Indian River Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update Contract No

Indian River Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update Contract No. 24706

For the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program

In cooperation with St. Johns River Water Management District South Florida Water Management District

Final Report August 18, 2008 40548-001C004.cdr

Photo by E. Van Os provided by the SJRWMD Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. 4000 Hollywood Boulevard, 750N Hollywood, Florida 33021 (954) 987-0066 Fax: (954) 987-2949

August 18, 2008

Mr. Troy Rice, Director INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 525 Community College Parkway, S.E. Palm Bay, Florida 32909

Indian River Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update, FINAL REPORT, Contract No. 24706 Dear Mr. Rice: We are pleased to submit the report titled “Indian River Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update”. This document describes the estimated 2007 recreational uses and economic value of the Indian River Lagoon to residents and visitors of the five counties that comprise the Lagoon system. These counties are Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin. The methods and data used to construct these estimates are also provided in this report. The estimated values in this report include the economic contribution, use and non-use values of the Indian River Lagoon to residents and visitors, the value of living on or near the Lagoon, and the economic contribution of Lagoon-related research, restoration, education and commercial fishing. Project team members responsible for this study are myself, as project manager, and econo- mists Dr. Jack Kiefer with Hazen and Sawyer, and Dr. Sean Blacklocke and Dave Sayers as Independent Consultants. Economist Dr. J. Walter Milon provided overall review of this study. Mr. Ken Lyons of Perceptive Market Research provided the survey researchers and the survey team management for the visitor and resident surveys. Mr. Mike Weber of Perceptive Market Research led survey researchers Daniel Carver and Austin Stout as they conducted the visitor intercept survey. Sandra Anderson of Perceptive Market Research led the resident telephone survey. We have enjoyed working with you and District staff throughout this project. Very truly yours,

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.

Grace M. Johns, Ph.D. Senior Associate and Economist

Enclosure c: File No. 40548-001

40548-001L005.doc 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Appendix D Project Team Members ProjectTeam Members Appendix D ResidentTelephone Survey Appendix C VisitorInterceptSurvey Appendix B IndianRiverLagoonNationalEstuary Advisory Board Program Appendix A forFuture Research Recommendations Section 8.0 EconomicValueoftheIndian RiverLagoon–Summary Section 7.0 Economic Contributionof IndianRiverLagoon-RelatedCommercial Section 6.0 EconomicContributionof IndianRiverLagoonResearch,Restoration Section 5.0 the Indian RiverLagoon Value ofLivingOnorNear Section 4.0 EconomicContribution, Use andNon-UseValuesoftheIndianRiver Section 3.0 EconomicContribution, Use andNon-UseValuesoftheIndianRiver Section 2.0 Introduction Section 1.0 Executive Summary Transmittal Letter INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Table ofContents

Membership Membership Fishing and Education Lagoon toResidents Lagoon toVisitors HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE TOC-1 TOC-1 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final threatened species,fisheries andrecreation inthe Lagoon. ment qualityneededto support ahealthy seagrass-based ecosystem, endangered and thewaterandsedi- working towardthegoalsofattainingandmaintaining Program is NationalEstuary IndianRiverLagoon U.S.The (28) nationalestuaryprogramsinthe Significance isanEstuary andone oftwenty-eight ofNational The IndianRiverLagoon UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ronmental condition. in benefits in 2007because oftheexistence ofthe IndianRiver Lagooninits2007envi- residents and visitorsof the fiveIndian RiverLagooncounties received about $3.7billion ES.1.Overall, isprovidedinTable RiverLagoon The 2007economicvalueoftheIndian Economic Valueofth tin. Theuses andvaluespresented in thisstudyrepresentthe year2007. Lagoon arelocatedintheLucieandMar- countiesofSt. Volusia,Brevard,IndianRiver, Pierce Inlet, St.LucieInlet,andJupiterInlet.TheresidentssurroundingRiver theIndian Creek, andtheinletsof PoncedeLeonInlet, Port CanaveralInlet,Sebastian Inlet,Ft. the St.LucieRiverEstuary,SebastianRiver,TurkeyCreek,CraneMoore’s Lagoon and BananaRiverLagoon, and associated tributaries including but notlimited to forthisprojectisthe in 1995.Thestudyarea Indian RiverLagoon,includingMosquito This studyupdated the economic valuesofthe Indian RiverLagoonthat wereestimated Purpose Study Executive Summary Indian RiverLagoon Related- 6 Rsoain eerh dcto xedtrs $91,000,000 Total Annual Value (7) Commercial Fishing Dockside Value (6) Restoration, Research, Education Expenditures (5) IncomeGenerated inIRLCounties (4) RealEstate Value,annualized (3) Non-Use Value ofLagoon (2) Recreational UseValue (1) Recreational Expenditures Estimated AnnualEconomic ValueoftheIndianRiver Lagoon in itsExistingEnvironmental Condition, 2007 e IndianRiverLagoon Table ES.1 $1,302,000,000 $3,725,900,000 $934,000,000 $629,700,000 $762,000,000 Value $3,800,000 $3,400,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE ES-1 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final in 2007arelistedasfollows. The 2007benefits of the IndianRiverLagooninitsenvironmental condition that existed EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 6 Restoration, Research,Education Expenditures–Thisvalueisthefundingof (6) residents –Thisvalueistheincomereceivedby IncomeEarnedbyResidents (5) RealEstateValues–Thisannual valueisthecontribution of the Lagoonto2007 (4) Non-Use ValueoftheLagoon –This valueisthe willingnessofall residents and (3) visitthe– Thisvalueisrecreators’willingnesstopay Recreational UseValue (2) –Thisvalueistheexpendituresbyresidentsofand (1) RecreationalExpenditures governments, localgovernmentsgovernments, andotherinterested parties. Itrepresents the Lagoon-related restoration,research andeducationbythe Federaland State commercial fishingindustry. The2007valueofthisbenefit is $630 million. Lagoon-related research,restoration andeducation,tosupport the local as visitorsand residents spendmoney torecreateonthe Lagoon, to conduct ized attwo percent discount rateand thisannual valueis$934 million. total contribution billion,was ofthe annual- Lagoon to2007propertyvalues,$47 represents resident annual willingness topay liveonorneartheLagoon.The forhomeslocated property values on andwithin0.30miles oftheLagoon and condition. The 2007annual non-use value ofthesebenefits is $3.4million. bewilling to payprotecttheLagoonone-time taxtheywould initsexisting ofthe annualvalue Non-usevalueisthe reational expendituresandusevalues. even iftheyneverrecreateonthe Lagoon. Thisvalueis in addition to their rec- visitors topay tomaintaintheLagoon inits existing environmental condition the Lagoonin2007. use valueis$2.1billion andisthe total valueto recreatorsfromrecreatingon on theLagoonin2007. The sumofrecreational expendituresandrecreational bewillingtopayrecreate would they and istheadditionalamountofmoney Lagoon inadditiontotheirrecreational expenditures.Thisvalueis$762million for recreation. lion andisone partofthe valuethatresidentsand visitorsplace onthe Lagoon boat owner spent onthe Lagoon.This recreational expenditure valueis $1.3 bil- chases were allocated to theLagoon basedon the percent of boatingdays the chases, boat repairsand marinasliprentaland dockagefees. TheFlorida pur- the dayofLagoonrecreation andthose madeinFlorida in 2007forboat pur- The expendituresincludeLagooncountiesonand Martin.thosemadeinthefive St. Lucie goon forrecreation.Thesecounties IndianRiver, are Volusia,Brevard, countiesassociated RiverLagoon withusingtheLa- visitors tothefiveIndian HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE ES-2 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final ues. non-use val- notcomparable tothe2007 andaretherefore, paid forandimplemented totheLagoon, most of whichhavebeen value associatedwithimprovements already erties. (2)The non-use valuereflectedinthe 1995 valueof$731millionincludes the all developable properties onornear theLagoon, including non-vacant andvacantprop- residential properties whereas the2007 valueincludesthe of enhanced property value two values.(1)The1995valueincludesthe enhanced propertyofnon-vacant value value of$3.7 billionestimated inthisstudywhichpreventsadirectcomparison of the There aretwo majordifferencesbetween thevalueestimatedin1995 andthe2007 In 1995,the estimatedeconomic value oftheIndianRiverLagoonwas$731million. timated duringthisstudy. fish harvests mayeach increase conditions.under Thesevalues improved werenot es- types ofLagoon values.Recreational expenditures, realestate values, and commercial qualityoftheLagoonbutdoesnotincludeincreasesinother prove theenvironmental goon system. Thisincrease reflects higherresi and diversity ofwildlife on theLagoon andincreased waterqualitythroughout the La- asignificantincrease intheamount peryeariftherewere crease byabout$80million wouldin- RiverLagoon non-use valueoftheIndian The recreationalusevalueandthe were notestimatedduringthisstudy. Lagoon.Suchvaluesassociated seagrassand thoselivingonthe withtheLagoon’s tional valuesasrelatedto waterqualityandaestheticsthat provide benefitstorecreators seagrass TheLagoon’s islikelyfuture benefitsarereducedeachyear. toprovideaddi- percent annualdiscount rateis$227,000peracre.Adiscount rateistheatwhich then thepresent valueofthe$4,600 peracre per yearoverthenext100yearsata2 year peracreofseagrass.Ifthisseagrassintothefuture, valueisthesameeachyear ports therecreational and commercialfisheries is$329million per yearor$4,600 per The estimated2007economicvalueoftheLagoon’s72,400 acres ofseagrass asit sup- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 7 Commercial FishingDocksideValue –Thisvalue isthedocksidemarket value (7) are willingto payforfishspecies from theLagoon. available data. Thisvalueis$3.8 million and represents the valueconsumers of commercialfish harvestedfromthe Lagoonin 2006,the most recent yearof 2007 valueofthisbenefit is$91million. The annual willingness andstudytheLagoon. oftheseentitiesto paytorestore dent andvisitorwillingness topay im- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE ES-3 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final River Lagoon foratotal River Lagoon of10.9million person-days. and visitorstothesecountiesspent 3.2millionperson-daysrecreatingontheIndian In 2007,residentsofthe five Indian River Lagooncounties spent7.7millionperson-days was counted. surveyrespondent, bythe aschosen primary activity, onlythe recreation activitythatday activity mary recreation thatdaywascounted. If apersonparticipated in morethanone pri- Only the ofoneday. allorapart one personparticipatingactivityfor inarecreation River Lagoon byprimaryrecreationactivity River Lagoon andThe numberofperson-daysthatresidents visitorsspentrecreatingontheIndian Recreational Usesof EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN sailing ona sailboat with fivetosevenpercentof total recreation dayseach.Primaryrec- days. Otherprimaryrecreation activities included picnicking, canoeingor kayaking, and ging, strolling orSunset Cruising comprised eightpercentof thetotalrecreation person- recreation person-days. Viewingthe Lagoon from shorewhilebirdwatching, hiking, jog- boating eachcomprising 37percent, 20percent and13percent, respectively,ofthe total The mostpopularrecreation activitieswere (a) Total Water Fowl Hunting Personal Water Craftincluding jetskisand waverunners Parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing Shrimp NettingandFishing forClams, OystersorCrabs Sailing onasailboat Canoeing or Kayaking Picnicking birdwatching, hiking,jogging orstrolling Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon from Shore while Power Boating, including waterskiing,tubing or cruising Swimming or Wading Fin Fishing Activity A person-day is one person participat oneperson is Aperson-day tion activity that day only the primary activity, dayonlytheprimary tion activitythat counted. thatdaywas activity primary recreation Estimated NumberofPerson-Days and Residents VisitorsSpent in Recreation Activities ontheIndian River Lagoonin2007 the IndianRiverLagoon ing in a recreation activity for all or a part of one day. Onlythe forallor apartofoneday. activity recreation a ing in Table ES.2 as chosen by the survey respondent, was counted. was bythesurveyrespondent, as chosen fin fishing, swimming or wading, and power fin fishing,swimmingor is providedinTableES.2.Aperson-day If a person participated in more than one recrea- thanone more in participated Ifaperson Person-Days 10,863,000 Number of 1,380,000 2,223,000 3,985,000 163,000 197,000 207,000 525,000 561,000 758,000 834,000 30,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (a) Person-Days

% of Total 0.28% AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 100% 13% 20% 37% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 7% 8% PAGE ES-4 PAGE (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Total Commercial Fishing Research Funding Restoration, Education and ditures inFlorida Lagoon-Related BoatExpen- Recreation Expenditures Activity Income is the sum of wages, salaries, proprietor's income proprietor's salaries, ofwages, Incomeisthesum Tax revenue is the sum of the excise taxes, property excisetaxes,property thesumof is revenue Tax of thenumber includes Employment of asthevalue Outputisdefined effectsoft induced indirectand thedirect, Includes Visitors Visitors Residents 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final come contribution repo come contribution in- inthe included are thesevalues because profitandincome taxeson activities.Itexcludes Lagoon-related activities. goon-related activities. goon-related direc includes Florida in Expenditures Boat-related counties. River,St.LucieandMartin Brevard, Indian area andtherestaccrues toresidents inallof Florida. million ofincome, atleast$358millionaccrues toresidents ofthefive countyLagoon These activitiessupportedcal taxrevenues. 15,000 fulland part-timejobs.Ofthe$630 and lo- services generated$630millioninincometoresidents $112 millioninStateand goon-related boat-related expenditures,inFlorida. Theproduction of these goods and andservicesproducedintheLagooncountiesand,caseofLa- value ofgoods In 2007,theactivitiesdependentgenerated$1.6billionin ontheIndianRiverLagoon the The economiccontribution oftheIndian RiverLagoonin2007 isprovided inTable ES.3. Economic Contributionof Water fowlhuntingcomprisedlessthan onepercentoftotalrecreation person-days. netting orfishingforclams, oystersorcrabsand parasailing, windsurfing orkitesailing. reation activitiesthatcomprised twopercentoftotalrecreationperson-dayswereshrimp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Economic Contribution oftheIndian River Lagoon in2007 rted in the table. thetable. rted in $1,639,700,000 $150,000,000 $891,000,000 $450,000,000 $143,000,000 the additional goods and services produced in the study area due to the La- tothe areadue inthestudy produced services and goods the additional Output $5,700,000 full-time and part-time jobs created created jobs and part-time full-time theIndianRiverLagoon (b)

Table ES.3 t, indirect and induced effects within Florida. Florida. effects within andinduced t, indirect he activity to the Indian River Lagoon counties of Volusia, ofVolusia, counties Lagoon River he activitytotheIndian However, the economic contribution of Lagoon-related ofLagoon-related contribution theeconomic However, taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due tothe due collected taxes andsales taxes, fees,licenses, $629,700,000 $272,000,000 $217,000,000 Income $78,000,000 $61,000,000 $1,700,000 , profits, rents, royalties and dividends due to the La- tothe due dividends rents,royaltiesand , profits, (c)

due to the Lagoon-related activities. activities. totheLagoon-related due Employment 15,000 2,100 4,300 6,000 2,400 156 (a) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (d)

Tax Revenue $111,645,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $70,000,000 $28,000,000 $10,000,000 $3,500,000 $145,000 PAGE ES-5 PAGE (e)

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final annualized value is$934 millionper yearforallfivecounties of theLagoon system. thetable.This column (3)of andisprovidedinthe in 0.30milesoftheLagooneachyear nualized valueprovidesanestimateofthethatresidents placeon living onor with- table. Thisimpactis22percentofthe marketvalueofallproperty inthearea.Thean- $47 billion to theproperty valuesinthefivecounty areaasshownincolumn (2)ofthe ES.4. Statistical analysis ofproperty data foundthat theIndian RiverLagooncontributes Estate Value. Thevaluesassociated witheach county andintotalareprovided inTable dian RiverLagoonsystem werepresentedinTable ES.1under theheading called Real onpropertyvaluesinthefivecountiesof The impactsoftheIndian In- RiverLagoon Value ofLivingOnorNe EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN the restoration,research andeducationexpenditures, thecommercialfishing dock- The economic contributions ofthe Lagoon-related boat-relatedexpendituresin Florida, part timejobsand$11million in taxrevenue2007. duced inthe county,$77 millionin income toresidents inVolusia County,2,400full and of outputpro- Volusia County,theseexpendituresgenerated $168 millioninthevalue Lagoon for recreation in2007isprovided inrows (11)through in (15). For example, The economic contribution ofresident andvisitordailyexpenditures as theyused the the countyin2007.The totalestimated economicvalueisprovided inrow(10). of theLagoontoresidentsandvisitors rows ofeachtableitemizetheeconomicvalue county inTableES-5throughES-9.Thefirst dian RiverLagoon areprovided nine toeachIn- economiccontribution oftheIndianRiverLagoon The economicvalueand Economic ValueoftheIndianRiverLagoonByCounty (a) Refers to properties within 0.30 miles oft miles 0.30 within Referstoproperties l ieCute $46,795,000,000 All Five Counties total impact value in Column (2) times a 2 percent real discount rate. realdiscount 2 percent (2)timesa inColumn total impactvalue Indian River St. Lucie rvr 2,4,0,0 $407,000,000 Brevard $20,345,000,000 County oui 1990000 $39,000,000 Volusia $1,959,000,000 atn$,6,0,0 $127,000,000 Martin $6,363,000,000 (1) Value ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon ar theIndianRiverLagoon. Total ImpactofLagoon on PropertyValues $12,298,000,000 $5,830,000,000 (2) Table ES.4 he Indian River Lagoon. Annualized value isthe value Annualized RiverLagoon. he Indian to Residents WhoLive or On Annualized Value ofLagoon Near theLagoon (3) = (2) x0.02 $934,000,000 $117,000,000 $244,000,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST (a)

PAGE ES-6 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final person-days wasspentinVolusiaCounty recreatingontheIndian RiverLagoon. visitors inthe countyspent recreating ontheLagoon in2007. Forexample,2.9million The last row,row(16),provides anestimate ofthe numberof person-daysresidents and is likelytobegreaterthanreported inthesetables. was spent.Thus,money theactual economic contributionof theLagoon toeachcounty fishwasharvestedandtherestoration,researcheducation counties, the commercial Florida, the boat-related goodsand services werepurchased, andwhere,intheLagoon side value cannot beallocatedtoeach county.This isbecause it is not knownwhere,in EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Indian River Lagoon RelatedRiver Indian Total Economic Value Commercial Fishing DocksideValue Restoration, Research, Education Expenditures Recreation Expenditures Income Generated inIRL Counties From Daily Real EstateValue, annualized Non-Use Value inExisting Condition RecreationalValue Use Recreational Expenditures (b) (a) Expenditures Economic Contribution ofthe DailyRecreation Number ofRecreationPerson-Days A person-day is one person participating in a re a in participating oneperson is Aperson-day of contribution theeconomic include Doesnot mlyet ubro uladpr iejb (14) Tax Revenue Employment, number offullandparttime jobs Income Income Output Boat Expenditures inFlorida Daily Expenditures Estimated AnnualValues oftheIndian River LagoontoResidents and Visitors Only the primary recreation activity thatday activity recreation Only theprimary spondent, was was counted. spondent, pr thatdayonlythe activity recreation than one ofOu ES.3fordefinitions Table notes under (a)

Environmental Condition of Lagoon in2007 of VolusiaCounty, 2007inDollars (b)

Table ES-5 tput, Income, Employment and Tax Revenue. Revenue. Tax and tput, Income,Employment was counted. If a person participated in more more in counted.Ifapersonparticipated was boat expenditures inFl boat expenditures imary activity, as chosen by the surveyre- aschosenby imary activity, creation activity for all or a part of one day. forallorapartofoneday. activity creation o ubr Value Number Row (11) (15) (13) (12) (10) (16) (9) (8) (7) (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) orida. Also,seefoot- orida. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $184,808,000 $120,966,000 $167,783,000 $234,880,000 $658,000,000 Not allocated $77,000,000 $39,000,000 $10,573,000 $76,996,000 $1,208,000 to counties 2,847,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 2,382 PAGE ES-7 PAGE

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Indian River Lagoon RelatedRiver Indian Real EstateValue, annualized Number ofRecreationPerson-Days Restoration, Research, Education Expenditures Recreation Expenditures Income Generated inIRL Counties From Daily Non-Use Value inExisting Condition RecreationalValue Use Expenditures Economic Contribution ofthe DailyRecreation Commercial Fishing DocksideValue Recreational Expenditures (b) (a) Total Economic Value A person-day is one person participating in a re a in participating oneperson is Aperson-day of boat contribution theeconomic include Doesnot Tax Revenue Tax Revenue Employment, number offullandparttime jobs Income Income Output Boat Expenditures inFlorida Daily Expenditures Estimated AnnualValues oftheIndian River LagoontoResidents and Visitors under Table ES.3 for definitions ofOut ES.3fordefinitions Table under was counted. was onlytheprimary activity thatday one recreation thatday wa activity recreation Only theprimary (a)

Environmental Condition of Lagoon in2007 of Brevard County, 2007inDollars (b)

Table ES-6 put, Income, Employment and Tax Revenue. Revenue. andTax Employment put, Income, s counted. If a person participated in more than more in s counted.Ifapersonparticipated creation activity for all or a part of one day. forallorapartofoneday. activity creation activity, as chosen by the survey respondent, survey respondent, bythe activity, aschosen a. Also,seefootnotes inFlorid expenditures o ubr Value Number Row (16) (15) (14) (13) (12) (11) (10) (9) (8) (7) (6) (5) (4) (3) 2 $301,138,000 (2) (1) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $1,251,360,000 Not allocated Not allocated to $100,000,000 $407,000,000 $269,240,000 $172,818,000 $215,121,000 $13,658,000 $99,924,000 $1,164,000 4,026,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST counties 3,112 PAGE ES-8 PAGE

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Indian River Lagoon RelatedRiver Indian Non-Use Value inExisting Condition RecreationalValue Use Number ofRecreationPerson-Days Total Economic Value Commercial Fishing DocksideValue Restoration, Research, Education Expenditures Recreation Expenditures Income Generated inIRL Counties From Daily Real EstateValue, annualized (b) (a) Expenditures Economic Contribution ofthe DailyRecreation Recreational Expenditures A person-day is one person participating in a re a in participating oneperson is Aperson-day of contribution theeconomic include Doesnot Tax Revenue Employment, number offullandparttime jobs Income (13) Output (12) Boat Expenditures inFlorida Daily Expenditures Estimated AnnualValues oftheIndian River LagoontoResidents and Visitors Only the primary recreation activity thatday activity recreation Only theprimary spondent, was was counted. spondent, pr thatdayonlythe activity recreation than one ofOu ES.3fordefinitions Table notes under (a)

Environmental Condition of Lagoon in2007 of IndianRiver County, inDollars 2007 (b) (16) 1,422,000 Table ES-7 tput, Income, Employment and Tax Revenue. Revenue. Tax and tput, Income,Employment was counted. If a person participated in more more in counted.Ifapersonparticipated was boat expenditures inFl boat expenditures imary activity, as chosen by the surveyre- aschosenby imary activity, creation activity for all or a part of one day. forallorapartofoneday. activity creation o ubr Value Number Row (14) (15) (11) (10) 6 $117,000,000 (6) (9) (8) (7) 4 $90,220,000 $59,408,000 (5) (4) (3) 2 $128,439,000 (2) (1) orida. Also,seefoot- orida. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $438,342,000 Not allocated $42,949,000 $89,897,000 $43,000,000 $5,741,000 to counties $275,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 1,232 PAGE ES-9 PAGE

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Non-Use Value inExisting Condition RecreationalValue Use Total Economic Value Commercial Fishing DocksideValue Restoration, Research, Education Expenditures Recreation Expenditures Income Generated inIRL Counties From Daily Real EstateValue, annualized Number ofRecreationPerson-Days (b) (a) Expenditures Economic Contribution ofthe DailyRecreation Recreational Expenditures ninRvrLgo eae RwNme Value Number Row Lagoon RelatedRiver Indian A person-day is one person participating in a re a in participating oneperson is Aperson-day of contribution theeconomic include Doesnot Employment, number offullandparttime jobs Income (13) Output (12) Boat Expenditures inFlorida Daily Expenditures Tax Revenue Estimated AnnualValues oftheIndian River LagoontoResidents and Visitors Only the primary recreation activity thatday activity recreation Only theprimary spondent, was was counted. spondent, pr thatdayonlythe activity recreation than one ofOu ES.3fordefinitions Table notes under (a)

Environmental Condition of Lagoon in2007 of St.LucieCounty, 2007inDollars (b) (16) 1,424,000 Table ES-8 tput, Income, Employment and Tax Revenue. Revenue. Tax and tput, Income,Employment was counted. If a person participated in more more in counted.Ifapersonparticipated was boat expenditures inFl boat expenditures imary activity, as chosen by the surveyre- aschosenby imary activity, creation activity for all or a part of one day. forallorapartofoneday. activity creation (14) (15) (11) (10) 6 $244,000,000 (6) (9) (8) (7) 4 $119,532,000 $78,950,000 (5) (4) (3) 2 $78,068,000 (2) (1) orida. Also,seefoot- orida. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $545,041,000 Not allocated $20,022,000 $52,706,000 $24,000,000 $3,399,000 to counties $491,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE ES-10 PAGE 759

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Non-Use Value inExisting Condition RecreationalValue Use Total Economic Value Commercial Fishing DocksideValue Restoration, Research, Education Expenditures Recreation Expenditures Income Generated inIRL Counties From Daily Real EstateValue, annualized Number ofRecreationPerson-Days (b) (a) Expenditures Economic Contribution ofthe DailyRecreation Recreational Expenditures ninRvrLgo eae- o ubr Value Number Row Lagoon Related-RiverIndian A person-day is one person participating in a re a in participating oneperson is Aperson-day of contribution theeconomic include Doesnot Employment, number offullandparttime jobs Income (13) Output (12) Boat Expenditures inFlorida Daily Expenditures Tax Revenue Estimated AnnualValues oftheIndian River LagoontoResidents and Visitors Only the primary recreation activity thatday activity recreation Only theprimary spondent, was was counted. spondent, pr thatdayonlythe activity recreation than one ofOu ES.3fordefinitions Table notes under (a)

Environmental Condition of Lagoon in2007 of Martin County, Dollars 2007in (b) (16) 1,145,000 Table ES-9 tput, Income, Employment and Tax Revenue. Revenue. Tax and tput, Income,Employment was counted. If a person participated in more more in counted.Ifapersonparticipated was boat expenditures inFl boat expenditures imary activity, as chosen by the surveyre- aschosenby imary activity, creation activity for all or a part of one day. forallorapartofoneday. activity creation (14) (15) (11) (10) 6 $127,000,000 (6) (9) (8) (7) 4 $98,224,000 $65,857,000 (5) (4) (3) 2 $60,888,000 (2) (1) orida. Also,seefoot- orida. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $370,240,000 Not allocated $17,776,000 $38,567,000 $18,000,000 $2,691,000 to counties $271,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE ES-11 PAGE 571

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final ronmental qualityoftheIndianRiverLagoonoverpast17 years. These agencieshaveworkedtowardsprotectingpendix A.andconservingtheenvi- AdvisoryBoardlistedinAp- oftheNational EstuaryProgram other members ments and District,localgovern- District,theSouthFloridaWaterManagement ter Management These actions havebeenfinancedby StateandFederalgrants, theSt. Johns RiverWa- surrounding lands frombeingdrained intotheLagoon. keep unwantedfreshwaterdischargesSt.JohnsRiver,LakeOkeechobee fromthe and million pounds of sediments andpollutants from entering the Lagoon;and areworking to marshes andwetlandstotheLagoonforfisherieswildlifehabitat;prevented overa facilities;20 wastewatertreatment acresofsalt more thanreconnected over27,500 eliminated effluentdischargestotheLagoonfrom Program have the NationalEstuary of Since theLagoon’sinceptionasanationalestuaryparticipatingmembers in1991, threatened species,fisheries andrecreation inthe Lagoon. ment qualityneededto support ahealthy seagrass-based ecosystem, endangered and thewaterandsedi- working towardthegoalsofattainingandmaintaining Program is NationalEstuary IndianRiverLagoon U.S.The (28) nationalestuaryprogramsinthe Significance isanEstuary andone oftwenty-eight ofNational The IndianRiverLagoon INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN lected theavailable secondarydatatoestimatethevaluesandeconomiccontribution of The 1995economic assessmentconducted interviews ofresidentsand visitorsand col- St. Lucieand Martin. arelocated inthecountiesofVolusia,Brevard,IndianRiver, ing theIndianRiverLagoon Sebastian Inlet, Ft.Pierce Inlet,St. Lucie Inlet, and JupiterInlet. Theresidentssurround- Moore’sCreek,andtheinletsof Ponce deLeonInlet,PortCanaveral Inlet,Crane Creek, Creek, River,Turkey Sebastian Estuary, St. River St.Lucie limited tothe ing butnot Lagoon, andassociated River tributariesinclud- including MosquitoLagoonandBanana that wereestimated in 1995. The study areafor thisprojectistheIndian RiverLagoon, Purpose of this Study The purposeofthis study isto update theeconomic valuesofthe IndianRiverLagoon 1.1 Introduction Section 1.0 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 1-1 PAGE 1-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 1996. National River Lagoon Indian the to submitted River Lag Assessment andAnalysisof theIndian The recreationactivities on theLagoon areasfollows. study areasfollows: rect comparisonsbetween someof the results of thesetwo studies. The outputsof this tuary Program(IRLNEP)havechanged.Therefore, itmaynotbepossibletomake di- goalsanddirections 12yearsand oftheIndianRiverLagoonNationalEs- over thepast update theseeconomicvalues,datacollectiontechnologies haveimproved and methods the Lagoon INTRODUCTION 1.0 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 1

Apogee Research,Inc.inassociationwithReso ● Socioeconomic characteristics ofthose whousetheLagoon forrecreation. (9) oftheLagoon toresidentsandvisitors bycounty. Non-UseValue (8) inthepast12 of theLagoontothosewhorecreatedon UseValue (7) bycounty. ImpactoftheLagoonon property values (6) EconomicContributionof Lagoon-RelatedRestoration andResearchbycounty. (5) EconomicContributionof Commercial Fishing on theLagoon bycounty. (4) EconomicContribution county in of recreationLagoon by ontheIndianRiver (3) Expendituresassociated with Lagoon-relatedrecreation bycounty. (2) thepast12monthsintermsofnumber UsesoftheIndianRiverLagoonover (1) ● ● ●

(clamming, oysters, crabs) Recreational fishing – Fin fish;Shrimpnetting;Shell fishing Hunting –Waterfowl(duck)hunting Power Boating–waterskiing,tubing, cruising Sailing/board sailing months bycounty. andtaxrevenue. terms ofoutput,income,employment and commercialfisheryharvestsbyspeciesforeach ofthefivecounties. of person-days byrecreationactivity, 1 . This is the purpose ofthis current study.While this current study seeksto

oon, Natural Resource Valuation ofthe Lagoon”, Valuation oon, Natural Resource Estuary Program, PalmBay,Florida,January urce Economics Consultants, Inc., “Economic Consultants, Inc.,“Economic urce Economics the educationaland research activities, HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 1-2 PAGE 1-2 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final . StudyAreaandTimePeriod 1.2 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN all oraportionofday. isoneperson participating Aperson-day inarecreationalactivityfor dian RiverLagoon. Number ofPerson-Days. six monthsperyear. Residents. Thistermisdefinedas persons who live year. Indian RiverLagoonsystemandliveoutsideof thatcountyforatleast sixmonthsper Visitors. Thistermisdefined aspersons who visitanyone ofthefive counties of the means thatthedollarsrepresent the value ofthedollarin2007. 2007 Dollars.Alldollarsarereportedinunless otherwise noted.This The termsusedthroughout thisreport aredefined below. 1.3 Definitions necessary. This doesnot affectthe results ofthis study. slightly. Thisisbecause intermediatecalculations wereroundedandaddedtogetheras forthesamevaluesindifferentNOTE: Numbers sections ofthisreportdiffer may called 2007 values orthatrepresent the year 2007. nation ofdatavalues are representingtheyears2006,2007and2008.Forbrevity, these months whichmayincludeinthe2008 year.Thus,thisstudyincludesa combi- search asksresidentsand visitorsabout theirrecreational activities over theprevious 12 used inthisstudy.Also,thesurveyre- cent yearofavailabledatais2006whichwas commercial fishharvest and exvesselvaluebyspeciesfrom theLagoon.Themostre- The exceptionis inthisstudyrepresent theyear2007. The usesandvaluespresented Fellsmere, VeroBeach, Ft.Pierce,Bay, Sebastian, PortSt.LucieandStuart. Cocoa, CocoaBeach, Cape Canaveral,Rockledge,Melbourne,SatelliteBeach, Palm ties within the watershed oftheLagoon areNewSmyrnaBeach,Edgewater, Titusville, St. LucieandMartin.Themajorcitiesinthesecoun- are Volusia,River, Brevard,Indian Thesecounties The studyareaisthefivecountiessurroundingIndianRiverLagoon. ● ● ● ●

Kayaking andcanoeing Swimming andWading Wildlife Viewing: Birdwatching;Photography parks Sightseeing: Ecotourism;Guidedtours/cruises; Touring refuges, preserves, and

Thistermdescribes the recreational useintensity ofthe In- in one ofthefive counties at least HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 1-3 PAGE 1-3 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final and inducedbusinesses businesses.purchase goodsandservices fromthese Examples Induced businesses. businesses. Indirect businesses. the Lagoon. ThebusinessesDirect businesses. thatproduce goodsandservicesforthoseusing and taxrevenues. income,employment bor andproprietor’sincome, otherpropertytype Economic contribution. goon. reating ontheLagoonortopurchasegoodsandservicesneededrecreateLa- Recreation Expenditures. to work.Atripcanlastone dayormanydays. the visitorisnotjust passing through thecounty to getelsewhere andis not commuting Number ofPerson-Trips. considered to bethemotivatingfactor forrecreating ontheLagoon. day andthosewhowerewiththefishersbutdi person-days spentfinfishingcaninclude numberof thosemate ofthe whofishedthat not counted onthedayswhenfinfishing wastheactivity. Therefore,the primaryesti- fishedatall.Theportions oftheorpicnickingmay nothave daysspentswimmingare boat, such day theyfishedfroma as swi participated inother have thefamily activitieson may tivity oftheday,eventhough the fishing from aboatin 2007. Theactivity type, and thepeopleinhisorexample, her party.For The numberofperson-days associated withaspecific activity includesthe respondent tors astheyanswered surveys conductedover thephone and in-person,respectively. estimation of person-days byactivitywasbasedontheresponsesofresidents and visi- It isalsopossible forpeopletoparticipate onthesameboat indifferentactivities. The that day. “predominant” activitythatday.Therespondent chosewhat activitywas“predominant” the isattributedtoonlyifitwas anactivity Lagoon duringthesameday.Aperson-day only oneactivity iscountedit perday.Forexample, commontopicnicandfish on the forpersonsit is toparticipatecommon inmultiple Lagoon-related activitiesduringa day, activitiesated with16 onthe specific“primary”recreation Lagoon were estimated. While byActivity. Person-Days Number of INTRODUCTION 1.0 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Thedirectbusinesses purchase goods andservices fromthese The indirect businesses and theemployeesof the direct, indirect The contributionofLagoon-related expenditures tooutput,la- Thisterm meansonetripby visitorto thecountywhere Theamountofmoneyspentby peoplewhiletheywererec- In this study the numbers ofperson-daysassoci- Inthisstudythenumbers mming and picnicking. Some family members family andpicnicking.Some mming such asfin fishing, isthe predominant ac- d notfishthat day.Theprimaryactivityis a family of four spent16a familyoffour person-daysfin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 1-4 PAGE 1-4 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final which is2.4 percent. The netis2.0 percent per year. inflation rate asprovidedbytheU.S. forecasted 2008 minusthe March2008 percentperyearasof which Is4.4 ment bonds Govern- U.S. on30-year money isthe currentyield value of currenttime estimate ofthe certainty, andinflationwhichareincludedinmarket interestrates.Thebestavailable nualized valueisdividedbythediscountrate.This discountun- rateshouldexcluderisk, Alternatively,toconvertanannualvalueacapitalized value,thean- value ofmoney. byanappropriatediscountratecapitalized valueismultiplied thatrepresentsthetime Annualized andcapitalized value. accounted for intheincomecategories. related expenditures.It excludestaxes onprofit andincome because thesetaxesare property taxes,fees, licenses, and salestaxes collected as aresult of theLagoon- Tax revenue. come generatedasaresult oftheLagoon-related expenditures. Income. The sumof (1) Laborand proprietor’s incomeand in- (2)Other property type means thatnegativeprofitswereearned forthatindustryorindustriesin 2006. erated asaresultoftheLagoon-relatedexpenditures.If thisvalue is negative,that Other property type income. doctors, lawyers andsoforth. employed individualsasincome,includinginco and non-cashcompensation. Proprietary income including benefits such as thecosts ofhealthand life insurance, retirement payments, erated asa result ofthe Lagoon-related expenditures.Laborincomeistotal payrollcosts income.IncomeLabor and toresidentsproprietor’s ofthe countyor counties is gen- if someofthegoodsare imported fromoutsideofthecountyorcounties. ties asaresult oftheLagoon-related expenditures.Outputwillbelessthan expenditures valueoftheadditional goods andservicesproducedinthe Output. The county orcoun- tax revenue. and come, employment create output,in- throughtheeconomyto as theLagoon-relatedexpendituresmove Direct, indirectandinducedeconomiccontribution. stores and wholesalers. of induced businesses include construction, manufacturing, grocerystores, department INTRODUCTION 1.0 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Also called indirect business taxes andisthe sumofthe excisetaxes, Paymentsforrents,profits, royalties, and dividends gen- To convertcapitalized valuetoan annual value, the White House Office of Management andBudget White HouseOffice ofManagement me receivedbyprivatebusinessowners, consists ofbyself- payments received Thecontribution oftheLagoon HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 1-5 PAGE 1-5 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final trieval, (2) data reduction and model development, and(3)impactanalysis.” trieval, (2)datareduction andmodeldevelopment, was designeded Nations.system to servethreefunctions:(1)data TheIMPLAN re- reau ofEconomic Analysis(1980)and bytheUnit- therectangular formatrecommended Bu- bythe accounting USEconomy” conventions usedinthe“Input-OutputStudyof change in final demand for anygivenindustry…TheIMPLANaccounts closely follow the scribe the change inoutput rived. Thederivation is called the Leontief inverse. Theresulting set of multipliers de- chase goods andservices…Theindirect and induced effects canbemathematically de- chase goodsproducers.Theseotherproducers,inturn,pur- andservicesfromother themodel.Industriesmand) drive producegoods andservicesforfinal demand andpur- Syst document titledTheIMPLANInput-Output specific values andan economic model.According tothe Minnesota IMPLAN Group’s ues fromproducerstointermediateandfinalconsumers. Itisbothadatabase ofcounty- an input-outputaccountingmodelth IMPLAN is IMPLANGroup. 2006. ThisisthemostrecentyearavailablefromMinnesota The IMPLANmodelusedinthis study repres www. IMPLAN.com. can befoundat Minnesota. Informationregardingthiscompany are locatedinStillwater, dataandsoftware.They Group in1993toPLAN privatizethedevelopmentofIMPLAN source managementplanning.The developersofthismodelformedtheMinnesotaIM- and theUSDI Bureauof LandManagement to assist the Forest Servicein land and re- Serviceincooperation Agency withtheFederalUSDA Forest EmergencyManagement IMPLAN standsforIMpactAnalysisPL tax revenues. and come, employment investments orincreases indemandaffectaregion’s economy intermsofoutput,in- ties and withintheState ofFlorida. Itallowsthe userto estimate theextenttowhichnew forgoodsandserviceswithinacounty,groupsofcoun- the supplyofanddemand nomic contributionofthe Lagoon-relatedexpendi usedtoestimatetheeco- The IMPLANRegionalEconomicInputOutputModelwas 1.4 IMPLAN Regional Econ INTRODUCTION 1.0 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 2 follows. This reportiscomprised ofsevensectionsand four appendices.Theyareidentified as 1.5 Report Organization The model also produces multipliers for income, employment and tax revenues. taxrevenues. and employment income, for multipliers produces also model The 2 foreach and everyregionalindustry caused by aonedollar

omic Input-OutputModel ANning andwasoriginallydevelopedbythe ANning ents the economic conditionsof the year at describes the flow of commodity val- commodity at describestheflowof em, “purchasesforfinal use(finalde- tures. Thiscomputermodelsimulates HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 1-6 PAGE 1-6 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Main Report INTRODUCTION 1.0 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Appendices ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Section 1.0 – Introduction A – Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Advisory Board A –IndianRiverLagoonNationalEstuary Advisory Program River Lagoon toVisitors River Lagoon Section 2.0 – EconomicContribution,UseandNon-UseValuesoftheIndian B –VisitorIntercept Survey River Lagoon toResidents River Lagoon Section 3.0 – EconomicContribution,UseandNon-UseValuesoftheIndian C –ResidentTelephone Survey Section 4.0 Near theIndianRiverLagoon – ValueofLivingOnor D – Project Team Members D –ProjectTeamMembers Restoration and Education Restoration and Section 5.0 – EconomicContributionofIndianRiverLagoonResearch, Commercial Fishing Section 6.0 – EconomicContributionofIndianRiverLagoon-Related Section 7.0 – EconomicValueofthe IndianRiverLagoon–Summary Section 8.0for – Recommendations FutureResearch HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 1-7 PAGE 1-7 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN tor surveyisprovidedinAppendixB. The visitorsurveyaskedquestionsto solicitthe following information. Acopyofthevisi- ues. use values. Contingent valuation methodswere usedto estimate useand non-use val- visitorexpenditures, non- andtheassociated usevaluesandvisitor River Lagoon The surveywasdesigned tocollect information ontherecreational uses of the Indian 2.1 General Survey they participate inactivitiesontheLagoon. Design ofallvisitorstothefivecounties,regardless not capture arandomsample whetheror ing conductedthansixmonthsperyear.Theinterviewsiteswerechosento formore be- interviewis the thecountywhere notliveinside Visitors aredefinedasthosewhodo intercept surveyvisitors wasconducted of fromDecember17,2007toFebruary 9,2008. the economicimpacttothese countiesastheirvisitors use the Lagoonfor recreation, an To estimatethevalueofIndiantovisitors River Lagoon ofthefivecountyareaand 2 Forvisitors who didnot use (2) TheproportionofallvisitorswhousedtheIndian RiverLagoonforrecreation in (1) 3 ForvisitorswhodidusetheLagoonfor recreationinthepast12months,fol- (3) Values oftheIndianRiverLagoontoVisitors Economic Contribution,UseandNon-Use Section 2.0 the past12 months. b Theirsocioeconomic characteristics ofthese visitors such asage, sex, (b) Theirnon-usevalueoftheLagooninitsexisting conditionand theirnon-use (a) following informationcollected during was thesurvey. lowing information wascollected during theirsurvey. household incomeandthelike. Lagoon inits existingcondition orimproved condition,respectively. that protectthe would beusedinprograms that a one-timetax ness topay value oftheLagooninconditionas measuredbytheirwilling- an improved the Lagoon forrecreation in the past12 monthsthe HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 2-1 PAGE 2-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN This sameinformationby countyisprovidedinTable2.3.Thesitesrepresented a sam- informationforeachsurvey Summary survey tions fromthesurveyinstrumentandwrotedown theanswers. an in-person interviewatthattime. Thesurveyresearcher asked the respondent ques- surveycriteriawereaskedtoparticipate metthe in visitors werelikelytobe.Peoplewho tion ofthe Indian RiverLagoon.The surveyresearchers were stationed inareas where pleted surveys.Thisfirmconductedthe vi and supervisingthe survey researchersandcollecting and quality controlling the com- Floridahiring ofGainesville, conducted thevisitor surveyby Market Research Perceptive from thecountiesasdescribed inthis Section. the responsestospecific secondarydatacollected questions ofthevisitorsurvey,and Model, Capacity Utilization estimated foreachcountyusingthe ber ofperson-dayswas num- allvisitorsineachcounty.This to ofthevisitorsurvey was usedtoinfertheresults An estimateofthetotal number ofperson-daysvisitorsspent ineachofthe fivecounties and noton what theyintendtodoor spend. so thattheir answersreflectwhattheydidandspent alreadyoverthepast12months Only thosevisitorswho wereleavingthecounty withinthe next 24hoursweresurveyed a Thenumberofdaystheyparticipated (a) e Theirsocioeconomicincome characteristicssuchasage,sex,household (e) Their non-usevalueoftheLagooninitsexisting conditionand theirnon-use (d) TheirusevalueoftheLagooninitsexistingcondition andtheirusevaluein (c) Theiritemizedexpenditurestoparticipate ineach typeofrecreation activity (b) and thelike. Lagoon inits existingcondition orimprovedcondition,respectively. that protectthe would beusedinprograms that a one-timetax ness topay value oftheLagooninconditionas measuredbytheirwilling- an improved higher tripcosts. condition an improved asmeasuredby theyspentthemoney. during themostrecentday andthecountywhere one activity,onlythepredominantactivitywascounted. was counted perday.Fordayswhenrespondents participated inmorethan goon-related recreation. Carewastakentomakesurethat only oneactivity goon inthe past 12monthsandthe countiesparticipated where theyinLa- sitor surveys during the1995economicvalua- sitor surveysduring site isprovidedinTable 2.1 andTable 2.2. in eachrecreationLa- activityonthe their willingness to payintermsof HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-2 PAGE 2-2 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final survey researchersalsosurveyedinpublic the Lagoon would beintercepted. While a specific site location is listed in thetables, the ple ofareaswherevisitorsparticipating inavarietyofactivitiesonthe Lagoon andoff 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN a 50percent responserate. each thatwereobtainedand Martin,arerepresentedby71to80completedsurveyswith views ataresponserate of40percent.Theotherthreecounties,Indian River,St.Lucie response rateisrepresented was67percent.BrevardCounty by102 completedinter- At thecounty level,60completedinterviewswereobtainedfor Volusia County andthe expenditures. fivecountieswereusedwhenestimatingusesand data fromall ments usingthesurvey inferences using make meaningful county specificdata.In mostinstances,measure- The numberofcompleted surveysfortheindividual counties maynotbesufficient to cient tomakemeaningfulinferences to thepopulationofvisitors inthe fivecountyarea. dents (416refusals plus 392completed interviews). These completed surveysaresuffi- ofthe808potentialrespon- with only28 good responserate.Languagewasaproblem responseratesurvey. The overallofthesurvey siteswas49percent which isavery rate ofthevisitorsurveyispercentqualifying visitorswhoagreed tocompletethe countyarea.Theresponse obtained A totalof392 over thefive completedsurveyswere ble. at thesesites. Withouttheir participation, ticipation inthisto allow studyastheyagreed managers and/orownersofthesite locations listedinTables2-1and 2-2 fortheir par- the thank NationalEstuaryProgram theIndianRiverLagoon Sawyer and Hazen and ily haveparticipatedin Lagoon-related recreation activitiesinthepast12 months. site. Asaresult, respondents surveyedatasitelocatedonthe Lagoonwillnotnecessar- this visitor survey would nothavebeenpossi- this visitorsurvey areas immediatelyoutside ofthespecific the survey researchers to interview visitors tointerview survey researchers the HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-3 PAGE 2-3 Total Jensen BeachPark Indian Riverside Park Downtown Stuart Martin County Marina Town Harbor Ft. PierceRiverside InletSRA Ft. Pierce Avalon BeachPark St. LucieCounty Wabasso Beach Park Wabasso CausewayPark Sebastian InletSRA Main StreetBoatDock Jaycee Park Best Western Sebastian Hotel Indian RiverCounty Melbourne International Airport Lori Wilson Park Kelly Park Market Melbourne SuperFlea and Farmers Canova BeachPark Brevard County Walmart Shops along Main Streetand A1A Lighthouse PointPark Daytona Beach Boardwalk Volusia County (1) Survey Site 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Description of VisitorSurvey Sites Lagoon Indian River On (2) X X X X X X X

