Economic Studies

1
Economic Studies Analyses

• The Economic Impact on Plumas County of
  Alternative Northern Pike Eradication and
  Management Scenarios for Lake Davis
• Economic Resources section of EIR/EIS
• Statewide Economic Analysis

2
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PLUMAS COUNTY OF
ALTERNATIVE NORTHERN PIKE ERADICATION AND
MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS FOR LAKE DAVISA
PRELIMINARY REPORT

• The Center for Economic Development
• California State University, Chico
• Funded by the California Department of Fish and
  Game

3
Economic Impact Analysis

• Purpose of the economic impact analysis to
  estimate the effect on local economic activity of
  various pike eradication scenarios
• Contract was signed in late summer 2005 so that
  surveying could begin in Fall of 2005
• EIR/EIS eradication alternatives and project
  footprint were not yet defined
• Limited to lake users

4
Scope of the Study

• The study includes the impacts from spending by
  non-resident anglers and boaters
• The impacts of other recreational users of the
  lake and surrounding areas are not included
• Number of recreational users is far smaller than
  what is used in the EIR/EIS

5
Presentation Approach

• Approach is designed to make the study
  methodology understandable to all workshop
  participants
• First delineate the key study elements
• Second Present the estimates
• Third Show the results and conclusions

6
Surveys

• CED Employees (300 hours of interviews)
• September through early November of 2005
• May through early July of 2006 (not included in
  the preliminary report)
• Questions included
• Residence
• Duration of the visit
• Local Spending
• Effect of changes in fishery quality (catch per
  hour)

7
Findings

• For the Plumas County Economy
• Eradication provides the greatest long-run
  economic benefits
• Even if eradication fails, the long-run benefits
  exceed the short-run costs
• All eradication scenarios have short-run
  costsdepends on the length of time the lake is
  unavailable for use

8
Conservative Approach

• Implicitly assumed that all those who use Lake
  Davis will travel to sites outside of Plumas
  County if the lake is temporarily unavailable
  (60 indicated otherwise)
• Impacts are calculated for all of Plumas County
• The impact on the Portola economy would be
  somewhat smaller than for the county economy as a
  whole

9
How the Study Was Done

• There are five key elements to this analysis
• Estimating daily visitor spending
• Estimating annual non-resident visitor days
• Annual visitor spendingexpenditures per visitor
  day times annual non-resident visitor days
• Using the IMPLAN model to estimate annual impacts
  on the Plumas County economy
• Scenario analysis

10
First Visitor Spending

• The amount of spending per visitor day is
  established for several important expenditure
  categories
• Surveys administered at various Lake Davis boat
  ramps by employees of the Center for Economic
  Development (CED) at the California State
  University, Chico

11
Second Annual Visitor Days

• The total number of annual visitor days
  (non-resident anglers and boaters) is estimated
• This is accomplished using
• CED surveys and counts
• DFG angler surveys
• U.S. Forest Service campground usage data
• There was a range of estimated use and this
  element of the study contains some uncertainty

12
Third Total Visitor Spending

• Total non-resident spending by sectorspending
  per visitor day by expenditure category times
  estimated annual non-resident visitor days
• Expenditure categories include
• Restaurant meals
• Lodging
• Transportation
• Fishing-related spending
• Groceries
• Other local retail

13
Fourth Economic Impacts

• IMPLAN input-output model is used to calculate
  the annual impacts of Lake Davis recreational use
  on Plumas County
• Economic impact measures include
• Output (Gross business sales)
• Income (employee compensation, proprietor income,
  property income, and indirect business taxes)
• Employment
• Local government revenues

14
Fifth Scenario Analysis

• For the various scenarios we must adjust for
• Effects of fishery quality on lake usage
• The amount of time the lake would be unavailable
• Consider three eradication scenarios and the no
  action option

15
From Spending to Income
16
The Numerical Estimates

• The following slides delineate the estimates for
  each of the five elements of the impact analysis

17
Estimated Daily Non-Resident Visitor Spending
18
Estimated Annual Non-Resident Visitor Days
19
Annual Non-Resident Visitor Spending
20
2005 Income Impacts
21
From Spending to Income
22
Other Economic Impact Measures

• Total Annual Output 950,218
• Total Employment 21.6 jobs
• Local Annual Government Revenues 20,482

23
Individual Sector Impacts Effect on Annual
IncomeSeven Most Affected Sectors
24
What Does This Mean for 2005?

• Spending by Lake Davis Anglers contributed just
  under 560,000 to the Plumas County economy in
  2005
• If the lake had been unavailable for 2005 that
  amount of income would have been lost to
  individuals and businesses in the area
• Businesses most affected are in those seven
  sectors included in the previous slide

25
Scenarios Analyzed

• Scenario 1 Lake volume of between 10,000 and
  20,000 acre feet
• Scenario 2 Lake volume of 90 acre-feet
• Scenario 3 Lake volume of 48,000 acre-feet
• Scenario 4 No action the current management
  plan is continued

26
Duration of Lake Unavailability

• Scenario 1 One Year
• Scenario 2 Three Years
• Scenario 3 Six Months
• Scenario 4 Not Applicable

27
Effect on Fishery Quality

• Successful Eradication
• the quality of the fishery will double within
  four years of project completion
• Failed Eradication
• The quality will double within the first four
  years
• Quality will decline at the end of ten years it
  will have returned to current levels
• No Eradication
• The quality of the fishery will continue to
  decline reaches 50 of current levels after 10
  years

28
Other Key Assumptions

• Angler Response to Fishery Quality Changes For
  each 10 increase in fish caught per hour visitor
  days increase by 6.3 (based on
  surveys--consistent with literature)
• With no changes in quality Lake Davis visitor
  days will increase with service area population
  or about 1 annually

29
Results Format

• There are three cases for each of the eradication
  scenarios
• Successful eradication
• Failed eradication where the effort is repeated
  every 11 years
• Failed eradication with just one attempt
• The results are presented as totals for a 22-year
  period

30
Results-Contribution to Local Income for the
22-year Period of the Analysis
31
Average Annual Impacts Successful Eradication
Vs. Ongoing Pike Management
32
Average Annual Impacts Repeat Failed Eradication
Vs. Ongoing Pike Management
33
Average Annual Impacts One-Time Failed
Eradication Vs. Ongoing Pike Management
34
Conclusion

• Each of the eradication scenarios is preferable,
  in terms of the economic impact on Plumas County,
  to a continuation of the current pike management
  strategy (Scenario 4)
• That conclusion holds whether eradication is
  successful or not

35
Average Annual Contribution to Plumas County
Income of Spending by Non-Resident Lake Davis
Anglers and Boaters

• No Action (Scenario 4)- 470,000
• Failed Eradication (Scenarios 1-3)- 604,000 to
  743,000
• Successful Eradication- 844,000 to 941,000