9.6	3.6	8.1

Condominium	2.0	4.1	0.5	5.8	3.1

	Daily Expenditures ($)

	Lodging	$13.64 	$73.88 	$22.70 	$34.59 	$41.17

Restaurant	36.56 	63.01 	12.38 	5.73 	28.50

Groceries	16.67 	38.87 	0.86 	0.00 	11.31

Fees	41.11 	21.29 	27.93 	4.21 	29.63

Eve. Entertainment	21.88 	46.24 	15.62 	7.69 	23.87

Transportation	27.94 	27.08 	2.12 	2.07 	14.36

Shopping	35.52 	65.59 	7.15 	5.80 	26.47

All Other	21.50 	73.51 	0.73 	0.92 	18.44

Total 	$214.82 	$409.47 	$89.49 	$61.01 	$193.75

 The 12 state parks that are named for springs are: 1. (Volusia) Blue Springs State Park; 2. DeLeon Springs State Park; 3. Fanning Springs State Park; 4. Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park; 5. Ichetcuknee Springs State Pak; 6. Manatee Springs State Park; 7. Peacock Springs State Park; 8. Rainbow Springs State Park; 9. Ponce de Leon Springs State Park; 10. Silver (Springs) River State Park; 11. Wakulla Springs State Park; 12. Wekiwa Springs State Park

 PAGE   ii

 PAGE   xvi

 PAGE

 PAGE   59

 PAGE   99

Ichetucknee Springs Visitors Study 2003                         Appendix B

The Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc.

Total visitors:  Sample Size = 400

Education	Total	Sex	Total	Marital Status	Total	Ethnicity	Total	Income Total

Some College/College Grad	50.9%	Male	41.4%	Married	59.3%	Caucasian	87.4% Under $20,000	10.1%

Post Graduate Degree	11.9	Female	58.6	Single	31.8	African-American	1.0 $20,000-$49,999	33.3

High School Graduate	25.3			Divorced/Widowed	8.9	Hispanic	5.3 $50,000-$74,999	25.2

Technical School	10.9					Asian	3.3	$75,000 or More	20.4

No Answer	0.5					Other	3.0	No Answer	10.9

Top Visitor Origins (Top 5)

Jacksonville	21.8%

Gainesville	13.4

Tallahassee	4.8

Valdosta	3.0

Lake City	2.6

	Expenditures	Avg. Nights	Avg. 	# In Party	              Likely To Return:	Will Not	Is This

Date	Per Party	Spent	Party Size	Not Resident	Next Year	6 Mos.	2 Years Return	Your First Visit?

04/02-07/02	$214.81	2.7	6.4	N/A	26.9%	55.6%	17.5	7.3%	N/A

Accommodations Used 	Total

No Overnight Stay	48.9%

Private Home	18.8

Campground	18.5

Hotel/Motel	11.8

Condominium	2.0

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type 	Total

Admission Fees	$41.10

Restaurants	36.56

Shopping	35.52

Ground Transportation	27.95

Evening Entertainment	21.88

Other Items	21.50

Groceries	16.67

Lodging	13.64

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure	$214.81

How Heard About Ichetucknee Spring	Total

Family/Friends	68.5%

Brochure/Newspaper	15.4

In Area	5.6

Other	4.8

Repeat Visitor	2.7

Internet	1.6

Travel Agent	1.4

Main Purpose For Visit

Leisure Vacation	85.6%

Friends/Family	7.9

Other	5.0

Attend Meetings	1.0

Business	0.5

Where Stayed Overnight	Total

Locally	51.1%

No Overnight Stay	48.9

Wakulla Springs Visitors Study 2003                            Appendix C

The Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc.

Total visitors:  Sample Size = 400

Education	Total	Sex	Total	Marital Status	Total	Ethnicity	Total	Income Total

Some College/College Grad	63.9%	Male	56.5%	Married	68.3%	Caucasian	82.5% Under $20,000	6.6%

Post Graduate Degree	17.2	Female	43.5	Single	23.5	African-American	3.8 $20,000-$49,999	32.5

High School Graduate	8.0			Divorced/Widowed	8.2	Hispanic	9.1 $50,000-$79,999	39.1

Technical School	10.9					Asian	4.6	$80,000 or More	21.9

Top Visitor Origins (Top 5)

Tallahassee	17.0%

Panama City	6.0

Orlando	4.2

Tampa	3.7

Jacksonville	3.5

	Expenditures	Avg. Nights	Avg. 	# In Party	              Likely To Return:	Will Not	Is This

Date	Per Party	Spent	Party Size	Not Resident	Next Year	6 Mos.	Don’t Know	Return	Your First Visit?