Table 2.1 Atlantic Ocean On (3) X X X X X X X X

Lagoon Ocean and On (4) X X

Not on Ocean IRL or (5) X X X X X X

Completed Number of Surveys HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 392 (6) 14 17 20 41 24 21 29 23 25 20 11 16 26 25 38 9 9 6 6 2 6 4

AUGUST 2008 AUGUST Surveyed at Site 100% PAGE 2-4 PAGE 2-4 10% 10% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 2% 6% 2% 5% 7% 6% 1% 6% 5% 3% 4% 2% 1% 7% 6% (7) %

Kelly Park Kelly Park Market Flea andFarmers Melbourne Super Canova BeachPark Brevard County Walmart Street andA1A Shops along Main Lighthouse Park Boardwalk Daytona Beach Volusia County (1) Survey Site Total Jensen BeachPark Indian River Park Downtown Stuart Martin County Marina Town Harbor Ft. PierceRiverside Inlet Ft. Pierce Avalon BeachPark St. LucieCounty Wabasso Beach Park Causeway Wabasso Beach Sebastian Inlet Main StreetDock Jaycee Park Sebastian Hotel Best Western Indian RiverCounty International Airport Melbourne Lori Wilson Park

Resident Perm. 678 (2) 51 23 27 41 43 21 13 28 39 30 30 16 58 35 66 26 32 29 24 38 1 7

Summary InformationatVisitorSurvey Sites Non-Exit Visitor 620 (3) 55 15 27 15 25 26 44 33 44 22 24 16 22 56 23 61 12 14 18 21 38 9

Number of Persons Refusal Table 2.2 416 (4) 10 11 38 18 10 18 26 32 16 13 19 11 20 12 31 89 14 3 5 9 2 9

Language Barrier (5) 28 3 0 1 4 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 3 3 0

Complete Interview Interview 392 (6) 14 17 20 41 24 21 29 23 25 20 11 16 26 25 38 9 6 6 2 6 4 9

Response [(4) + (6)] (7) = (6) / HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Rate 47% 82% 77% 65% 52% 40% 57% 38% 54% 53% 42% 11% 66% 51% 50% 44% 75% 25% 46% 74% 30% 39% 49%

AUGUST 2008 AUGUST Surveyed at Site 100% PAGE 2-5 PAGE 2-5 10% 10% 2% 4% 4% 5% 2% 6% 2% 5% 7% 6% 1% 6% 5% 3% 4% 2% 1% 7% 6% 2% (8) %

Total Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia (1) County

Permanent Resident

678 101 112 141 201 123 (2) Visitor Survey by Summary County Non-Exit Visitor 620 110 148 174 (3) 97 91 Number of Persons AveragePersonsper UsingHotels/Motels) Room forthose ation ModeltoEstimate Refusal Table 2.3 416 155 (4) 65 86 81 29 ounty in2007 as measured bythenumberof Language Barrier (5) 28 5 2 5 8 8 Complete Number of Hotel/Motel Rooms ofHotel/MotelRooms Number Interview Interview 392 102 (6) 71 79 80 60 Response [(4) + (6)] (7) = (6) / HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Rate 52% 48% 50% 40% 67% 49% AUGUST 2008 AUGUST Surveyed at Site 100% PAGE 2-6 PAGE 2-6 18% 20% 20% 26% 15% (8) % 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final are travelingthroughthe county. These person-tripsdo not include persons who visitthe county toworkorpersons who Estimates ofthenumbervisitorperson-tripsto eachcounty inTable2.4. areprovided visitor surveyresponses. portion ofvisitorswhostayinhotelsandmotels.Thisinformation wasobtained from the andthepro- tels, theaveragetriplengthinnightsforthosestayinghotelsandmotels, The modelalsorequires estimatespartysizeforthoseusing of averagehotelsand mo- was usedfor IndianRiverandMartincounties. similar amongthesethree counties, rangingfrom 0.57to0.59,soa0.59 occupancyrate Luciecounties.very Volusia, BrevardandSt. The2007occupancyratewas provided by was contacted regardingtheir2007hotel/moteloccupancyrate.Thisinformationwas resort dwellingarecounted.Eachcounty & breakfast,resortcondominiumor motel, bed sional Regulation,Listof roomscodedashotel, LodgingLicenses,2007, wheretransient DepartmentofBusinessandProfes- each countyin2007whicharefromtheFlorida data neededforthismodelincludestheSecondary numbersofhotelandmotelroomsin 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-7 PAGE 2-7 e d c b a All Counties Total Number ofVisitorPersonTrips - / g /LS xpSP xR k by AllVisitorstoCounty= TotalNumberofEstimated Trips Person /LS xpSP xR k Visitors who used hotels/motels = Estimated Number ofPersonTrips by hotels/motels (g) Proportion ofVisitorswho stayat those staying inhotels/motels (LS) Average Trip Length in Nights for using hotels/motels (SP) Average Persons per Room forthose Number ofDaysinYear(p) Rooms in2004 (R) Average Number ofHotel/Motel Rate(k) Hotel/Motel Occupancy Variable From Visitor Survey responses to Questions 1and8. toQuestions responses VisitorSurvey From From Visitor Survey response to Question 7. toQuestion7. response VisitorSurvey From 6and7. toQuestions responses VisitorSurvey From ofBusine Department ofroomsfromFlorida Number

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2007. not respond. did contacted those because counties Martin River and Indian rateusedfor occupancy County 2007.St.Lucie September through October2006 andrepresents County cember 2007andisfrom theSpaceC motel Hoteland - BrevardCounty 2007. September through Shores DaytonaBeach Beach, Daytona Vi and BeachConvention Daytona -From County Volusia 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 6.73 dayspertrip.The average triplengthofall visitors was 10.06 days. motels andbread&breakfast inns of was39percent.These visitors stayed anaverage in daysisprovided inTable 2.5.The proportion ofthese visitorswho stayed athotels, The distribution accommodationsandtheirtriplength ofthe392 visitorsintermsoftheir e

Calculation ofNumber of VisitorPerson-Trips by County c

In 2007UsingCapacity UtilizationModel a

oast OfficeofTourism. St.LucieCounty-Occupancyrateisfrom St.Lucie , South Daytona and Ponce Inlet. Occupancy Rate is October 2006 isOctober2006 OccupancyRate Inlet. Ponce and , SouthDaytona 3,788,527 1,478,685 Volusia 19,704 0.39 6.73 2.43 0.57 365 Table 2.4 ss and Professional Regulation, List of Lodging Licenses, Licenses, ofLodging List Regulation, Professional ss and

sitors Bureau and includes Ormond Beach, Holly Hill, Hill, Holly Beach, Ormond includes Bureauand sitors 2,142,699 Brevard 836,308 10,863 occupancy rate is average from January through De- through from January rateisaverage occupancy 0.39 6.73 2.43 0.58 365

7,346,000 408,187 159,318 Indian River 2051 0.39 6.73 2.43 0.59 365 St. Lucie HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 701,938 273,971 3527 0.39 6.73 2.43 0.59 365

AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 304,697 118,925 Martin 1531 0.39 6.73 2.43 0.59 PAGE 2-8 PAGE 2-8 365

Number ofPerson DaysVisitors SpentintheCounty DuringTrips When TheyUsed theIndian River for Lagoon Recreation in2007 (c)

(a)

4,349,000 3,788,527 441,995 Volusia 12% 9.84 Question 6 for those who used theIRLfo used Question 6forthosewho 9 and the county where the site is located. thesiteislocated. where and thecounty 9 2,142,699 9,300,000 Brevard 945,308 44% 9.84 Table 2.6 Indian RiverLagoon County 1,807,000 408,187 183,684 Indian River 45% 9.84 2,273,000 St. Lucie 701,938 231,017 r recreation in the past 12 months. months. inthepast12 recreation r 33% 9.84 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 304,697 929,000 94,413 Martin 31% 9.84 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 18,657,000 7,346,047 1,896,418 Counties PAGE 2-10 PAGE 2-10 26% 9.84 All 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final spondent recreated onthe Lagoonintheseother counties. re- plus thetotaldaysspentinotherfourcountieswhen or shewasinterviewed table. These numbersinclude thedays thattherespondent spentinthehe county where in 2007for both Lagoonandnon-Lagoonactivitiesareprovided inthelastrowof this thesesurveyedvisitorsstayedineachoffivecounties The numberofdayswhen ing aday. activities takeplace iscountedwhenmultiple dur- the mostprominentactivityofday vided inTable2.7.Carewastakendesigning and conducting thesurveysothatonly participatedineachtype visitors surveyed pated ineach recreation activityontheIndian River Lagoon.Thetotaldayswhenthe vey responseswereused toestimate theproportion ofthese dayswhen visitors partici- Of thesetotal dayswhen theLagoon-using visitors visited each countyin2007,the sur- 930,000 ofthese dayswasspentin Martin County. five countyarea.About9.3millionof thesedayswasspentin BrevardCountyandabout ing TripsWhen TheyUsedtheLagoon forRecreation is18.7 millionperson-days forthe Dur- Days VisitorsSpentintheCounty The resultingofPerson estimateoftheNumber age surveyresponseofthose whousedtheLagoonforrecreationinpast12months. and istheaver- Thisestimateis9.84days forrecreation. visitors whousedtheLagoon The 1.9millionperson-trips wasmultipliedby the averagenumberofdayspertripfor 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN of recreation activity on the Lagoonarepro- of recreationactivityonthe HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-11 PAGE 2-11 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final byused Lagoon Visitorswho Total Days Spent inLagoon Counties Days Total Activity Picnicking Sunset Cruise watching, hiking, jogging orstrolling Viewing the river fromshorewhilebird wave runners, etc.) Personal Watercraft Boating (jetskis, Canoeing /Kayaking Kite Sailing Wind Surfing Parasailing Sailing onasailboat Power boating –cruising Power boating –water-skiing/ tubing Swimming or Wading Hunting Shell fishing (clams, oystersor crabs) Shrimp netting Fin Fishing Activity 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN calculation isprovidedinTable2.8. Soforexample,inVolusiaCounty, visitorswho rec- days inthe activity fromTable2.7 dividedbythelastrowof Table 2.7.) The result of this counties that werespent ineach of the individualactivitieson theLagoon (thenumberof The datainTable2.7wasusedtocalculatethe percent of all daysspentintheLagoon are notpopularactivities withvisitors tothefive county area. lack of participation in these activities byt ing, orparasailing. It is likely that visitors do participate inthese activities. However,the pate inthefollowingactivitiespast12months: shrimpnetting,shell fishing, hunt- riverfromshoreand picnicki by viewingthe Fin fishingpopularrecreationIndian RiverLagoon,followed was themost activityonthe Total Number ofDaysSpent inRecreation Activities ontheIndian River Lagoon and TotalDays SpentintheLagoon Counties (In thePast12 Months) From theResponses totheVisitorSurvey Volusia 167 Table 2.7 25 38 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 hose surveyedindicatesthat theseactivities ng. The392visitorssurveyed didnotpartici- Brevard 1,111 164 11 69 20 11 32 1 1 8 0 0 0 8 0 1 2 0 St. Lucie 568 24 53 24 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Indian River 149 709 200 25 0 6 6 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-12 PAGE 2-12 Martin 575 83 13 67 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 who used Lagoon used who Spent inLagoon Counties by Visitors Total Activity ofTotal Days Days Picnicking Sunset Cruise watching, hiking, jogging orstrolling Viewing the river fromshorewhilebird wave runners, etc.) Personal Watercraft Boating (jetskis, Canoeing /Kayaking Kite Sailing Wind Surfing Parasailing Sailing onasailboat Power boating –cruising Power boating –water-skiing/ tubing Swimming or Wading Hunting Shell fishing (clams, oystersor crabs) Shrimp netting Fin Fishing Activity 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final in theLagoon and1.8percent oftheir dayspicnickingonthe Lagoon. fishing on the Lagoonin Volusia County, threepercentoftheir daysswimmingorwading county recreatingonthe IndianRiverLagoon. They spent15percent of theirdaysfin reated onthe IndianRiver Lagoonduring their stay spent23 percent of their daysin the 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ing, and1.8 percent oftheir dayspicnickingon the Lagoon. of theirdaysviewingtheLagoonfromshorewhile birdwatching,hiking, joggingorstroll- spent 6.2percent oftheir daysfinfishing on the 2.9percent Lagoonin BrevardCounty, countyrecreatingontheIndianRiver Lagoon.They spent 15percentoftheirdaysinthe In BrevardCounty,visitorswhorecreatedonthe IndianRiver Lagoonduring their stay Percent ofTotal TripDays SpentinRecreation Activities ontheIndianRiver Lagoon From theVisitor SurveyResponses of Those Who Recreated on Lagoon (In thePast 12Months) Volusia 14.99% 22.78% 0.00% 0.00% 1.80% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 3.00% 0.00% Table 2.8 Brevard 14.77% 0.00% 0.00% 6.21% 1.80% 0.99% 2.88% 0.72% 0.00% 0.09% 0.18% 0.00% 0.99% 0.09% 0.09% 0.72% 0.00% St. Lucie 0.00% 0.00% 4.22% 0.00% 0.18% 4.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 9.33% HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 21.03% 28.22% Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.56% 0.00% 3.53% 0.14% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.85% 0.71% 0.00% River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 11.65% 14.43% Martin 0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 2.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PAGE 2-13 PAGE 2-13 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Activity ontheLagoonfrom Table2.8.Theresultsareprovidedin 2.9. the lastrowofTable2.6 timestheProportionofthosedaysSpentin each Recreation the CountyDuringTripsWhenTheyUsedIndian RiverLagoonfor Recreation from goon in2007 byactivitywerecalculated asthe NumberofPersonDaysVisitorsSpent in Estimates ofthenumberperson-daysvisitorsspentrecreatingLa- ontheIndianRiver or strolling, and 0.4percentoftheirdays powerboatcruising on theLagoon. shore whilebirdwatching, theLagoonfromhiking,joggingpercent oftheirdaysviewing spent 11.6 percent oftheir daysfinfishing on theLagoon inIndian2.3 RiverCounty, countyrecreatingontheIndianRiverLagoon.They spent 14percentoftheirdaysinthe In MartinCounty,visitorswhorecreated onthe IndianRiverLagoonduringtheirstay ing, and0.6 percent oftheir dayswaterskiingor tubing onthe Lagoon. of theirdaysviewingtheLagoonfromshorewhilebirdwatching,hiking, joggingor stroll- spent 4.4percent oftheir daysfinfishingonthe Lagoon inSt. Lucie County,4.4percent spent 9.7percent oftheir daysinthecountyrecreatingon Indian RiverLagoon.They visitors whorecreatedontheIndianRiverLagoonduringtheirstay In St.LucieCounty, on theLagoon. ging orstrolling, and1.6 percent oftheir dayswaterskiing,tubing orpower boatcruising birdwatching,hiking, jog- Lagoonfromshorewhile 3.4 percentoftheirdaysviewingthe They spent 20.4 percent oftheir days finfishing onthe Lagoon in Indian RiverCounty, stay spent27percentof theirdaysinthecountyrecreating on theIndian RiverLagoon. visitorswhorecreatedIn Indian RiverCounty, on theIndian RiverLagoonduring their 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-14 PAGE 2-14 Total Kite Sailing Canoeing /Kayaking Power boating–water-skiing/ tubing Power boating –cruising Wind Surfing skis, wave runners, etc.) Personal Watercraft Boating (jet Sunset Cruise Sailing onasailboat Swimming or Wading Picnicking strolling bird watching, hiking,jogging or Viewing the river fromshorewhile Fin Fishing Activity

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ing/kayaking andkitesailing ontheIndian RiverLagoonin2007. or cruising. Visitors also participated inpersonal watercraft boating,wind surfing,canoe- spent 87,000 person-days powerboatingonthe Lagoon,includingwater-skiing, tubing areaddedtogether, thenvisitors at 96,000person-days.Ifallformsofpowerboating 210,000 person-days;sailingonasailboatat96,000 person-days; and sunsetcruising nicking ontheor wadingintheLagoonat Lagoon at 257,000person-days;swimming about 500,000 person-days. Otherpopularrecreation activitiesofvisitors included pic- Lagoon fromshorewhilebirdwatching,hiking, jogging or strolling which comprised million, fin fishing. The next mostcommonrecreationactivity ofvisitors wasviewingthe ofthe3.2millionperson-days,or1.8Visitors tothe fivecountyareaspentoverone-half cause overathirdofthe Lagoon’sarea islocated inthis county. days, wasspentrecreating onthe Lagoon inBrevard County.Thisis not surprising be- reating onthe IndianRiver Lagoon.Overathird ofthese days, or1.4millionperson- In 2007,visitorstothefivecountyareaspentanestimated3.2millionperson-daysrec- Estimated Number ofPerson-Days VisitorsSpent Recreating Onthe Indian RiverLagoon In2007 By County andRecreation Activity 990,000 130,000 652,000 Volusia 26,000 52,000 78,000 52,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2.9 1,372,000 Brevard 167,000 268,000 578,000 67,000 92,000 92,000 67,000 17,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 380,000 510,000 13,000 10,000 64,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 Indian 3,000 River 0 0 0 0 St. Lucie 212,000 96,000 96,000 12,000 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 108,000 134,000 21,000 Martin 2,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 1,814,000 3,218,000 210,000 257,000 501,000 70,000 96,000 96,000 10,000 35,000 52,000 69,000 PAGE 2-15 PAGE 2-15 8,000 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final exports suchastheboat andautofuel usedtoenjoy Lagoon recreation. county area of theLagoon system.Anotherportionofthis money leftthe areatopay for goods andservices.Aportion ofthismoneybec In 2007,visitorsspent about $532milliononIndianRiver Lagoonrecreation-related tures bycountyarepresentedinTable 2.11. Lagoon-relatedciated withIndianRiverrecreation totalitemized in2007.These expendi- spent in each activityand countyto obtain anestimate oftotal visitorexpenditures asso- These expendituresper personpermultiplied by ofperson-days daywere thenumber the lodgingroom. dents visited theLagoon forjustone day,stayedwithfamilyorfriends, didnotpayfor The lodging expenditureiszerofor somerecreationactivitiesbecause theserespondents, including those who stayedwithfamily would expecttopayforlodgingbecause amongall respon- itisthe average expenditure expenditure pernight personunder lodging byfinfishers is lower thanwhatone the respondent paidby the dayor by theweek,forotheraccommodations. The$3.38 The lodging expenditure itemincludes thelodging costpernightforhotels,motelsand, if tion studies. 80 respondents.Theseresultsareconsistentwith expenditureestimates ofotherrecrea- spent onlodgingobtainedfrom and$4wasspentonotheritems.Thisinformation $13 wasspentonautomobilegasoline,$8autorentals and taxis,$3was $17 wasspentonfoodandbeveragesatstores, $14wasspentontackle,baitand ice, spent onfood andbeveragesatrestaurants and bars,$19 wasspent onboatrentals, amount, $58wasspent onshopping andsundries,$34wasspentonboat fuel,$26 was goon spent, onaverage,$196that day onLagoon-related goods and services. Ofthis dents did not onthatitem. avisitor spendany money For example, fishing on the La- ifsomerespon- all thosewhoreportedexpendituresforthatactivity,even aged over person per day areprovidedinTable 2.10.The expenditures foreach itemwereaver- expenditureandrecreationactivityThe averageitemizedexpendituresbytypeof per dent wasalsoaskedhow peoplespentor many benefited from thoseexpenditures. “predominant” activityinwhichthe respondent participated during that day. Therespon- underexpenditures, surveyresearchers the were directedtoentertheexpenditures the IndianforeachtypeRiver Lagoon ofrecreationactivity.double-counting Toavoid of thefivecountiesforLagoon-related goodsand serviceson thelastday thattheyused The Visitor askedrespondentsSurvey tostate spentin the amountofmoneythey each Activities Recreation in toParticipate Expenditures Visitor 2.4 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN on theIndianRiverLagoon or friendsand thosewho aredaytrippers. ame incometotheresidents ofthefive HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-16 PAGE 2-16 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN oa 158 $96.57 Total $195.89 oa 180 $153.46 Total $118.04 Park Entrance Fees Boat Repairs /Purchase Shopping and Sundries Auto Rental,Taxi,Busfares Equipment Rental Boat Rental Park Entrance Fees Expenditure Item odadBvrgs–RsarnsBr $25 1.2 $20.23 $10.42 Boat Repairs /Purchase $12.50 Shopping and Sundries Auto Rental,Taxi,Busfares Auto gas Food and Beverages –Restaurants/Bars Food and Beverages –Stores Camping fees (per night) Lodging (per night) Ramp, Marina andParking Fees Equipment Rental Boat Rental Tackle, bait,and/orice Boat fuel Expenditure Item Number of Respondents Tackle, bait,and/orice Boat fuel Number of Respondents Auto gas Food and Beverages –Restaurants/Bars Food and Beverages –Stores Camping fees (per night) Lodging (per night) Ramp, Marina andParking Fees Per Person Per DayVisitors tothe by Five River Indian LagoonCounties – 2007

Average Itemized Indian River Lagoon-Related Expenditures Table 2.10 Canoeing / Kayaking any type, Fishing Sailing, 5.1$52 $89.15 $35.22 $58.61 5.5$70 $32.62 $37.08 $51.35 1.6$0.00 $14.46 1.3$.0 $115.63 $0.00 $19.23 1.4$13 $26.77 $6.62 $11.38 $13.12 $17.14 2.5$20.82$34.27 $26.05 1.5$31.25 $13.75 2.5$16.67 $20.75 $62.29 $4.76 $33.82 01 $0.00 $0.19 00 $0.00 $14.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.31 $3.38 00 $0.00 $0.00 01 $0.98 $0.16 00 $0.00 $0.00 71 $13.54 $10.75 $7.13 $9.02 02 $0.00 $0.21 01 $0.24 $0.13 13 $0.00 $1.30 33 $33.75 $3.33 $16.55 $7.98 00 00 $12.17 $0.00 $0.00 80 8 Swimming, Swimming, Picnicking Watercraft Wading or Personal Boating 21 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 4 4 Sunset Cruise Viewing River Viewing from Shore/ Power Boat Power AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $339.69 $115.88 Riding PAGE 2-17 PAGE 2-17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.30 $2.93 $9.08 $0.00 $0.00 $7.00 $4.51 $0.00 $3.66 $2.50 $8.15 41 8 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Expenditure perPerson-Day Number ofRecreationPerson-Days Total Boat Repairs /Purchase Shopping and Sundries fares Auto Rental,Taxi,Bus Auto gas Food and Beverages –Restaurants/Bars Food and Beverages –Stores Camping fees Lodging Park Entrance Fees Ramp, Marina andParking Fees Equipment Rental Boat Rental Tackle, bait,and/orice Boat fuel Expenditure Item Expenditure perPerson-Day Number ofRecreationPerson-Days Total Boat Repairs /Purchase Shopping and Sundries fares Auto Rental,Taxi,Bus Auto gas Food and Beverages –Restaurants/Bars Food and Beverages –Stores Camping fees Lodging Park Entrance Fees Ramp, Marina andParking Fees Equipment Rental Boat Rental Tackle, bait,and/orice Boat fuel Expenditure Item 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-Relat (Volusia, Brevard,River,St. LucieandMartin) Indian –2007 FiveRiver Indian LagoonCounties Table 2.11 $168,884,000 $15,140,000 $16,503,000 $25,932,000 $34,938,000 $10,163,000 $52,253,000 $10,908,000 $23,926,000 $2,963,000 $1,176,000 $9,428,000 $2,013,000 $2,097,000 $4,985,000 $2,818,000 $1,005,000 $1,780,000 $3,739,000 $1,388,000 $4,442,000 $9,353,000 $708,000 $165,000 $307,000 $431,000 $122,000 St. Lucie 212,000 $18,000 $44,000 $15,000 990,000 Volusia County County ed ExpendituresVisitors tothe by $165 $171 $207,344,000 $17,730,000 $18,377,000 $26,561,000 $24,888,000 $63,862,000 $12,916,000 $13,547,000 $29,956,000 $3,689,000 $7,194,000 $4,459,000 $8,357,000 $7,373,000 $1,155,000 $1,607,000 $3,390,000 $2,130,000 $2,550,000 $1,565,000 $3,946,000 1,372,000 $268,000 $320,000 $238,000 $672,000 $202,000 $108,000 Brevard 134,000 $20,000 $21,000 $19,000 County County Martin $186 $151 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $532,079,000 $162,155,000 All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $11,353,000 $15,352,000 $29,702,000 $34,129,000 $75,128,000 $46,049,000 $14,822,000 $52,522,000 $26,234,000 $76,233,000 $96,025,000 $28,504,000 $12,871,000 $8,231,000 $2,213,000 $5,496,000 $6,378,000 $7,070,000 $4,265,000 $5,970,000 3,218,000 $738,000 $802,000 $339,000 $575,000 $743,000 PAGE 2-18 PAGE 2-18 $77,000 $82,000 510,000 $71,000 County Total $165 $188 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final senting eachindividual county. county, the expenditures withineach countywereenteredintotheIMPLANmodelrepre- tered intothe IMPLAN modelrepresentingthe fivecounty regionalarea.For each the IMPLANmodelassummarizedinTable2.12. These expenditures were thenen- itemized expendituresof allfivecounties werematchedtoindustriesthat areincluded in of thefiveLagoon counties and within theentire economyofthefive county area. The direct andinduced output,andemployment generatedwithineach income,taxrevenues usedto convertThe IMPLANModelwas these expenditures intoestimates ofdirect, in- available. conditions. Thisisthemostrecentyear for whichFlorida economicdata are IMPLAN tion expendituresontheTheinput-outputdatarepresents2006economic economy. ties to estimate economicmultipliers andtomodel the impact ofLagoon-related recrea- coun- groupsof the countyor detailedeconomyof data onthe The IMPLANmodeluses Analysis for Planning. forImpact IMPLANstands andemployment. income,taxrevenues, terms ofoutput, extent towhichnewinvestments orincreas services within acountyorwithingroups of counties. It allows theuser toestimate the output model.This computer modelsimulatesthe supplyof anddemandforgoods and penditures presented inTable2.11 asinput to theIMPLANregional economicinput- goon-related recreation wasestimatedusingthe estimateditemizedLagoon-related ex- For visitors, thedirect, indirect and inducedeconomic contribution of Indian RiverLa- thecounty orinthefivecountyarea. tries spendtheir moneyin ty area.Inducedeffects are created when theemployees of thedirect and indirect industries purchase goodsand servicesfrom otherindustriesinthe countyorinthefivecoun- called indirect andinduced.IndirecteffectsaregeneratedastheLagoon-related indus- spent within thecounty.Theseadditionaleffects ofLagoon-related expendituresare isre- directindustriesandtheiremployees bythe are createdastheincomeearned additionalrevenues,andemployment output,income,tax the fivecountyareawherein tors. Inaddition, theseexpenditures createmultipliereffects throughout eachcountyand These industriesarecalled thedirectindustries that supplyIndian RiverLagoonrecrea- erations, boat rentals,baitandtacklestores, restaurants grocerystores, andhotels. dustries that supplyLagoon-related goods andservices,suchascharter /partyboatop- Expenditures byvisitorsgenerateoutput, income, taxrevenuesand jobs within the in- EconomicContributionAsso 2.5 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN on theIndianRiverLagoon ciated withVisitorRecreation es in demandaffectaregion’seconomy in HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-19 PAGE 2-19 (a) Total Boat Repairs /Purchase Shopping and Sundries fares Auto Rental,Taxi,Bus Restaurants/Bars Food and Beverages – Food and Beverages –Stores Camping fees Lodging Park Entrance Fees Ramp, Marina andParking Fees Boat andEquipment Rental Tackle, bait,and/orice Boat andauto fuel Expenditure Item This expenditure item was modeled as a commodity wher asacommodity modeled itemwas expenditure This

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final areimported. sold somegoods and fuel sold 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN category. accounted fortaxes onprofitandincomebecausethisvalue isalready intheincome censes, and salestaxescollected due totheLagoon-related expenditures.Itexcludes enue contributionisthe sumoftheadditional excisetaxes, propertytaxes,fees, li- full-time and part-timejobscreateddue totheLagoon-related expenditures.Thetax rev- sult oftheLagoon-relatedcontribution expenditures. Theemploymentisthenumberof ployee compensation,proprietor’s income, interest,rents,and profitsgenerated as a re- isdefinedastheem- sumof thatstaysinthecounty’seconomyand amount money duced inthe countyor counties due totheLagoon-related expenditures. Incomeisthe The output contribution is defined as thevalue of theadditionalgoods and services pro- amount ofmoneyasindicatedinTable 2.11isprovided inTable2.13. Lagoon areaparticipatefive countyinLagoon-relatedrecreation activitiesandspend the recreationasvisitorstothe The economiccontributionofIndianRiverLagoon-related Itemized VisitorLagoon-Related Expenditures Applied toIMPLANModelSectors 401 -Motor vehicle andparts dealers 410 -General merchandise stores (a) 432 -Automotive equipment rentalandleasing 481 -Food services and drinking places 405 -Food and beverage stores (a) campgrounds) 480 -Other accommodations (includes 479 -Hotels and motels 475 -Museums, historical sites,zoos, andparks industries 478 -Other amusement and recreation except videos 435 -General andconsumer goods rental 409 -Sporting goods stores 407 -Gasoline stations IMPLAN ModelSector Table 2.12 e marketing margins are used to estimate impact. All toestimateimpact. used are margins marketing e (a)

(a)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All 5Counties Expenditures $110,362,000 $532,079,000 $162,155,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $14,822,000 $59,592,000 $26,234,000 $29,702,000 $75,128,000 $46,049,000 $6,378,000 $575,000 $743,000 $339,000 PAGE 2-20 PAGE 2-20 (f) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) All FiveCounties Martin County County St. Lucie Indian River County Brevard County County Volusia Study Area All five counties were modeled as one economic area. The economic contribution as visitors spend money in money spend asvisitors contribution economic The area. economic asone modeled were Allfivecounties Income is the sum of wages, salaries, proprietor's income proprietor's salaries, ofwages, Incomeisthesum 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final excisetaxes,property thesumof is revenue Tax recreation totheLagoon-related due created and part-timejobs offull-time thenumber includes Employment of asthevalue Outputisdefined effects. andinduced indirect direct, Includes ease the multiplier effectof themultiplier ease incr linkages economic additional together, are examined is county each isbecause This counties. individual is isabout area the entirefivecounty profitandincome. taxeson Itexcludes expenditures. recreation Lagoon-related expenditures. expenditures. recreation goon-related expenditures. recreation goon-related 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN addition totheir 2007expenditures to recreateon theLagoon. tion wouldbewillingtopaykeeptheLagoonin visitors whousetheLagoonforrecrea- that money of amount Use valueisthemaximum use valuesthat visitors place onthe IndianRiverLagooninitsexistingcondition. The visitorsurveyincludedcontingentquestions touseandnon- valuation estimatethe UseandNon-UseValueof 2.6 withinthefive countyareaoftheIndiantax revenues RiverLagoonsystem. in 6,000 jobs,and $28million million inoutput,$217income,about ated $450 In 2007,visitorexpendituresassociatedwithIndian RiverLagoon-related recreation cre- Economic Contribution ofIndianRiver by VisitorstotheFive of the Counties Indian River Lagoon Area, 2007 in its ExistingCondition (f)

$449,493,000 $165,427,000 $133,128,000 $19,703,000 $29,964,000 $72,789,000 Output the additional goods and services produced in the study area due to the La- tothe areadue inthestudy produced services and goods the additional of the economic contribution to the to contribution oftheeconomic thanthesum larger percent 5to10 (b) theIndianRiverLagoon Table 2.13 $216,504,000 $14,691,000 $35,565,000 $78,779,000 $62,692,000 $9,421,000 looked at as a single economic unit. When the five counties counties thefive unit.When economic at asasingle looked Lagoon-Related RecreationExpenditures Income taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due tothe due collected taxes andsales taxes, fees,licenses, , profits, rents, royalties and dividends due to the La- tothe due dividends rents,royaltiesand , profits, (c) its existing condition. This amount is in itsexistingcondition.Thisamountisin Employment 5,940 2,240 1,800 260 390 970 a one dollar expenditure. expenditure. aonedollar (d) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

Tax Revenue (a)

AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $27,545,000 $1,241,000 $1,861,000 $4,507,000 $9,986,000 $8,165,000 PAGE 2-21 PAGE 2-21 (e) 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final ment. Thissituation isasue theIndian followsand RiverLagoon. isfromthesurveyinstru- The surveyinstrumentsetupasituation wherethe surveyrespondentwas asked to val- involve surveyresearch. use ornon use values are typicallymeasured using contingent valuationtechniques and Passive reliably measured. resource damagetheycanbe assessmenttotheextentthat ofInterior,whichmandatedthatsuchvalues be Ohio v.Department included inanatural The termpassive-usevaluewaspopularized in the 1989U.S. Appellate Courtdecision, intrinsic value, inherent value, passiveusestewardshipand nonusevalue. scribe passive usevalueincluding bequest value,existencelook-existence value, usedto resource in de- known waysorinnotyetidentified.Manytermshavebeen be used by others;or by knowingthat futuregenerations will be able to benefit from the thattheresource canas thepotentialforfuturediscoveriesinmedicine;orfromknowing rect useofthatresource. includehuman usesthataredifficult Examples to quantifysuch place onaresource for the benefits it providesto aperson other thanfrom hisorherdi- Non-use valueorpassiveusearetermsusedtocharacterizethethatpeople 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN environmental qualityof environmental the IndianRiverLagoonoverpast17years. assessment feesthese actions haveworkedtowardsprotectingandconserving the DistrictsManagement and localgovernments throughlocal taxesand storm water Financed byStateandFederalgrants,theSt. Johns RiverandSouthFloridaWater River andsurroundinglandsfrombeingdrained intotheLagoon. goon; andareworkingtokeepunwantedfreshwater discharges fromtheSt.Johns prevented overamillionpoundsofsedim acres of salt marshesand wetlandstotheLagoon forfisheries andwildlifehabitat; goon frommorethan20wastewatertreatmentfacilities;reconnected over27,500 haveeliminatedeffluentbers oftheNationalEstuaryProgram discharges totheLa- Since theLagoon’sinceptionasanationalestuary theparticipatingmem- in1991, dangered andthreatenedspecies, fisheries and recreation in theLagoon. tosupportahealthyseagrass-basedecosystem, en- and sedimentqualityneeded Estuary Programisworkingtoward the goalsof attaining and maintaining thewater eight (28)nationalestuary National programsintheU.S.TheIndian RiverLagoon The Indian River LagoonisanEstuary ofNationalSignificance andone oftwenty- ents andpollutants fromenteringtheLa- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-22 PAGE 2-22 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN NUMBER _____ and allother expenses. Usingthe amounts listed onthe River Lagoon,including hotel travelexpenses, andcampsite fees,food anddrink, Q17. First,consideryourtotaltripcosts foryour forrecreation?River Lagoon theIndian made tovisit haveyou trips past12months,howmany Q16. Overthe to otherplacesforrecreation orspent thismoneyonotherthings. views the Payment Card first. views thePayment amount thatisnotontheCard oran PaymentCardaslongtherespondentre- The respondent mayprovideanamountthatislargerthan whatison thePayment maintain thequalityofIndianRiverLagoonin itscurrent condition Now Johns RiverWaterManagementDistrict. theSt. and administeredlocallyby Protection Agency Environmental by theU.S. which is supported Estuary Program National River Lagoon oftheIndian members activities wouldbeconductedbythe Lagoon astheregionaleconomygrows.These that limitnewflowsand stormwater preventnewwastewaterflowsfrom enteringthe duetorecreationaluses;andactions resources and wildlife;Lagoonmaintenance habitat restoration projects; law enforcement asrelated to protecting the Lagoon’s Funding isneeded and topay forenvironmentalmonitoring research; INDIAN Continued funding isneeded tomaintainthisenvironmental qualityatexisting levels. RIVER QUALITY OFTHE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTAIN LAGOON PLAN 1– conditions isting condition goon sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Lagoon will be maintained intheircurrent sediment andecosystemqualitiesoftheLagoon willbe Please keep inmindthattheaddedcostwillbe usedtomakesurethat thewater, ing to pay in additional trip cost for each future trip to this area when you use theLa- you ing topayinadditionaltripcostforeachfuturethisareawhen have eachone. Iwouldliketo ask youtwoquestions wherethatmoneywouldbeusedtomaintain . Also, keep in mind that instead of using the Lagoon, you could have gone ofusingtheLagoon,youcouldhavegone . Also,keepinmindthatinstead ______(numberoftripsinpastyear) . ), please ofmoneyyouwouldbewill- amount indicate the maximum $______(RecordDollarAmount.) ( Insert #.Rotatethe 2payment cardsso that half of the surveys about your support fortheseactions lasttrip, or this trip, tovisittheIndian theIndian River Lagooninits ex- BLUE PAYMENT CARD HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN . AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-23 PAGE 2-23 that 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final payment cardused): Payment CardNumber 1 hasthefollowingactual values onit(seeAppendixAforthe the respondents torefer towhenanswering the question. for number forreference.Eachcardhasalistofvaluesfrom$0tomaximum Number 2 given PaymentCardNumber1forreference Card and therest weregivenPayment respondents were Whenanswering Question17,someofthe during thepast12months. Of the392 visitors surveyed, 134visitorsused theIndian River Lagoonforrecreation value. past 12monthswereasked fortheir usevalue. Allvisitors were asked for theirnon-use visitors whousedtheLagoonin tion 18wereusedtoestimatenon-usevalue.Only toques- andtheanswers toestimateusevalue used The answerstoquestion17were 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN . Other,pleasespecify:______6. ThequalityoftheIndian RiverLagoondoesnot need tobe maintained. 5. Iamopposedtoanynewtaxes. 4. will bemisused. Ibelievethemoney 3. Notenoughinformationtoformadecision. 2. Iamnotinterestedin maintaining thewater,sedimentandecosystemqualityof 1. best describes yourreasonfornotwantingtofund thismaintenance program. Q19. Pleasereferto Section5of the WHITECARD If respondent indicates a $0valuefor bothofQuestions17and 18,askQuestion 19. Card first. views thePayment amount thatisnotontheCard oran PaymentCardaslongtherespondentre- The respondent mayprovideanamountthatislargerthan whatisonthePayment ment cardssothathalf of thesurveys haveeach one.) existing condition one-timetax willing topayina wouldbe you money of amount the maximum Q18. Inadditiontothisadditional cost pertripthat youjustindicated,pleaseindicate BLUE PAYMENT CARDNUMBER_____ listed onthePAYMENT BLUE visitedtheIndianRiverLagooninfuture.Pleasechoose anamount er ornotyou would beput intoatrust fundtomaintain the IndianRiverLagoon. $______(RecordDollarAmount.) foreverintothefuture. Youwouldpaythis tax regardlessofwheth- thequality oftheIndian RiverLagooninits andindicatethe number that ( Insert #.Rotatethe2pay- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-24 PAGE 2-24 that that 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 30$3 30$4 OETA 30 payment cardused): Payment CardNumber2hasthefollowingactual valuesonit(seeAppendix Aforthe $330$335$340$345 MORE THAN $275$280$285$290 $295$300$305$310$315$320$325 $350 $220$225$230$235$240$245$250$255$260$265$270 $165$170$175$180$185$190$195$200$205$210$215 $110$115$120$125$130$135$140$145$150$155$160 $55$60$65$70$75$80$85$90$95$100 $105 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN value usedtoestimatethe totaluse value ofthe Lagoontovisitorsin2007. $16.66 perperson-trip Card2.This usevalue is whoreceived andPayment number ofvisitors PaymentCard1 the weighted averageusevalue was calculated based on a50/50 split between the To correctfor anybiasassociated with theactual card, numbersthatareonthepayment The straight averageof theusevalues ofall134 respondents is$17.95 per person-trip. ples. that thereisnostatistically significant 2was$13.78perperson-trip.At-testPayment Card atthealphaequals 0.05 levelfound existing condition. The average usevalueprovided bythe37visitors whoweregiven $19.54 perperson-tripto recreateon theIndian RiverLagoonasitis maintained inits the 97visitorswhoweregivenPaymentCard1was The averageusevalueprovidedby value onthe card andtheasdescribedbelow. maximum of valuesonthe basedonthenumber respondent whochoosesavaluefromthecard The purposeofusingtwo differentpaymentcardsisto correctfora potential bias ofa OETA 20 MORETHAN$210 $165$170$175$180$185 $190 $195$200$205$210 $110$115$120$125$130 $135 $140$145$150$155$160 $55 $60$65$70$75 $80 $85$90$95$100 $105 PAY. YOUWOULD AMOUNT THEMAXIMUM REFLECTS PAY. YOUWOULD AMOUNT THEMAXIMUM REFLECTS 0 5 $10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45$50 $5 $0 LISTTHAT THE FOLLOWING ONEAMOUNTFROM PLEASE SELECT $10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45$50 $5 $0 LISTTHAT THEFOLLOWING AMOUNT FROM ONE SELECT PLEASE using the calculation $19.54 x 0.50 +$13.78x0.50.Thisis the usingthecalculation$19.54 x0.50 difference betweentheaveragesoftwosam- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-25 PAGE 2-25 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final willing to pay any amount of money to maintaintheLagoonin ofmoneyitsexistingwilling topay condition. anyamount reation onthe IndianRiverLagoon,97respondents, or38 percent, said theywere not money inaone-timetax.Ofthe258visitorrespondents who didnot participate in rec- non-use value,27respondents,or20percent, werenotwillingtopayanyamountof theLagooninitsexistingcondition. tomaintain money pertrip Whenasked abouttheir ofadditional respondents, or25percent,saidthey werenotwillingtopay anyamount inthepast12months,33 visitors whorecreatedon theIndianRiverLagoon Of the134 visitors whodidnotusethe Lagoonfor recreation in2007. $8.15 x0.50.Thisisthe value usedtoestimatethetotalnon-use valueoftheLagoonto value is$13.07 asa one-time tax pervisitor 2. Thisnon-use 1andPaymentCard number ofvisitorswho Card received Payment the weighted averageusevalue was calculated based on a50/50 split between the To correctfor anybiasassociated with theactual card, numbersthatareonthepayment ence betweentheaveragesoftwo samples. A t-testat the alpha equals 0.05 level foundthat thereisa statistically significant differ- average oftheusevaluesall258 respondents is$12.31 per visitorasaone-timetax. tax pervisitor.Thestraight was $8.15asaone-time Card2 Payment who weregiven tain theLagooninitsexistingcondition. Theaveragenon-usevalueofthe149visitors 1 was$17.98tors whoweregivenPaymentCardasaone-time taxpervisitortomain- of the109visi- value maintain theLagooninitsexistingcondition.Theaveragenon-use goon overthepast12 months wereaskedquestions to infertheirnon-use valuesto The 258visitorrespondentswhodidnotparticipateinrecreation onthe IndianRiverLa- Lagoon tovisitorswhoused theLagoon forrecreation in2007. 0.50 +$13.78 x0.50.This isthevalue used to estimate the totalnon-use valueof the non-use valueis Card2.This between thenumberofvisitorswhoreceivedandPayment PaymentCard1 theweightedaverageusevaluewascalculatedbased on a50/50splitpayment card, one-time tax.Tocorrect for anybias associated with theactual numbersthatareon the The straight averageoftheusevalues ofall134 respondents is$33.47 pervisitor asa samples. found thatthere isnostatistically signific Card 2was$43.24asa one-timetaxpervisitor.At-testatthealphaequals 0.05level ing condition. Theaveragenon-usevalueofthe37visitors whoweregivenPayment was$29.74 asaone-timetaxpervisitortomaintaintheLagoonment Card1 initsexist- question number 18.Theaveragenon-usevalue ofthe 97 visitors who weregiven Pay- wasprovidedtorespondents answerthenonusevalue payment card The same 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN $36.49 asa one-timetaxpervisitor ant difference between the averagesof two using the calculation $17.98 x0.50 + using thecalculation$29.74x HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-26 PAGE 2-26 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final average useandnon-usevalues. resent thesevisitors’use andnon-use values. All $0responses were used toestimate 2,3and4).Therefore,theresponsestakentogetherrep- plementing agency(Reasons because they areprotestingthewayquestion trusttheim- isasked or theydonot theserespondents of said$0 Indian RiverLagoonareprovidedinTable2.14.Veryfew respondentsThe reasonsgivenbythese fornotcontributingtothemaintenance of the 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN lars. Indian RiverLagoonin its existing condition is estimated to be $32million in2007 dol- counties are providedin Table2.15. Theannual recreational usevalue to maintain the value pertripof$16.66.Thesecalculationsand resultsfor eachcountyandforallfive of visitor-tripstousetheLagoonforrecreationwas multiplied annualuse bytheaverage in2007,theannualnumber tion toallvisitorswhorecreatedontheIndianRiverLagoon associatedmaintaining theTo estimatetheusevalue withLagooninitsexistingcondi- Reason 2. Not enough information toforma 1. I amnotinterested inmaintaining 5. The quality River oftheIndian 4. I amopposed toanynewtaxes. 3. I believe themoneywillbe misused. Otherreason –Icannotaffordit. 6 Total 23 No Answer decision. quality oftheIndianRiver Lagoon. the water, sediment and ecosystem maintained. Lagoon does notneed tobe Indian RiverLagoon Maintenance Program Reasons for Not Wanting to Fund thisReasonsFund forNotWantingto Table 2.14 Recreating Visitors Use or Non-Use Values of 13 49 3 1 1 3 11 0 2 2 Non-Use Valueof Non-Recreating HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Visitors 14 11 97 7 3 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-27 PAGE 2-27 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN value tovisitorswhoused theLagoon forrecreation inall five counties is $382,000. discount rate toobtainthe totalannual visitornon-use value.Theannual 2007non-use $36.49. The result isthe whichwasmultiplied totalone by timetaxvalue thetwopercent taxpervisitortomaintaintheLagooninitsexistingcondition of one-time maximum 2.16. Thenumber ofvisitorswhorecreated onthe Lagoonin2007was multiplied by the dition tovisitorswhorecreatedontheLagoonwascalculatedaspresentedinTable The estimatednon-usevalueassociatedwithmaintainingthe Lagooninitsexistingcon- Item Maintain Lagoon in2007 Total Annual Visitor UseValue to Lagoon in2007 Annual UseValue per Trip to Maintain (From Table 2.6) Lagoon forRecreationin2007 Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips to Use Item Maintain Lagoon in2007 Total Annual Visitor UseValue to Lagoon in2007 Annual UseValue per Trip to Maintain (From Table 2.6) Lagoon forRecreationin2007 Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips to Use In itsExistingCondition to VisitorsW Estimated UseValueAssociated Maintaining theLagoonwith Table 2.15 ho Recreate on theIndian River Lagoon–2007 $3,849,000 $1,573,000 $31,594,000 $15,749,000 $3,060,000 $7,364,000 St. Lucie 3,1 94,413 1,896,418 231,017 945,308 183,684 441,995 Volusia County County $16.66 $16.66 $16.66 $16.66 Brevard County County Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST County PAGE 2-28 PAGE 2-28 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final (a) Total OneTime Tax Used Lagoon in2007 Maintain Lagoon in2007 - Visitors Who Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto visitor who usedLagoon in 2007 Maximum one-timetax Lagoon in2007 (a) Number ofVisitorsWhoRecreatedon Item Total OneTime Tax Used Lagoon in2007 Maintain Lagoon in2007 - Visitors Who Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto per visitor who used Lagoon in2007 Maximum one-time taxtomaintainLagoon Lagoon in2007 Number ofVisitorsWhoRecreatedon Item 2007 Visitor Trips when Lagoon used for recreation divided by average number of trips per visitor in 2007 visitorin2007 oftripsper number byaverage divided usedforrecreation Lagoon when VisitorTrips 2007 (3.62 trips) when Lagoon used for recreation. forrecreation. used Lagoon (3.62 trips)when 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN visitors inallfivecounties whodonotusetheLagoon forrecreationis$485,000. cent discount ratetoobtain thetotal annualvisitor non-usevalue.This2007value to per- multipliedbythetwo dition of$13.07.Theresultisthetotal whichwas onetimetax taxpervisitorto maintainthe one-time plied bythe Lagooninmaximum itsexisting con- multi- ontheLagoonin2007was didnotrecreate visitorswho ble 2.17.Thenumberof wascalculatedas presented inTa- notrecreateontheLagoon dition tovisitorswhodo The estimatednon-usevalueassociatedwithmaintainingthe Lagooninitsexistingcon- In itsExistingCondition to VisitorsWhoRecreate on theIndian River Lagoon–2007 Estimated Non-UseValue Associated Maintaining theLagoon with (a)

