[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
DOCUMENTING THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF TAMPA BAY FINAL REPORT March 1986 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 (813) 577-5151 HT 393 .F6 D7 1986 TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 1986 Chairman Commissioner Westwood H. Fletcher, Jr. Vice Chairman Councilman William D. Vannatta Secretary/Treasuer Councilman Robert G. Prior CITY OF BRADENTON PASCO COUNTY Councilwoman Saundra Rahn Mr. Don Porter CITY OF CLEARWATER Commissioner Sylvia Young Commissioner James L. Berfield PINELLAS COUNTY Mr. Conrad Banspach, Jr. CITY OF DADE CITY Ms. Elizabeth B. Frierson Commissioner Charles A. McIntosh, Jr. Commissioner George Greer Mr. David H. Knowlton CITY OF DUNEDIN Reverend Preston Leonard Commissioner Donald Shaffer CITY OF PINELLAS PARK CITY OF GULFPORT Councilman William D. Vannatta CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Mayor Alton Dettmer Mr. Alexander S. Byrne Mr. Joe McFarland, Jr. CITY OF SARASOTA Mr. James Stewart Commissioner Rita Roehr Mr. Robert W. Saunders, Sr. Commissioner Pickens C. Talley CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG Councilman Robert B. Stewart CITY OF LARGO Mayor George C. McGough CITY OF ST, PETERSBURG BEACH Commissioner Bruno Falkenstein MANATEE COUNTY Commissioner Westwood H. Fletcher, Jr. CITY OF TAMPA Ms. Patricia M. Glass Councilman Thomas W. Vann CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS Councilman Robert G. Prior Commissioner Anthony C. Samarkos CITY OF OLDSMAR CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE Mayor Grace F. Williams Councilman John M. King CITY OF PALMETTO Mayor W.D. Bell DOCUMENTING THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF TAMPA BAY A Report to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and Agency on Bay Management Financial assistance for this study was provided by a Coastal Management Grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard, Suite 219 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (813) 577-5151 US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents i List of Figures iii List of Tables iv Executive Summary 1 CHAPTER 1 A. Introduction 5 B. History of Tampa Bay Management Study Commission 6 C. Planning Process 9 D. Development of the Issue 15 E. Footnotes 17 CHAPTER 2 A. Literature Review 19 B. Study Area 20 C. Population Analysis 22 D. Footnotes 25 CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A. The Shaping of the Tampa Bay Region's Economic Base 27 B. Economic Impact Analysis 31 C. Economic Base Models - General 32 D. Location Quotients 33 E. The Multiplier Concept 35 F. Employment Multiplier 36 G. Study Area Economic Base Model 36 H. Discussion 37 I. Footnotes 39 CHAPTER 4 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO SHIPPING AND WATER-BORNE COMMERCE A. Port of Tampa 41 B. Booz, Allen & Hamilton Report 41 C. Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa 42 D. Net Benefit of the Port of Tampa 42 E. Footnotes 47 CHAPTER 5 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO SANITARY AND ELECTRIC SERVICES A. Introduction 49 B. Wastewater Disposal 49 C. Power Plant Sitings 74 D. Footnotes 88 CHAPTER 0 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO COMMERCIAL FISHING A. Introduction 89 B. Florida West Coast Volume and Value of Landings 89 C. Tampa Bay Region Volume and Value of Landings 92 D. Species Landings and Values in the Tampa Bay Region, 1979 - 1984 99 i Page CHAPTER 7 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS A. Introduction 107 B. Methodology 107 C. Results 113 D. Discussion 113 E. Footnotes 117 CHAPTER 8 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO WATER-ORIENTED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES A. Introduction 119 B. Recreation Survey 119 C. Recreational Boating 123 D. Resident and Tourist Water-related Recreational Demands 126 E. Summary 126 F. Footnotes 131 CHAPTER 9 ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OF TAMPA BAY A. Introduction 132 B. Water Quality "Independent" Uses of Tampa Bay 135 C. Water Quality "Dependent" Uses of Tampa Bay 138 D. Summary 139 E. Footnotes 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY 141 APPENDICES A. Study Area Economic Base Model A- 1 B. Summary of Study Area SICs by Major Group B-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Political Boundaries Within the Tampa Bay Region .................. 7 1-1 Management Boundaries of Tampa Bay Proper.... ... 11 1-3 Official Subdivision of Tampa Bay Proper .......................... 12 2-1 Study Area: Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay ..... 21 2-2 Tampa Bay Economic Study Target Area Zip Codes .................... 23 3-1 Location Quotient Formula ......................................... 34 3-2 Export Employment Formula .......................................... 36 5-1 Hillsborough County Wastewater Treatment Service Districts., ...... 52 5-2 Preliminary Location Plan Alternate S-1, Spray Irrigation (Secondary Treatment) ........................................ o .... 56 5-3 Preliminary Location Plan Alternate S-2, Gulf Outfall (Secondary Treatment), ......... o ................ o ................. 57 5-4 Preliminary Location Plan Alternate S-3, Deep Well Injection (Secondary Treatment-Filtered Effluent) ...................... o .... 58 5-5 Selected Plan., .................. o.............................. o. 59 5-6 Relative Location Channel A .... oo ........ o....o ........o.......... 62 5-7 Pinellas County 201 Planning Areas ....... oo ................ oo .... 66 5-8 North Pinellas County, EIS Study Area ............. o ............... 68 5-9 Power Plant Facilities-,__...._* - ......................... 75 5-10 Service Area, Tampa Electric Company ........... o......o........... 76 7-1 Study Variables... o .............................................. o 108 7-2 Southern Pinellas County Communities Surveyed ..... o.o ............. 110 7-3 Survey Questionnaire ....... oo ............... o .......... o.......... ill 7-4 Survey Letter ........................ o .................. o- .... o. 112 7-5 1984 Mean and Median Sale Price ...................... o............. 114 7-6 Value of Water View and Benefits Provided by Tampa Bay ............ 115 8-1 Tampa Bay Recreation Study Survey Sites ..... o....... o ............. 120 8-2 Recreation Study Survey Questionnaire .... o..... o_ .....o ........ o 121 8-3 Recreation Study Survey * 122 8-4 Relative Location of Tampa Bay Region Marinas., .......o........... 125 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 List of Major Concerns and Management Issues Identified by the Subcommittees ................................................. 13 1-2 Tampa Bay Study'Committee Numerical Priority List ................. 14 2-1 Population - Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties .......... 24 4-1 Estimated Total Tonnage Handled at the Port of Tampa During FY 1978 and FY 1984 ........................................ 43 4-2 Direct Primary Impact of the Port of Tampa by Major Commodity Group 1978 and 1984 ............................................... 44 4-3 Indirect Transportation Impact Associated with the Port of Tampa.. 46 5-1 Secondary Treatment Alternatives and Disposal Options ............. 54 5-2 Advanced Waste Treatment Alternative .............................. 55 5-3 Summary of County-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Hills- borough County, Florida (Northwest Area) .......................... 61 5-4 Pinellas County 201 Plan Recommendations .......................... 69 5-5 Wastewater Disposal Alternatives.... __ ......................... 73 5-6 Comparison of the Major Environmental Impacts of the Principal Al- ternatives for Waste-Heat Rejection ............................... 79 5-7 Costs of Using Once-Through Cooling With Fine-Mesh Screens and A Mechanical-Draft Cooling Tower at Big Bend Station .......... o..... 81 5-8 Offstream Cooling Facilities Options .............................. 84 5-9 Florida Power Transportation Costs (Projected) Residual and Dis- tillate Oil.... ............................ o ...................... 86 6-1 Boast Registered Annually in the Four-County Tampa Bay Region ..... 90 6-2 Commercial Boats Registered ....................................... 91 6-3 Florida West Coast Landings and Value of Finfish and Shellfish, 1979 - 1984 .................................................. o .... 93 6-4 Commercial Landings and Value of Finfish and Shellfish in the Tampa Bay Region, 1979 - 1984 ............... o.oo ... - ............ 94 6-5 Commercial Landings and Value of Finfish and Shellfish in Citrus - Pasco Counties, 1979 - 1984 ..................... o .... oo ... o ....... 96 6-6 Commercial Landings and Value of Finfish and Shellfish in Hills- borough County, 1979 - 1984o .... o ................. o_ ............ 97 6-7 Commercial Landings and Value of Finfish and Shellfish in Manatee County, 1979 - 1984 ............. o.oo ......o....................... 98 6-8 Commercial Landings and Value of Finfish and Shellfish in Pinellas County, 1979 - 1984oo.o.o ..... o .......................... o ........ 100 6-9 Species Landings and Values (Finfish) in the Tampa Bay Region, 1979 - 1984 ....................................................... 101 6-10 Species Landings and Values (Shellfish) in the Tampa Bay Region, 1979 - 1984 ....... o ...................... o... oo .............. o .... 103 6-11 Saltwater Products Licenses Issued, 1984 ................. o ........ 105 6-12 Tampa Bay Region Seafood Processing and Wholesaling Plants, 1984.. 106 8@1 Pleasure Boats Registered ......................................... 124 8-2 Water-related Recreational Demands ............ o .................... 127 8-3 Economic Value of Saltwater Fishing ............... o ............... 128 8-4 Economic Value of Other Recreational Activities ....... - ......... 129 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tampa Bay estuarine system is, both directly and indirectly, a vitally important economic asset to the Tampa Bay region. Directly, the presence of Tampa Bay makes possible the port facilities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Manatee County; ship building and repair firms; commercial and recreational fishing industries; and other marina facilities. Indirectly, the mere presence of the bay attracts industries and businesses, waterfront residential developments, and a myriad of related support industries, and commercial and recreational activities. There is strong evidence that the presence of Tampa Bay has contributed significantly to the rapid growth rate of the region's population and economic base over the past 50 years, and yet, the value of Tampa Bay as a natural resource and cultural amenity has never been fully documented or quantified. In 1982, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) established the Tampa Bay Management Study Committee. The Committee was charged with the task of identifying critical bay management problems and evaluating potential solutions for those problems. There were 42 issues identified by the Committee, contained in the final Tampa Bay Management Study. Issue number 17 was entitled Documenting the Economic Importance Tampa Bay. The intent of Issue 17 was to document the overall economic benefits of Tampa Bay to the region. In 1983, TBRPC established the Tampa Bay Management Steering Committee, which in turn gave rise to the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission, established by the 1984 Florida Legislature. the culmination of the Commission's efforts was a comprehensive study entitled The Future of Tampa Bay, which contained a detailed management strategy for Tampa Bay. The Commission built upon the accomplishments of the previous Study Committee, and the 42 issues identified originally were researched further. In October 1984, TBRPC obtained a Coastal Management Grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, to initiate a study with the objective of documenting the importance of the Tampa Bay estuarine system-to the economic base of the region (Issue 17), in its static, or present, condition. A summary of the economic benefits derived from various uses and attributes of Tampa Bay is as follows: Benefits of Tampa Bay to Shipping and Water-borne Commerce 0 Tampa Bay, as a body of water, provides a surface on which trans- portation can take place. It is estimated that, in 1984, shippers and cosignees that engaged in commerce on bhe bay, via the Port of Tampa, realized an annual savings in transportation related costs of approximately $281 million. Benefits of Tampa Bay to Sanitary and Electric Services � Tampa Bay serves as a receiving water body for discharges of treat- ed wastewater from municipal sewage treatment plants. As such, the following has been determined: - The costs associated with the alternatives of gulf outfall ($123.5 million), spray irrigation ($164.3 million) and deep- well injection ($1 billion), exceed the present costs associated with the advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) and discharge to Hillsborough Bay, at the City of Tampa's Hookers Point Sewage Treatment Plant. - The costs associated with the alternative of secondary treatment and spray irrigation represent an additional $14 million beyond the costs associated with the present AWT and discharge to Channel A, at Hillsborough County's River Oaks Sewage Treatment Plant. - In general terms, the cost of wastewater reuse for all seven sewage treatment plants located in north Pinellas County, repre- sents an additional $41 to $48 million beyond the costs associated with secondary treatment levels and surface water disposal. � Tampa Bay serves as a source of condensor cooling water and as a site for disposal of waste heat, from steam electric power plants located on its shores. As such, the following has been determined: - The costs of a closed-cycle cooling system represents an additional $40.5 million beyond the cost associated with the conventional once-through cooling system, presently employed at the Tampa Electric Company, Big Bend Unit IV facility. - In general terms, the costs associated with the alternatives of dilution pumps ($12.5 million), "helper" cooling towers ($22.8 million), and off-stream mechanical craft cooling towers ($50 million), exceed the cost associated with the once-through cooling system, presently employed at the Florida Power Corpora- tion, P,L, Bartow Plant, Benefits of Tampa Bay to Commercial Fishing 0 In 1984, approximately 1,952 commercial fishermen plied their trade in Hillsborough, manatee and Pinellas Counties, landing a total of 22.1 million pounds of finfish and shellfish, valued at $19.5 million. Benefits of Tampa Bay to Waterfront Property Owners 0 It was determined that the most valuable attribute or benefit, provided by Tampa Bay, to owners of single-family residential waterfront homes was the water view, followed by the ability to navigate a boat in water close to the home. 2 Benefits of Tampa Bay to Water-Oriented Recreational Activities 0 In 1984, the retail sales reported for motorboats, yachts and marine accessories in Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties, was approximately $184 million. 0 The total economic value of recreational fishing in the Tampa Bay region is estimated to be $197 million (in 1983 dollars). 0 The total annual economic value of saltwater beach activities and boat ramp use, in the Tampa Bay region, is estimated to be $23 million (in 1983 dollars). Ecological Services of Tampa Bay 0 In general terms, Tampa Bay continues to perform the various natural functions indicative of all estuaries, however, its ability to "function naturally" has been stressed by 100 solid years of competing uses. 3 CHAPTER 1 A. INTRODUCTION Tampa Bay is the largest open water estuary in the State of Florida, with over 1.6 million people living in the three counties bordering its shores.(1) This population represents a 45 percent increase since 1970. Once the state's most diverse and productive estuarine ecosystem, rapid urban and industrial development have significantly changed the character and ecology of Tampa Bay. For example, recent studies have indicated that 44 percent of the original 25,000 acres of mangrove forests and salt marshes have been destroyed, and 81 percent of the original 76,500 acres of seagrasses have disappeared. This habitat loss has resulted in declining populations of economically important fish and shellfish including a complete collapse of such fisheries as scallops and oysters, and major declines of bait shrimp, spotted seatrout and red drum. Now the second largest population center in the State of Florida, this rapid urbanization has, however, enhanced the economic bene@ fits of the Tampa Bay area in other ways both for the state, and for the nation as a whole. The Port of Tampa has become the nation's seventh largest port in terms of tonnage transported, and is the third largest U.S. port in terms of foreign exports. over six million tourists are drawn to the bay area's beaches and waters annually. Tampa Bay is a major aesthetic and recreational amenity, supporting a multitude of water dependent commercial enterprises including a burgeoning boat building industry, waterfront homes, restaurants, hotels and office buildings, an expanding complex of public and private marinas, and numerous recreational activities. Nevertheless, over the past few years it has become painfully clear to bay area municipal and county governments that the additions of homes and businesses, and accompanying people, dramatically increase the needs of local governments to provide water, new sewage treatment plants, electrical power plants and highways. Because growth and development rarely pay for themselves in the short-term, local governments will increasingly struggle to finance the needs of a surging population. The subsequent strain on the environment has been, and will continue to be, well documented in the adverse impacts on the ecology of Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay constitutes the central geographic feature most responsi- ble for, both historically and at present, shipping, industrial de- velopment, and aesthetic and recreational values that encompass the overall attractiveness of the region to population influx. However, without proper management, and the maintenance of balance between all public and private uses, Tampa Bay is threatening to become a major liability rather than the area's main asset. 5 Currently, the management of Tampa Bay is fragmented amongst a multitude of federal, state and regional regulatory agencies, as well as 17 local governments bordering the bay (see Figure 1-1). Management is accomplished through the uncoordinated implementation of various monitoring, permitting and regulatory programs. Under the existing management framework, jurisdictions are often overlap- ping, interests are often conflicting, and no one agency has over- view authority for the bay, or manages it as a holistic natural resource. As a result, the management of Tampa Bay has been both wasteful and ineffectual. For these reasons, the Tampa Bay Manage- ment Study Commission was created to examine the opportunities for, and the constraints against, developing a unified, comprehensive management strategy for Tampa Bay. B. HISTORY OF THE TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMISSION In 1968, a conference sponsored by the University of South Florida recommended that no reduction of present bay bottom area or mean bay dimensions below mean high water, and no modification of pre- sent bay bottom be allowed, except for the maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels. The group also recommended that limits to municipal wastewater discharges, as well as the estab- lishment of a baywide management committee were necessary. No actions were taken regarding the first conclusion, but a local act of the 1972 Florida Legislature, which was later repealed in 1981, did implement stringent limits on acceptable sewage treatment plant effluent discharges. In response to growing public concern about the environmental degradation of Tampa Bay, the Legislature passed a local act in 1970 creating the Tampa Bay Conservation and Development Commis- sion. This Commission was to consist of ten members composed en- tirely of local legislators and other elected officials. The Commission was empowered to undertake studies to ascertain the public interest in Tampa Bay, and to determine the effects of further dredging and filling on navigation, and fish and wildlife resources in the bay. Unfortunately, the Tampa Bay Conservation and Development Commission never convened and the act expired. In 1982 the first symposium on Tampa Bay was held at the University of South Florida. The Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Sympo- sium (BASIS) lasted four days and involved topical presentations by 50, invited speakers. major conclusions of the Symposium were that (1) Tampa Bay should be comprehended and managed, as a single ecological system; (2) the bay is remarkably resistant to environ- mental challenges; (3) a clear pattern of decline is evident in some measures of ecological condition; and, (4) the management needs of Tampa Bay are relatively clear and, if implemented in a comprehensive and baywide basis, would result in tangible improve- ments to the bay and its usefulness to people. It was further concluded that, at the present time, state and federal regulatory agencies, local governments surrounding the bay, and an array of industries and user groups generally carry out their respective activities independently. The effect of bay 6 ----------------- ;____tLE.RN!@N 92..510 Ya[y ------------ 16 ...... ....... ST: DADE CITY C S A N z LEO: 1 -4 ANTONIO.!..: ............ PORT RICHEY NEW PORT RICHEY ZEPHYRHILLS ------- 7----------- n-SLOa,22Y ---------------------------- r- -4 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY >1 Ta on ZI Ap ng!@ ud ...................... ....... Oldsmar Temple Z.A Terrace ur@- Safety ............. .... ........... arbor .......... .. ........... LE4M: ... ........... ... TA A PLANT CITY 0 Largo 0 Ic z ................. Seminole ......... .... :Pinellas'- Park . .......... It ............ T. 4. .1ETERSBURG - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------- i@A;7fFE Anne Maria Palmetto x Ho as Beach Bradenton ........... B BRADENTON Iz sac Long t - - - - - - - - - - Uxmr Ofrear ir T@- A� ....... Figure 1-1 Political boundaries within the Tarrpa Bay region. 7 ---------- management by a 'multitude of overlaping and often conflicting interests and jurisdictions had thus contributed to a number of environmental and growth management problems in the bay area. In partial recognition of these problems, BASIS organizers suggest- ed that the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) initiate a comprehensive planning study of Tampa Bay from a variety of view-' points. on may 10, 1982, a motion was passed by the Council to establish the Tampa Bay Management Study Committee. The Committee was charged with the task of identifying critical bay management problems and evaluating potential solutions for those problems. In December 1982, a grant was received from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), through the federal Coastal Zone Management program, to help support Committee activities for oneyear and to develop a management plan for Tampa Bay. The Tampa Bay Management Study Committee was composed of represen- tatives from local, regional, state and federal agencies, the academic community and commercial, industrial, recreational and environmental interests. Initially, five subcommittees were formed to specifically address ecological, industrial, institutional, economic and recreational aspects of Tampa Bay. The planning process consisted of five steps: 1) identification of the manage- ment boundary; 2) adoption of goals and objectives; 3) identifica- tion of major bay management issues; 4) development of bay manage- ment guidelines and performance standards; and, 5) identification of existing and potential implementation programs and strategies. In December, 1983, grant funds for this effort.expired and the final Tampa Bay Management Study document was published. Because of the large number and complex nature of the issues affecting Tampa Bay, the Tampa Bay Study Committee could not reach a consensus regarding a recommended strategy to direct a coordinated approach to the management of the bay. As a result, the Committee recommended, and the Council approved, the interim establishment of a 15 to 20 mem@er Tampa Bay Management Steering Committee in October 1 1983. The composition of this Committee provided for effective representation from a wide range of Tampa Bay's business, environmental and industrial interests as well as from the local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the bay. During its six-month tenure, the Steering Committee concentrated primarily on a comprehensive survey and review of all entities having management responsibility for Tampa Bay with the objective of documenting all major jurisdictional.gaps and overlaps. As a result of this effort, an existing authorities matrix was developed. Through the efforts of local legislators and key members of the Tampa Bay Management Steering Committee, a special legislative act was introduced and passed during the 1984 session of the Florida Legislature creating the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission, in recognition of the need for a more credible and structured forum within which to proceed. The Commission was to be composed of essentially the same membership as the Steering Committee, and was 8 to retain many of the members of its predecessor as an adjunct Technical Advisory Committee, The Commission was granted a one-year mandate to complete the following tasks: 1. Develop a recommended Bay Management Plan and make a formal recommendation to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 30 days prior to the 1985 session of the Florida Legislature. 2. Prepare a preliminary three-to-five year legislative work program to address priority bay management issues in conjunctionvith ongoing efforts by Congress, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, port authorities and other regulatory entities, for submittal prior to the 1985 legisla- tive session. 3. Seek new sources of funding, as @7ell as assist in coordinating existing funded efforts, to implement studies or actions addressing priority bay management issues. Such funding was not to be limited to only funding efforts of the Council, but also essential work by other public and private groups. 4. Monitor proposals falling under the review responsiblities of the Council for compliance with the recommended Bay Mangement Plan. 5. Make specific recommendations to the Council regarding bay management issues that may be identified during the lifetime of the Commission. In conjunction with these efforts, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council procurred a second FDER Coastal Zone Management grant in October, 1984 to support the activities of the Commission. During its one-year tenure, the Commission provided technical commentary and made specific recommendations to the Council, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, regarding two major bay management issues - the Tampa Bay wasteload allocation study, and the proposed deepening of the Alafia River and Big Bend navigation channels. The culmination of the Commission's efforts was a comprehensive study entitled The Future of Tampa Bay.(2) This study, represent- ing a comprehensive management strategy for Tampa Bay, was present- ed to the Florida Legislature prior to the 1985 session. C. PLANNING PROCESS During the meetings from July, 1982 to March, 1983, the various subcommittees of the Tampa Bay Management Study Committee defined a management boundary system and identified local and regional is- sues, including many site specific concerns, related to the compre- hensive management of Tampa Bay. 9 A two-fold definition was developed to delineate a proposed manage- ,ment boundary for the Tampa Bay estuarine system. It was unanimous- ly acknowledged that the Tampa Bay estuary could never be compre- hensively managed without determining and controlling the impacts of those activities occurring upstream from, or adjacent to, the estuary. The Tampa Bay estuary includes a connected group of estuaries and second order embayments; its seaward limit is arbitrarily given as a line connecting the barrier beaches of Boca Ciega Bay and Anna Maria Sound; its upstream limit is approximately at the transition of shoreline vegetation from tidal to freshwater forms; and its upland limit is that line above which terrestrial land-forms and vegetation occur. The estuary has a total area of about 398 square miles including all intertidal wetlands. Figure 1-2 depicts the defined management boundaries of Tampa Bay proper. Further, the zones of Tampa Bay proper as defined by Lewis and Whitman (3) are also recognized as the official subdivisions of the bay (see Figure 1-3). The Tampa Bay watershed includes the uplands and freshwaters contained within the combined watersheds of all rivers and tributaries which flow into Tampa Bay. The watershed has a total area of about 2200 square miles. A summary list of general environmental concerns and management issues was approved at the March 22, 1983, Committee meeting and is shown in Table 1-1. The major effort of the Committee following the preparation of this list was to further identify and focus upon specific bay management problems. Through the subcommittee meetings a total of 42 specific issues were identified.. At the August 30, 1983 Committee meeting the final issues list was approved in priority ranking, as shown in Table 1-2. The task of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission was to build upon the accomplishments of the previous committee. The 42 specific bay management issues were reviewed by two subcommittees to determine additional information or research needs and to deve- lop specific recommendations and strategies for rectifying the identified problems. The Science/Engineering Subcommittee reviewed those issues which were more technical in nature and would require particular technical expertise to recommend solutions. The Plan- ning/Management Subcommittee reviewed those issues requiring essen- tially administrative or political solutions. In the process of their reviews, the two subcommittees developed a series of issue briefs, one for each identified bay management problem, following a specific format which included the following: issue analysis; identification of relevant laws and statutes; spe- cific bay management objectives and recommendations; work elements; and long-term management alternatives. These issue briefs are contained in the final report, The Future of Tampa Bay.(4) 10 ----------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pithlachascotee, R. N Anclote R. . . . . ...... .1 . . . . . . . . . . :W N. X., eell// BERM 41 ie Wx i eerl. SO. e ellzee e.ee 11 A I Ife 11 .1.10 11 ee jol ee 11 ."eleelA. eee . . . . . . . . . . . ee I ee e 11 xer-', /e Ae If 7/ee ell If .............. //e/e/ Tampa Bay Estuary .. . .... .... Tampa Bay Watershed Figure 1-2 Management boundaries 11 of Tampa Bay proper. 821 *48' 82,'30' 82; 18- 2C 28- 0 %0 MILIES @S KILOUSTIM a 0 '0 SUBDIVISIONS OF TAMPA BAY I OLD TAMPA SAY a BOCA CIEGA BAY N 2 HILLS130ROUGH BAY 6 TERRA CEIA BAY 3 MIDDLE TAMPA BAY 7 MANATEE RIVER 4 LOWER TAMPA SAY 29 00, 0 TA.M A ST.PETERSBURG 27' 27, 45, 46' "N. 27' 2jj 30 3 Figure 1-3 Official subdivision of 02 02'15' 12 Tampa Bay proper (Lewis and Whitman,. 1982). 12 Table 1-1 List of major concerns and management issues identified by the Subcommittees. Environmental Concerns: Development and Growth Industrial, Municipal and Transportation Impacts on Tampa Bay Impacts from Changes to Tidal Creeks Declining Visual Quality Decline in Harvestable Resources Habitat Loss and Restoration Changes in Bay Circulation Lose of Resources Based Recreational Opportunities Changes to Species Composition and Community Structure (Excessive Blooms, Mass Mortalities, Reduced Diversity, etc.) Lose of Assimilative Capacity Long Term Changes in Salinity Patterns Changes in Hydrography Contamination of Life Forms Management Issues: Intergovernmental Coordination and Jurisdictional Control over Tampa Bay Public Participation and Education User Conficts and Limits on Activities Ownership of Submerged Lands Say Management Alternatives and Implementation Measures Public/Visual Access and Shoreline Recreation Facilities Funding Value of Tampa Bay for Commerce Controls on Industry Water Quality Management and Violations of Standards Wildlife Management management and Acquisition of Public Lands 13 Table 1-2 Tampa Bay Study Committ ee Numerical Priority List 1. Funding 2. Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay 3. Non-Point Source Discharges Entering Tampa Bay 4. Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands 5. Hazardous Waste Disposal and Management 6. Enforcement 7. Control of Septage Waste 8. Aquatic Preserves 9. Seagrass, Marsh and Mangrove Habitat Creation 10. Municipal and Industrial Discharges 11. Stronger State Wetlands Regulation 12. Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers 13. Wasteload Allocation for Tampa Say 14. Assessment of Fishery Stocks in Tampa Say 15. Gypsum Decommissioning, Hillsborough County 16. Commercial a Sport Fishing Regulation *17. Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Say 18. Public Education 19. Urban Waterfront Development and Public Access 20. Load Relief for Major Savage Treatment Plants 21. Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses 22. Stornwater Detention Requirements for Redevelopment 23. Review of Rules and Regulations 24. McKay Say Management Plan 25. Shellfish Classification 26. Power Plant Entrairment 27. Hendry Fill Restoration Project 28. Contingency Planning for Post-gurricane Acquisition of Habitat 29. Mitigation Banking 30. Management of Bower Tract and Adjacent Wetlands 31. Management of Passage Key 32. Management and Restoration of Shorelines in Boca Ciega Bay 33. Improvements to Bridge Facilities Crossing Tampa Bay 34. Channel A Restoration 35. Water Quality Improvements Using Tidal Gates and Pumps 36. User Conflicts and Limits on Activities 37. Marina Siting Policy 38. Construction of Now Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System 39. Extension of 49th Street (St. Petersburg) Across Tampa Bay 40. Sailboat Launching 41. Odor 42. Manatee River Derelict Train Trestle, Manatee County 14 D* DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISSUE Issue 17, entitled "Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay" was initially identified by the Tampa Bay Management Study Committee and later elaborated upon by the Study Commission. The major recommendation concerning this issue was to obtain funding to undertake a specific natural resource economic study of Tampa Bay. In October 1984, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) obtained Federal Coastal Management funds to initiate a study with the objective of documenting the importance of the Tampa Bay estua- rine system to the economic base of the region, in its static condition. With this overall objective, the following tasks were to be completed: 0 An export driven economic base model will be developed for the determined study area around Tampa Bay. Export and local service industries will be identified and export multipliers calculated, based on employment data and using primarily the location quotient approach. The economic base model will enab- le quantification of the short-run impact of various exogenous "shocks" experienced by the study area, such as an influx of new business or tourism. Using various methods of economic analysis including opportunity cost calculations, surveys and regression analysis, the net economic benefits derived from various attributes and uses of the bay will be quantified. These attributes and uses include the following: 1. aesthetic contributions - values of waterfront amenities and benefits to residents and tourists; 2. water-based recreation - swimming, fishing, boating; 3. commercial fishing; 4. shipping, water-borne commerce and transportation; 5. public and private utilities including municipal sewage treatment services and electric power generating facili- ties; and 6. ecological services. The Tampa Bay estuarine system is, both directly and indirectly, a vitally important economic asset to the numerous municipalities surrounding the bay. Examples of economic entities which are dependent upon the direct utilization of Tampa Bay include; the port facilities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Manatee County; the ship building and repair firms, and other marina facilities located around Tampa Bay; and the commercial and recreational fishing industries. Indirectly, the mere presence of the bay attracts industries and businesses as well as water-oriented residential developments, restaurants, and a myriad of related support indus- tries and commercial and recreational activities. The rapid growth 15 rate of the Tampa Bay region's population and business sector over the past 30 years suggests that, historically, the Tampa Bay estua ry has contributed significantly to the economic growth and diver- sity of the region. And yet, the value of Tampa Bay as a natural resource and cultural amenity to the overall economic base of the region has never been documented or quantified. The environmental quality of Tampa Bay is, intuitively, an impor- tant component in the decision making processes of the majority of individuals and industries considering locating and/or operating in the Tampa Bay area. The value of the estuary as a regional economic resource is, however, viewed by various industries and individuals from many different, and often conflicting, perspec- tives. For example, industries relying upon the availability of a source of water-borne transport may perceive Tampa Bay's value in the same sense that land-based industries would value railroad frontage in determining location decisions. For other firms, industries and even local governments, Tampa Bay is considered to be a convenient receptacle for the inexpensive disposal of treated industrial and urban wastes, or available waterfront space for further development. But for those industries dependent upon the harvest of living resources, or the availability of bay-oriented recreational opportunities, the value of Tampa Bay is perceived to be intimately tied to its ecological health. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) amend- ments of 1972 mandated that, wherever possible, water quality is to be suitable for the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and to provide for recreation in and on all waters by July 1983. Further, the Act required that all point source pollutant discharges are to be controlled or eliminated by 1985. Local implementation of this Act over the past decade has generally resulted in an overall improvement in the water quality of Tampa Bay. (However, no analyses have ever been attempted to document the impacts of this improvement from an economic analysis perspective on the overall economic framework of the area, or to describe available alternatives in achieving an economic/environmental balance in light of the continuing requirements of the Clean Water Act, as well as other relevant federal and state environmental legislation.) This document represents the culmination of all study efforts and analyses, aimed at addressing issue number 17, as described in The Future of Tampa Bay. 16 E. FOOTNOTES 1. Chapter 1 is condensed from a discussion of Tampa Bay and the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission, presented in The Future of Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1985. 2. Ibid. 3. Lewis, R. R. and R. E. Whitman. A New Geographic Description of the Boundries and Subdivisions of Tampa Bay, BASIS proceedings, 1982. 4. Ibid. The Future of Tampa Bay. CHAPTER 2 A. LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of the study, "Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay", is to analyze the present importance of Tampa Bay - a natural resource - to the economic base of the region, in its static condition. A survey of literature focused on locating previous studies that had successfully analyzed the economic impact of estuarine areas and net economic benefits accruing to relatively small regions. The methods outlined below, that emerged from this search, represent an effort to combine the best of analytical techniques with data that was available from other studies, and that which could be generated within the resource constraints of the present study. 1. Economic Base Model The economic base model used in the present study was chosen over the econometric and input-output models for the following reasons: it lends itself to a forecast period of one to four years; it utilizes aggregative variables such as total employ- ment and income for small regions, where exports are a signifi- cant proportion of total regional activity; and it does not require a major research budget.(1) Funding constraints prevented experimentation with alternative techniques, such as minimum requirements (2) and econometric approaches. A recent comparison of alternative methods con- cluded that the location quotient approach underestimates the gross basic activity even with data on the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) level, however, combining it with the assignment approach may be a pragmatic step in the direction of accuracy.(3) In any case, it compares favorably with using minimum requirements in the case of the present study because minimum requirements in one-half of the sunbelt cities were found lower than location quotients, reflecting insensitivity to trade and services.(4) 2. Shipping and Water-Borne Commerce The principal approach adopted here was to equate benefits to the cost savings made possible by the availability of water- borne transportation. The structure of exports and imports into the Tampa Bay ports was analyzed with a view to determin- ing the next best alternative mode of transportation for each. Alternatives considered include railroad and truck transporta- tion. Published data was utilized on the private cost of commodity shipments by the alternative modes. The principal study used here was the Economic Impact Assessment of the Port of Tampa, performed for the Tampa Port Authority and completed in 1979.(5) 19 3. Public Utilities and Municipal Sewage Treatment Services Many major (public and private) industries derive benefits from locating on Tampa Bay, rather than further inland. Ready accessibility to bay water for discharge of treated effluent from municipal sewage treatment plants, cooling water for elec- tric power generating plants and water-borne transportation are benefits studied by the alternative cost method. The principle sources of information used here are the Central Hillsborough County-Tampa 201 Facility Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Unit 4, and the Florida Power Corpo- ration Cooling Water Report for the Paul L. Bartow Plant. 4. Commercial Fishing Economic impact studies of commercial fishing in Florida and the Tampa Bay region were readily-available through the Florida Sea Grant College, University of Florida. Fish and shellfish landing trends (6), along with value and volume data (7), were updated using primarily information received from the National marine Fisheries Service (8). 5. Aesthetic Valuation The present study uses, as its base, a model of determination of residential property values developed for Pinellas County. (9) The model was expanded to apply to single-family struc- tures within the study area, with emphasis on neighborhood conditions, local public schools, travel time to the job loca- tion, water views, water quality, and recreational benefits. The benefits accruing to property owners, from these neighbor- hood and environmental amenities, are generalized for the study area as a whole, based on the number of single-family struc- tures. B. STUDY AREA The defined study area for this economic study principally includes Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties, in that Tampa Bay is bordered by all three counties. It was assumed apriori that most, if not all, of the economic impact resulting from the pre- sence of Tampa Bay would occur in the counties and municipalities that border the bay. Initially, it was decided that the study area would be defined by census tracts, with proximity to Tampa Bay, in each of the three counties. However, because the economic base model required expli- cit employment data, necessitating business and industry address locations, it was decided that the study area be defined and iden- tified by U.S. Postal Service zip code zones that have geographic proximity to Tampa Bay. A total of 65 zip code zones were selected and included the following: 28 zones in Hillsborough County; 12 zones in Manatee County; and 25 zones in Pinellas County. Figure 2-1 approximates the study area, based upon the zip code zones 20. Figure 2-1 -------- --------- f HERNAN q_.q-0V-N-[)L--- I ------------ ------- 7-j w C .......... .: 0 :ST."'i DADE CITY Ic SAN Iz A 0 LEO: .............. NT NIO PORT RICHEY N NEW PORT RICHEY ZEPHYRHILLS I ------ ----------- !LSLO E@TLY --------------------------- HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Tarpon z p Lu smar CL .............................. Temple Terrace M ui4 .... .... .......... ........... LEAR: PLANT CITY j, 0 A Lar 90 !n 10 z Seminole ................. P. Park v .. ......... ip. .................... .......... ST. .............A PETERS13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MANATEE COUNTY Anna Maria > Holm s 1 rn Be .......... Bra ent C z each Longbo K: - - - - - - - - - - .............. ASOTA- STUDY AREA "Documenting the Economic Importance 11 of Tampa Bay" 21 ------------------- shown in Figure 2-2. C. POPULATION ANALYSIS As illustrated in Table 2-1, the populations of Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties have experienced explosive growth over the past two and one-half decades. Between 1960 and 1980, Hillsborough County has had a population increase of approximately 63 percent; Manatee County 114 percent; and Pinellas County 94 percent. Based upon the projections shown in Table 2-1, between 1980 and 2000, Hillsborough County will have an additional popula- tion increase of 22 percent; Manatee County 33 percent; and Pinel- las County 25 percent. In 1980, the total population of Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties was 1,523,933. It is estimated that the 1980 population of the study area is 710,152 persons, or 47 percent of the total population of the three counties. The study area includes the City of Tampa, the county seat of Hillsborough County and the largest city located in the Tampa Bay region. Tampa serves as the legal and financial center of Florida's west coast, as well as the hub of manufacturing and distribution. Also included in the study area are the cities of Palmetto and Bradenton, the latter of which is Manatee County's largest city and also serves as the county seat. Pinellas County's largest city, St. Petersburg, is also included in the study area, as well as portions of eastern Clearwater. 22 Figure 2-2 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC STUDY TARGET AREA ZIP CODES PINELLAS HILLSBOROUGH MANATEE 33504 33570 33501 33519 33586 33505 33520 33601 33506 33557 33602 33508 33572 33603 33509 33701 33604 33510 33702 33605 33522 33703 33606 33529 33704 33607 33532 33705 33608 33561 33706 33609 33564 33707 33610 33591 33708 33611 33711 33614 33712 33615 33715 33616 33731 33619 33732 33621 33733 33629 33736 33673 33737 33674 33738 33675 33739 33677 33740 33679 33741 33680 33681 33686 33690 po 23 TABLE 2-1 POPULATION -- HILLSBOROUGH, MANATEE, AND PINELLAS COUNTIES Year Hillsborough Manatee Pinellas Totals 1960 397,788 69,168 374,785 841,741 1970 490,265 97,115 522,329 1,109,709 1980 646,960 148,442 728,531 1,523,933 Projected 1985 700,100 169,700 796,000 1,665,800 1990 752,900 189,300 859,300 1,801,500 2000 856,200 226,000 1,003,100 2,085,300 Source: 1980 U.S. Census and Population Studies Research, College of Business, University of Florida 24 D. FOOTNOTES 1. Pleeter, Saul, "Methodologies of Economic Impact Analysis: An Overview." Economic Impact Analysis: Methodology and App- lications BostC@n@M. Nijhoff, 1980. 2. Ullman, Edward L. and Michael F. Dacey, Economic Base of Amer- ican Cities; Revised Edition. University of Washington @;r_ess, 1971. 3. Isserman, Andrew M., "The Location Quotient Approach to Estimating Regional Economic Impacts." AIP Journal (January 1977) 4. ibid. 5. Economic Impact Assessment of the Port of Tampa, for the Tampa Port Authority, by the Transportation Consulting Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton. (EDA Project Number 04-06-01533, March 1979.) 6. Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida: Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas and Sarasota Counties, by Kary Mathis, James C. Cato, et.al. (Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. and Florida Sea Grant Publication 79-4, February 1979.) 7. Landings, Values, and Prices in Commercial Fisheries for the Florida West Coast, by F. J. Prochaska and J. C. Cato. (Florida Sea Grant Publication 75-003, May 1975.) 8. "Florida Landings by Districts," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 9. Hanni, Eila, "Effect of the Enforcement of Residential Land Use Ordinances on Property Values," presented at the Annual Meeting of Western Economists Association, San Francisco, CA, June 18, 1979. 25 CHAPTER 3 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A. THE SHAPING OF THE TAMPA BAY REGION'S ECONOMIC BASE Introduction Rillsborough County historian Ernest Robinson stated in 1928, "That of all Tampa's attractions to businessmen and investors, the greatest is her port; of all Hillsborough County's attractions, the greatest is her convenient available port on Tampa Bay, and that neither county nor city would have experienced the growth and prosperity which they now enjoy were Hillsborough County an inland county."(1) Robinson goes on to describe Tampa as a city made to fit an opportunity. A short review of the history of Tampa's growth and development, and that of the region surrounding it, makes clear that the Region took advantage of certain opportuni- ties. Early Settlement Tampa Bay, thought to provide the best natural harbor on the gulf coast of peninsular Florida, became the object of government atten- tion soon after the United States' acquisition of Florida in 1821. A U.S. military outpost was established at the juinction of the Hillsborough Bay and River in 1824. The Hillsborough River was one of three rivers leading into Tampa Bay which was navigable by large vessels. Settlers began moving into the area, utilizing adjacent land for agriculture and livestock. The farm and fishing village that grew up outside of the Fort Brooke mi@itary reservation became known by the Indian name of Tampa. (2) Tampa soon became the trade center for the scattered population in the area. The territory around Tampa furnished excellent pastur- age, and by the mid-1830s there was a thriving cattle industry. Shipment of cattle was one factor in the early development of Tampa's port, as cattlemen were busy supplying the Cuban market. (3) An influx of new settlers over the years also contributed to the growth and prosperity of Hillsborough County. Florida became a state in 1845 and, ten years later, Tampa became an incorporated town. Although the Tampa Bay area was still prospering toward the end of the Civil War, it was obvious that the town of Tampa lacked both railroad connections and adequate harbor channel and berthing faci- lities. (4) Fort Brooke, now a 256-square mile military reserva- tion, remained the sole reason for the town's existence. However, in 1885, after an enthusiastic Board of Trade was organized, it was 27 decided that Tampa'should develop into a great city. (5) This de- velopment of Tampa, from a faded military outpost to a productive metropolis, began with the expansion of the railroad system and solicitation of federal aid to make Tampa a viable port city. Railroads connected to active ports were desirable, as together they would lead to further growth and expansion. Cigars, Fishing and Phosphate The expansion of the railroad line into Tampa, and the port, was an indication to the rest of Florida, and the nation, that certain entrepreneurs were confident of Tampa's future. Railroad expansion provided better facilities for the transportation of citrus, cattle, cigars, fish and other agricultural products. The migration of the cigar industry into Tampa began in 1886, when Vincente Martinez Ybor transferred his facilities and workers from Key West, Florida, after many months of labor trouble. The almost immediate economic success of the cigar industry launched a chain reaction of business developments, which included the establishment of banking institutions to handle the transactions and financial arrangements of the cigar manufacturers.(6) Economic success with- in the industry also meant an increase in employment, which trig- gered land improvements, real estate development and various public works projects. Railroad expansion actually spurred Florida's and the Tampa Bay areas's fishing industry. The waters of Tampa Bay had long been fished to provide for local markets. Mullet and pompano were the most important of a wide range of food fish taken in great abun- dance from Tampa Bay. Rail transportaion and refrigeration by ice provided the means of satisfying the growing demands for fish and oysters in the northern and western areas of the U.S. A great demand for phosphate fertilizer developed in this nation around 1875. Land pebble deposAs of phosphate were discovered in the Tampa Bay area in 1885, however, no effective attempt was made to exploit the deposits until 1888. The discovery of phosphate dramatically changed the future of Tampa and its port due to its proximity to.the most productive mines and its ample and accessible harbor. The railway system which existed when the phosphate boom started enabled Tampa to draw from the mines being opened in the vicinity. In the meantime, harbor improvements begun in 1879 made Tampa accessible to vessels drawing twenty feet of water, and the stage was set for the major expansion of the phosphate trade. The development of Tampa as a major seaport perhaps got its greatest impetus with the chaos and confusion of the Spanish- American War of 1898. As the United States became involved, Tampa became a focal point, as some 30,000 troops were brought in and readied for shipment to Cuba to wage war. Tampa was a natural concentration point, primarily because it was the nearest mainland port to Cuba, having both rail and water facilities. (7) 28 St. Petersburg Agriculture remained the major industry in and around St. Peters- burg through the late 1800s. St. Petersburg became a more viable port city with the expansion of the railroad into the city and, in 1888, the construction of a railroad pier to facilitate freight loading and unloading.(8) The pier extended one-half mile into the waters of Tampa Bay, to a point where the the water was twelve-feet deep. St. Petersburg, however, never became a rival port with Tampa, for as Tampa grew as an industrial community, St. Petersburg developed into a tourist town. As transportation into and out of St. Petersburg improved through the early 1900s, tourism slowly began to have a greater influence on the local economy. The "omni- present" healthy climate attracted the tourists, and the industry slowly developed many sustaining and supporting services and trade establishments to serve both the tourists and area residents. St. Petersburg's resort atmosphere, the Tampa Bay and Gulf beaches, and available residential land gradually'attracted retirees and others to settle premanently. Early 1900s Further action came on the development of an even deeper-water port at Tampa, in 1905, when Congress appropriated funds to finance the dredging of a twenty-foot channel. This was heralded as the begin- ning of Tampa's great port development. With the completion of the deepening project, Tampa was able to take advantage of its favor- able location with regard to the islands of the Caribbean and parts of Central and South America.(9) The port improvements enabled more tonnage to be handled, and soon Tampa began to capture a large amount of foreign and intracoastal trade. So much traffic began using the port through the early 1900s, that an expansion of Tampa's port facilities was necessary soon after the completion of the original deep-water channel. During World War I, Tampa became a tremendous shipbuilding center for the U.S. military effort, turning out warships and merchant vessels to be utilized during the campaign. It was an activity that would be repeated two decades later. Prior to WWI, and beyond, there were but sketchy contacts between Tampa and St. Petersburg, even though the communities lay only twenty miles apart across the waters of Tampa Bay. Few area resi- dents were interested in a tiresome 165-mile trip by train between Tampa and St. Petersburg or an all-day round trip by boat. The construction of the Gandy Bridge during the 1920s linked Tampa to St. Petersburg and the Gulf beaches, and actually triggered St. Petersburg boom, both in the form of tourism and permanent resi- dents. On the eve of World War II, Tampa's search for a new identity and new direction came to an end as the threat of war literally changed the economic scene. Shipbuilding, troop training and defense spending, in general, provided much needed relief to a battered urban economy. The impact of thousands of soldiers during thelwar 29 years and the construction of MacDill Field, a million-dollar complex that helped maintain the nation's B-17 and B-29 Fleets, cannot be overestimated.(10) In addition, the wartime economy lured thousands of civilians to the Tampa Bay area. Employment at the Tampa shipyards reached 16,000, and the payroll soon exceeded $750,000 a week, surpassing that of the cigar industry. Post-War Development Tampa's kinetic energy, the product of local, regional and national forces, began manifesting itself in a variety of economic forms. The most important factors in the postwar Tampa economic boom included massive federal appropriations for defense and urban renewal; the development of a diversified economic base; the maintenance of a strong agribusiness sector; the emergence of the area as an important transportation and distribution center; the continuing real estate and construction booms; the maturation and promotion of a tourist/leisure sociefy; and the urban renaissance of downtown Tampa.(11) In the Spring of 1945, wit h shipbuilding winding down and the port again looking rundown and neglected, the Tampa Chamber of Commerce pushed for an entity to oversee the Port of Tampa. A local bill, proposed to the Hillsborough County legislative delegation, called for creation of a port authority. The bill required a referendum to gain voters approval in Tampa and the western end of the county. The port plan was endorsed by an overwhelming majority, and thus the Port Authority came into being.(12) one of the major projects facing the five-member Port Authority was the deepening (again) of the 45-miles of ship channels connecting Tampa's harbor with the Gulf of Mexico. Eventually, Congress came through with the money needed to dredge the channels. In addition to harbor dredging, the Federal government stimulated metropolitan Tampa Bay's growth with appropriations for highways, two interstate expressways and a new international airport. One of the most important postwar developments in the Tampa Bay area was the coming of the shrimp industry. with the discovery of new shrimp beds off- of the coast of Mexico and near the Dry Tortugas, shrimp boat operators who had previously fished off the east coast of Florida needed a large and well equipped port on the lower west coast. Tampa was chosen as the home base for a shrimp fleet which, by the end of 1952, included more than 100 boats. Shrimp boat building and repair yards, as well as shrimp processing firms, were established in response to the needs of the new indus- try.(13) Lured by omnipresent sunshine, aggressive promotion, a low tax base, and ample industrial parklands, over eight hundred new busi- nesses have located in Tampa since WWII. The 1970s brought a turnaround as new money stimulated the development of downtown Tampa; while during the 1980s, Tampa's undergoing an urban renais- 30 sance in which scarcely a week passes without the unveiling of still another skyscraper or financial tower to alter the skyline, (14) Summary The geographic location of Tampa has been an important factor in the development of the city and region. Tampa Bay, the largest bay on the Gulf coast of peninsular Florida, also provides the best natural harbor on the west coast of Florida. The groundwork for making Tampa a major seaport was completed, during the decades prior to the Spanish-American War, due in large measure to the efforts of a few individuals who developed and expanded the railroad transportation system to Tampa and its port. By tying the State of Florida to the rest of the country, the railroads broadened the scope of commercial activity in such a way and to such an extent that the seaports of Florida (Tampa included) were no longer gateways and outlets for Florida alone, but for the country at large. Tampa's sea connections with other parts of the United Statest and with other nations, have depended largely upon improvements in the channel approaches through the harbor and upon development of adequate terminal facilities. It was not until the first major harbor development project was completed in 1908, that straightened and deepened the natural shallow harbor, that Tampa's standing as the leading commercial center of the Florida west coast was signi- ficantly strengthened. Successive dredgings were necessary in order for the port to handle increasingly larger ships, while adequate terminal facilities kept pace, in order to handle the larger scale imports and exports. Tampa Bay's history intertwines with that of the railroad, the development of the port, the phos- phate industry and early twentieth century technology. B. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS There are two basic ingredients to economic impact analysis: an estimate of the exogenous or differential stimulus that serves as the direct impact, and a model of the regional economy that will produce estimates of the indirect effects.(15) (The term "indirect effects" is used here in a very general sense and includes induced effects where appropriate. The term "exogenous" refers to external influences, i.e., influences from outside the local economy or study area.) Methodological innovations, resulting from research efforts in recent years, have produced a variety of models that resist categorization.(16) Economic base multipliers are estimated with econometric techniques, input-output models are treated as econometric models, and hybrid models are constructed that may combine elements of economic base, econometric and input-output models. 31 C. ECONOMIC BASE MODELS - GENERAL As noted earlier in Chapter 2, the economic base model was chosen to be used in this study, over the alternatives of econometric and input-output models, for the following reasons: it lends itself to a forecast period of one to four years; it utilizes aggregative variables such as total employment and income for small regions, where exports are a significant proportion of total regional activity; and it does not require a major research budget. To analyze a regional or local economy it is necessary to identify its economic base. The economic base model dichotomizes economic activity in a region into export (exogenous)industries and local service (import) industries.(17) Economic models view the local economy much like a household with a single wage earner. Household income and standard of living can only increase with increases in wages earned by the head. The counterpart to the single wage earner in the economic base model is the export industry. Business and industry within the local economy that cause funds to "flow in" are considered export or exogenous industries. These are firms that sell their products to businesses and households outside the boundaries of the local economy. Tourism facilities and federal and state government are considered to be part of the export indus- try since they are responsible for money inflows. Local service industries, by contrast, sell their outputs only within the local economy.(18) without new "injections" of funds into the local economy, the economy will be stagnant, since local service industries can only respond to changes in local economic conditions. External changes that result in an increase of export activity cause increases in payroll and employment in the export industries, which are then transmitted to the local service sector. Further, the inflow of money causes activity in local services to change by a multiple of the original stimulus as the new influx of funds is spent and respent in the local economy. Re-circulation continues until the leakages in the system, like imports, savings and taxes, exhaust the amount of the initial influx. Similar, though opposite, effects occur in the case of a decrease in export activity.(19) The chosen economic base model can be characterized as a highly simplified general equilibrium model of a local economy. -It as- sumes that the economy is initially in equilibrium and describes a new equilibrium position after the exogenous change has been trans- mitted through the system. Prices, wages and technology are assum- ed constant, supply is perfectly elastic, and no changes are allow- ed for in the distribution of income or resources.(20) As a theory of regional growth, economic base models emphasize the "openness" of regional economies; that is, regional trade is considered to be the primary impetus for growth. The high degree of interrelatedness between the local economy and "the rest of the world" is based soley on a demand orientation. Exogenous changes in demand for exports determine regional income and employment changes. In reality, export sales are not the only activity that 32 responds to exogenous forces, even in the short run. omission of these other exogenous influences from the model suggests that economic base studies are appropriate primarily for smaller regional economies where exports represent a larger proportion of total regional activity.(21) The economic base model ignores the supply side of the local economy, implicitly assuming that supply is perfectly elastic. This neglect of supply does not appear to be a serious defect if the region itself is small, relative to the size of the economy. Given the degree of openness of a local economy and the migrational propensity of labor,- an elastic supply would not be an unrealistic assumption. Capacity constraints will present problems to the degree that the local infrastructure is not capable of supporting the expansion. If energy, water, transportation facilities, and land for expansion are all at full capacity prior to an increase in demand for exports, then prices would increase rather than the quantity supplied expand.(22) D. LOCATION QUOTIENTS To make the economic base model operational, it is necessary to determine how much of the region's total employment is devoted to export activities. A problem exists in that most goods produced in the local economy are typically sold in both local and non-local markets. A number of indirect methods are available to approximate this allocation, and one such method is location quotients.(23) Employment is the most frequently used unit of measurement for the economic base model. Using employment as the unit of measurement is advantageous because the data are available on a disaggregated basis for the larger local economies. Employment data were obtain- ed for the study area, by three-digit SIC (Standard Industrial Classification), for 1984, from three sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation; and Contacts Influential Inc., Marketing Information Services, Tampa. Location quotients compare the concentration of industry employment in a particular region with that of the nation, adjusted for foreign exports. A region that has a greater percentage of its employment concentrated in an industry than does the nation must be producing for export outside the region, since it has more than the average employment required to satisfy its domestic needs. The location quotient is the ratio of an industry's share of the economic activity (of the economy being studied) to that industry's share of another economy.(24) Assuming that the study area is a region (R) of a nation (N), and that employment (E) is the measure of economic activity, the location quotient for industry "I" may be expressed using the equation shown in Figure 3-1. If the location quotient for an industry (LOI) is greater than one, it is assumed that the region exports the products of that indus- try.(25) By contrast, if the location quotient is less than one, 33 FIGURE 3-1 LOCATION QUOTIENT FORMULA LQI EIR/ ER - -FN -EN LQI - Location Quotient for industry "I" R - Region (study area) N - Nation E - Employment I - Industry FIGURE 3-2 EXPORT EMPLOYMENT FORMULA XIR [EIR _ ER EIN EIN ENI XIR - Export (exogenous) employment for industry "I" within the region (study area) EIR - Employment Industry Region EIN - Employment Industry Nation ER - Employment Region EN - Employment Nation 34 it is assumed that the region is not satisfying its domestic re- quirements and must import the products of that industry. Location quotients compare the given region to an "average" region of the nation. If a region's industry displays a location quotient greater than one, its export-related employment (XIR) can be calculated using the equation shown in Figure 3-2, relying on the following assumptions (26): 1. Consumer tastes and preferences are the same throughout the nation, implying that per capita consumption, in particular, is identical. (Although per capita income is often a poor proxy for per capita consumption, it is worth pointing out that the per capita income in the Tampa-St. Petersburg MSA is very close to the national average, so this assumption does not appear grossly unreasonable). 2. Production functions for each industry are identical in every region. 3. Local demand is satisfied by local production. (To reduce the distortions caused by "cross-hauling," all primary employment data were collected on the basis of three-digit SIC industries, which represents substantial disaggregation compared to many other studies.) 4. Every region completely satisfies its own domestic needs. E* THE MULTIPLIER CONCEPT Economic theory dictates that the rate of growth of a. region is determined by its function as an "exporter" outside the region. (27) Sales outside the region channel outside dollars into the region and trigger chain reactions of additional economic activity within the region. The first activity associated with an outside sale is the direct impact, and the jobs provided because of the sale, and the income generated in the industry. These direct impacts then produce additional economic impacts or indirect impacts. These indirect impacts come in the form of goods and services provided to the export industry by other businesses in the region. Both the direct and indirect impacts then produce additional impacts. This is called "induced" activity and results from spending of employees who earn income in jobs provided in either direct or indirect businesses. These impacts occur in local retail stores, banks, and any other places the wage earner spends his income.