09/02-03/03	$409.47	2.0	4.3	3.4	85.0%	74.2%	N/A	13.3%	Yes  47.2%    No  52.8%

Accommodations Used 	Total

Private Home	47.4%

Hotel/Motel	38.2

No Overnight Stay	9.4

Condominium	4.1

Campground	0.9

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type 	Total

Lodging	$73.88

Other Items	73.51

Shopping	65.59

Restaurants	63.01

Evening Entertainment	46.24

Groceries	38.87

Ground Transportation	27.08

Admission Fees	21.29

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure	$409.47

How Heard About Wakulla Spring	Total

Family	63.8%

Brochure	17.5

Other	10.2

Travel Agent	2.8

In Area	2.3

Repeat Visitor	2.3

Internet	1.1

Main Purpose For Visit

Manatees	14.2%

Eco-Tourism	9.7

Vacation	7.9

Wedding	7.2

Homecoming	6.2

Where Stayed Overnight	Total

Another County	59.9%

Locally	31.2

No Overnight Stay	9.0

Homosassa Springs Visitors Study 2003	Appendix D

The Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc.

TotaL visitors:  Sample Size = 400

Education	Total	Sex	Total	Marital Status	Total	Ethnicity	Total	Income Total

Some College/College Grad	40.1%	Male	36.0%	Married	79.4%	Caucasian	89.3% Under $20,000	2.7%

Post Graduate Degree	30.8	Female	64.0	Single	11.0	Hispanic	3.3 $20,000-$49,999	25.3

High School Graduate	3.8			Divorced/Widowed	1.6	African-American	2.7 $50,000-$79,999	33.8

Technical School	18.1			No Answer	7.9	Other	3.3	$80,000 or More	20.9

No Answer	7.1					No Answer	1.4	No Answer	17.3

Top Visitor Origins

New York	8.0%	England	2.5

Michigan	7.1	Miami	2.2

St. Petersburg	4.7	Orlando	2.2

New jersey	3.8	Sarasota	2.2

Illinois	3.8	Lakeland	2.2

Canada	3.6	Tennessee	2.2

Pasco	3.0	California	2.2

New Hampshire	3.0	Indiana	1.9

Virginia	2.7	Maryland	1.9

Jacksonville	2.5	Kentucky	1.9

Chiefland	2.5	South Carolina	1.6

Pennsylvania	2.5

	Expenditures	Avg. Nights	Avg. 	# In Party	              Likely To Return:	Will Not	Is This

Date	Per Party	Spent	Party Size	Not Resident	Next Year	6 Mos.	Don’t Know	Return	Your First Visit?

Jan-Feb 2003	$89.47	3.1	3.7	2.9	45.0%	19.0%	9.3%	17.8%	Yes  46.4%    No  53.6%

Accommodations Used 	Total

No Overnight Stay	41.2%

Private Home	31.7

Hotel/Motel	17.0

Campground	9.6

Condominium	0.5

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type 	Total

Admission Fees	$27.93

Lodging	22.70

Evening Entertainment	15.62

Restaurants	12.38

Shopping	7.15

Ground Transportation	2.11

Other Items	0.72

Groceries	0.86

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure	$89.47

How Heard About Volusia Blue	Total

Repeat Visitor	44.2%

Family	26.6

Word of Mouth	13.2

In Area	6.0

Internet	4.4

Hotel	2.7

Brochure	2.5

No Answer	0.3

Main Purpose For Visit

Manatees	43.7%	Wild Life	3.3

Vacation	21.4	To Take Pictures	0.8

Sightseeing	17.6

Family Outing	5.5

Grandchildren	3.8

Entertaining Visitors	3.8

Where Stayed Overnight	Total

No Overnight Stay	41.2%

Locally	30.5

Another County	25.5

Other	2.7

Volusia Blue Spring Visitors Study 2003	Appendix E

The Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc.	Page   PAGE  1

Education	Total	Sex	Total	Marital Status	Total	Ethnicity	Total	Income Total

Some College/College Grad	53.3%	Male	38.7%	Married	82.8%	Caucasian	93.9% Under $20,000	3.6%

Post Graduate Degree	22.0	Female	61.3	Single	8.5	African-American	2.7 $20,000-$49,999	24.7

High School Graduate	5.6			Divorced/Widowed	1.7	Hispanic	2.4 $50,000-$79,999	47.7