to maintainIRL per Table 2.16 $4,456,000 $2,329,000 St. Lucie $89,000 122,118 $47,000 Volusia County County $36.49 $36.49 63,828 $9,531,000 $191,000 $952,000 Brevard 261,178 $19,000 County County $36.49 $36.49 26,085 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $19,121,000 $1,852,000 $382,000 PAGE 2-29 PAGE 2-29 $37,000 523,959 County $36.49 50,750 $36.49 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final (a) Total OneTime Tax Not UseLagoon in2007 Maintain Lagoon in2007 - Visitors Who Did Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto per visitor who didnotuseLagoon in2007 maintain LagoonMaximum one- timetaxto on Lagoon in 2007 (a) Number ofVisitorsWhoDid NotRecreate Who Did not Use Lagoon in 2007 Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips byThose Item Total OneTime Tax Not UseLagoon in2007 Maintain Lagoon in2007 - Visitors Who Did Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto per visitor who didnotuseLagoon in2007 Maximum one-time taxtomaintainLagoon on Lagoon in 2007 Number ofVisitorsWhoDid NotRecreate Who Did not Use Lagoon in 2007 Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips byThose Item 2007 Visitor Trips when Lagoon not used for recreation divided by average number of tripspervisitorin number byaverage divided forrecreation notused Lagoon when VisitorTrips 2007 2007 (2.94 trips) when Lagoon Lagoon when (2.94trips) 2007 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN and Martinwas$565million. Lagoon tovisitorsofthe fiveLagoon counties, Volusia, Brevard, IndianRiver,St.Lucie the IndianRiver the visitornon-usevaluewas$890,000.Thus, the total2007valueof millionandvisitor recreationalusevaluewas$31.8 million,the tures in2007was$532 Table 2.18.Forallfivecountiesofthevisitor expendi- IndianRiverLagoon system, total sociated with maintaining theIndian RiverLagoonin its existing condition isprovidedin of theannualvisitorexpenditures, A summary recreational use andnon-use valuesas- Estimated Non-UseValue Associated Maintaining theLagoon with (a) In itsExistingCondition to VisitorsWhoDoNot Recreate

On theIndian River Lagoon–2007 not used for recreation. forrecreation. not used Table 2.17 $14,892,000 $2,096,000 1,139,548 3,346,532 $298,000 St. Lucie $42,000 160,356 470,920 Volusia County County $13.07 $13.07 $5,328,000 1,197,390 $107,000 $936,000 Brevard 407,731 $19,000 210,284 County County $13.07 $13.07 71,605 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $24,250,000 1,855,686 5,449,629 $485,000 $999,000 PAGE 2-30 PAGE 2-30 $20,000 224,503 County $13.07 76,447 $13.07 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Item iio o-s au n20 $0,0 3000 $60,000 Non-Use Value in2007 Total Visitor Expenditures, UseValue and $300,000 Visitor Non-UseValuein2007 Expenditures Visitor UseValue in2007 InAdditionto $400,000 Recreation in 2007 Visitor Expenditures toUseLagoon for Item Non-Use Value in2007 Total Visitor Expenditures, UseValue and Visitor Non-UseValuein2007 Expenditures Visitor UseValue in2007 InAdditionto Recreation in 2007 Visitor Expenditures toUseLagoon for 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN asfollows. programwas tion oftheimprovement The questions wereidenticaltothosepresentedthat thedescrip- inSection2.6except inanimprovedcondition. non-use valuesthatvisitorsplaceon theIndianRiverLagoon The visitorsurveyalsoincludedcontingent valuationquestionstoestimate theuse and the UseandNon-UseValueofImproving 2.7 ecosystem qualities ofthe Thisplanwouldbeimplementedin- ecosystem IndianRiverLagoon. Now Iamgoingtodescribeadifferent planthat willimprovethewater,sedimentand QUALITYOFTHE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVE PLAN 2– forget about theplanand taxeswejust discussed. stead Summary ofAnnual VisitorExpenditures, Recreational Useand Non-Use Values Quality oftheIn Associated MaintainingtheLagoonwith initsExistingCondition –2007 of the previous plan I just described to you. Pleaseconsideronlythisplan and ofthepreviousplanIjustdescribedtoyou. INDIAN RIVER INDIAN RIVER LAGOON dian RiverLagoon Table 2.18 168000$223,100,000 $99,160,000 $176,800,000 $207,000,000 $96,000,000 $169,000,000 3,9,0 $26,640,000 $564,690,000 $38,990,000 $25,000,000 $532,000,000 $35,000,000 39000$1,600,000 $31,800,000 $3,900,000 $15,800,000 $3,100,000 $7,400,000 St. Lucie 9,0 4,0 $890,000 $40,000 $90,000 Volusia County County Environmental Environmental

Brevard County County Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-31 PAGE 2-31 County Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final maintain it. Lagoonand 5gavealowervaluetoimprovetheLagoonthanimprove the theygave to Indian RiverLagoonover thepast 12 months,119 gavethesamevalue tomaintain and to maintainit.Ofthe258visitorrespondentswho didnotparticipatein recreation on the a lowervalu theLagoonand4gave and improve during thepast 12months. Ofthese134visitors, 29gave the samevaluetomaintain Of the392 visitors surveyed, 134visitorsused theIndian River Lagoonforrecreation 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN question. condition, and Plan1,theexistingcondition, respondent wasaskedthefollowing 2, theimproved values forPlan same for theirnon-usevalue.Iftherespondentgave the Lagooninpast12monthswereaskedfor theirusevalue.Allvisitorswereasked tions areprovided inthe surveyinstrumentthatisin Appendixvisitors who B.Onlyused printed in Section 2.6 wereusedto estimate useandnon-use values.The exactques- The answerstothequestionsthat weresimilartoQuestions17and 18 thatwerere- Now clarity throughouttheLagoon system. diversity ofwildlife,including fish, shellfish, birds, andmammalsincreased water The visible effect ofthese actions would bea significant increase in the amountand investmentsintheLagoonenvironmental wouldalsobeconducted. charges from futureandexistingdevelopmentinthewatershed. Maintenanceofpast freshwater flowsawayfromtheLagoon;andtreating additionalstorm waterdis- stored andfunctioningas wildlifeand fisherieshabitat; divertingadditional unwanted restoring and reconnecting additional wetlandssuchthat all thewetlandsarere- diments fromthebottomofLagoonthroughoutIndian RiverLagoonsystem; levelsincluderemovingaccumulatedharmfulmuckse- aboveexisting River Lagoon sediment andecosystemqualitiesoftheIndian thewater, The actionstoimprove improve the quality oftheIndianRiverLagoonabove improve the would paytomaintain lessthantothedollaramountyou orequal RiverLagoon mental qualityoftheIndian District. However, sufficientfunding must beraisedtopayforthisplan Estuary Programwhichisadministeredbythe St.Johns River WaterManagement through local taxesand would beimplementedbytheIndian RiverLagoonNational This planwould befinanced byFederalandStategrants and appropriations, Q21. Whyisthedollaramount youwouldpaytoimprove youindicated Iwouldliketo ask youtwoquestions theenvironmentalquality oftheLagoon about your support fortheseactions e to improve the Lagoon than they gave theLagoonthantheygave e toimprove itscurrent condition. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN . the environ- AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-32 PAGE 2-32 that 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 109 visitors Card1was$28.94as aone-timewho weregivenPayment taxpervisitor to Theaveragenon-usevalueof the conditionsoftheLagoon. prove theenvironmental months wereaskedquestions toinfer past12 theirnon-use valuestoim- goon overthe The 258visitorrespondentswhodidnotparticipate inrecreation ontheIndianRiverLa- Lagoon forrecreationin 2007. tovisitors whousedthe value usedtoestimatethetotalnon-use oftheLagoon time taxper visitor 1 andPayment Card2.Thisnon-usevalueis$63.92ceived PaymentCard asaone- basedvisitorswhore- ona50/50splitbetweennumberof value wascalculated the use average card,theweighted payment are onthe actualnumbersthat ated withthe 134 respondents is$57.50 pervisitor asaone-time tax.Tocorrectfor any biasassoci- was $78.24 asaone-time taxpervisitor.The straight average ofthe use values of all Lagoon. Theaveragenon-usevalueofthe37 visitors whoweregivenPaymentCard2 conditions of the visitor toimprovetheenvironmental was $49.59asaone-timetaxper 1 Payment Card value ofthe97visitorswhoweregiven question. The averagenon-use wasprovidedtorespondents answerthenonusevalue payment card The same of theLagoon tovisitorsin2007. This isthevalueusedtoestimatetotaluse x0.50. tion $26.24x0.50+$18.11 2.Thisusevalueis Payment Card Card 1and culated basedona50/50 splitbetween whoreceived thenumberofvisitors Payment actual numbersthatare on thepaymentcard,weightedaverageuse valuewascal- all 134respondents is$23.99 perperson-trip. To correctfor anybiasassociatedwith the Payment Card2was$18.11 perperson-trip. The straight average oftheusevalues of ronmental condition.The averageusevalueprovided bythe37visitors who weregiven $26.24 per person-trip to recreate on theIndian RiverLagoonunderthe improvedenvi- the 97visitorswhoweregivenPaymentCard1was The averageusevalueprovidedby cardasdescribed below. valueonthe values onthecardand maximum tential bias card basedonthenumberof of arespondentwhochoosesvaluefromthe thod, twodifferentpaymentcardswererotatedamongrespondentstocorrectforapo- usedasdescribed in methodwas Section 2-6.The samepaymentcard Underthisme- two programsshouldbe considered independently whenconsideringwillingness topay. would be wasted on improvements. Inany would bewastedonimprovements. the Lagoon gave isthat theLagoon didnotneed tobeimproved andthatthemoney value toimprove providingalower that sponsibility. Theprimaryreasonthatthegroup thatimprovingtheLagoonisnot thetourist’sre- Lagoon neededtobeimprovedand/or money and/ortherespondentdid notthinkthe dent eithercouldnotaffordtospendmore that therespon- values gaveis same The primaryreasonsthatthegroupproviding 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN usingthecalculation$49.59 x0.50+$78.240.50. Thisisthe event, theserespondentsevent, understood that the $22.17 perperson-trip $22.17 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN using thecalcula- using AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-33 PAGE 2-33 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final to estimateaverageuseandnon-usevalues. together represent thesevisitors’use andnon-use values. All $0responses wereused not trustthe implementingagency(Reasons 2, 3 and4).Therefore, the responses taken spondents said$0because theyareprotestingthequestion is waythe asked orthey do re- 2.19.Veryfewofthese inTable areprovided of theIndianRiverLagoon provement The reasons givenbytheserespondents for amount ofmoneytoimprovethe topayany were notwilling 74respondents,or30percent,saidthey River Lagoon, participate 258visitorrespondentswhodidnot inrecreationontheIndian goon. Ofthe pertripor money either inaone-timetax ofadditional respondents, or11percent,saidthey werenotwillingtopayanyamount inthepast12months,15 visitors whorecreatedontheIndianRiverLagoon Of the134 Lagoon tovisitorswhodidnotusethe Lagoonfor recreationin2007. 0.50 +$15.15x0.50.Thisisthe valueusedto estimatethetotalnon-use valueofthe non-use valueis Card2.This between thenumberofvisitorswhoreceivedandPayment PaymentCard1 theweightedaverageusevaluewascalculatedbased on a50/50splitpayment card, withtheactual correctforanybiasassociated numbers thatareonthe time tax.To straight average ofthe use valuesof all258respondentsis $20.98 per visitor asa one- visitors who weregivenPaymentCard2was$15.15 asa one-time taxpervisitor. The qualityofimprove theenvironmental the Lagoon. Theaveragenon-usevalue ofthe 149 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN $22.05 asaone-timetaxpervisitor environmental qualityoftheLagoon. environmental to improvetheenvironmentalqualityof La- not contributing to the environmental im- not contributing totheenvironmental usingthecalculation$28.94x HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-34 PAGE 2-34 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN $42 million. be Indian RiverLagoonisestimatedto qualityofthe theenvironmental value toimprove for allfivecountiesareprovidedinTable2.20.Forcounties,the 2007 annualuse of$22.17.Thesecalculationsand resultsforeachcountyand annual usevaluepertrip number ofvisitor-trips to usethe Lagoon forrecreation was multiplied by theaverage Lagoon toallvisitors who recreatedontheIndianRiverLagoonin2007,annual qualityofthe associatedtheenvironmental withimproving To estimatetheusevalue 1. I amnotinterestedinimproving thewater, Reason Total No Answer 6. Other reason – Icannotaffordit. 5. The quality oftheIndianRiver Lagoon does 4. I amopposed toanynewtaxes. 3. I believethemoneywillbe misused. 2. Not enough information toformadecision. not needtobe improved. River Lagoon. sediment and ecosystem quality oftheIndian Reasons for Not Wanting toFundthis Indian River LagoonImprovement Program Table 2.19 Recreating Visitors Use or Non-Use Values of 15 1 0 2 0 4 8 0 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN of Non-Recreating Non-Use Value Visitors AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 33 74 23 2 0 8 3 5 PAGE 2-35 PAGE 2-35 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Lagoon in2007 Total Annual Visitor UseValue toImprove Lagoon in2007 Annual UseValue per Trip to Improve Lagoon forRecreationin2007 (From Table 2.6) Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips to Use Item Lagoon in2007 Total Annual Visitor UseValue toImprove in 2007 Annual UseValue per Trip to ImproveLagoon Lagoon forRecreationin2007 (From Table 2.6) Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips to Use Item Estimated Recreational Use Value Associated 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN reation is$670,000. qualityoftheLagoon bythose improving theenvironmental who usethe Lagoonfor rec- recreation. For allfive counties, the 2007annual visitornon-use valueassociated with whousetheLagoonfor count ratetoobtaintheannualvisitornon-usevalueofthose dis- two percent multiplied bythe which was $63.92. Theresultisthetotalonetimetax quality taxpervisitorto of theLagoon improvetheenvironmental one-time of maximum 2.21. Thenumber ofvisitorswhorecreated onthe Lagoonin2007was multiplied by the Lagoon tovisitorswhorecreated on theLagoon wascalculated aspresented inTable The estimatednon-use value associatedwith Of the IndianRiver Lagoon toVisitors Who Recreate ontheLagoon –2007 Table 2.20 with Improving theEnvironmentalwith Quality $9,800,000 $5,122,000 St. Lucie improving the environmental qualityof improving theenvironmental 231,017 441,995 Volusia County County $22.17 $22.17 $20,960,000 $2,093,000 Brevard 945,308 County County 94,413 $22.17 $22.17 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $42,049,000 $4,073,000 1,896,418 PAGE 2-36 PAGE 2-36 183,684 County $22.17 $22.17 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final (a) Total OneTime Tax Used Lagoon in2007 Improve Lagoon in2007 -VisitorsWho Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto per visitor who used Lagoon in2007 Maximum one-time taxtoimproveLagoon Lagoon in2007 Number ofVisitorsWhoRecreatedon Item Total OneTime Tax Used Lagoon in2007 improve Lagoon in2007 -Visitors Who Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto per visitor who used Lagoon in2007 Maximum one-time taxtoimproveLagoon Lagoon in2007 (a) Number ofVisitorsWhoRecreatedon Item 2007 Visitor Trips when Lagoon used for recreation divided by average number of trips per visitor in 2007 visitorin2007 oftripsper number byaverage divided usedforrecreation Lagoon when VisitorTrips 2007 (3.62 trips) when Lagoon used for recreation. forrecreation. used Lagoon (3.62 trips)when Of the IndianRiver Lagoon toVisitors 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN annual non-use valueto visitorswhodonotusethe Lagoonfor recreation is$818,000. percent discountratetoobtaintheannual non-use value.Forallfivecounties, the2007 two the Lagoonof$22.05.Theresultis which wasmultipliedbythe totalonetimetax the environmentalqualityof one-time taxpervisitortoimprove tiplied bythe maximum Table 2.22. The numberofvisitorswho didnotrecreate onthe Lagoonin2007was mul- Lagoon tovisitorswho do notrecreateontheLagoonwascalculated as presented in The estimatednon-use value associatedwith Estimated Non-UseValue Associated Improving theEnvironmental Qualitywith (a)

Table 2.21 Who Recreate ontheIndianRiver Lagoon–2007 $7,805,000 $4,080,000 $156,000 St. Lucie 122,118 $82,000 Volusia County County $63.92 $63.92 63,828 improving the environmental qualityof improving theenvironmental $16,693,000 $1,667,000 $334,000 Brevard 261,178 $33,000 County County $63.92 $63.92 26,085 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $33,489,000 $3,244,000 $670,000 PAGE 2-37 PAGE 2-37 $65,000 523,959 County $63.92 50,750 $63.92 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final (a) Total OneTime Tax Not UseLagoon in2007 Improve Lagoon in2007 -VisitorsWho Did Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto per visitor who didnotuseLagoon in2007 improve LagoonMaximum one- timetaxto Lagoon in2007 Number ofVisitorsWhoDid NotRecreate on Did notUseLagoon in2007 Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips byThose Who Item Total OneTime Tax Not UseLagoon in2007 Improve Lagoon in2007 -VisitorsWho Did Total Annual Visitor Non-UseValueto visitor who did notuseLagoon in2007 Maximum one-time taxtoimproveLagoon per Lagoon in2007 Number ofVisitorsWhoDid NotRecreate on Did notUseLagoon in2007 Annual Number ofVisitor-Trips byThose Who Item 2007 Visitor Trips when Lagoon not used for recreation divided by average number oftripspervisitorin number byaverage divided forrecreation notused Lagoon when VisitorTrips 2007 2007 (2.94 trips) when Lagoon Lagoon when (2.94trips) 2007 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN its 2007condition. qualityof additional $10,800,000environmental the Lagoon the over per yeartoimprove values under theLagoon’s 2007 environmental condition, visitorsare willing to pay an the visitornon-use valueis$1.5 million.Comparingthese values tothe corresponding in Table2.23.Forallfivecounties,the visitorrecreationaluse valueis $42millionand theenvironmentalqualityof with improving A summaryoftheannual visitorrecreationalusevaluesand non-usevalues associated Of the IndianRiver Lagoon toVisitors Who DoNot Recreate on the Lagoon– 2007 Estimated Non-UseValue Associated Improving theEnvironmental Qualitywith (a) (a)

not used for recreation. forrecreation. not used Table 2.22 $25,123,000 $3,535,000 1,139,548 3,346,532 the Lagoon by county and in total is provided the Lagoonbycountyandintotal $502,000 St. Lucie $71,000 160,356 470,920 Volusia County County $22.05 $22.05 $1,579,000 $8,989,000 1,197,390 $180,000 Brevard 407,731 $32,000 210,284 County County $22.05 $22.05 71,605 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $40,911,000 $1,685,000 1,855,686 5,449,629 $818,000 PAGE 2-38 PAGE 2-38 $34,000 224,503 County $22.05 76,447 $22.05 Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Versus Maintain Quality (UsingTable 2.16) Difference in ValuesUnder Improved Non-Use Value Total Visitor Recreational UseValueand Visitor Non-UseValuein2007 dition toExpenditures Visitor Recreational UseValue in2007 InAd- Item Versus Maintain Quality (UsingTable 2.16) Difference in ValuesUnder Improved Non-Use Value Total Visitor Recreational UseValueand Visitor Non-UseValuein2007 dition toExpenditures Visitor Recreational UseValue in2007 InAd- Item 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN vided inTable2.27. forLagoonusersandnon-usersarepro- annual householdincomeoftherespondents spondent, the percent of therespondentsand femalethemedian who weremale re- ageofthe visiting yearsthecountyofinterview,average numberof The average the Lagoon in 2007and thosewho did notare provided inTables2.24, 2.25and2.26. Floridacountiesofthe392respondentswhousedThe origincountries,U.S.Statesand Demographic Characteristics ofVisitors to the 2.8 Associated Improvingwith theEnvironmental Quality oftheLagoon–2007 Indian RiverLagoonCounties Summary ofAnnual VisitorRecreational Useand Non-Use Values Table 2.23 $10,658,000 $10,000,000 $2,858,000 $1,163,000 $5,153,000 $5,000,000 $658,000 $153,000 St. Lucie Volusia County County $21,514,000 $21,000,000 $5,414,000 $2,065,000 $2,000,000 $514,000 $425,000 Brevard $65,000 County County Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All Counties Indian River AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $10,799,000 $43,489,000 $42,000,000 $4,099,000 $4,000,000 $1,489,000 $939,000 PAGE 2-39 PAGE 2-39 $99,000 County Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Other Far East Europe 0 2 Mexico 0 1 Japan 0 0% Canada 6 1 0% 15 1% Counties 0% Florida 4% 0.3% 6% 0.3% No Answer USA 128 231 96% 90% Total 134 258 100% 100% By Countryof Originand By RecreationalUseof Indian RiverLagoon Distribution of SurveyedVisitors ToCounties ofIndian RiverLagoon Who Used Lagoon in ubro epnet Percent ofRespondents Number of Respondents 2007 0 0 Use Lagoon in Table 2.24 Who Did Not 2007

1 7 Who Used Lagoon in 2007 0% 0% HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Who Did Not Use Lagoon in 2007 0.3% AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 3% PAGE 2-40 PAGE 2-40 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ot aoia 6 % 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 2% 5% 1% 1% 1% 6 4 2% 8% 2% Total 128 NA 3 Wisconsin 1 4 231 1% 2% 0 1% 0% 0 Washington 1 2% 5 3 12 Virginia 5 4 1 100% Vermont 2 3 3 7 Texas 0 4% 6 2% 2% 6% Tennessee 8 3% 2 3 3% 100% South Carolina 5% 3% 1 1% 6 Rhode Island 10 0% 3 Pennsylvania 7 2% 3 Oregon 0 1% Ohio 4 3 North Dakota 2 0% North Carolina 6 New York 1% New Jersey 3% New Hampshire Nevada 1 1 Nebraska 0 1 3% 0% Missouri 3 2% 1% 7 7 6% Mississippi 4 3% 0.4% 3% 2% 2 Minnesota 1 5 1% 0.4% Michigan 4 1% 3% 6 Massachusetts 8 3% Maryland 1 9 3% Maine 2 1% Kentucky 2 6 4% 4 Kansas 0 2% Iowa 1 8 3% 2% Indiana 4 0% Illinois 10 1 7 2% Georgia 6 3% 8 3% Florida 15 19 1% Delaware 0 8% 4 38 3% 5% 10 4% 4% Connecticut 5 0% California 0 2% 8% 3% 1 12% 0.4% Arizona 2 0% Alaska 1 4 0.4% 16% Alabama 4 0 2% 9 US States 3% 1% 2% 4% 0% Distribution of SurveyedUSA Visito By StateofOriginandBy Recreational UseofIndian River Lagoon Who Used Lagoon in ubro epnet Percent ofRespondents Number of Respondents 2007 Use Lagoon in Who Did Not Table 2.25 2007 rs ToCounties ofIndianRiver Lagoon Who Used Lagoon in 2007 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Use Lagoon in Who Did Not 2007 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-41 PAGE 2-41 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Indian River 5 20% Hillsborough 3 13% Escambia 0 1 0% Duval 1 Columbia3% 0 1 3 Broward 2 0% 4 Brevard 1 3% 7% 1 13% Bradford 1 0 Counties 7% 7% 8% 11% Florida 3% 0% No Answer 1 0% Washington 0 3% Volusia 0 1 Sarasota 0 1 St. Johns 0% 0% Polk 2 3% Osceola 0 3% 1 1 Orange 3 7 0% Marion 0 Leon 0 3 13% 3% 20% Lake 1 1 0% Jefferson 0 1 0 18% Jackson 1 3% 0% 0 8% 0% 3% 7% 7% 3% 0% 0% Total 15 38 100% 100% Distribution of SurveyedFlorida Visitors ToCounties ofIndian River Lagoon By County ofOriginandBy Recreational Useof IndianRiver Lagoon Who Used Lagoon in ubro epnet Percent ofRespondents Number of Respondents 2007 0 0 0 Use Lagoon in Table 2.26 Who Did Not 2007 4 1 1 Who Used Lagoon in 2007 0% 0% 0% HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Use Lagoon in Who Did Not 2007 11% 3% 3% AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-42 PAGE 2-42 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2.0 TOVISITORS ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION–USEANDNON-USEVALUES INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Characteristic Median Annual Household Income Percent Female Percent Male Age ofVisitorinYears,average Years visiting countyofin

Demographic Characteristics of 392 Visitor Respondents Surveyed terview, average Table 2.27 (134 respondents) Using Lagoon Respondents $70,000 in 2007 34% 66% 9.1 51 (258 respondents) Respondents Not HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Using Lagoon $70,000 in 2007 42% 58% 6.0 44 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 2-43 PAGE 2-43 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN measures ofvalueduringtheyear2007. The surveyresponsesand supplementalinformationwereusedtoestimatethefollowing that wassurveyed. ofthesurveyinstrumentisprovided inAppendixC. Acopy years oldandlivesinthatcountymorethansixmonthsperyear.Thisisthepopulation For this study, aresident ofone thefiveIRLcountiesisaperson who isatleast 18 collected and theresultsarereferredtoasvaluesfor year 2007. conducted.the past12 Forbrevity,allinformationmonths atthetimeeachsurveywas tion collected fromthe1,000surveyrespondentsreferstotheir usesof the Lagoon over 2008. Anequal numberofresidents (200) ineachcountywereinterviewed.Allinforma- throughJune wasconductedMarch2008 of 1,000residentsinthefiveIRLcounties from tures associatedwiththeLagoonandtheiruse andnon-usevalues,atelephonesurvey To obtainestimates ofthe recreational usesof the Lagoon by residents,theirexpendi- 3 UsevalueoftheLagoon toresidents whoused theLagoon inthe past12 (3) Expendituresbyresidents astheyused theLagoon forrecreation. Expenditures (2) residents ineachcountyas by RecreationalusesoftheIndianRiverLagoon (1) Values oftheIndianRiverLagoontoResidents Economic Contribution,UseandNon-Use Section 3.0 recreate on the Lagoon. would bewillingto payto resident money a amount of value isthemaximum Lagoon equals the totalusevalue of theLagoon toaresident. This total use this valueandtheresident’s expenditurespertriptorecreateonthe The sumof Lagoon. triptorecreateonthe tures, thattheresidentwouldbewillingtopayper addition toexpendi- in money, of amount Lagoon. Thisvalueisthemaximum willi months asmeasuredintermsofthe IRLcounties. ute totheeconomyof measure partofthe valuethatrecreators place onthe Lagoon andthey contrib- participated in thatday. of person-daysbyprimaryrecreation activity number measured intermsofthe ngness torecreateontheto paypertrip HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-1 PAGE 3-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN the IndianRiverLagoon in2007. District dated April18, 2008, atotal of 10.8millionperson-days werespent recreating on 2007, asestimatedpreviouslyduringthisproject andreportedinthedraftreportto goon in2007. Addingthe 3.2million person-daysspent by visitorstothe IRLcounties in IRL counties, residents spent 7.6 millionperson-days recreating onthe Indian River La- ofresidentsin Using theresidentsurveyresponsesandpopulation each ofthefive wascounted. survey respondent, chosenby activity,as the theprimary dayonly one recreationactivitythat more than was counted. recreation activitythatday IfapersonparticipatedOnly theprimary in person-day isoneperson participating inarecreat inTable3.1.A isprovided counties in activityandbycounty the fiveIRL 2007 byprimary The numberofperson-days spentrecreating on the IndianRiverLagoonbyresidentsof Recreational Usesof theIndianRiver LagoonbyResidents oftheFive Counties tions describethemethodsanddata usedtoobtain theseresults. of theresultsA summary ofthisanalysis is Summary 3.1 of Reside (5) Demographics ofthe resident Demographics populationsurveyedandthe population that used (5) value Inthisstudy, twononusevalueswereestimated.Theyarethe maximum toallresidentsinthe counties. Non-usevalue fiveIRL NonUseValue,also (4) Twousevalueswereestimated:(a)Tofinance wouldmaintain a programthat the Lagoonfor recreation inthepast 12months. quality oftheIndianRiverLagoon. prove theenvironmental mental qualityoftheIndianRiverLagooninits existing condition and(2) toim- maintain theenviron- to:(1) wouldbeputintoatrustfund of aone-timetaxthat fied. yet identi- waysnot inknownwaysor will beabletobenefitfromtheresource that theresourcecan be usedbyothers; orby knowing that futuregenerations knowing quantify suchasthepotentialforfuturediscoveriesinmedicine;orfrom thataredifficultto includeher directuseofthatresource.Examples humanuses place onaresource forthe benefitsitprovidestoapersonotherthanfromhisor value, isatermusedtocharacterizethepeople called passiveuse valuethat Lagoon’s environmentalcondition. that wouldimprovethe the Lagooninitsexisting condition; environmental and(b)To finance aprogram nt Survey Results nt Survey USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES providedinthissection.The remaining sec- ion activityforallor a partofone day. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-2 PAGE 3-2 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Of the 7.6 million person-daysspentbyresi Of the7.6 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN person-days. Thus,theIndian RiverLagoonsupports avarietyofrecreationactivities. goon in2007.theseactivitiestogether However, comprised28percent of allrecreation each comprisedlessthan tenpercentoftheperson-daysspentrecreating ontheLa- ing theLagoonfromshore,shellfishfishing, personal watercraftboating, andhunting All otheractivities including canoeing/kayaking, picnicking, sailing, sunset cruising,view- powerboatingonthe that theywent Lagoon. thesameday otherrecreationactivitieslistedinthetableon more ofthe pated inoneor alsopartici- power boaters in2007.Aboutone-thirdofthe on theLagoon days spent power boatingcomprised72percent ofthetotalperson numberofprimaryrecreation and days. Thus,thethreeprimaryrecreationactivities, finfishing,orwading, swimming skiing, tubing orcruising with1.3 million person-daysor17 percent of thetotal person- The thirdmostprominentprimaryrecreationactivity waspower boating, including water and wadingontheLagoon. other recreationactivities listedinthethattheywentswimming tableonthesameday About two-thirdsoftheandwadersalsoparticipatedinone swimmersormoreofthe comprised 54 percentof thetotalperson-days spentrecreating onthe Lagoon in2007. person daysontheLagoon in2007. Thus,fin fishingandtogether swimming/wading comprised 2.0million person-days orabout26percentof thetotalresident recreation The nextmostprominent primaryrecreationactivity was swimming orwadingwhich reating onthe Lagoon. most commonactivitycomprising28percentofthetotalresidentpersonrec- daysspent Lagoon. Finfishingwasthe wentfinfishingonthe thatthey the tableonsameday these fin fishersalso participated in one ormoreoftheother recreation activities listed in person-days werespentfinfishingas theprimaryrecreationactivity.Aboutone-third of USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES dents of the five IRL counties, 2.2million dents ofthefiveIRLcounties, HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-3 PAGE 3-3 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-4 PAGE 3-4 Total Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia Annual Valuein2007 IRL County

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final of theIndianRiverLagoon mated recreationaluse value and$2.5millionin estimatednon-usevalue. $730million inestimatedexpenditures, esti- This valueiscomprisedof$770 recreational expenditures,recreational useand non-usevaluein2007, is$1.5billion. for each IRLcountyand intotal is provided inTable 3.2. The total annual 2007resident values associated with maintaining the environmentalquality oftheIndianRiverLagoon A summaryoftheestimatedrecreationalexpenditures, use andnon-use Resident RecreationalUseandNon-UseValues 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ronmental qualityoftheLagoonoverits2007condition. tion, residents arewilling topayanadditional these valuestothecorresponding valuesunder the Lagoon’s2007environmentalcondi- $797 million.Thetotalannual2007residentnon-use valueis$3.4million.Comparing annual2007residentrecreationalusevalueis total isprovidedinTable3.3.The in qualityoftheIndianRiverLagoonforeachIRLcountyand environmental proving the A summaryoftheestimatedrecreationaluse and non-usevaluesassociated with im- Quality of the IndianRiverLagoon Resident Use and Non-Use Valueto Improvethe Environmental Environmental Quality oftheIndianRiver– in2007Dollars Lagoon Summary ofResident Values Associated Maintaining the with

and Boat-Related Expenditures to Resident Daily $769,412,000 $101,745,000 $122,018,000 $266,956,000 $186,846,000 Use Lagoon $91,847,000 Value ofLagoon Table 3.2 In Additionto Resident Use Expenditures $730,224,000 $115,632,000 $253,440,000 $177,408,000 $96,624,000 $87,120,000 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES $67,300,000 perenvi- yeartoimprovethe toMaintaintheEnvironmentalQuality $2,519,000 Resident $231,000 $401,000 $215,000 $864,000 $808,000 Non-Use Value HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

$1,502,155,000 Total Resident Non-UseValue $198,600,000 $238,051,000 $179,182,000 $521,260,000 $365,062,000 Use and PAGE 3-5 PAGE 3-5 (a) (a) Total Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia (1) IRL County

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final From 3 Summary ofResident Annual ValuesAssociated MaintainingandImprovingwith the 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Lagoon in2007 generated $61million inincome totheresidents of the five IRLcounties, to recreate on theLagoon isprovidedinTable 3.4. Resident spending to recreate on the A summaryoftheLagoon’s economic contribution associated withresident expenditures resident Lagoon-related expenditures wasestimated. goon, themultiplier effects werenot included. Only thedirecteconomiccontribution of La- economiccontribution River estimate ofthe resident recreationaluseoftheIndian aconservative would beoverstatedifthemultipliereffectswere considered. Toprovide the Lagoon-relatedgoods andservices.Thus, the economicimportanceofLagoon and toothereconomicactivitiesthat generatedtheresident incomeused topurchase effect ofresident spending onLagoon-related activities is attributed both totheLagoon the countyand does not represent new moneycomingintothe economy.Themultiplier this spending isalso the resultofmultipliereffects fromothereconomicactivitieswithin The multipliereffectofLagoon-related spendingwasnotestimated because byresidents EconomicInput-Output PLAN Regional generatedwithinthedirectlyaffectedindustriesusing IM- revenues ment andtax industries. For residents, theexpenditureswere convertedtooutput, income,employ- stores, groceryboatdealers,andgasstations. Theseindustries are calleddirect industries thatLagoon-related supplygoodsandservices,suchas sportinggoods Expenditures byresidentsgenerate output,income, taxrevenuesandjobswithinthe 3.2 Economic Contribution rd and 4 and as Residents Spent Money for Recreation Environmental Quality oftheIndianRiver– in2007Dollars Lagoon th column of Table 3.2. columnofTable Resident Useand Lagoon in2007 Environmental Condition Non-Use of $732,743,000 $116,033,000 $254,304,000 $178,216,000 $96,855,000 $87,335,000 (2) (a)

of theIndianRiverLagoon Recreational Use Value ofLagoon Table 3.3 Resident

Model asdiscussedin Section1.0. $796,608,000 $105,408,000 $126,144,000 $276,480,000 $193,536,000 $95,040,000 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES (3) Improved Environmental Condition Resident Non- Value of Lagoon $3,404,000 $1,167,000 $1,092,000 $312,000 $542,000 $291,000 (4) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (5) = (3) +(4) –(2) Non-Use Valueof Recreational and Increase in Lagoon $67,269,000 $10,653,000 $23,343,000 $16,412,000 $8,865,000 $7,996,000 PAGE 3-6 PAGE 3-6 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final and part-timejobs$70 millionin tax revenues. the Lagoonin 2007generated $272 million inincome toFloridaresidents,4,300full-time related expendituresfor thatportion ofthe timeprivateboats wereusedtorecreate on 2,400 full-time andpart-timejobs and $10millionintaxrevenue. Boatpurchases and 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN estimate thenumberof residents who recreated ontheLagoon in2007. First,ademo- The resident surveyresponsesand the resident population of each county wereused to Number ofResidentsWhoUsed 3.3 the resident values presented above. The remainderofthisdescribes the methodsanddatausedtoestimate memorandum td ra Output Study Area (g) (f) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Boat Expenditures (g) Florida -IRL-Related Brevard County Volusia County t ui ony 2,4,0 9310039 $1,538,000 369 $9,331,000 $143,1 $22,742,000 All Five Counties(f) $17,10 Martin County St. LucieCounty Indian River County All five counties were modeled as one economic area. The economic contribution to all five coun- toallfive contribution economic The area. economic asone modeled were Allfivecounties Income is the sum of wages, salaries, proprietor' salaries, ofwages, Incomeisthesum The direct, indirect and induced impacts in Florida as IRL users spend money on their boats to boats ontheir money spend asIRLusers inFlorida impacts andinduced direct,indirect The excisetaxes, thesumof is revenue Tax totheLagoon-related due and created jobs part-time offull-time thenumber includes Employment asthevalu Outputisdefined effects only. Includesdirect due to the Lagoon-related recreation expenditures. expenditures. recreation due totheLagoon-related lected due to the Lagoon-related recreation expendi recreation totheLagoon-related lected due use the IRL are reported in this row. row. inthis reported use theIRLare expenditures. recreation expenditures. recreation due totheLagoon-related each county is looked at as a single economic uni economic single atasa looked is each county oft thanthesum ties islarger additional economic linkages increase the effect of a one dollar expenditure. expenditure. theeffectofaonedollar increase linkages economic additional Expenditures By Residentsof the Indian River Counties, 2007 Lagoon Economic Contribution ofIndian $890,484,000 $271,775,000 4,315 $69,743,000 4,315 $271,775,000 $890,484,000 3,5,0 1,0,0 8 $2,408,000 582 $14,304,000 $34,655,000 $49,694, 1,6,0 8350031 $1,450,000 311 $8,355,000 $18,864,000 e of the additional goods and services produced in the study area inthestudy servicesproduced and goods oftheadditional e he economic contribution to the individual counties. This is because isbecause This counties. individual tothe contribution he economic 000$069002,416$10,376,000 $60,679,000 00,000 ,0 73400262$1,234,000 $7,384,000 8,000 (b) 0 2,4,0 872$3,672,000 $21,145,000 000 Income LagoonforRec Table 3.4 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes col- taxes andsales taxes,fees,licenses, property River Lagoon-Related Recreation s income, profits, rents, royalties and dividends dividends rents,royaltiesand s income,profits, t. When the five counties are examined together, together, are examined thefivecounties t. When tures. It excludes taxes on profit and income. income. onprofitand Itexcludestaxes tures. (c ) Employment reation in2007 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (d)

Revenue (a) Tax

PAGE 3-7 PAGE 3-7 (e)

(b) (a) Median Highest Education Level Percent Male Median Household Income Median Age inYears Characteristic /County The respondent could refuse to answer a question. Inco aquestion. answer couldrefuseto respondent The 200 Factfinder U.S. Census,American is DataSource Volusia Volusia All 5Counties Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia All 5Counties Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia All 5Counties Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia All 5Counties Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard dent was inferred by the survey researcher. researcher. bythesurvey inferred dent was oftherespon- gender The County. Brevard in question the Education to187for County in Volusia Income question eac answering ofrespondents thetotalnumber the question, ageorolder. of are 18years 25yearsof are who persons includes population resident