(28) The total impact of an industry results from the simultaneous action of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Each additional dollar of sales by the basic industry causes a new round of impacts throughout the region. The process of each dollar being respent and causing new impacts is not infinite. At each round of the spending process, some dollars leak out of the regional economy in the form of savings, taxes, profits to stockholders outside the 35 region, and as payments for goods and services imported from out- side the region. The total respending process associated with each additional dollar of sales is called the "multiplier" effect. The multiplier for a particular basic industry is a measure of the total economic activity associated with the initial increase in export sales outside the region. The multiplier will vary with the size of the region and the industry. The more complex the export industry in regard to its demands on other industries for goods and services, the larger the multiplier. The multiplier effect also works in reverse. A decrease in export sales will cause a chain reaction of decreases in economic activity.(29) most economic multipliers are determined using input-output analysis, econometric techniques, or -elements of the economic base. Multipliers gene- rated from these mathematical techniques are usually output, in- come, and employment multipliers. F. EMPLOYMENT MULTIPLIER The location quotient multipliers calculated using the equation shown in Figure 3-1, are employment multipliers. A single employment multiplier, for the study area, is derived from the location quotients by estimating export employment for -all industries with location quotients greater than one, summing that employment for all industries, and dividing the sum into the total employment of the region.(30) To the extent that a region imports products from an industry which it also exports, the location quotient will underestimate exports, thereby over-estimating the multiplier.(31) once the multiplier has been calculated, the impact on total activity of an anticipated change in export activity can be estimated by multiplying that change times the multiplier.(32) G. STUDY AREA ECONOMIC BASE MODEL The results of the economic base model used to analyze the study area's economic activity are illustrated in Appendix A, and summar- ized in Appendix B. The model utilizes employment data as the unit of measurement in dividing the study area's economic activity into export and import (local service) sectors. The 1984 employment data is presented on a disaggregated basis (three-digit SIC) there- by diminishing the problem in the use of location quotients often referred to as "product-mix" or "crosshauling".(33) The location quotients presented here are employment multipliers. As noted previously, if the location quotient for an industry is greater than one, it is assumed that the study area exports the products of that industry, whereas, if the location quotient is less than one, it is assumed that the study area imports the products of that industry. The overall employment multiplier, for the study area, has been .calculated at 2.62. This figure is derived from the location quotients, by calculating the export employment for all of the study area's industries with location quotients greater than one 36 las shownl, summing that employment, and dividing the sum into the total employment of the study area. The multiplier of 2.62 was calculated assigning all public administration to the export (exo- genous) sector. (other industries can be assigned to the exogenous sector in toto, e.g. fertilizer mineral mining, hotel, tourist court and motel employment, reducing the multiplier further.) H. DISCUSSION Upon review of the data presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, it is evident that there are numerous export industries within the study area that cause funds to flow in, or in more generic termino- logy, industries that "drive the local economy." By contrast, there are numerous local service industries identified. The pro- ducts or services associated with these industries must be imported into the study area because domestic consumption is not being satisfied. Before analyzing the export and import industries which currently serve as the economic base of the. study area, it is interesting to note the industries that were historically important in the development of the Tampa Bay Region are still important today. As noted earlier in this chapter, the industries of primary impor- tance in the development of Tampa, and eventually the region, include (in no particular order) the following: agriculture and livestock; national security; citrus; cigars and fishing; railroad; phosphate; boat building and repair; tourism and general port activities. The importance of geographic proximity to Tampa Bay for most of these industries is evident, e.g. fishing, boat build- ing and port activities necessitate immediate proximity to Tampa Bay. The economic base model, utilizing 1984 employment data, illustrates the static economic activity within the study area, and in doing so reveals the following export industries: crop services, including citrus grove preparation (SIC 072); commercial fishing (SIC 091); fertilizer mineral mining, including phosphate rock (SIC 147); cigars (SIC 212); boat building and repair (SIC 373); local water transportation and associated services (SIC 445- 46); boat dealers (SIC 555); eating and drinking places (SIC 581); and hotels and motels (SIC 701). The economic base model identifies these industries as being key components of the study area's exogenous sector. In addition to the aforementioned industries, there are still other export industries whose proximity to Tampa Bay is essential. These industries include residential building construction (SIC 152); electric services (SIC 491); and sanitary services (SIC 495). These industries, along with port activities and commercial fish- ing, are analyzed further in succeeding chapters. Local service industries identified through the economic base model, by major group (MG), include the following: manufacturing or processing of food products (MG 20); apparel manufacturing (MG 23); manufacturing of furniture and fixtures (MG 25); manufacturing 37 I of machinery (MG 35-36); and security, commodity and life insurance establishments (MG 62-63). 01 I I I I - I I I 44 I I I I I I 1 40 38 1 I I* FOOTNOTES 1. Ernest L. Robinson, The History of Hillsborough County, Florida (St. Augustine, Florida: The Record Company, 1928), p. 108. 2. Westmeyer, D. Paul, "Tampa, Florida - A Geographic Interpreta- tion of its Development," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1953. 3. Powell, Evanell K., Tampa That Was . . . History and Chronology Through 1946, Star Publishing Co., Inc., 1973. 4. Ibid. Westmeyer 5. Mormino, Gary R., and Pizo, Anthony P., The Treasure City: Tampa, Continental Heritage Press, 1983. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Powell 8. Dunn, Hamption, Yesterday's Tampa, E.A. Seeman Publishing, Inc. 1972. 9. Ibid. Westmeyer 10. Mormino, Gary R., "Tampa - From Hell Hole to the Good Life." In Sunbelt Cities: Politics and.Growth Since World War II, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1983. 11. Ibid. 12. Hawes, Leland, Tampa Tribune, "Their Mission: To Develop Tampa's Port" newspaper article. November 16, 1985, Section D, pp. 1-2. 13. Ibid. Westmeyer 14. Ibid. Mormino, Gary R., "Tampa - From Hell Hole to the Good Life." 15. Pleeter, Saul, "Methodologies of Economic Impact analysis: An overview." Economic Impact Analysis: Methodology and Applica- tions. Boston: M. Nijhoff, 1980. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19, Ibid, 20. Ibid. 39 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Isserman, Andrew M., "The Location Quotient Approach to Estima- ting Regional Economic Impacts.n AIP Journal (January 1977) 25. Ibid. p. 34 26. Ibid. Pl6eter, p. 16 27. Gordon, John; Mulkey, David and Goggin, James. "An Input- Output Analysis of the Broward County Economy with Emphasis on the Impact and Role of the Port Sector," Economics Report, Food and Resource Economics Department, Gainesville, University of Florida, 1980. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid. Isserman 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid. 40 CHAPTER 4 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO SHIPPING AND WATER-BORNE COMMERCE A. PORT OF TAMPA The Port of Tampa has served as a vital transportation link for the West Central Florida region since the early nineteenth century (please see discussion in Chapter 2). The port evolved initially as a gateway for agricultural products flowing to and from Cuba. (1) Improvements to the natural harbor began with the discovery of phosphate in the region and the first Congressional authorization in the 1880s. During the past 100 years, channel dimensions have repeatedly been enlarged, the size of ships calling on the port have increased, and the annual tonnage transiting the port has increased from one million tons in 1920 to 50 million tons in 1980. (2) In the fiscal year 1984-85, the Port of Tampa registered 48,856,924 net tons, making it Florida's number one port.(3) Part of the port's overall strength is the variety of terminals operating throughout the port and the diversity of cargoes handled through these facilities.(4) Sixteen terminals in Tampa handle inbound and outbound phosphate, fertilizer and related chemical products. In addition, eight terminals handle dry bulk products other than phosphate or phosphate-related chemicals. The primary products handled through these terminals are grain, feed, salt, cement, gypsum and coal. Eight general cargo terminals are operated in Tampa handling a variety of general cargoes including steel products, bananas, linerboard and citrus products. Three specialized general cargo terminals operate in Tampa handling products that require specialized facilities or facilities developed to serve a particular plant. Eighteen liquid bulk terminals are located in Tampa, almost all of which handle petroleum products, and liquid sulphur. B. BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON REPORT During 1978, the transportation consulting firm of Booz, Allen & Hamilton, (Bethesda, Maryland) was retained by the Tampa Port Authority to perform a marketing and economic impact assessment of the Port of Tampa. The principal objective of the study was to determine the role that the Port of Tampa had in the economy of the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, and other adjacent counties, The primary direct impact of the port was estimated at approxi- mately $200 million per year. This figure represents a measure of the revenues that flow from the principal port users, e.g. shippers and waterborne carriers. The total direct impact, which represents both the primary direct and the respending of the primary flow of revenue through the local economy, was estimated at approximately $500 million per year. (This figure reflects the use of a multi- plier of 2.5. It should be noted that this multiplier is virtually identical with the overall multiplier for the study area, generated 41 from the economic base model. Please see discussion in Chapter 3). During the fiscal year 1983-84, close to 48 million tons of cargo were handled at the Port of Tampa, making Tampa the seventh largest port in the United States in terms of total tonnage. Table 4-1 identifies the tonnage handled (selected categories) at the port during 1978 and 1984. C. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PORT OF TAMPA As noted previously, in 1978, the total direct primary impact of the Port of Tampa was estimated at approximately $200 million per year. One of the methods employed to estimate the primary direct impact associated with activity at the port involved an analysis of a sample of representative ship/barge calls at the port.(5) Table 4-2 provides a summary of the direct primary impact asso- ciated with each ton of the major commodities, handled by ship and barge, for 1978 and 1984. The table also identifies the total annual tonnage of each major commodity, and estimates of the total direct primary impacts during 1978 and 1984. (The total direct primary impact estimates result from multiplying the impact per ton times the total tonnage.) The table and figures indicate that for 1984, on the average, each ton of cargo contributed $6.42 in direct primary benefits to the local economy. The handling of approximately 45.7 million tons during 1984 contributed approximately $294 million in direct bene- fits to the port. D. NET BENEFIT OF THE PORT OF TAMPA It is generally recognized that there are net economic benefits (consumer surplus) associated with a port such as Tampa. These benefits primarily accrue to the shippers and receivers who use the Port of Tampa. These accruals, over the long run, are in turn passed on to the consumer of the item which may be received or to the owners and employees of firms who ship through the port. While these benefits could be concentrated in the same geographic area as are the direct benefits, that is Tampa, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, they may also be realized in areas further removed from the port area. one method of estimating net economic benefits relates the cost of operation in question to the next best alternative method of accom- plishing the same. This was the method of transportation savings used in the 1978, Booz, Allen & Hamilton Report and updated here. In the Booz, Allen & Hamilton report (1979) the transportation savings were estimated by making an assumption that the Port of Tampa was not available to shippers and receivers, and thus making it necessary to use an alternative port, such as Jacksonville. 42 TABLE 4-1 ESTIMATED TOTAL TONNAGE HANDLED AT THE PORT OF TAMPA DURING FY 1978 AND FY 1984 (SELECTED CATEGORIES, IN THOUSANDS OF SHORT TONS) Category Total: 1978 1 Total: 1984 2 Phosphate 24,006 50% 23,610 52.0% Other Dry Bulk 5,689 12 4,1923 9.0 Petroleum Products 12,109 25 10,630 23.0 Other Liquid Bulk 5,027 10 6,2034 13.5 General Cargo 1,401 3 1,1185 2.5 Total 48,232 100% 45,753 100% Booz, Allen & Hamilton Report 2 Tampa Port Authority, 1984 Annual Report Coal and Aragonite Only 4 Includes Sulphur (Liquid), Ammonia (Anhydrous) and Phosphoric Acid 5 Includes Steel Products, Bananas, Meat & Poultry, and other General Cargo 43 TABLE 4-2 DIRECT PRI14ARY IMPACT OF THE PORT OF TAMPA BY MAJOR COMMODITY GROUP 1978 AND 1984 (DOLLARS AND TONS IN THOUSANDS) 1984 Vessel Commodity Direct Primary Total Total Commodity Direct Primary- Total Total Type Group Impact Per Ton Tonnage Impact Group Impact Per Ton 2 Tonnage Impact (In Dollars) (In Dollars)- Ship Phosphate $ 3.17 15,205 $ 48,200 Phosphate $ 5.11 23,610 $120,647 Barge Phosphate 3.31 8,801 29,131 Ship other Dry Bulk 1.53 2,500 3,825 other Dry Barge Other Dry Bulk 1.72 3,189 5,485 Bulk 2.56 4,192 10,731 Ship Petroleum 4.17 5,270 21,976 Petroleum 6.49 10,630 68,988 Barge Petroleum 4.06 6,839 27,766 Ship Other Liquid Bulk 3.87 1,298 5,023 other Liquid Barge other Liquid Bulk 3.76 3,729 12,118 Bulk 6.02 6,203 37,342 Ship Steel Products 19.30 367 7,083 Steel Products 30.49 307 9,360 Ship Bananas 36.28 134 4,862 Bananas 57.32 228 13,068 Ship Meat & Poultry 31.06 31 963 Meat & Poultry 49.07 19 932 Ship other General Cargo 41.23 869 35,829 Other Gen. Cargo 65.14 564 36,738 Total $ 4.19 48,232 $202,261 Total $ 6.50 45,753 $297,806 Ibid.,Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2Includes the following: Dockage and sheddage fees; wharfage; stevedore expenses; terminal and handling charges; agents fees and Qommissions; tug and pilot expenses; harbormaster fees; fresh water charges; crew spending; inland transportation expenses; and other vessel disbursements. The dollar impacts per ton for M4, were calculated by adjusting the 1978 figure M JoWnf JoWn 1MswrMWri(NWde1W8%Md d@t 4WatEWWp 4MWarMoveN s. M s .0 or Table 1-1 illustrates the comparison of transportation savings 16 associated with the Port of Tampa in 1978 and 1984. (The net economic transportation benefits result from multiplying the total tonnage handled for each commodity group times the transportation savings estimates. The 1978 estimates were adjusted for inflation using the producer price index, to derive the 1984 savings estimates.) The assumptions used include the following: � It would cost an additional $6.14 per ton to ship phosphate to Jacksonville or Palm Beach by rail. � It would co st approximately 3.2 cents per gallon to distribute petroleum products from Jacksonville overland to the Tampa area, in lieu of water-borne receipt, and then distribution from the Port of Tampa. � Other liquid bulk items, and principally sulphur, would incur additional charges of $5/ton, if routed by truck via Jackson- ville or Palm Beach. � General cargo is a heterogeneous commodity group and thus, it is difficult to explicitly estimate a premium for the additional inland transportation requirement to or from Jacksonville, the closest (major) general cargo port. For the purpose of this analysis, an 8.65 cents per ton mile was used as rule-of-thumb. The 1.1 million tons of general cargo was therefore assessed a total transportation premium of $12.0 million for the average additional inland haul of 125 miles. � Other dry bulk commodities consist primarily of coal and aragonite. - It is estimated that a rail shipment of coal from eastern Kentucky to the Tampa area would cost approximately $1.22 per ton more than a barge movement via Cairo, Illinois to Tampa. - The aragonite transportation premium assumes a rail haul from Miami to the Tampa area. The cost of this movement is estimated at $6.12 per ton. overall, the transportation premium associated with other dry bulk commodities would be approximately $8.2 million if the water-borne shipment to Tampa was not available to the major receivers of these products. The total transportation savings, hence benefits, associated with the handling of the products that currently use the Port of Tampa, is estimated at approximately $281 million. 45 TABLE 4-3 INDIRECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PORT OF TAMPA (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) Commodity Group 1978 Transportation 1984 Transportation Savingsl Savings Phosphate $ 78.0 $ 144.92 Petroleum Products 60.0 85.03 4 Other Liquid Bulk 20.1 31.2 General Cargo 8.8 12.05 Other Dry Bulk 6.8 8.26 Total $ 173.7 $ 281.3 lIbid., Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2 Producer Price Index (PPI) = 89% Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 3 Ibid. PPI = 62.6% 4 Reflects a cost increase of 26%. Source: Ryder/PIE. Nationwide Inc. 5 ppI = 73% Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 6 Ibid. PPI = 75% 46 E. FOOTNOTES 1. Fehring, William K., "History of the Port of Tampa," proceeding from the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS), Tampa, Florida, May 1982. 2. Ibid. 3. Port of Tampa, Florida, Fiscal Year Cargo Report, October 1, 1984 - September 30, 1985. 4. Tampa Port Handbook, 1985-86. 5. Economic Assessment of the Port of Tampa, for the Tampa Port Authority, by the Transportation Consulting Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton. (EDA Project Number 04-06-01533, March 1979.) 47 CHAPTER 5 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO SANITARY AND ELECTRIC SERVICES A. INTRODUCTION Currently, Tampa Bay is used as a receiving water body for treated wastewater and industrial effluent discharges. It also serves as an ideal site for electric power generating plants, due in part to the need for large quantities of cooling water. The economic base model, presented in Chapter 3, identifies both sanitary services (SIC 495) and electric services (SIC 491) as part of the exogenous sector. The geographic proximity of these two industrie's to Tampa Bay results in several economic benefits, which are outlined within this chapter. Case studies are presented for both Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, involving sanitary and electric services. In September 1984, the Florida Department of Environmental Regula- tion presented a draft of the Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study. The Tampa Bay estuarine system was studied for the purpose of considering water quality impacts of point and nonpoint source discharges to the Bay.(1) The study was completed as a coopera- tive effort between various agencies and with a number of contrac- tors. Dissolved oxygen (DO) and nutrient concentrations in Tampa Bay were studied as parameters to define nutrient or chlorophyll a target concentrations in Tampa Bay and to consider the impacts CT point and non-point sources relative to the targets. When finalized, the Tampa Bay Water Quality Impact Study may play a critical role regarding future point and non-point source discharges to the Tampa Bay estuary. B. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL Tampa Bay is presently experiencing a number of water quality problems. In particular, there is a periodic depletion of the dissolved oxygen (DO) resources and associated fish kills. There has been a disappearance of grassbeds in the area. Seasonal algal blooms are also encountered. Taken together, these problems appear to be associated with nutrient enrichment of the bay system. Therefore, the primary concern in the study of Tampa Bay Water Quality Impact Study was the nutrient load from point and non-point sources (2). Municipal and industrial wastewaters enter Tampa Bay directly or via its tributaries at over 188 points around the Bay.(3) Hills- borough Bay receives the heaviest loadings of both municipal and industrial wastes, while Old Tampa Bay receives substantial load- ings of predominatly municipal wastes. Relatively smaller amounts of municipal and industrial wastes are discharged into the middle and lower segments of Tampa Bay proper, however, Boca Ciega Bay has been severely impacted by municipal discharges. 49 In 1972, the Florida State Legislature passed what was known as the Wilson-Grizzle Bill (Section 403.086(l)(b), Florida Statutes). This bill stipulated that no domestic,wastewater disposal facility constructed after 1972, could discharge any waste into Old Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, Boca Ciega Bay, St. Joseph Sound, Clearwater Bay, Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Lemon Bay, or Punta Gorda Bay, in addition to any bay, bayou or sound "tributary thereto" without providing at least advanced wastewater treatment (AWT). In essence, the area covered by the bill included all saline coastal bodies of water from the Anclote Keys south to Charlotte Harbor. Advanced wastewater treatment, as defined in the Florida Adminis- trative Code, Chapter 17-6, limited the annual average effluent concentration to 5 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids; 3 mg/1 total nitrogen; and 1 mg/1 total phosphorus. This requirement was not based on site-specific water quality diaterminations, but was made in an attempt to reverse what was perceived by many to be deteriorating water quality in the area. No relief mechanism was provided other than a statutory variance. In 1980, the Legislature modified the Wilson-Grizzle Bill such that the FDER could grant relief for facilities if the applicant ini- tiated a request for such relief and then demonstrated that AWT was not required to protect water quality. The modified Wilson- Grizzle Bill also expanded the "affected area" to include all freshwater tributaries which flow into the original Wilson-Grizzle area. This area was defined hydrologically as the Peace River and Tampa Bay Basins. In July 1981, the Legislature repealed the statute requiring AWT for domestic wastewater treatment facilities constructed after 1972. The statute was replaced with a mandate requiring the De- partment to specify wasteload allocations on a case-by-case basis for domestic point sources. Also required was a survey on ' the overall impact of existing non-point sources discharging into the waters of the original Wilson-Grizzle area. In 1982, the.surface waters of Tampa Bay received domestic effluent from 49 permitted sources which included facilities with design treatment capacities ranging from 10,000 to 60 million gallons per day.(4) Domestic point sources in 1984 discharged 71.01 billion gallons of effluent to Tampa Bay and its associated tributaries as compared to 61.75 billion gallons in 1982, a 15% increase in total annual flow. This increase can generally be attributed to rapid population growth, higher than average rainfall and associated infiltration problems with collection systems. There are currently 23 industries which are permitted to discharge directly into Tampa Bay waters according to Department of Environ- mental Regulation National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit files. In addition, there are 116 industries which are permitted to discharge into the tributaries of Tampa Bay.(5) 50 it is difficult to predict future trends as many unknown factors will come into play. As local governments move toward the imple- mentation of approved 201 Facility Plans, fewer plants will discharge directly to surface waters of the bay. Alternative effluent disposal practices such as deep-well injection, spray irrigation and percolation ponds will become more commonplace. In addition, the level of treatment in regional plants will continue to improve. However, counteracting these positive actions is an increasing trend toward the construction of numerous small (<0.1 MGD capacity) npackage plants" in developments not served by existing sewer systems. This trend will result in an overall increase in the number of point source discharges to be monitored, and an overall decrease in level of treatment. PL 92-500 Planning Processes Public Law 92-500, known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, was enacted by the ninety-second Congress of the United States of America on October 18, 1972. The stated objective of this act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The national goals and policies established by PL 92-500 include the following: "...it is the National Policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes be developed and imple- mented to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State..." In keeping with this policy, PL 92-500 expanded existing and created new planning processes to be carried out by the States. Plans required to be prepared under this act are: Section 303(e) - Basin Plans; Section 208 - Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans; and Section 201 - Facility Plans. The 201 Facility Plan is concerned primarily with developing a specific project, or projects, for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewaters generated in the 201 Planning Area. It is specific in that it includes the treatment and disposal of waste- waters generated in the 201 Planning Area. It is also specific in that it includes the treatment plant sites, sizes, types of proces- ses, methods of effluent and sludge disposal, interceptor sewer routings and other steps necessary for constructing the project. 1. Hillsborough County Hillsborough County contains four wastewater treatment service districts: Hillsborough Northwest, Plant City, Central Hillsborough-Tampa and Hillsborough Southwest (see Figure 5-1). Hillsborough Northwest also treats wastewater from a small area in the neighboring Pasco County. The wastewater treatment - disposal systems of the Central Hillsborough-Tampa and Hillsborough North- west areas are examined here. 51 Figure 5-1 LEGEND 1111101 201 BOUNDARY HILLSBOROUGH N.W. 40 REGIONAL WWTP 201'AREA @w MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES MAJOR PUMPING STATION O#W MAIIAT 21@101,IAL WWII---A 0 EFFLUENT STORAGE POND RIVElt OAKS SOURCE: TBRPC, 1978 It IONAL -Wwlp A .,A TAMPA/CENTRAL.-WtLLi5OR'6UdH 201 AREA -T. Ln NGOKE2$ ooiky I @j R(GIONAL WWTP @BRANDON ftw** 0 0 1 2 3 4 I;== NOTE- WWTP-WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT KAU IN MILES FACILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON .100001 ULTIMATE YEAR 2000 NEEDS f 0 IIILLS504 UGH S.W. 101 AREA ,',.,SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH REdIONALWWTP,, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SERVICE DISTRICTS a. Central Hill8borough-Tampa The preponderance of the wastewater originating within the Cen- tral Hillsborough County - Tampa 201 Planning Area is conveyed to and treated at the Hookers Point Sewage Treatment Plant, operated by the City of Tampa. Hookers Point 'is an Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) Facility with a current design capa- city of 60 MGD. Effluent disposal is by discharge to Hillsbor- ough Bay. Alternatives Presently, the Hookers Point facility disposes of approximately 50.3 MGD sewage effluent by discharge to Hillsborough Bay. Alternatives, considered within the 201 Facility Plan, for treatment and disposal of effluent, are summarized as follows: Secondary Effluent: Treat effluent to secondary levels and dispose by deep-well injection, spray irrigation or by deep- water outfall in the Gulf of Mexico. Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) Effluent: AWT treatment and disposal by discharge to Hillsborough Bay with potential reuse of all or part of the effluent. Costs Preliminary estimated comparative costs for the secondary treat- ment alternatives and disposal options are summarized in Table 5-1, which includes 1979 dollar estimates and 1984 dollar estimates. The preliminary estimated costs for the Advanced Waste Treatment of effluent alternative, with disposal by discharge to Hillsbor- ough Bay, are summarized in Table 5-2. The Selected Alternative The selected alternative for the Tampa Service Area - the pre- ferred alternative - comprises expansion and improvements to the wastewater collection systems and the Hookers Point AWT plant, with disposal by discharge of treated wastewater to Hillsborough Bay.(6) The selected alternative was the AWT series treatment with packed towers, with the facilities for the removal of phosphorus. The Hookers Point facility continues to be expanded to provide capacity for current and estimated (future) waste- water quantities, through the year 2000. New and improved facilities at Hookers Point include units for methane genera- tion and energy recovery, and improvements to some of the origi- nal process units. This preferred alternative (AWT), with dis- charge to Hillsborough Bay, is the most cost effective and environmentally sound, as required to meet water quality stand- ards.(7) 53 TABLE 5-1 SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS Preliminary Estimated Estimated Comparative See Comparative Costsl Costs 3 Alternative Project Figure Thousand Dollars (1979) Thousand Dollars (1984) Ln (Capital) (EAC 2 (Capital) (EAC) S-1 Spray Irrigation (no crop recovery) 5-2 $ 297,864 $ 28,574 $ 378,287 $ 36,288 S-1 Spray Irrigation (crop recovery) 5-2 297,864 19,905 378,287 25,279 S-2 Gulf Outfall (Route No. 1) 5-3 203,932 18,648 258,993 23,682 S-2 Gulf Outfall (Route No. 2) 5- 3 187,033 17,277 237,532 S-3 Deep Well Injection 5-4 886,783 86,074 1,126,214 109,314 lSource: Central Hillsborough County - Tampa 201 Facilities Plan 2 Equivalent Annual Cost 3U.S. Department of Commerce, Composite (Construction) Cost Index, 1985 Adjustment for In- flation (+27%) TABLE 5-2 ADVANCED WASTE TREATKENT ALTERNATIVE See Alternative Project Figure Thousand Dollars (1979) (Capital) (EAC) Series Treatment w/packed towers (w/o P-rem) 1 5 @5 $ 66,897 $ 15,792 Ln *Series Treatment w/packed towers (w/P-rem) 2 5 - 5 67,723 17,448 U1 lWithout facilities for removal of phosphorus 2With facilities for removal of phosphorus Selected Alternative Figure 5-2 J C'. .1 " 4 0 ... . ... T2 01 PLANNING 301 AREA BOUNDARY-,,"" L r#dJV0T0SA$JA TAMPA SERVICE 75 AREA BOUNDARY 4 let 75 Sol. so 92 84" DIA. TRANSMISSION MAIN HOOKERS POI T PLA ....... .. N AA AND TRANS, MISSION PUMP STA. vx. % X .... ..... BOOSTER PUMPING STATION (TYP) SPRAY IRRIGATION STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION SITE. SERVES APPROX. 8 EA. 232 ACRES SPRAY SITES (TYP.) ILILLBGOAO@!! co POLK CO. APPROX. AREA IN WHICH Co. Polloclat Co. SPRAY IRRIGATION SITES WOULD BE LOCATED PRELIMINARY LOCATION PLAN ALTERNATE S-1, SPRAY IRRIGATION SECONDARY TREATMENT SMITH AND GILLESPIE CENTRAL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY -TAMPA GREELEY jAND HANSEN 201 FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERS EPA NO. C12063401.0 56 Figure 5-3 N ci 0 0 X 0 1 00 19 ALY j 19 BOOSTER PUMPING 84"DIA. 62,000' STATION (TYP) GULF OUTFAL CLEARWATER 92 TAMPA 4 ILL T 40. mono.-M . 1 60 am a DIFFUSER AT 6 FATHOM ALTERNATE'---, OUTE NO. I DEPTH (TYP.) -HOOKERS POINT PLANTAND 9z PUMP STA. ALTERNATE ROUTE NO. 2 4 Mae 01 L, -ONE owp'@ A. F... 784"DIA. 52,000' 84"DIA. TRANSMISSION GULF OUTFALL ST PETERSBURG MAIN (TYR) 41 GULF OF MEXICO TAMPA SAY CO. PRELIMINARY LOCATION PLAN ALTERNATE S-2, GULF OUTFALL SECONDARY TREATMENT SMITH AND G'LLE3PIE CENTRAL HILLSOOROUGH COUNTY-TAMPA GREELEY AND HANSEN 201 FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERS EPA NO.CI2063401.0 57 Figure 5-4 ci ci 75 301 75 4 BOOSTER PUMPING STATION (TYR) 0 41 92 HOOKERS 6 POINT PLANT AND PUMPING STATION 301 6 72"DIA. DEEP WELLS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION MAIN APPROX. AREA IN WHICH DEEP INJECTION WELLS WOULD BE LOCATED !m'soomott! Co. FOLK Co. PRELIMINARY LOCATION PLAN ALTERNATE S-3, DEEP WELL INJECTION SECONDARY TREATMENT (FILTERED EFFLUENT) SMITH AND GILLESPIE CENTRAL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY -TAMPA 0REELEY A No MANSEN 201 FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERS EPA NO. C12063401.0 58 Figure 5-5 Pa. DELTONA 38 TO TAIAPA, TMWOTOW" TO TA 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 MILES 9" TAMPA EXPAND BRANDON HOOKM LOCAL W.TP POINT AANWIT"P. rA 0.01011 04 r cl TO Coum" W". I L 1 4 It 9 0 *a ft&WWW* AMA DOWN"" rum/cam" 01"co MMA sommea" SELECTED PLAN SMITH AND QILLESPIr 59 CENTRAL MLLSOOMOUG" COUNTY. TAMPA GREELEY AND HANSEN 201 FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERS EPA NO.C120634010 Actual costs, to date, for the AWT alternative, are in the range of $114 million (8). When compared to the capital costs associated with the three secondary treatment and disposal al- ternatives, (estimated in 1984 dollars) the AWT alternative is by far the most cost effective method of sewage treatment and disposal. Comparative costs of the AWT alternative and the three secondary treatment and disposal alternatives are summarized as follows: e Gulf Outfall (Route No. 2) would be double the cost of the AWT alternative, costing an additional $123.5 million to implement. 9 Gulf Outfall (Route No. 1) would cost an additional $145 million to implement. * Spray irrigation, with and without crop recovery, would be over three times the cost of the AWT alternative, cost- ing an additional $164.3 million to implement. e Deep well injection would be a staggering ten times the cost of the AWT alternative, costing an additional $1 billion to implement. b. Hillshorough Northwest The Hillsborough Northwest 201 Planning Area is situated north of Old Tampa Bay and the City of Tampa (please refer back to Figure 5-1). A listing of the treatment facilities currently serving the area, including the degree of treatment provided, method of recovered water reuse, and current operating situa- tion, is given in Table 5-3. The Northwest Area is currently experiencing difficulty meeting wastewater demands.