Technical School	12.1			No Answer	7.0	Other	0.7	$80,000 or More	13.3

No Answer	7.0					No Answer	0.2	No Answer	10.7

Where Stayed Overnight	Total

Locally	52.1%

No Overnight Stay	38.5

Another County	6.5

Other	2.9

How Heard About Volusia Blue	Total

Repeat Visitor	44.8%

Family	20.6

Word of Mouth	10.9

Brochure	9.0

Hotel	8.5

Internet	4.4

In Area	1.9

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type 	Total

Lodging	$34.59

Evening Entertainment	7.69

Shopping	5.78

Restaurants	5.73

Admission Fees	4.21

Ground Transportation	2.07

Other Items	0.92

Groceries	0.00

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure	$61.00

Accommodations Used 	Total

No Overnight Stay	38.5%

Hotel/Motel	30.3

Private Home	21.8

Condominium	5.8

Campground	3.6

	Expenditures	Avg. Nights	Avg. 	# In Party	              Likely To Return:	Will Not	Is This

Date	Per Party	Spent	Party Size	Not Resident	Next Year	6 Mos.	Don’t Know	Return	Your First Visit?

Jan-Feb 2003	$61.00	3.7	3.2	2.6	40.4%	19.6%	9.7%	28.3%	Yes  52.3%    No  47.7%

Top Visitor Origins

Canada	5.3%	Michigan	2.4

New York	5.1	Georgia	2.4

Massachusetts	3.9	Miami	2.2

New Jersey	3.6	Texas	2.2

England	3.6	Astor	1.9

Tampa	2.9	Virginia	1.9

Jacksonville	2.7	Orlando	1.7

Illinois	2.7	Indiana	1.7

New Hampshire	2.7	Boca Raton	1.5

Missouri	2.7	Connecticut	1.5

Ohio	2.4	California	1.5

Pennsylvania	2.4

Total non RESIDENT visitors:  Sample Size = 413

Main Purpose For Visit

Manatees	65.6%	Entertaining Visitors	2.4

Vacation	11.1	To Take Pictures	1.2

Sightseeing	7.3	Grandchildren	0.5

Wild Life	7.3

Family Outing	4.6


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 23802]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10601]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ17-10-001]

City of Dover, Delaware; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 16, 2017, the City of Dover, Delaware
submitted its tariff filing: Response to Deficiency Letter dated April
3, 2017, to be effective N/A.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 6, 2017.

    Dated: May 18, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10601 Filed 5-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


3. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are base rates on the GS scale for the Washington, DC area with a 25% increase to incorporate overhead and fringe benefits.

4. Cost and burden associated with preparation of higher level EIA documentation, if necessary, is addressed in Exhibits 1B ( IEEs) and 1C ( CEEs). 44 Exhibit 1B: IEEs  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Legal Manager Technical Clerical Respondent Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: IEEs $ 250/ hr $ 76/ hr $ 65/ hr $ 39/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Environmental Documentation MODEL 1: " Core" IEE 1. Study the regulations 2. Search reference sources for existing information and compile information from company records 3. Prepare Core IEE and submit 4. Revise in response to EPA's comments and submit 3 $ 750 1 250 2 500 1 250 3 $ 228 2 152 3 228 2 152 3 $ 195 12 780 85 5525 35 2275 0 $ 000 0 000 5 195 3 117 9 15 95 41 _____

160 $ 1,173 1,182 6,448 2,794 ________

$ 11,597 None Copying $ 200 Mailing 54 _____________

$ 254 See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 11,597 254 __________

$ 11,851 Environmental Documentation MODEL 2: " Revised" IEE 1. Study the regulations 2. Search reference sources for existing information and compile information from company records 3. Prepare Revised IEE and submit 4. Revise in response to EPA's comments and submit 0 $ 000 0 000 1 250 0 000 0 $ 000 0 000 1 76 .5 38 2 $ 130 5 325 20 1300 8 520 0 $ 000 0 000 2 78 .5 20 2 5 24 9 _____

40 $ 130 325 1,704 578 ________

$ 2,737 None Copying $ 200 Mailing 54 _____________

$ 254 See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 2,737 254 __________

$ 2,991 Supplemental Information 1. Prepare and submit supplemental information 0 $ 000 .5 $ 33 4 $ 260 .5 $ 20 5 $ 318 None Copying $ 5 Mailing 12 ___________

$ 17 See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 318 17 __________

$ 335 45 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Prepare A/ V information and submit 1 $ 250 2 $ 152 15 $ 975 2 $ 78 20 ______

20 $ 1,455 ________

$ 1,455 None Copying $ 13 Mailing 17 ____________

$ 30 See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 1,455 30 _______

$ 1,485 Assumptions:

1. IEEs would need to comply with the Final Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.7, initial environmental evaluation.

2. A " Core" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for the initial preparation of an IEE by an operator.

3. A " Revised" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for a current year's submittal developed through revision of a previous year's submittal.

4. A " Multi Year" IEE consists of a " Revised" IEE and the associated supplemental information in the initial year and, for each of the subsequent four years, an annual submission of the advance notice and confirmation that the information provided in the Multi Year IEE is unchanged.