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final A summary of thiscomparisonA summaryisprovided inTable3.5. graphic comparisonoftheresidentpopulationand theresidentsamplewasconducted. 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Demographic Comparison ofthe Resident Population andSample Some college, NoDegree Some college, NoDegree Some college, NoDegree Some college, NoDegree Some college, NoDegree Some college, NoDegree Population Resident $50,939 $52,467 $43,685 $46,335 $40,881 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% NA NA 46 41 46 43 43 Table 3.5 (a) 6 except Percent Male where 50 percent was assumed. The The assumed. was percent 50 where PercentMale 6 except

me had the most refusals. So depending on the county and countyand onthe Sodepending most refusals. had the me age or older. The resident sample includes persons who who persons includes sample Theresident age orolder. USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES h demographic question ranged from a low of113forthe fromalow ranged question h demographic tional School Some College orVoca- College Graduate tional School Some College orVoca- College Graduate tional School Some College orVoca- tional School Some College orVoca- (200 respondents Resident Sample percounty) $38,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 39% 38% 37% 41% 39% 40% 61 61 62 65 59 60 (b)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Represents Population Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No PAGE 3-8 PAGE 3-8 (a) Martin Countyyears) (medianageis46 St. LucieCountyyears) (medianageis41 Indian RiverCounty years) (medianageis46 Brevard Countyyears)age is43 (median Volusia Countyyears)age is43 (median in PastYear on Lagoon Recreated Forthisstatistic,allofthesamp 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Total Total Total Total Total the age question. question. the age Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No median age.Thiscalculation isprovidedinTable 3.6. than the county’s medianageand thepercent ofrespondents older than thecounty’s past 12monthswascalculated as the averagepercentforthose respondents younger cent ofthe respondents whoparticipatedinarecreation activity ontheLagoonin the than theresidentpopulation ineach of thecounties. Therefore, foreach county,theper- lation aresimilarexceptforage.The sampledrespondents tendedto bemucholder are 25yearsofage or older. Thedemographic composition ofthe sample andthe popu- fortheresidentpopulation in tothose in eachcountyeach countywho werecompare cent ofrespondents who weremale,andthe medianrespondent highest education level The medianrespondent age,respondent medianhouseholdincomebefore taxes,per- 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN County's MedianAge Number Younger than 28 13 15 34 23 11 30 22 27 10 17 27 16 11 Respondents 8 Calculation ofthePercent ofResidents WhoRecreated 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 37% 63% 59% 41% 46% 54% 68% 32% 73% 27% on theLagoon inthePast12Months le respondents were included regardle included were le respondents % Respondents Older Number than County's 139 143 135 141 130 79 60 96 47 68 67 81 60 92 38 Median Age Table 3.6 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 57% 43% 67% 33% 50% 50% 57% 43% 71% 29% % the 2Groups ss of whether the respondent answered answered therespondent ss ofwhether Average of 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 47% 53% 63% 37% 48% 52% 63% 37% 72% 28% % HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Number All Respondents 199 113 197 134 199 102 200 116 199 148 86 63 97 84 51 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% PAGE 3-9 PAGE 3-9 57% 43% 68% 32% 51% 49% 58% 42% 74% 26% % (a)

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final people. Volusia Countyisaclosesecond at112,000 residents. totals 461,000 people. The numberofresidentsislargest in BrevardCountyat 160,000 months. Theresulting number ofresidentsolder than17whorecreatedontheLagoon the Lagoonforrecreationinpast12 tiplied bythepercentofrespondentswhoused mul- theresidentpopulation age18 orolderis is providedinTable3.7.Foreachcounty, The calculation ofthenumber ofresidentswho usedtheLagoon inthe past12months Lagoon forrecreation. dents. This is becauseage doesnot appeartoaffectwhetherornotapersonuses the Lagoon inthe past12 months aresimilartothe percentages calculated overallrespon- was usedin thisevaluation. These percentages ofresident respondents whousedthe The percentages associatedwiththe “yes”answerforthe average ofthetwogroups 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Lagoon forrecreationin the past12 months (ofthe1000respondentssurveyed). vided inTable 3.8.The survey datausedrepresents the 381 respondents whoused the months. Therespondentproportionsandaverage daysusedinthiscalculation are pro- average numberofdays thatrespondentsparticipated in that activityinthepast 12 respondents whoparticipatedineach ofthe 11 primaryrecreationactivities times the recreation in thepast 12 months(fromTable3.7) timesthe ity andcounty wascalculatedas The numberofperson-daysspentrecreating NumberofPerson-Days 3.4 (b) (a) From resident telephone survey conducted during March 2008 to June 2008. 2008. toJune March2008 during conducted survey telephone resident From Census.2006. U.S. Factfinder, American From Indian River St. Lucie rvr 2,0 3% 160,000 37% Brevard 426,607 County oui 9,3 2% 112,000 28% Volusia 399,039 atn1415 3 61,000 53% Martin 114,125 oa ,4,9 3% 461,000 37% Total 1,243,895 (1) Estimated NumberofResidents intheIndianRiver Counties Who Resident Population 18 Yearsor Older Recreated on theIndianRiver Lagoonin2007 106,184 197,940 (2) Spent RecreatingOnLagoon the numberofresidents (a) Table 3.7

USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Recreated atIRLin on the Lagoonbyprimary recreationactiv- % of Resident Past Year Population 52% 37% (3) (b)

proportion whousedtheLagoon for byResidentsin2007 Recreated on IRL Residents Who HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (4) = (2) x(3) in PastYear Number of oftheIRL-using 73,000 55,000 PAGE 3-10 PAGE 3-10 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final The numberofperson-dayscalculationbyprim erage. This value islisted inTable3.895%ofresponses”. as“MeanTrimmed- Lowest was calculated wherethe highest fivepercentof responses was notincludedinthe av- population’s averagedays.Toreduce the influence of large outliers, the averagevalue daysparticipatingFor theaverage inactivi 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN and intotalisprovidedTable3.14. ofperson-daysbycounty Tables 3.9through3.13.Asummaryofthenumber provided in USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES ary recreationactivityforeachcountyary is ty, large outliers tend to overstatethety, largeoutliers HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-11 PAGE 3-11 Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Respondent Participation inIndianRiverRecreation Lagoon in2007 Table 3.8 In County In County In County In County 12.91 14.08 21.76 10.27 13.85 13.01 13.63 17.63 36% 15% 30% 34% 8.00 7.85 8.52 6.00 9.86 9.45 6.00 9.50 128 139 113 58 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Canoeing orKayaking onLagoon Swimming orWadingon Swimming Lagoon Power BoatingPower onLagoon Other Counties Other Counties Other Counties Other Counties Fin FishingonLagoon 12% 6.95 7.25 5.00 8.43 3.40 4.36 3.00 4.36 3.45 3.58 2.00 4.24 4.85 5.00 3.50 5.57 3% 6% 7% 28 44 11 21 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Did Other Activities Did Other Activities Did Other Activities Activities ThatDay Did Other That Day That Day That Day 13% 11% 22% 5% 84 49 18 43

PAGE 3-12 PAGE 3-12 Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Respondent Participation inIndianRiverRecreation Lagoon in2007 Table 3.8 In County In County In County In County 25.09 16.10 16.85 10.00 19.91 Sunset Cruising LagoonfromShore orViewing 15% 7.02 7.98 5.00 9.37 6.83 7.09 4.00 8.56 8.90 9.30 5.00 7% 6% 6% 22 59 25 22 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Shrimp NettingorFishingforClams, Oysters orCrabsonLagoon Other Counties Other Counties Other Counties Other Counties Picnicking onLagoon Sailing on a Sailboat Sailing ona 14.33 14.33 1.78 2.42 2.00 2.42 2.22 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.57 1.57 2.00 1.57 5.20 4.50 3% 3% 2% 2% 12 10 6 7 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Did Other Activities Did Other Activities Did Other Activities Did Other Activities That Day That Day That Day That Day 5% 4% 1% 2% 18 14 7 3

PAGE 3-13 PAGE 3-13 Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item Mean Trimmed -Lowest 95%ofresponses Mean Trimmed -Middle 90% ofresponses Median Days Mean Days % of381Participating Number ofRespondents Participating Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Respondent Participation inIndianRiverRecreation Lagoon in2007 Table 3.8 In County In County In County 0.26% 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 28.54 28.54 5.92 5.00 100 100 100 100 1% 3% 13 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES 1 2 Personal Watercraft Boating onLagoon Parasailing, Windsurfing or Kite SailingontheLagoon Other Counties Other Counties Other Counties Water Fowl Hunting 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 13.17 13.17 2.25 3.50 0% 1% 2% 0 2 6

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Did Other Activities Did Other Activities Activities ThatDay Did Other That Day That Day 0% 1% 2% 0 2 6

PAGE 3-14 PAGE 3-14 (b) (a) Total Sunset Cruising orViewing the Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing, windsurfing or kite Sailing onasailboat Power Boating Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Shrimping, Clams, Oysters, Fin Fishing B. IRLRecreation inthe OtherFour IRL Total Sunset Cruising orViewing the Picnicking Personal Water Craft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing, windsurfing or kite Sailing onasailboat Power Boating, including water Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting for Shrimp Netting/Fishing Fin Fishing A. IRLRecreation inVolusiaCountyby VolusiaCounty Residents (1) Activity IRL Residents means the number of residents who usedt who ofresidents thenumber means IRLResidents 2008 toJune March2008 during conducted survey telephone resident From 111,526 in Volusia County. County. Volusia in 111,526 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Estimated NumberofPerson Days SpentinRecreation Activities On theIndian River Lagoonin2007– Volusia County Residents Who % of IRL-Using Participated 0.26% 12% 15% 15% 30% 34% 36% 3% 0% 2% 6% 7% 1% 3% 6% 3% 6% 1% 7% 2% 3% 2% (2) CountiesCounty by Volusia Residents

Table 3.9 (a)

Residents Who Residents x(2) Participated USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES he Indian River Lagoon for Recreation in 2007 which was was which in2007 forRecreation Lagoon River he Indian Number of (3) =IRL 33,218 37,627 40,861 12,934 17,344 17,050 7,349 2,058 3,528 1,764 3,234 1,764 6,173 8,231 2,940 6,467 3,822 6,467 588 588 294 0

(b)

Person Per Activity Days Per Average Year in 13.01 12.50 12.91 10.00 16.10 9.45 6.83 1.57 1.78 2.25 3.40 5.20 3.45 4.85 2.22 6.95 8.90 7.02 5.92 7.85 100 (4)

(a) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

Days PerYear Total Person- (5) = (3) x(4) in Activity 1,857,692 313,862 489,463 527,477 197,209 121,717 133,919 104,091 50,219 10,994 21,298 39,935 89,925 57,589 22,611 29,396 7,349 3,234 6,271 3,969 9,172 5,879 6,533 0 PAGE 3-15 PAGE 3-15 (b) (a) Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing / windsurfing /kitesailing Sailing onasailboat Power Boating Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Shrimping, Clams, Oysters, Crabs Fin Fishing B. IRLRecreation inthe Other FourIRLCounties by Brevard County Residents Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing Sailing onasailboat tubing or cruising Power Boating, including waterskiing, Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Oysters or Crabs Shrimp NettingandFishing forClams, Fin Fishing A. IRLRecreation inBrevard Countyby Brevard County Residents (1) Activity IRL Residents means the number of residents who usedt who ofresidents thenumber means IRL Residents 2008 toJune March2008 during conducted survey telephone resident From 159,777 in Brevard County. County. Brevard in 159,777

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Estimated NumberofPerson Days SpentinRecreation Activities On theIndian River Lagoonin2007– Brevard County Residents Who % of IRL-Using Participated 0.26% 34% 36% 12% 15% 15% 30% 1% 7% 2% 3% 2% 3% 0% 2% 6% 7% 1% 3% 6% 3% 6% (2) Table 3.10

(a) he Indian River Lagoon for Recreation in 2007 which was was which in2007 forRecreation Lagoon River he Indian

USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Residents Who Residents x (2) Participated Number of (3) =IRL 53,753 10,499 58,373 11,759 18,478 24,777 24,357 47,454 2,940 5,039 2,520 4,619 2,520 8,819 4,199 9,239 5,459 9,239 840 840 420 0

(b)

Person Per Activity Days Per Average Year in 13.01 12.50 12.91 10.00 16.10 6.83 1.57 1.78 2.25 3.40 5.20 3.45 4.85 2.22 6.95 8.90 7.02 5.92 7.85 9.45 100 (4)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (a)

Person-Days (5) = (3) x(4) Per Yearin 2,653,846 699,233 753,539 281,727 128,464 173,881 191,313 148,701 448,374 Activity 10,499 71,741 15,706 13,102 30,425 57,051 82,270 32,301 41,995 4,619 8,959 5,669 8,399 9,332 Total PAGE 3-16 PAGE 3-16 0 (b) (a) Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing / windsurfing /kitesailing Sailing onasailboat Power Boating Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Shrimping, Clams, Oysters, Crabs Fin Fishing B. IRLRecreation inthe OtherFour IRLCounties by IndianRiverResidents County Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing Sailing onasailboat tubing or cruising Power Boating, including waterskiing, Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Oysters or Crabs Shrimp NettingandFishing forClams, Fin Fishing A. IRLRecreation inIndianRiver C (1) Activity IRL Residents means the number of residents who used t who ofresidents thenumber means IRLResidents 2008 toJune March2008 during conducted survey telephone resident From 54,792 in Indian River County. RiverCounty. inIndian 54,792

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Estimated NumberofPerson Days SpentinRecreation Activities On theIndian River Lagoonin2007– Indian RiverCounty ounty IndianRiver by County Residents Residents Who % of IRL-Using Participated 0.26% 34% 36% 12% 15% 15% 30% 1% 7% 2% 3% 2% 3% 0% 2% 6% 7% 1% 3% 6% 3% 6% (2) Table 3.11

(a) he Indian River Lagoon for Recreation in 2007 which was was which in 2007 forRecreation Lagoon River he Indian

USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Residents Who Residents x(2) Participated Number of (3) =IRL 18,478 20,066 16,312 3,609 1,010 1,732 1,588 3,031 4,042 1,444 6,352 3,176 8,517 1,877 8,373 3,176 289 866 866 289 144 0

(b)

Person Per Activity Days Per Average Year in 13.01 12.50 12.91 10.00 16.10 6.83 1.57 1.78 2.25 3.40 5.20 3.45 4.85 2.22 6.95 8.90 7.02 5.92 7.85 9.45 100 (4)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (a)

Person-Days (5) = (3) x(4) Per Yearin 240,361 259,029 912,260 154,129 Activity 24,661 96,844 10,459 19,611 44,159 28,280 59,772 11,103 65,764 14,436 51,116 3,609 1,588 3,080 1,949 5,399 4,504 2,887 3,208 Total PAGE 3-17 PAGE 3-17 0 (b) (a) Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing / windsurfing /kitesailing Sailing onasailboat Power Boating Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Shrimping, Clams, Oysters, Crabs Fin Fishing B. IRLRecreation inthe OtherFour IR Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing Sailing onasailboat tubing or cruising Power Boating, including waterskiing, Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Oysters or Crabs Shrimp NettingandFishing forClams, Fin Fishing A. IRLRecreationinSt.LucieCoun (1) Activity IRL Residents means the number of residents who used t who ofresidents thenumber means IRLResidents 2008 toJune March2008 during conducted survey telephone resident From 72,850 in St. Lucie County. inSt.LucieCounty. 72,850

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Estimated NumberofPerson Days SpentinRecreation Activities On theIndian River Lagoonin2007– St. LucieCounty tySt. LucieCountyby Residents L Counties County by St.Lucie Residents Residents Who % of IRL-Using Participated 0.26% 34% 36% 12% 15% 15% 30% 1% 7% 2% 3% 2% 3% 0% 2% 6% 7% 1% 3% 6% 3% 6% (2) Table 3.12

(a) he Indian River Lagoon for Recreation in 2007 which was was which in 2007 forRecreation Lagoon River he Indian

USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Residents Who Residents x(2) Participated Number of (3) =IRL 24,525 26,633 11,304 11,113 21,651 4,790 1,341 2,299 1,150 2,108 1,150 4,024 5,365 1,916 8,430 4,215 2,491 4,215 383 383 192 0

(b)

Person Per Activity Days Per Average Year in 13.01 12.50 12.91 10.00 16.10 6.83 1.57 1.78 2.25 3.40 5.20 3.45 4.85 2.22 6.95 8.90 7.02 5.92 7.85 9.45 100 (4)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (a)

Person-Days (5) = (3) x(4) Per Yearin 1,210,817 319,025 343,802 128,538 204,571 Activity 32,732 13,881 26,029 58,612 37,536 79,333 14,737 87,286 19,160 67,845 4,790 2,108 4,087 2,587 7,166 5,978 3,832 4,258 Total PAGE 3-18 PAGE 3-18 0 (b) (a) Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing / windsu Sailing onasailboat Power Boating Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Shrimping, Clams, Oysters, Crabs Fin Fishing B. IRLRecreation inthe OtherFour IR Total from Shore Sunset Cruising orViewing theLagoon Picnicking Personal WaterCraft Canoeing or Kayaking Parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing Sailing onasailboat tubing or cruising Power Boating, including waterskiing, Swimming or Wading Water Fowl Hunting Oysters or Crabs Shrimp NettingandFishing forClams, Fin Fishing A. IRLRecreationinMartinCoun (1) Activity IRL Residents means the number of residents who usedt who ofresidents thenumber means IRL Residents 2008 toJune March2008 during conducted survey telephone resident From 60,560 in Martin County. County. inMartin 60,560

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN rfing /kitesailing Estimated NumberofPerson Days SpentinRecreation Activities On theIndian River Lagoonin2007– Martin County tyby MartinCounty Residents L Counties by MartinCounty Residents Residents Who % of IRL-Using Participated 0.26% 34% 36% 12% 15% 15% 30% 1% 7% 2% 3% 2% 3% 0% 2% 6% 7% 1% 3% 6% 3% 6% (2) Table 3.13

(a) he Indian River Lagoon for Recreation in 2007 which was was which in2007 forRecreation Lagoon River he Indian

USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Residents Who Residents x(2) Participated Number of (3) =IRL 20,493 22,255 18,092 4,003 1,121 1,921 1,761 3,362 4,483 1,601 7,045 3,522 9,446 2,081 9,286 3,522 320 961 961 320 160 0

(b)

Person Per Activity Days Per Average Year in 13.01 12.50 12.91 10.00 16.10 6.83 1.57 1.78 2.25 3.40 5.20 3.45 4.85 2.22 6.95 8.90 7.02 5.92 7.85 9.45 100 (4)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (a)

Person-Days (5) = (3) x(4) Per Yearin 1,011,779 266,583 287,287 107,408 170,943 Activity 27,351 11,600 21,751 48,977 31,365 66,292 12,315 72,938 16,010 56,692 4,003 1,761 3,416 2,161 5,988 4,995 3,202 3,558 Total PAGE 3-19 PAGE 3-19 0 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-20 PAGE 3-20 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final tures bycountyandintotalarepresented inTables3.16through 3.21. Lagoon-relatedciated withIndianRiverrecreationtotalitemized in2007.These expendi- spent in each activityandcountyto obtain anestimate oftotal visitorexpenditures asso- These expendituresper personpermultiplied by ofperson-days daywere thenumber ers, including thosewhoreturnedhomeafterrecreatingonthe Lagoon. would expecttopayfor lodgingbecause it is the averageexpenditureamongallfin fish- expenditure pernight personunder lodging byfinfishers is lower thanwhatone the respondent paidby the dayor by theweek,forotheraccommodations. The$1.90 The lodging expenditure itemincludes thelodging costpernightforhotels,motelsand, if of otherrecreation studies. obtained from 141respondents. These results are consistent withexpenditureestimates $1.90 wasspentonlodging, and$4.90wasspentonshopping. Thisinformationwas spent on tackle, bait, equipment, sundries,and boatramp,parking and entrance fees, $9.50was andcarfuel, onboat rants, food,drinksandrefreshments,$14wasspent spent onrestau- $15was goodsandservices.Ofthisamount, day onLagoon-related andperperson,$46that resident fishingexample, aontheLagoonspent,average ifsomerespondentsdidon thatitem.For for thatactivity,even notspend any money The expendituresforeach itemwereaveragedoverallthosewhoreportedexpenditures when participatingineach activityisprovidedinTable3.15. item foreach spent money amountof The average five items. on eachof they spent to participate ineachprimaryrecreationactivity. wereaskedtorecallhowmuch They Respondents wereasked toremembertheamountofmoneytheyspentontheir last trip ResidentExpenditurestoRecr 3.5 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN eate ontheIndi USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES an RiverLagoon HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-21 PAGE 3-21 No. ofRespondents Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite boat ramp, parking &entrancefees Tackle, bait,equipment, sundries, Boat andcar fuel refreshments Restaurants, food, drinks and Item No. ofRespondents Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite boat ramp, parking &entrancefees Tackle, bait,equipment, sundries, Boat andcar fuel refreshments Restaurants, food, drinks and Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Per DayResidents By oftheFive Indian River LagoonCounties –2007In Dollars 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Average Itemized Indian River Lagoon-Related Expenditures Per Person Sailing, all Sailing, all Fishing types $14.2 $45.5 $14.1 $15.0 $4.9 $1.9 $9.5 $0.9 $0.0 $2.3 $6.3 $4.8 141 26 Table 3.15 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Canoeing or Expenditures perPerson per Day Expenditures perPerson perDay Kayaking Hunting $160.0 $33.3 $25.0 $40.0 $23.3 $38.3 $16.2 $1.1 $0.4 $3.5 $3.4 $7.8 61 3 Water Craft Swimming Swimming or Wading Personal $33.2 $12.9 $27.6 $10.2 $13.5 $5.5 $1.1 $5.1 $8.6 $0.0 $0.0 $3.8 131 17 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Cruise, View IRL Picnic, Sunset from Shore Boating Power Power $41.2 $20.6 $14.9 $25.7 $1.6 $0.1 $4.0 $1.4 $2.9 $5.0 $7.3 $9.0 118 69 PAGE 3-22 PAGE 3-22 (a) Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite fees parking and entrance boatramp, sundries, Tackle, bait,equipment, Boat andcar fuel and refreshments Restaurants,drinks food, Item Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite fees parking and entrance boatramp, sundries, Tackle, bait,equipment, Boat andcar fuel and refreshments Restaurants,drinks food, Item Number of Person-Days times Expenditures per Person-Day. perPerson-Day. Expenditures times of Person-Days Number ducted during March 2008 to June 2008. June 2008. to March 2008 ducted during

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-R $26,257,000 $1,891,000 $2,845,000 $1,101,000 $5,483,000 $8,158,000 $8,670,000 AllTypes $116,000 $299,000 $841,000 $635,000 Fishing Sailing, In VolusiaCounty in2007Dollars $0 or Kayaking $2,166,000 $1,039,000 $1,119,000 Canoeing $233,000 $175,000 $280,000 $163,000 $268,000 $147,000 $476,000 $457,000 Hunting Table 3.16 $47,000 Activity Type Activity Type elated ExpendituresResidents by USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Information is from the resident telephone surveycon- telephone fromtheresident is Information $16,251,000 Water Craft $2,703,000 $2,513,000 $6,302,000 $4,200,000 Swimming Swimming or Wading Personal $533,000 $634,000 $235,000 $311,000 $88,000 $0 $0 (a)

Cruise, View IRL Power Boating Picnic, Sunset $12,937,000 $1,252,000 $6,479,000 $4,678,000 $4,625,000 $1,313,000 $1,628,000 $497,000 $257,000 $524,000 $903,000 $31,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

$65,880,000 $11,294,000 $23,948,000 $21,429,000 $6,798,000 $2,411,000 PAGE 3-23 PAGE 3-23 Total Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite trance fees ramp, parking anden- ment, sundries, boat Tackle, bait,equip- Boat andcar fuel ments drinks and refresh- Restaurants, food, Item (a) Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite trance fees ramp, parking anden- ment, sundries, boat Tackle, bait,equip- Boat andcar fuel ments drinks and refresh- Restaurants, food, Item Information is fromthe is Information perPerson-Day. Expenditures times of Person-Days Number conducted during March 2008 to June 2008. toJune2008. March2008 during conducted 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-R $37,589,000 $11,679,000 $12,411,000 $1,208,000 $4,073,000 $1,576,000 $7,850,000 $2,717,000 AllTypes $167,000 $430,000 $912,000 Fishing Sailing, In Brevard County in2007Dollars $0 Canoeing or $3,088,000 $1,481,000 $1,599,000 Kayaking $250,000 $400,000 $233,000 $383,000 $210,000 $678,000 $652,000 $333,000 Hunting Table 3.17 $67,000 Activity Type Activity Type elated ExpendituresResidents by USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES $23,228,000 Water Craft $3,591,000 $9,009,000 $6,003,000 $3,864,000 Swimming Swimming or Wading Personal $761,000 $882,000 $122,000 $327,000 $433,000 $0 $0 (a)

Cruise, View IRL Power Boating Picnic, Sunset resident telephone survey telephone resident $18,457,000 $1,786,000 $9,244,000 $6,674,000 $6,578,000 $1,285,000 $1,867,000 $2,316,000 $365,000 $745,000 $709,000 $44,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

$94,138,000 $16,142,000 $34,219,000 $30,613,000 $9,721,000 $3,443,000 PAGE 3-24 PAGE 3-24 Total (a) Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite fees parking and entrance boatramp, sundries, Tackle, bait,equipment, Boat andcar fuel drinks and refreshments Restaurants, food, Item Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite fees parking and entrance boatramp, sundries, Tackle, bait,equipment, Boat andcar fuel drinks and refreshments Restaurants, food, Item Number of Person-Days times Expenditures per Person-Day. Information is from the resident telephone survey telephone fromtheresident is Information perPerson-Day. Expenditures times ofPerson-Days Number conducted during March 2008 to June 2008. toJune2008. March2008 during conducted 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-R $12,925,000 $1,401,000 $2,699,000 $4,016,000 $4,267,000 AllTypes In IndianRiver County2007 inDollars in $924,000 $146,000 $411,000 $310,000 $542,000 $57,000 Fishing Sailing, $0 Canoeing or $1,067,000 Kayaking Table 3.18 $133,000 $100,000 $160,000 $153,000 $234,000 $225,000 $512,000 $639,000 Hunting $93,000 $73,000 $23,000 Activity Type Activity Type elated ExpendituresResidents by USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Water Craft $1,327,000 $1,233,000 $3,093,000 $2,061,000 $7,975,000 Swimming Swimming or Wading Personal $261,000 $303,000 $112,000 $149,000 $42,000 $0 $0 (a) Cruise, View IRL

Power Boating Picnic, Sunset $3,178,000 $2,294,000 $2,261,000 $6,345,000 $244,000 $614,000 $125,000 $256,000 $442,000 $642,000 $796,000 $15,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

$32,439,000 $11,770,000 $10,542,000 $3,360,000 $1,197,000 $5,570,000 PAGE 3-25 PAGE 3-25

Total (a) Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite trance fees ramp, parking anden- ment, sundries, boat Tackle, bait,equip- Boat andcar fuel ments drinks and refresh- Restaurants, food, Item Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite trance fees ramp, parking anden- ment, sundries, boat Tackle, bait,equip- Boat andcar fuel ments drinks and refresh- Restaurants, food, Item Number of Person-Days times Expenditures per Person-Day. Information is from the resident telephone survey telephone fromtheresident is Information perPerson-Day. Expenditures times of Person-Days Number conducted during March 2008 to June 2008. toJune2008. March2008 during conducted 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-R $17,157,000 $1,237,000 $1,859,000 $3,583,000 $5,331,000 $5,665,000 AllTypes $196,000 $550,000 $415,000 $719,000 $76,000 Fishing Sailing, In St.LucieCountyin 2007Dollars $0 Canoeing or $1,408,000 Kayaking $125,000 $200,000 $117,000 $192,000 $309,000 $297,000 $675,000 $801,000 $167,000 Hunting $96,000 $31,000 Table 3.19 Activity Type Activity Type elated ExpendituresResidents by USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Swimming or Swimming $10,600,000 Water Craft $1,639,000 $4,111,000 $2,740,000 $1,763,000 Personal $347,000 $413,000 $153,000 $203,000 Wading $57,000 $0 $0 (a)

Cruise, View IRL Picnic, Sunset $4,230,000 $3,054,000 $3,006,000 $1,058,000 $8,446,000 $817,000 $167,000 $341,000 $587,000 $853,000 $325,000 Boating $20,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Power Power

$43,068,000 $15,642,000 $14,002,000 $4,453,000 $1,583,000 $7,388,000 PAGE 3-26 PAGE 3-26 Total (a) Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite fees parking and entrance boatramp, sundries, Tackle, bait,equipment, Boat andcar fuel drinks and refreshments Restaurants, food, Item Total Shopping Hotel, motel,campsite fees parking and entrance boatramp, sundries, Tackle, bait,equipment, Boat andcar fuel drinks and refreshments Restaurants, food, Item Number of Person-Days times Expenditures per Person-Day. Information is from the resident telephone survey telephone fromtheresident is Information perPerson-Day. Expenditures times of Person-Days Number $1,000. $1,000. thenumber because RiverCounty Indian expen hunting The toJune2008. March2008 during conducted 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-R AllTypes $14,289,000 $1,039,000 $1,548,000 $2,984,000 $4,440,000 $4,718,000 Fishing Sailing, $164,000 $462,000 $349,000 $599,000 $64,000 In MartinCounty 2007inDollars in $0 of person-days is similar and the similar and is ofperson-days Canoeing or Kayaking Hunting $1,180,000 Table 3.20 $133,000 $100,000 $160,000 $153,000 $259,000 $249,000 $566,000 $639,000 $93,000 $80,000 $26,000 Activity Type Activity Type elated ExpendituresResidents by USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES ditures for Martin County are the same as thosefor as arethesame Martin County ditures for Swimming Swimming $1,476,000 $1,372,000 $3,441,000 $2,293,000 $8,873,000 or Wading Personal $291,000 $330,000 $122,000 $162,000 Water Craft $46,000 $0 $0 values are rounded to the nearest tothenearest arerounded values (a)

Cruise, View IRL Power Boating Picnic, Sunset $3,529,000 $2,547,000 $2,492,000 $7,046,000 $271,000 $682,000 $138,000 $282,000 $487,000 $708,000 $877,000 $17,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

$35,888,000 $13,044,000 $11,665,000 $3,710,000 $1,315,000 $6,154,000 PAGE 3-27 PAGE 3-27 Total (a) Number of Person-Days times Expenditures perPerson-Da Expenditures times ofPerson-Days Number (a) Total Shopping campsite Hotel, motel, and entrance fees boat ramp, parking ment, sundries, Tackle, bait,equip- Boat andcar fuel freshments drinks and re- Restaurants, food, Item Total Shopping campsite Hotel, motel, and entrance fees boat ramp, parking ment, sundries, Tackle, bait,equip- Boat andcar fuel freshments drinks and re- Restaurants, food, Item conducted during March 2008 to June 2008. toJune2008. March2008 during conducted 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total Itemized IndianRiver Lagoon-R $108,217,000 All Types $11,727,000 $22,599,000 $33,623,000 $35,730,000 Sailing, $7,810,000 $1,235,000 $3,473,000 $2,622,000 $4,538,000 $480,000 Fishing In theIRLCountiesin2007 inDollars(a) $0 Canoeing or Kayaking $1,956,000 $1,881,000 $4,272,000 $4,800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,150,000 $8,908,000 $750,000 $700,000 $605,000 $194,000 Hunting Table 3.21 Activity Type Activity Type elated ExpendituresResidents by USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES y. Information is from the resident telephone survey telephone fromtheresident is y. Information Water Craft $10,348,000 $25,956,000 $17,297,000 $66,927,000 $11,133,000 Personal $2,193,000 $2,563,000 $1,258,000 Swimming or Wading $356,000 $949,000 $0 $0 Cruise, View IRL Picnic, Sunset $26,660,000 $19,247,000 $18,963,000 $53,229,000 $5,150,000 $1,052,000 $2,148,000 $3,703,000 $5,384,000 $6,676,000 $2,046,000 $126,000 Boating Power Power HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

$271,417,000 $28,043,000 $46,547,000 $98,626,000 $88,252,000 $9,949,000 PAGE 3-28 PAGE 3-28

Total 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final user daysspentineach county. million wasallocatedto eachoftheIRLcountiesusing percentofallresident IRL double the daily expendituresbyresidents to use theLagoon ($271 million). The $498 Thisis millionin2007oralmost chases, andforboatrepairs. a totalof$498 $56million totaled $43millionformarinasliprentalanddockagefees,$397boatpur- The results in Table3.22 showthat2007Lagoon-relatedboatexpendituresinFlorida are providedinTable3.22. of theLagoon-related boat expendituresinFlorida in2007. The calculations andresults own boatontheLagoonresidentIRL(Number ofuserstimes0.29)toobtain anestimate ofresidentswhousedtheir on theLagoon.Thisresultwasthenmultipliedbynumber plied bythe estimated average percentofthe respondent’s annualboating daysspent These responsesamongtheserespondentsandtheresultwasmulti- wereaveraged past 12months. boat-related Lagoon providedtheirexpendituresinFlorida overthe the whousedtheirownboaton Thosesurveyrespondents of theIndianRiverLagoon. anddockageservices,boatpurchases andtures formarina boatrepairreflectthevalue Lagoon-using residents used their own boatson theLagoon. Aportion ofthe expendi- In additionto thedaily expenditures torecreate ontheLagoon, about 29percent of the 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-29 PAGE 3-29 (a) Total Lagoon-Related BoatExpenditures in2007 Lagoon-Related BoatExpenditures in2007 Number ofResidents Using OwnBoaton Lagoon Per Respondent Using Own Boat Boat Expenditures PerYEARAppropriated toLagoon Lagoon % ofANNUAL BoatExpenditures Appropriated to year ofrespondents who used own boat Average Number ofDays SpentonLagoon inpast used inFlorida No. ofDaysper yearper primary operator motorboats Lagoon YEAR perRespondent Average Boat-Related Expenditures inFlorida per Item Source: Strategic Research Group, "2002 National Re National Group, "2002 Source:StrategicResearch 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final for theU.S.CoastGuardOfficeofBoatin 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN the Lagoon-relatedgoods andservices. Thus, the economic importanceoftheLagoon and toothereconomic activities that generatedtheresident incomeusedtopurchase effect ofresident spending onLagoon-related activities is attributed both totheLagoon the countyand does not represent new moneycomingintothe economy.Themultiplier this spending isalso the resultofmultipliereffects fromothereconomicactivities within The multipliereffectofLagoon-related spendingwasnotestimatedbecause byresidents EconomicInput-Output PLAN Regional generatedwithinthedirectlyaffected industriesusingthe IM- revenues ment andtax industries. For residents, theexpenditureswereconvertedtooutput, income,employ- stores, groceryboatdealers,andgasstations. Theseindustries are calleddirect industries thatLagoon-related supply goodsandservices,suchassporting Expenditures byresidentsgenerate output,income, taxrevenuesandjobswithinthe 3.6 Economic Contribution Annual Boat-Related Expenditures inFloridaApportioned To Boating Use (a) to RecreateontheIn

Who UsedOwn Boat on on theIndian River Lagoon–2007In Dollars dian RiverLagoon g Safety, Columbus Ohio, Pages 5 and6. g Safety,Columbus Ohio,Pages of Resident Expenditures Table 3.22

Model asdiscussedin Section1.0. creational Boating Survey", November 30, 2003, prepared prepared 30,2003, Survey",November Boating creational USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES $42,982,000 Marina Slip Rental and Dockage 135,517 Fees $378 $317 84% 40 48

$398,434,000 Purchase 135,517 $3,506 $2,940 Boat 84% 40 48

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $498,000,000 $56,526,140 Repairs 135,517 $497 Boat $417 84% 40 48 PAGE 3-30 PAGE 3-30 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final income, about4,300jobs, and$70 million intaxrevenues. tion created statewideeconomic contributions of $891million inoutput, $272 million in dent boating-relatedexpenditures associated recrea- withIndianRiverLagoon-related lion in tax revenueswithinthefivecounty areaoftheIndian River Lagoonsystem. Resi- tion created $143 million inoutput,$61 millionin income,about 2,400jobs, and$11 mil- In 2007,daily residentexpenditures associated with Indian River Lagoon-relatedrecrea- category. accounted fortaxes onprofitandincomebecausethisvalueisalready intheincome censes, and salestaxescollected due totheLagoon-related expenditures.Itexcludes enue contributionisthe sumoftheadditional excisetaxes, propertytaxes,fees,li- full-time and part-timejobscreateddue totheLagoon-related expenditures.Thetax rev- sult oftheLagoon-relatedcontribution expenditures.Theemploymentisthenumberof ployee compensation,proprietor’s income, interest,rents,and profitsgenerated as a re- isdefinedastheem- sumof thatstaysinthecounty’seconomyand amount money duced inthe countyor counties due totheLagoon-related expenditures. Incomeisthe The output contribution is defined as thevalue of theadditionalgoods and services pro- cated inTable 3.23isprovided inTable3.24. indi- ticipate inLagoon-relatedas of money recreationactivitiesandspendtheamount The economic contribution ofIndian RiverLagoon-related recreation as residents par- in Table3.23. assummarizedtures werematchedtoindustriesthat areincludedmodel intheIMPLAN counties and withinthe entireeconomy ofthefivecountyarea.Theitemized expendi- withineachofthefiveLagoon generated andemployment put, income,taxrevenues usedtoconvert theseexpendituresintoestimatesThe IMPLANModelwas ofdirectout- available. conditions. Thisisthemostrecentyear for whichFlorida economicdataare IMPLAN tion expendituresontheTheinput-outputdatarepresents2006economic economy. ties to estimate economicmultipliers andtomodel the impact ofLagoon-related recrea- coun- groupsof the countyor detailedeconomyof data onthe The IMPLANmodeluses resident Lagoon-related expenditures wasestimated. goon, themultiplier effects werenot included. Only thedirecteconomiccontribution of La- economiccontributionRiver estimate ofthe residentrecreationaluseIndian aconservative would beoverstatedifthemultipliereffectswereconsidered. Toprovide 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-31 PAGE 3-31 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Tackle, bait,and/orice; Ramp, Boat andauto fuel Expenditure Item (a) Total fees Marina sliprental anddockage Boat Repairs /Purchase Shopping Restaurants/Bars and Stores Food and Beverages – Lodging Fees Entrance Marina andParking and Park This expenditure item was modeled as a commodity where marketing margins are used toesti- used are margins marketing where asacommodity modeled itemwas expenditure This mate impact. All fuel sold and some goods sold are imported. areimported. sold some goods and Allfuelsold mate impact. Itemized Resident Lagoon-Related Expenditures Applied toIMPLAN ModelSectors– In Dollars 478 -Marinas 401 -Motor vehicle andparts dealers 410 -General merchandise stores places 481 -Food services and drinking 479 -Hotels and motels 409 -Sporting goods stores 407 -Gasoline stations IMPLAN ModelSector Table 3.23 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES

(a)

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN All 5Counties Expenditures $453,000,000 $768,000,000 $43,000,000 $28,000,000 $88,000,000 $10,000,000 $47,000,000 $99,000,000 PAGE 3-32 PAGE 3-32 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ue ofthereefs toresidents. the Lagoon. Thesumof theusevalueandexpendituresrepresentstotalval- proved condition).Thisamountisinadditionto their2007 expenditurestorecreate on reation would bewilling to paykeep theLagoon initsexisting condition (orinan im- Lagoon forrec- residentswhousethe that money of amount themaximum Use valueis proved condition. that residents placeon the Indian initsexistingcondition andinanim- River Lagoon The residentcontingent surveyincluded valuationquestions toestimatetheusevalues Recreational UseValueofthe 3.7 (f) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Boat Expenditures Florida -IRL-Related All FiveCounties Martin County County St. Lucie Indian River County Brevard County County Volusia Study Area (g) All five counties were modeled as one economic area. The economic contribution to all five counties is counties toallfive contribution economic The area. economic asone modeled were Allfivecounties Income is the sum of wages, salaries, proprietor's in proprietor's salaries, ofwages, Incomeisthesum The direct, indirect and induced impacts in Florida inFlorida impacts andinduced direct,indirect The excisetaxes,prop thesumof is revenue Tax and pa offull-time thenumber includes Employment to areadue inthestudy produced services and goods oftheadditional asthevalue Outputisdefined effects only. Includesdirect IRL arereportedinthisrow. e the increase linkages economic When unit. economic as asingle ty islookedat sum oftheeconomic thanthe larger expenditur recreation due totheLagoon-related expenditures. reation expenditures. recreation the Lagoon-related expenditures. recreation the Lagoon-related Economic Contribution ofIndianRiver By ResidentsoftheIndian River LagoonCounties, 2007,InDollars (f)

(g)

$890,484,000 $143,100,000 $18,864,000 $22,742,000 $17,108,000 $49,694,000 $34,655,000 Output ffect of a one dollar expenditure. expenditure. ffect ofaonedollar contribution to the individual counties. This is because eachcoun- isbecause This counties. totheindividual contribution (b) Indian RiverLagoontoResidents Table 3.24 $271,775,000 $60,679,000 $21,145,000 $14,304,000 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES $8,355,000 $9,331,000 $7,384,000 Income ( the five counties are examined together, additional additional together, areexamined the fivecounties Lagoon-Related RecreationExpenditures es. It excludes taxes on profit and income. andincome. taxesonprofit es. Itexcludes erty taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected collected taxes andsales erty taxes,fees,licenses, as IRL users spend money on their boats tousethe boats ontheir money spend as IRLusers come, profits, rents, royalties and dividends due to due dividends rents,royaltiesand come, profits, rt-time jobs created due to the Lagoon-related rec- totheLagoon-related due created rt-time jobs c ) Employment 4,315 2,416 311 369 262 872 582 (d) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

Tax Revenue (a) $69,743,000 $10,376,000

$1,450,000 $1,538,000 $1,234,000 $3,672,000 $2,408,000 PAGE 3-33 PAGE 3-33 (e) 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final knew thelocationof Lagoon intheir area. not veryfamiliarwiththe Lagoon.90 percent However, of therespondents said they the Lagoon, 15percent weresomewhatfamiliar withtheLagoon and 20 percent were with used theLagoonforrecreationinpast12months,65percentwereveryfamiliar respondents who isprovided 3.25.Ofthe363 A summaryoftheresponses inTable the IndianRiverLagoon.Thequestion isasfollows. At thebeginning ofthe survey, therespondent was asked about his/her familiaritywith 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN existing condition. This situation is as followsand isfromthesurveyinstrument. the IndianRiverLagoonin qualityof environmental the Lagoonwasaskedtovalue whorecreated setupasituation on thesurveyrespondent where The surveyinstrument Quality of the IndianRiverLagoon Recreational UseValuetoMaintaintheEnvironmental 8. DON’T KNOW” 8.DON’TKNOW” RIVER LAGOON 3.NOTINDIAN VERYFAMILIER WITHTHE RIVER LAGOON INDIAN WITHTHE FAMILIAR 2.SOMEWHAT LAGOON. RIVER THEINDIAN WITH 1.VERYFAMILIAR CATEGORY) “DON’T KNOW”ANSWER NOT READ goon. (DO familiar withtheIndian River LagoonornotveryfamiliarwiththeIndian RiverLa- somewhat familiar withtheIndianRiverLagoon, “Q5. Pleasetellmeifyouarevery Not VeryFamiliar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar Total 363 River Lagoon Indian Familiar with Familiarity of the Familiarity of with theIndianwith River Lagoon Lagoon-Using Table 3.25 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Number of Yes Responses 237 72 54 Respondents Responses % of Yes 100% 65% 20% 15% HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-34 PAGE 3-34 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN answers. Incontrast,payment cardscannotbeusedinatelephonesurvey sotherefer- 44 valuesover arangeof$0to$210 ormore. This allowed foralargerange ofpossible Card2listed andPayment ormore of$0to$350 Card 1listed70values over arange dent washandedoneoftwopaymentcardsthat listedthe possible values.Payment Because thevisitorfrom thevisitors. survey This typeofquestionisdifferentfrom that used tosolicitthe willingnesstopayvalues residents who usedthe Lagoon inthe past12months. data needed toestimate theresident population’s usevalue perLagoon tripfor those These valuesarecalled usetheLagoon. pertripto and$100 $25, $50,$75 $5,$10, ofsurveys. equal number The following valueswereinsertedintotheblank above.Eachvaluewas inserted on an 1 YES (GO to Q75) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q74) 2NO(CONTINUETO NO Q74. Whichofthefollowing statementsbest describes yourreasonfor answering to Q75) 1 YES(GO recreation instead, orspent thismoneyonotherthings. . I’mnotinterestedinmaintaining B. Thatamountismorethanthisplan is worth. A. Now Iwouldlike to askyouafewquestions about yoursupportfor this plan maintenance duetorecreationaluses. which includes monitoringandresearch;habitat restoration; lawenforcement;and . ThequalityoftheIndian RiverLagoondoesnot need tobe maintained E. I’mopposedtonewtaxes. D. Thereisnot enough information tomakeadecision. C. Continued fundingisneeded tomaintain Itisfundedventeen years. byFederal,Stateand localgovernments. Lagoon overthepastse- River and protectingtheenvironmentalqualityofIndian hasworkedtowardsimproving NationalEstuaryProgram “The IndianRiverLagoon maintains the qualityoftheIndianRiverLagooninitscurrent condition in itsexisting condition to maintainthewater,sedimentandecosystemqualitiesof IndianRiverLagoon would havebeen$______counties ofthegoon inanyofthefive Lagoonsystem.Ifyourtotalcostsforthistrip Q73. First,consideryourtotaltrip costs for . bid amounts ? Keepinmind thatyoucouldhave gone toother placesfor higher, would youhavebeenwillingto paythisamount . Thepurpose ofthisquestion was tocollect the the quality oftheIndianRiverLagoon. USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES was an intercept survey, the surveyrespon- anintercept survey,the was theenvironmentalqualityatexistinglevels your last tripto visittheIndian RiverLa- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN . .” PAGE 3-35 PAGE 3-35 that 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Figure 3-1. The frequency ofresponses asthe bidamount increases isprovidedinTable3.26 and amount ofmoneythatcanbespentto maintaintheLagoon. the size of the bidamountbecause therespondent’s income isthelimitingfactor tothe the percentage ofrespondents answering“NO”tothe bid amount wouldincrease with dents werealsogiventheoptionto say“NO”thebidamount.Itwouldbeexpectedthat then thewillingnessto pay (WTP)orusevalue per tripishighfortheLagoon. Respon- as thebidamountincreases lower bidamountstartshighanddeclinesverygradually ing topay the added cost woulddecline.If thepercentage of respondents accepting the The expectationisthatas thebidamountisincreased, thepercent ofLagoon-users will- respondent’s preferences. a yes/nooptiontospecificquestion accuracyofthe or begiven inordertoimprovethe Itisbest tohavetherespondentfocuson over thephone. rangeofpossibleanswers method becauseitwasnotpossibletoendum havetherespondents refer toanything respondent referredtoalistofpossiblevalues,thesurveyresidentsusedthisrefer- whichtheuseamountwasanopenendedquestionwhere intercept visitorsurvey,in becalculated.Unlikethe valuecould average use quency distributionfromwhichthe It wasexpectedthatthis$0to$100 pertriprange would be sufficient tocreatea fre- the $100isinlinewith referendumresultsof similar studiesinFlorida. goon economic valuationstudycited inSection 1.0andconverted to2007dollars, and La- willingness values reportedinthe1996IndianRiver higher thantheaverage topay value wasusedbecauseitissignificantly by theprojectteam.The$100maximum endum responseswere used. Invalue ofthe thiscase,the range ischosenmaximum 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Total $100 41 $75 50 56 73% $50 32 71 $25 46 70% 52 $10 48 62% 56 $5 56 82% 59 81% 69 81% Per Trip Bid Amount Frequency YesResponses of tothe Recreational UseValueBidAmounts to MaintaintheEnvironmental Quality ofLagoonin itsExisting Condition Who SaidYesto the Bid Amount Respondents Number of