(9) The area is served by three major treat- ment plants. The River Oaks AWT Facility, located in the south- ern portion of the area is overloaded. The design capacity is 4.7 mgd, while the most recent records show up to 6.0 mgd some- times flowing through the plant. After less than AWT treatment the recovered water is discharged into Channel A, a man-made water course constructed to alleviate flooding. Wastewater discharged into Channel A ultimately enters the waters of Tampa Bay (Figure 5-6). The Florida Department of Environmental Re- sources (FDER) allows such a discharge as long as certain waste- water treatment criteria are met, however, because the facility is overloaded, these limits are not currently being met. To improve this situation, the County is in the process of expanding the River Oaks AWT facility to 10.0 mgd. The expan- sion is under construction and is expected to be completed in January 1988. It must be emphasized that FDER has restricted the total future recovered water flow to Channel A to that quantity that will produce no more poundage than legally allowed 60 TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF COUNTY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA (Northwest Area) Design Capacity Reuse Facility Treatment (mgd) Method Comments NORTHWEST AREA 1. River Gaks AWT 4.67 Surface Water Influent flow current- Discharge ly exceeds capacity; EPA administrative or- der issued; loading in violation of permit 2. River Oaks Interim Secondary 1.0 Spray Irriga- Plant to be taken off- tion (Pasture) line with River Oaks expansion 3. Tampa Suburban AST 0.75 Spray Irriga- Limited by reuse capa- tion (Urban) city. Current activi- ties to complete Rocky Point Golf Course con- nection scheduled by January 1986 4. Dale Mabry AST 4.5 Spray Irriga- 30-month TOP issued tion (Urban) & 10/85 to remove dis- Surface Water charge to Brushy Creek Discharge can be operated at 5 mgd for short term; local golf course ir- rigation limited to 3 mgd. 5. Sun Lake Park Secondary 0.07 Evaporation/ Marginal performance Percolation record; TOP pending Pond 6. Van Dyke AST 2.5 Spray Irriga- Currently under con- tion (Urban) struction with opera- tional start-up sched- uled for spring 1986 Notes: Treatment Levels: Secondary 190* removal), Advanced Secondary Treatment (AST), Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT, nutrient removal) Source: Hillsborough County Wastewater Master Plan, November 1985 61 V FERN ROAD z -TpRPOtA VANDYKE 0 CALM Arrrsro-VE LAME VANDYKE R D 0 1 3 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES 91 0 00 0 00 71 zW 9 0 >:,10 M % 04 01u) -J ROAD -J vHRLICIA Cl Figure 5-6 F DA , 1 1% A Relative Location of Channel A Ify -J SHELDON C LEGEND W MONNOMMMMi Existing Collection System* z C C a 0 % C C Ir IVER OA OLDSMAR WA RS AVENUE Wastewater Treatment Plant NOTE: 114 co Collection System Shown Represents Major HILLSBOROUGH <2 Wastewater Force Mains and Gravity Systems Generally 12' Diameter and Larger TA 4PA SUBURBAN -J rAAfPA INTERIM , < BAY TAMPA INTERNATIONAL now, which because of the improved level of AWT, should be about 7.5 mgd. As the plant flow increases beyond this amount, other means of recovered water use must become available. The River Oaks Interim Plant is located on the same site as the River Oaks AWT Plant. The 1.0 mgd interim facility was provided to relieve some of the capacity demands on the AWT facility. Although the plant is operating reasonably well, two upcoming events will shape its future. First, the site itself is so small that expansion of the AWT plant will require dismantling the interim plant. For this reason, the construction schedule has been modified so that limited treatment from expanded facilities will be available to replace the treatment capacity lost as the interim facility is taken off-line. Second, the current re- covered water spray irrigation site (owned by U.S. Home) is going to be developed, so a new site must be found. In September of 1985, an additional interim plant was placed in operation on the site of a former plant, called Tampa Subur- ban Utilities. This 0.75 mgd steel tank facility is presently only operating at about 0.25 mgd because land is not available to spray irrigate the additional recovered water. The 0.25 mgd is irrigating the adjacent Rocky Point Golf Course. The FDER operating permit for the Northwest Area's Dale Mabry Advanced Secondary Treatment (AST) plant (formerly known as the Carrollwood Village Plant) expired in January 1985. The Plant is supposed to provide recovered water to local golf courses for irrigation, with an infrequent emergency dis- charge allowed to Brushy Creek. In fact, discharge to Brushy Creek has been almost continuous because the capacity of the golf courses is about 3.0 mgd, while the plant is operating at 4.2 mgd. In October 1985, FDER issued a 30-month Temporary operating Permit (TOP) which requires the County to either discontinue the discharge to Brushy Creek or demonstrate to FDER that the discharge does not adversely affect Brushy Creek. In the meantime, recovered water flow to Brushy Creek may continue as long as the plant's maximum treated quantity does not exceed 5.0 mgd and the high quality of the water is maintained. Finally, a review of the list of "permitted but not connected" commitments for the Dale Mabry Facility appear to exceed the 5.0 mgd limit by 1.0 mgd or more. While this added flow will not show up immediately, plans must be made now for both its treat- ment and the reuse of the recovered water it creates. In an agreement with four developers in 1984, the County authorized the private construction of a 1.5 mgd treatment plant centered among the four developments between Lutz-Lake Fern Road and Van Dyke Road. The developers will be repaid for the plant by receiving credit on future capacity fees. The plant is to be operational in March 1986 and will be operated and maintained by the County. The developers have agreed to take back all re- covered water created by the plant and use it within the de- velopment's boundaries. 63 Hillsborough Northwest 201 Facility Plan From the preceding discussion it is apparent that Hillsborough County is faced with an emergency in its Northwest area. Simply stated, the facilities construction for treatment and recovered wastewater reuse have not kept pace with the growth that the area has experienced. Briefly, the Hillsborough Northwest 201 Facilities Plan, revised in 1979, called for only two wastewater treatment plants to serve the area: The River Oaks and Dale Mabry Plants. Both plants required spray irrigation as the preferred "effluent disposal" program. The estimate of expan- sion costs, and construction and land costs for the River Oaks effluent disposal system, was $30.5 million.(10) In 1984 dol- lars, this figure would increase to approximately $38.8 mil- lion.(11) Master Plan Solutions for the northwest area are controlled or influenced by numerous factors, one of the most important of which is the fact that the River Oaks AWT plant expansion to 10.0 mgd will not be completed until 1988, and the newly granted Dale Mabry TOP also expires in 1988. The short-term program for the Northwest calls for t *hree ag- gressive recovered water reuse programs. First, developments in the area must follow a "take-back" program which the County intends to establish as mandatory through the passage of an ordinance. It will require that lawn and parkway irrigation systems be constructed within all new developments for irriga- tion with recovered water. Second, for the Dale Mabry plant, a wet weather recovered water discharge to Brushy Creek must be pursued. EPA has already issued a draft federal permit which authorizes such a seasonal discharge, and FDER has indicated a willingness to listen. Both agencies require further analysis of the water quality situation before such discharge can be approved. Finally, numerous wetlands dot the northern and western portions of the area. Currently available statewide draft rules from FDER (in response to the Warren B. Henderson Wetlands Act of 1984) indicate that with sufficient monitoring, 1 inch/week of recovered water (258 acres/mgd) will be allowed to be dis- tributed to wetlands. Some wetlands are being studied in anti- cipation of this reuse potential. It is important to note here that the draft rule presently implies the purchase of wetlands before use. Since the wetlands augmentation program is so critical to the short- and long-term programs, the County must explore all proper legal means to obtain the use of the wetlands at minimal cost. In the long-term plan, recovered water is seen as becoming a valuable commodity. The recent water restrictions caused by drought are. expected to.happen again. Continually available 64 recovered water for lawn sprinkling and golf course irrigation is, and will be, an attractive selling feature in developments. New "take-back" ordinances, described earlier, will also require it. As the demand for potable water increases with the popula- tion, industrial reuse will be a necessity because regulatory agencies will require its consideration prior to groundwater sources being approved or renewed. Therefore, a major goal of the long-term plan is to provide for a recovered water distribu- tion system to be sure that there is a place for the water to go and that, whenever possible, it serves a conservation purpose when it gets there. Once the River Oaks expansion is complete, no further expansion will be possible there, due to the severely limited size of the site. The River Oaks Facility will have to rely on all aspects of recovered water reuse: wetlands augmentation, take-back programs and golf course irrigation. In addition, there will be continued discharge into Channel A. Estimated costs for the River Oaks Facility expansion, which in- cludes an interim irrigation relocation, pump station and force main construction and flow equalization, are in the range of $24.9 million.(12) Summary The existence of a major wastewater treatment facility, River Oaks, adjacent to Channel A, made this stream a logical receiv- ing waterway. However, in an attempt to discontinue surface water discharge the Northwest 201 plan called for disposal of effluent by land application, e.g. spray irrigation. The esti- mated cost for expansion and associated construction, in 1984 dollars, was $38.8 million. The current situation with the River Oaks Facility, however, is one of expansion to 10.0 mgd and the utilization of a variety of wastewater reuse systems, in addition to continued discharge to Channel A. The estimated cost for this expansion and associated construction is $24.9 million. The employment of surface water discharge at the River Oaks Facility results in a cost-savings of approximately $14 million. 2. Pinellas County There are three 201 Planning Areas in Pinellas County: North Pinellas, Central Pinellas and the City of St. Petersburg (see Figure 5-7). Pinellas County is the most developed and populated area in the Tampa Bay Region. The County is served by 15 regional wastewater treatment facilities, concentrated mostly along Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. 65 Figure 5-7 LEGEND TARPON SPRINGS 110010 201 BOUNDARY WWTP REGIONAL WWTP MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES PINELLAS CO."N. WWTP 0 MAJOR PUMPING STATION 0 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SITE SOURCE: TBRPC, 1978 NORTH PINELLA 1-201 'Ap@A OLDSMAR #V%= WWTP DUNEDIN,/ NOTE. WWTP-WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WWTP FACILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON lCi.EARW!TE N.E. rz@ P ULTIMATE YEAR 2000 NEEDS 04-mins no& @CLEARWATER' MARSHALLIT, WWTP;, Li CLEARWATER IASI WWTP BELLEAIR %%Val wwfr CENTRAL. PINELLAS / McKAY CREEK -i= AREA E'AARQO WWTP WWTP 0" ST. PETERSBU Ool Rat SOUTH CROSS BAYOU @i. N.E. REGIONALl WWTP 0 0 WWTP 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 ST PETERSBURG NW 06 SCALE IN MILES REGIONAL WW'fP' 00 ALBERT WHITTED 0 0 0 00-0 ..' REGIONAL 11- n CFO .--.o0 0 00 OOQ WWTP 0 0 0 000 00?0 0 0000 0 0 000.0 OC, 0 ST. PETERIBURG S.W. 0 il. WWTP 0REGION ST. PETIRIBURG 20.1 AREA,, FORT DESOYO PARK WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS 0 0 0 ro @OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ST. POE PINELLAS COUNTY 201 PLANNING AREAS 66 The 201 planning processfor the City of St. Petersburg has already been completed. St. Petersburg has achieved the most cost-effec- tive plan for wastewater treatment and recycling system. All of the effluent will be used for spray irrigation with the deep well injection as a back-up system. However, many of the other facili- ties in Pinellas County discharge their effluent to surface waters. The wastewater treatment-disposal systems of the North Pinellas area and the City of St. Petersburg are examined here. I a. North Pinellas County The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for North Pinellas County, Florida addresses alternative wastewater treatment- disposal systems and the potential impacts of these systems. (13) The study area for the EIS includes the northern half of Pinellas County including all of the City of Clearwater and locations within the county north of Clearwater as shown on Figure 5-8. Facilities planning for the EIS Study Area was accomplished through the North Pinellas County 201 Plan (which included areas within the county north of the City of Clearwater: Dunedin, Oldsmar, Tarpon Springs and unincorporated areas) and the Central Pinellas County 201 Plan (which included the cities of Clearwater and Safety Harbor and areas further south). Recom- mendations of the 201 plans are summarized in Table 5-4. All existing nearshore surface water discharges were to be replaced by several deep well injection and spray irrigation alterna- tives. A Gulf outfall was also recommended as both a primary and a back-up disposal method. Review of the facilities plans raised substantive questions concerning the disposal options of deep well injection and a Gulf outfall, lack of wasteload allocations to area surface waters and the impact of sewering the environmentally sensitive area east of Lake Tarpon. Based upon the concerns raised in the 201 Plans and through the 1--view and scoping processest the following issues were identi- fied as the major elements of the EIS: � Development and evaluation of wastewater disposal alterna- tives for the numerous municipal wastewater treatment fac- ilities; � Development and evaluation of wastewater management alterna- tives for the developing area east of Lake Tarpon; � Evaluation of the environmental effects and costs associated with the disposal of wastewater through a Gulf outfall; and � Evaluation of water conservation and wastewater reuse in light of existing groundwater supply limitations in the study area. 67 NEW PO E RICHEY PASCO COUNTY .-7 pw TA. sm- z m 0 LOCATION MAP A- TAMPA LARGO Figure 5-8 NORTH PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT STUDY AREA 5 0 5 10 SCALE IN MILES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION ATLANTA, GEORGIA hL11 Mew M M M M M M V M M M M M M M M TABLE 5-4 PINELLAS COUNTY 201 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 1984 Capacity (MGD) Year 2000 Effluent Disposal Service 1984 Projected Current Wastewater Current Method Recom. Area Flow (MGD) Flows (MGD) Treatment Levels Method in 201 Plan Clearwater East Plant 5.0 5.3 Secondary plus ef- Discharge to Old Deep-well injec- 5e3 fluent filtration Tampa Bay, 650 tion near the (1) ft. from shore treatment plant Northeast Plant 8.0 12.0 Secondary (with Effluent dis- Deep-well injec- 4e6 filters being in- charged through tion near East stalled) East Plant's out Plant in combina- fall tion with East Plant Oldsmar (2) (2) Oldsmar Plant 1.0 4.5 -7.5 Secondary with ni- Evap./perc. ponds Spray irrigation 0.75 trification as primary method; perc. ponds as backup method Safety Harbor Safety Harbor 0.35 Redirect flow to Secondary Redirect flow to Redirect flow to 0.11 Clearwater N.E. Clearwater N.E. Clearwater N.E. Plant Plant Plant (1) Includes Safety Harbor's flows (2) includes 3.5 MGD from ansewered area east of Lake Tarpon Source: EPA, Environmental Impact Statement, North Pinellas County, Florida September 1985 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives Six basic wastewater disposal alternatives were evaluated for the existing municipal facilit.ies: � Discharge to coastal waters (old Tampa Bay, Clearwater Har- bor-St. Joseph Sound or the Anclote River); � A Gulf outfall extending from Clearwater Beach Island, Honeymoon Island or the mainland north of Honeymoon Island; � Deep well injection at the Marshall St. Plant or south of the study area possibly at the county's McKay Creek Waste- water Treatment Plant and injection site; � Slow rate (spray irrigation) or rapid rate (rapid infiltra- tion) land application; � Wastewater reuse of nonpotable wastewater for irrigating recreational or other open land areas and industrial cooling service water; and � The No Federal Action (no-action) alternative. Cost Analysis (a) Tampa Bay Subarea Cost Summary The Old Tampa Bay Subarea involves-facilities (Oldsmar, Clear- water Northeast, and Clearwater East) with proposed discharges to Upper Old Tampa Bay (north of the Courtney Campbell Causeway) or Lower Old Tampa Bay (south of the causeway). The general findings of the cost analysis are summarized below: � The individual service area disposal options with a surface water discharge treated to secondary levels with no outfall extension are least costly; � Regional and sub-regional options are more costly than indi- vidual.options; � A sub-regional alternative combining all facilities for a discharge to Lower Old Tampa Bay at secondary treatment levels is the least costly non-individual service area op- tion; � Reuse plus secondary treatment and filtration is cost compe- titive with regional Gulf outfall and deep well injection options; and � The regional Gulf outfall option (with secondary treatment and with the outfall located four miles offshore from Honey- moon island) is cost competitive with the regional deep-well injection option. 70 conclusions 16 In the absence of approved wasteload allocations for area sur- face waters (except the Anclote River), EPA could not select a preferred alternative for wastewater disposal for all of North Pinellas County. The EIS must instead be viewed as providing input to the Florida DER in their wasteload allocation decisions and to local agencies for their wastewater management decisions. The identification of the most cost effective, environmentally sound disposal alternative that would be eligible for EPA fund- ing can not be accomplished until the wasteload allocation pro- cess is completed. The alternatives involving discharge into Old Tampa Bay, Clear- water Harbor and St. Joseph Sound can undergo no further screening by EPA at this time. Additional definitive decisions can not be made until wasteload allocations for those water bodies are available. Recommendations * Wastewater Reuse The wastewater reuse alternatives for each service area were identified as the environmentally preferred disposal alterna- tive. Reuse is the only management option that responds to the area's surface water quality problems while addressing ground water supply limitations. In general terms, the cost of waste-water reuse represents an additional $41 to $48 million beyond the costs associated with surface water dispo- sal options at AWT and secondary treatment levels, respecti- vely for all seven treatment plants. These costs do not recognize any value for the recycled wastewater or the reduced costs associated with lesser needs for potable supplies. 0 Old Tampa Bay Subarea In the absence of wasteload allocations for this subarea, numerous alternatives remain viable for the Clearwater East, Clearwater Northeast and Oldsmar service areas. The informa- tion from the EIS process is available to the state for use in their decisions. Upon completion of the wasteload alloca- tion process, the most cost-effective environmentally sound option for funding eligibility can then be selected. 0 Remaining Alternatives Wasteload allocations for old Tampa Bay and Clearwater Har- bor-St. Joseph Sound are in the process of being developed. The selected treatment level for each body of water could be as minimal as secondary wastewater treatment or as stringent as not allowing any wastewater discharge. 71 Therefore, All of the screened alternatives listed in Table 5-5 for the Clearwater East, Clearwater Northeast and Oldsmar service areas remain under consideration. b. City of St. Petersburg The St. Petersburg 201 planning area is located in the southern part of Pinellas County between Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico (refer back to Figure 5-7). The City of St. Petersburg is currently served by four existing municipal wastewater treatment plants, plus four package treat- ment plants at Fort DeSoto Park. The following are the waste- water facilities that serve the St. Petersburg 201 planning area: 1. Albert Whitted Wastewater Treatment Plant (6.4 MGD) 2. Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plant (16.0 MGD) 3. Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant (20.0 MGD) 4. Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant (20.0 MGD) 5. Fort De Soto Park Wastewater Treatment package plants (0.134 MGD) In response to PL 92-500 and the Wilson-Grizzle Bill, the City of St. Petersburg conducted extensive research in the spray irrigation of treated effluent. Numerous spray irrigation sites throughout the city were selected. The testing and monitoring results showed that the soils did not present constraints for effluent disposal on land, however, there were isolated instan- ces of sites that were poorly drained and had a high water table. In 1977, the St. Petersburg City Council adopted the concept of zero discharge of treated wastewater to surface waters of Tampa Bay' via wastewater reuse. The primary objective of the St. Petersburg 201 Facility Plan, completed in 1978, was to consolidate treatment plant service areas where it proved to be most cost-effective. The alterna- tive chosen was a four plant configuration utilizing only the St. Petersburg plants, plus the Fort DeSoto Park package waste- water treatment plants. Currently, three of the City's four wastewater treatment plants supply water to the effluent distribution system. At the present moment, all of the effluent from the Albert Whitted Plant is discharged to Tampa Bay, however, it is scheduled to be tied to the effluent distribution system before 1987, thereby inter- connecting completely the four regional treatment plants. Effluent disposal is accomplished through spray irrigation, with a deep-well injection back-up. The spray irrigation system con- sists of a complete secondary water main of 100-miles, carrying effluent to the four quadrants of the City. Excess effluent not used for irrigation is injected via deep wells into a brine 72 TABLE 5-5 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES Individual Alternatives City of Clearwater East Service Area � Continue existing discharge to Old Tampa Bay south of the Courtney Campbell Causeway 0 Discharge to Old.Tampa Bay at different location south of Causeway � Discharge to old Tampa Bay north of Causeway � Distribution of reusable wastewater to parks, golf courses and other lands for nonpotable uses City of Clearwater Northeast Service Area e Resume former discharge which flows into POSSUM Branch (and subsequently to Old Tampa Bay) * Discharge directly to Possum Branch * Discharge to Safety Harbor 9 Discharge to old Tampa Bay north of Causeway * Discharge of reusable wastewater to parks, golf courses and other lands for nonpotable uses. Source: EPA, Environmental Impact Statement, North Pinellas County, Florida, September 1985 City of Oldsmar Service Area e Discharge to Safety Harbor e Discharge to Mobbly Bay * Discharge the Old Tampa Bay north of Courtney Campbell Causeway e Combine with Higgins Power Plant cooling water and effluent prior to discharge to old Tampa Bay * Distribution of reusable wastewater to parks, golf courses and other lands for nonpotable uses Source: EPA Environmental Impact Statement, North Pinellas County, Florida, September, 1985 73 zone a thousand feet below the ground. An impermeable layer of rock and clay over-laying the brine zone prevents vertical migration of the effluent, eliminating the possibility of conta- minating groundwater. Construction costs of the wastewater reuse system is estimated at approximately $48 million. The City of St. Petersburg's share of this total is estimated at approximately $9.6 million, or 20 percent of the total cost.(14) C. POWER PLANT SITINGS There are six power generating plants existing along the shores of Tampa Bay (Figure 5-9). The three plants owned by Florida Power Corporation are the A.W. Higgins Plants located near Oldsmar on old 'Tampa Bay, the P.L. Bartow Plant located south of Gandy Bridge in Pinellas County and the Bayboro Plant located adjacent to Bayboro 'Harbor in St. Petersburg. The three plants owned by Tampa Electric Company are the Hooker's Point Station in Tampa, the Gannon Sta- tion, also located adjacent to Hillsborough Bay and the Big Bend Station located south of the Alafia River. Power plants are sited along the bay partly due to the need for large quantities of cooling water. While it is not necessary to site a power plant on the bay, large quantities of water are neces- sary and not easily obtained from other sources. In an effort to examine the economic benefits derived from location along Tampa Bay, two "case studies" are presented. The first case study examines the Tampa Electric Company's Big Bend Unit 4 elec- tric generating plant, and the second study examines Florida Power Corporation's,Cooling Water Report for the Bartow Plant. 1. Big Bend Unit 4 Tampa Electric Company (TECO), a company which is principally engaged in the generation and sale of electricity, serves an area of nearly 1900 square miles on the central west coast of Florida, including all of Hillsborough County and parts of Pasco, Pinellas, and Polk Counties. TECO serves approximately 316,000 customers; TECO's service area is shown in Figure 5-10. TECO produces electricity in three wholly owned power plants lo- cated on or near the eastern shores of Tampa Bay. The units in these plants have a generation capability mix of approximately 65 percent coal, 29 percent No. 6 low-sulfur oil, and 6 percent No.. 2 low-sulfur oil. The energy produced from these plants has a gen- eration mix of approximately 80 percent coal, 19 percent No. 6 fuel oil, and 1 percent No. 2 low-sulfur oil. Hookers Point station is the oldest of TECO's thr@ ee power plants. It is located just southeast of the Tampa business district on Hookers Point, fronting the Seddon Ship Channel. 74 Figure 5-9 POWER PLANT FACILITIES A.W. Higgins Pla t JVIL L S800011COV Tampa . (PALO A Hooker's Po*int Station OL D rA MPA 8A Y Gannon Station AfCXAr &Ar nt JVIL L SOO#Oucjv L.AjrfA R, P.L. Bartow Pla #Arl spoj!@!s Big Bend Station St. Petersburg Bayboro Plant GULF OF rA A(PA SA Y MEXICO SOCA CIEGA SAIr MacInnes Station Site T 1@MVvXLCLyF- EGIAONT KEY Cf 1A SAIr WAvAI'Er P 1 0 2 4 6 SCALE - MILES Source: Florida Power Florida Power and Light 75 THE TAMPA BAY SYSTEM Tampa Electric Company Lake Co. E D Cn Pasco Co. Pinellas Co. n-wn Lakeland -j Plant 6ty W ON G3 Clearwater Tamp s 601 St. Peterirg zz Tampp Tiger Bay DUY 0 (@Fort Meai Gulf of Mexico Hillsborough Co. Manatee CO. Hardee Co. 0 10 Service Area: Tampa Electric Company Gannon Station is-6 miles south of Tampa. The six units at this site originally burned coal. To comply with environmental require- ments, the first four units were converted to No. 6 low-sulfur oil in 1975 and 1976. Units 5 and 6 burn low-sulfur coal. An addi- tional 14-megawatt gas turbine, which burns No. 2 low-sulfur oil, is also located at Gannon Station. TECO converted the first four units back to coal, beginning in 1983. Big Bend, located 10 miles south of Tampa, is TECO's newest power plant. The three existing units burn coal. One 14-megawatt and two 65-megawatt gas turbines, which burn No. 2 low-sulfur oil, are located just north of Big Bend Station. During the early 1980s, TECO proposed to construct and operate a 417 MW (net) capacity coal-fired steam electric generating plant at the existing 1675 acre Big Bend complex in Hillsborough County. Because the operation of Big Bend Unit 4 would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the project was subject to the provisions of the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). Consequently, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared. The EIS contains information and data related to the need and purpose for the Big Bend Unit, alternative sites and plant systems, affected environment and environmental consequences, and monitoring programs. Big Bend Unit 4 began commercial service during the first quarter of 1985. The unit and supporting facilities are located on approx- imately 230 acres at TECO's Big Bend complex. Unit 4 was con- structed directly adjacent to the existing three units and will be operational for approximately 30 years. Cooling System Alternatives Cooling alternatives evaluated foe Unit 4 included (1) once-through cooling with conventional and fine mesh screens, (2) cooling towers, and (3) cooling ponds. Cooling water sources considered included Hillsborough Bay, saline groundwater, freshwater (ground- water and surface water), and treated municipal wastewater (15). Cooling system evaluation was a major issue in the NEPA process. Prior to commencement of the EIS, EPA Region IV had found that operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 was entraining significantly great numbers of eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish so as to adversely effect the aquatic ecosystem of Hillsborough Bay. Subsequently, modifications to the conventional once-through systems (shutting off the dilution pumps) were instituted to reduce the entrainment impacts. These impacts were reduced by approximately 36% with no substantial and unacceptable thermal impact on the aquatic resour- ces of Hillsborough Bay. Use of Hillsborough Bay as a source of cooling water in conjunction with conventional screens on the once-through cooling intake struc- 77 ture was judged to be an.unacceptable alternative for Unit 4 be- cause the entrainment and impingement losses for Units 1-4 would be potentially adverse. EPA Is tentative determination was that once-through cooling with fine mesh screens on the Units 3 and 4 intake structures would not result in unacceptable adverse entrainment impacts from the Big Bend complex. EPA tentatively determined that thermal impacts to be associated with operation of units 1-4 would not cause an unac- ceptable adverse impact. The other major cooling system alternative considered was a cooling tower for Unit 4-. With this alternative, entrainment impacts and thermal impacts would be less severe. However, salt drift asso- ciated with operation of the cooling tower could potentially cause an adverse impact on the agricultural industry adjacent to the complex. A mechanical draft cooling tower would cost $40 million more than the fine mesh screen option.(16) Cooling ponds were not a viable alternative since the required land was unavailable at the Big Bend complex and at other sites. Use of freshwater for cooling purposes is inconsistent with the water management policies of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Freshwater is becoming a critical resource in Florida and provisions for its distribution and utilization are structured toward more essential needs. A potential source of cooling water considered in the analysis was treated municipal wastewater. Because the water would need to be transported in a pipeline for approximately 6 miles, it was judged to be a less viable alternative economically and potentially envi- ronmentally (cooling towers would be needed) than the once-through cooling with fine mesh screens alternative. There would be no entrainment/impingement impacts associated with this alternative. The Selected Alternative I I The two types of systems that were considered most feasible for application in the project were once-through cooling and closed- cycle cooling (cooling towers). Several different design alterna- tives for each type of system were examined carefully from the point of view of impacts on the site and its environs. Table 5-6 shows a comparison of the principal potential impacts of each major alternative considered. The alternative chosen was once-through cooling with fine-mesh screens on Units 3 and 4, with no dilution. unit 4 was equipped with a fine-mesh screen and Unit 3 was retrofitted, to reduce the entrainment and impingement losses of marine organisms. Unit 4 was constructed with a condensor independent of Units 1, 2, and 3, but is cooled by water withdrawn from Hillsborough Bay via the existing intake channel. Operation of Unit 4 will require approximately 347 million gallons of cooling water per day and will increase the total cooling-water requirements of Big Bend Station to 1388 million gallons per day. 78 Table 5-6 Comparison of the major environmental impacts of the principal alternatives for waste-heat rejection Alternative Thermal impacts Entrainment impacts impingement impacts Bait drift impacts Fogging Land requirements Ooca,-through cooling for Area of the warmest Large number* of argarr- impingement rates None Occasional fogging Considered as base Units 1-4, conventional portions of the is&& entrainei (approx- about 33Z higher of water areas into condition for this screens, no dilution plume larger than imately 331 more then than prespat levels which discharge analytical table that of any other present entrairment with with Units 1-3 plume flows; some alternative Units L-3) increase in area over existing situ- ation with Units 1-3 Same an Alternative 1, Overall plums larger More organisms entrained Approximately the None About the am* as Commitment Of Malt but with dilution then that of any then with any other same as Alter- Alternative I additional ores other alternativeg alternative because of native I adjacent to exist- but area of warmest additional organisms ing dilution system temperatures matter introduced into thermal for third pump than that of Alter- plum by dilution native 1 3. Once-through cooling for Same as Alter- Numbers of organisms Impingement rates None Same as Alter- Commitment of some Units 1-4, fine-mash native I entrained about the somewhat below native I small additional screens an Units 3 and some an for existing present levels area in intake 4, no dilution Units 1-3 canal W 4. Same me Alternative 3, Same as Alter- Entrainment rate softe@ Approximately the None Same as Alter- Commitments as for but with dilution native 2 what lower than with same as Alter- native 2 Alternatives 2 and Alternative 2 native 3 3 combined 5. Once-through cooling Same as Alter- Lowest entraiment rate Lowest impingement None Same as Alter- Commitments of for Units 1-4, fine- native I of all once@through rate of any of the native I small area intake mash screens on all alternatives; rate below once-through canal beyond that units, no dilution that of existing system alternative* needed for Alter- on Units 1-3 native 3 6. Same as Alternative 5, Same as Alter- Number* entrained Approximately the None Same as Alter- Commitments as for but with dilution native 2 greater than for Alter- same an Attar- native 2 Alternatives 2 and native 5 because of ad- native 5 5 combined ditional organism* intro- duced into thermal plume by dilution flow 7. Saltwater cooling Very mall increase Very mall increase in Very small increase Largest quantities Some fogging in Large commitment of towers for Unit 4 in size of thermal numbers entrained over in tnnbera impinged of salt released area of the tower; additional land plume aver present present situation with over present situ- into air than with no increase in areas to the south situation with Unit* 1-3 ation with any cooling-tower sea fogging over of discharge canal Units 1-3 Units 1-3 alternative present situation near mangrove area Vousidered with Units 1-3 a. Brackish-vater cooling Same as Alter- None Wout somewhat smaller Same as Alter- Same as Alter- towers for Unit 4 native 7 quantities of salt native 7 native 7 released than in Alternative 7 9. Freshwater cooling Same as Alter- None None Lowest quantities Same as Alter- Same as Alter- towers for Unit 4 native 7 of salt released native 7 native 7 Of any cooling- lower alternative considered There were two types of closed-cycle heat rejection systems consi- dered for Big Bend Unit 4. They were a natural draft wet-cooling tower and a concrete, circular mechanical draft wet-cooling tower with multiple fans. The latter was selected as the preferred closed-cycle system, primarily on the basis of economics. The capital and performance costs associated with the natural-draft closed cycle system was established to be approximately $22 mil- lion more than those of the mechanical-draft system. In either case, a closed-cycle system for Big Bend Unit 4 would have been substantially more expensive than the chosen alternative of a once-through system. Table 5-7 provides a summary of the cost comparison between the once-through system alternative and the closed-cycle cooling system. The alternative chosen specified constructing a 417 MW facility at the Big Bend complex. A once-through cooling system with fine mesh screens on the Units 3 and 4 intake sf-ructures would be employed, and Hillsborough Bay would serve as the source of cooling water as well as the point of discharge. When the cost comparison between the once-through system and the closed-cycle cooling system is considered, as illustrated in Table 5-7, it is apparent that, from a purely economic perspective, the former alternative is economically preferable. The actual total costs incurred with the installation of a once-through cooling system with fine-mesh screens are in the range of $11.3 million (17). The next best alternative, e.g. construction of a cooling tower, would result in costs over five-times that of a conventional once-through system, or nearly $52 million. 