5. Supplemental information for purposes of the costs estimated in Exhibit 1B and Table 1 refers to supplemental information submitted regarding the specifics of the tours/ expedition ( e. g., dates, number of tours, etc.) rather than supplemental information of a more technical nature that is incorporated into the " Core" or " Revised" IEE by reference.

6. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are base rates on the GS scale for the Washington, DC area with a 25% increase to incorporate overhead and fringe benefits. 46 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 1. IEEs  TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN AND COST FOR THE THREE IEE MODELS, 3.5% ESCALATION RATE " Core" IEE for One Operator and One IEE " SUBSEQUENT Multi Year" IEE for 17 Operators  COST INITIAL YEAR:

Core IEE $ 11,851/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 11,851 Supp. Info. 335/ operator x 1 op = 335 Supp. Info. 335/ operator x 17 ops = 5,695 A/ V Info. 1,485/ operator x 1 op = 1,485 A/ V Info. 1,485/ operator x 17 ops = 25,245 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 13,671 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 17 operators = $ 30,940 =

$ 1,820/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 13,671) = $ 14,149 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on 30,940) = $ 32,023 =

$ 1,884/ operator YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 14,149) = $ 14,644 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% of $ 32,023) = $ 33,144 = $ 1,950/ operator TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YRS = $ 42,464 AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OP = $ 14,155 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = $ 96,107 AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = $ 5,653 AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = $ 1,884 = $ 1,884/ operator " Revised" IEE for One Operator and One IEE " SUBSEQUENT Multi Year" IEE for 17 Operators  BURDEN Revised IEE $ 2,991/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 2,991 INITIAL YEAR:

Supp. Info. 335/ operator x 1 op = 335 A/ V Info. 1,485/ operator x 1 op = 1,485 Supp. Info. 5 hrs/ operator x 17 ops = 85 hours YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 4,811 A/ V Info. 20 hrs/ operator x 17 ops = 340 hours YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 17 operators = 425 hours = 25 hours/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 4,811) = $ 4,979 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 4,979) = $ 5,153 YEAR TWO ( 85 hrs + 340 hrs) = 425 hours = 25 hours/ operator YEAR THREE ( 85 hrs + 340 hrs) = 425 hours = 25 hours/ operator TOTAL MAX. OVER THREE YEARS = $ 14,943 AVERAGE MAX. PER YR PER OP = $ 4,981 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = 1,275 hours AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = 75 hours AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = 25 hours = 25 hours/ operator ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 47 Exhibit 1C: CEEs  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Legal Manager Technical Clerical Respondent Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: CEEs $ 250/ hr $ 76/ hr $ 65/ hr $ 39/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Environmental Documentation 1. Study the regulations 2. Search reference sources for existing information and compile information from company records 3. Prepare CEE and submit 4. Revise in response to EPA's comments and submit 3 $ 750 1 250 3 750 2 500 3 $ 228 2 152 5 380 5 380 3 $ 195 25 1,625 127 8,255 46 2,990 0 $ 000 0 000 10 390 5 195 9 28 145 58 _____

240 $ 1,173 2,027 9,775 4,065 _________

$ 17,040 None Copying $ 300 Mailing 64 ___________

$ 364 1 240 $ 17,040 364 __________

$ 17,404 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Prepare A/ V information and submit 2 $ 500 5 $ 380 50 $ 3,250 3 $ 117 60 ______

60 $ 4,247 ________

$ 4,247 None Copying $ 25 Mailing 17 _____________

$ 42 1 60 $ 4,247 42 __________

$ 4,289 TOTALS 300 $ 21,693 YEAR ONE 300 $ 21,693 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 21,693) 300 22,452 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 22,452) 300 23,238 TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN and COST: 900 $ 67,383 AVERAGE EST. BURDEN and COST PER YEAR PER OPERATOR: 300 $ 22,461 Assumptions:

1. Exhibit 1C represents the estimated burden and cost for CEEs. In fact, no CEEs were submitted during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect. For purposes of estimating the potential maximum burden and cost estimate associated with CEEs over the three year life of the ICR, the three year projection assumes submittal of one CEE per year for each of the next three years. Although one respondent per year is estimated for purposes of the cost calculations, EPA anticipates that the actual number of nongovernmental expeditions with activities that will likely proceed with less than minor or transitory impacts may well be reduced to less than one respondent per year.

2. Estimates for preparation of a CEE are based on estimated time that would be needed to comply with the Final Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.8, comprehensive environmental evaluation.

3. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are base rates on the GS scale for the Washington, DC area with a 25% increase to incorporate overhead and fringe benefits. 48 1D. REPORTING FOR EMERGENCIES  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Legal Manager Technical Clerical Respondent Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: Emergency Reports $ 250/ hr $ 76/ hr $ 65/ hr $ 39/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Reporting for Cases of Emergency 1. Initial Report 2. Full Report 5 $ 1,250 5 1,250 5 $ 380 25 1,900 20 $ 1,300 175 11,375 2 $ 78 3 117 32 208 _______

240 $ 3,008 14,642 ________

$ 17,650 None Copying $ 150 Mailing 32 _____________

$ 182 1 240 $ 17,650 182 _________

$ 17,832 Post Emergency Assessment & Verification 1. Prepare A/ V information and submit 2 500 5 380 50 3,250 3 117 60 ______

60 $ 4,247 ________

$ 4,247 None Copying $ 25 Mailing 17 _____________

$ 42 1 60 $ 4,247 42 __________

$ 4,289 TOTAL 300 $ 22,121 There were no emergencies that required reporting during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect. An incident requiring emergency reporting could occur in the subsequent years. The following cost estimates are not additive, however, since only one such emergency in 10 years is estimated.

YEAR ONE 1 $ 22,121 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate of $ 22,121) 1 22,895 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate for $ 22,895) 1 23,696 Assumptions:

1. Reporting for Cases of Emergency is based on the Final Rule at Section 8.10, Cases of emergency, which requires notice and reporting for activities taken in cases of emergency which would have otherwise required the preparation of a CEE. The estimate is based on reporting requirements only, not the actual cost of the emergency response action. The burden and cost estimate assumes one such emergency per 10 years.

2. Only one incident requiring emergency reporting is estimated to occur over a 10 year period. In fact, there was no emergency reporting during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect.

3. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are base rates on the GS scale for the Washington, DC area with a 25% increase to incorporate overhead and fringe benefits. 49 Exhibit 2A: PERMs  ESTIMATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: PERM $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr PERMs from U. S.

Based Operators:

1. Post PERM receipt on WWW, provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review PERM and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 3. Provide copies of revised/ final PERM to interested Federal agencies,

review, and notify operator, if necessary 4. Maintain file 1 $ 52 4 260 2 130 1 52 0 $ 0 2 130 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 1 65 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 1 _______

12 $ 52 520 130 52 ________

$ 754 None Copying $ 30 FR Pub. 0 Store Files 10 _____________

$ 40 1 12 $ 754 40 ________

$ 794 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Review A/ V information

NOT REQUIRED FOR PERMs 0 $ 000 0 $ 000 0 $ 000 0 $ 000 0 _______

0/ yr $ 000 _______

$ 000/ yr None None 0 0 $ 000 TOTAL 12 $ 794 YEAR ONE 12 $ 794 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 794) 12 822 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 822) 12 851 TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN and COST: 36 $ 2,467 AVERAGE EST. BURDEN and COST PER YEAR PER OPERATOR: 12 $ 822 Assumptions:

1. Exhibit 2A represents the estimated burden and cost for PERMs. In fact, during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect, only one PERM was submitted as the final documentation for an expedition.

For purposes of estimating the potential maximum burden and cost estimate associated with PERMs over the three year life of the ICR, the three year projection assumes submittal of one PERM per year for each of the next three years. Although one respondent per year is estimated for purposes of the cost calculations, EPA anticipates that the actual number of nongovernmental expeditions with activities that will likely proceed with less than minor or transitory impacts may well be reduced to less than one respondent per year.

2. Estimates for review of a PERM is estimated as 25% of the respondent's time, or 10 hours, to prepare a PERM that would be in compliance with the Final Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents,

generally, and Section 8.6, preliminary environmental review, and two hours for administrative activities.

3. Cost and burden associated with preparation of higher level EIA documentation, if necessary, is addressed in Exhibits 2B ( IEEs) and 2C ( CEEs). 50 Exhibit 2B: IEEs  ESTIMATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: IEE $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Environmental Documentation MODEL 1: " Core" IEE 1. Post IEE receipt on WWW,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review IEE and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 3. Provide copies of revised/ final IEE to interested Federal agencies, review , and notify operator, if necessary 4. Maintain file .5 $ 26 24 1,560 10 650 1.5 78 0 $ 0 29 1,885 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 12 780 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 4 260 0 0 0 0 0.5 69 10 1.5 _______

81 $ 26 4,485 650 78 ________

$ 5,239 None Copying $ 261 File Storage 10* _____________

$ 271 * Includes A/ V Information See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 5,239 271 __________