Table 3.26 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Respondents Number of Total 363 Respondents Who Percent of Said Yes HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

PAGE 3-36 PAGE 3-36 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final following conclusions. and rises slightly through the$100 bid amount.Thisresult indicates one orbothof the percent yesisflatthrough the$25bidamount,fallswhenmoving tothe$50bidamount The plotshown inFigure 3-1isnotdownward slopingasone wouldexpect.Instead, the the Lagoon, the actualaverage behigherthan thatreportedinthis usevaluemay study. these protesting respondents were used toestimate theaverageusevalue tomaintain spondent’s willingness to paymaintainthe Lagoon. Becausetheno responses of cent). Theseresponsesarecalled protest votes.Theydonotnecessarily reflectthe re- taxes (34percent)orthe qualityof the Lagoon does notneed tobemaintained(5 per- tonew opposed adecision(30percent),theyare is notenoughinformationtomake respondentssaidthatthere ofthe“no” theLagoon.Therest their usevaluetomaintain quality ofthe Lagoon(9 percent).The noresponses fromthese respondents measure them (22percent)orthe respondent wasnotinterested inmaintaining the environmental Lagoon, 31percentsaid nobecausethebidamount ismorethantheplanworth to ofmoneytomaintainthe Of therespondentswhowerenotwillingtopay anyamount $100 morepertrip. Lagoon inits existingcondition. About 73percent ofrespondents would bewillingto pay goon inthe past 12monthswould be willingto payanadditional $10 per triptousethe As showninTable3.26, 81percent ofthe 363 respondents whorecreatedonthe La- 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-37 PAGE 3-37 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final $66 perrespondenttrip. lower boundestimateof use valueto quality maintainthe environmental oftheLagoon is responses,the theavailable trip.Given responses tohigherthan$100per bidamounts yes tobidamountslargerthan$100.Thisconstraintisnecessarybecausethereareno strained at $100 pertripeventhoughitisli The calculation andresult areprovidedinTable3.27.The average usevaluewas con- inTable3.26. bound estimatewasderivedusingthe363responsesthatwereprovided To obtain an averageuse valueper respondent using the surveyresponses, a lower 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Table 3.7). These calculations foreach countyandintotal are providedinTable3.28. trips, timesthe residentsrecreating estimated numberof on theLagoonin2007(From were estimatedastherespondent average numberoftripstotheLagoon in2007, 24 River Lagoonmadebytheresidents ofthefive IRLcounties. Thesetotal number oftrips This $66valuepertripwasmultipliednumber oftripstotheIndian bytheestimatedtotal 2. The variability of use value amongresidentsisasaresult,the value very highand, Thevariabilityofuse 2. Lagoonissignifi- residentswhousethe per tripamong usevalue Therangeof 1. value. number ofrespondents (completed surveys)istoo lowtoobtain anaverage use $1,000 orgreater. could be$300,$500, cantly greaterthan$0to$100.Theupperrangeofvalues Sum 100% $66 $100 62% $62 $25 20% $5 $0 19% (1) $0 Bid Amount Lower Lower Bound Average Resident Recreational Use Value To Maintain Lagoon inExistingEnvironmental Condi- tion (UseValue Constrained at$100 per Trip) %of Residents For Maximum Amount TheyPay Would Which BidIs Table 3.27 (2) USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES kely thatmanyrespondentssaid would have Calculation of (3) = (1) x(2) Average Bid Amount HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-38 PAGE 3-38 in 2007 tional UseValuetoMaintainIRL Total Annual Resident Recrea- sponses) Maintain IRL (From Survey Re- Recreational Use Valueper Tripto Use IRLfor Recreation in2007 Annual Number ofResident Tripsto Lagoon in2007 (From Table 3.7) Number ofResidents Recreating on Responses) per Respondent (FromSurvey Average Number ofTrips to Lagoon Item in 2007 tional UseValuetoMaintainIRL Total Annual Resident Recrea- Responses) Maintain IRL (From Survey Recreational Use Valueper Tripto Use IRLfor Recreation in2007 Annual Number ofResident Tripsto Lagoon in2007 (From Table 3.7) Number ofResidents Recreating on Responses) per Respondent (FromSurvey Average Number ofTrips to Lagoon Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Thissituation isasRiver Lagoon. followsandis from thesurveyinstrument. the Lagoon was askedto valueimprovementsintheenvironmental qualityoftheIndian who recreated setupasituation on the surveyrespondent where The surveyinstrument Quality of the IndianRiverLagoon Recreational UseValuetoImprovetheEnvironmental counties, the usevalueis$730million in2007. that residents placeon maintaining theLagooninitsexisting condition. For allfiveIRL (4)ofthistableprovideanestimatetheannualrecreational use Rows number value To Maintain the IndianRiver LagooninitsExisting Condition, 2007 Annual Resident Recreational UseValue (5) = (3) x(4) (5) = (3) x(4) (3) = (1) x (2) (3) = (1) x (2) Row No. Row No. Row (4) (2) (1) (4) (2) (1) Table 3.28 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES $177,408,000 $115,632,000 2,688,000 1,752,000 St. Lucie 112,000 Volusia $66.00 $66.00 73,000 24 24 $253,440,000 $96,624,000 3,840,000 1,464,000 Brevard 160,000 $66.00 $66.00 61,000 Martin 24 24 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $730,224,000 Indian River $87,120,000 11,064,000 1,320,000 461,000 $66.00 55,000 $66.00 Total 24 24 PAGE 3-39 PAGE 3-39 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN goon tripfor thoseresidents whousedtheLagoon inthepast 12months. was tocollect thedata needed toestimatetheresidentpopulation’s use valueperLa- to usetheLagoon.Thesevaluesarecalledbid purposeofthisquestion amounts.The was inserted onanequal numberofsurveys:$10,$20,$30, $60,$80 and $120per trip The following values,or bidamounts, wereinsertedintothe blankabove. Eachvalue . ThequalityoftheIndian RiverLagoon doesnot need tobeimproved E. I’mopposedtonewtaxes. D. Thereisnot enough information tomakeadecision. C. “Now I am going todescribe“Now Iamadifferent plan proves NO Q78. Whichofthefollowing statementsbest describes yourreasonfor answering Q78) 2NO(CONTINUETO to Q79) 1 YES(GO things. money onother other placesforrecreationinsteadorspentthis mind thatyoucouldhavegoneto . I’mnotinterestedinimproving B. Thatamountismorethanthisplan is worth. A. instead of and ecosystem qualitiesoftheIndian RiverLagoon.Thisplan wouldbe implemented to improve would havebeen$______counties ofthegoon inanyofthefive Lagoonsystem.Ifyourtotalcostsforthistrip Q77A. First,consideryourtotaltripcostsforlasttovisittheIndian RiverLa- Now I would liketoaskabout yoursupportforthisplan Now Iwould youafewquestions throughout the Lagoonsystem. increased water clarity wildlife, suchasfish,shellfish,birds,and andmammals The effectofthisplanwouldbeasignificantincrease diversityof inthe amountand measures wouldalsobe conducted. and stormwaterflowsto protectthe Lagoon. Maintenance ofpastenvironmental goon system; restore and reconnectall goon system;restoreand This plan wouldremoveharmfulmucksediments fromthe bottomofthe entireLa- and forgetabout theplan andtaxeswejustdiscussed. . the qualityofIndianRiverLagoonabove the previousplanIjust described to you.Pleaseconsider only thisplan thewater,sedimentandecosystem qualities of theLagoon? Keepin higher, would youhavebeenwillingto paythisamount the qualityofIndianRiverLagoon. USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES wetlands;andmanageadditional freshwater that willimprove itscurrent condition. the water, sediment thewater, HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN .” thatim- PAGE 3-40 PAGE 3-40 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Figure 3-2. The frequency ofresponses asthe bidamount increases isprovidedinTable3.29 and 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN thanthat reportedinthisstudy.actual averageusevaluemaybehigher respondents wereusedtoestimatetheaverage usevaluetoLagoon, improvethe ingness to pay toimprovetheLagoon. Because thenoresponses of theseprotesting responses are calledprotest votes. They donotnecessarilyreflecttherespondent’s will- percent) orthe qualityof theLagoon doesnot need tobemaintained (3 percent). These enough information tomakeadecision(37percent), theyareopposed to newtaxes(34 theLagoon. The rest ofthe“no”respondentssaidvalue tomaintain thatthereisnot the Lagoon(6percent).Thenoresponsesfrom theserespondents measuretheir use qualityof the environmental isnotinterestedinimproving (20 percent)ortherespondent goon, 26percent said no becausethe bidamountismorethan theplanisworthtothem La- the toimprove money of amount topayany were notwilling who Of therespondents $120 morepertrip. Lagoon inits existingcondition. About 76percent ofrespondents would bewillingto pay goon inthe past 12monthswould be willingto payanadditional$10 per triptousethe As showninTable3.29, 69percent ofthe 366 respondents whorecreatedonthe La- Per Trip Bid Amount Frequency YesResponses of tothe Recreational UseValueBid Amounts To Improve theEnvironmental Quality ofLagoon Total 104 58 76% $120 44 8 1 70 $80 51 73% 51 $60 29 57% 55 $30 44 80% 60 $20 50 83% 72 $10 50 69% Who SaidYesto the Bid Amount Respondents Number of

Table 3.29 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Respondents Number of Total 366 Who SaidYes Respondents Percent of HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

PAGE 3-41 PAGE 3-41 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final trip. use valueto qualityoftheLagoon maintainthe is$72 environmental per respondent per availableresponses,the higher than$120pertrip.Giventhe lowerboundestimateof $120. This constraint is necessarybecausethere arenoresponsesto bidamounts though it is likelythatmanyrespondentswoul usevaluewasconstrainedprovided inTable3.30.Theaverage at$120pertripeven using the366 responsesthatwereprovided inTable 3.29.The calculation andresult are To obtainan averageusevalueper respondent, alowerbound estimate wasderived 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN both ofthefollowing conclusions. increases. bidamount Thisresultindicatesonepercent yesgoesupanddownasthe or The plotshown inFigure 3-2isnotdownward slopingasone wouldexpect.Instead, the 2. The variability of use value among residents is very high and, asaresult,the amongresidentsis very highand, Thevariabilityofusevalue 2. TherangeofusevaluepertripamongresidentswhotheLagoonissignifi- 1. value. number ofrespondents (completed surveys)istoo lowtoobtain anaverage use $1,000 orgreater. cantly greaterthan$0to$120.Theupperrangeofvaluescouldbe$300, $500, USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES d have saidyestobid amountslarger than HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-42 PAGE 3-42 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Table 3.7). These calculations foreach countyandintotal are providedinTable3.31. trips, timesthe residentsrecreating estimatednumberof on theLagoonin2007(From were estimatedastherespondent average numberoftripstotheLagoon in2007, 24 River Lagoonmadebytheresidents ofthefive IRLcounties. Thesetotal number oftrips This $72valuepertripwasmultipliednumber oftripstotheIndian bytheestimatedtotal Bid Amount Lower Lower Bound Average Resident Recreational Use ValuetoIm- 105% 68 $120 57% u 0% $72 Sum 100% 3 3 4 $30 13% (1) 03% 0 $0 31% prove theEnvironmental Quality oftheLagoon (Use ValueConstrained at $120 perTrip) %of ResidentsFor Which Bid IsMaximumAmount TheyPay Would Table 3.30 (2) USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Calculation of (3) = (1) x(2) Average Bid Amount HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-43 PAGE 3-43 Improve IRLin2007 Recreational UseValueto Total Annual Resident sponses) to ImproveIRL(FromSurvey Re- Recreational Use Valueper Trip to UseIRLforRecreation in 2007 Annual Number ofResident Trips 3.7) on Lagoon in 2007 (From Table Number ofResidents Recreating vey Responses) goon per Respondent (From Sur- Average Number ofTrips to La- Item Improve IRLin2007 Recreational UseValueto Total Annual Resident sponses) to ImproveIRL(FromSurvey Re- Recreational Use Valueper Trip to UseIRLforRecreation in 2007 Annual Number ofResident Trips 3.7) on Lagoon in 2007 (From Table Number ofResidents Recreating vey Responses) goon per Respondent (From Sur- Average Number ofTrips to La- Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN use valueis $797 million in2007. place on qualityof improving theenvironmental the Lagoon. For allfiveIRL counties, the (4)ofthistableprovide anestimateRows number oftheannual usevalue thatresidents To Improve theEnvironmental Quality oftheIndian River Lagoon, 2007 Annual Resident Recreational UseValue (5) = (3) x (4) (3) = (1) x (2) (5) = (3) x (4) (3) = (1) x (2) Row No. Row No. Row (4) (2) (1) (4) (2) (1) Table 3.31 $126,144,000 $193,536,000 2,688,000 1,752,000 St. Lucie 112,000 Volusia $72.00 $72.00 73,000 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES 24 24 $105,408,000 $276,480,000 3,840,000 1,464,000 Brevard 160,000 $72.00 $72.00 61,000 Martin 24 24 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $796,608,000 Indian River $95,040,000 11,064,000 1,320,000 461,000 $72.00 55,000 $72.00 Total 24 24 PAGE 3-44 PAGE 3-44 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final spondents were asked these questions. asked these spondents were Lagoon. Thissituation isasfollowsandfrom instrument.Allresident thesurvey re- the would bepaidregardlessofrespondent everuses that whetherthe a one-timetax of Lagoon inexistingconditionterms River oftheIndian ue theenvironmentalquality The surveyinstrumentsetupasituation wherethe surveyrespondentwas asked to val- involve surveyresearch. use ornon use values are typicallymeasured using contingent valuationtechniques and Passive reliably measured. resource damagetheycanbe assessmenttotheextentthat ofInterior,whichmandatedthatsuchvalues be Ohio v.Department included inanatural The termpassive-usevaluewaspopularized in the 1989U.S. Appellate Courtdecision, intrinsic value,inherentpassiveusestewardshipandnonusevalue. scribe passive usevalueincluding bequest value,existencelook-existence value, usedto resource in de- known waysorinnotyetidentified.Manytermshavebeen be used by others;or by knowingthat futuregenerations will be able to benefit from the thattheresource canas thepotentialforfuturediscoveriesinmedicine;orfromknowing rect useofthatresource. includehuman usesthataredifficult Examples to quantifysuch place onaresource for the benefits it providesto aperson other thanfrom hisorherdi- Non-use valueorpassiveusearetermsusedtocharacterizethethatpeople mental conditionand(2) in animprovedenvironmentalcondition. values thatallresidentsplaceontheIndianRiverLagoon(1)initsexistingenviron- The resident surveyincludedcontingentvaluationquestions toestimatethenon-use ResidentNon-UseVa 3.8 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Continued fundingisneeded tomaintain Itisfundedventeen years. byFederal,Stateand localgovernments. Lagoon over thepastse- River and protectingtheenvironmentalqualityofIndian hasworkedtowardsimproving NationalEstuaryProgram “The IndianRiverLagoon trust fundtomaintain Now Iwouldlike to ask youafewquestions about yoursupportfor this plan maintenance duetorecreationaluses. which includes monitoringandresearch;habitat restoration; lawenforcement;and ited theIndianRiverLagoon inthefuture. forever into the future. You would pay thistax regardless of whetheror notyouvis- maintains the qualityoftheIndianRiverLagooninitscurrent condition Q87. Wouldyoubewillingtopayaone-timetax the quality of the IndianRiverLagoon initsexistingcondition thequalityof lue toMaintainthe USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES theenvironmentalqualityatexistinglevels Indian RiverLagoon of$______thatwouldbeputinto a HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN . PAGE 3-45 PAGE 3-45 that

the quality oftheIndianRiverLagoon. Table 3.32 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Total Number of Respondents 997 Who SaidYes Respondents Percent of HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

.” PAGE 3-46 PAGE 3-46 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final gender andtheirfamiliarity withthe Lagoon. whether theyliveontheLagoon,their age,number months, theirannualhousehold income beforetaxes,their education, resident county, respondent characteristics include whetherthey recreated on theLagoon inthe past12 and othercharacteristicsoftherespondents.These ofthebidamount yes isafunction data, alogit regression equation wasestimated where the probability that aperson says this sible toobtain responses. To evaluate thesurvey anaverage non-usevaluefrom The plotshown inFigure 3-3isdownward slopingasonewould expect.Thus,it is pos- thanthat reportedinthisstudy.actual averageusevaluemaybehigher respondents wereusedtoestimatetheaverageusevalueLagoon, improvethe ingness to pay toimprovetheLagoon.Because thenoresponses of theseprotesting responses are calledprotest votes.They donotnecessarilyreflecttherespondent’s will- percent) orthe qualityof theLagoon doesnot need tobemaintained (2 percent). These enough information tomakeadecision(28percent), theyareopposed to newtaxes(29 theLagoon. Therestofthe“no”respondentssaidvalue tomaintain thatthereisnot the Lagoon (19 percent). Thenoresponsesfrom theserespondentsmeasuretheir use qualityof the environmental isnotinterestedinimproving (15 percent)ortherespondent goon, 34percent said no becausethe bidamountismorethan theplanisworthtothem La- the toimprove money of amount topayany were notwilling who Of therespondents cent ofrespondents wouldbewillingof$300. topayaone-timetax theLagooninitsexistingcondition. tomaintain About25per- taxof$15 pay aone-time of the997residentrespondents As showninTable3.32,53percent wouldbewillingto 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES of years theylivedinthearea, ofyears their HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-47 PAGE 3-47 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final The calculation isprovided inTable 3.33. average non-usevalueintermsofaone-timetaxwasfoundtobe$101perrespondent. Using thisinformation andthefrequency distributionofyeses provided inTable3.32,the the Lagoon. not usetheLagoon.Non-usevalueincreasesasresidentswith becomemorefamiliar decreases. Lagoon residentusers have ahighernon-use value thanresidentswho do probability of answering yes. AstheBidAmountincreases the probability ofsayingyes miliarity withtheLagoon werestatistically significant in terms oftheir impact on the Of thesevariables, the Bid amount,whetherthey recreated onthe Lagoon, andtheir fa- 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN culation isprovided inTable 3.34. the $101perresidentbynumberofresidents olderthan 18 ineachcounty.Thiscal- The totalnonuse valueto allresidents of theIRL counties was estimated bymultiplying Total One-Time Amount Tax Bid 302% 5 $75.3 $14.5 $8.7 25% 7% 9% $300 25% $200 32% $100 41% 5 1 0 $0.0 $2.2 $0.7 0% 7% $50 41% 5% $30 48% $15 53% To Maintain the IndianRiver LagooninitsCurrent Condition (1) 0 4% $40.0 47% $0

Respondents Percent of Who Said Average Non-Use Value Per Resident Yes (2) In TermsofaOne-TimeTax Table 3.33 %of Residents For Maximum Amount USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES TheyPay Would Which BidIs (3) Calculation of (4) = (1) x(3) Average Bid Amount $101.3 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-48 PAGE 3-48 Total One-Time Tax Value toMaintain IRLin 2007 Total Annual Resident Non-Use IRL per resident Maximum one-timetaxtomaintain older Resident Population18Years and Item Total One-Time Tax Value toMaintain IRLin2007 Total Annual Resident Non-Use IRL per resident Maximum one-timetaxtomaintain older Resident Population18Years and Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN dents wereaskedthese questions. goon. Thissituationisas followsand isfrom one-time taxthatwould be paidregardless ofwhether therespondent ever usesthe La- intermsofa totheenvironmentalqualityofIndianue improvements RiverLagoon The surveyinstrumentsetupasituation wherethe surveyrespondentwas asked to val- 3.9 Resident Non-Use its existing condition toresidents is $2.5 millionin 2007($126millionmultiplied by0.02). percent. The netis2.0 percent per year. Thus,theannualnonuse valueoftheLagoon in whichis2.4 andBudget OfficeofManagement U.S. WhiteHouse as providedbythe which Is4.4 percentper yearasofApril,2008 minus theforecasted2008 inflation rate bonds current timevalueofmoneyistheyieldon30-yearU.S.Government of the interestrates.Thebestavailableestimate inflation whichareincluded inmarket rate This value ofmoney. sents thetime was multipliedbyannual value,theone-timetax anappropriatediscount ratethatrepre- all fiveIRLcounties,this nonusevalue is$126 million. Toconvertthisone-time taxtoan place onmaintainingtheFor Lagooninitsexistingconditiontermstax. ofaone-time (4)of thistableRows number provideanestimate ofthe nonuse valuesthat residents Annual Resident Non-Use ValuetoMaintain the Environmental Quality of theIndian River Lagoon, 2007 Value toImprovetheIndianRiverLagoon (3) = (4) x 0.02 (3) = (4) x 0.02 (4) = (1) x (2) (4) = (1) x (2) Row No. Row No. Row (2) (1) (2) (1) Table 3.34 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES should therefore exclude risk, uncertainty, and should thereforeexcluderisk,uncertainty,and thesurveyinstrument.Allresidentrespon- $40,422,651 $20,051,322 St. Lucie $808,453 $401,026 $101.30 197,940 $101.30 399,039 Volusia $43,215,289 $11,560,863 $864,306 $231,217 Brevard $101.30 114,125 $101.30 426,607 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $126,006,564 Indian River $10,756,439 $2,520,131 1,243,895 $215,129 $101.30 $101.30 106,184 Total PAGE 3-49 PAGE 3-49 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ble 3.35and Figure3-4. The frequency ofresponses astheone-time taxbidamount increases is provided in Ta- dent usedthe Lagoonfor recreation. tion’s non-use valuein terms ofa one-time taxpaidregardless ofwhether therespon- purpose of this question wasto collect the data neededto estimate the resident popula- $50,$75,$150,$300and$400.The surveys:$20, numberof was insertedonanequal The following values,or bidamounts, wereinsertedintothe blankabove. Eachvalue NO Q90. Whichofthefollowing statementsbest describes yourreasonfor answering Q90) 2NO(CONTINUETO to Q91) 1 YES(GO goon inthefuture. You wouldpaythistaxregardlessof whetherornotyouvisitedtheIndianRiverLa- . I’mnotinterestedinimproving B. Thatamountismorethanthisplan is worth. A. “Q89. NowIamgoingto describe a differentplan . ThequalityoftheIndian RiverLagoon doesnot need tobeimproved E. taxes. I’mopposedtoanynew D. Thereisnot enough information tomakeadecision. C. proves goon system; restore and reconnectall goon system;restoreand This plan wouldremoveharmfulmucksediments fromthe bottomofthe entireLa- plan andforget aboutthe planandtaxes wejustdiscussed. a trust fund to improve a trustfund Q89A. Would you be willing to pay a one-timetax willing topaya yoube Q89A. Would Now I would liketoaskabout yoursupportforthisplan Now Iwould youafewquestions throughout the Lagoonsystem. increased water clarity wildlife, suchasfish,shellfish,birds,and andmammals The effectofthisplanwouldbeasignificantincrease diversityof inthe amountand measures wouldalsobe conducted. and stormwaterflowsto protectthe Lagoon. Maintenance ofpastenvironmental mented insteadof ment andecosystemqualitiesofthe IndianRiverLagoon. This planwould beimple- . the qualityofIndianRiverLagoonabove thepreviousplanIjustdescribed the quality of the Indian River Lagoon forever into thefuture. foreverinto River Lagoon theIndian qualityof the thequalityofIndianRiverLagoon. USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES wetlands;andmanageadditional freshwater of $______thatwouldbeputinto of$______thatwill improve itscurrent condition. to you. Please consideronlythis to you. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN the water,sedi- the .” thatim- PAGE 3-50 PAGE 3-50 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN be higherthan thatreported inthis study. mate theaverageusevalue to improve theLagoon, theactual averageusevalue may esti- Lagoon. Becausethenoresponsesoftheseprotesting respondentswereusedto do notnecessarilyvotes. Theyreflect therespondent’s willingness the topay toimprove goon does not needto bemaintained(2percent).These responses are called protest (29percent)orthequalityofLa- sion (28percent),theyareopposedtonewtaxes The restof the norespondents said that there is not enoughinformationtomakeadeci- value tomaintaintheLagoon. the Lagoon (14 percent). Thenoresponsesfrom theserespondentsmeasuretheir use qualityof the environmental isnotinterestedinimproving (15 percent)ortherespondent goon, 29percent said no becausethe bidamountismorethan theplanisworthtothem La- the toimprove money of amount topayany were notwilling who Of therespondents percent ofrespondents would bewillingtopaya one-timetaxof$400. About27 qualityoftheLagoon. theenvironmental toimprove of$20 tax pay aone-time of the985residentrespondents As showninTable3.35,50percent wouldbewillingto One-Time Frequency YesResponses of tothe One-Time Tax BidAmounts Amount Tax Bid Total 404 14 27% 164 33% $400 44 163 37% $300 53 161 $150 60 7 2 6 38% 165 $75 62 46% 167 $50 77 50% 165 $20 83 To Improve theEnvironmental Quality ofLagoon Who SaidYesto the Bid Amount Respondents Number of

Table 3.35 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES Total Number Respondents 985 of Who SaidYes Respondents Percent of

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-51 PAGE 3-51 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN The calculation isprovided inTable 3.36. average non-usevalueintermsofaone-timetax wasfoundtobe$137perrespondent. Using thisinformation andthefrequency distributionofyeses provided inTable3.35,the increases as residents become morefamiliarwiththeLagoon. idents whodonotusetheLagoon.Non-usevalue decreaseswithage.Non-usevalue res- Lagoonresidentusersnon-use valuethan non-use valuethanmales. haveahigher Bid Amountincreasesthe probability ofsa tistically significant in terms oftheir impactonthe probability ofansweringyes.Asthe dent age,respondent gender, andthe respondent’s familiarity withtheLagoon were sta- canal leading totheLagoon,whetherrespondentrecreatedonrespon- Lagoonora respondentlivedonthe the whetherthe Of thesevariables, Bidamount, gender andtheirfamiliarity withtheLagoon. whether theyliveontheLagoon,their age,number months, theirannualhousehold income beforetaxes,their education, resident county, respondent characteristics include whetherthey recreated on theLagoon inthe past12 and othercharacteristicsoftherespondents.These ofthebidamount yes isafunction data, alogit regression equation wasestimated where theprobabilitythat aperson says sible to obtain anaverage non-usevaluefrom The plotshown inFigure 3-4isdownward slopingasonewould expect.Thus,it is pos- USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES ying yesdecreases.Femaleshaveahigher the survey responses. To evaluate the thesurveyresponses.Toevaluate the of years theylivedinthearea, ofyears their HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-52 PAGE 3-52 Total OneTime Tax Value toImproveIRL in2007 Total Annual Resident Non-Use per resident Maximum one-time taxtoimproveIRL Resident Population18Years and older Item Total OneTime Tax Value toImproveIRL in2007 Total Annual Resident Non-Use per resident Maximum one-time taxtoimproveIRL Resident Population18Years and older Item

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN culation isprovided inTable3.37. the $137perresidentbynumberofresidentsolderthan 18 ineachcounty.Thiscal- The totalnonuse valueto allresidents of theIRL counties was estimated bymultiplying Annual Resident Non Use ValuetoImproveEnvironmental the Quality One-Time Amount Tax Bid Total 303% 6% 5% $300 33% $150 37% 402% 7 $107.3 27% $400 27% 7 8 03% $0.2 0.31% 9% 4% $75 38% $50 46% $20 50% (1) 0 5% $0.0 50% $0 To Improve theEnvironmental Quality OftheIndian River Lagoon Average Non-Use Value Per Resident InTermsofaOne-TimeTax Respondents Percent of Who Said of theIndian River Lagoon, 2007 Yes (2)

(3) = (4) x 0.02 (3) = (4) x 0.02 (4) = (1) x (2) (4) = (1) x (2) Row No. Row No. Row Table 3.37 (2) (1) (2) (1) Which BidIsMaximum Amount They Would %of ResidentsFor Table 3.36 USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES 100% $136.8 Pay (3) $27,078,192 $54,588,535 $1,091,771 $541,564 St. Lucie $136.80 197,940 $136.80 399,039 Volusia Average BidAmount $15,612,300 $58,359,838 $1,167,197 $312,246 Brevard $136.80 114,125 $136.80 426,607 Martin Calculation of (4) = (1) x(3) $17.1 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $7.1 $4.3 $0.8 $170,164,836 Indian River $14,525,971 $3,403,297 1,243,895 $290,519 $136.80 $136.80 106,184 Total PAGE 3-53 PAGE 3-53 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final its existing condition toresidents is $3.4 millionin 2007($170millionmultiplied by0.02). percent. The netis2.0 percent per year. Thus,theannualnonuse valueoftheLagoon in whichis2.4 andBudget OfficeofManagement U.S. WhiteHouse as providedbythe which Is4.4 percentper yearasofApril,2008 minus the forecasted 2008 inflation rate the current time valueofmoneyisthe currentyieldon30-year U.S.Governmentbonds estimateof inmarketinterestrates.Thebestavailable and inflation whichareincluded risk, uncertainty, Thisrateshouldthereforeexclude represents thevalue ofmoney. time discountratethat appropriate multiplied byan one-time taxwas value,the to anannual For allfiveIRL counties,thisnonuse valueis$170 million. To convertthisone-time tax a one-timetax. qualityoftheLagooninterms environmental place onimprovingthe (4)of thistableRows number provideanestimate ofthe nonuse valuesthat residents 3.0 ECONOMICCONTRIBUTION,USEANDNON- INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN USE VALUES TO RESIDENTS AUGUST 2008 AUGUST TORESIDENTSUSE VALUES HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 3-54 PAGE 3-54 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN The Florida Inland Navigation District’s “Economic 1 the LagoonandnearLagoon. ofsingle familyresidentialpropertieslocatedvalue on tothemarket dian RiverLagoon Hedonic priceanalysis was employedtostatisticallyestimate thecontributionof In- 4.1 Method Used Indian RiverLagoon. to live onornear theLagoon. Thisvalueis a component ofthe totaleconomic valueofthe measured bythepublic’s willingness topayan additional amount ofmoneyinorderto reational opportunities provided bylivingin the market value ofthispropertyreflects the public’s value of theamenityandrec- A significant amountofresidentialproperty islocated ontheIndianRiverLagoon.Partof Volusia, Brevard, andMartin. IndianRiver,St.Lucie TheIndianRiverLagoonislocated intheFloridacountiesof the St.LucieRiverEstuary. Smyrna Beach,theSt. Sebastian River dividingBrevardandIndianRiver counties, and includes the BananaRivereastof Merritt Island, theMosquito Lagoon southof New of theAtlanticOceanfor156milestoJupiterInletinCityJupiter.TheLagoonalso Ponce Inletandextendssouthalongthecoastwest Beachat just northofNewSmyrna Lagoonbegins IndianRiver Lagoonsystem.The Lagoon tothoselivingonornearthe This Section resultsof IndianRiver presentsthemethodsand estimatingthevalueof ated withpropertydirectlyonacanalleadingto the Lagoonwasestimated. theLagoon. Forthreeofthecounties,aperacrevalueassoci- three houses awayfrom Lagoon andanotherperacrevalueforeachcounty wasestimated forpropertiesone to analysis, one peracrevalue foreachcountywasestimated for properties directly onthe by theacreage ofland on andnear theIndian River Lagoon.Forthe purposes of this verted totheadditional per acremarketvalueassociated withtheLagoonandmultiplied sulted priorto beginning this analysis. G.E.C.,by Brevard, IndianRiver, prepared Inc.,St. LucieMartin counties”, February and 2003 was con- the IndianRiverLagoon Value ofLivingOnorNear Section 4.0 Estimate This Value

1 Thiscontribution orincreasedmarketvaluewascon- close theLagoon. proximityto Thisvalue is Analysis ofthe District’s Waterways for Volusia, HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-1 PAGE 4-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final dian RiverLagoon. samples that representthe singlefamily residentialproperties locatedon ornearthe In- and thespatial distribution ofhouses throughout thecounty. Theintent wastochoose inthe designsandcounty basedonthevariation sizesof properties within thecounty The totalsamplesizeandrelativenumberofproperties bylocationvariesfromcountyto from theLagoon. to threehouses awayfromtheLagoonand1,294 are located atleastfour houses away one tial properties weresampledofwhich 369aredirectlyontheLagoon,1,399from 3,062 single County,familyresiden- InMartin least fourhouses awayfromtheLagoon. and223arelocated tothreehousesawayfromtheLagoon at Lagoon, 123arefromone ty, 569singlefamilyresidentialproperties we goon and663arelocated atleastfour Lagoon.InSt.LucieCoun- houses the away from 272 aredirectly onthe Lagoon, 1,451 arefromonetothree housesaway theLa- from 2,386 single familyresidentialpropertiesIn IndianRiverCounty, weresampledofwhich located atleast fourhouses awayfromtheLagoon. on theLagoon, 1,943are fromonetothreehousesawaytheLagoonand1,089 are singlefamily residential propertiesCounty, 3,680 weresampledofwhich648aredirectly the Lagoon and 531are locatedat leastfourhouses awayfromtheLagoon. InBrevard tothreehousesawayfrom 413arefromone of which146aredirectlyontheLagoon, properties weresampled singlefamilyresidential in Table4.1.InVolusiaCounty,1,090 The numbersofsinglefamily propertiesbylocationchosenfor theanalysisareprovided on propertyvalue. for location.abilitytostatistically isolatetheimpactoflocationThis methodimprovesthe ture. Thegoal wastofind properties thatwerealikein as manywayspossible except on andneartheLagoonintermsoflotsize,building square footageandageofstruc- ties located Lagoonthataway fromthe appeared tobe similar tothe sampled properties databases propertywereusedtoidentifysinglefamilyresidentialproper-maps andthe population of allproperties onand neartheLagoonwithineachcounty. Thenthese tify specific single familyresidential properties onLagoonthatrepresentthe andnear the andthepropertyappraisers’officeswereinternet (MSNandGoogleEarth) usedtoiden- ty’s propertyappraiser’sofficeand represent collected from databaseofeachcoun- were theproperty RiverLagoon from theIndian These data for samples of single-family residentialproperties located on, nearandaway which thehouse ismaintained,and location. includelotfamily parcels size,building squarefootage,qualitydegreeto ofconstruction, market valueofthe parcel. Factors knownto significantly influencethe valueof single tofactorsthatsignificantlyaffectthe ofland withasinglefamilyhouse value ofaparcel thatrelatesthemarketHedonic priceanalysisisthestatisticalestimationofanequation 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON re sampledofwhich223are directlyonthe the year2007.First,aerial mapsfromthe HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-2 PAGE 4-2 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final following: erties located onabarrier island,the property’slocationwascharacterizedasoneof the which islocated County betweenthemainlandandbarrierisland.For sampledprop- inBrevard for MerrittIsland a barrierislandexcept chosen eastareon oftheLagoon tothreehousesawayfromtheLagoon).Properties goon, orneartheLagoon(fromone directlyontheLa- sen westoftheLagoonareeitherinland(awayfromLagoon), Properties on theeastand thewest side ofthe Lagoon weresampled. Properties cho- 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ues. val- on property Atlantic Oceanwhichisexpectedtohaveasignificantpositiveimpact This isbecause allpropertiesonabarrierislandabout fiveshortblocks arewithin of the ● ● ●

On theIndianRiverLagoonandnear theAtlanticOcean; Near theIndianRiverLagoonandnear theAtlanticOcean;or Near theIndianRiverLagoonandon theAtlantic Ocean. THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-3 PAGE 4-3 NA means Not Available. Available. Not NA means (c) (b) (a) Relationship toAtlanticOceanora Canal Leading toLagoon Total NumberofPropertiesinSample Relationship toIndianRiver Lagoon (IRL) Location Relationship toAtlanticOceanora Canal Leading toLagoon Total NumberofPropertiesinSample Relationship toIndianRiver Lagoon (IRL) Location Included in On Indian River Lagoon (IRL). Some properties do have canals that lead a short distance to the La- distanceto thatleadashort canals do have (IRL).Someproperties RiverLagoon OnIndian in Included A property identified as being on the IRL, near theIRL or ontheIRL,near asbeing Apropertyidentified isloca theproperty means (IRL) Lagoon OnIndianRiver On Canal Leading toIRL Near Ocean On Ocean Not OnorNearIRL Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon On Canal Leading toIRL Near Ocean On Ocean Not OnorNearIRL Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 ontheLagoon. directly were andwhich tothe Lagoon leading teamit totheproject provided thatwas database praiser's ap- property theSt.LucieCounty within because OnIRLcategory inthe areincluded properties These goon. away. yards upto2000 Lagoon that means Lagoon River totheIndian leading Ocean. OnCanal Final River Indian onornearthe allproperties Ocean. Likewise, all on Ocean.Allproperties short blocksfrom theAtlantic theh isrightoutside thebeach where that means OnOcean designations: location these additional goon. me Lagoon River the Indian Not onornear Lagoo theIndianRiver this study.Near 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Summary ofResidential Single FamilyProperty Data Used in Analysis ouse's back door. Near Ocean means that Oceanmeans Near back door. ouse's n means that the property isoneto thattheproperty n means (a) ans that the property is located at islocated thattheproperty ans

THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON Volusia Table 4.1 100% 1,090 14% 49% 38% 13% 150 531 413 146 0% 2% 23 0 not on or near the IRL may also have one or more of or haveone theIRLmayalso onornear not in isasdefined Lagoon The Lagoon. directlyonthe ted of the barrier islands areeit of thebarrierislands was difficult to identify which properties were on a canal onacanal were properties which difficulttoidentify was Number of Properties (Observations) Lagoon on the barrier islands ar barrier islands onthe Lagoon Percent ofAllPropertiesinSample Brevard the property is located directly on the Atlantic Ocean ontheAtlantic directly islocated theproperty (b) 100% 3,680 1,089 1,943

the property isdirectlyon the property 14% 13% 30% 53% 18% 525 487 121 648 3% Indian River three houses away from the Lagoon. fromtheLagoon. away three houses County least four houses away fromtheLa- away least fourhouses the property is located one tofive islocated the property 100% 2,386 1,451 23% 28% 28% 61% 11% 663 547 665 272 4% 96 her on or near the Atlantic the on ornear her HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN e also near theAtlantic near e also a canal that leadstothe that a canal St. Lucie 100% 37% 39% 22% 39% 208 1% NA 569 223 123 223 (c) 4 PAGE 4-4 PAGE 4-4 Martin 100% 3,062 1,294 1,399 13% 42% 46% 12% 101 391 369 3% 3% 93 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final other four counties are best represented by market value. MartinCountyisuniqueother fourcountiesare bestrepresented bymarketvalue. valueperacrewhilethe market Martin Countyis best representedby It isnotknownwhy er andVolusiacounties. performed well.Thisfunctional form wassuccessfullyestimated forBrevard,IndianRiv- ty verywellbutaform where justthe marketvalueisused asthe dependent variable was thefirstThisform didnotexplainmarket valuesinSt.LucieCoun- countymodeled. ket values. This second functionalform wasinitiallyestimatedforSt.LucieCountywhich tional form best explained theimpact oftheIndian RiverLagoononMartinCounty mar- acre ofproperty.Thisfunc- value per bylotsizeinacresortheproperty value divided property appraiser’soffice. ForMartin County,thedependentvariableisproperty dependent variablein the equation is theproperty’s marketvalueasdetermined bythe One equationwasestimatedforeachofthefivecounties.For fourofthe counties, the . Statistical Results of 4.2 away, itwascodedasbeing directly ontheLagoon. a canal,ifthe propertyisonacanalthathasaccesstothe Lagoonashortdistance nal. BecauseitwasdifficulttoidentifypropertiesinSt.Luciearelocated Countythat on the Lagoonashortdistance away,itiscodedas neartheLagoonandlocated ona ca- For allcountiesexceptSt.Lucie,ifthepropertyislocatedonacanalthathasaccessto 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN goon. Thegeneral formoftheequationisasfollows. attributabletotheproperty’sresidential property proximitytotheIndianRiverLa- value The additivemultiplelinearregressionequationtheincremental wasusedtoestimate ● ● where; Equation 1 ● ● ● ● Y

i with thei estimated fromtheequation a setofjexplanatory X variables, X i β α ε Y =indexrepresentingthe i i = The estimated y-intercept ofthe =Theestimatedy-intercept regressionline j = a random errortermthatdenotesthedifferencebetweenactual random =a ij i =Estimatedequation parameters thatmeasuretherelationship betweenYand

=Valueofthej = Marketvalueofthe += th

residential property ∑ j m = 1 th

the HedonicPriceAnalysis independent predictive)variableassociated (explanatory, X THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON i th ijj residential property (dependentvariable) th residential property + εβα i HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Y i , and PAGE 4-5 PAGE 4-5 Y i as as 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final variables. The MarketValuewasmodeledas a linearadditivefunction ofthefollowing explanatory ing comparedtotheother fourcounties. densely populatedwithresidentialhous- themost Itis well astheIndianRiver. River as alongtheSt.Lucie countiesinthatithasasignificant amountriverfront among thefive 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 4. ImprQual – Appraisers’ ImprQual–qualityrankingofhouseconstruction relativeto“aver- 4. Categorical Variables TotLivingArea–Totalenclosed living areain square feetnot including porches, 3. age-dependent of houseinyears.Thisvariableismeanttocapture Age– Age 2. LotSize–Total lotsize of eachproperty inacres. 1. Continuous Variables 6. IRLProx – Property location relative to the Indian River Lagoon: “OnIRL”=1 if Property locationrelativetotheIndian RiverLagoon: IRLProx– 6. if Ocean”=1 Ocean:“On – PropertylocationrelativeAtlantic OceanProxtothe 5. age” quality: AAV=1 for above average quality age” quality:AAV=1foraboveaverage patios, garages andcar ports. tenance characteristics, and age-dependenttechnology. deterioration,it meansthatthesampledpropertiesaresimilarindegreeofmain- tained. Ifthe parameterestimateassociatedwith ageis statistically insignificant, technology, building deterioration and thedegree towhich the propertyismain- excellent quality identified from thepropertyappraiser’s database. cant numberofproperties connected tothe Lagoon viaacanalwhich could be a signifi- Martin, becausethe fivecounties,Brevard, IndianRiverandtheyhave ofthree otherwise. Thecanalvariable ispresentintheequations goon and0 Lagoon but is located directlyona canal that leads ashort distance to the La- Leading toIRL”=1“On Canal ifthe propertyisnotdirectly ontheIndianRiver the propertyislocated within three housesof the Lagoon and 0otherwise and IRL”=1 if the propertyislocateddirectlyonLagoonand 0otherwise;“Near property iswithin5short blocksofthe Atlantic Ocean and0otherwise. the propertyisdirectly on theocean and 0otherwise; and“Near Ocean”=1ifthe affect theresults ofthis study. any way quality informationinitsdatabase.Thesevariablesdonot “summary” estimation becauseitwastheonlycountythatincludedthistypeof cie County and0otherwise.ThesevariableswereusedonlyintheSt.Lu-

THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON and0otherwise; andEXL=1 for HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-6 PAGE 4-6 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 3 Autocorrelation is a condition where model error terms error model where isacondition Autocorrelation 3 was nottestedforautocorrelation. were purelycross-sectional, themodel themodel Because thedatausedtoestimate the expectedsignsand relative magnitudes. ent fromzero. Allof the parameterestimatesare considered rational, inthatthey have greater than 1.96).The Age ofHousevariableistheonlynot statistically differ- (absolutevalueoft-ratio =0.05level ters arestatisticallydifferentfromzeroatthealpha single family properties in theVolusiaCount of 80percentofthevariationin 4.2. Thismodelexplainsapproximately marketvalue inTable Volusia Countyarepresented for estimates Volusia County.parameter The ner. pendent variableswere not foundto affect the model estimatesin anyappreciable man- significance associatedparamet withmodel were specifiedcollinearity, toevaluate whichcanaffectthestabilitylevel ofstatistical rameter estimates(i.e.,α REG procedureofSASstatisticalsoftwarewasusedtogeneratethepa- The PROC 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN estima problem in isacommon Heteroskedasticity 2 about theestimatedparameters. heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errorswereestimatedtopermitvalidinferences one ormoreindependent variables(i.e.,wereheteroskedastic). White’s (1980)robust variance withrespect notappearstrictlytohaveuniform to mally distributed,theydid Meanwhile, visualinspection ofthe residualssuggestedthat although they werenor- Evaluation ofCook’sD statisticsfor theinput data didnot identifyany clearoutliers. the results were notundulyinfluencedbyoutlyingobservations. oftheclassiclinearregressionmodel,aswelltoensurethat with therequirements diagnostic procedures squares (OLS).Several summarized inTable 4.1. Statisticalmodeling wasperformed usingordinaryleast variables (X)associatedexplanatory withthesampleofresidentialproperty recordsas 1980, pages 817-837. trix Estimator anda Direct Test for Heteroskedas see Halbert estimator White error standard robust the SA within application itsrelative simplicity in for and was employed because of the lack ofinformation on procedure tests. White’s hypothesis standard invalidates which biased, be errors will standard sponding their corre- conditions, these OLS parameterdata. Although under sectional unbiased remain estimates Autocorrelation is commonly a problem with models that employ time-series data. employ data. models aproblem that time-series with iscommonly Autocorrelation dasticity, thepresence ofautocorrel andβ

THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON ated errors invalidates statistical inferences about model parameters. about inferences statistical errorsinvalidates ated ) of Equation 1foreachcounty) ofusinginformationonthe 2

3 Finally, several combinations of the model variables Finally,severalcombinationsofthemodelvariables ticity”, Econometrica, Volume 48, Number 4,May, ting regression models, especially from purely cross- ers. Underlying correlations ers. Underlyingamongtheinde- y sample. Seven oftheeight model parame- y sample.Seven the preciseunderlying fo , “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Ma- Covariance , “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent S. Foratechnicaldiscu are correlated with one another. Like heteroske- Like another. with one are correlated wereemployedtoensureconsistency rm of heteroskedasticity ssion on the properties of theproperties ssion on HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-7 PAGE 4-7 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN $429,000 averagemarketvalueofthe413sampled propertieslocatednear theLagoon. of propertiesthatarenotlocated onorneartheLagoon.Thisis13percentof within three houses ofthe Lagoon,is$56,000higher, onaverage,thanthe marketvalue of theproperty. Themarketvalueof properties located near the IndianRiverLagoon,or value market representsabout56 percentofthe value oftheLagoon $1,004,000. Sothe in ket valueofthe146sampledpropertieslocated directlyon theIndianRiverLagoon mar- average The associated with“OnIRL”. the Lagoon.Thisisparameterestimate valueofpropertiesthat arenotlocatedonornear themarket higher, onaverage,than ket valueof properties located directly ontheIndian RiverLagoonis about $558,000 timated valuesassociated withliving onornear theLagoon. InVolusia County, themar- estimatesassociatedLagoonvariablesarethees- River The parameter withtheIndian Near IRL(XIRL) * square feet* Enclosed living area On IRL* Near Ocean * On Ocean* (a) of FitMeasures Equation Goodness 21 Age ofHouse inYears Lot SizeinAcres* Intercept Variable Average Value ofDependent Variable(MarketValue ofProperty= Number ofObservations (Properties) = Market Value ofSingleFamilyDependent Property Residential in 2007is Variable The intercept includes properties that are not thatarenot properties includes intercept The the market value that was used in this regression. usedinthisregression. thatwas the marketvalue r the thisanalysis category.For the JustValue Offi Appraiser's level. TheVolusiaCountyProperty zero 5% = differentfrom at thealpha isstatistically estimate thattheparameter Ocean. A*means Statistical Resultsof Hedonic Analysis ofPropertyValues ToEstimate (a) * Value ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon Average Value of Sample 1,930 0.38 0.14 0.13 0.36 .2 ,0,7 4,8 9.60 40,487 1,205,176 0.02 THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON

Volusia County Table 4.2 Adjusted R2= on or near the Indian River Lagoon or the Atlantic ortheAtlantic Lagoon IndianRiver on ornearthe Parameter eported Just Value was divided by 0.85 toarriveat by0.85 divided Valuewas Just eported Estimate 1904 240 -3.66 22,410 -129,054 3,0 1,8 10.55 17,583 231,200 5,4 1,7 18.86 18,678 558,443 6,3 1,2 5.02 16,022 166,435 575 312 6.95 13,102 55,735 -1,037 F-Statistic 185 ce reports 85 percent of ce reports85percent the market valueunder Standard Error Asymptotic 466 10 631.24 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 0.80 Asymptotic t Value $418,724 10.35 < 0.0001 -1.81 Pr > F= Pr > PAGE 4-8 PAGE 4-8 1,090 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final the 525sampledpropertieslocatedon acanal. near theLagoon. Thisis42percent ofthe $355,000 averagemarket value peracre of thanthemarketvalueofpropertiesthatarelocated about $149,000higher,onaverage, The marketvalueofpropertieslocated onacanal leading to theIndian River Lagoonis age marketvalueofthe1,943sampledproperties locatednear theLagoon. Lagoon.Thisissixpercentofthe$292,000aver- ties thatarenotlocatedonornearthe houses ofthe Lagoon,is$18,000 higher, onaverage, thanthemarketvalueofproper- The marketvalueofpropertieslocated nearthe IndianRiverLagoon,orwithinthree of theproperty. value of theLagoonrepresentsabout43percentmarket $690,000. Sothevalue in 468sampledpropertieslocated directly ontheIndianRiverLagoon value ofthe market average Lagoon. Thisistheparameterestimateassociatedwith“OnIRL”.The er, onaverage,thanthe marketvalueofproperties thatare notlocated onornear the ofpropertieslocateddirectly ontheIndianRiverLagoonis$295,000high- market value timated valuesassociated withliving onornear theLagoon. InBrevardCounty, estimatesassociatedLagoonvariablesarethees- River The parameter withtheIndian have theexpectedsigns andrelative magnitudes. greater than1.96).Alloftheparameterestimatesareconsideredrational,inthatthey at thealpha=0.05level(absoluteare statisticallydifferentfromzerovalueoft-ratio single familypropertiesintheBrevardCount of 84percentofthevariationin 4.3. Thismodelexplainsapproximately marketvalue Brevard County. $18,500 (100squarefeetproperty byx$185). 100 squarefootincreaseinenclosedlivingareawill themarketvalueof estimateassociated with enclosedlivingareatellsusthat$129,054). Theparameter a ($166,435- peracre near)is$37,400 (notonor theLagoon ple andlocatedawayfrom value ofland (withoutthe residential structure)for thoseproperties included inthe sam- estimateassociated market The parameter withlotsizeaverage inacrestellusthatthe 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN The parameter estimates for Brevard County are presented in Table arepresentedinTable estimatesforBrevardCounty Theparameter THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON y sample.Alloftheninemodelparameters HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-9 PAGE 4-9 (a) Fit Measures Equation Goodness of On Canal Leading toIRL* Near Ocean * On Ocean* Near IRL(XIRL) * On IRL* square feet* Enclosed living area Age ofHouse inYears* * inAcres Lot Size * Intercept Variable Average Value ofDependent Variable(MarketValue ofProperty) = Number ofObservations (Properties) = Market Value ofSingleFamilyDependent Property Residential in 2007is Variable The intercept includes properties that are not on thatarenot properties includes intercept The 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final A * means that the parameter estimateisstatistica theparameter that A *means 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN er, onaverage,thanthe marketvalue ofproperties thatare notlocated onornear the ofpropertieslocateddirectly onthe IndianRiverLagoonis$503,000high- market value associated timated values the withlivingonorneartheLagoon. InIndianRiverCounty, estimatesassociatedLagoonvariables arethees- River The parameter withtheIndian cally significant variableanyway. which isnot the expected sign. However,itst-ratio isverylow,0.03,so itisnota statisti- magnitudes. Theparameterestimateassociated withhouse ageisgreater than zero expected signsandrelative estimates areconsidered the have rational,inthatthey and beingnear theLagoon arenot statistically different from zero.Alloftheparameter value oft-ratio greaterthan 1.96).The parameters associated withthe age ofthe house level(absolute alpha=0.05 statistically differentfromzeroatthe are model parameters nine Seven ofthe County sample. intheIndianRiver value ofsinglefamilyproperties inthemarket percentofthevariation Table 4.4.Thismodelexplainsapproximately83 Indian RiverCounty. To Estimate Value ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon Statistical Resultsof Hedonic Analysis ofPropertyValues Average Value of Sample The parameter estimates for Indian River County are presentedin estimatesforIndianRiverCounty parameter The 1,952 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.53 0.18 0.40 36

THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON Brevard County Table 4.3 or near the Indian River Lagoon or the Atlantic Ocean. Ocean. ortheAtlantic Lagoon IndianRiver or nearthe Adjusted R2= lly different from zero at the alpha = 5% level. 5% zero = the alpha from at lly different F-Statistic = Parameter Estimate 294,497 149,380 155,338 724,128 -75,723 39,959 18,229 -1,039 152 Standard Error Asymptotic 10,248 15,074 23,569 7,504 2,456 4,630 9,179 3,767 0.84 179 8 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Asymptotic t < 0.0001 Pr >F= Value 28.74 18.52 32.26 16.92 30.72 -5.82 -5.02 5.33 4.84 $326,851

PAGE 4-10 PAGE 4-10 3,680 (a) On Canal Leading toIRL* Near Ocean * On Ocean* Near IRL(XIRL) On IRL* Enclosed living area sq. feet * Age ofHouse inYears * inAcres Lot Size * Intercept Variable Sample AverageValueof Dependent Variable (Market ValueofProperty) = Number ofObservations (Properties) = Market Value ofSingle FamilyDependent Property Residential in 2007is Variable Measures Equation Goodness ofFit

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 on thatarenot properties includes intercept The Final A * means that the parameter estimateisstatistica theparameter that A *means the 547sampledpropertieslocatedon acanal. near theLagoon. Thisis18percent ofthe $910,000 averagemarketvalueperacre of thanthemarketvalueofpropertiesthatarelocated about $164,000higher,onaverage, The marketvalueofpropertieslocated onacanal leading to theIndian River Lagoonis goon. $770,000 average marketvalueof the1,451 sampled propertieslocated nearthe La- properties that arenotlocatedon orneartheLagoon.Thisistwo percentofthe houses of the Lagoon, is about $18,000 higher, onaverage,thanthe marketvalueof The marketvalueofpropertieslocated nearthe IndianRiverLagoon,orwithin three of theproperty. value market representsabout32percentofthe value oftheLagoon $1,600,000. Sothe in 272sampledpropertieslocated directly ontheIndianRiverLagoon value ofthe market average Lagoon. Thisistheparameterestimateassociatedwith“OnIRL”.The 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Statistical Resultsof Hedonic Analysis ofPropertyValues ToEstimate Value ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon Average Value of Sample 2,243 0.61 0.11 0.43 0.23 0.28 0.04 21

THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON Indian RiverCounty Table 4.4 or near the Indian River Lagoon or the Atlantic Ocean. Ocean. ortheAtlantic Lagoon IndianRiver or nearthe lly different from zero at the alpha = 5% level. 5% zero = the alpha from at lly different Adjusted R2= Parameter 1,233,479 F-Statistic Estimate -553,699 163,595 503,083 415,638 65,511 17,616 398 20 Standard Error Asymptotic 30,132 14,293 48,101 77,642 43,102 6,855 8,057 1,502 0.83 661 25 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Asymptotic t < 0.0001 Pr >F= -12.85 Value 14.01 10.46 15.75 6.09 2.17 1.23 0.03 5.35 $689,881 PAGE 4-11 PAGE 4-11

2,386

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final $278,000 averagemarketvalueofthe123sampledpropertieslocatednear theLagoon. that value ofproperties arenotlocatedonorneartheLagoon.Thisis18 percentofthe market thanthe within threehousesoftheLagoon,isabout$49,000higher,onaverage, of theproperty. Themarketvalueof properties located near the IndianRiverLagoon,or value of theLagoonrepresentsabout46percentmarket $488,000. Sothevalue in 223sampledpropertieslocated directly ontheIndianRiverLagoon value ofthe market average Lagoon. Thisistheparameterestimateassociatedwith“OnIRL”.The er, onaverage,thanthe marketvalueofproperties thatare notlocated onornear the ofpropertieslocateddirectly ontheIndianRiverLagoonis $224,000high- market value the associatedCounty, timated values withlivingonorneartheLagoon.InSt.Lucie estimatesassociatedLagoonvariablesarethees- River The parameter withtheIndian magnitudes. expected signsandrelative estimates areconsideredthe have rational,inthatthey of theparameter statistically differentfromzero.All arenot struction quality variables greater than 1.96).The parameters associated with theage ofthehouse andthe con- (absolutevalueoft-ratio =0.05level ters arestatisticallydifferentfromzeroatthealpha single family properties in theSt.Lucie Countysample.Sevenoftheten modelparame- of 85percentofthevariationin 4.5. Thismodelexplainsapproximately marketvalue St. LucieCounty. 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN The parameter estimates for St. Lucie County are presented inTable forSt.LucieCountyarepresented parameter estimates The THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-12 PAGE 4-12 (a) Measures Equation Goodness ofFit Near Ocean * On Ocean* Near IRL(XIRL) * On IRL* (EXL) Excellent Construction Quality Quality (AAV) Above Average Construction Enclosed living area sq. feet * Age ofHouse inYears * inAcres Lot Size * Intercept Variable Average Value ofDependent Variable(MarketValue ofProperty) = Number ofObservations (Properties) = Market Value ofSingleFamilyDependent Property Residential in 2007is Variable The intercept includes properties that are not onor thatarenot properties includes intercept The 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final the alpha = 5% level. 5% = the alpha A* quality. construction have average 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN higher, onaverage,than themarketvalueperacreofpropertiesthatare notlocated on is$877,000peracre RiverLagoon theIndian properties locatedket valueof directlyon mar- associatedCounty, the timated values withlivingonornear theLagoon.InMartin estimatesassociatedLagoonvariables arethees- River The parameter withtheIndian signs andthat theyhavetheexpected relativemagnitudes. of the statistically differentfromzero.All locationonacanalisnot withtheproperty parameter associated greater than1.96).The at thealpha=0.05level(absoluteare statisticallydifferentfromzero valueoft-ratio gle familypropertiesinthethe eightmodelparameters MartinCountysample.Sevenof This model explains approximately59 percent of thevariationinmarket valueof sin- Martin County. Statistical Resultsof Hedonic Analysis ofPropertyValues ToEstimate Value ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon TheparameterestimatesforMartinCountyarepresented inTable 4.6. Average Value of Sample means that the parameter estimate is estimate thattheparameter means 0.007 1,914 0.52 0.29 0.37 0.22 0.39 0.22 THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON 23

St. LucieCounty Table 4.5 near the Indian River Lagoon or Lagoon IndianRiver near the parameter estimatesareconsideredrational, in Adjusted R2= Parameter F-Statistic Estimate -105,421 201,191 122,866 633,835 224,082 16,948 49,145 20,940 -302 112 Standard Error Asymptotic statistically different from zerostatistically differentfrom at 22,363 15,699 10,082 53,589 11,427 14,253 9,413 7,770 0.85 289 364 7 the Atlantic Ocean and that and Ocean the Atlantic HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Asymptotic t < 0.0001 Pr >F= Value 15.05 12.19 11.83 19.61 -1.04 -6.72 $322,911 1.80 9.00 6.33 1.47 PAGE 4-13 PAGE 4-13

569 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2(a) Measures Equation Goodness ofFit On Canal Leading toIRL FinalNear Ocean * On Ocean* Near IRL(XIRL) * On IRL* Enclosed living area sq. feet * Age ofHouse inYears* * Intercept Variable Average Value ofDependent Variable(MarketValue ofProperty) = Number ofObservations (Properties) = Variable Dependent Market Value ofSingle Family ResidentialPropert The intercept includes properties that are not on thatarenot properties includes intercept The A * means that the parameter estimateisstatistica theparameter that A *means Lagoon. peracreofthe101sampledpropertieslocatedmarket value onacanalleadingto the ties that are locatednear theLagoon. This is four percent ofthe$3,800,000 average valueperacreofproper- themarket about $145,000peracrehigher,onaverage,than The marketvalueofpropertieslocated onacanal leading to theIndian River Lagoonis the Lagoon. $2,000,000 valueper acreofaverage market the 1,399sampledproperties located near properties that arenot located on ornearthe Lagoon. This is15 percent of the of houses ofthethanmarketvalue Lagoon,isabout$299,000higher,onaverage, The marketvalueofpropertieslocated nearthe IndianRiverLagoon,orwithin three the marketvalueofproperty. River Lagoonin$3,000,000. Sothe value ofthe Lagoon represents about 30 percent of age marketvalueperacreofthe369 sampledpropertieslocateddirectlyontheIndian or nearthe Lagoon. Thisisthe parameter esti 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Statistical Resultsof Hedonic Analysis ofPropertyValues ToEstimate Value ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon Average Value of Sample 2,539 THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.46 0.12 28

Martin County Table 4.6 or near the Indian River Lagoon or the Atlantic Ocean. Ocean. ortheAtlantic Lagoon IndianRiver or nearthe lly different from zero at the alpha = 5% level. 5% zero = the alpha from at lly different y Per Acre (Divided by Lot Size) in2007is y Size) Per Acre(Dividedby Lot Adjusted R2 $1,663,354 $1,843,037 Parameter F-Statistic $145,148 $298,562 $876,951 $868,704 Estimate -$7,969 mate associatedwith“OnIRL”.Theaver- $232 = Standard Error Asymptotic 100,473 102,303 60,857 38,546 62,007 51,662 1,140 0.59 637 15 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Asymptotic t < 0.0001 $1,747,620 Pr >F= Value 14.00 12.42 10.21 11.07 -5.35 0.89 9.15 7.80 PAGE 4-14 PAGE 4-14

3,062 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final proximate depth ofthesinglefamilyresident proximate depth Land onthe Lagoonis defined asall landwithin 500feetof the Lagoon. Thisisthe ap- as residential. mercial properties,thisvaluerepresentstheopportunitycostofnotdevelopingland which islikely thehighest andbest use ofmost of thevacant land in the area.For com- This isbecause represent the valueoflivingonornearLagoon theestimatedvalues homeresidentialland,andcommercialland.ket valueofvacantland,multifamily/mobile of thesepropertiesisconsidered toalsorepresent theLagoon’scontribution tothemar- values cally evaluated,theestimatedcontributionofLagoontoperacremarket Even thoughthemarketvaluesof only singlefamily residentialproperties werestatisti- Force Base. wetlands, the KennedySpaceCenter,CapeCanaveralAirForceStation, orPatrickAir ages include allresidential, vacant,andnon-residentialproperties. Theydonotinclude ble 4.7and were calculatedusing GIS andthepropertyappraiserrecords. These acre- the Lagoon.Theestimatednumbersofacresbycountyandlocationare provided inTa- of propertyasestimated inSection 4.2 andthe number ofacresproperty onand near were estimatedastheproduct ofthe additionalLagoon-generated marketvalueperacre The contributions ofthe IndianRiverLagoonto theproperty valuesinthefivecounties ContributionoftheIndian 4.3 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN the valuein Indian RiverCountyis$1.2 million. The value issimilarfor Brevard, St.Lu- for theother threecounties. TheIRL value peracreinVolusia Countyis$1.6million and values intwoofthecounties differs values asitaffectsproperty from the River Lagoon ofColumn(4),Value Examination IRLperAcre,shows that thevalueofIndian value oftheIRLasproduct valueoftheIRLperacre andtheacres. land (land on ornear the IRL)withineach county. Thesixth columncalculates the total theacresofeachtype of estimate tovalueoftheIRLperacre.Thefifthcolumn provides average lotsizeofthe sample inacresandthe fourthcolumnconvertstheparameter from thestatistical regressions presented inSection4.2.The thirdcolumnpresentsthe on orneartheLagoonintotal.The secondcolumncontains theparameter estimates ues isprovidedinTable 4.8.Thefirst columnindicates the county andthe location either The calculation ofthetotalval- contributionoftheIndianRiverLagoon(IRL)toproperty statistical equations describedinSection 4.2. tions areconsistent withwhichtheproperties thewayin wereselected toestimatethe a canal.Carewastakennottoincludewetlands.Thesedefini- land within500feetof to threehouses awayfromtheLagoonwouldbe located.Land onacanal isdefined as whichpropertiesfromone areawithin Thisisroughlythe within 500feetoftheLagoon. lessthearea theLagoon 0.30 milesof Lagoonisdefinedaslandwithin Land nearthe THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON River Lagoonto ial properties locateddirectlyontheLagoon. Property Values HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-15 PAGE 4-15 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 2006 marketvalueofrealpropertyinthefive-countyarea. of theIndian RiverLagoon.Forcomparison purposes, the $47 billionis22 percentof the available on andnearthe Lagoon.This valueis a componentofthetotal economic value public’s willingness topay inordertoliveonor near theLagoon andthe amountofland This$47billionvaluerepresentsthe Force StationorPatrickAirBase. naveral Air Ca- Center, Cape Space Kennedy land usedbythe It doesnotincludewetlandsorthe Lagoon andrepresentsallofthedevelopablelandsurroundingIndianRiverLagoon. the amenitiesandrecreationalopportunities providedthe bylivingincloseproximityto of$47billionrepresentsthevalue land isdevelopedintoresidences.Thetotalvalue ues associated withthe vacantland. valuewillberealized However,this asthevacant valueisnot currentlyincludedintheon andneartheLagoon.Someofthis propertyval- land vacant willaccruetofutureresidentsastheremaining the valuethat theydevelop This isthevalueofLagoon tocurrent residents wholiveon andnearthe Lagoonand $12.3 billion inSt.Lucie $6.4 billion County andin MartinCounty. County, inIndian River $5.8billion in VolusiaCounty,$20.3billion County, Brevard estimated tobe$47billioninthefive-countyarea.Thisvalueiscomprisedof$2.0 Overall, therecreationand amenityvalueoflivingonornear theIndian RiverLagoonis actual cause ofthedifferences is beyond thescopeofthisstudy. Volusia and IndianRivercountiesversus Brevard,St.LucieandMartincounties. The between the countiesandrelativeaestheticqualityofLagoonsystem,particularly flect thedifferent supply anddemandconditions oftheresidential properties thatexistin cie andMartincounties at $740,000to$878,000peracre.Thedifferencesinvaluere- 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 4 State of

ble 1.

Florida Department of Revenue, “2006 Florida Property Valuations & Tax Data”, June 2007, Ta- &Tax Data”, June 2007, Valuations FloridaProperty “2006 Revenue, of

THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON 4

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-16 PAGE 4-16 feetdirectly infrontofacanal (a) LandOn Canal =Land within 500 4c. Land Near IRL=3a.–3b. 4d. lands, within 500 feetdirectly infront of Lagoon LandOn IRL = Land, otherthanwet 4b. Alllandwithin 0.30milesof IRL 4a. frontofacanal 4. Total LandOn Canal =Land within 500feetdirectly in 3d. Land Near IRL=3a.–3b. Lagoon 500feetdirectly infrontof 3c. LandOn IRL = Land, otherthanwetlands, within 3b. Includes allof the2“tails”at bottomofIsland(other than wetlands) Alllandwithin 0.30milesof westside ofisland. 3a. directly infrontofacanal 3. MerrittIsland Landon Canal =Land within 500feet 2d. Land Near IRL=2a.–2b. 2c. lands, within 500 feetdirectly infront of Lagoon LandOn IRL = Land, otherthanwet 2b. wetlands Alllandonbarrier island, otherthan 2a. directly infrontofacanal 2. BarrierIsland(doesnotincludeMerrittIsland) LandonCanal =Land within 500feet 1d. Land Near IRL=1a.–1b. 1c. lands, within 500 feetdirectly infront of Lagoon LandonIRL = Land,otherthan wet 1b. Allland,otherthanwetlands, within 1a. 1. Mainland Land Area in Acres Area includes all relevant land south of Ponce Inletonly. southofPonce land allrelevant Areaincludes 0.30milesof Lagoon

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Acres ofLand by Location THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON County Volusia 2,491 1,014 3,505 2,386 3,052 Table 4.7 666 105 348 453

(a)

Brevard County 14,194 22,724 21,938 24,991 46,929 15,689 8,530 2,237 1,587 6,363 9,326 163 1,381 7,135 8,516 487 County 13,125 Indian 4,689 1,359 6,048 8,662 4,463 3,973 3,104 7,077 River 176 519 343 St. Lucie HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN County 15,804 14,034 13,216 27,250 11,446 7,489 8,315 6,545 4,901

County Martin PAGE 4-17 PAGE 4-17 2,521 2,781 5,302 2,865 6,263 9,128 3,482 3,826 112 344 53 59 (a) Total Value On Canal Leading toIRL Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon All Five Counties Total Value On Canal Leading toIRL Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon Martin County Total Value Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon St. LucieCounty Total Value On Canal Leading toIRL Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon Indian RiverCounty Total Value On Canal Leading toIRL Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon Brevard County Total Value Near Indian River Lagoon On Indian River Lagoon Volusia County (1) Variable Parameter estimate represents a per acre value because the dependent variable is market value per acre. acre. valueper market is variable dependent the because aperacrevalue represents estimate Parameter

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Recreation and AmenityValue ofLiving OnorNear theIndian River Lagoon Parameter Estimate $145,148 $298,562 $876,951 $224,082 $163,595 $503,083 $149,380 $294,497 $558,443 $49,145 $17,616 $18,229 $55,735 (2)

Lot Sizeof Sample in Average Acres THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON 2007 Dollars (3) Table 4.8 0.40 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.40 (a) (a) (a)

Value ofIRL (4) = (2) /(3) per Acre $1,551,231 $1,181,406 $740,256 $154,819 $145,148 $298,562 $876,951 $165,534 $754,770 $384,175 $375,486 $45,821 $41,368

Acres in County (5) 21,938 24,991 14,034 13,216 2,491 1,014 2,865 6,263 8,662 4,463 2,237 112 519

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN

Total Value of IRL (6) = (4) x(5) $18,500,000,000 $46,795,000,000 $40,813,000,000 $12,298,000,000 $20,345,000,000 $1,005,000,000 $1,959,000,000 $1,573,000,000 $1,055,000,000 $4,927,000,000 $6,363,000,000 $5,492,000,000 $2,323,000,000 $9,975,000,000 $5,830,000,000 $5,273,000,000 $386,000,000 $855,000,000 $199,000,000 $358,000,000 $840,000,000 $16,000,000 PAGE 4-18 PAGE 4-18 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final vided inTable4.9. A comparisonoftheresults of thesetwostudies withtheresults of thisanalysisispro- studies. These twostudiesareasfollows. The estimatedvaluesfromthisanalysiswerecompared totheresultsfrom twoprevious Comparison ofEstimated Values to Previous Studies 4.4 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN . GEC,Inc."AnEconomicAnalysis of theDistrict'sWaterways inVolusia, Bre- 2. Inc. ApogeeResearch, inassociation Economics withResource Consultants, 1. land NavigationDistrict, Jupiter, Florida,February2003andJune2001. vard, IndianRiver,St.Lucieand MartinCounties",prepared fortheFlorida In- ary 1996. Florida,Janu- Bay, NationalEstuaryProgram,Palm for theIndianRiverLagoon prepared Analysis oftheIndianRiverLagoon, Inc., "EconomicAssessmentand THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-19 PAGE 4-19 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final porti onlythat includes studies 2008 and 1996 The (d) (c) (b) (a) Total Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia County Total Martin St. Lucie Indian River Brevard Volusia (d) County Hazen and Sawyer, "Indian River Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update", prepared for the forthe prepared Update", andAnalysis Assessment Economic Lagoon "IndianRiver Sawyer, and Hazen Apogee Research, Inc. in association with Resource with Inc.inassociation Research, Apogee GEC, Inc. "An Economic Analysis of the District's Wate oftheDistrict's GEC,Inc."An Analysis Economic Study includes allofthecoas Study includes 2008. EstuaryProgram,PalmBa National RiverLagoon Indian dollars. 2000 arein counties fortheotherthree andvalues dollars in2002 are counties Brevard and ValuesforVolusia 2001. and June 2003 February Jupiter,Florida, District(FIND), tion Naviga Inland theFlorida for prepared Martin Counties", 1996. January Palm Bay,Florida, fo prepared Lagoon, River of theIndian and Analysis 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN tial propertiesdirectlyon theIntracoastalWaterway canalsinthefive-county andthe from theFlorida Inland Navigation District(FIND) foundthat themarket valueofresiden- residential the valueof properties notlocateddirectlyontheLagoon.The2003study value ofresidential properties located directlyon theLagoon was$1.1billion higher than NEP) estimatedthatthemarket (IRL the IndianRiverLagoonNationalEstuaryProgram are significantly studies.The higherthan theresultsfrom 1996study for previous thetwo When allvaluesareconverted to2007dollars, the results of thisanalysis, or$47billion, Comparison ofValuesfrom This2008 Analysis andPrevious Studies Contribution oftheIndian River LagoontoPropertyValues 1996 IRLNEP Study $1,064,000,000 tal area of Volusia County. County. ofVolusia tal area $208,000,000 $105,000,000 $138,000,000 $461,000,000 $152,000,000 $824,762,000 $161,254,000 $106,999,000 $357,565,000 $117,738,000 2007 Dollars 1995 Dollars $81,206,000 THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON (a)

Table 4.9 on of Volusia County south of Ponce Inlet. The 2003 The ofPonceInlet. south County on ofVolusia 2003 FIND Study Economics Consultants, Inc., "Economic Assessment Inc.,"EconomicAssessment Consultants, Economics 2003 or2001 dollars, r the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Estuary National RiverLagoon r theIndian rways in Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St.Lucieand River, Brevard,Indian inVolusia, rways Midpoint of Range y, Florida, Technical Memorandum dated March 31, March dated Memorandum Technical Florida, y, $3,177,500,000 $1,365,000,000 $3,725,000,000 $1,581,000,000 $445,000,000 $588,000,000 $171,500,000 $669,000,000 $384,000,000 $699,000,000 $204,000,000 $796,000,000 2007 Dollars (b)

2008 IRLNEP Study HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $46,795,000,000 $12,298,000,000 $20,345,000,000 $46,795,000,000 $12,298,000,000 $20,345,000,000 $1,959,000,000 $6,363,000,000 $5,830,000,000 $1,959,000,000 $6,363,000,000 $5,830,000,000 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars PAGE 4-20 PAGE 4-20 (c)

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final and Tax Data documentpreparedbytheState and TaxData that occurred inFlorida after2002.Accordingto the2006FloridaPropertyValuations two studies and thisanalysis. Thefirst reasonis the significant increaseinmarketvalues There arethree reasonsthatexplain mostofthedifferencebetween thevaluesofthese on thewaterwayorcanals. area was$3.7 billionhigher thanthe valueofresidential properties not located directly 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN all ofthemarinedependent businesses. residential land.ready developed The FINDstudy included a portionof vacant land and focusedonal- residential developed landdirectlyontheLagoon.TheFIND studyalso Force Base. The1996study didnotconsiderany ofthevacantlandand considered only lands, the AirForceStation andPatrickAirKennedy Space Center,CapeCanaveral vacantlandandcommercialproperties.The vately owned only landexcludedwas wet- Indian RiverLagoontoalllanddirectly onorneartheLagoon, including publiclyand pri- The thirdreasonforthe differenceisthatthisanalysis appliedtheper acre valueofthe GIS andtheirwebsites. nologies and theeffortsofFlorida propertyappraisersto providepropertydatavia was notas computer andinternettech-accessible as in itistoday improvements given would havebeenverydifficult to conduct thistypeofanalysisbecause the propertydata Back in1995, whenthe1996Indian RiverLagoonvaluationstudywasconducted, it each other. subtractedfrom ifthemarketvaluesweresimply wouldobtain goon thanthevaluesone oftheIndianRiverLa- more accuraterepresentationsofthemarketinfluence ered tobe oftheLagoon.Thesestatisticallyestimatedvaluesareconsid- value impact the market properties on andnearthe Lagoonand theLagoonandstatistically awayfrom estimated the marketvalueofallotherproperties. This 2007 analysisspecifically chosesimilar Lagoon front properties (and canalfront properties whereastheothertwostudiessimplysubtractedmarketvalueof property values ses. Thisanalysis performed statisticalmodeling toisolate the impactofLagoonon thisanalysisthanthepreviousanaly- Lagoonissignificantlyhigherunder on ornearthe The second reason isthat theestimatedadditional propertyvalueassociatedwith being value oflivingonorneartheLagoon as estimated duringthisstudy. future valuationsof theimpactof Lagoonon landvalues maynotbeashigh as the because 2008 realestate marketvaluesappear tobefalling overallstatewide. Thus, this writing, it appearsthat 2007wasthepeakofreal estate valuescycleinFlorida into ahigher demandandvalueofbeinglocated onorneartheLagoon. Atthetimeof landinthisareatranslates doubled from2002through2006.Thehigherdemandfor published in June2007, thejust(orofrealpropertyinfivecounties market)value THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON of Florida Department of Revenue and of FloridaRevenue Department in the case ofthe FIND study)from HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-21 PAGE 4-21 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final value of$33million($825 milliontimes0.04). 2.6 percent for anetinterest rateof 4.0percent whichimpliedanannualized Lagoon bondyieldwas6.6percentperyearandtheexpected annualinflation Government was In 1996,whenthepreviousIndianstudywasconducted, U.S. River Lagoon the 30-year dents wholive onorneartheLagoonis$934million ($47billion times0.02). cent. Thenet is2.0percent peryear.Thus,the annualized valueoftheLagoontoresi- provided bytheU.S.WhiteHouse Office ofManagementandBudgetwhichis2.4 per- theforecastedwhich Is4.4 2008inflationrate percentperyearasoftodayminus as the current time valueofmoneyisthe currentyieldon30-year U.S.Governmentbonds estimateof inmarketinterestrates.Thebestavailable and inflation whichareincluded risk, uncertainty, Thisrateshouldthereforeexclude represents thevalue ofmoney. time discountratean annualvalue,thecapitalized that valueismultipliedbyanappropriate The $47billionthiscapitalizedvalue isavaluethatcapitalizedovertime.Toconvert to AnnualValueofthe 4.5 4.0 VALUEOFLIVINGONORNEAR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Residents LivingOnorNeartheLagoon

Indian RiverLagoonto THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AUGUST 2008 AUGUST THEINDIAN RIVERLAGOON HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 4-22 PAGE 4-22 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN tion, including wetlandsrestoration; Lagoondredging;construction, compliance,and en- Most ofthe2007expenditures bythese26agencies,or$83 million,supported restora- andtheSt.JohnsRiverWaterManagementDistrict. tuary Program amount, $33.1million,or 37percent, wasspent by theIndianRiverLagoonNationalEs- 2007 onIndian RiverLagoonrelatedresearch, restoration andeducation. Of this ized inTableagencies 5.1.Ofthose thatresponded,atotalof$91millionwasspentin Of the58agencies contacted, 26responded to this survey. Theirresponses are item- Estuary (orIndianRiverLagoonBasin)in2007. The threepartquestion was asfollows: search, restoration andeducation directly relatedLagoon National totheIndianRiver to reportthe amountof money, includingthe valueoftime, that theagency spenton re- goon research, restorationand/oreducation were contacted viaemail.Theywereasked Public and private agenciesthatprovideLa- fundingorin-kindservicesforIndianRiver ty IndianRiverLagoonarea. tures also generate income, employmentandtaxrevenuestoresidents of thefivecoun- it isa measureoftheLagoon’s valuetothose who providethefunding. Theseexpendi- goon, andto educatethe publicregarding itsecological importanceand waystoprotect torestoretheIndianRiverLagoon,conductLa- research toimprovethe Money spent month periodthatincludes someof2007.” period can be calendar year,fiscal past 12months,oranyconsecutiveyear, the 12 expenses relatedtotheIndian RiverLagoon,please letmeknowthat.The12month sources sothat wedon’tdoublecount expenditures.Ifyouragencydidnotincurany other agencies,pleaseprovideIf thefundscamefrom anitemizedlistof thefunding IndianRiverLagoonEducation–Dollar amountspent? C. IndianRiverLagoonRestoration– Dollar amountspent? B. IndianRiverLagoonResearch–Dollar amountspent? A. university duringa12monthperiodin2007foreach ofthefollowing activities: agencyor your by time,wasspent includingthevalueof much money, “About how Lagoon Research,RestorationandEducation Economic ContributionofIndianRiver Section 5.0

HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 5-1 PAGE 5-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final funding IndianRiverLagoondisplays atvisitorcenters. Marina andBoatyardProgramtheFlorida Yards andNeighborhoodsprogram public about andhowtoprotectit.ActivitiesincludedClean theLagoon promoting totaled $2.2 millionandwereusedtoeducate gradeschool children and thegeneral practice developmentmanagement totaled$5.5 million in 2007. Education expenditures andbest Research expendituresforbiologicalinvestigations,waterqualitymonitoring, andremovalofAustralianpinetrees. management; water includingstorm forcement relatedtonon-pointsourcepollutionmanagement, 2008 AUGUST 5.0 RESEARCH,RESTORATION, ECONOMICCONTRIBUTIONOFLAGOON EDUCATION INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 5-2 PAGE 5-2 Source: Hazen and Sawyer Survey of Agencies, March-June, 2008 2008 March-June, Survey of Agencies, andSawyer Source: Hazen Total Volusia County EnvironmentalHealthLab USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service US Geological Survey US Environmental Protection Agency US ArmyCorps ofEngineers Titusville, Cityof CountyMosquito Control District St. Lucie (Coastal Tech) Southeast FloridaAquatics Preserves South Florida WaterManagement District Wing Patrick AirForce Base: Air Force/45th Space Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Martin County Environmental StudiesCenter Martin County Center Discovery Marine and St.Johns RiverWater Management District Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Indian River County Stormwater Division Indian River Co.Cooperative Extension Service Institute Research Hubbs-SeaWorld Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge Commission Florida Fishand Wildlife Conservation Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (Coastal Tech) Environmental Learning Center inVeroBeach Canaveral NationalSeashore Brevard Zoo Agency IRL - St. Lucie River Issues Team Projects TeamProjects RiverIssues IRL -St.Lucie IRL -SouthProjects

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final ARCH, RESTORATION, EDUCATION AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 5.0 RESEARCH,RESTORATION, ECONOMICCONTRIBUTIONOFLAGOON EDUCATION INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN

Expenditures forIndianRiver Lagoon-RelatedResearch, Restoration and Education in2007 Table 5.1 $5,455,206 $2,220,242 Research $432,133 $945,892 $200,000 $907,286 $584,000 $99,994 $14,360 $10,000 $41,299 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$83,212,162 $13,809,435 $30,773,528 Restoration $3,500,000 $2,925,500 $3,000,000 $2,214,045 $2,871,400 $1,622,941 $1,405,000 $3,817,656 $200,000 $189,681 $540,000 $594,276 $469,000 $25,000 $7,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$2,155,983 Education $100,000 $655,000 $100,000 $500,000 $266,299 $116,000 $172,800 $56,000 $31,000 $30,000 $40,000 $15,000 $58,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $5,000 $8,584 $2,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$90,823,351 $14,716,721 $33,166,570 $3,556,000 $1,140,573 $2,925,500 $3,500,000 $2,214,045 $2,873,700 $1,622,941 $1,989,000 $3,832,656 $432,133 $230,000 $840,000 $655,000 $108,578 $100,000 $901,874 $509,000 $116,000 $31,000 $14,360 $10,000 $83,000 PAGE 5-3 PAGE 5-3 $7,700 Total

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Total Education Restoration Research Type ofExpenditure sectors identified inTable 5.2. andMartin.TheexpenditureswereenteredasoneofthreeIMPLAN River, St.Lucie the fivecounty IndianRiverLagoonarea.Thesecounties are Volusia, Brevard,Indian These expenditureswere inputinto the IMPLANmodelthatrepresents economyof 2008 AUGUST 5.0 RESEARCH,RESTORATION, ECONOMICCONTRIBUTIONOFLAGOON EDUCATION INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN of theadditionalgoodsandtion generated$150million intotaloutputwhichisthevalue research,restoration andeduca- forIndianRiverLagoon The $91millioninexpenditures revenues withinthe5county area. tax rect industries.Thetotaleffectisthe and creationofoutput,income, employment come increasesthedemandforgoodsandservices direct industries purchase goodsand servicesfrom other local industries andas this in- the search, restoration thelocal and education. Thismovesthrough economyas money tion of the Indian River Lagoon as money isspent ondirect goods and servicesfor re- theeconomic contribu- The itemizedresultsareTable5.3which summarizes providedin lower thanthatreportedhere. nomic contributionsofthe research, restoration and bit education expendituresmaybea rect andinducedeconomiccounted.Thus,theeco- contributionswouldnothavebeen percent offunding fromresidentswithin thefive IRLcounties wasknown, thentheindi- counties and itislikely thatmostofthis funding isfromStateandFederal sources. If the cause itwasnotpossibletoestimatethepercentcontribution fromresidentswithinthese All expenditureswereassumed to be fundedfrom outside of thefiveIRL countiesbe- structures, management and waterorsewerutilityinfrastructure inthefive countyarea. was spenton newconstruction where thisconstruction includes earthwork, stormwater million generatedif$83.2 that wouldbe revenues output, income, andtax employment model wasaskedtocalculatethe direct,indirectandinduced theIMPLAN For example, Allocation of IndianRiver LagoonResearch, Restoration andEducation Expenditures 461- Elementary andsecondary schools utility. tion, stormwater management andwater/sewer cludes earthwork and construction for conserva- commercial buildings, bridges and highways. In- 41 -New construction other thanresidential and 446 -Scientific research and development services To IMPLAN Model Sectors IMPLAN Sector Table 5.2 byemployeesofthedirectandindi- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 2007 AmountSpent $83,212,000 $90,823,000 $2,156,000 $5,455,000 PAGE 5-4 PAGE 5-4 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final come categories. excludes taxesonprofitandincomebecausethese taxesareaccounted forinthein- sales taxes collected as aresultof IRL-related research,restoration and education. It licenses, fees, and taxes, property theexcise taled $3.5millionandisthesumof The Indirect businesstaxes generatedasaresultofthe$91millioninexpendituresto- labor andproprietor’s income supported2,096full andpart time jobsin 2007. erated asa resultof the IRL-relatedresearch, restoration and education.Thisoutput, profits, incomeincludespaymentsforrents, royalties,anddividendsgen- property type asincome.Other self-employedindividuals come consistsofpaymentsreceivedby taled $14.5million.Laborincomeistotalpayrollcostsincluding benefits. Proprietary in- to- totaled $63.4millionandtheadditionalincomecalled“othertypeincome” property income toresidentsof the fivecounty area.Theadditional labor andproprietor’s income This output resultedinadditional education directlyrelatedtotheIndianRiverLagoon. services produced inthe fivecountiesasmoney isspenton research, restoration and 2008 AUGUST 5.0 RESEARCH,RESTORATION, ECONOMICCONTRIBUTIONOFLAGOON EDUCATION INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 5-5 PAGE 5-5 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2(e) (d) Final(c) (b) (a) Employment Indirect Business Taxes (d) Other Property Income Type Labor andProprietor’s Income Output Economic Measure Other property type income includes payments forrents, payments includes type income Otherproperty Employment includes the number of full-time and part offull-time the number includes Employment taxescollected sales taxes,fees,licenses,and taxes,property taxisthesumofexcise Indirectbusiness benefits. costsincluding totalpayroll is income Labor oft Outputisthevalue Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct restoration and education. education. and restoration categories. inthe income for accounted these taxesare and restoration research, as aresultofIRL-related resear sult oftheIRL-related asincome. individuals self-employed direct education and restoration on research, ARCH, RESTORATION, EDUCATION AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 5.0 RESEARCH,RESTORATION, ECONOMICCONTRIBUTIONOFLAGOON EDUCATION INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Economic contribution ofthe2007 Expenditures forIndianRiver LagoonResearch, (a)

(e)

Restoration and Education intheFive Counties of theIRLSystem (In 2007dollars andnumber offulltime andpart time jobs) he additional goods and services produced in produced services and goods he additional ch, restoration and education. education. and ch, restoration (c)

(b)