2. Florida Power Corporation, P.L. Bartow Plant In November 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an NPDES permit for Florida Power Corporation's (FPC) P. L. Bartow Plant, a 494.4 MW (nameplate), three-unit electric genera- ting station, located on Weedon Island on Tampa Bay.(18) The conditions of the permit required FPC to submit to EPA for approval of a detailed implementation schedule to provide offstream cooling facilities in lieu of the existing once-through cooling water system and, furthermore, to implement this schedule after approval. In December 1976, FPC requested an adjudicatory hearing regarding certain provisions of the NPDES permit. one of these was the provision requiring offstream cooling facilities. Off-Stream Cooling Alternatives An evaluation of the technical feasibility of four potential cool- ing water alternatives was performed for the Bartow Plant. The alternatives included: (1) dilution pumps, (2) auxiliary or "helper" cooling towers, (3) off-stream mechanical draft cooling tower, and (4) Ecolaire oriented Spray Cooling System. BG TABLE 5 - 7 COSTS OF USING ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WITH FINE-MESH SCREENS AND A MECHANICAL-DRAFT COOLING TOWER AT BIG BEND STATION (Thousands of Dollars, 1985) Once-through Cooling With Fine-mesh Screens Costs *Units 3 & 4 Units 1 & 2 Cooling Tower Capital $ 8,690 $ 6,460 $ 31,373 Revenue Requirements Operating Cost Penalties 520 520 19,256 Operation and Maintenance 1,005 1,005 1,173 TOTAL $ 10,215 $ 7,985 $ 51,802 Source: U.S. EPA Final Environmental Impact Statement. Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Unit 4, January 1982 Chosen Alternative 81 1. Dilution Pumps' This alternative considered the use of dilution water flow to decrease the discharge water temperature during peak unit loads in the summer months. Two half-capacity dilution pumps would be installed in the in-take water structure to pump cold water into the discharge canal, thereby reducing the discharge temperature of the water entering Tampa Bay. The capital costs included an amount for canal preparation which would include some excavating of the existing discharge canal, to allow proper flow of the dilution water into the discharge canal. The operating costs were based on operating only during the summer months, as needed, to provide supplemental cooling during peak load and peak ambient conditions. Maintenance costs were included. In 1979 dollars, the total capital investment for the dilution pumps was $9,840,000, the total annual operating cost was $70,800, and the total annual cost $1,578,000. 2. "Helper" Cooling Towers Another supplemental cooling arrangement was to utilize a "helper" cooling tower to decrease the discharge temperature during peak load and peak ambient conditions. The "helper" cooling tower was to be operated during the summer to limit the discharge temperature to a predetermined value. The "helper" cooling tower is sized so that a 95*F discharge tem- perature would be maintained based on a 920F inlet water tempera- ture, a 790F wet bulb temperature, and all three units at full load. One round mechanical draft tower with 12 fans was considered in this alternative. From a cooling water system design viewpoint, the location along the existing discharge canal was relatively ideal; however, it was abnormally close to four (4) existing com- bustion turbine peaking units. The operating costs were based on operating the cooling tower during the summer months only, as needed, to decrease the dis- charge water temperature. In 1979 dollars, the total capital investment for the "helper" cooling tower was $17,963,000, the total annual operating cost was $441,000, and the total annual cost $3,195,000. 3. Off-stream Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers Several significant plant site construction modifications would have been required if offstream mechanical draft cooling towers were to be installed. The major changes would have included: (1) the excavation and modification of the existing circulating water piping, (2) the relocation of the circulating water pumps, (3) the excavation, placement, and backfill of new circulating water piping to the cooling towers, and (4) the excavation and construction of the cooling towers and foundation. 82 The most advantageous arrangement for offstream. cooling towers was two round, mechanical draft towers, one for Units 1 and 2, and one for Unit 3. The cooling towers would be the counterflow fill type so that they could be partitioned into sections. One tower would service Units 1 and 2 and the other tower would service Unit 3 only. The tower that services Units 1 and 2 would be partitioned into two sections and sized to handle the heat load and water flow from each unit. A section could be isolated, as required, if Unit 1 was operating but Unit 2 was not. Separate cooling tower booster pumps, piping, and distribution systems would be designed for each section of that tower. In 1979 dollars, the total capital investment for the offstream: cooling towers was $39,188,000, the total annual operating cost was $3,044,000 and the total annual cost $9,052,000. 4. Oriented Spray Cooling System The use of an Ecolaire oriented Spray Cooling System (OSCS) was also evaluated. The OSCS functions like a cooling tower -- but without a stack, roof, or walls. The system produces its own airflow through a circular arrangement of patented spray trees. Each spray tree consists of a vertical riser pipe with a series of horizontal branch pipes and spray nozzles. The momentum and heat transfer between the sprayed water drops and the surrounding air draws cool air from around the periphery through the fill section to cool the water. The air then exits up from the center of the system as a warm plume. The ability of the system to induce airflow through the spray fill area permits consistent performance regardless of ambient wind conditions. Based upon the design parameters, Ecolaire proposed a system con- sisting of four octagonal modules, each 420 feet in diameter. A 420-foot spacing would also have been required between each of the modules. Therefore, the minimum dimensions of the OSCS basin which would be capable of cooling the water for the three units would be 420 by 2,940 feet. Since the area for a system of that size was not available at the Bartow Plant, the OSCS was not considered further. Conclusion The adjudicatory hearing requested by FPC, regarding the provision requiring offstream. cooling facilities, was never held, largely because of the lack of local opposition to the existing system of once-through cooling. However, the study, as presented, indicated that modification of the existing once-through cooling water system at the Bartow Plant was (is) technically feasible. Table 5-8 illustrates the capital costs associated with three of the four potential cooling water alternatives. The Oriented Spray Cooling System was the only alternative for which capital costs were not provided. 83 TABLE 5-8 OFFSTREAM COOLING FACILITIES OPTIONS Capital Cost option 1979 Dollars 1984 Dollarsl Dilution,Pumps 9,840,000 12,497,000 "Helper" Cooling Towers 17,963,000 22,813,000 Offstream Mechanical Draft 39,188,000 49,768,000 Cooling Towers Source: Florida Power Corporation "Cooling Water Report for the Paul L. Bartow Plant," Environmental and Licensing Affairs, December 1980 1U.S. Department of Commerce, Composite (Construction) Cost Index, 1985. Adjustment for Inflation (+27%) 84 The Bartow Plant is approximately 30 years old, with Units 1, 2, and I having commenced commercial operation in 1958, 1161, and 1963, respectively. As new generating units are placed into the service in the FPC system, the use of the Bartow Plant will de- crease accordingly. In view of the age of the Bartow Plant, the expected decrease in use, and costs involved (as illustrated in Table 5-8), FPC did not consider it appropriate to make any modifications to the existing once-through cooling water system. The capital costs associated with the next best available alternatives range from $12.5 million to nearly $50 million (in 1984 dollars). The location of the Bartow Plant on Tampa Bay and the ability to utilize the once- through cooling system results in a cost savings of many millions of dollars. Transportation Savings The location of the Bartow, Bayboro and Higgins power plants on Tampa Bay also results in a transportation cost savings for the Florida Power Corporation (FPC). The Bartow facility serves as a "port of entry" for ocean-going vessels, which transport residual and distillate oil, the principle source of fuel for the three facilities. The oil is brought into the Bartow facility and then dispersed to the Higgins and Bayboro plants, by barge, resulting in a transportation cost savings when compared to the next best avail- able alternative of transporting by truck. In addition to these facilities, the FPC Anclote River Power Plant, located on the Anclote River in southwestern Pasco County, also receives residual oil from the Bartow Plant, via a pipeline. Due to the Anclote Plant's location, in an environmentally sensitive area, no channel dredging or excavation has been permitted, thus eliminating the use of a barge or similar vessel to bring in the oil. Again, truck transportation would be the next best available alternative. Table 5-9 illustrates the cost savings associated with transporting oil by barge, truck and pipeline. The Suwannee River facility is a land-locked power plant located in northern Florida, near Lake City. The residual and distillate oil, both used at the facility, are brought in by truck from the Port of Jacksonville. The water-borne transportation cost of barging oil into the Bartow plant is considered to be zero, in that such cost is included in the original purchase price of the oil. The costs associated with barging oil to the Higgins and Bayboro facilities, in 1985, range from $.42 per barrel to $.45 per barrel, respectively. The cost associated with moving oil from the Bartow Facility to the Anclote Plant, in 1985, is $.41 per barrel. The cost associated with the truck transportation of residual and distillate oil to the Suwanee River Facility, in 1985, was $1.22 and $1.08, respectively. The transportation cost projections for 1986 are similar. 85 TABLE 5-9 FLORIDA POWER TRANSPORTATION COSTS (Projected) RESIDUAL AND DISTILLATE OIL 1985 (June-December) 1986 (January-March) Fuel Facility Transportation $/barrel Transportation $/barrel Residual Bartow 0.00 0.00 Residual Higgins .42 (A) .44 (A) Residual Suwannee River 1.22 (B) 1.29 (B) Distillate Bayboro .45 (A) .48 (A) Distillate Suwannee River 1.08 (B) 1.14 (B) Residual Anclote .41 (C) .43 (C) Notes: Bartow is the site of origination (A) Fuel transported by barge (B) Fuel transported by truck (C) Fuel transported by pipeline Source: Florida Power Corporation 86 In 1184, FPC barge6 approximately 4.1 million barrels of oil to the Bartow Plant, for consumption at the Bartow Facility, and distribution to the Higgins Plant (by smaller barges) and the Anclote Plant (via the pipeline). Without the Bartow Plant's loca- tion on Tampa Bay, that amount of fuel would have to be transported by other means. The next best available alternatives are rail and truck transportation. Because rail facilities are not present at any of these facilities, the next best alternative for transporta- tion would be by truck. Using a truck delivery cost of $1.15 per barrel, as an estimate, the terminal facility at the Bartow Plant resulted in a transportation cost savings of $5.3 million in 1984. (19) 87 D. FOOTNOTES 1. Florida Department of, Environmental Regulation, 1984, nTampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study." 2. ibid. 3. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1983. "Tampa Bay Management study". TBRPC, St. Petersburg, FL. 4. Ibid. 5. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1985. The Future of Tampa Bay. TBRPC, St. Petersburg, FL. 6. Smith and Gillespie, et. al., 1980. Central Hillsborough County Tampa, 201 Facility Plan. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Record of Decision of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Wastewater Facilities for Central Hillsborough - Tampa. 8. Morriss, J. P. Personal Communication. City of Tampa, Sanitary Sewer Department, Tampa, FL, December 11, 1985. 9. Hillsborough County Wastewater Master Plan, November 1985. 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1979, Hillsborough County, Florida. Northwest Area 201 Facilities Plan. 11. U.S. Department of Commerce, Composite (Construction) Cost Index, 1985. Adjustment for Inflation (+27%). 12. Ibid. Hillsborough County Wastewater Master Plan, Table 4-3. 13. This discussion of Pinellas County-wastewater facilities is conden- sed from the following document: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement. North Pinellas County, Florida. Wastewater Facilities. 14. Greer, Glenn, Personal Communication. City of St. Petersburg Public Utilities Department, January 20, 1986. 15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Tampa Electric Company. Big Bend Unit 4. 16. Ibid. 17. Autry, A.S. Personal Communication. Tampa Electric Company, De- partment of Environmental Affairs, Tampa, FL, December 9, 1985. 18. Florida Power Corporation, 1980. Cooling Water Report for the Paul L. Bartow Plant. 19. Wieland, K.H. Personal Communication. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, FL December 19, 1985. 88 CHAPTER 6 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO COMMERCIAL FISHING A. INTRODUCTION The commercial fishing industry is an important source of income and employment along Florida's extensive coastline, including Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay serves as a nursery and habitat area for many commercially valuable species of fish (finfish) and shellfish. The economic base model, presented in Chapter 3, identifies commercial fishing (SIC 091) as a basic export or growth sector for the Tampa Bay region. A Six- year trend, 1979 to 1984, will be analyzed in this chapter. Population Growth As referred to earlier in this study, all four counties within the Tampa Bay region have experienced explosive popu lation growth in the past two decades (see Table 2-1). Population growth and accompanying residential and recreational development have put heavy pressure on waterfront property used by the fishing and seafood industry. Docking space has been converted from commercial to recreational use as the number of pleasure boats has increased in the region. Boat Registrations The number of commercial boats registered in Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas Counties has increased somewhat over the past six years, however, the figures remain far below the number of commercial vessels registered in the mid-to-late 1960s. The number of commercial boats reached a high of 4,339 in 1965-66, then generally declined (Table 6-1). Pinellas County currently has the largest number of commercial boats registered with 1,456 while Pasco County has the fewest with 289 (Table 6-2). Commercial boat registration data for 1981-82 was not available. B. FLORIDA WEST COAST VOLUME AND VALUE OF COMMERCIAL IANDINGS The west coast of Florida represents a region that provides a major percentage of the state's total production of finfish and shellfish. Counties included in the west coast are Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington, Bay, Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, Leon, Wakulla, Taylor, Dixie, Levy, Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborought Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Jefferson, and Monroe. 89 TABLE 6-1 COMMERCIAL BOATS REGISTERED ANNUALLY TAMPA BAY REGION Year Connercial Boats Registered 1979-80 2,974 1980-81 21444 1981-82 N/A 1982-83 2,945 1983-84 3,030 1984-85 3,260 Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of License and Motorboat Registration. 90 TABLE 6-2 COMMERCIAL BOATS REGISTERED BY COUNTY Year Commercial Boats Registered Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas 1979-80 791 388 299 1,496 1980-81 575 331 254 1,284 1981-82 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1982-83 714 474 272 1,485 1983-84 718 534 301 1,477 1984-85 942 573 289 1,456 Source: Florida Department of Natural Resurces, Bureau of License and Motorboat,Registration 91 Landings in the 30-county area averaged approximately 117 million pounds for the six-year period, 1979-1984. Landings have ranged from a minimum of 108 million pounds in 1979, to a maximum of slightly more than 139 million pounds in 1981. (Table 6-3) west coast landings have shown an increase of approximately five percent over the last six years. Finfish landings for the six-year period averaged 64 million pounds or 55 percent of the total landed. Shellfish landings averaged 53 million pounds or 45 percent of the total. Total value of landings on the west coast has averaged approximately $106 million. Total value has ranged from approximately $86 million in 1980, to $119 million in 1981. (Table 6-3) Value of shellfish landings for the six-year period, averaged $72 million, or 70 percent of the total value. Value of finfish landings averaged $34 million or 30 percent of the total. C. TAMPA BAY REGION VOLUME AND VALUE OF COMMERCIAL LANDINGS Landings in the four-county area have averaged approximately 26 million pounds for the six-year period 1979-1984. (For reporting purposesF landings for Pasco County are combined with Citrus County.) Landings have ranged from a minimum of approximately 23 million pounds in 1979, to a maximum of slightly more than 29 million pounds in 1982. (Table 6- 4) Finfish landings for the six-year period averaged 19 million pounds, or 72 percent of the total landed. Shellfish landings averaged 7 million pounds or 28 percent of the total. Total value of landings in the Tampa Bay region averaged approximately $20 million. Total value has ranged from $13 million in 1979, to $25 milli6n in 1983. (Table 6-4) Value of finfish landings for the six-year period averaged $10 million, or 51 percent of the total value. Value of shellfish landings averaged slightly less than $10 million or 49 percent of the total. Landings in the Tampa Bay region averaged approximately 23 percent of the total Florida West Coast landings over the six-year period. Finfish landings averaged 30 percent, while shellfish landings averaged approximately 14 percent of the Florida West Coast landings. Total value of landings in the Tampa Bay region averaged approximately 19 percent of the total value of landings for the Florida west coast, over the six-year period. Value of finfish landings averaged approximately 30 percent, while value of shellfish landings averaged approximately 13 percent of the Florida west coast value of landings. Based on the average for the six-year period, 1979-1984, Pinellas County landed the largest percentage (36) of the four counties in the Tampa Bay region. Manatee, Citrus-Pasco, and Hillsborough Counties landed 27, 21 and 16 percent, respectively. 92 TABLE 6-3 FLORIDA WEST COAST LANDINGS AND VALUE OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH, 1979-1984 (In million pounds and million dollars) POUNDS DOLLARS Year Finfish Shellfish Total Finfish Shellfish Total 1979 53.2 55.3 108.5 $ 20.8 $ 70.0 $.90.8 1980 62.5 51.9 114.4 27.2 58.6 85.8 1981 75.4 63.7 139.1 38.1 80.9 119.0 1982 70.4 46.1 116.5 40.4 73.4 113.8 1983 61*9 47,3 109*2 37*2 75,7 112*9 1984 60.0 54.0 114*0 37.4 74.3 111.7 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 93 TABLE 6-4 COMMERCIAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION (Citrus-Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas Counties) 1979-1984 (In million pounds and million dollars) POUNDS DOLLARS Year Finfish Shellfish Total Finfish Shellfish Total 1979 17.4 5.3 22.7 $ 6.7 $ 6.7 $ 13.4 1980 17.1 6.2 23.3 8.1 7.1 15.2 1981 2161 7.4 28.5 10.7 8.7 19.4 1982 21,9 7.5 29.4 11.9 10.9 22.7 1983 18,3 10.0 28.3 11.2 13.9 25.1 1984 19,7 8.0 27.7 12.0 11.0 23.0 Id Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 94 The largest percentage of finfish landings for the six-year period was by Manatee County 1161, while Pinellas, Hillsborough and Citrus-Pasco Counties averaged 35, 16 and 12 percent, respectively. The largest percentage of shellfish landings was by Citrus-Pasco Counties (42), while Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties averaged 37, 19 and 2 percent, respectively, for the six-year period. Pinellas County was also responsible for the largest percentage in value of landings for the region. The value of Pinellas County landings averaged 53 percent of the regional total, while Hillsborough, Citrus-Pasco, and Manatee Counties averaged 17, 16, and 14 percent, respectively. Citrus-Pasco Counties Citrus-Pasco Counties landings for the six-year period, 1979 - 1984, averaged 56 percent shellfish and 44 percent finfish, or 3.1 million pounds and 2.4 million pounds, respectively, for a total average of 5.5 million pounds. In 1984, the counties landed 66 percent shellfish and 34 percent finfish, or 3.7 million pounds and 1.9 million pounds, respectively, for a total of 5.6 million pounds. Total value of landings in Citrus-Pasco for the six-year period, aver- aged $3.1 million, with $2.3 million in shellfish and $800 thousand in finfish, or 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively. In 1984, the value of landings totaled $3.4 million, with $2.8 million in shellfish and $600 thousand in finfish, or 81 percent and 19 percent, respective- ly. (Table 6-5) Hillsborough County Hillsborough County landings for the six-year period, 1979 - 1984, averaged 68 percent finfish and 32 percent shellfish, or 3.0 million pounds and 1.4 million pounds, respectively, for a total average of 4.4 million pounds. In 1984, the county landed 71 percent finfish and 29 percent shellfish, or 2.9 million pounds and 1.2 million pounds, respectively, for a total of 4.1 million pounds. (Table 6-6) Total value of landings in Hillsborough County for the six-year period, averaged $3.3 million, with $2.2 million in shellfish and $1.1 million in finfish, or 68 percent and 32 percent, respectively. In 1984, the value of landings totaled $3.0 million, with $2.4 million in shellfish and $600 thousand in finfish, or 79 percent and 21 percent, respective- ly. (Table 6-6) Manatee County Manatee County landings for the six-year period, 1979 - 1984, averaged 98 percent finfish and 2 percent shellfish, or 7.0 million pounds and 100 thousand pounds, respectively, for a total average of 7.1 million pounds. In 1984, the county landed 98 percent finfish and 2 percent shellfish, or 8.3 million pounds and 200 thousand pounds, respectively, for a total of 8.5 million pounds. (Table 6-7) 95 TABLE 6-5 C014MERCIAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH IN CITRUS-PASCO COUNTIES 1979-1984 (In thousand pounds and thousand dollars) POUNDS DOLLARS Year Finfish Shellfish Total Finfish Shellfish Total 1979 2,797 2,225 5,022 $ 732 $ 1,292 2,024 1980 2,202 2,515 4,717 744 1,633 2,378 1981 2,654 2,706 5,360 987 1,971 2,959 1982 2,890 3,038 5,928 978 2,470 3,449 1983 2,189 4,529 6,718 708 4,017 4,724 1984 1,922 3,740 5,662 664 2,831 3,495 Source:' U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 96 TABLE 6-6 COMMERCIAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 1979-1984 (In thousand pounds and thousand dollars) POUNDS DOLLARS Year Finfish Shellfish Total Finfish Shellfish Total 1979 2,684 1,189 3,873 $ 917 $ 1,856 $ 2,773 1980 3,307 1,382 4,689 1,447 1,826 3,273 1981 2,476 1,076 3,552 1,071 1,498 2,569 1982 4,642 1,796 6,438 1,566 2,798 4,364 1983 2,130 1,815 3,945 841 3,264 4,105 1984 2,958 1,185 4,143 647 2,449 3,096 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 97 TABLE 6-7 COMMERCIAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH IN MANATEE COUNTY 1979-1984 (In thousand pounds and thousand dollars) POUNDS DOLLARS Year Finfish Shellfish Total Finfish Shellfish Total 1979 5,962 91 6,053 1,698 $ 225 1,924 1980 4,462 127 4,589 1,440 225 1,665 1981 8,719 169 8,888 3,025 318 3,343 1982 6,862 168 7,030 2,518 368 2,886 1983 7,453 198 7,651 3,054 457 3,511 1984 8,375 182 8,557 2,978 396 3,374 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 98 Total value of landings in Manatee County for the six-year period, averaged $2.7 million, with $2.4 million in finfish and $400 thousand in shellfish, or 73 percent and 27 percent, respectively. In 1984, the value of landings totaled $3.3 million, with $2.9 million in finfish and $400 thousand in shellfish, or 88 percent and 12 percent, respectively. (Table 6-7) Pinellas County Pinellas County landings for the six-year period, 1979 - 1984, averaged 71 percent finfish and 29 percent shellfish, or 6.8 million pounds and 2.7 million pounds, respectively, for a total average of 9.5 million pounds. In 1984, the county landed 69 percent finfish and 31 percent shellfish, or 6.5 million pounds and 2.9 million pounds, respectively, for a total of 9.4 million pounds. (Table 6-8) Total value of landings in Pinellas County for the six-year period, averaged $10.4 million, with $5.7 million in finfish and $4.7 million in shellfish, or 55 percent and 45 percent, respectively. In 1984, the value of landings totaled $13 million, with $7.7 million in finfish and $5.3 million in shellfish, or 59 percent and 41 percent, respectively. (Table 6-8) D. SPECIES LANDINGS AND VALUES IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION, 1979-1984 Finfish major species of finfish commonly caught in Tampa Bay waters include drum, flounder, mullet, sea trout, and sheepshead. (Table 6-9) Drum landings for the six-year period averaged 179 thousand pounds, with an average value of $60 thousand. Landings of drum fluctuated from a low of 81 thousand pounds in 1980, to a high of 256 thousand pounds in 1984. Value of drum fluctuated from a low of $36 thousand in 1980, to a high of $111 thousand in 1981. Flounder landings for the six-year period averaged 24 thousand pounds, with an average value of $12 thousand. Landings of flounder fluctuated from a high of slightly less than 40 thousand pounds in 1983, to a low of slightly less than 14 thousand pounds in 1984. Mullet landings for the six-year period averaged approximately seven million pounds, with an average value of $1.5 million. Landings of mullet fluctuated from a high of 8.5 million pounds in 1981, to a low of approximately four million pounds in 1984. Value of mullet fluctuated from a high of slightly less than two million dollars in 1981, to a low of approximately one million dollars in 1984. Sea trout landings for the six-year period averaged 186 thousand pounds, with an average value of $125 thousand. Landings of sea trout fluctuated from a high of 280 thousand pounds in 1979, to a low of 93 thousand pounds in 1983. Value of sea trout fluctuated from a high of approximately $154 thousand in 1979, to a low of $70 thousand in 1983. 99 TABLE 6-8 COMMERCIAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH IN PINELLAS COUNTY 1979-1984 (In thousand pounds and thousand dollars) POUNDS DOLLARS Year Finfish Shellfish Total Finfish Shellfish Total 1979 5,933 1,829 7,762 $ 3,366 $ 3,336 6,702 1980 7,101 2,207 9,308 4,498 3,415 7,913 1981 7,255 3,441 10,696 5,597 4,947 10,544 1982 7,481 2,499 9,980 6,784 5,226 12,010 1983 6,530 3,439 9,969 6,605 6,121 12,726 1984 6,466 2,949 9,415 7,706 5,323 13,029 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 100 TABLE 6-9 SPECIES LANDINGS & VALUES (FINFISH) IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION, 1979-1984 (HILLSBOROUGH, MANATEE & PINELLAS COUNTIES) Drum Flounder mullet Sea Trout Sheepshead (Black & Red) (Black & Silver) (Spotted, White) Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars 1979 91,592 $ 37,508 26,788 $ 10,952 8,010,614 $1,477,935 280,751 $ 153,824 15,495 $ 3,353 1980 81,224 36,167 24,309 13,258 7,721,027 1,514,425 192,368 118,267 21,152 3,848 1981 264,055 111,214 20,718 11,325 8,506,019 1,977,725 218,312 147,641 34,750 7,370 1982 191,899 96,768 18,226 11,507 7,253,156 1,615,140 169,643 121,226 37,762 10,255 1983 100,030 63,104 39,882 17,141 4,026,223 1,196,145 93,272 70,542 11,883 3,622 1984 255,948 18,821 13,981 8,415 3,872,946 1,162,426 161,169 136,655 33,045 9,942 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Statistics Sheepshead landings for the six-year period averaged approximately 26 thousand pounds, with an average value of only six thousand dollars. Landings of sheepshead fluctuated from a high of approximately 38 thousand pounds in 1982, to a low of approximately 12 thousand pounds in 1983. Value of sheepshead fluctuated from a high of $10 thousand in 1982, to a low of approximately four thousand dollars in 1983. These five major species accounted for approximately 42 percent of the finfish landed over the six-year period, and 18 percent of the value. In 1984, these species accounted for approximately 24 percent of the total finfish landed and 12 percent of the total value. offshore species, which include snapper and grouper, account for a larger percentage of the three-county volume and value of finfish. Shellfish major species of shellfish commonly caught in Tampa Bay waters include clams, blue crabs (hard), stone crabs, oysters and bait shrimp. (Table 6-10) Hard clam landings for the six-year period averaged 141 pounds, with an average value of only $419. There were no reports of landings of hard clams in 1979, 1980 and 1984. Blue crab (hard) landings for the six-year period averaged 185 thousand pounds, with an average value of approximately $61 thousand. Landings of blue crab fluctuated from a high of 278 thousand pounds in 1982, to a low of 143 thousand pounds in 1984. Value of blue crab fluctuated from a low of $35 thousand in 1979, to a high of approximately $89 thousand in 1982. Stone crab landings for the six-year period averaged 50 thousand pounds, with an average value of $84 thousand. Landings of stone crab fluctuated from a low of 14 thotisanA pounds in 1981, to a high of approximately 100 thousand pounds in 1984. Value of stone crab fluctuated from a low of $16 thousand in 1981, to a high 'of $213 thousand in 1984. Oyster landings for the six-year period averaged six thousand pounds, with an average value of approximately seven thousand dollars. Landings of oysters fluctuated from a high of 14 thousand pounds in 1981, to a low of 132 pounds in 1982. There were no landings of oysters reported for 1979. Value of oysters fluctuated from a high of approximately $16 thousand in 1981, to a low of $167 in 1982. Bait shrimp landings for the six-year period averaged approximately 82 thousand pounds, with a value of approximately $158 thousand. Landings of bait shrimp fluctuated from a low of 45 thousand pounds in 1981, to a high of approximately 117 thousand pounds in 1984. Value of bait shrimp fluctuated from a low of $77 thousand in 1980, to a high of $245 thousand in 1984. 102 M m4r M TABLE 6-10 SPECIES LANDINGS & VALUES (SHELLFISH) IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION, 1979-1984 (HILLSBOROUGH, MANATEE & PINELLAS COUNTIES) Clams Crabs Crabs oysters Shrimp HELrd) (Blue, Hard) (Stone) (Bait) Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars ........... 1979 $ 169,065 35,506 17,392 $ 24,202 - $ - 113,501 $ 181,813 1980 148,739 37,193 27,933 40,568 13,731 14,637 47,311 77,161 1981 225 684 222,621 62,901 14,351 15,721 14,351 15,721 45,545 85,548 1982 70 158 278,395 88,994 67,368 92,663 132 167 105,330 211,686 1983 128 416 150,482 54,480 71,786 116,238 2,939 3,479 61,540 144,446 1984 143,326 49,802 98,928 213,319 219 399 116,745 245,322 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Statistics These five major species accounted for approximately 7.5 percent of the shellfish landed in Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee Counties over the six-year period, and 4.2 percent of the value. In 1984, these species accounted for approximately 8.3 percent of the total shellfish landed and 6.3 percent of the total value. Summary A total of 22.1 million pounds of fish, valued at $19.5 million, were landed in Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties in 1984. Pinellas County accounted for approximately 43 percent of the total landings in 1984, and 67 percent of the total value. Approximately 80 percent of the pounds landed in 1984 were finfish, while shellfish accounted for 42 percent of the total value of landings. Fishermen As illustrated in Table 6-11, a total number of 1,952 commercial fish- ermen plied their trade during 1984, in Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties. This represented ten percent of all fishermen in Florida. Processing As illustrated in Table 6-12, the Tampa Bay region had a total of 46 seafood processing and wholesaling plants in 1984, with an average monthly employment of 200 persons. Data for Manatee County was not available. 104 TABLE 6-11 SALTWATER PRODUCTS LICENSES ISSUED 1984 County No. of Licenses Issued Hillsborough 519 Manatee 328 Pinellas 1,105 Total 1,952 Florida 19,275 Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, November 1985 105 TABLE 6-12 TAMPA BAY REGION SEAFOOD PROCESSING AND WHOLESALING PLANTS 1984 Average County No. of Establishments Monthly Employment Hillsborough 30 133 Pinellas 10 43 Pasco 6 24 Manatee N/A N/A Total 46 200 Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 106 CHAPTER 7 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS A. INTRODUCTION The various uses and attributes of Tampa Bay are a source of many benefits to local residents and tourists alike, In this chapter, an attempt will be made through the use of a survey, to document the value of an aesthetic attribute (water view) and benefits that are provided by Tampa Bay, to owners of private, single-family residential waterfront homes. In general terms, it is the presence of the bay that enhances the value and desirability of the homes and neighborhoods located on the bay. The benefits (services) accruing to waterfront property owners that will be considered, are as follows: aesthetic value of the waterfront vista or view; swimmability of the water close to the home; fishability of the water close to the home; navigability of the water close to the home; and suitability of the water close to the home for various water sports and activities. Like any freely accessible body of water, the Tampa Bay estuary is considered a public good. Individuals cannot be excluded from enjoying its services because it is difficult or impossible to collect fees for the benefits it provides. Thus, the services of the estuary, such as navigability and fishability, cannot be purchased in the market place. They are complementary to access to the estuary. There are private and public accesses to the estuary. In this chapter, the complementarity of access by private waterfront homes is the basis for the estimates of these services. B. METHODOLOGY It has been determined that a number of studies exist on property values which attempt to incorporate valuation of beneficial and detri- mental neighborhood and environmental externalities. one such study uses, as its base, a model of determination of residential property values, developed for Pinellas County.