$ 5,510 Environmental Documentation MODEL 2: " Revised" IEE 1. Post IEE receipt on WWW,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review IEE and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 3. Provide copies of revised/ final IEE to interested Federal agencies, review, and notify operator, if necessary 4. Maintain file .5 $ 26 16 1,040 2 130 1.5 78 0 $ 0 15 975 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 6 390 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 37 2 1.5 _____

41 $ 26 2,405 130 78 ________

$ 2,639 None Copying $ 261 Store Files 10*

___________

$ 271 * Includes A/ V Information See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 2,639 271 __________

$ 2,910 Supplemental Information 1. Review supplemental information 1 $ 65 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1 $ 65 None Included in Cases 1 and 2,

above See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 65 51 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Review A/ V information 7 $ 455 5 $ 325 2 $ 130 1 $ 65 15 $ 975 None Copying $ 15 File Storage * ____________

$ 15 * Included in Cases 1 & 2 above See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 975 15 _________

$ 990 Assumptions:

1. IEEs would need to comply with the Final Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.7, initial environmental evaluation.

2. A " Core" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for the initial submittal of an IEE by an operator.

3. A " Revised" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for a current year's submittal developed through revision of a previous year's submittal.

4. A " Multi Year" IEE consists of a " Revised" IEE and the associated supplemental information in the initial year and, for each of the subsequent four years, an annual submission of the advance notice and confirmation that the information provided in the Multi Year IEE is unchanged.

5. Supplemental information for purposes of the costs estimated in Exhibit 2B and Table 2 refers to supplemental information submitted regarding the specifics of the tours/ expedition ( e. g., dates, number of tours, etc.) rather than supplemental information of a more technical nature that is incorporated into the " Core" or " Revised" IEE by reference. The one hour for review of the supplemental information is assigned to EPA to simplify the model and calculations. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2. IEEs  TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN AND COST FOR THE THREE IEE MODELS, 3.5% ESCALATION RATE " Core" IEE for One Operator and One IEE " Multi Year" IEE for 13 Operators and 4 IEEs  COST INITIAL YEAR:

Core IEE $ 5,510/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 5,510 Supp. Info. 65/ operator x 1 op = 65 Supp. Info. 65/ operator x 17 ops = 1,105 A/ V Info. 990/ operator x 1 op = 990 A/ V Info. 990/ operator x 17 ops = 16,830 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 6,565 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 17 operators = $ 17,935 =

$ 1,055/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 6,565) = $ 6,795 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% of $ 1,105 + 16,830 = $ 17,935) = $ 18,563 = $ 1,092/ operator YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 6,795) = $ 7,033 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% of $ 18,563) = $ 19,213 = $ 1,131/ operator TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YRS = $ 20,393 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = $ 55,711 AVERAGE MAX PER YEAR PER OP = $ 6,798 AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = $ 3,277 AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = $ 1,092 = $ 1,092/ operator " Revised" IEE for One Operator and One IEE Revised IEE $ 2,910/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 2,910 " Multi Year" IEE for 17 Operators  BURDEN Supp. Info. 65/ operator x 1 op = 65 INITIAL YEAR:

A/ V Info. 990/ operator x 1 op = 990 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 3,965 Supp. Info. 1 hrs/ operator x 17 ops = 17 hours A/ V Info. 15 hrs/ operator x 17 ops = 255 hours 52 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 17 operators = 272 hours = 16 hours/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 3,965) = $ 4,104 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 4,104) = $ 4,248 YEAR TWO ( 17 hrs + 255 hrs) = 272 hours = 16 hours/ operator YEAR THREE ( 17 hrs + 255 hrs) = 272 hours = 16hours/ operator TOTAL MAX OVER THREE YEARS = $ 12,317 AVERAGE MAX PER YR PER OP = $ 4,106 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = 816 hours AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = 48 hours AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = 16 hours = 16 hours/ operator ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 53 Exhibit 2C: CEEs  ESTIMATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: CEE $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr CEEs from U. S. Based Operators:

1. Post CEE receipt on WWW,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Prepare/ publish FR notices for receipt of draft CEE and NOA for final CEE; copy and transmit final CEE to Parties 3. Review draft CEE and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 4. Provide copies of revised/ final CEE to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested, and to Parties,

review, and notify operator, if necessary 5. Maintain file 2 $ 104 1 52 40 2,600 5 325 2 104 2 104 0 $ 0 0 0 36 2,340 5 325 0 0 0 $ 0 5 260 14 910 3 195 3 156 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 16 1,040 1 65 0 0 2 6 106 14 5 2 _______

135 $ 104 312 6,890 910 260 104 ________

8,580 None Copying $ 1710 FR Pub. 310 Store Files 10*

_____________

$ 2030*

* Includes CEE and A/ V Information 1 135 $ 8,580 2,030 ________

$ 10,610 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Review A/ V information 14 $ 910 9 $ 585 4 $ 260 3 $ 195 3 0 _______