$10,031,000 Research $4,449,000 $2,927,000 $2,517,000 $2,059,000 $5,455,000 ly related to the Indian River Lagoon. Lagoon. IndianRiver relatedtothe ly -$376,000 $818,000 $704,000 $264,000 $162,000 $546,000 $583,000 $339,000 Table 5.3 $81,000 $21,000 education. It excludes taxes Itexcludes education. Proprietary income consists of payments received by received consistsofpayments income Proprietary -time jobs that are supported by IRL-related research, research, byIRL-related thataresupported -time jobs 94 24 20 49 profits,royalties,anddi $135,913,000 Restoration $57,110,000 $10,453,000 $38,461,000 $32,149,000 $20,563,000 $83,200,000 $13,560,000 $8,197,000 $3,101,000 $2,072,000 $7,440,000 $1,903,000 $4,216,000 $694,000 $335,000 the five IRL counties as money is spent isspent as money IRLcounties thefive 1,349 310 196 843 Education $1,257,000 $2,553,000 $1,504,000 on profit and income because because and income on profit vidends generated asare- generated vidends $228,000 $939,000 $701,000 $348,000 $255,000 $162,000 $90,000 $72,000 $45,000 $27,000 $94,000 -$1,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 653 525 89 39 $0 $120,978,000 $52,612,000 $35,455,000 $29,623,000 $19,296,000 $72,059,000 $11,938,000 $9,631,000 $7,526,000 $2,883,000 $1,909,000 $6,856,000 $1,996,000 $3,086,000 Total $678,000 $296,000 PAGE 5-6 PAGE 5-6 2,096 1,418 423 255 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final landed inwhole weight. bodyparts).MostspeciesharvestedfromtheIndianRiverareweight (afterremovalof landed measurementisinwholeweightandtheexvesselvaluebasedon INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN From Steve Brown, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, October, 2007. 1 fishermen ascommercial sellthefishcaughtfrom Thismoney River Lagoon theLagoon. are providedinTable 6.3. Thistable summarizes theeconomic contribution oftheIndian The exvesselvalueswere input into IMPLAN Sector 16, commercial fishing. The results RiverLagoon. fishareharvestedfromtheIndian and inthefivecountiesascommercial generatedineachcounty andtaxrevenues and induced output,income,employment The IMPLANmodelwasused toconverttheseexvessel values intothe direct, indirect 6.1 Economic Contribution FWC fishingareacodes. Indian Riverisnotspecificallyidentifiedviathe ters inthese countiesare River.Thisassumptionwasused becausethe fromtheIndian the FWCusing assumption that the majorityofspecies harvested frominshore wa- means thevalueoffish atdocksideorjustoff theboat.Thisdatawasestimated by Ex-vessel value vided bytheFloridaFish Commission(FWC). andWildlife Conservation pro- datawere arepresentedinTables6.1and6.2,respectively.These county in2006 Pounds harvested and exvessel valuesfromthe IndianRiver Lagoonby speciesand by countiesvard andVolusia harvestedthemajority,or63percent, oftheharvest value. clamswhich,together, comprised28percentoftheharvestedvalue.Bre- pompano and cent ofthe harvested value.Thesecondmostpredominantspecies were black mullet, In 2006,thepredominantspecies was hardbluecrabwhichrepresented about45per- was $16.3million,in2007 dollars. speciesharvested theLagoon from of commercial thevalue harvest since1995when Lucie and Volusia, Brevard,IndianRiver,St. Martin. Thisisasignificantreductionin counties, speciesthefiveLagoon markets. These werelandedinoneof commercial shellfish valuedat$3.8 million wereharvestedfromtheIndianRiverLagoonandsold to available, 3.5millionpoundsoffishand dataare In 2006,themostrecentyearforwhich Commercial Fishing Value ofIndianRiverLagoon-Related Section 6.0

ofIndianRiverLagoon-R elated CommercialFishing HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 1 Thepounds PAGE 6-1 PAGE 6-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final income categories. and excludetaxesonprofitincomebecause thesetaxesareaccountedforinthe fees, licenses,andsalestaxescollectedasa result ofIRL-related commercial fishing Lagoon relatedcommercialfishing. These taxesaretheexcisetaxes,property About $145,000 inindirect businesstaxes wasearned in2007 asa result of IndianRiver part-time jobsinthefive county area. cial fishing. fishing Indian RiverLagoon-relatedcommercial supported156 full-time and rents, profits,royalties,anddividendsgenerated asaresult of theIRL-relatedcommer- for incomeincludespayments type asincome.Otherproperty employed individuals costs including benefits and proprietary income asaresultofIRL-relatedcommercialfishing. Laborincometype income istotalpayroll area earned$1.6million inlaborand proprietor’s incomeand$65,000in otherproperty as fishfromtheIndian River Lagoonarelanded andsold. Residents inthefive county which is the valueofthe additionalgoods andservices produced inthe fivecountyarea Commercial fish landings fromtheIndian River Lagoon generated $5.7 million in output contribution to thefivecountyarea. ined together, theeconomic linkages provideamoreaccuratepicture oftheeconomic commercial fishingorthrough otherareasofFlorida. Whenthe fivecountiesareexam- county indicatesthatthefishlandingswentthroughchannelsotherthan identified as tor identified inMartinCounty2007.Thelackofacommercialfishingsector this fishingeled usingthe becausetherewasnocommercial sec- St.LucieCountyeconomy cause each county ismodeledasasingle different from thesumofeconomic contribution tothe individual counties. Thisisbe- contribution of IndianRiverLagooncommercialfishlandings tothefivecountyareais asoneeconomicarea.The In thelastcolumn,allfivecountiesaremodeled the creation of output,incomewithinthecounty andemploymentorgroupsofcounties. goods andservicesbyemployeesofthedirecta and services fromother localindustries and as thisincome increases thedemandfor thelocaleconomyascommercialfishingindustrypurchasesgoods moves through 6.0 VALUEOFINDIANRIVERLAGOON-R INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ELATED COMMERCIAL FISHING AUGUST 2008 AUGUST ELATED COMMERCIALFISHING economic unit and Martin County was mod- was economic unitandMartinCounty consists of payments receivedbyself- nd indirect industries. The totaleffect is HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 6-2 PAGE 6-2 Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, October2007 Commission, Conservation andWildlife Fish Source: Florida Total Permit Triggerfish Sea Bass,Mixed American Eel Shark Mackerel, King Seatrout, Weakfish Grouper Snapper Catfish Invertebrates Misc. Drum, Black Misc. Food Fish Oysters Runner Blue Bluefish Spot Porgies Crab, Blue(Soft) Crab, Stone Grunts Pinfish Tilapia (Nile Perch) Shrimp, Bait Croaker Seatrout, Spotted Kingfish (Whiting) Clams Jack, Other Bait Fish Flounders Pompano Menhaden (Pogies) Jack, Crevalle Sheepshead Mackerel, Spanish Mojarra Mullet, Silver Mullet, Black Crab, Blue(Hard) Species

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Pounds ofFish SpeciesLanded fromIndianRiverLagoon in2007 by Speciesand County 6.0 VALUEOFINDIANRIVERLAGOON-R INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 144,090 339,463 695,606 Volusia 28,111 55,460 83,326 13,359 1,874 1,573 2,669 8,518 6,395 2,902 2,029 4,504 127 124 181 213 160 462 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,317,705 1,002,871 Brevard 162,409 11,958 54,602 18,129 23,993 2,281 2,965 3,140 1,731 2,577 1,026 3,290 4,479 3,854 6,529 6,535 597 913 316 374 440 660 470 158 266 404 192 296 13 43 60 85 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6.1 ELATED COMMERCIAL FISHING AUGUST 2008 AUGUST ELATED COMMERCIALFISHING Pounds Landed in2007 Indian River 129,999 305,511 13,781 18,043 67,606 17,313 34,015 9,867 9,191 4,732 933 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

St. Lucie 289,739 117,974 760,225 16,802 31,988 71,149 18,921 12,481 74,584 97,481 11,837 1,618 1,152 4,079 7,883 610 723 247 197 723 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152,031 370,169 18,024 12,897 38,864 34,167 43,554 15,420 39,637 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 2,479 6,663 1,058 1,009 2,444 129 526 739 529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,509,135 3,449,215 104,212 105,004 115,167 141,980 153,451 878,269 PAGE 6-3 PAGE 6-3 28,111 35,423 57,503 63,960 78,824 83,326 10,623 15,127 18,882 1,111 1,764 1,874 2,406 2,725 2,743 2,965 3,140 4,027 4,271 5,246 5,758 8,518 Total 316 374 567 660 723 759 13 43 60 70 85 Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, October2007 Commission, Conservation andWildlife Fish Source: Florida Total Permit Shark Triggerfish Sea Bass,Mixed Catfish American Eel Porgies Mackerel, King Seatrout, Weakfish Drum, Black Bluefish Misc. Food Fish Grouper Snapper Invertebrates Misc. Runner Blue Spot Tilapia (Nile Perch) Grunts Oysters Croaker Pinfish Menhaden (Pogies) Kingfish (Whiting) Crab, Blue(Soft) Seatrout, Spotted Crab, Stone Bait Fish Jack, Other Shrimp, Bait Mullet, Silver Mackerel, Spanish Jack, Crevalle Sheepshead Flounders Mojarra Clams Pompano Mullet, Black Crab, Blue(Hard) Species

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Value ofFish SpeciesLandings from Indian RiverLagoon in2007 by SpeciesandCounty 6.0 VALUEOFINDIANRIVERLAGOON-R INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN $977,727 $145,407 $241,248 $100,079 $364,340 $19,844 $12,514 $38,423 $14,824 Volusia $5,714 $8,803 $8,563 $2,100 $5,452 $8,129 $187 $601 $389 $248 $360 $420 $82 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,082,565 $1,417,125 Brevard $10,973 $12,566 $27,918 $15,107 $30,835 $28,740 $11,496 $78,023 $87,289 $1,521 $1,994 $2,284 $7,260 $1,985 $1,176 $2,970 $6,954 $187 $274 $343 $282 $701 $175 $458 $480 $622 $826 $856 $32 $40 $54 $91 $47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ex-Vessel ValueLanded in2007 Table 6.2 ELATED COMMERCIAL FISHING AUGUST 2008 AUGUST ELATED COMMERCIALFISHING Indian River $263,011 $15,973 $49,078 $16,682 $25,593 $58,205 $71,671 $11,885 $9,662 $2,300 $1,953 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$109,768 $141,026 $147,069 $158,835 $752,603 St. Lucie $16,811 $46,891 $59,101 $18,571 $23,874 $9,954 $1,704 $1,644 $4,041 $7,354 $4,548 $328 $246 $520 $251 $69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $372,583 $17,319 $11,772 $22,769 $39,405 $60,058 $54,309 $74,283 $74,724 $5,668 $6,377 $1,424 $2,291 Martin HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $283 $458 $384 $676 $384 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,692,349 $3,783,050 $111,202 $167,284 $202,373 $241,248 $339,691 $480,391 $32,935 $34,609 $38,423 $76,620 $82,977 $89,874 $10,102 $19,776 $19,844 $21,513 $27,918 $31,134 $32,169 PAGE 6-4 PAGE 6-4 $1,334 $1,404 $1,910 $1,994 $2,205 $2,367 $2,644 $2,655 $4,216 $5,714 Total $328 $420 $622 $826 $856 $903 $32 $40 $54 $91 (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Employment Indirect Business Taxes Other Property Income Type Labor andProprietor’s Income Output Measure Economic Other property type income includes payments forrents,prof payments includes type income Otherproperty Employment includes the number offu thenumber includes Employment asa taxescollected sales taxes,fees,licenses,and taxes, property taxisthesumofexcise Indirectbusiness byself- received consistsofpayments Proprietary income benefits. costsincluding total payroll is income Labor ofthe Outputisthevalue Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct Total Induced Indirect Direct for in the income categories. categories. for intheincome fishi commercial result ofIRL-related fishing. commercial IRL-related asincome. individuals employed and landed sold.

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final (a)

6.0 VALUEOFINDIANRIVERLAGOON-R INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN (e)

$1,712,000 $464,000 $182,000 $198,000 $259,000 $476,000 $977,000 -$61,000 $46,000 $17,000 $25,000 $39,000 $60,000 $40,000 $84,000 Volusia $4,000

45 38 Economic Contribution ofCommercial FishHarvested ( 3 4 d) additional goods and services produced int produced services and goods additional

$676,000 $114,000 $470,000 $355,000 $255,000 (b) -$11,000 Brevard $48,000 $23,000 $16,000 $81,000 $34,000 $92,000 from theIndian River Lagoon in2007

$9,000 ng. It excludes taxes on profitandin taxeson ng. Itexcludes ll-time and part-time jobs thataresuppor jobs and part-time ll-time 53 47 4 2 Indian River $126,000 $441,000 $118,000 $263,000 -$17,000 Table 6.3 $20,000 $47,000 $59,000 $60,000 $11,000 $15,000 ELATED COMMERCIAL FISHING AUGUST 2008 AUGUST ELATED COMMERCIALFISHING $4,000 $6,000 $1,000 $7,000 $9,000 12 10 1 1 its, royalties, and dividends its, royalties,anddividends County $1,326,000 $381,000 $148,000 $173,000 $189,000 $384,000 $753,000 St. Lucie -$51,000 $60,000 $39,000 $14,000 $22,000 $32,000 $48,000 $35,000 he county or group of counties as fish are countiesas fish of orgroup he county $3,000 come because these taxes are accounted accounted are thesetaxes because come 34 28 2 3 ted by IRL-related commercial fishing. fishing. commercial byIRL-related ted $189,000 $657,000 $190,000 $373,000 -$25,000 $30,000 $73,000 $86,000 $94,000 $20,000 $11,000 $17,000 $24,000 $18,000 $7,000 $2,000 Martin generated as a result ofthe asaresult generated 17 14 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 1 2 All Five Counties $1,623,000 $5,681,000 $3,783,000 -$272,000 $304,000 $364,000 $955,000 $934,000 $964,000 $145,000 $216,000 $121,000 $60,000 $66,000 $19,000 $65,000 PAGE 6-5 PAGE 6-5 156 139 9 8 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final

from Gilmore estimated followingVirnsteinandMorris The density-adjustedvalueofseagrass recreational tocommercial fisheries and was Fishing Value Per AcreofSeagrass 6.2 6.0 VALUEOFINDIANRIVERLAGOON-R INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 4 3 2 Sci. 22:101-148. Sci. 22:101-148. River Lagoon. Technical Memorandum #14. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida. The recreational and commercial fishery value equations areThe recreationalandcommercial asfollows. fisheryvalueequations commercial andrecreationalfisheries. This valueisanestimate ofthe contribution of theLagoon’s seagrass tothevalue of dockside value ofcommercialfish species were Technical Program Manager of the St. Johns River Water Management District Gilmore. 1977. Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and and Lagoon River Fishes the Indian 1977. of Gilmore. Virnstein, R.W. and L. Morris. 1996. Seagrass preservation and restoration: a diagnostics plan for the Indian (2) Value inDollarsGeneratedbySeagrass-DependentCommercialand Recreationaland CommercialFishing ValueofSeagrass= (1) Recreational Fisheries inAcresper Year = Divided by Acres ofSeagrassin2005Divided by Lagoon whichis0.49from Gilmore)] Lagoon in2007 xfractionofsportscatchdependent onthe seagrasses ofthe + (Annualexpendituresandusevaluebyrecreationalfishers whenfishing the from Gilmore) ontheseagrassesofLagoonwhichis0.35 harvestdependent x fractionof [(Annual docksidevalue offisheries harvested fromLagoonin2006 100) /100] Seagrass Density Factor =[(52.4x Ln(% SeagrassCoverage=33 in 2005) – Factor SeagrassDensity Recreational andCommercialFisheriesx perAcreYear Acres ofSeagrassxValueinDollarsGeneratedbySeagrass-Dependent 4 . The Lagoon-related recreational expenditures and use value and the recreationalexpendituresandusevalue . TheLagoon-related

ELATED COMMERCIAL FISHING AUGUST 2008 AUGUST ELATED COMMERCIALFISHING 2 as modified by J. Steward, byJ. modified as adjacent waters, Florida. Bull. FL StateMuseum Biol. converted to value peracreofseagrass. converted to HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN 3 using information using PAGE 6-6 PAGE 6-6 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final study. Such valuesassociated withthe Lagoon’s seagrasswere notestimatedduringthis benefits torecreatorsquality andaestheticsthatprovide and thoseliving ontheLagoon. additionalLagoon’s seagrass valuesasrelatedtowater year. Theislikelytoprovide $227,000 per acre.Adiscountrate istherateat whichfuture benefits are reduced each $4,600 perata2percent annualacre peryearoverthenext100years discountrate is this seagrass valueisthe sameeachyearintothe future,then thepresentvalueof the $4,600 peryearacreofseagrass. fisheries is $329millionperyearor commercial If of theLagoon’s72,400acresseagrass2007 value asitsupportstherecreational and Using Equations (1) and (2)and the fishingvaluessummarizedabove, theestimated million. The 2006dockside value ofcommercialfish species harvested fromtheLagoonis$3.8 value associated withfinfishingandshell is$805millionin2007. ontheLagoon availableseagrassmost recentyearof data.Therecreationalexpendituresand use represent bytheIndianRiverLagoonNationalEstuaryProgramand were provided The 72,400 acres of seagrass andpercent ofseagrass coverage inthe Lagoon in2005 6.0 VALUEOFINDIANRIVERLAGOON-R INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ELATED COMMERCIAL FISHING AUGUST 2008 AUGUST ELATED COMMERCIALFISHING HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 6-7 PAGE 6-7 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final during this study andcomparestheresultstothose estimated in1995. This Section summarizestheeconomic asestimated valueoftheIndian RiverLagoon INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN in 2007arelistedasfollows. The 2007benefits of the IndianRiverLagooninitsenvironmental condition that existed ronmental condition. benefits in 2007 becauseoftheexistence in its2007envi- IndianRiverLagoon dents andvisitorsofthecountiesreceived fiveIndianRiverLagoon about $3.7billion in resi- isprovidedinTable7.2.Overall, theIndianRiverLagoon The economicvalueof EconomicValueofthe of theeconomicvaluesestimatedduringthisstudyinTable7.1. A summary isprovided 7.1 3 Non-UseValueoftheLagoon –This valueisthe willingnessofall residents and (3) visitthe– Thisvalue is recreators’willingnesstopay RecreationalUseValue (2) RecreationalExpenditures–This valueisthe expenditures byresidents of and (1) Economic ValueoftheIndianRiverLagoon Section 7.0 reational expenditures and use values. Non-use value is the annual value ofthe annualvalue Non-use valueisthe reational expendituresand usevalues. even iftheyneverrecreate onthe Lagoon. This valueis in addition to their rec- visitors topay tomaintaintheLagoon inits existing environmentalcondition the Lagoonin2007. use valueis$2.1billion andisthe total valueto recreatorsfromrecreatingon on theLagoonin2007. The sumofrecreational expendituresandrecreational bewillingtopayrecreate would they and istheadditionalamountofmoney Lagoon inadditiontotheirrecreational expenditures.This value is$762million for recreation. lion andisone partofthe valuethatresidentsand visitorsplace onthe Lagoon boat owner spent onthe Lagoon.This recreational expenditure valueis $1.3 bil- chases were allocated to theLagoon basedon the percent of boatingdays the chases, boat repairsand marinasliprentaland dockagefees. TheFlorida pur- the dayofLagoonrecreation andthose made inFlorida in 2007forboat pur- The expendituresincludeLagooncountiesonand Martin.thosemadeinthefive St. Lucie goon forrecreation.ThesecountiesIndianRiver, are Volusia,Brevard, countiesassociated RiverLagoon withusingtheLa- visitors tothefiveIndian

Indian RiverLagoonin2007 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 7-1 PAGE 7-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final were notestimatedduringthisstudy. Lagoon.Such valuesassociated seagrassand thoselivingonthe withtheLagoon’s tional valuesasrelatedto waterqualityandaestheticsthat provide benefits torecreators seagrass TheLagoon’s islikelyfuture benefitsarereducedeachyear. toprovideaddi- percent annualdiscount rateis$237,000peracre.Adiscount rateistheatwhich then thepresent valueofthe$5,500 peracre per yearoverthenext100yearsata2 year peracreofseagrass.Ifthisseagrassintothefuture, valueisthesameeachyear ports therecreational and commercialfisheries is$329million per yearor$5,500 per The estimated2007economicvalueoftheLagoon’s72,400 acres ofseagrass asitsup- 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 7 Commercial FishingDocksideValue –Thisvalue isthe dockside market value (7) Restoration, Research,EducationExpenditures–Thisvalueisthefundingof (6) residents –Thisvalueistheincomereceivedby IncomeEarnedbyResidents (5) RealEstateValues–Thisannualvalueisthecontribution of the Lagoonto2007 (4) are willingto payforfishspecies from theLagoon. available data. Thisvalueis$3.8 million and represents the valueconsumers of commercialfish harvestedfromthe Lagoonin 2006,the most recent yearof 2007 valueofthisbenefit is$91million. The annual willingness andstudytheLagoon. oftheseentitiesto paytorestore localgovernmentsgovernments, andotherinterested parties. Itrepresents the Lagoon-related restoration,researchandeducationbythe Federaland State commercial fishingindustry. The2007valueofthisbenefit is $630 million. Lagoon-related research,restoration andeducation,tosupportthelocal as visitorsand residents spendmoneytorecreateonthe Lagoon, to conduct ized attwo percent discountrateand thisannual valueis$934 million. total contribution billion,was ofthe annual- Lagoon to2007propertyvalues,$47 represents resident annual willingness topayliveonorneartheLagoon.The forhomeslocated property values on andwithin 0.30miles oftheLagoon and condition. The 2007annual non-use value ofthesebenefits is $3.4million. bewilling topayprotecttheLagoonone-time taxtheywould initsexisting INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 7-2 PAGE 7-2 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 7-3 PAGE 7-3 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ues. non-use val- notcomparable tothe2007 andaretherefore, paid forandimplemented totheLagoon, most of whichhavebeen value associatedwithimprovements already erties. (2)The non-use valuereflectedinthe 1995 valueof$731millionincludes the all developable properties onornear theLagoon, including non-vacant andvacantprop- residential properties whereasthe2007 valueincludesthe of enhanced property value two values.(1)The1995valueincludesthe enhanced property ofnon-vacant value value of$3.7 billionestimated inthisstudywhichpreventsadirectcomparison of the There aretwo majordifferencesbetween thevalueestimatedin1995 andthe2007 In 1995,the estimatedeconomic value oftheIndianRiverLagoonwas$731million. timated duringthisstudy. fish harvests mayeach increase conditions.under Thesevalues improved werenot es- types ofLagoon values.Recreational expenditures, realestate values, and commercial qualityoftheLagoonbutdoesnotincludeincreasesinother prove theenvironmental goon system. Thisincrease reflects higherresi and diversity ofwildlife on theLagoon andincreased waterqualitythroughout the La- asignificantincrease intheamount peryeariftherewere crease byabout$80million wouldin- RiverLagoon non-use valueoftheIndian The recreationalusevalueandthe Indian RiverLagoon Related- Total Annual Value (7) Commercial Fishing Dockside Value (6) Restoration, Research, EducationExpenditures (5) IncomeGenerated inIRLCounties (4) RealEstate Value,annualized (3) Non-Use Value ofLagoon (2) Recreational UseValue (1) Recreational Expenditures Estimated AnnualEconomic ValueoftheIndianRiver Lagoon in itsExistingEnvironmental Condition, 2007 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON Table 7.2 dent andvisitorwillingness topay im- $1,302,000,000 $3,725,900,000 $934,000,000 $629,700,000 $762,000,000 $91,000,000 $3,800,000 $3,400,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Value AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 7-4 PAGE 7-4 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Water fowlhuntingcomprisedlessthan onepercentoftotalrecreation person-days. netting orfishingforclams, oystersorcrabsand parasailing, windsurfing orkitesailing. reation activitiesthatcomprised twopercentoftotalrecreationperson-dayswereshrimp sailing ona sailboat with fivetosevenpercentof total recreationdayseach.Primaryrec- days. Otherprimaryrecreationactivities included picnicking, canoeingor kayaking, and ging, strolling orSunset Cruising comprised eightpercentof thetotalrecreation person- recreation person-days. Viewingthe Lagoon from shorewhilebirdwatching,hiking, jog- boating eachcomprising 37percent, 20percent and13percent, respectively,ofthetotal The mostpopularrecreation activitieswere recreating on theIndianin2007. River Lagoon survey respondent,wascounted.Residents and visitors spent 10.8millionperson-days chosenby activity,as the theprimary dayonly one recreationactivitythat more than was counted. recreationactivitythatday IfapersonparticipatedOnly theprimary in son-day isonepersonparticipatingday. inarecreationactivityforallorpartofone dian RiverLagoonin2007 bycountyandactivitytypeisprovidedinTable7.3.A per- of person-daysresidentsandvisitorsspentrecreatingontheIn- The estimatednumber NumberofPerson-Days 7.2 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN on theIndianRiverLagoon INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON Residents andVisitors Spent Recreating fin fishing, swimming or wading, andpower fin fishing,swimmingor HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 7-5 PAGE 7-5 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Total Water Fowl Hunting wave runners including jetskisand Personal WaterCraft or kite sailing Parasailing, windsurfing Oysters or Crabs Fishing forClams, Shrimp Nettingand jogging orstrolling bird watching, hiking, the Riverfrom Shorewhile Sunset Cruising orViewing Sailing onasailboat Picnicking Canoeing or Kayaking cruising water skiing, tubingor Power Boating, including Swimming or Wading Fin Fishing Activity Estimated NumberofPerson-Days and Residents VisitorsSpentinRecreation Activities 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN area andtherestaccrues toresidents inallof Florida. million ofincome, atleast$358million accrues toresidents ofthefive countyLagoon These activitiessupportedcal taxrevenues. 15,000fulland part-timejobs.Ofthe$630 and lo- services generated$630millioninincometoresidents $112 millioninStateand goon-related boat-related expenditures, inFlorida. Theproduction of these goods and andservicesproduced intheLagooncountiesand,caseofLa- value ofgoods In 2007,theactivitiesdependentgenerated $1.6billionin ontheIndianRiverLagoon the The economic contributionLagoonin2007 isprovidedinTable7.4. oftheIndianRiver 7.3 Economic Contribution (1) on theIndian River Lagoonin2007- All IRLCounties 2,847,000 1,179,000 Volusia 110,000 104,000 200,000 134,000 340,000 619,000 23,000 81,000 50,000 (2) 7,000 INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON of theIndianRiverLagoon 1,332,000 4,026,000 Brevard 241,000 341,000 191,000 465,000 766,000 442,000 10,000 99,000 67,000 72,000 (3) Table 7.3 1,422,000 Indian 184,000 253,000 639,000 River 51,000 70,000 76,000 14,000 14,000 25,000 92,000 (4) 4,000 1,424,000 St. Lucie 217,000 319,000 440,000 138,000 72,000 79,000 87,000 15,000 19,000 33,000 (5) 5,000 (a) 1,145,000 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN Martin

174,000 267,000 395,000 57,000 68,000 73,000 12,000 16,000 27,000 52,000 (6) 4,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 10,864,000 Counties 1,380,000 2,224,000 3,985,000 All IRL 525,000 758,000 561,000 163,000 197,000 207,000 834,000 PAGE 7-6 PAGE 7-6 (7) 30,000 (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Total Commercial Fishing Research Funding Restoration, Education and ditures inFlorida Lagoon-Related BoatExpen- Recreation Expenditures Activity Income is the sum of wages, salaries, proprietor's income proprietor's salaries, ofwages, Incomeisthesum Tax revenue is the sum of the excise taxes, property excisetaxes,property thesumof is revenue Tax of thenumber includes Employment of asthevalue Outputisdefined effectsoft induced indirectand thedirect, Includes Visitors Visitors Residents 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final come contribution repo come contribution in- inthe included are thesevalues because profitandincome taxeson activities.Itexcludes Lagoon-related activities. goon-related activities. goon-related direc includes Florida in Expenditures Boat-related counties. River,St.LucieandMartin Brevard, Indian 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN annualized value is$934 millionper yearforallfivecounties of theLagoon system. thetable. This column (3)of andisprovidedinthe in 0.30milesoftheLagooneachyear nualized valueprovidesanestimateofthe thatresidents placeon living onorwith- table. Thisimpactis22percentofthe marketvalueofallproperty inthearea.Thean- $47 billion to theproperty valuesinthefivecounty areaasshownincolumn (2)ofthe contributes data foundthattheIndianRiverLagoon 7.5. Statisticalanalysisofproperty Estate Value. Thevaluesassociated witheach county andintotalareprovided inTable dian RiverLagoonsystem werepresentedin Table 7.2under theheading called Real onpropertyvaluesinthefivecountiesof The impactsoftheIndian In- RiverLagoon ValueofLivingOnor 7.4 Economic Contribution oftheIndian River Lagoon in2007 rted in the table. thetable. rted in $1,639,700,000 $150,000,000 $891,000,000 $450,000,000 $143,000,000 the additional goods and services produced in the study area due to the La- tothe areadue inthestudy produced services and goods the additional $5,700,000 full-time and part-time jobs created created jobs and part-time full-time Output INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON Near theIndianRiverLagoon (b) Table 7.4 t, indirect and induced effects within Florida. Florida. effects within andinduced t, indirect he activity to the Indian River Lagoon counties of Volusia, ofVolusia, counties Lagoon River he activitytotheIndian However, the economic contribution of Lagoon-related ofLagoon-related contribution theeconomic However, taxes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes collected due tothe due collected taxes andsales taxes, fees,licenses, $629,700,000 $272,000,000 $217,000,000 $78,000,000 $61,000,000 $1,700,000 , profits, rents, royalties and dividends due to the La- tothe due dividends rents,royaltiesand , profits, Income (c) due to the Lagoon-related activities. activities. totheLagoon-related due Employment 15,000 2,100 4,300 6,000 2,400 156 (a) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (d)

Tax Revenue $111,645,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST $70,000,000 $28,000,000 $10,000,000 $3,500,000 $145,000 PAGE 7-7 PAGE 7-7 (e) 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN justed toreflect2007dollars areprovidedinRow(2). related expenditures,and usevalues. Theestimated 1995valuesofthese benefits ad- tional value includes the residentand visitorrecreation expenditures,not includingboat- (1). Therecrea- inRow areprovided fishingLagoon andthecommercial exvesselvalue values areprovidedinTable7.7.Theestimated recreational andnon-usevalueofthe The comparisonofthe1995and2007recreational valuesandthecommercialfishing 2007 valuesareprovidedbelow. and meaningfulcomparisonofthe1995 parable tothe2007non-usevalues.Themost andaretherefore, notcom- most ofwhichhavealreadybeenpaidforandimplemented The passiveusevalue includesthe value associatedwithimprovements totheLagoon, velopable properties on or nearthe Lagoon, includingdevelopedandvacantproperties. cludes only non-vacant residentialproperties whereasthe2007estimateincludesall de- Also,the in- impactofenhancedpropertycome, taxrevenuesandemployment. values 1996 document didnotestimatetheeconomiccontribution oftheLagoon tooutput, in- $731 million.The was RiverLagoon valueoftheIndian In 1995,theestimatedeconomic cited above. are summarizedinTable7.6.Thesevaluesweretakendirectly1996document fromthe Consultants, Inc., January 1996.Theestimated economic valuesof the Lagoonin 1995 National EstuaryResearch ProgrambyApogee inassociation withResource Economics dian RiverLagoon,NaturalResourceValuation”, preparedfortheIndian RiverLagoon tion isdescribed inthedocumenttitled,“EconomicAssessmentandAnalysis oftheIn- The economic valueoftheIndian River Lagoonwasalso estimated in 1995. This valua- Comparisonwith1995Estima 7.5 St. Lucie All Five Counties Martin $6,363,000,000 Volusia $1,959,000,000 (1) (a) Indian River Brevard $20,345,000,000 County Refers to properties within 0.30 miles oft miles 0.30 within Referstoproperties total impact value in Column (2) times a 2 percent real discount rate. realdiscount 2 percent (2)timesa inColumn total impactvalue Value ofLiving onornear theIndianRiver Lagoon INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON Total ImpactofLagoon on PropertyValues $46,795,000,000 $12,298,000,000 tes ofLagoonEconomicValue $5,830,000,000 (2) Table 7.5 he Indian River Lagoon. Annualized value isthe value Annualized RiverLagoon. he Indian to Residents WhoLive or On Annualized Value ofLagoon Near theLagoon (3) = (2) x0.02 HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN $934,000,000 $127,000,000 $244,000,000 $407,000,000 $117,000,000 $39,000,000 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST (a)

PAGE 7-8 PAGE 7-8 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final Activity All activities Exvesselvalue ormarket value of value Passive use (non-use) Commercial fishing pared for the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Pr Estuary National RiverLagoon fortheIndian pared of theIndi Analysis Assessmentand “Economic Source: $288.9million Recreation-related expenditures ImpactofLagoon onthemarket value Enhanced property values Fishing-related expenditures anduse Other recreational uses Recreational fishing, source Economics Consultants, Inc.,January1996. source EconomicsConsultants, 1995 value.Thisrepresents adecrease of77percent. crease of33 percent.The 2007commercialfishingvalueis$13million smallerthanthe Thisrepresents anand non-usevalueis$295millionlargerthanthe1995value. in- adjusted 2007 valueandthe1995 value isprovided inRow(4).The2007Recreational (3). Noadjustmentsfor commercial fishingare necessary. The difference betweenthe was adjusted toreflectthe 1995residentpopulation. Thisadjustment isprovidedinRow To comparethe2007recreationaland nonuse value tothe1995value,2007 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Indian RiverLagoon Related- Increase inValue Resident Population(c) Adjusted 2007 ValuetoRepresent 1995 (c) (b) (a) %Increase in Valuefrom 2007to1995 1995 Value in 2007Dollars 2007 Value The 2007 recreational value was multiplied by the by multiplied was value recreational 2007 The The 1995 value was multiplied by 1.29 to obtain the values in 2007 dollars. dollars. in 2007 thevalues by1.29toobtain multiplied was value 1995 The non- use and expenditures, recreational Includes ditures. metric of 1,243,895 residents in 2007. in2007. residents of1,243,895 metric the same and in 1995 18 yearsorolder Comparison ofEstimated IndianRiver LagoonRecreational, Non Useand

Indian RiverLagoon Activities andTheir1995Estimated Values Commercial Fishing Valuesin1995and 2007 (b) and improve theLagoon Maximum willingness topay tomaintain species at dock of property value INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON (2) Type ofValue Table 7.7 Table 7.6 (4) = (3) -(2) (5) = (4) /(2) ogram by Apogee Research in association with Re- with inassociation Research ogram byApogee Number use value and does not include boat-related expen- boat-related include not and does use value Row Row ratio of 934,213 residents in the five IRL counties inthefiveIRLcounties residents ratio of934,213 an River Lagoon, Natural Resource Valuation”, pre- Valuation”, Resource Natural Lagoon, an River (1) (3) $1,178,700,000 $3,800,000 $1,569,400,000 $3,800,000 and Non-Use $884,200,000 $16,300,000 $294,500,000 -$12,500,000 Recreational Value $717.5 to$731.0 million $44.5 to$58 million $12.6 million $33 million $338.5 million 1995 Estimated Value 33% -77% HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN (a)

Commercial AUGUST 2008 AUGUST Fishing PAGE 7-9 PAGE 7-9 Indian River St. Lucie St. Lucie Brevard County Volusia Volusia Martin

40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final (1) cie County,215percent in VolusiaCounty and238percentinMartinCounty. inSt.Lu- County, 149percent percentinBrevard 61 percentinIndianRiverCounty,133 parcel increasedimpact oftheLagoononvalueper 1995 isprovidedinColumn(6).The thepercentincreasefrom (5)and inColumn 1995isprovided pact between2007and (4).ThedifferenceintheLagoon’sim- converted to2007dollarsasprovidedinColumn values werethen These asdescribed inthetext. by0.85 study anddivided of the1995 miniums isprovidedinColumn(3).ThesevaluesweretakenfromTable4-1onpage4-4 estimated 1995 impact of theLagoon onalltypesofresidential parcels exceptcondo- The on single-familyparcelsindollarsperparcelisprovidedColumn(2). residential in Table7.8 foreachof the fiveIRLcounties.The estimated2007impactoftheLagoon The comparisonofthe 1995 and2007 Lagoonimpactson realestate value isprovided 7.0 ECONOMICVALUEOFTHE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN Residential Parcel ImpactofLagoon Dollars per Parcel on SingleFamily Value, 2007 $876,951 $224,082 $503,083 $294,497 $558,443 Comparison ofthe2007 and 1995Estimated Impact ofthe (2) Indian RiverLagoon onProperty Values 1995 Dollars INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVERLAGOON Residential Parcel Values Residential Parcel ImpactofLagoon onAll $201,327 $242,080 $137,625 $69,824 $97,855 Except Condos, 1995 Dollars per Parcel (3) Table 7.8 2007 Dollars $259,729 $312,304 $126,242 $177,548 $90,078 (4) Lagoon Impact between 2007 Difference in (5) = (2) -(4) Dollars per and 1995 $617,222 $134,004 $190,779 $168,255 $380,895 Parcel HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN from 1995 to (6) = (5) /(4) AUGUST 2008 AUGUST Increase Percent 238% 149% 133% 215% 2007 61% PAGE 7-10 PAGE 7-10 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final allocated to this 2007study. couldrecommendations beimplementedwitha budget thatislargerthan thatwhich was mates oftheIndianRiverLagoonasthesevalues areupdated overtime.Allofthese This section providesrecommendations that INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 3 Theresident recreational usevalueoftheLagoonappearstobehigherthan (3) Theresident surveyaskedrespondents theyspentonboat how much money (2) Thevisitorsurveyofrecreationaluses,expenditures, recreational use valueand (1) Recommendations forFutureResearch Section 8.0 ing the payment card method as described in method asdescribed Section2.0of thisdocument.ing thepaymentcard This ues. erage usevalues reported inthisdocument maybelowerthantheactual val- surveys, itappearsthat these valuesaretoolow. Asaresult,theestimatedav- completed theenvironmentalconditionofLagoon.From of improving of maintainingtheLagooninitsexistingcondition and$120pertripinthecase the case pertripin was$100 amount range bid ofthe spondents. The maximum referendum yesorno questions where bidamounts were rotatedamong re- was administeredviatelephone, thesethe survey questionsweredesignedas was initiallyassumedwhendesigningtheuse value surveyquestions. Because tures associated withrecreationalusage onthe Lagoon. as totheirexpendi- completed residentsurveysinordertocollectmoredetail county. Additionalbudgetandmore couldallowmultiplesurveyinstruments not possible toisolatetheeconomiccontribution oftheseexpenditurestoeach where inFloridathesepurchasesand tookplace. payments Asaresult,itwas the lengthof thesurveyasshort possible, it was notpossibleto inquire asto purchases, fees anddockageinFlorida.Tokeepboat repair,andmarina inthewinter. goon forrecreationinthe summerthan winter visitors.Itisalso possible that alargerpercentage of visitors use the La- visitors participateinadifferent distributionofrecreation activities relativetothe months aswell.Thisisbecauseing thesummeritispossiblethat early February2008.Futureresearch should dur- also include surveyingvisitors 2007through non-use valuetookplaceduringthe winterperiodfromDecember Additional budget is recommended to conductinterceptsurveysAdditional budget residents us- isrecommended of

are expectedtoimprovethevalue esti- HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE 8-1 PAGE 8-1 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R2 Final 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FU 8.0 FOR RECOMMENDATIONS INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS UPDATE UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN 4 Thebudgetforthisstudyactualcosttocomplete study was$100,000. (4) additional budget wouldallowfor additi thea telephonesurveyisused, greater rangesofwillingnesstopayvalues.If was themethodused inthevisitor intercept survey.Thismethodallowsfor valuation studies needstobesignificantly higher than$100,000. budget wasabout$260,000in1996 dollars. The budgetedamountforfuture the studyoftheIndianRiverLagoon, was $150,000.Forthe1996valuation mates. pleted surveyscouldbe obtained to improvetherecreationalusevalue esti- higher willingness areused.Inthismannersufficient topaybidamounts com- TURE RESEARCH TURE RESEARCH onal surveys to be completed where onal surveystobecompleted where HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN AUGUST 2008 AUGUST PAGE 8-2 PAGE 8-2 APPENDIX A

Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Advisory Board Membership

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Final Report\APPENDIX A Advisory Board.doc Indian River Lagoon Estuary Program

Advisory Board Membership

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Inland Navigation District

St. Johns River Water Management District

South Florida Water Management District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Aeronautics Space Administration

Volusia County

Brevard County

Indian River County

St. Lucie County

Martin County

The Nature Conservancy

IRLNEP Citizens’ Action Committee

IRLNEP Technical Advisory Committee

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Final Report\APPENDIX A Advisory Board.doc APPENDIX B

Visitor Intercept Survey Indian River Lagoon Use and Economic Assessment Funded by: St. Johns River Water Management District And South Florida Water Management District

SUMMARY OF THIS STUDY This study will update the economic values of the Indian River Lagoon estimated in 1995. The goals of this study are to estimate the following values. 1. Number of person days spent enjoying the Lagoon by type of recreation activity and county 2. Expenditures for Lagoon recreation by county and expenditure item 3. Resident income, employment, tax revenues and sales created by Lagoon recreation expenditures in each county 4. Use values of the Lagoon 5. Non-Use values of the Lagoon 6. Enhanced property values created by the Lagoon 7. Resident income, employment, tax revenues and sales created by Lagoon commercial fish harvest 8. Market value and economic contribution of Lagoon-Related Restoration and Research.

The Indian River Lagoon resource to be valued includes the Indian River Lagoon, Mosquito Lagoon and Banana River Lagoon, and their associated tributaries. These tributaries include but are not limited to the St. Lucie River Estuary, St. Sebastian River, Turkey Creek, Crane Creek, Moore’s Creek, and the inlets of Ponce de Leon Inlet, Port Canaveral Inlet, Sebastian Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, St. Lucie Inlet, and Jupiter Inlet.

The Indian River Lagoon begins just north of New Smyrna Beach at Ponce Inlet and extends south for 156 miles to Jupiter Inlet in the City of Jupiter. The Lagoon flows through the southern half of Volusia County, all of Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin counties and one mile into Palm Beach County at Jupiter Inlet.

This study will assess the importance of additional funding at the Federal, State and local levels to protect the Indian River Lagoon resources while promoting its responsible use.

PRIVACY STATEMENT Your participation is voluntary. Since each interviewed person will represent many others not interviewed, your cooperation is extremely important. Hazen & Sawyer and Perceptive Market Research are conducting this study for the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and the St. Johns River Water Management District. Uses of the information include evaluation of current Indian River Lagoon-related recreation activities and the value of the Indian River Lagoon. This survey does not ask for any information that identifies you. All information from this survey will be available for distribution. The interview should take 5 to 15 minutes with an average of 10 minutes.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Project Summary for Respondent FINAL.doc INDIAN RIVER LAGOON VISITOR INTERCEPT SURVEY SCREENER/TALLY SHEET

Interviewer Name: ______

Interviewer County of Inteview (circle one):

Volusia Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin

1. Are you a permanent resident of (County of Interview)?

□ YES. Thank you. We are only interviewing non-residents of (County of Interview). (Place a tic mark in column 4.)

□ NO. 2. Are you ending your trip to (County of Interview) before noon tomorrow?

□ NO. Thank you. We are only interviewing those who are at the end of their stay here. (Place a tic mark in column 5.)

□ YES. 3. Will you participate in a 10-15 minute interview about your trip to (County of Interview)?

□ NO. Thank you. (Place a tic mark in column .6) If language Barrier, (Place a tic mark in column 7.)

□ YES. Go to Questionnaire (Place a tic mark in column 8.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Non-Exit Time Permanent Visitor or Language Visitor Site Name Date Refusal Period Resident Airport Barrier Interviewed Layover

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor_TALLY_IRL_FINAL.doc

WHITE CARD For Visitor Survey - Indian River Lagoon

Section 1. Overnight Accommodations

1 = None. I am only in this county 5 = Condominium, or second home (own), excluding for the day. (Day Tripper) time shares 2 = Hotel/Motel/Guest House/Bed 6 = Vacation Rental or Time Share & Breakfast 3 = Home of family/friends 7 = Other, please specify ______4 = Campground

Section 2. Indian River Lagoon Recreation Activities List

Number Activities on Indian River Lagoon

100 Fishing – Finfish 101 Fishing – Shrimp netting 102 Fishing – Shell fishing (clams, oysters and/or crabs) 200 Hunting – Water Fowl (for example, duck) 300 Swimming or Wading 400 Powerboat – Water-skiing / Tubing 401 Powerboat – Cruising 500 Sailing – Sail boat 501 Parasailing 502 Windsurfing 503 Kite Sailing 600 Canoeing / Kayaking 700 Personal Watercraft Boating (jet skis, wave runners, etc.) 800 Viewing the River from Shore (including while bird watching, hiking, jogging or strolling) 801 Sunset Cruise 900 Picnicking on Indian River Lagoon

Section 3. Top 3 reasons why you did not participate in Indian River Lagoon-related recreation activities. Please read letter corresponding to top 3 reasons. ___ a. I’m too busy to visit the Indian River Lagoon ___ h. The Lagoon is unattractive ___ b. I never thought about/wasn’t aware of it ___ i. Not enough boat ramps/launching facilities ___ c. I don’t like Lagoon-related recreation ___ j. Not enough parking ___ d. I prefer the Atlantic Ocean ___ k. Not enough dry dock storage ___ e. The Lagoon is too polluted ___ l. Not enough parks, undeveloped areas ___ f. The Lagoon is too crowded ___ m. Not enough or no beach areas ___ g. Not enough fish or shellfish to catch ___ n. Other reasons, please specify: ______

Section 4. Maintain the Quality of the Indian River Lagoon The Indian River Lagoon is an Estuary of National Significance and one of twenty-eight (28) national estuary programs in the U.S. The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program is working toward the goals of attaining and maintaining the water and sediment quality needed to support a healthy seagrass-based ecosystem, endangered and threatened species, fisheries and recreation in the Lagoon.