(1) It was decided that the methodology of this study would be applied to single-family residen- tial, waterfront structures, located within the economic study area. Emphasis would be placed on neighborhood conditions, local public schools, water views, water quality and travel time to job locations. Based upon the previous study, the variables shown in Figure 7-1 were chosen. A questionnaire was designed to measure the aesthetic value and services, as perceived by owners of waterfront homes. The property appraisers from Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties were contacted in July 1985, and asked to provide information and data pertaining to 1984 sales of waterfront homes. After numerous discussions and meetings, it was determined that only Pinellas County could provide the requisite information in a timely and inexpensive manner. (The information requested is as follows: Property address; 1984 sale price; effective square footage; year built; presence of a 107 FIGURE 7-1 VARIABLES price price of property In dollars area effective square footage as defined by Property Appraiser's Office age age of home in years pool 1 if has a pool, 0 if not dock 1 if has a dock, 0 if not block 1 if concrete block construction, 0 if not canal 1 if on canal, 0 if not ciega 1 if On Boca Ciega Bay, 0 if not Tbay 1 if on Tampa Bay, 0 if not mTax 1984 tax rate for the property zone allowed housing density per acre parcel2 parcel number in batch2 cleanl cleanliness of neighborhood rated excellent clean2 cleanliness of neighborhood rated good clean3 cleanliness of neighborhood rated fair clean4 cleanliness of neighborhood rated poor maintl road, street maintenance rated excellent maint2 road, street maintenance rated good maint3 road, street maintenance rated fair maint4 road, street maintenance rated poor chacondl change in condition of houses rated excellent chacond2 change in condition of houses rated good chacond3 change in condition of houses rated fair chacond4 change in condition of houses rated poor chacond5 dont know change in condition of houses schoolsl condition of local public schools rated excellent schools2 condition of local public schools rated good schools3 condition of local public schools rated fair schools4 condition of local public schools rated poor schools5 dont know condition of schools parcel3 parcel number in batch3 watviewl neighborhood waterview rated excellent watview2 neighborhood waterview rated good watview3 neighborhood waterview rated fair watview4 neighborhood waterview rated poor watdn waterview not rated swiml neighborhood swimming conditions rated excellent swim2 neighborhood swimming conditions rated good swim3 neighborhood swimming conditions rated fair swin4 neighborhood swimming conditions rated poor swim5 swimming conditions not rated fishl neighborhood fishability rated excellent fish2 neighborhood fishability rated good fish3 neighborhood fishability rated fair fish4 neighborhood fishability rated poor fishdn fishability not rated navigatl neighborhood water navigability rated excellent navigat2 neighborhood water navigability rated good navigat3 neighborhood water navigability rated fair navigat4 neighborhood water navigability rated poor navigdn navigability not rated 108 pool and/or dock; concrete block or other construction; and, location of water frontage. Zoning densities were obtained from the Pinellas County Department of Planning and from the respective local government. Millage rates, levied for 1984 taxes, were obtained from the office of the Pinellas County Tax Collector.) A computer printout was received from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser in August, 1985. The printout contained information on approximately 530 waterfront homes sold in 1984. It was immediately evident that the majority of homes were located in the southern half of Pinellas County. Subsequently, a decision was made to record data and survey only those homes located in southern Pinellas. The original sample size consisted of 265 properties (50 percent of the total sold in 1984), however 17 properties had to be omitted, as there was either incomplete data or they were located outside of the original economic study area. The data base, consisting of 248 waterfront properties, included the following communities: Treasure Island; St. Petersburg Beach/Pinellas Bayway/Bayway Isles; South Pasadena; Broadwater/Maximo Point; Madeira Beach; North Redington Beach and Redington Shores; Shore Acres/Snell Isle/Venetian Isles; Gulfport; Coquina Key/Tropical Shores; and Riviera Bay/Sunlit Cove/Tanglewood/Harbor Isle (Figure 7-2). A survey of homeowners was undertaken, of those individuals who pur- chased their waterfront home during 1984. The questionnaire contained ten questions pertaining to the quality of the neighborhood and local public schools, water views, water quality and the average travel time to the job location (Figure 7-3). A letter, shown in Figure 7-4, was mailed to approximately 265 addresses, identified by the Pinellas property appraiser. The letter requested the homeowners' cooperation in participating in the survey. The interviewing began on Thursday, October 3, 1985, and was completed on Saturday, October 12, 1985. The times that the interviewing took place ranged from 1:00 p.m. until dusk on weekdays, and 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on weekends. There was a minimum of two attempts made to contact the residents, usually on different days but in some cases, at different times on the same day. If, after a second attempt, the residents were either not at home or were not interested in participat- ing, then a neighbor was interviewed. if the home was obviously vacant (and often times up for sale), then a neighbor was interviewed immedia- tely. In all cases of neighbor interviews, the neighbor's home was also a waterfront home, located on the same side of the street, within two or three houses. In instances of an incorrect address or the inabi- lity to locate a home, then a neighbor was interviewed in the approxi- mate location of the address given. In all instances the questions and choices of response were read aloud, and in no instance were residents under the age of 18 interviewed. The survey was well received, and there were few cases of uncooperative homeowners. 109 FIGURE 7-2 PASCO COUNTY ---1TFLC5CRrUE-H-j'0-!TNi7Y ------------------- Tarpon z 01 U (n 0 1 LW 0 @ I .. . ........... ldsmar a. L4 FRI.% .... ........ nj..@ @@! qg. uAea w 5. M-4 i., g, % A!**. CLE A."J' :x@ Largo Seminole Z ............................. .. . 2 9 ST PETERSB I 1% -J'?@ m... COMMMITIES OP HDMES SU z ::.:x 3 North Redington Beach r . . . . . . . . . . Redington Beach .......... 2. Nadeira Beach - Treasure Islan 3 . . . . . . . . 4. St. Petersburg Beach Pinellas Bayway Bayway isles ... 01.x- S. Gulfport 6- Broadwater Maximo Point 7. South Pasadena 8. Coquina Key Tropical Shores 9. Shore Acres Anne Maria Snell isle 'Wi: V netian Isles 10. Riviera Bay Holmes Sunlit Cove Beach Tanglewood Harbor Isle Bradenton Beach Longboat % % Key - - - - - - - - - - - - ............. ASOTA ECONOMIC STUDY AREA S 110 FIGURE 7-3 DATE PARCEL INTERVIEW ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD/SUBDIVISION EXcellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know 1. How do you rate the week- to-week cleanliness of your neighborhood's roads, 1 2 3 4 5 streets and alleys? 2. How do you rate the basic structural maintenance of your neighborhood's roads, 1 2 3 4 5 streets and alleys? 3. How do you rate the change in conditions of houses in your neighborhood, within 1 2 3 4 5 the past three years? 4. How do you rate the quali- ty of the local public schools? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How do you rate your water view? 6. How do you rate the swim- mability of the water close to your home? 1 2 3 4 5 7. How do you rate the fish- ability of the water close to your home? 1 2 3 4 5 8. How do you rate the nav- igability of the water close to your home? 1 2 3 4 5 9. How do you rate the suita- bility of the water close to your home for other 1 2 3 4 5 water sports? 10. What is the average travel time to the job location (by car) by the head of household? (minutes) FIGUM 7-4 Is" N910rod Oannkbg COWICU St. PeWW"li FL 33702-2491 September 30, 1985 4813) 577-5151 224-93M Uncoa%54115-3217 OHkws Chaennan M, Joseph McFanand V" ch@ C@Ss""' V...00d H Fletl:Mal, J, S@"' Tneammat C... All- Vannil la r Z,Ocub" CWftlW Dear Residents R B-se The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) i a currently cd, *1 BlIdOnt- c-.,." S_W'. A,ahn undertaking a study entitled Documenting the Economic Importance CdV Of CIONWAKIN of the Tampa Day Estuarine System. C_*@' Janas L Beff,eld cay.goadecAy The data base for this study consists of 26S residential water- rAy Of ou"Mm front properties in Pinellas County, sold in 1904. The proper- con-ss,ohm 0 W A Shall& ties were chosen on the basis of a random sample. This sample c4s,,Gwtpon inc,,v,es the property you occupy. con,lh,swo-s' cia&ge Prlgwi H&W)W-O cola" We are requesting your cooperation in participating in an W @..and. S By". interview within the next two weeks by TSRPC staff members. The W Joe CNI..' J, J-.ftlh M.Fwlancl interview is short and should not take more than five minutes of W Robert W Saunwis. S, your time. Your willingness to answer six to nine questions about C@@ Plk-a C TW*y rAy .1 L-90 your household, neighborhood and immediate proximity to Tampa Bay Mayo# 0-00 C McGougn would be greatly appreciated. The interview will take place some sashawcola," coh-@ne' time between 4:00 p.m. and dusk. W.1-od . P mno, J,I Ms llal'c4m Gass If more information or clarification is necessary, please do not C CdVo1N4wPonRCh" hesitate to contact Rick MacAulay of the TORPC staff, at 577-5151. Cay ol Oklanna, MaVo@ G,we F wluaihs Again, your interest and cooperation are appreciated. Cdy of Pairmto MJV.R.t.,lE H-1 Sincerely, M, Pall'o), Colnty pn,!.o M'snk. C.nnhn. SYN.. 1-hg P-0 C-.4y M, Con'60 San" di', so.n. J, Ms "I R"_ A04 R. Belrose C@ohehnl@' G-,g.C G,eer Executive DiCaCLor R-nd R-- i -.,j k" A,cn-. Z.Wa,,. J, c4Y of Pwlaoas Pai, BB/pb co@'lnnan wy.1;1- Van"411a cty of Salmy Hatos Enclosure MaW Allon Dl cav of St. PWNWUg cot-,innan Dean Stavies Cay of St. Pttosbw,; Be" .1 Sweeps& [email protected] CAY Of T-Oll Cp@.@hah rnonnilsv" Cdy of TWPM SPWW co-ssoner Crwnes Ropoh, Cay ol Tarnow Tahate C-1- John K.9 112 C* RESULTS A summary of the property data and information collected on the 265 waterfront properties sold in southern Pinellas County in 1984, is as follows: 0 The 1984 mean sale price was approximately $130,000, and the median sale price $122,000 (Figure 7-5); 0 The mean effective square footage and age of home are 2,125 square feet and 22 years respectively; 0 Approximately 36 percent of the waterfront homes had a swimming pool, and 76 percent had a dock. Approximately 92 percent of the homes were of concrete block construction; and 0 Approximately 53 percent of the homes were identified as being located on a canal, 36 percent on Boca Ciega Bay, and 11 percent on Tampa Bay. The results of the 248 waterfront properties surveyed are illustrated in Figure 7-6. A summary of the results is as follows: 0 Approximately 93 percent of the homeowners surveyed stated that their water view was either excellent or good; 0 Approximately 68 percent of those interviewed stated that the swimmability of the water close to their home was either fair or poor, while three percent were not sure; 0 Approximately 51 percent of those interviewed stated that the fishability of the water close to their home was either fair or poor, while four percent were not sure; 0 Approximately 85 percent of those interviewed stated that the navigability of the water close t6 their home was either excellent or good; 0 Approximately 58 percent of those interviewed stated that the suitability of the water close to their home for water sports was either fair or poor; and 0 The mean average travel time to the job location, by car, by the head of the household was 21 minutes. D, DISCUSSION An attempt was made, through the use of a survey and questionnaire, to document the value of an aesthetic attribute (water view) and benefits accruing to owners of residential waterfront property along Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay, in southern Pinellas County. In addition to the water vista, the benefits accrued by property owners, considered in this chapter, include swimming, fishing, and the ability to navigate and engage in water sports in water close to their home., 113 FIGUPX 7-5 WATERFRONT HOUSING SURVEY Median and Mean Sale Price 450 - 400 - 350 - w 300 - 0 Ir a. wm 250 J C 0 0 I Z 200 go m Mean 150 - $130,000 Median 100 - $122,OOC 50 - 0 84 SALE PRICE H 0 M E S mmmmiamm mmmmm = FIGUPE 7-6 VALUE OF WATER VIEW AND BENEFITS PRCMDED BY TAMPA BAY WATER \ArN NA\nGNMUTY Poor (l.ax) Don't Know (4.GX) Fair (&OX) Don*t Know (O.OX) Poor (3.GX) Fair (8.0X) Excellent (28 N Excellent (50.GX) Good (43.GX) Good (57.GX) FISHABLITY SWIMMAOMM DmM Know (4.wg) Gont Know (3.DX) Pow (I 3.GX) Eimallent (LWQ accapent (3.GX) Poor (32.OX) Good (24. Good (37.OX) Fair (max) Palr (36.OX) SIXTABLITY FM WATER SPOR- Don't Know (2.0X) Excellent (I 1.0v Good (29.QM 'CX) Pool Ir (3LGX) 115 Of the total respondents, 93 percent rated their water view as excellent or good, perhaps indicating the importance of the view in their consideration to purchase waterfront property. Only six percent of those homeowners surveyed rated their water view fair and one percent poor. The next most highly rated benefit was the ability to navigate a boat in the water close to the home, followed by the benefits of being able to fish and swim in the water close to the home. It appears that the lowest rated benefit accrued by owners of waterfront property dealt with the suitability of engaging in water sports in the water close to the home. The results of this survey seem to suggest that individuals will purchase homes on the water primarily for the view, and secondari- ly for access. In general terms, owners of single-family, residential waterfront homes are willing to pay considerably more, as evidenced by the survey results, which found the median 1984 sale price to be $122,000 and the mean sale price to be $130,000, whereas the average 1984 purchase price for a home in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties was approximately $69,800.(2) Although the analysis contained in this chapter addresses residential waterfront property surveyed in southern Pinellas County, it is likely that these same findings hold true for such property located in both Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. 116 E. FOOTNOTES 1. Hanni, Eila, "Effect of the Enforcement of Residential land Use Ordinances on Property Values", presented at the Annual Meeting of Western Economists Association, San Francisco, CA, June 18, 1979. 2. Board of Realtors: Tampa, St. Petersburg, Bradenton, 1984. 117 CHAPTER 8 BENEFITS OF TAMPA BAY TO WATER-ORIENTED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES A. INTRODUCTION The uses and attributes of Tampa Bay discussed and illustrated in previous chapters have included shipping and water-borne commerce, electric and sanitary services, commercial fishing and benefits associated with waterfront home ownership. one of the obvious uses of Tampa Bay, and one which requires further study because of a present lack of information, is that of recreation. Although recreational benefits are difficult to quantify, the following analysis will attempt to identify the potential magnitude of the recreational benefits associated with Tampa Bay. The economic value, and thus benefits, of recreation-related uses and attributes of Tampa Bay, described in this chapter, include boating, saltwater fishing, beach activities and saltwater boat ramp use. B. RECREATION SURVEY On May 10, 1982, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) established the Tampa Bay Study Committee. The Study Committee was charged with the task of identifying critical bay problems and evaluating potential solutions for those problems. (1) Initially, five subcommittees were formed to specifically address ecological, industrial, institutional, economic and recreational aspects of Tampa Bay. The goal established by the Recreation Subcommittee was to maximize current and future recreational benefits for Tampa Bay area residents, with due concern for the environment. (2) It was decided that a recreation survey would be employed, to assess the current level and areas of recreational use on Tampa Bay. (3) There were 95 sites selected, initially, for surveying in Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. The sites included restaurants, parks, beaches, piers and marinas. Due to budget and personnel constraints, only 29 sites were surveyed: 27 sites in Pinellas County and one each in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Figure 8-1 illustrates the sites that were surveyed in June and July, 1984. Approximately 1,358 interviews were conducted utilizing the question- naire shown in Figure 8-2. The surveyors attempted to interview only those adults who stated that they were Tampa Bay area residents, how- ever, individuals who were seasonal residents were also interviewed. Analysis The results of the survey are shown in Figure 8-3. The recreational activities demonstrating the highest participation rates included the following: viewing sunsets or other scenic amenities; swimming; dining 119 FIGURE 8-1 TAMPA BAY.RECREATION STUDY supvey sitea V-1 0% 2S PINELLAS COUNTY 3 24 4 23 5 21 TAMPA 20 6 19 SITE 1. Olds Park 2. Phillips Park .1-10 3. Gandy Bridge Marina 4. Crisp Park GULF OF MEXICO 5. North Shore Park r\j 6. St. Petersburg Municipal Pier 7. Demens Landing 1.10 S. Coquina Key Park 9. Lake Maggiore Park 10. Bay Vista Park 11. O'Neill's Skyway Boat Basin 12. Maximo Park 13. Huber Yacht Harbor 14. Gulfport Municipal Marina 15. Gulfport Beach 16. Dave Steink's Marina 17. South Pasadena Marina 18. Pasadena Bayside Marina 28 19. Silas Dent'a Restaurant 20. Blind Pass Marina 21. Friendly Fisherman Restaurant 1-3Q 22. Treasure Island Park 23. Navarez Park 24. Madeira Beach Park 25. War Veterans' Memorial Park 26. War Veterans' Boat Rainp 27. Indian Springs Marina 28. Egmont Key 29. Kingfish Boat Ramp k MANATEE COUNTY 120 Figure 8-2 TAKPA BAY Site RECREATION SURVEY Activit Day of week- Date Background Information: . Time Sex Marital Status Number in ho-u-s-e-n-311-d Age -15 and under 31-35 1-55 16-20 -36-40 '56-60 -21-25 -45 41 61-65 26-30 46-50 66 and older What city do you live in? Zip Code How long have you lived there? years Last previous residence (city/state) Zip Code How many times per year do you engage in the following activities on or along Tampa Bay? Boating Times/year Times/year Motorboating Nature study Racing Picnicking Sailing Scuba diving Waterskiing Shellfishing Other Swimming (Please specify) ViewinL, sunsets or ot.,Ie.- scenic Camping amenities Dining at restaurants on Visiting historical/ Tampa Bay archaeological Fishing sites Other (specify) Swimming Do you feel that the following facilities are adequate for your needs? Boating YES NO DO NOT USE Boat ramps Pumpout facilities Gasoline facilities Diesel facilities Marina slips on a permanent basis Marina slips on a transient basis Restaurants with docking facilities Camping.facilities Fishing Bait and tackle shops Piers Other (Please specify) Picnic areas Restaurants with a scenic view of Tampa Bay Other (Please specify) Please describe any difficulties you have had with any of-the above mentioned facilities. 121 Figure 8-3 TA@@A BAY Site RECREATION SURVEY Activit Background Information: Day of week Date Sex . Time Marital Status- Number in housenold Age -15 and under -31-35 -51-55 16-20 -36-40 56-60 -21-25 -41-45 =61-65 26-30 46-50 66 and older What city do you live in? Zip Code How long have you lived there? years Last previous residence_ ---ccity/state) Zip Code How many times per year do you engage in the following activities on or along Tampa Bay? Boating Times/year Times/year Motorboating 34.0 Nature study 29.2 Racing Q, 7 Picnicking 22.1 Sailing C) - 9 Scuba diving 4.1 Waterskiing A, I Shellfishing 6.4 Other Swimming AA A (Please specify)-- Viewirk-, sunsets - scenic or othe. Cam?ing A A amenities 93.0 Visiting Dining at restaurants on historica-17 Tampa Bay 52.8 archaeological Fishing 40.1 sites 6.0 Other (specify) - 10 A 41 Do you feel that the following facilities are adequate for your needs? Boating YES NO DO NOT USE Boat ramps - 72.23 27.77 Pumpout facilities -63.72 36.28 Gasoline facilities 80.60 19.40 Diesel facilities 69.40 30.60 Marina slips on a 36.97 permanent basis 63.03 Marina.slips on a 60.0 40.00 transient basis Restaurants with docking facilities 50-49 49.51 Camping facilities 67.33 'A7 A7 Fishing 87.07 12.93 Bait and tackle shops Piers 78.59 21-41 Other (Please specify) Picnic areas 81.80 18.20 Restaurants with a scenic view of Tampa Bay 76.65 23.35 Other (Please specify) Please describe any difficulties you have had with any of-the above mentioned facilities. 122 at restaurants on Tampa Bay; fishing; and motorboating, In all instances the identified recreation facilities were perceived to be adequate for the needs of the respondents. The Tampa Bay Recreation Survey was successful in identifying the nature of recreational activities engaged in, and-the frequency, of use. C. RECREATIONAL BOATING As illustrated in Table 8-1, the number of recreational (pleasure) boats registered in Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties has shown a significant increase between 1979 and 1985 (20 percent, 18 per- cent and 15 percent respectively). In 1985, Pinellas County had the largest number of pleasure boats registered, with 34,541, while Hills- borough County was a close second with 33,447 boats registered. In Chapter 3 of this study, through the use of an economic base model, many export industries were identified, i.e., industries within the local economy that cause funds to flow in and "drive" the economy. Two such industries were Ship and Boat Building and Repairing (SIC 373) and Boat Dealers (SIC 555). These industries satisfy local consumption of their respective product or service and sell their excess to additional businesses and residences outside the boundaries of the local Tampa Bay economyl thus injecting funds and stimulating local economic conditions. In 1984, the retail sales reported for motorboats, yachts and marine accessories, in Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties, was approximately $184 million. (4) Boating related activities, undertaken on Tampa Bay, include sailing, snorkeling, scuba diving, swimming, water skiing and sport fishing. Quality of available activities and accessibility are two major factors that can affect recreational boating. (5) Factors affecting the quality of available activities or the desirability to undertake such activities include the boater's perception of water quality, water clarity, and scenic amenities. Access to the water and boating facilities is also an important factor in the use of Tampa Bay for recreational boating. In general, boaters gain access to Tampa Bay in three ways: public and private boat ramps; individual slips (residential or marina); and marina launching facilities. There are 47 public and private marinas located within the boundaries of Tampa Bay. (6) This figure does not include private facilities located on the premises of condominiums, residential communities, and private clubs, etc., which are not available to the public. Marinas that are open to the public provide approximately 3,562 wet and 1,310 dry slips, respectively. (Figure 8-4 illustrates the relative location of marinas along Tampa Bay.) In addition to marinas, there are numerous boat launching facilities located along the shores of Tampa Bay. A large portion of recreational boaters, particularly those with smaller boats, use boat ramps. Fac- tors determining use of boat ramps include proximity to residence, 123 TABLE 8-1 PLEASURE BOATS REGISTERED YEAR HILLSBOROUGH MANATEE PINELLAS 1979-80 28,394 9,641 28,707 1980-81 29,041 9,902 29,741 1981-82 29,086 9,942 29,871 1982-83 30,040 10,237 30,599 1983-84 30,945 10,808 31,907 1984-85 33,447 11,067 34,541 Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of License and Motorboat Registration 124 FIGURE 8-4 ----------------- MARINAS LOCATED ALONG TAMPA BAY ---------------------------- .............. N ------------------------------------------------------------- . ......... ................. ............. E ......... . .... . ... ................. .. .. .. ....... ............ ........... -------------------------------------------- .......... ........... ......... ... ---------- --------------- .............. Source: Inventory prepared by Tampa Bay Study Committee Recreation Sub- 125 Committee, 1982-1983. ------------------- proximity to destination point, quality of ramp and facilities avail- able at the ramp. (The economic value of saltwater boat ramp use will be discussed later.) D. RESIDENT AND TOURIST WATER-RELATED RECREATIONAL DEMANDS Table 8-2 contains information regarding 1983 estimates of resident and tourist water-related recreational demands in Pasco, Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee Counties, based on surveys conducted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), Divison of Recreation and Parks. (7) The benefits associated with recreational fishing can be analyzed in far greater detail than those accruing from other types of recreational activities, such as picnicking, canoeing, nature study, etc. For this reason, the following analysis will first assess the economic impacts associated with recreational fishing alone, using Florida-specific estimates of user willingness to pay for saltwater fishing, (8) and then assess the economic impacts associated with other forms of recreation, using the unit day approach. (9) Both methods will be used in an effort to demonstrate the magnitude of the economic impacts associated with recreation in the Tampa Bay area, subject to the limitations of the available data and methodology. The economic value of recreational fishing includes both the direct gross expenditures by anglers and the perceived value to the user. The former includes such expenditures as travel cost and fishing equipment, while the latter is a measure of user willingness to pay for the right to fish. For saltwater fishing in Florida, gross expenditures are estimated to be $58.25 per day for tourists and $16.44 per day for residents, where the difference between tourist and resident estimates is due to larger expenditures associated with travel and supplies. Both resident and tourist anglers have the same estimated saltwater recreational fishing user value of $36.56 per day. Consequently, the total annual economic value of recreational fishing in the Tampa Bay area is estimated to be $197 million (in 1983 dollars), as shown in Table 8-3. The preoeeding analysis indicates that the Tampa Bay area has a substantial value as a recreational resource for saltwater fishing alone. Although there is no such well-developed methodology by which to estimate the economic value of other types of water-related re- creation, there is a fundamental procedure which is commonly used: the unit day approach. This type of evaluation is based on the users willingness to pay for various outdoor recreational activity with an average estimated economic value of $2.95 per day. As shown in Table 8-4, the total annual economic value of other recreational activities in the Tampa Bay area is estimated to be $23 million (in 1983 dollars). E. SUMMARY The economic benefits of recreation-related uses and attributes of Tampa Bay described in this chapter, include boating, saltwater fishing, beach activities and saltwater boat ramp use. It should be noted that the recreation uses and attributes of Tampa Bay, not presented here include the following: restaurants offering a scenic view of Tampa Bay; sporting goods sales and service; bait and tackle 126 TABLE 8-2 RECREATION DEMAND FOR SPECIFIED SALT-WATER RELATED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION, 1983 DEMAND (user occasions) SALTWATER BEACH SALTWATER FISHING SALTWATER FISHING SALTWATER BOAT ACTIVITIES (NON-BOAT) (BOAT) RAMP USE 6,882,109 1,863,668 1,314,007 844,515 Notes: Demand figures include both resident and tourist demand. A "user occasion" is defined as one person doing one thing one time. These figures are region-wide, which would include Pasco County, and probably overestimate the true recreation demand of Tampa Bay. Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, 1983. 127 TABLE 8-3 ECONOMIC VALUE OF SALTWATER FISHING IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA (in 1983 dollars) Demand (user occasions) Economic Value (in 1983 dollars) Saltwater Fishing Saltwater Fishing Total Annual Gross Annual User Total Annual (Non-Boat) (Boat) Saltwater Fishing Expenditures 1 Value 2 Economic Value Tourists 452,326 240,471 692,797 $ 40,355,425 25,328,658 65,684,083 Residents 1,411,342 1,073,536 2,484,878 40,851,394 90,847,139 131,698,533 TOTAL: $197,382,616 00 Notes: 1 Estimated Gross Expenditure of $58,25/day for tourists. Estimated Gross Expenditure of $16.44/day for residents. 2 Estimated saltwater fishing user value of $36.56/day for tourists and residents. Sources: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, 1983. Bell, 1979. TABLE 8-4 ECONOMIC VALUE OF OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA (in 1983 dollars) Demand (user occasions) Saltwater Beach Saltwater Boat Total Annual Activities Ramp Use Economic Value 1 (in 1983 dollars) 6,882,109 844,515 $ 22,793,540 Notes: 1 Estimated Average Outdoor Recreation User value of $2.95/day Sources: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, 1983. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979 129 shop sales; boat rentals and charters; sportfishing tournaments; sailing school courses; boating safety and diving instruction courses; and miscellaneous travel expenses, equipment rental and admittance fees. The information necessary to calculate the economic impacts of the aforementioned uses and attributes of Tampa Bay is not presently available, hence, a precise evaluation of the economic benefits of Tampa Bay to water-oriented recreational activities cannot be calculated at this time. Therefore, the true recreational value of Tampa Bay would be far greater than the figures in,this chapter indicate. The important point of this analysis is that the (recreational) economic value of Tampa Bay is significant to the region's economy. 130 F. FOOTNOTES 1. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1983, Tampa Bay Management Study. 2. Ibid. p. 3. 3. Mente, Ronald F. "Tampa Bay Recreation Survey" Tampa Bay Study Committee, 1984. 4. Florida Department of Revenue, 1984 Retail Sales By Category. 5. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1983, Tampa Bay Management Study. 6. Ibid. p. 31. 7. Methodology and information used in the preparation of this discussion is largely condensed from the following: Economic Impact Statement for the Proposed Revisions of Chapter 17- 3.041, F.A.C. Sarasota Bay and Lemon Bay Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) Designations. 8. Bell, Frederick W., Recreational Versus Commercial Fish- ing in Florida: An Economic Impact Analysis, Florida State Un- iversity, Tallahassee, Florida, 1979. 9. U.S. Water Resources Council, Procedures For Evaluation of National Economic Development (NED) Benefits and Costs in Water Resources Planning, Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 102, Washington, D.C. 1979. 131 CHAPTER 9 ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OF TAMPA BAY A. INTRODUCTION -Estuarine Ecology The intertidal and submerged wetlands of Tampa Bay perform many natural functions having intrinsic value. The value of the estuary as a regional economic resource is, however, viewed by various industries and individuals from many different, and often conflicting perspectives. For example, industries relying upon the availability of a source of water-bound transport may perceive the bay's value in the same sense that land-based industries would value railroad frontage in determining location decisions. For other firms, industries and even local governments, the bay is considered to be a convenient receptacle for the inexpensive disposal of industrial and urban wastes or available space for further development. The environmental quality of the bay is intuitively an important component in the decision making processes of the majority of individuals and industries considering locating and/or operating in the Tampa Bay area. But for those industries dependent upon the harvest of living resources, or the availability of bay-oriented recreational opportunities, the value of the bay is perceived to be intimately tied to its ecological health. Of all bodies of water, estuarine systems offer the greatest diversity in water composition. An estuary is defined as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water with an open access to the ocean, that is measurably diluted by the influx of freshwater.(1) Freshwater mixing with salt water creates unique chemical and physical environments each of which supports different communities of organisms particularly suited to that type of water. According to Taylor (2), the recorded diversity and abundance of macro- invertebrate marine life in the Tampa Bay estuary is not exceeded by any other estuary between Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas, The richness of Tampa Bay marine life has been attributed to the geo- graphic position of the estuary between temperate and subtropical waters.