3 0/ yr $ 1,950 _________

$ 1,950/ yr None Copying $ 30 FR Pub. 0 Store Files * _____________

$ 30 * Included above 1 30 $ 1,950 30 ________

$ 1,980 TOTALS 165 $ 12,590 YEAR ONE 165 $ 12,590 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 12,590) 165 $ 13,031 YEAR THREE ( 35% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 13,031) 165 $ 13,487 TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN and COST: 495 $ 39,108 AVERAGE EST. BURDEN and COST PER YEAR PER OPERATOR: 165 $ 13,036 Assumptions:

1. Exhibit 2C represents the estimated burden and cost for CEEs. In fact, no CEEs were submitted during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect. For purposes of estimating the potential maximum burden and cost estimate associated with CEEs over the three year life of the ICR, the three year projection assumes submittal of one CEE per year for each of the next three years. Although one respondent per year is estimated for purposes of the cost calculations, EPA anticipates that the actual number of nongovernmental expeditions with activities that will likely proceed with less than minor or transitory impacts may well be reduced to 54 less than one respondent per year.

2. Estimates for review of a CEE is estimated as 50% of the respondent's time, or 120 hours, to prepare a CEE that would be in compliance with the Final Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents,

generally, and Section 8.8, comprehensive environmental evaluation, with an additional 15 hours for administrative activities, and 50% of respondent's time for assessment and verification procedures for review of the information.

3. EPA would publish Federal Register notices for domestic CEEs, and the Department of State would publish the Federal Register notice and circulate copies of CEEs to all Parties and others that may request copies. 55 Exhibit 2D: Reporting for Emergencies  Estimated Federal Government Burden and Cost EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: CEE $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Reporting for Cases of Emergency 1. Notify Parties 2. Provide initial and full report to interested Federal agencies and review 3. Provide full report to Parties 4. Review A/ V information 5. Maintain files 0 $ 0 25 1,625 0 0 10 650 1 52 0 $ 0 25 1,625 0 0 10 650 0 0 25 $ 1,625 14 910 15 975 4 260 4 208 0 $ 0 26 1,690 0 0 6 390 0 0 25 90 15 30 5 _______

165 $ 1,625 5,850 975 1,950 260 ________

$ 10,660 None Copying $ 1740 FR Pub. 0 Store Files 10 _____________

$ 1750 1 165 $ 10,660 1,750 ________

$ 12,410 TOTAL 165 $ 12,410 YEAR ONE 165 $ 12,410 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate of $ 12,410) 165 12,845 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate for $ 12,845) 165 13,295 Assumptions:

1. Reporting for Cases of Emergency is based on the Final Rule at Section 8.10, Cases of emergency, which would require notice and reporting for activities taken in cases of emergency which would have otherwise required the preparation of a CEE. The estimate is based on reporting requirements only, not the actual cost of the emergency response action. The burden and cost estimate assumes one such emergency per 10 years.

2. Only one incident requiring emergency reporting is estimated to occur over a 10 year period. In fact, there was no emergency reporting during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect. An incident requiring emergency reporting could occur in the subsequent years. The cost estimates for reporting for cases of emergency are not additive because only one such emergency in 10 years is estimated.

3. Estimates for review of an Emergency Report is estimated as 50% of the respondent's time to prepare the Emergency Report that would be in compliance with the Final Rule at Section 8.10, or 120 hours, and 50% of respondent's time for assessment and verification procedures for review of the information, or 30 hours, with an additional 15 hours for administrative activities.

3. The Department of State is responsible for notification of Parties and follow up coordination with the Parties; hours have been allocated to the DOS accordingly. 56 Exhibit 2E: Coordinating Review of Information Received from Other Parties  Estimated Federal Government Burden and Cost EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: Other Party Docs. $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr $ 65 or 52/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Coordinate Review of Information Received from Other Parties 1. Prepare and publish FR notice of receipt of draft CEE,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review draft CEE and provide inter agency response to Party 3. Provide copies of other documents ( including final CEEs, annual list of IEEs,

national procedures,

significant monitoring information) to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 4. Post receipt of significant monitoring information on WWW and provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 5. Maintain files 0 $ 0 25 1,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 25 1,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 390 26 1,690 5 325 6 390 3 156 0 $ 0 14 910 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 90 5 6 3 ______

110 $ 390 5,850 325 390 156 _________

$ 7,111 None Copying $ *

FR Pub 310 Store Files 10 ____________

$ 320 * Copying per document:

Draft CEE $ 360 Final CEE 180 Other doc. 50 IEE list 10 See: Assum. 2,

below See: Assum. 2,

below See: Assum.

2, below Assumptions:

1. The Department of State would be responsible for compliance with the Final Rule at Section 8.12, Coordination of reviews from other Parties.

2. The calculations in Exhibit 2E are based on receipt of a CEE from another Party. One Draft CEE was received from other Parties during the seven austral summer seasons the Rule has been in effect other than the annual list of IEEs. There is no way to anticipate receipt of environmental documents from the Parties, other than the annual list of IEEs, on an annual basis. There is no burden or cost to the respondents associated with receipt of documents from the Parties, therefore, the costs are not further defined. 57 Exhibit 3: SUMMARY  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT/ FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST CHART 1: Summary for Respondents and Federal Government  Estimated Total and Annual Average hourly burden and cost for each type of environmental documentation that is submitted by a Respondent under the Final Rule PERM Core IEE Revised IEE " Subsequent Multi Year" IEE CEE Emergency Reporting Respondent Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Annual Average 40 $ 3,737 40 $ 3,868 40 $ 4,004 120 $ 11,609 40 $ 3,870 185 $ 13,671 185 $ 14,149 185 $ 14,644 555 $ 42,464 185 $ 14,155 65 $ 4,811 65 $ 4,979 65 $ 5,153 195 $ 14,943 65 $ 4,981 25 $ 1,820 25 1,884 25 1,950 75 $ 5,653 25 $ 1,884 300 $ 21,693 300 $ 22,452 300 $ 23,238 900 $ 67,383 300 $ 22,461 300 $ 21,121 300 $ 22,895 300 $ 23,696 Federal Government Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Annual Average 12 $ 794 12 $ 822 12 $ 851 36 $ 2,467 12 $ 822 97 $ 6,565 97 $ 6,795 97 $ 7,033 291 $ 20,393 97 $ 6,798 57 $ 3,965 57 $ 4,104 57 $ 4,248 171 $ 12,317 57 $ 4,106 16 $ 1,055 16 $ 1,092 16 $ 1,131 48 $ 3,277 16 $ 1,092 165 $ 12,590 165 $ 13,031 165 $ 13,487 495 $ 39,108 165 $ 13,036 165 $ 12,410 165 $ 12,845 165 $ 13,295 TOTAL Annual Average 156 $ 14,076 52 $ 4,692 846 $ 62,857 282 $ 20,953 366 $ 27,260 122 $ 9,087 123 $ 8,930 41 $ 2,977 1395 $ 106,491 465 $ 35,497 CHART 2: Summary for Respondents and Federal Government  Estimated Total and Annual Average hourly burden and costs based on the anticipated level and type of environmental documentation most respondents submit under the Final Rule Multi Year IEE Total Hourly Burden 3 Year Total Annual Average Total Cost 3 Year Total Annual Average Respondent ( 17 of 22 operators) 1,275 hours 25 hrs per op per year $ 96,107 $ 1,884 per op per year Federal Government 816 hours 16 hrs per op per year $ 55,711 $ 1,092 per op per year TOTALS 2,091 hours 41 hrs per op per year $ 151,818 $ 2,976 per op per year NOTES: 1. Average Annual is the average per year per respondent 2. Chart presents the maximum burden and cost for a respondent. Chart 2 presents the maximum burden and cost based on the anticipated level and type of environmental documentation a respondent would likely submit under the Final Rule. 58 3. The burden and cost estimates for Emergency Reporting assume one such emergency per 10 years. B 1 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT STATISTICAL SURVEY This collection of information does not use or is otherwise based on a statistical survey. C 1 PART C OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ICR


[Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 29131-29132]
[DOCID:fr20my08-47]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12615-001]

Alaska Power & Telephone Company; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of the Alternative Licensing Procedures

May 13, 2008.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the
Alternative Licensing Procedures.
    b. Project No.: 12615-001.
    c. Dated Filed: March 10, 2008.
    d. Submitted by: Alaska Power & Telephone Company.
    e. Name of Project: Soule River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Soule River, a tributary to the Portland Canal,
approximately 9 miles south of Hyder, Alaska. The project would occupy
1,112 acres of United States lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Glen D. Martin, Project Manager, Alaska Power
& Telephone Company, 193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA

98368;<PHONE_NUMBER> extension 122; e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Alaska Power & Telephone Company filed its request to use the
Alternative Licensing Procedures on March 10, 2008. Alaska Power &
Telephone Company provided public notice of its request on March 7,
2008. In a letter dated May 5, 2008, the Director, Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Alaska Power & Telephone Company's
request to use the Alternative Licensing Procedures.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR section 600.920;
and (c) the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Alaska Power & Telephone
Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
    m. Alaska Power & Telephone Company filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11202 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P