(3) Another contributing factor to the diversity and abundance of Tampa Bay marine life is that salinity is typically in the range of 25-35 ppt over most of the estuary, without the wide fluctuations and significant vertical stratification that characterize many other estua- ries: As a result of the stability of the salinity regime, many ocean species can co-exist with typical estuarine species. The importance of rivers and creeks to estuaries has been documented by studies throughout the world. Rivers and lesser streams import freshwater, foodstuffs, sediments, minerals and nutrients to estuaries and provide critical habitat, refuge, feeding and breeding grounds for the early life history stages of marine and estuarine life forms. Rivers and lesser tributaries flowing to Tampa Bay vary greatly in 132 condition. Historical and anecdotal evidence exist to show that these streams were immensely productive estuarine zones. Modern data on relatively pristine rivers and creeks support this view. The Tampa Bay estuary and contiguous coastal waters serve as home, feeding ground and/or nursery for more than 270 species of resident, migrant and commercial fishes of the Gulf of Mexico that utilize estuaries at some time in their life cycle. The most critical use of Tampa Bay, for numerous species, is as a protected nursery area for larval and juvenile stages. The protective function arises from the generally greater osmoregulatory capabilities of younger marine fishes, shallow depths and protective cover. Reduced salinities in estuarine waters tend to exclude larger marine restricted fishes that otherwise prey on young juveniles and larvae. The nursery function is developed from the high primary productivity of estuaries which provide a ready source of food. Dredging, filling, commercial and residential development have contributed significantly to the loss of live bay bottom. Boca Ciega Bay for example, has lost 22 percent of bay bottom through dredging and filling to create finger canals and increase the number of structures having water frontage. These "dead-end" finger canals severely restrict the mixing of the water, degrading the water quality in the canal. The loss of live bay bottom also eliminates the nursery function of the area affecting the recruitment of juvenile fish and other equally important marine organisms. Tampa Bay is a naturally shallow body of water, having an average depth of about 12 feet (4), and a maximum natural depth of about 90 feet in Egmont Channel, at the mouth of the bay. Approximately 90 percent of the bay bottom is less than 22 feet in depth.(5) Despite the relative shallow nature of Tampa Bay, the estuarine ecosystem provides excellent resiliency to man-made and natural destructive forces. The resiliency potential of estuari es is aided by the vigor of the rhythmic and turbulent circulation pattern which continuously and endogenously renews the supply of water, food larvae, nutrients and other essential elements of any small damaged area. This assists in recovery and protects long-term net stability patterns of the estuarine system. The substantial buffering capacity of estuaries, usually operating through the carbonate system, is another element which resists changes imposed on estuaries. The capacity of seawater to assimilate and/or dilute toxic pollutants has been well documented. The potential is not so great as the buffering capacity of the open ocean, but it is greater than most rivers, and is enormously important in the estuaries where pollution is received, as in Tampa Bay. many species have biological characteristics or adaptations which provide special advantages in estuarine survival. These characteristics usually protect the species against natural violence in estuaries, and they are often helpful in resisting terrigenous forces. Simon (6) believes that such resilence exists because of natural stress factors, such as red tide, which favor organisms that recover quickly. 133 Such long-term periodic. stresses as hurricanest droughts, and red tide may, in effect, pre-adapt the benthic community to other stresses that originate from man's activities (e.g. slime spills, shell dredging, thermal and industrial effluent). Habitat The importance of mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds to coastal and estuarine ecosystems has been well documented over the past two decades. As primary producers, these species of wetland vegetation provide the foundation of coastal and estuarine food webs; both as direct sources of nutrition and as generators of detrital particles. Secondary to their,role as primary producers, coastal and estuarine wetlands provide protection and habitat for such organisms as shrimp, crabs, scallops and juvenile fishes. Also, wetland vegetation provides necessary substrate for the attachment of organisms that are major food sources for many economically important species of finfish. In addition to their contributions to the biology of the marine ecosystems, coastal and estuarine wetlands play an important role in modifying the geologic and hydrographic characteristics of the area. Acting as baffles, roots and leaves reduce the velocity of water over the bottom causing suspended particles to settle out and become trapped at the base of the plants. In this way mangroves, marshes, and seagrasses reduce turbidity, increase sedimentation rates, stabilize sediments, and attenuate wave action on adjacent shorelines. The binding and stabilization characteristics of these habitats are documented by reports of some coastal marshes and seagrass meadows surviving the destructive scouring forces of coastal storms and hurricanes in the Gulf states. The mangrove forest community exists near the beginning of the estua- rine wetland zone. Mangroves share commensal communities of associated flora and fauna commonly attached to the root system. General consen- sus of opinion is that mangroves, particularly red mangroves, through their ability to trap sediments, act as land stabilizers rather than land builders.(7) Localized environmental factors such as soil salini- ty and tidal flushing, determine zonation patterns among mangrove species. Salt prairies and marshes provide habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, in addition to the specialized vegetation that occurs in this extremely sensitive zone. Salt barrens, because of the hypersaline soil water, are generally devoid of vegetation. As this soil water slowly leaches from the surface and is diluted by rainwater, salt flats (prairies) and meadows (marshes) may form. These rapidly changing physiochemical conditions caused by tides, evaporation, and freshwater runoff result in unique and sporadic assortment of vegetation. In general, the moderate to high salinity marshes support more marine invertebratae (snails, mussels, polychaetes) than do the low salinity marshes.(8) Other important invertebrate groups include amphipods, benthic forminiferans, insects and their larvae. 134 Additionally, marshes attract numerous wading birds (herons and eg- rets), other more transient birds (red winged blackbird, marsh hawk), mammals (rabbits, raccoons), and some reptiles (alligators, szat marsh snake). Seagrass beds are widely recognized as one of the most productive benthic habitats encountered in estuarine and nearshore waters. Seagrasses play at least four roles in the ecology of an estuary: (1) habitat; (2) food source; (3) nutrient buffer; and (4) sediment trap. Seagrasses serve as a fisheries habitat including: nurseries for juvenile stages of some fish species; refuge for mating blue crabs, other invertebrates, and finfish; a substrate for epiphytic plants and animals; and habitat for all fauna subsisting directly on seagrasses and its epiphytes or detritus derived from them. The Tampa Bay estuarine system is, both directly and indirectly, a vitally important economic asset to the numerous municipalities surrounding the bay. Now the second largest population center in Florida, this rapid urbanization has transformed the Tampa Bay area into a major economic asset both to the state, and to the nation as a whole. Tampa Bay constitutes the central geographic feature most responsible for both historic and present shipping, industrial development, aesthetic, and recreational values that encompass the overall attractiveness of the region to population influx. The rapid growth rate of the region's population and business sector over the past 30 years confirms that the mere presence of Tampa Bay has contributed significantly to the economic growth and diversity of the region. B. WATER QUALITY -INDEPENDENTN USES OF TAMPA BAY Shipping and Water-Borne Commerce Examples of economic entities which are dependent upon the direct utilization of Tampa Bay would include the port facilities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Manatee County; ship building and repair firms as well as other marina facilities located around the bay; and the commercial and recreational fishing industries. Indirectly, the mere presence of the bay attracts industries and businesses such as water- oriented residential developments, restaurants, and a myriad of related support- industries and commercial and recreational activities that would exist without consideration of the water quality. The direct and indirect economic impacts associated with the port activities on and along Tampa Bay are considerable. The primary direct impact of the Port of Tampa is estimated at $298 million per year. This figure represents a measure of the revenues that flow from the principal port users. Another primary impact concerns the total direct employment associated with port activities. The primary indirect impact associated with Tampa Bay port activities is the transportation savings that the users of the ports realize by routing their shipments via Tampa Bay ports in lieu of some other port or mode of transportation. 135 Tampa Bay is one of the country's key commercial waterways, utilizing Florida's largest open water estuary. Including all contiguous wetlands the total area of the bay is about 398 square miles, representing an average volume within the bay of 116 billion cubic feet.(9) The numerous ports and supporting facilities located within Tampa Bay directly benefit from the bay system. Goods and services economicallly can be transported across great distances and in large volumes, by the water transport system. The natural shape of Tampa Bay provides shelter and easy access for deep draft ocean-going vessels. The port of Tampa has become the nation's seventh largest port in terms of tonnage transported, and is the third largest U.S. port in volume of foreign exports. During the past 100 years, channel dimensions in Tampa Bay have repeatedly been enlarged, allowing larger ships to call on the ports, resulting in a dramatic increase in the annual tonnage transiting the port. The deepening of Tampa's shipping channels has resulted in a tremendous economic impact. Dredging is a critical component of the port operations that provide a necessary transportation link which major portions of the region's economy depend upon. The shallow natu- ral depth of Tampa Bay has required the dredging of well in excess of 100 million cubic yards of material to create and maintain the large port infrastructure in place today. Disposal practices, historically, have resulted in large-scale changes in shoreline and benthic topo- graphy, and are commonly viewed as major contributors to the loss of natural habitats and changes in water quality which the bay has exper- ienced. The ports located on Tampa Bay realize approximately $281 million in transportation savings. This, however, is not without cost. There is a need for maintenance dredging to keep the ports operating. It is imperative that the dredge spoil is placed in an area where it will result in minimal damage to the fragile ecological systems. Dredging can result in physical alteration, turbidity problems, and resuspension of sediments which can affect seagrasses and other types of highly productive emergent and submergent vegetation. The loss of this vege- tation results in a loss of habitat available for nursery utilization and subsequently affecting the adult populations of finfish and shell- fish, not only in the bay, but in Gulf populations as well. Electric and Sanitary Services Currently, the vast quantities of water existing in Tampa Bay are utilized as a receiving body for treated wastewater and industrial effluent discharges, as well as a source of cooling water for electric power generating facilities located on the bay. It has been documented in this study that the least costly method of wastewater disposal involves the ultimate disposal of treated waste- water to surface waters of Tampa Bay. The next best available alterna- tives include wastewater reuse via spray irrigation, deep-well injec- tion and a gulf outfall, or a combination of each of these. Wastewater treatment with discharge into Tampa Bay may be the least costly and economically preferable method, however, it is perhaps the most costly 136 regarding the ecological health of the bay due to the contribution of excessive nutrients and fecal coliform, resulting in closure of public beaches, shellfishing areas and eutrophication within the bay. It has also been documented in this study that the use of bay water as a cooling source for electric power generating plants located along Tampa Bay results in both economic and environmental impacts. Cooling system alternatives available to both the Florida Power Corporation and the Tampa Electric Company include the conventional once-through cooling system, cooling towers and cooling ponds. The least costly and economically preferable system is that of once-through cooling. However, there are environmental impacts associated with both the intake of water from Tampa Bay and the ultimate discharge into the Bay. The vast quantities of water contained within Tampa Bay provides an easily accessible cooling water source (and reservoir). The most economical way of condensing steam to be returned to the boilers, in the electrical power production process, is achieved using an open- cycle cooling system which passes water from the environment through the condensor element and discharges it back into the environment at an elevated temperature. Although the discharges of "waste" heat into the subtropical Tampa Bay estuary results in demonstrable impacts, perhaps a greater problem results from the capture and inclusion of planktonic eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish in the cooling water of power plants. This process termed "entrainment", usually leads to high rates of mortality for those organisms involved. Mortality results from thermal stresses, chemical stresses (associated with biocides used to prevent fouling of the cooling system), physical.stresses (associated with pressure changes) and other impacts and abrasions during passage through the cooling system. Assuming a 100 percent mortality rate for all entrained organisms, and adjusting for estimated natural mortality rates of estuarine fish eggs and larvae, it can be estimated that power plant entrainment is responsible for annually removing approximately three billion harvestable adults from the commercial and recreational fisheries of Tampa Bay.(10) Historically, the diluting potential of bay waters has been taken for granted in the design of stormwater systems. In the past, stormwater drainage systems were designed to remove the potential floodwaters as quickly as possible. In effect, this was accomplished by channeling runoff directly into Tampa Bay and tributaries without the benefit of pretreatment. Urban and agricultural stormwater runoff have been iden- tified as the major sources of water pollution in Tampa Bay, with the former apparently predominating.(11) Due to the highly urbanized char- acter of the study area, and the slow natural flushing rates in por- tions of the estuary, stormwater runoff pollution presents a parti- cularly intractable problem for Tampa Bay. Stormwater runoff and municipal discharge are major contributors of nutrients into the water column. This addition of nutrient rich material can result in a eutrophication problem in the bay. This nu- trient rich condition can trigger algal blooms which will cause fish kills, shade out submergent plants, and create unpleasent odors in the bay. 137 C. WATER QUALITY "DEPENDENTm USES OF TAMPA BAY Benefits of Tampa Bay to Waterfront Property Owners In general terms, the presence of Tampa Bay enhances the value and desirability of the homes and neighborhoods located on the bay. it appears that owners of single-family, residential waterfront property are willing to pay more for their home, primarily for the water view, and secondarily for the ease of access to the bay and ability to navigate a boat close to their home. The intrinsic value of Tampa Bay is closely associated with water quality. A waterfront home on Tampa Bay would not be as valuable if the bay water were to deteriorate or be degraded. The value of property fluctuates in relation to its geographic proximity to Tampa Bay and tributaries. Valuations of land adjacent to water will vary according to proposed land use and zoning densities. However, it is generally accepted that property values increase with water frontage or direct access to the bay. In addition to residential property values, commercial and office space located on or near the waters of Tampa Bay generally demand a higher price per square foot. Again, the environmental amenity offered is largely one of a water view. Some examples of waterfront development that preclude higher prices in terms of owning, leasing or utilizing include: highrise, waterfront office space; hotel, motel, and tourist court establishments; and restaurants, and other eating and drinking places. Water-Oriented Recreational Activities The recreation-related uses of Tampa Bay include boating, fishing, saltwater beach activities and boat ramp use. These activities have a tremendous impact on the region's economy. As documented earlier in this study, the retail sales reported for motorboats, yachts and marine accessories in Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties was approximately $184 million in 1983. The total economic value of recreational fishing in the Tampa Bay region is estimated at $197 million. The recreational benefits of Tampa Bay are directly linked to water quality and aesthetic benefits. The alteration of the system beyond its ability to recover will cause significant degradation, resulting in a decline in tourism, boating, and recreational activities in general. The bay could become a major liability rather than an asset. Commercial Fishing The commercial fishing industry is an important source of income and employment in the Tampa Bay region. A total of 1,952 commercial fishermen plied their trade during 1984 in Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties, which represents ten percent of all commercial fishermen in Florida. A total of 22.1 million pounds of fish, valued at $19.5 million, were landed in Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas Counties in 1984. 138 Historically, Tampa Bay has been one of the state's most productive fishery habitats. Prior to the turn of the century, sturgeon were still fished commercially. The bay supported thriving scallop and oyster fisheries up until about the early 1950s. Those fisheries have since collapsed completely primarily due to overfishing, water quality degradation and habitat loss. Tampa Bay still supports reasonably productive fisheries for spotted seatrout, red and black drum and mullet. of special concern are spotted seatrout and red drum which constitute the bulk of the recreational finfish landings in Tampa Bay. Commercially and recreationally valuable macroinvertebrates within the Tampa Bay estuary include the following: pink shrimp, stone crab, blue crab, oyster, bay scallop, southern quahog, sunray venus clam, and squid.(12) Currently, the most valuable fishery is the pink shrimp. Both commercial and recreational fisheries are affected by a loss of habitat. With 90 percent of the commercially and recreationally valua- ble species being estuarine dependant, any loss of saltmarsh shoreline (development activities) or seagrass beds (dredging, water quality) will contribute to the decline of fishery stocks. This trend can be slowed through the acceptance of the value of these habitats and efforts to restore this valuable area where possible. D. SUMMARY Tampa Bay is the largest open water estuary in the State of Florida, with over 1.6 million people living in the three counties bordering its shores. This population represents a 45 percent increase since 1970. Once the state's most diverse and productive estuarine system, rapid urban and industrial development have significantly changed the character and ecology of Tampa Bay. Recent studies have indicated that 44 percent of the original 25,000 acres of mangrove forests and salt marshes have been destroyed, and 81 percent of the original 76,500 acres of seagrasses have disappeared. This habitat loss has resulted in declining populations of economically important fish and shellfish including a complete collapse of fisheries, scallops and oysters, and major declines for bait shrimp, spotted seatrout and red drum. Presently, Tampa Bay continues to perform the various natural functions indicative of all estuaries, however, the ability of the bay to "function naturally" has been stressed by 100 solid years of competing uses. Although the Tampa Bay estuary has great resiliency and recovery potential through the natural systems, it takes many years for the system to recover. Tampa Bay is being stressed through stormwater runoff, wastewater discharge, dredging activities, development and habitat loss, faster than the system can recover naturally. In order for Tampa Bay to remain an economic resource, it must be allowed to function as a natural resource. 139 E, FOOTNOTES 1. Pritchard, D.W. "What is an Estuary? Physical Viewpoint" in G.E. Lauff, Ed., Estuaries (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication No. 83, 1967). 2. Taylor, J.L. 1973. Biological studies and inventory: Tampa Harbor Project; Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Jacksonville. 3. Simon, J.L. 1974. Tampa Bay estuarine system - a synopsis. Florida Science 37 (4): 217-245. 4. Goodwin, C.R. 1984. Changes in tidal flow, circulation, and flushing caused by dredge and fill in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 84-447. 5. Olson, F.C. and J.B. Morrill. 1955. Literature survey of the Tampa Bay area. Part I. Oceanography Inst., Florida State University, Tallahassee. 6. Ibid, Simon, 1974. 7. Odum, W.E., et.al. 1982. "The Ecology of Mangroves of South Florida: A Community profile." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services, Wash. D.C. FWS/OBS-81/24. 8. Carter, M.R., et.al., 1973. "Ecosystems analysis of the Big Cypress Swamp and Estuaries." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA 904/9-74-002.) 9. Morgan, D.R., et.al. 1984. "A tidal and water quality study for the Courtney Campbell Causeway." University of South Florida. 10. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1978. Areawide water quality management plan for the Tampa Bay Region. TBRPC, St. Petersburg, Florida. 11, Ibid* 12. Texas Instruments, Inc., 1978. Central Florida phosphate industry areawide assessment impact program. Vol. V - Water. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, Frederick W., 1979 Recreational Versus Commercial Fishing in Florida: An Economic Impact Analysis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 1979. Economic Assessment of the Port of Tampa, for the Tampa Port Authority, by the Transportation Consulting Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton. (EDA Project Number 04-06- 01533, March 1979.) Carter, M.R., et.al ., 1973. Ecosystems Analysis of the Big Cypress Swamp and Estuaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA 904/9-74-002.) Dunn, Hampton, 1972. Yesterday's Tampa, E.A. Seeman Publishing, Inc. Fehring, William K., 1982. "History of the Port of Tampa," proceeding from the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS), Tampa, Florida, May 1982. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1984. "Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study." Florida Power Corporation, 1980. Cooling Water Report for the Paul L. Bartow Plant. Goodwin, C.R., 1984. Changes in tidal flow, circulation, and flushing caused by dredge and fill in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 84-447. Gordon, John, D. Mulkey and J. Goggin, 1980. "An Input-Output Analysis of the Broward County Economy with Emphasis on the Impact and Role of the Port Sector," Economics Report, Food and Resource Economics Department, Gainesville, University of Florida. Hanni, Eila, 1979. "Effect of the Enforcement of Residential Land Use ordinances on Property Values," presented at the Annual Meeting of Western Economists Association, San Francisco, CA, June 18, 1979. Hawes, Leland, Tampa Tribune, "Their Mission: To Develop Tampa's Port" newspaper article. November 16, 1985, Section D, pp. 1-2. Millsborough County Wastewater Master Plan, November 1985, Isserman, Andrew M., 1977. "The Location Quotient Approach to Estimating Regional Economic Impacts.n AIP Journal January 1977. Lewis, R.R. and R.E. Whitman. 1982. A New Geographic Description of the Boundries and Subdivisions of Tampa Bay, Proceedings From The Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium. 141 Mathis, Kary, 1979. Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida: Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas and Sarasota Counties, by James C. Cato, et.al. (Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. and Florida Sea Grant Publication 79-4, February 1979.) Morgan, D.R., et.al. 1984. A tidal and water quality study for the Courtney Campbell Causeway. Tampa, Florida, University of South Florida. Mente, Ronald F., 1979. "Tampa Bay Recreation Survey", Tampa Bay Study Committee. Mormino, Gary R., 1983. "Tampa - From Hell Hole to the Good Life." In Sunbelt Cities: Politie and Growth Since World War II, University of Texas Press, Austin. Mormino, Gary R., and Pizo, Anthony P., The Treasure City: Tampa, Continental Heritage Press, 1983. Odum, W.E., et.al., 1982. The Ecology of Mangroves of South Florida: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/24. Olson, F.C. and J.B. Morrill. 1955. Literature Survey of the Tampa Bay Area. Part I. Oceanography Institute, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Pleeter, Saul, 1980. "Methodologies of Economic Impact Analysis: An Overview." Economic Impact Analysis: Methodology and Applications. Boston: M. Nijhoff. Port of Tampa, Florida, Fiscal Year Cargo Report, October 1, 1984 September 30, 1985. Powell, Evanell K., 1973. Tampa That Was.....History and Chronology Through 1946, Star Publishing Co., Inc. Pritchard, D.W. '@What is an Estuary? Physical Viewpoint" in G.E. Luff, ED., Estuaries Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication No. 83, 1967. Prochaska, F.J., 1975. Landing, Values, and Prices in Commercial Fisheries for the Florida West Coast, by F.J. Prochaska and J.C. Cato. (Florida Sea Grant Publication 75-003, May 1975.) Robinson, Ernest L., 1928. The History of Hillsborough County, Florida St. Augustine, Florida: The Record Company, p. 108. Simon, J.L. 1974. Tampa Bay Estuarine System - A Synopsis. Fla. Sci. 37 (4): 217-245 Smith and Gillespie, et.al., 1980. Central Hillsborough County - Tampa, 201 Facility Plan. 142 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1978. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for the Tampa Bay Region. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1983. "Tampa Bay Management Study". Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1985. The Future of Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg,,FL. . Taylor, J.L. 1973. Biological Studies and Inventory: Tampa Harbor Project; Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Jacksonville. Texas Instruments, Inc., 1978. Central Florida Phosphate Industry Areawide Assessment Impact Program. Vol. V - Water. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Ullman, Edward L. and Michael F. Dacey, Economic Base of American Cities; Revised Edition. University of Washington Press, 1971. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985. "Florida Landings by Districts," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National marine Fisheries Service. U.So Environmental Protection Agency, July 1979, Hillsborough County, Florida. Northwest Area 201 Facilities Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Tampa Electric Company. Big Bend Unit 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Record of Decision of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Wastewater Facilities for Central Hillsborough - Tampa. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Final Environmental Impact - Statement. North Pinellas County, Florida. Wastewater Facilities. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979. Procedures for Evaluation of National Economic Development (NED) Benefits and Costs in water- Resources Planning, Federal Register, 44:102, Washington, DC Westmeyer, D. Paul, 1953. Tampa, Florida - A Geographic Interpretation of its Development," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. 143 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A lb I I I I I I 10 I I w APPENDIX A Study Area Economic Base Model *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 *8 *9 *10 *11 *12 *13 E E E CONTACTS AVERAGE E E E AVERAGE EIR/EIN ER/EN LGI sic INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INFLUENTIAL MONTHLY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY MONTHLY XIR CODE BY REGION BY REGION BY REGION DATA E NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL E MONTH MONTH MONTH IR MONTH MONTH MONTH IN 2 3 1 2 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 016 1487 3076 3500 46 2733.6667 71205 71089 82013 74769 0.036561498304 0.003637972 10.049967a382 2461.659162695 017 96 147 158 43 176.66667 121151 116039 123:; 15 121835 0.001450048563 0.00-3637972 0.359e587095649 -266.5656120-7 018 539 596 629 603 1191 102600 105246 115409 107751.67 0.01105319Z299 0.003637972 Z.038'P-4597797 799.00248901-1 024 149 149 156 0 151.33=3 26349 26190 26192 26243.667 0.005766470641 0.0036Z7972 1.585078488741 55.85961742068 072 340 647 503 0 496.66667 65340 61738 62383 63153.667 0.007864415368 0.003637972 1.161758275228 266.9154163266 074 320 7>29 339 17 346.33333 81035 80772 eigii 81239.333 0.004263123774 0.003637972 1.17184063S23 50.78693998365 075 68 77 76 9 82.666667 37425 37541 38215 37727 0.00219118049S 0.003637972 0.602308290395 -54.5830906171 076 164 143 245 0 184 98979 89982 84388 91116.333 0.002019396449 0.003637972 0.55508e55788 -147.478639558 078 1089 1126 1100 as 1193 137198 138821 154219 143412.67 0.008318651537 0.003637972 2.2B6618007561 671.2687811066 091 137 129 141 0 135.66667 13814 13753 13201 13589.333 0.009983320251 0.003637972 2.;44199556852 86.2290569,1351 138 34 31 33 3 35.666667 354100 350800 347400 350766.67 0.00010168203 0.003637972 0.'01-7950198351 -1240.41253,028 147 WA K/A N/A 1113 1113 21200 21300 21300 21266.667 0.052ZZ5423197 0.0036'-7972 14.ZBSB7980079 1035.632469101 152 1846 1B71 1849 872 2727.3333 480600 475900 478300 478266.67 0.0057025369Z59 0.003637972 1.5675044922 987.4127481577 153 292 261 260 11 282 59500 59800 61500 60266.667 0.00467920354 0.001637972 1.286212197679 62.75157387807 154 2077 2065 2068 834 2904 469000 465000 471000 468333.33 0.006200711744 0.00@637972 1.7044420oe401 1200.216600103 161 589 596 584 184 7-73.66667 174100 174100 189500 179233.33 0.004Z;1653Z383 0.003637972 1.186521988531 121.6208772543 162 2513 2458 2438 537 3006.6667 509600 505500 513300 509466.67 0.005901596441 0.003637972 1.622221658715 1153.241365313 171 @P, 3310 3321 3303 477 3788.3333 514400 510500 505900 510266.67 0.007424222629 0.001637972 2.040758779147 1931.997654642 172 1 655 680 708 73 754 119600 119700 118300 119200 0.006325503356 0.003637972 1.738744532766 720.3537766526 173 FJ 219B 2238 2210 841 3056.3333 413800 409000 408700 410500 0.007445391799 0.003637972 2.04657772768 1562.945961822 174 2122 2191 2258 104 2294.3333 308600 320200 315100 314633.33 0.0072920S6026 0.003637972 2.004437275153 1149.70617948, 175 557 561 579 11 576.66667 123000 120500 120600 121366.67 0.004751441912 0.003637972 1.306068969047 135.1381713625 176 945 913 908 237 1159 154700 156900 147500 153033.33 0.007573513396 0.003637972 2.081795593209 602.26906840-39 177 470 47B 479 6 481.66667 96300 101200 102100 99866.667 0.004823097463 0.003637972 1.325765535753 119.3545623186 178 56 56 57 0 56.333333 15200 14900 15300 15133.333 0.00372246696 0.003637972 1.023225933455 1.278695358026 179 1495 1506 1508 497 2000 340900 341100 346500 342e33.33 0.005833738454 0.003637972 1.60.-568960791 752.7820449867 201 86 91 BS 78 166.333Z3 345500 343200 345900 344866.67 0.000482312005 0.003637972 0.132577174336 -joeg.28183075 203 146 356 250 1-093- Z343-6567- 201900 207600 .204900 204800 0.016326497396 0.003637-972-4.487802233261 2598.61006Ftlo,,4 204 36 32 32 83 116.33333 131500 130600 129200 130433.33 0.000891898799 0.003637972 0.24516375585 -358.179438467 205 405 395 377 77 469.3Z333 213700 212700 212800 213066.67 0.002202753442 0.003637972 0.605489443067 -305.797164328 208 NIA N/A K/A 751 751 221500 221000 222400 221633.33 0.0033SB479471 0.003637972 0.931419971278 -55.2957883212 209 946 1010 1013 407 1396.6667 162500 161100 163700 162433.33 0.008598399343 0.003637972 2.363514649827 805.738801'502 212 585 645 674 0 634.66667 5600 5500 5400 5500 0.115393939394 0.003637972 31.71930674175 614.657822Z86 232 N/A N/A N/A 725 7225 334100 337700 343300 338366.67 0.002142646045 0.003637972- 0.588967215164 -505.9683482, 233 600 440 601 138 685 391800 402300 401100 398400 0.00171937751 0.00363797' 0.472619818097 -764.367914275 239 291 289 288 54 343.33333 176800 178800 180800 17esoo 0.001920208799 0.003637972 0.527824010831 -307.136001688 243 807 840 a37 107 935 211200 211400 216400 213000 0.004389671362 0.003637972 1.206626042427 160.1120337837 245 274 320 330 161 469 66000 67800 70900 68233.333 0.006873473376 0.00363797-1 1. B89369680325 220. 76906622 1 Z 249 86 Be 102 is 110 79500 80300 82200 80666.667 0.001363636364 0.003637972 0.374834244585 -183.463048238 251 215 221 222 67 2S6.3;5333 288400 292600 293200 2914-00 0.000982612674 0.0036Z7972 0. 270099045 -773. 771611997 254 60 73 69 3 70.533333 63200 63300 63700 63400 o.ooiioq35e57 0.0036-3,7972 0. 30493875979 -160. 314070695 264 127 129 126 325 452.33Z33 217100 219200 220000 218766.67 0.002067651ges 0.003637972 0. 56e352965505 -343. 5-360286 265 310 ZS13 451 433 791 193200 194000 194900 194033.33 0.004076619138 0.003637972 1. 1'05747ZZ596 85.1122'983642 271 3507 3467 3586 187 3707 435900 437100 437100 436700 0.008488664987 0.003637972 2.-_:3351040598 2118.29;77067Z 272 435 442 437 97 535 101600 102200 102800 102200 0.005234833659 0.003637972 1. 43894294154 163. 1992950831 273 14 16 15 19 34 99800 101000 101700 100833.33 0.0003-37190083 0.003637972 0. 0926a6285934 -332. 8288 1 o2ge See Description Attached) N/A-Not Available) m4r = m m m m m v m = m m m m m an 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 E E E CONTACTS AVERAGE E E E AVERAGE EIR/EIN ER/EN L01 sic INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INFLUENTIAL MONTHLY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY MONTHLY XIR CODE BY REGION BY REGION BY REGION DATA E NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL E MONTH MONTH MONTH IR MONTH MONTH MONTH -IN 1 2 2 3 274 182 19B 196 11 203 !s3eoo 54200 55000 54333.333 0.0037361963L9 0.003637972 1.026999838=1 5.336B724675,05 275 1378 1384 1397 915 2Z;l 1. U333 451900 454300 459200 455133.33 0.005078365314 0.003637972 1.3959331659@2 655.571159512 .279 117 125 124 is 140 45700 45800 45900 45BOO 0.003056768559 0.003637972 0. 840239791:555 -26.6191025949 284 140 129 139 64 200 143800 144BOO 145700 144766.67 0.001381533502 0.0036-7972 0.37975=78=18 -;'6.657OZ2438 285 110 110 ill 106 216.33333 59800 60200 60900 60300 0.001-587617468 0.0036-17972 0.986158714609 -3'036Z5851102 287 195 lea 290 120 344.33333 60400 61200 62200 61266.667 0.005620239391 0.003637972 1.54488267001 121.446935539 289 39 39 40 29 68-333333 913oo 91500 91700 91500 0.000746812386 0.0036Z7972 0.2052S2628182 -264.541074689 295 2 1 48 65 82 22400 '3200 23700 23100 O.OOZ54976355 O.OOZ6Z7972 0.975758985903 -2.0371456Z191 306 43 56 59 21 73.666667 130100 1;1500 132BOO 131466.67 0.000560344828 0.00Z637972 0.1540267-15447 -404.605342-529 307 791 7e7 768 264 1046 521100 530300 536000 529133.33 0.001976817437 0.003637972 0.5433e4505253 -878.972077577 '21 N/A N/A N/A 393 393 16200 16000 15800 16000 0.0245625 0.003637972 6.7517018-0583 334.792453242 322 N/A N/A IVA 183 .183 100099 101500 101200 100933 0.001813083927 0.003637972 0.4983776;2363 -184.19139@808 325 X/A X/A N/A 178 178 36600 36eoo 37900 37100 0.004797843666 0.003637972 1.318823811136 43.0312509548 327 350 340 379 358 714.33333 176300 179300 185500 180366.67 0.003960450933 0.003637972 1.088642598115 58.16450935899 329 42 42 43 376 418.33333 116800 118200 119000 118000 0.00354519774 0.003637972 0.974498445667 -10.9473240072 331 it/A JVA fi/A 194 194 343BOO 345900 347900 345866.67 0.000560909792 0.003637972 0.15418201194 -1064.25ZI3575 341 WA N/A N/A 353 353 60300 61100 61700 61033.333 0.005783724741 0.003617972 1.5898-21268949 130.9624622626 342 24 25 21 6 29.333333 145000 145800 146900 145900 0.000201050948 0.0036 7972 0.055264572197 -501.44673Z667 344 1659 1719 1641 216 1889 434700 435200 438500 436133.33 0.004331244268 0.003637972 1.190565693706 302.3592S79SZ9 345 6 6 6 a 14 91300 92300 93400 92333.333 0.000151624549 0.0036Z7972 0.04167832OZ537 -321.906051083 @347 134 135 137 3 138.33333 98400 99700 101100 99733.333 0.001387032086 0.003637972 0.381265'24271 -224.493708125 349 287 290 292 258 547.66667 222500 224200 225700 224133.33 0.00244348602 0.003637972 0.67166114013" -267.724050835 352 1 26 27 26 30 56.333333 114600 117900 119600 117366.67 0.000479977279 0.003637972 0 131935408631 -370.643275281 353 100 102 102 44 145.33333 261400 265400 270200 265666.67 0.0005470Z1443 0.003637972 0:150-72650525 -821.154474295 354 195 200 206 107 307.33333 297300 301000 303000 300433.33 0.001022966826 0.003637972 0.28ilgIS31386 -785.634622771 355 238 233 243 67 305 164200 165000 165800 165000 0.0018@8484848 0.003637972 @0.508108642659 -295.265.-25942 356 134 129 133 117 249 264600 267000 271000 267533.33 0.000930725143 0.003637972 @0.255836281066 -7_24.278688083 357 170 162 164 32 197.33333 492300 494700 495500 494166.67 0.000399325464 0.003637972 0.109765962934 -1600.4310014-3 359 524 511 519 0 518 255BOO 257900 261100 258266.67 0.00200567BB85 0.003637972 .0.5511-17895107 -421.566817253. 366 198 203 199 193 393 593200 593700 598100 595000 0.000660504202 0.003637972 0.181558368554 -1771.59ZI4506 367 857 870 878 654 1522.3-333 635700 648800 660300 648266.67 0.002348313451 0.003637972 0.645500752269 -836.042436146 369 WA K/A K/A 563 563 159000 159600 160400 159666.67 0.003526096033 0.003637972 0.96924779821 -17.8628103562 371 123 122 128 294 418.33@'33 833300 852100 863000 849466.67 0.000492465861 0.003637972 0.135-168250575 -2672.002-,3663 372 90 91 96 75 167.333-33 581500 588200 591000 586900 0.000285113875 0.003637972 0.078@171658946 -1967.79224118 373 2618 2952 2928 63 2895.6667 196700 201700 203600 200666.67 0.014@30232558 0.003637972 3.966559901416 2165.647017743 -.379 84 87 85 0 -.85-333= 48100 49500 50800 49466.667 0.001725067385 0.003637972 0.474183842206 -94-6249987269 381 X/A NIA ti/A 378 378 77600 77700 78600 77966.667 0.004848225737 0.003637972 1.33267275672 94.35947527699 391 44 44 44 0 44 52400 52500 52600 52500 0.00083809523a 0.003637972 0.2ZO374316672 -146.9935128 394 212 220 224 m 2211.66667 108800 113400 116BOO 113000 0.001961651917 0.003637972 0 539215830706 -189.424132312 395 125 124 126 0 125 33100 33000 33300 33133.333 0.003772635815 0.003637972 i.0-3701627023 4.461871921901 399 240 241 239 277 517 123700 125200 126500 125133.33 0.004131592968 0 003637972 1.135685854531 61.76847806321 401 X/A K/A. WA 510 510 361400 3_64300 366200 363966.67 0.001401227219 0:003637972 0.3e5l67160383 -814.100423023 411 598 58e 5B6 69 659.66667 77700 80200 80300 79400 0.008308144416 0.003637972 2.283729826579 370.811715B799 412 139 134 132 Is 153 39700 39200 38600 39166.667 0.003906382979 0.003637972 1 073780482785 10.51277616523 413 Pf/A v/sk NIA. 162 162 39400 36800 36400 37533.333 0.00431616341 0.00,637972 i-18642029103 25.45479656344 421 1290 1276 1263 2093 3369.3333 1141400 1148700 1160800 1150300 0.002929090962 0.00@[email protected] -815.42548140'- 422 274 260 254 342 604.66667 86300 85200 84700 e5400. 0.007080405935 0.003637972 1.946.150980079 293.9838858457 445 391 373 368 200 577.33333 27400 27000 27900 27433.333 0.021044957473 0.003637972 5 784805206a28 477.5316437878 446 508 572 578 3zo se2.66667 99200 97100 101500 99266.667 o.ooeegIS73741 0.003637972 2:444184436146 521.537345322 452 74 75 76 3 78 400700 402800 404900 402eOO O.OOOt93644489 0.0036M7972 0.05322B696103 -1387.37498963 458 89 89 89 137 226 56600 57000 57300 56966.667 0.0039672323 0.003637972 1.090506649547 18.756seo39691 471 95 97 98 257 353.66667 55600 57100 57500 56733.333 0.006233842538 O.OOZ6Z797@ 1.71-548949686 147.2724071205 472 495 490 495 211 704.=Z33 155400 157200 160500 157700 0.004466286197 0.00363797@ 1.22@685809467 1:;0.6252r-05994 481 41 41 41 4210 4251 999zoo 994400 99100 697600 0.00609375 0.0036@7972 1.675040530488 171Z.!J*096lZ5 w 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 E E E CONTACTS AVERAGE 'E E E AVERAGE EIR/EIN ER/EN LQI sic INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INFLUENTIAL MONTHLY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY MONTHLY XIR CODE BY REGION BY REGION BY REGION DATA E NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL E MONTH MONTH MONTH IR MONTH MONTH MONTH IN 1 2 3 2 3 .483 - -------------- ---------------- --- 436 501 806 1269.6667 225800 226800 227400 226666.67 0.005601470588 0.003637972 1. 5--97235:;077,F45.0597542612 489 90 89 87 417 505 66667 143300 143900 145600 144266.67 0.003505083179 0.003637972 0. 963471817527 -19. 171379935 7 491 "/A K/A OVA 4472 4@72- 432300 431200 431600 431700 0.01OZ59045634 0.00'Z6-7972 2. a4747836609 2901. 4876290 55 492 N/A N/A WA 131 1:11 170200 169600 169500 169766.67 0.000771647359 0.003637972 0. 2121019226957 -486-606324247 495 194 .220 ise 312 512 66667 54100 53800 54000 53966.667 0.009499691167 0.003637972 2.611260345845 316. ZSZS74620807 501 1229 1229 1231 418 164@ *6667 408700 409400 410700 409600 0.004022623-698 0.001-637972 1.103732551042 157.55:1469661 503 C, 502 477 530 488 254 752@3' 33 117200 119100 117800 118033.33 0.006373905676 0.003637972 1.75-04928743,- 322.93141, 27 4 636 639 647 1113 1755. f667 193100 194400 196300 194600 0.009011647825 0.003637972 2.477107750185 1045.717379222 504 151 152 146 30 179.66667 72000 72600 73200 72600 0.002474747475 0.003637972 0.680254740172 -84.4500767479 505 451 448 459 296 748.66667 128400 129200 130100 12.923'-.33 0.005793139025 0.003637972 1.592409052826 278.5194608731 506 715 723 714 837 1554-333 452400 454300 459100 455266.67 0.003414116269 0.003637972 0.938466974544 -101. 9-13903ZS78 -507 843 838 814 428 1259.6667 240400 241600 242500 241500 0.005216011042 0.003637972 1.433769009721 381.0965077876 508 3187 2912 2989 4264 7293.3333 1348600 1360200 1319900 1:559566.7 0.00536445436 0. 003637972 1. 474572878395, 2347. 268313292 509 494 440 460 586 1050.6667 190400 190500 192200 191OZ3.33 0.005499912755 0. 003637972 t .511807471441 355-6928115207, 511 299 314 304 644 949.66667 167600 168000 169700 168433.33 0.0056382 0.003637972 1.549829195995 336.91097 512 IZ6 1'-7 141 82 '20 157300 155900 156200 156466.67 0.0014061 0. 003637972 0. 386492915166 -349.2211 513 104 113 116 127 '38 172000 173800 174800 173533.33 0.0013715 0. 003637972 0. 376994257519 -393.309@ '14 2538 2576 2575 2014 4;77 695100 697600 701200 697966.67 0.0065576 0. 003637972i 1. 802548327247 2037.817 515 20 19 20 39 58.666667 145600 143000 143900 144166.67 0.0004069 0. 003637972 0. 111858049713 -465.8076 5.6 172 166 165 317 4e4.66667 124900 124700 125300 124966.67 0.0038784 0. 003637972 1. 066079649309 30.041473 517 367 380 381 379 755 210000 209000 208600 209200 0.003609 0. 0=637972 0. 992032632657 -6. 063674 513 465 449 444 894 1346.6667 148100 148400 148700 148400 0.0090746 0. 003637972i 2. 494404586605 806.79167 519 909 932 1059 423 1389.6667 3923oo 397200 400200 396566.67 0.0035042 0. 003637972 0. 963241356219 -53. 03163 521 398 413 544 195 646.66667 323900 323300 328500 325233.33 O.OOI98B3 :0. 003637972 0. 546545234494 -536. 523 523 ie5 ISO 177 131 311.6666i 61800 60600 61200 - 61200 0.0050926 :0 Oo3637971 1 39984393811 89.0228 525 343 346 353 387 734.33333 149800 149300 150300 149800 0.0049021 0: 003637972 1: 347479342683 189.36518 526 in 235 227 190 421 42400 43800 51900 46033.333 0.0091455 0. 003637972 2. 513913666433 253. 53204 527 60 59 59 66 125.33331 '5900 26800 27800 26833.333 0.0046708 0.003637972 1.283904294495 27.714427 531 575 571 585 5569 6146 @' 1-941600 IB25700 1825400 1864233 *30 0032968 0. 00363797210. 9062186042Z 1 -636. 0281 533 66 68 65 1256 1322.3333 206900 19B700 199900 201833.33 0:0065516 0.00363797211.800896441613 588.06938 539 24 24 23 38 61.666667 119000 115800 115200 116666.67 0.0005286 0. 003637972'0. 145292892901 -362. 7634 541 1121 1114 1132 3592 4714.3333 2291800 2278900 2276000 22B2233.3 0.0020657 0. 0OZ5637972 0. 567807244685 -3588.367 542 103 95 91 41 137.33333 56500 56700 56600 56600 0.0024264 0. 003637972 0. 666960658209 -68. 57586 543 87 95 92 3 94.3'33Z3 22100 20700 20900 21233.333 0.0044427 0. 003637972 1. 221202515324 17.087068 544 16 17 19 23 40.3@3333 21000 25300 23600 23300 0.001731 Ot 003637972 0. 475826780679 -44. 43141 545 117 12, 193 169 313.33333 37100 37000 37000 370,33.333 0.0084608 [email protected],178.60712 546 307 30@ 305 366 671 142400 144100 144500 143666.67 0 0046705 0.0036379721.283929029829 148.34474 549 57 57 56 74 130.66667 34600 34000 33500 34033.333 0:0038394 0. 003637972 1. 0553609213926-6. 8-543641 551p2 2772 27e2 2BOI 785 3570 790700 798000 803500 797400 0.0044771 0. 003637972 1. 230644660551 669. 08 139 5571, 476 477 457 786 1256 279000 269800 273000 273933.33 0.0045851 0. 0036:37972 1. 260333395;61 259. 438@9 554 1693 1717 1705 400 2105 566900 566800 566100 566600 0.0037151 43.72525 555 233 232 225 121 351 23100 23400 24600 23700 0.0148101 0. 003637972 4. 070984580427 264. 78007 556,559 85 ei 77 57 138 24500 24900 25200 24866.667 0.0055496 0.00363797'1.52546483453 47.535771 557 82 89 86 26 111.66667 25500 27000 '9600 277,66.667 0.0040804 0. 00363797@ 1. 121611198778 12. 107509 561 94 96 112 241 341.66667 120000 114900 114000 116-300 0.0029Z78 0. 003637972 0. 807539143536 -81. 42944 562 476 509 537 1366 1873.3333 345900 338300 340800 341666.67 0.0054829 0. 003637972 1. 507138406519 630. 35968 564 15 is 14 44 59.666667 34800 30200 30300 31766.6b7 0.0018783 0. 0036t7972 0. 516298445322 -55. 89957 565 121 113 lie 255 372.33333 182100 174400 174000 176833.33 0.0021056 0.0036379720.578;7327844- -270.9813 566 170 175 170 460 631.66667 211600 205300 206600 2078-33.33 0.0030393 0.0036379720.8354Z649595 -124.4251 569 169 171 169 282 451.66667 48900 48700 49100 48900 0.0092363 0. 003637972 2. 53e924978658! 273. 76985 571 1292 1292 1399 815 2142.6667 373900 371900 374800 373533.33 0.0057362 0.0016379721.57676114497)4 783.76298 572 146 142 147 209 354 80800 79700 78000 79500 0.0044528 0. 0016379721.223ge7;42695'64.781252 573 274 270 286 344 620.66667 1802oo 184600 185200 183ZZ3.33 0.0033B55 0. oo:@67,7972 0. 930588484556 -46.29481 581 tol50 10400 106-3 8436 IBBZO.3;33 4855600 4864600 4966400 4895533.3 0.0038464 0.0056379721.057301097233 1020.5217 591 757 729 779 891 1654.6667 523200 521100 519400 521233.33 0.0031745 0. 003637972 0. 872607665209 -241. 5654 592 22: 220 227 266 489 122400 122200 120600 121733.33 0.004017 0. 00363777-1. 104180395193 46.1375B2 593 284 292 306 15 309 70irjO 70500 7C)9(.')O 70500 0.004Z33 O.OOZ63797ZI.104736-80467 52.522997 594 -,950 !Bee 1947 1193 3ose 667900 649400 645300 654200 0.0047201- 0. OOZ63797@ 1. @97500116046 708.@i-3893 596 164 17-, 1 a':, 269 4 4:1 2S5400 256500 2=6000 -25596-1.67 0. 06 17-307 4757::05049?8 -489. 1995 5173 69 7z Ii2 144 109600 tc'9 1,-j77(lcl ".'7e L'77-72 @@. t7340@)64t;041 -166.478 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 E E T "ONTACTS AVERAGE E E E AVERAGE EIR/EIN ER/EN LUX XIR sic INDUSTRY !NZUSTRY 1ND STRY ZN;LUENT'AL MONTHLY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY MONTHLY CODE B@ REGION BY RESIGN BY REGION DATA' E NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL E MONTH MONTH MONTH IR MONTH MONTH MONTH IN 1 .1 3 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 599 1129 1115 1139 469 160--.3333 2eogoo 29S6OO 286000 '87500 0.0055768 O.OOZ637972 I.SZ244530481 557.41648 602 329-w -3-8 51,64 867'-.:S3-4 1516700 1514800 1516600 lZ16033.3 0.0057211 O.OOZ637972 1.57-.598923874 '158.047 604,605 w/k I "/A 440 440 4950o 49700 50Z00 4;833.333 0.0088294 0.00-6:3797- 2.427020393031 158.70774 612 263 -266 264 1301 1566 305300 306200 308100 306533.33 0.0051087 0.00@63797@ 1.40428:;-18229 @50.84042 614 S03 515 521 564 1077 206000 207200 209100 [email protected] 0.005192 0.00ZS7972@ 1.427177@19314 322.36341 615 143 137 136 160 298-66667 36600 36100 36600 36433.333 0.0081976 0.003637972 2.2533493837ZI 166.12323 616 79 e, 75 477 555.66667 88300 89200 91200 89566.667 0.00620:39 0.00.363797@ 1.705330738854 229.8256@ 621 339 -33-7 327 797 1131.Z333 270900 274600 276500 274000 0.004129 0.003637972 1.134960396377 134.5291 628 so 48 53 103 153.33333 60200 60800 61600 60866.667 0.0025192 O.OOZ637972 0.692464869514 -68.09788 631 238 273 266 6 265 541200 540800 540000 540666.67 0.0004901 0.00-637972 0.134727721697 -1701.93 632 20 19 @O 317 336.66667 148800 150100 151100 150000 0.0022444 0.00@637971 0.616949401087 -209.0291 633 21 19 !a 0 19-333333 470900 469800 470800 470500 4.109E-05 0.0036:5797@ 0.011295040644 -1692.332 636 164 161 167 201 365 4ZS700 44100 44600 44133.333 0.0082704 0.003637972 1.273152706961 204.44418 641 3267 3654 3373 6904 10335.333 493200 496800 497500 495833.33 0.0208444 0.003637972 ;.729@67964753 8531.5057 651 2068 2089 2105 763 2850.3333 480400 476900 474800 477366.67 0.005971 0.003637972 1.64128593el2B 1113.6869 653 1223 1240 1307 1192 2448.6667 371400 374700 377600 374566.67 0. 0065373 0.003637972 1.796971669065 1086.0037 654 31 31 34 115 147 25000 25500 26000 25500 0.0057647 0.0036379722 1.584593394755 54 231722 655 606 606 685 346 1178.3333 113900 112000 114100 113333.33 0.0103971 0.00S637972 2.857927'372682 [email protected] 671 250 264 260 36 294 72200 72100 71700 72000 0.0040833 0.003637972 1.122420321284 32 06604 679 42 41 42 96 137.66667 31600 31300 31500 31466.667 0.004375 0.003637972 1.2025932-01376 23:191825 701 3371 3851 3868 4292 7988.6667 1098100 1114800 1148700 1120533.3 0.0071293 0.003637972 1-959702771754 3912.1981 702 37 39 42 3 42.333333 12900 13000 13300 13066.667 O.bO32398 0.003637972 0.890550067491 -5. -20283 703 46 54 57 38 90.333333 14500 14600 15500 14866.667 0.0060762 0-0=637972 1.6702255:[email protected] 721 1051 1068 1OB3 825 1892.3333 354600 352700 352200 353166.67 0.0053582 0.003637972.1.4728 27 607 523 722 1098 -4@31: 23 37 37 38 203 240.33333 50600 53400 52800 52266.667 0.0045982 0.007,637972:1. 5u;9 365 0.1 B 81 7 263940 5 ; 6 ills 1145 376 1496.1-333 '304600 304800 305800 305066.67 0.0049049 0.0036-37972 '1- 3e6-50944 724 63 64 69 27 92.333333 22eoo 22700 22900 22800 0.0040497 0.003637972 1 725,9 19.3875792 154 182 205 282 462.ZZZZ3 173800 186500 192600 184300 0.0023086 0.003637972 0.6895576137491-208.1448 726 174 176 180 197 373.66667 72200 72500 73400 72700 0.00;139B 0.003637972 1.412832361295,109.18613 731 588 602 598 434 .1030 173600 174900 174900 -174466.67 0.0059037 0.003637972 1.6228016779:[email protected] 732 336 331 315 325 652.33333 76700 76400 77400 76833.333 0.0084902 0.003637972 2.333783596002 372 B1584 733 805 824 750 637 1430 152900 153200 154600 153566.67 0.0093119 0.003637972 2.559645177911 871:3-2882 734 1843 1935 1883 1063 4-950 '568000 571700 574000 571233.33 0.0051643 0.003637972 1.419544938828 871.86932 736 3214 Z656 3349 1000 4406.3333 i726700 734100 764800 741866.67 0.0059395 0.003637972 1.632646557358, 1707.4434 737 le38 1814 1843 1127 2958.6667 451700 455700 459600 453666.67 0.0064931 0.00Z37972 1.784799624691;1300.9642 739 5027 5050 5250 2260 7335.6667 1596900 1609500 1623300 1609900 0.0045566 0.003637972 1.25251049998V1478.8961 751 232 236 235 1398 1632.3333 127000 128300 130000 128433.33 0.0127096 O-OOZ637971 3.493568762531 t165.0965 753 1689 1714 1794 404 2136.3337> 383BOO 392500 398600 392300 0.0054457 0.00363797@ 1.496895199761 709.15705 754 379 396 417 9 406.Z3333 74200 79900 80200 78100 0.0052027 0.003637972 1.4301 8761029 122.20775 762 377 '-S 6 8 390 283 661.333=3 B6000 85700 B6000 85900 0.0076989 0.00-363797@ 2.116251470--838*348.83IS7 76Z,9 719 732 743 331 1062.3Z35 181800 182600 184900 183100 0.0058019 0.00-637972 1.594825427806 396.22072 764 93 los 104 3 10--.66667 23300 23900 24500 23900 0.0043375 0. 00:116Z7972 1. 192290051813 16.719144 781 is is to 26 44 - 0.120185342417 -322 1012 98800 100000 103100 100633.33 0.0004372 0.003637972 782 5/h U/I W/A 40 40 10400 10400 10500 lo433.333 0.0038339 0.003637972 1.053847077427 2.04;e289 783 51 50 63 el 135.66667 98600 96200 98500 97766.667 0.0013877 0.003637972' 0.381437189 -220.0057 791,9 1562 1594 1538 251 1815.6667 484700 494600 516700 498666.67 0.003641 0.003637972 1.000844181497 1.5314594 792 274 312 332 44 350 89900 91500 94900 924=333 O.OOZ7B65 0.00367,7972 '1.040830754887 13.730152 793 296 296 304 87 386.3'-333 105200 10;000 107200 1;6466.67 0.0036287 0.0036-797' 0.9974455821771-0.989384 794 1035 995 1853 386 1680.3333 58300 60000 61200 59833.333 0.0280836 0. 00--6@3797@ 7. -719566B324B7 @ 1462. 6614 eoi 4494 4030 4041 451 4639.3ZZ3 8801-00 885500 887600 884466.67 0.0052453 0.003637972 :1.441832445854'1421.6687 802 1489 1478 1472 174 1653.6667 424200 423100 423200 423500 0.0039048 0.003637972 'l.073334884494 112.98566 803 161 158 166 @ 1 182.66667 27900 28100 28400 28133.333 0.0064929 0.003637972 1.784755787012 80.318397 804 463 463 466 269 7Z3 144800 147000 150900 147566.67 0.0049672 0.0036Z7972 1.365388983098 196-15665 805 2184 216Z 2196 74-3 2904 1126200 1127600 1131900 1128566.7 0.00-15732 0.003637972 0.707--10459227 -1201.694 lim kow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 sic IND E E E CONTACTS AVERAGE E E E AVERAGE EIR/EIN ER/EN LGI XIR USTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INFLUENTIAL MONTHLY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY MONTHLY CODE By REGION BY REGION BY REGION DATA E NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL E MONTH MONTH MONTH IR MONTW MONTH MONTH IN 2 3 1 2 3 ----@3016300 3OIZ700 Z012400 3014133.3 0.0040034 0.003637972-1.10043790876e liot.335 806 11347 11 izsa 11057 386, L2066.667 807 520 544 543 234 769.66667 109500 109800 1.10000 109766.67 0.0070118 0.00363797- 1.927404591195 -70.3-864 BOB 834 847 847 519 0,61.6667 182500 183900 185600 184000 0.0074004 0.00363797;- 2.034200094253 @92.2;qse 809 774 aos 840 2267 1073.3=3 101500 102800 103900 102733.33 0.0104478 0.003637972 2.871364361495 699.5927,8 all 3072 3081 3076 3835.33ZSZ 617100 623900 62B200 623066.67 0.0061556 0.003637972 1.692034774239 1568.6344 821 18729 18934 18990 56 18907 341500 346200 346500 344733.33 0.0548453 0.003637972 15.07578837478 17652.87 822 2101 2136 2193 905 3048.33Z3 7Z5100 826000 630200 797100 0.0038243 0.0036Z7972 1.051212055758 148.50611 824 89 90 89 144 233.33333 57300 58900 60400 58866.667 0.0039638 0.00363797'- 1.089552164327 19.178068 s--3,e29 173 173 169 424 595.66667 65400 66300 673-00 66333.333 0.0089799 0.00363797-1 2.468380819365 354.3478S e32 787 806 862 423 1241.3333 272400 278800 282300 277833.33 0.0044679 0.003637972 1.22BIZ1173379 230.5a354 83:S 606 591 597 131 729 197300 198800 202400 199500 0.0036541 O.OOZ637972 1.004443043384.3.2246514 8,5 900 918 957 470 1395 311000 314200 317500 314233.33 0.0044394 0.003637972 1.220288847598 251.82803 836 1030 1060 1070 52 1105.3333 256000 256000 257400 256466.67 0.0043099 0.003637972 1.184685374359 172.31487 839 733 749 742 161 902.33333 224400 226000 226800 225733.33 0.0039973 0.003637972 1. 0987e3l56232 St. 121861 861 342 345 340 107 449.33333 84900 85700 86700 B5766.667 0.005239 0.003637972 1.440093840835 137.31663 862 54 54 50 53 105.66667 '37900 37800 37900 37B66.667 0.0027905 0.003637972 0.76704636788 -32.09119 863 309 288 324 144 431 134300 137100 136900 136100 0.0033137 0.003637972 0.910875673468 -44.12794 864 > 1 1202 1158 1129 249 1412 302600 316000 318000 312200 0.0045227 0.003637972 1.243-204246614 276.22524 866 (.n 48 4e 47 ill 158.66667 859500 858000 856600 85BO33.33 0.0001849 0.003637972 0.050830247585 -2962.834 869 369 362 361 0 364 66000 67500 67700 67066.667 0.0054274 0.003637972 1.491885005286 120.01337 eel 845 ast 823 0 839.66667 0 0.00@637972 0 0 891 1651 1650 1662 1628 Z2e2.333:S 581700 583400 589100 584733.33 0.0056134 0.003637972 1.542998550933 1155.09 893 997 1010 1028 1243 2254.6667 382000 392200 392900 389033.33 0.0057956 0.003637972 1.593074979813 839.37442 899 72 84 93 14 97 0 20900 .21000 13966.667 0.0069451 0.003637972 1. 909060329222 46. 189662 912 5513 5643 5710 0 5622 K/A K/A X/A 0 - 0.003637972 0 5622 913 8626 8464 8460 0 SZ16.6667 N/A N/A N/A 0 - 0.003637972 - 8516 921 699 712 729 0 713.33333 K/A N/A WA 0 - 0.003637972 - 713 922 1824 1843- 1876 0 1847.6667 N/A N/A X/A 0 - 0.00-1637972 - 1847 931 355 390 404 0 383 N/A X/A N/A 0 - 0.003637972 - 383 951 38 :59 39 0 38.666667 K/A K/A N/A 0 - 0.003637972 - 38 953 36 34 38 a 44 N/A NIA WA 0 - 0.003637972 - 44 962 at 82 81 0 81.333333 WA NIA WA 0 0.003637972 - 81 971 9 3 4 0 5.3333333 N/A N/A N/A 0 0.003637972 - 5 ECONOMIC BASE MODEL COLUMN DESCRIPTION Column Heading Description 1 SIC CODE Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for establishments found within the study area. The three-digit code repre- sents the type of activity in which the establishments are engaged. 2 EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRY BY Florida Department of Labor and Employment REGION, MONTH 1 Security. Study area employment totals for January 1984. 3 EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRY BY Florida Department of Labor and Employment REGION, MONTH 2 Security. Study area employment totals for February 1984. 4 EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRY BY Florida Department of Labor and Employment REGION, MONTH 3 Security. Study area employment totals for March 1984. 5 CONTACTS INFLUENTIAL DATA Contacts Influential International Corp. Marketing Information Services 3500 East Fletcher Ave., Suite 423 Tampa, FL 33612 The figures shown represent the average annual employment, in 1984, for those es- tablishments with headquarters located outside of the study area, and those es- tablishments otherwise not included in the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security employment totals. 6 AVERAGE MONTHLY EIR The derivation is as follows: EIR, Month 1 + EIR, Month 2 + EIR, Month 3 3 + Contacts Influential (CI) Data 7 EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRY BY U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor NATION, MONTH 1 Statistics. National employment totals for January 1984. 8 EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRY By National employment totals for February NATION, MONTH 2 1984. 9 EMPLOYMENT/INDUSTRY BY National employment totals for March 1984. NATION, MONTH 3 A-6 Column Heading Description 10 AVERAGE MONTHLY EIN The derivation is as follows: EIN, Month 1 + EIN, Month 2 + EIN, Month 3 3 11 ER/EN Total Employment Region (Study Area) Total Employment Nation 333,391 91,637,000 = .0036379 12 LQI Location Quotient for Industry "I". The derivation is as follows: EIR /ER 7i -IN / -EN 13 XIR Exogenous or Export Employment. The derivation is as follows: XIR =rEIR E-I EIN t -IN -E2-N-j A-7 I I 1, I I I I APPENDIX B I b I I I I I I 1* A APPENDIX B Summary of Study Area SICS by Major Group LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 01. Agricultural production - crops 016 Vegetables and Melons 10. 2462 017 Fruits and Tree Nuts .39 0 018 Horticulture Specialties 3.0 799 MAJOR GROUP 02. Agricultural production--livestock 024 Dairy Farms 1.5 56 MAJOR GROUP 07. Agricultural services 072 Crop Services 2.1 267 074 Veterinary Services 1.1 51 075 Animal Services .60 0 076 Farm Labor and Management .55 0 078 Landscape and Horticulture Services 2.2 671 MAJOR GROUP 09. Fishing, hunting, and trapping 091 Commercial Fishing 2.7 86 MAJOR GROUP 13.. Oil and gas extraction 138 oil and Gas Field Services .02 0 MAJOR GROUP 14. Mining of nonmetallic minerals 147 Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining 14. 1036 MAJOR GROUP 15. Building construction 152 Residential Building Contractors 1.5 987 153 operative Builders 1.2 63 154 Nonresidential Building Contractors 1.7 1200 B-1 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 16. Construction other than building construction 161 Highway and Street Construction 1.1 122 162 Heavy Construction 1.6 1153 MAJOR GROUP 17. Construction--special trade contractors 171 Plumbing, Heating, Air Conditionir@g 2.0 1932 172 Painting and Decorating 1.7 320 173 Electrical Work 2.0 1563 174 Masonry, Tile Setting 2.0 1150 175 Carpentering 1.3 135 176 Roofing and Sheet Metal 2.0 602 177 Concrete Work 1.3 118 178 Water Well Drilling 1.0 1 179 Misc. Special Trade 1.6 753 MAJOR GROUP 20. Food and kindered products 201 Meat Products .13 0 203 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables 4.48 2599 204 Grain Mill Products .02 0 205 Bakery Products .60 0 208 Beverages .93 0 209 Misc. Food Preparations 2.36 806 MAJOR GROUP 21. Tobacco manufactures 212 Cigars 31. 615 B-2 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 23. Apparel from fabrics 232 men's and Boy's Clothing .58 0 233 Women's Outerwear .47 0 239 Misc. Fabricated Textile .52 0 MAJOR GROUP 24. Lumber and wood products 243 Millwork 1.2 160 245 Wood Buildings & Mobile Homes 1.8 221 249 Misc. Wood Products .37 0 MAJOR GROUP 25. Furniture and fixtures 251 Household Furniture .27 0 254 Fixtures and Partitions .30 0 MAJOR GROUP 26. Paper and allied products 264 Paper Products .56 0 265 Paper Boxes & Containers 1.1 85 MAJOR GROUP 27. Printing and publishing 271 Newspapers: Publishing 2.3 2118 272 Periodicals: Publishing 1.4 163 273 Books .09 0 274 Misc. Publishing 1.0 5 275 Commercial Printing 1.3 656 279 Service Industries for Printing .84 0 13-3 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 28. Chemical and allied products 284 Soap and Cosmetics Preparations .37 0 285 Paint and Varnish Products .98 0 287 Agriculture Chemicals 1.5 121 289 Misc. Chemical Products .20 0 MAJOR GROUP 29. Petroleum refining and related industries 295 Paving and Roofing Materials .97 0 MAJOR GROUP 30. Rubber and miscellaneous products 306 Rubber Products .15 0 307 Misc. Plastic Products .54 0 MAJOR GROUP 32. Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 321 Flat Glass 6.7 335 322 Glassware .49 0 325 Clay Products 1.3 43 327 Concrete and Plaster Products 1.0 58 329 Misc. Nonmetallic Mineral Products .97 0 MAJOR GROUP 33. Primary metal industries 331 Steel Products .15 0 MAJOR GROUP 34. Fabricated metal products 341 Metal Cans and Containers 1.5 131 342 Hardware .05 0 344 Fabricated Structural Metal Products 1.1 302 345 Screw Machine Products .04 0 13-4 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT 347 Metal Services .38 0 349 Misc. Fabricated Metal Products .67 0 MAJOR GROUP 35. Machinery 352 Farm and Garden Machinery .13 0 353 Construction Machinery .15 0 354 Metal Working Machinery .28 0 355 Special Industry Machinery .50 0 356 General Industrial Machinery .25 0 357 Office & Computing Machines .10 0 359 Misc. Machinery Machines .55 0 MAJOR GROUP 36. Electrical and electronic machinery 366 Communication Equipment .18 0 367 Electronic Components .64 0 369 Misc. Electrical Equipment .96 0 MAJOR GROUP 37. Transportation equipment 371 Motor Vehicles & Equipment .13 0 372 Aircraft and Parts .07 0 373 Ship & Boat Building & Repairing 3.9 2166 379 Misc. Transportation Equip. .47 0 MAJOR GROUP 38. Measuring, analyzing, and controlling equipment 381 Engineering & Scientific 1.3 94 Instruments B-5 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 39. Miscellaneous manufacturing industries .23 0 391 Jewelry and Silverware 394 Toys and Sporting Goods .53 0 395 office Supplies 1.0 4 399 Misc. Manufactures 1.1 62 MAJOR GROUP 40. Railroad transportation 401 Railroads .38 0 MAJOR GROUP 41. Local and suburban transit 411 Local Transportation 2.2 371 412 Taxicabs 1.0 10 413 Intercity Highway Transportation 1.1 25 MAJOR GROUP 42. Motor freight transport and warehousing 421 Trucking, Local & Long Distance .80 0 422 Public Warehousing 1.9 294 MAJOR GROUP 44. Water transportation 445 Local Water Transportation 5.7 477 446 Water Transportation Services 2.4 521 MAJOR GROUP 45. Transportation by air 452 Noncertified Air Transportation .05 0 458 Air Transportation Services 1.0 19 B-6 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 47. Transportation services 471 Freight Forwarding 1.7 147 472 Arrangement of Transportation 1.2 131 MAJOR GROUP 48. Communication 481 Telephone Communication 1.6 1713 483 Radio & Television Broadcasting 1.5 445 489 Communication Services .96 0 MAJOR GROUP 49. Electric, gas, and sanitary services 491 Electric Services 2.8 2901 492 Gas Production and Distribution .21 0 495 Sanitary Services 2.6 316 MAJOR GROUP 50. Wholesale trade--durable goods 501 Motor Vehicles & Automotive Equip. 1.1 157 502 Furniture and Home Furnishings 1.7 323 503 Lumber and Construction Materials 2.4 1046 504 sporting Goods and Toys .68 0 505 Metals and Minerals 1.5 278 506 Electrical Goods .93 0 507 Hardware and Plumbing Equipment 1.4 381 508 Machinery Equipment and Supplies 1.4 2347 509 Misc. Durable Goods 1.5 356 16 B-7 LQI EXPORT MAJOR GROUP 51. IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT Wholesale trade--nondurable goods 511 Paper and Paper Products 1.5 337 512 Drugs and Sundries .38 0 513 Apparel and Notions .37 0 514 Groceries and Related Products 1.8 2038 515 Farm-Product Raw Materials .11 0 516 Cheinicals and Allied Products 1.0 30 517 Petroleum and Petroleum Products .99 0 518 Beer, Wine and Distilled Beverages 2.4 807 519 Misc. Nondurable Goods .96 0 MAJOR GROUP 52. Building materials, hardware, mobile home dealers 521 Lumber and Other Building Materials .54 0 523 Glass and Paint Stores 1.3 89 525 Hardware Stores 1.3 189 526 Retail Nurseries & Garden Stores 2.5 253 527 Mobile Home Dealers 1.2 28 MAJOR GROUP 53. General merchandise stores 531 Department Stores .90 0 533 Variety Stores 1.8 588 539 Misc. General Merchandise Stores .14 0 MAJOR GROUP 54. Food Stores 541 Grocery Stores .56 0 542 Meat Markets .66 0 543 Fruit and Vegetable Stores 1.2 17 B-8 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT 544 Candy and Nut Stores .47 0 145 Dairy Products 2.3 179 546 Retail Bakeries 1.2 148 549 Misc. Food Stores 1.0 7 MAJOR GROUP 55. Automotive dealers, service stations 551,2 New and Used Car Dealers 1.2 669 553 Auto Supply Stores 1.2 259 554 Gasoline Service Stations 1.0 44 555 Boat Dealers 4.0 265 556,9 Recreation & Utility Trailer Dealers 1.5 47 557 Motorcycle Dealers 1.1 12 MAJOR GROUP 56. Apparel and accessory stores 561 Men's and Boy's Clothing .80 0 562 Women's Clothing Stores 1.5 630 564 Children's & Infant's Wear Stores .51 0 565 Family Clothing Stores .57 0 566 Shoe Store s .83 0 569 Misc. Apparel and Accessories 2.5 274 MAJOR GROUP 57. Furniture and home furnishings 571 Furniture Stores 1.5 784 572 Household Appliance Stores 1.2 65 573 Radio, Television & Music Stores .93 0 MAJOR GROUP 58. Eating and drinking places 581 Eating and Drinking Places 1.0 1020 B-9 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 59. Miscellaneous retail 591 Drug Stores .87 0 592 Liquor Stores 1.1 46 593 Used Merchand ise Stores 1.2 52 594 Misc. Shopping Goods Stores 1.2 708 596 Nonstore Retailers .47 0 598 Fuel and Ice Dealers .57 0 599 Retail Stores 1.5 557 MAJOR GROUP 60. Banking 602 Commercial Banks 1.5 3158 604,5 Trust Comp anies 2.4 259 MAJOR GROUP 61. Credit agencies 6.12 Savings and Loans 1.4 451 614 Personal Credit Institutions 1.4 322 615 Business Credit Institutions 2.2 166 616 Mortgage Bankers and Brokers 1.7 230 MAJOR GROUP 62. Security and commodity brokers 621 Security Brokers and Dealers 1.1 134 628 Security and Commodity Services .69 0 MAJOR GROUP 63. Insurance 631 Life Insurance .13 0 632 Medical Service & Health Insurance .61 0 633 Fire, Marine & Casualty Insurance .01 0 636 Title Insurance 2.2 204 B-10 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 64. Insurance Agents 641 Insurance agents 5.7 8531 MAJOR GROUP 65, Real Estate 651 Real Estate Operators 1.6 1114 653 Real Estate Agents 1.7 1086 654 Title Abstract Offices 1.5 54 655 Subdividers & Developers 2.8 766 MAJOR GROUP 67. Holding and other investing offices 671 Holding offices 1.1 32 679 Misc. Investing 1.2 23 MAJOR GROUP 70. Hotels, and other lodging places 701 Hotels and Motels 1.9 3912 702 Rooming & Boarding Houses .89 0 703 Camps and Trailer Parks 1.6 36 MAJOR GROUP 72. Personal services 721 Laundry Services 1.4 607 722 Photographic Studi@s 1.2 50 723 Beauty Shops 1.3 386 724 Bar ber Shops 1.1 9 725,9 Shoe Repair, & Misc. Services .68 0 726 Funeral Services 1.4 109 B-11 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 73. Business services 731 Advertising 1.6 395 732 Credit Reporting & Collection 2.3 373 733 Mailing & Reproduction Services 2.5 871 734 Services to Buildings 1.4 872 736 Personnel Supply Services 1.6 1707 737 Computer Services 1.7 1301 739 Misc. Business Services 1.2 1479 MAJOR GROUP 75. Automotive repair, services 751 Automotive Rentals 3.4 1165 753 Automotive Repair 1.4 709 754 Automotive Services 1.4 122 MAJOR GROUP 76. Miscellaneous repair services 7 62 Electrical Repair Shops 2.1 349 763,9 Watch, Clock, Misc. Repair 1.5 396 764 Furniture Repair 1.1 17 MAJOR GROUP 78. Motion pictures 781 Motion Picture Production .12 0 782 Motion Picture Distribution 1.0 2 783 Motion Picture Theaters .38 0 B-12 LQI EXPORT MAJOR GROUP 79. IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT Amusement and recreation services 791,9 Dance Halls, Studios, Misc. Amusement Services 1.0 1 792 Producers and Entertainers 1.0 14 793 Bowling and Billiard Establishments .99 0 794 Commercial Sports 7.7 1463 MAJOR GROUP 80. Health services 801 Offices of Physicians 1.4 1422 802 offices of Dentists 1.0 113 803 Offices of Osteopathic Physicians 1.7 80 804 Offices of Other Health Practitioners 1.3 196 805 Nursing and Personal Care Facilities .70 0 806 Hospitals 1.1 1101 807 Medical and Dental Labs 1.9 370 808 Outpatient Care Facilities 2.0 692 809 Health and Allied Care Services 2.8 700 MAJOR GROUP 81, Legal services 811 Legal Services 1.6 1569 MAJOR GROUP 82. Educational services 821 Elementary and Secondary Schools 15. 17,653 822 Colleges and Universities 1.0 148 824 Vocational Schools 1.0 19 823,9 Libraries and Educational Services 2.4 354 B-13 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYME MAJOR GROUP 83. Social services 832 Individual and Family Services 1.2 231 833 Job Training Services 1.0 3 835 Child Day Care Services 1.2 252 836 Residential Care 1.1 172 839 Social Services 1.0 81 MAJOR GROUP 86. Membership organizations 861 Business Associations 1.4 137 862 Professional Organizations .76 0 863 Labor Organi zations .91 0 864 Civic and Social Associations 1.2 276 866 Religious Organizations .05 0 od 869 Membership Organizations 1.4 120 MAJOR GROUP 88. Private households 881 Private Households N/A N/A N/A MAJOR GROUP 89. Miscellaneous services 891 Engineering & Architectural Services 1.5 1155 893 Accounting Services 1.5 839 899 Miscellaneous Services 1.9 46 B-14 LQI EXPORT IMPORT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT MAJOR GROUP 91-97. Public administration 912 Legislative Bodies - - 5622 913 Executive & Legislative Combined - - 8516 921 Courts - - 713 922 Public Order & Safety - - 1847 931 Finance & Taxation - - 383 951 Environmental Quality - 38 953 Housing & Urban Development - 44 962 Transportation - 81 971 National Security - 5 TOTAL EXPORT EMPLOYMENT 127,323 B-15 TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF Bruce R. Belrose Executive Director Julia E. Greene ASst. Director, Planning & Policy Development Manny L. Pumariega Asst. Director, Administration & Finance Sheila C. Benz Asst. Director, Policy Management Mary G. Wiser Director, Public Information Douglas E. Robison Program Manager Michael J. Perry Program Manager JoAnn Finley Program Manager Richard W. MacAulay Project Manager Peter A. Clark Project Manager R. Marshall Flynn Planner Patricia J. Boss Secretary Bruce R. Gaul Graphics Production Manager Clark H. Allard Pressman Technical assistance was provided, in part, by Dr. Eila Hanni, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics, University of South Florida Responsible for Report Preparation I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I ----- - --- I r- I )27948 I