Since the Lagoon’s inception as a national estuary in 1991, the participating members of the National Estuary Program have eliminated effluent discharges to the Lagoon from more than 20 wastewater treatment facilities; reconnected over 27,500 acres of salt marshes and wetlands to the Lagoon for fisheries and wildlife habitat; prevented over a million pounds of sediments and pollutants from entering the Lagoon; and are working to keep unwanted freshwater discharges from the St. Johns River and surrounding lands from being drained into the Lagoon. Financed by State and Federal grants, the St. Johns River and South Florida Water Management Districts and local governments through local taxes and storm water assessment fees these actions have worked towards protecting and conserving the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon over the past 17 years.

Continued funding is needed to maintain this environmental quality at existing levels. Funding is needed to pay for environmental monitoring and research; environmental habitat restoration projects; law enforcement as related to protecting the Lagoon’s resources and wildlife; Lagoon maintenance due to recreational uses; and actions to limit new storm water flows and prevent new wastewater flows from entering the Lagoon as the regional economy grows. These activities would be conducted by the members of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program which is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and administered locally by the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Section 5. Maintain Lagoon. Give the number corresponding to the answer that best describes your reason. 1. I am not interested in maintaining the water, sediment and ecosystem quality of the Indian River Lagoon. 2. Not enough information to form a decision. 3. I believe the money will be misused. 4. I am opposed to any new taxes. 5. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be maintained. 6. Other, please specify: ______

Section 6. Improve the Quality of the Indian River Lagoon Now I am going to describe a different plan that will improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon. This plan would be implemented instead of the previous plan I just described to you. Please consider only this plan and forget about the plan and taxes we just discussed.

This plan would be financed by Federal and State grants and appropriations, and through local taxes and would be implemented by the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program which is administered by the St. Johns River Water Management District. However, sufficient funding must be raised to pay for this plan.

The actions to improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon above existing levels include removing accumulated harmful muck sediments from the bottom of the Lagoon throughout the Indian River Lagoon system; restoring and reconnecting additional wetlands such that all the wetlands are restored and functioning as wildlife and fisheries habitat; diverting additional unwanted freshwater flows away from the Lagoon; and treating additional storm water discharges from future and existing development in the watershed. Maintenance of past environmental investments in the Lagoon would also be conducted. The visible effect of these actions would be a significant increase in the amount and diversity of wildlife, including fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals and increased water clarity throughout the Lagoon system.

Section 7. Improve Lagoon. Give the number corresponding to the answer that best describes your reason. 1. I am not interested in improving the water, sediment and ecosystem quality of the Indian River Lagoon. 2. Not enough information to form a decision. 3. I believe the money will be misused. 4. I am opposed to any new taxes. 5. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be improved. 6. Other, please specify: ______

Section 8. Annual Household Income before Taxes. Please give only the letter of your income category. A. Less than $5,000 C. $15,001 to $25,000 E. $35,001 to $45,000 G. $60,001 to $75,000 I. $100,001 to $150,000 B. $5,001 to $15,000 D. $25,001 to $35,000 F. 45,001 to $60,000 H. $75,001 to $100,000 J. $150,001 or more

PAYMENT CARD NUMBER 1 – BLUE

PLEASE SELECT ONE AMOUNT FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST THAT REFLECTS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD PAY.

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

$35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65

$70 $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100

$105 $110 $115 $120 $125 $130 $135

$140 $145 $150 $155 $160 $165 $170

$175 $180 $185 $190 $195 $200 $205

$210 $215 $220 $225 $230 $235 $240

$245 $250 $255 $260 $265 $270 $275

$280 $285 $290 $295 $300 $305 $310

$315 $320 $325 $330 $335 $340 $345

MORE THAN $350

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\BLUE PAYMENT CARD.doc

PAYMENT CARD NUMBER 2 – BLUE

PLEASE SELECT ONE AMOUNT FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST THAT REFLECTS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD PAY.

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

$35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65

$70 $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100

$105 $110 $115 $120 $125 $130 $135

$140 $145 $150 $155 $160 $165 $170

$175 $180 $185 $190 $195 $200 $205

$210 MORE THAN $210

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\BLUE PAYMENT CARD.doc 2 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON Screening Criteria: 1) Not a Resident of County of Interview Survey number: ______2) Meets Exit Condition (Leaving before Date/time of Interview: noon tomorrow) ______Month Day Time

COUNTY OF INTERVIEW (you must circle one):

Volusia Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin

Interview Site: ______Interviewer Name: ______

SHOW RESPONDENT THE MAP AND INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE COUNTY RESPONDENT IS IN.

Q1. How many people are with you on your visit to (county of interview) who are not permanent residents of this county (do not include the respondent)? ______# of people

Q2. How many of these people are 16 years or older? (do not include the respondent)? ______# of people Q3. Where is your primary residence?

______City or nearest city County State Zip Code

Country: ______

Q4. Including this trip, how many trips have you taken to (county of interview) in the last 12 months? ______# of trips

Q5. Including this trip, how many days have you spent in (county of interview) in the last 12 months? ______# of days Q6. On this trip only, how many nights will you have spent in (county of interview)? ______# of nights

Q7. Please refer to Section 1 of the WHITE CARD and tell me the number corresponding to where you stayed on this trip to (county of interview)? (circle ALL numbers that apply)

3 = Home of family/friends 7 = Other, please specify ______

4 = Campground

Q8. If Question 7 is 2, ask: How many guest rooms are you and the people with you renting on this trip?

______, # of rooms

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 1 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

HAND RESPONDENT MAP & WHITE CARD WITH INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ACTIVITIES LIST

Now I’d like to ask you questions regarding your recreational uses of the Indian River Lagoon. Please refer to this MAP of the Indian River Lagoon and SECTION 2 of the WHITE CARD that has a list of activities while I ask you some questions. The Indian River Lagoon is the blue shaded area that runs along the east coast of Florida but does not include the Atlantic Ocean. The Indian River Lagoon is a shallow estuary, where salt water from the Atlantic Ocean mixes with freshwater from streams, rivers and canals creating a brackish (salty and fresh) water body that is west of the Atlantic Ocean and not on the Atlantic Ocean. The Indian River Lagoon begins just north of New Smyrna Beach at Ponce Inlet and extends south along the coast west of the Atlantic Ocean for 156 miles to Jupiter Inlet in the City of Jupiter. The Lagoon also includes the Banana River east of Merritt Island, the Mosquito Lagoon south of New Smyrna Beach, the St. Sebastian River dividing Brevard and Indian River counties, and the St. Lucie River Estuary.

Q9. Over the past 12 months, have you spent time participating in any of these recreation activities on the Indian River Lagoon? □ YES □ NO, Go to Part 2 – Non-User Questions on page 8

Q10. Over the past 12 months, how many total trips did you take to the Indian River Lagoon area to participate in these recreation activities? ______# of trips in past 12 months

Q11. Over the past 12 months, how many total days did you spend on the Indian River Lagoon as you recreated in these activities? ______# of days over past 12 months

Q12. Which Lagoon-related recreation activities did you participate in during the past 12 months? Please read me the number corresponding to each activity on the card.

Q13. As I read each activity, would you tell me how many days you participated in the activity in or on the Indian River Lagoon over the past 12 months? If you participated in more than one activity during a day, please choose the most prominent activity you participated in that day. (For multiple activities on the same day, answer question only for most prominent activity of the day. If day was spent equally on two activities you may count ½ day, not full day, for each of the two activities.)

Q14. Please refer to the map of the Indian River Lagoon. Please indicate the name of the county or counties where you participated in each of your Indian River Lagoon recreation activities – Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie or Martin counties – and the numbers of these days spend in each County. INDIAN RIVER LAGOON-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN PAST 12 MONTHS Q12 Activity Q13 Respondent Q14 Respondent Number of Days in Each County Number Total # of days Volusia Brevard St. Lucie Indian River Martin

______

Total Days: ______Q13 ______

Note: Sum of answers to Q13 must equal answer to Q11. If not, please inquire with respondent. O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 2 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - RELATED EXPENDITURES IN COUNTIES OF THE LAGOON Q15. On the most recent day that you participated in Indian River Lagoon - related activities, about how much money did your party spend on the following items in the counties of the Indian River Lagoon? For each expenditure, please indicate the county where the money was spent: V=Volusia; B=Brevard; IR=Indian River; ST=St. Lucie and M=Martin.

(Researcher Note: Please list expenditures under the predominant Indian River Lagoon-related activity that respondent participated in during that day. Fill table for all activities of respondent. The expenditures in each column must represent 1-day only and not multiple days. If respondent gave expenses for multiple days, be sure to ask for number of days represented (in last row of table).)

Expenditures in the Counties of the Indian River Lagoon on Most Recent Day You Participated In Indian River Lagoon-Related Activities Swimming, Hunting – Wading or Powerboat Fishing Water Fowl Picnicking Riding Expenditure Item (100, 101, 102) (200) (300 & 900) (400 & 401) County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Boat fuel $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Tackle, bait, and/or ice $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Boat rental $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Equipment Rental $ $ $ $ Ramp, Marina and County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Parking Fees $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Park Entrance Fees $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Lodging $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Camping fees $ $ $ $ Food and Beverages – County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Stores $ $ $ $ Food and Beverages – County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Restaurants/Bars $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Auto gas $ $ $ $ Auto Rental, Taxi, Bus County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______fares $ $ $ $ Shopping and Sundries County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______(gifts, sunscreen, etc.) $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: ______County: ______Repairs / Boat Purchase $ $ $ $ No. of people in party who spent or benefited from these purchases (overall) Days Represented by Expenditures O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 3 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Expenditures in Counties of the Indian River Lagoon on Most Recent Day You Participated In Indian River Lagoon-Related Activities

Sailing (Sail boat, Para and Kite), Windsurfing, Personal Viewing River Canoeing/Kayaking Watercraft from Shore Sunset Expenditure Item (500, 501, 502, 503, 600) Boating (700) (800) Cruise (801) County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Boat fuel $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Tackle, bait, and/or ice $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County: ___ Boat rental $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Equipment Rental $ $ $ $ Ramp, Marina and County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Parking Fees $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Park Entrance Fees $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Lodging $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Camping fees $ $ $ $ Food and Beverages – County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Stores $ $ $ $ Food and Beverages – County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Restaurants/Bars $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ Auto gas $ $ $ $ Auto Rental, Taxi, Bus County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ fares $ $ $ $ Shopping and Sundries County: ______County: ______County: _____ County:____ (gifts, sunscreen, etc.) $ $ $ $ County: ______County: ______County:_____ County:____ Repairs / Boat Purchase $ $ $ $ Number of people in party who spent or benefited from these purchases (overall) Days Represented by Expenditures

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 4 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON INDIAN RIVER LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLANS Please See Section 4 on the WHITE CARD and read it along with me. The Indian River Lagoon is an Estuary of National Significance and one of twenty-eight (28) national estuary programs in the U.S. The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program is working toward the goals of attaining and maintaining the water and sediment quality needed to support a healthy seagrass-based ecosystem, endangered and threatened species, fisheries and recreation in the Lagoon.

Financed by State and Federal grants, the St. Johns River and South Florida Water Management Districts and local governments through local taxes and storm water assessment fees these actions have worked towards protecting and conserving the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon over the past 17 years.

PLAN 1 - MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON Continued funding is needed to maintain this environmental quality at existing levels. Funding is needed to pay for environmental monitoring and research; environmental habitat restoration projects; law enforcement as related to protecting the Lagoon’s resources and wildlife; Lagoon maintenance due to recreational uses; and actions that limit new storm water flows and prevent new wastewater flows from entering the Lagoon as the regional economy grows. These activities would be conducted by the members of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program which is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and administered locally by the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Now I would like to ask you two questions about your support for these actions that maintain the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its current condition.

Q16. Over the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to visit the Indian River Lagoon for recreation?

______(number of trips in past year)

Q17. First, consider your total trip costs for your last trip, or this trip, to visit the Indian River Lagoon, including travel expenses, hotel and campsite fees, food and drink, and all other expenses. Using the amounts listed on the BLUE PAYMENT CARD NUMBER _____ (Insert #. Rotate the 2 payment cards so that half of the surveys have each one.), please indicate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay in additional trip cost for each future trip to this area when you use the Lagoon where that money would be used to maintain the Indian River Lagoon in its existing condition.

Please keep in mind that the added cost will be used to make sure that the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Lagoon will be maintained in their current conditions. Also, keep in mind that instead of using the Lagoon, you could have gone to other places for recreation or spent this money on other things.

$______(Record Dollar Amount.)

The respondent may provide an amount that is larger than what is on the Payment Card or an amount that is not on the Payment Card as long as the respondent reviews the Payment Card first.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 5 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Q18. In addition to this additional cost per trip that you just indicated, please indicate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay in a one-time tax that would be put into a trust fund to maintain the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its existing condition forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future. Please choose an amount listed on the BLUE PAYMENT CARD NUMBER _____ (Insert #. Rotate the 2 payment cards so that half of the surveys have each one.)

$______(Record Dollar Amount.) The respondent may provide an amount that is larger than what is on the Payment Card or an amount that is not on the Payment Card as long as the respondent reviews the Payment Card first.

If respondent indicates a $0 value for both of Questions 17 and 18, ask Question 19.

Q19. Please refer to Section 5 of the WHITE CARD and indicate the number that best describes your reason for not wanting to fund this maintenance program.

1. I am not interested in maintaining the water, sediment and ecosystem quality of the Indian River Lagoon. 2. Not enough information to form a decision. 3. I believe the money will be misused. 4. I am opposed to any new taxes. 5. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be maintained. 6. Other, please specify: ______

PLAN 2 - IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Please see Section 6 of the WHITE CARD and read along with me.

Now I am going to describe a different plan that will improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon. This plan would be implemented instead of the previous plan I just described to you. Please consider only this plan and forget about the plan and taxes we just discussed.

The visible effect of these actions would be a significant increase in the amount and diversity of wildlife, including fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals and increased water clarity throughout the Lagoon system.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 6 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON Now I would like to ask you two questions about your support for these actions that improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon above its current condition.

Q20. First, consider your total trip costs for your last trip, or this trip, to visit the Indian River Lagoon, including travel expenses, hotel and campsite fees, food and drink, and all other expenses. Using the amounts listed on the BLUE PAYMENT CARD NUMBER _____ (Insert #. Rotate the 2 payment cards so that half of the surveys have each one.), please indicate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay in additional trip cost for each future trip to this area when you use the Lagoon where that money would be used to significantly improve the qualities of the Indian River Lagoon.

Please keep in mind that the added cost will be used to make sure that the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Lagoon will be significantly improved. Also, keep in mind that instead of using the Lagoon, you could have gone to other places for recreation or spent this money on other things.

If answer to Question 20 is less than or equal to the answer to Question 17, ask Question 21. Q21. Why is the dollar amount you indicated you would pay to improve the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon less than or equal to the dollar amount you would pay to maintain the environmental quality of the Lagoon?

Write answer here: ______

Q22. In addition to this additional cost per trip that you just indicated, please indicate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay in a one-time tax that would be put into a trust fund to significantly improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future. Please choose an amount listed on the BLUE PAYMENT CARD NUMBER _____ (Insert #. Rotate the 2 payment cards so that half of the surveys have each one.)

If answer to Question 22 is less than or equal to the answer to Question 18, ask Question 23. Q23. Why is the dollar amount you indicated you would pay to improve the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon less than or equal to the dollar amount you would pay to maintain the environmental quality of the Lagoon?

Write answer here: ______

If respondent indicates a $0 value for both of Questions 20 and 22, ask Question 24. Q24. Please refer to Section 7 of the WHITE CARD and indicate the number that best describes your reason for not wanting to fund this improvement program.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 7 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Finally, for statistical purposes, we need to know a few things about you.

Q25. How many years have you been visiting (county of interview)? ______# of years

Q26. In what year were you born? 19 ______

Q27. Sex: □ Male □ Female (Observed, not asked)

Q28. Please refer to Section 8 of the WHITE CARD and tell me which income category best describes your annual household income last year, before taxes. Please give me the letter on the card that corresponds to the category. A B C D E F G H I J □ Refused □ Don’t know This concludes your interview. Thank you for your time.

PART 2 – NON-USER QUESTIONS

Q29. Please refer to Section 3 of the WHITE CARD. Which were the most important reasons why you did not participate in Indian River Lagoon-related recreation activities in the past 12 months in order of their importance? (Indicate top three answers in order of importance – 1 is most important; 2 is second in importance and 3 is third in importance.)

___ a. I’m too busy to visit the Indian River Lagoon ___ h. The Lagoon is unattractive ___ b. I never thought about/wasn’t aware of it ___ i. Not enough boat ramps/launching facilities ___ c. I don’t like Lagoon-related recreation ___ j. Not enough parking ___ d. I prefer the Atlantic Ocean ___ k. Not enough dry dock storage ___ e. The Lagoon is too polluted ___ l. Not enough parks, undeveloped areas ___ f. The Lagoon is too crowded ___ m. Not enough or no beach areas ___ g. Not enough fish or shellfish to catch ___ n. Other reasons, please specify: ______

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLANS Please See Section 4 on the WHITE CARD and read it along with me The Indian River Lagoon is an Estuary of National Significance and one of twenty-eight (28) national estuary programs in the U.S. The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program is working toward the goals of attaining and maintaining the water and sediment quality needed to support a healthy seagrass-based ecosystem, endangered and threatened species, fisheries and recreation in the Lagoon.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 8 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON PART 2 – NON-USER QUESTIONS

PLAN 1 - MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON Continued funding is needed to maintain this environmental quality at existing levels. Funding is needed to pay for environmental monitoring and research; environmental habitat restoration projects; law enforcement as related to protecting the Lagoon’s resources and wildlife; Lagoon maintenance due to recreational uses; and actions to limit new storm water flows and prevent new wastewater flows from entering the Lagoon as the regional economy grows. These activities would be conducted by the members of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program which is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and administered locally by the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Now I would like to ask you a question about your support for these actions that maintain the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its current condition.

Q30. Using the amounts listed on the BLUE PAYMENT CARD NUMBER _____ (Insert #. Rotate the 2 payment cards so that half of the surveys have each one.), please indicate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay in a one-time tax that would be put into a trust fund to maintain the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its existing condition forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future.

If respondent indicates a $0 value for Question 30, ask Question 31. Q31. Please refer to Section 5 of the WHITE CARD and indicate the number that best describes your reason for not wanting to fund this maintenance program.

PLAN 2 - IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON Please see Section 6 of the WHITE CARD and read along with me. Now I am going to describe a different plan that will improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon. This plan would be implemented instead of the previous plan I just described to you. Please consider only this plan and forget about the plan and taxes we just discussed.

The actions to improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon above existing levels include removing accumulated harmful muck sediments from the bottom of the Lagoon throughout the Indian River Lagoon system; restoring and reconnecting additional wetlands such that all the wetlands are restored and functioning as wildlife and fisheries habitat; diverting additional unwanted freshwater flows away from the Lagoon; and treating additional storm water discharges from future and existing development in the watershed. Maintenance of past environmental investments in the Lagoon would also be conducted. O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 9 VISITOR SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON PART 2 – NON-USER QUESTIONS

Now I would like to ask you a question about your support for these actions that improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon above its current condition.

Q32. Using the amounts listed on the BLUE PAYMENT CARD NUMBER _____ (Insert #. Rotate the 2 payment cards so that half of the surveys have each one.), please indicate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to pay in a one-time tax that would be put into a trust fund to significantly improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future.

If answer to Question 32 is less than or equal to the answer to Question 30, ask Question 33. Q33. Why is the dollar amount you indicated you would pay to improve the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon less than or equal to the dollar amount you would pay to maintain the environmental quality of the Lagoon?

Write answer here: ______

If respondent indicates a $0 value for Questions 32, ask Question 34.

Q34. Please refer to Section 7 of the WHITE CARD and indicate the number that best describes your reason for not wanting to fund this improvement program.

1. I am not interested in improving the water, sediment and ecosystem quality of the Indian River Lagoon. 2. Not enough information to form a decision. 3. I believe the money will be misused. 4. I am opposed to any new taxes. 5. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be improved. 6. Other, please specify: ______Finally, for statistical purposes, we need to know a few things about you. Q35. How many years have you been visiting (county of interview)? ______# of years Q36. In what year were you born? 19 ______Q37. Sex: □ Male □ Female (Observed, not asked) Q38. Please refer to Section 8 of the WHITE CARD and tell me which income category best describes your annual household income last year, before taxes. Please give me the letter on the card that corresponds to the category. A B C D E F G H I J □ Refused □ Don’t know This concludes your interview. Thank you for your time.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Visitor Survey\Visitor Survey IRL FINAL.doc 10 APPENDIX C

Resident Telephone Survey RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Values to Insert Into Certain Questions Where Indicated with a Blank Please use each version an equal number of times Q83 Q87A. Q89. One Q99. One Q101A. One Increased Q85. One Increased time tax time tax to time tax to Survey Trip Cost to time tax to Trip Cost to to maintain Improve (non‐ Version Maintain Maintain Improve Improve (non‐users) users) A $5 $15 $10 $20 $15 $20 B $10 $30 $20 $50 $30 $50 C $25 $50 $30 $75 $50 $75 D $50 $100 $60 $150 $100 $150 E $75 $200 $80 $300 $200 $300 F $100 $300 $120 $400 $300 $400

Hello, my name is ______and I am calling from Perceptive Research in Gainesville, Florida. We are conducting a survey of residents in your area to collect information about recreational activities and opinions about ways to protect the natural resources in your area. Your answers and the answers of others like you will help Florida make decisions about recreation and resources. This is not a sales call and your answers will remain anonymous. May I continue with the interview?

1 YES (CONTINUE WITH SURVEY) 2 NO (THANK AND TERMINATE CALL)

Are you 18 years of age or older? (IF NOT THEN ASK TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE WHO IS.)

INTERVIEWER RECORD GENDER: 1 MALE 2 FEMALE (QUOTA: ABOUT 500 MALES AND ABOUT 500 FEMALES)

Q1. Is this a private residence? 1 YES 2 NO – THANK AND TERMINATE

Q2. Are you a Florida resident, or do you live in Florida for more than six months per year?

1 Florida resident 2 Live in Florida for more than six months per year 3. Neither – THANK AND TERMINATE

Q3. In what Florida county do you live in?

1. Volusia 2. Brevard 3. Indian River 4. St. Lucie 5. Martin

6. Other - THANK AND TERMINATE

Q4. Do you know the location of the Indian River Lagoon in your area? 1 YES 2 NO

READ BELOW REGARDLESS OF ANSWER TO Q4. During this survey, when I say Indian River Lagoon I mean the Indian River on the east coast of Florida that begins at Ponce Inlet near New Smyrna Beach; and ends at Jupiter Inlet near Jupiter, Florida. This water body also includes the Banana River near Merritt Island, the Mosquito Lagoon near New Smyrna Beach, the St. Sebastian River in Brevard and Indian River counties, and the St. Lucie River Estuary.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 1 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

The Indian River Lagoon is a place where salt water from the Atlantic Ocean mixes with freshwater from streams, rivers and canals and creates a mix of salty water and fresh water. It is west of the Atlantic Ocean but not on the Atlantic Ocean.

Q5. Please tell me if you are very familiar with the Indian River Lagoon, somewhat familiar with the Indian River Lagoon or not very familiar with the Indian River Lagoon.(DO NOT READ “DON’T KNOW” ANSWER CATEGORY)

1. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. 2. SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON 3. NOT VERY FAMILIER WITH THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON 8. DON’T KNOW

Q6. Is your residence on the Indian River Lagoon or on a waterway leading to the Indian River Lagoon? (THROUGHOUT THIS SURVEY, DO NOT READ “DON’T KNOW” ANSWER CATEGORY.)

1 YES 2 NO 8 DON’T KNOW

Now I would like to ask you some questions about your recreational activities on the Indian River Lagoon, including the St. Lucie River Estuary, the Banana and St. Sebastian Rivers and the Mosquito Lagoon.

Q7. During the past year, did you participate in any recreation activities on the Indian River Lagoon such as fishing, hunting, any type of sailing, canoeing, kayaking, power boating, including jet skiing, swimming or wading, sunset cruising, bird watching, picnicking or viewing the river from shore?

1 YES 2 NO 8 DON’T KNOW

(INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED YES, CONTINUE TO Q8, OTHERWISE GO TO PART II WHICH BEGINS WITH Q86.)

Q8. The Indian River Lagoon’s waters are located in five counties. These counties are Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin. During the past year, how many total days did you participate in recreation activities on the Indian River Lagoon in one or more of these five counties?

Please do not count the same day twice when considering activities or considering counties. If you participated in more than one recreational activity during the day or visited more than one county during the day, please choose the most prominent county you visited and the most prominent activity you participated in that day. (INTERVIEWER: EXPLAIN TO RESPONDENT IF NEEDED: “PROMINENT” MEANS IT STICKS OUT IN YOUR MIND OR IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO YOU.) (# of days) ______

Q9. Of the number of days that you just stated, how many of those days did you participate in recreation activities on the Indian River Lagoon IN YOUR COUNTY during the past year?

(# of days) ______

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 2 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Now, I am going to ask you about the recreation activities you participated in while on the Indian River Lagoon during the past year. As I read the activities to you, please tell me if you participated in these activities on the Indian River Lagoon. If you have, I will ask you how many days in the past year you participated in each activity on the Lagoon IN YOUR COUNTY and in the OTHER FOUR COUNTIES and how much money you spent while recreating on the Indian River Lagoon.

Q10. In the past year, did you go fin fishing, shrimp netting or fishing for clams, oysters or crabs on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q11 2 NO, GO TO Q20 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q20

Q11. In the past year, how many days did you spend fin fishing on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q12. Now how many days did you spend fin fishing on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

(INTERVIEWER: IF ANSWER TO Q11 OR Q12 IS GREATER THAN ZERO, ASK Q13, OTHERWISE GO TO Q15.)

Q13. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went fin fishing?

1 YES , GO TO Q14 2 NO, GO TO Q15

Q14. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

o fishing o hunting o any type of sailing o canoeing or kayaking o power boating, including jet skiing o swimming or wading o sunset cruising o picnicking o viewing the river from shore while birdwatching, hiking, jogging or strolling o other

Q15. In the past year, how many days did you spend shrimp netting or fishing for clams, oysters or crabs on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q16. Now how many days did you spend shrimp netting or fishing for clams, oysters or crabs on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

(INTERVIEWER: IF ANSWER TO Q15 OR Q16 IS GREATER THAN ZERO, ASK Q17, OTHERWISE GO TO Q19.)

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 3 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q17. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went shrimp netting or fishing for clams, oysters or crabs?

1 YES , GO TO Q18 2 NO, GO TO Q19

Q18. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q19. On the most recent day when you went fin fishing, shrimp netting or fishing for clams, oysters or crabs on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

a. Restaurants, food, drinks and refreshments ($ spent) ______b. Boat fuel and car fuel ($ spent) ______c. Tackle, bait, equipment, sundries, and boat ramp, parking, and entrance fees ($ spent) ______d. Hotel/ motel/campsite ($ spent) ______e. Shopping ($ spent) ______f. How many people spent or benefited from these expenditures (number)? ______

Q20. In the past year, did you go water fowl hunting on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q21 2 NO, GO TO Q26 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q26

Q21. In the past year, how many days did you spend water fowl hunting on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q22. Now how many days did you spend water fowl hunting on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

Q23. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went water fowl hunting?

1 YES , GO TO Q24 2 NO, GO TO Q25

Q24. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

o fishing o hunting o any type of sailing o canoeing or kayaking O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 4 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08 o power boating, including jet skiing o swimming or wading o sunset cruising o picnicking o viewing the river from shore while birdwatching, hiking, jogging or strolling o other

Q25. On the most recent day when you went water fowl hunting on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

Q26. In the past year, did you go swimming or wading on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q27 2 NO, GO TO Q32 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q32

Q27. In the past year, how many days did you spend swimming or wading on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q28. Now how many days did you spend swimming or wading on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

Q29. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went swimming or wading?

1 YES , GO TO Q30 2 NO, GO TO Q31

Q30. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 5 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q31. On the most recent day when you went swimming or wading on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

Q32. In the past year, did you go power boating, including water-skiing, tubing or cruising on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q33 2 NO, GO TO Q38 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q38

Q33. In the past year, how many days did you spend power boating, including water-skiing, tubing or cruising, on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q34. Now how many days did you spend power boating, including water-skiing, tubing or cruising, on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

Q35. Did you usually participate in other recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went power boating, including water-skiing, tubing or cruising?

1 YES , GO TO Q36 2 NO, GO TO Q37

Q36. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q37. On the most recent day when you went power boating on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 6 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q38. In the past year, did you go sailing on a sailboat, parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q39 2 NO, GO TO Q48 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q48

Q39. In the past year, how many days did you spend sailing on a sailboat on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q40. Now how many days did you spend sailing on a sailboat on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

(INTERVIEWER: IF ANSWER TO Q43 OR Q44 IS GREATER THAN ZERO, ASK Q41, OTHERWISE GO TO Q43.)

Q41. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went sailing on a sailboat?

1 YES , GO TO Q42 2 NO, GO TO Q43

Q42. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q43. In the past year, how many days did you spend parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q44. Now how many days did you spend parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

(INTERVIEWER: IF ANSWER TO Q43 OR Q44 IS GREATER THAN ZERO, ASK Q45, OTHERWISE GO TO Q47.)

Q45. Did you usually participate in other recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing?

1 YES , GO TO Q46 2 NO, GO TO Q47

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 7 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q46. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q47. On the most recent day when you went sailing on a sailboat, parasailing, windsurfing or kite sailing on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

Q48. In the past year, did you go canoeing or kayaking on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q49 2 NO, GO TO Q54 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q54

Q49. In the past year, how many days did you spend canoeing or kayaking on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q50. Now how many days did you spend canoeing or kayaking on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

Q51. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went canoeing or kayaking?

1 YES , GO TO Q52 2 NO, GO TO Q53

Q52. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

o fishing o hunting o any type of sailing o canoeing or kayaking o power boating, including jet skiing o swimming or wading o sunset cruising o picnicking O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 8 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08 o viewing the river from shore while birdwatching, hiking, jogging or strolling o other

Q53. On the most recent day when you went canoeing or kayaking on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

a. Restaurants, food, drinks and refreshments ($ spent) ______b. Car fuel ($ spent) ______c. Tackle, bait, equipment, sundries, and boat ramp, parking, and entrance fees ($ spent) ______d. Hotel/ motel/campsite ($ spent) ______e. Shopping ($ spent) ______f. How many people spent or benefited from these expenditures (number)? ______

Q54. In the past year, did you go boating on a personal water craft such as a jet ski or wave runner on the Indian River Lagoon?

1 YES, GO TO Q55 2 NO, GO TO Q60 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q60

Q55. In the past year, how many days did you spend boating on a personal water craft such as a jet ski or wave runner on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q56. Now how many days did you spend boating on a personal water craft such as a jet ski or wave runner on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

Q57. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went boating on a personal water craft?

1 YES , GO TO Q58 2 NO, GO TO Q59

Q58. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q59. On the most recent day when you went boating on a personal water craft on the Indian River Lagoon about how much money did you spend on the following items?

a. Restaurants, food, drinks and refreshments ($ spent) ______b. Boat and Car fuel ($ spent) ______c. Tackle, bait, equipment, sundries, and boat ramp, parking, and entrance fees ($ spent) ______d. Hotel/ motel/campsite ($ spent) ______e. Shopping ($ spent) ______f. How many people spent or benefited from these expenditures (number)? ______O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 9 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q60. In the past year, did you picnic or take a sunset cruise on the Indian River Lagoon or view the Lagoon or the estuaries from shore while bird watching, hiking, jogging or strolling?

1 YES, GO TO Q61 2 NO, GO TO Q70 8 DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q70

Q61. In the past year, how many days did you spend picnicking on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q62. Now how many days did you spend picnicking on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

(INTERVIEWER: IF ANSWER TO Q61 OR Q62 IS GREATER THAN ZERO, ASK Q63, OTHERWISE GO TO Q65.)

Q63. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you went picnicking?

1 YES , GO TO Q64 2 NO, GO TO Q65

Q64. What other recreation activities did you participate in? (INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q65. In the past year, how many days did you spend sunset cruising or viewing the Indian River Lagoon from shore while bird watching, hiking, jogging or strolling on the Indian River Lagoon in your county? ______# of days

Q66. Now how many days did you spend sunset cruising or viewing the Indian River Lagoon from shore while bird watching, hiking, jogging or strolling on the Indian River Lagoon in the other four counties? Do not include the days when you also participated in this activity on the Indian River Lagoon in your own county. ______# of days

(INTERVIEWER: IF ANSWER TO Q65 OR Q66 IS GREATER THAN ZERO, ASK Q67, OTHERWISE GO TO Q69.)

Q67. Did you usually participate in other types of recreational activities on the Lagoon during the days when you sunset cruised or viewed the Indian River Lagoon from shore while bird watching, hiking, jogging or strolling?

1 YES , GO TO Q68 2 NO, GO TO Q69

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 10 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q68. What other recreation activities did you participate in?

(INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK AS MANY AS LISTED BY RESPONDENT.)

Q69. On the most recent day when you picnicked, took a sunset cruise or viewed the LAGOON from shore about how much money did you spend on the following items?

Q70. While recreating on the Indian River Lagoon over the past year, did you use your own boat?

1 YES (GO TO Q71) 2 NO (GO TO Q72)

Q71. In the past year, about how much money did you spend in Florida for the following boat-related items?

a. Marina slip rental and dockage fees ($ spent) ______b. Boat Purchase ($ spent) ______c. Boat Repairs ($ spent) ______

Q72. Over the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to recreate on the Indian River Lagoon in any of the five counties of the Lagoon system?

(# of trips) ______

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: ONE TRIP CAN LAST ONE DAY OR MANY DAYS.

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLANS Now I need your opinion about two future management plans for the Indian River Lagoon and your opinion about how they should be financed.

The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program has worked towards improving and protecting the environmental quality of the Indian River Lagoon over the past seventeen years. It is funded by Federal, State and local governments.

Continued funding is needed to maintain the environmental quality at existing levels which includes monitoring and research; habitat restoration; law enforcement; and maintenance due to recreational uses.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 11 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your support for this plan that maintains the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its current condition.

FILL IN THE BLANK WITH VALUES PROVIDED IN THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF THIS SURVEY.

Q73. First, consider your total trip costs for your last trip to visit the Indian River Lagoon in any of the five counties of the Lagoon system. If your total costs for this trip would have been $______higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to maintain the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon in its existing condition? Keep in mind that you could have gone to other places for recreation instead, or spent this money on other things.

1 YES (GO to Q75) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q74)

Q74. Which of the following statements best describes your reason for answering NO. (READ ANSWERS BELOW TO RESPONDENT – ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY) A. That amount is more than this plan is worth. B. I’m not interested in maintaining the quality of the Indian River Lagoon. C. There is not enough information to make a decision. D. I’m opposed to new taxes. E. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be maintained.

FILL IN THE BLANK WITH VALUES PROVIDED IN THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF THIS SURVEY.

Q75. In addition to this additional cost per trip, would you be willing to pay a one-time tax of $______that would be put into a trust fund to maintain the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its existing condition forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future.

1 YES (GO to Q77) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q76)

Q76. Which of the following statements best describes your reason for answering NO. (READ ANSWERS BELOW TO RESPONDENT – ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY) A. That amount is more than this plan is worth. B. I’m not interested in maintaining the quality of the Indian River Lagoon. C. There is not enough information to make a decision. D. I’m opposed to new taxes. E. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be maintained.

Q77. Now I am going to describe a different plan that will improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon. This plan would be implemented instead of the previous plan I just described to you. Please consider only this plan and forget about the plan and taxes we just discussed.

This plan would remove harmful muck sediments from the bottom of the entire Lagoon system; restore and reconnect all wetlands; and manage additional freshwater and stormwater flows to protect the Lagoon. Maintenance of past environmental measures would also be conducted.

The effect of this plan would be a significant increase in the amount and diversity of wildlife, such as fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals and increased water clarity throughout the Lagoon system.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 12 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your support for this plan that improves the quality of the Indian River Lagoon above its current condition.

FILL IN THE BLANK WITH VALUES PROVIDED IN THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF THIS SURVEY.

Q77A. First, consider your total trip costs for your last trip to visit the Indian River Lagoon in any of the five counties of the Lagoon system. If your total costs for this trip would have been $______higher, would you have been willing to pay this amount to improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Lagoon? Keep in mind that you could have gone to other places for recreation instead or spent this money on other things.

1 YES (GO to Q79) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q78) Q78. Which of the following statements best describes your reason for answering NO. (READ ANSWERS BELOW TO RESPONDENT – ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY) A. That amount is more than this plan is worth. B. I’m not interested in improving the quality of the Indian River Lagoon. C. There is not enough information to make a decision. D. I’m opposed to new taxes. E. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be improved.

FILL IN THE BLANK WITH VALUES PROVIDED IN THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF THIS SURVEY.

Q79. In addition to this additional cost per trip, would you be willing to pay a one-time tax of $______that would be put into a trust fund to improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future.

1 YES (GO to Q81) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q80)

Q80. Which of the following statements best describes your reason for answering NO. (READ ANSWERS BELOW TO RESPONDENT – ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY) A. That amount is more than this plan is worth. B. I’m not interested in improving the quality of the Indian River Lagoon. C. There is not enough information to make a decision. D. I’m opposed to new taxes. E. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be improved.

Finally, for statistical purposes, we need to know a few things about you.

Q81. How many years have you lived in Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie or Martin counties?

(# of years) ______

Q82. What is your zip code? (five digits) ______

Q83. In what year were you born? 19 ______

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 13 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Q84. Please tell me which of the following education levels is your highest education level? A. Completed grades 1 through 8 or some high school B. High school graduate or equivalency C. Some college or vocational school D. College Graduate E. Graduate or professional degree

Q85. Please tell me which of the following income categories best describes your annual household income last year, before taxes.

A. Less than $25,000 B. Greater than $25,000 TO $75,000 C. Greater than $75,000 to $100,000 D. Greater than $100,000 to $200,000 E. Greater than $200,000 F. Refused G. Don’t know

This concludes your interview. Thank you for your time.

PART 2 – NON-USER QUESTIONS

Q86. Please tell me if any of the following were reasons why you did not participate in Indian River Lagoon-related recreation activities in the past 12 months? Please answer yes or no to each reason.

YES NO DK

A. I’m too busy to visit the Indian River Lagoon 1 2 8 B. I never thought about it/wasn’t aware of it 1 2 8 C. I don’t like Lagoon-related recreation 1 2 8 D. I prefer the Atlantic Ocean 1 2 8 E. The Lagoon is too polluted 1 2 8 F, The Lagoon is too crowded 1 2 8 G. Not enough fish or shellfish to catch 1 2 8 H. The Lagoon is unattractive 1 2 8 I. Not enough boat ramps/launching facilities 1 2 8 J. Not enough parking 1 2 8 K. Not enough dry dock storage 1 2 8 L. Not enough parks/undeveloped areas 1 2 8 M. Not enough or no beach areas 1 2 8

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLANS

Now I need your opinion about two future management plans for the Indian River Lagoon and your opinion about how they should be financed.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 14 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your support for this plan that maintains the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its current condition.

FILL IN THE BLANK WITH VALUES PROVIDED IN THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF THIS SURVEY.

Q87. Would you be willing to pay a one-time tax of $______that would be put into a trust fund to maintain the quality of the Indian River Lagoon in its existing condition forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future.

1 YES (GO to Q89) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q88)

Q88. Which of the following statements best describes your reason for answering NO. (READ ANSWERS BELOW TO RESPONDENT – ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY) A. That amount is more than this plan is worth. B. I’m not interested in maintaining the quality of the Indian River Lagoon. C. There is not enough information to make a decision. D. I’m opposed to new taxes. E. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be maintained.

Q89. Now I am going to describe a different plan that will improve the water, sediment and ecosystem qualities of the Indian River Lagoon. This plan would be implemented instead of the previous plan I just described to you. Please consider only this plan and forget about the plan and taxes we just discussed.

The effect of this plan would be a significant increase in the amount and diversity of wildlife, such as fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals and increased water clarity throughout the Lagoon system.

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your support for this plan that improves the quality of the Indian River Lagoon above its current condition.

FILL IN THE BLANK WITH VALUES PROVIDED IN THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF THIS SURVEY.

Q89A. Would you be willing to pay a one-time tax of $______that would be put into a trust fund to improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon forever into the future. You would pay this tax regardless of whether or not you visited the Indian River Lagoon in the future.

1 YES (GO to Q91) 2 NO (CONTINUE TO Q90)

Q90. Which of the following statements best describes your reason for answering NO. (READ ANSWERS BELOW TO RESPONDENT – ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY) F. That amount is more than this plan is worth. G. I’m not interested in improving the quality of the Indian River Lagoon. H. There is not enough information to make a decision. I. I’m opposed to any new taxes. J. The quality of the Indian River Lagoon does not need to be improved.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 15 RESIDENT SURVEY – INDIAN RIVER LAGOON- REVISED GJohns edited the 3/10/08 draft on 3/20/08

Finally, for statistical purposes, we need to know a few things about you.

Q91. How many years have you lived in Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie or Martin counties?

(# of years) ______

Q92. What is your zip code? (five digits) ______

Q93. In what year were you born? 19 ______

Q94. Please tell me which of the following education levels is your highest education level?

A. Completed grades 1 through 8 or some high school B. High school graduate or equivalency C. Some college or vocational school D. College Graduate E. Graduate or professional degree

Q95. Please tell me which of the following income categories best describes your annual household income last year, before taxes. A. Less than $25,000 B. Greater than $25,000 TO $75,000 C. Greater than $75,000 to $100,000 D. Greater than $100,000 to $200,000 E. Greater than $200,000 F. Refused G. Don’t know

This concludes your interview. Thank you for your time.

O:\40548-001-HWD\Eng\Resident Telephone Survey\Resident Survey IRL Sixth draft 3.20.08 GJ edits not tracked.doc 16 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final nical reviewerasfollows. theThis Appendix expertiseof summarizes the andourkey projectteam members tech- Project TeamMembers UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN and natural reef resources. Theseprojects were conducted for thefollowing studies. and sanitaryusesofwater-basednaturalresources includingrivers,bays,andartificial Dr. Johnshas conducted contingent valuationsurveysrelatedtorecreational, aesthetic analysis for private litigation cases and publichearings. Johns has been anexpertwitnessinagriculturaleconomics andeconomicimpact Colombia, andPanamausing contingent valuationstudies ortravelcostmodels. Dr. reation andwaterresourceprojects to residents in Florida,California,Honduras, Bolivia, tions andwater policies toagricultural industries. Shehas evaluated thebenefitsof rec- Shehasestimatedthefinancialand economic impactsofchemicalregula- development. claimed water,agricultural chemicaluse, regulations andprogramsfocusedonwater,stormwater,re- tomers fromgovernment economic impacts tofarmers, industry, waterutilities, businesses, households and cus- 20years,Dr.JohnshasconductedOver thepast numerousstudiesof financial and since 1990. She islocated atthefirm’s Floridaoffice. Hollywood, Grace Johns,isaSeniorAssociate withHazenandSawyerhasbeenthefirm Sawyer and Hazen Senior Associateand Economist Grace M.Johns,Ph.D. Project Manager ● ● ●

Appendix D Biscayne Bay Economic Study (2005); Biscayne BayEconomicStudy(2005); (2003); Socioeconomic StudyofReefsin MartinCounty,Floridafor County Socioeconomic ReefsinSoutheastFlorida forBrowardCounty(2001); Studyof environmental improvement and community and community improvement environmental HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN PAGE AD-1 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final APPENDIX D D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN developed recreationvaluationmodelsforthefollowing studies. She hasusedtheresultsofcontingentconducted valuationsurveys by othersand/or ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

in Bogota, Colombia for the InterAmerican DevelopmentBank(1996);and, in Bogota,ColombiafortheInterAmerican Benefit-cost Analysisof the WastewaterTreatmentProgramforBogota River tion Planfor thePanamaMinistryofHealth(2003); Sanitation of theBayand CityofPanama, EngineeringReport andImplementa- Honduras fortheInterAmericanDevelopmentBank(1994). Benefit-cost Analysisof the WastewaterTreatmentProgramforSanPedroSula, (2000); Bureau ofReclamation PlanfortheU.S. Recovery andImplementation River Potential Third PartyImpactsofthe HabitatComponentoftheProposedPlatte Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (1998); Charlotte HarborNationalEstuaryProgram(1998); Economic Valueofthe Resources of theCharlotteHarborWatershed forthe sin, Florida for theSt.Johns RiverWaterManagementDistrict(1997); Economic Contributionof OrangeandLochloosa Lakesinthe OrangeCreekBa- South Florida WaterManagementDistrict(1992); Economic BenefitEvaluationofEvergladesRestorationand Preservationforthe royo PasajerofortheMetropolitan Water DistrictofSouthern California (1990); OutageoftheCaliforniaAqueductatAr- Economic ImpactsfromCatastrophic chella Valley, CaliforniafortheCoachellaValleyWaterDistrict(1989); Economic ImportanceoftheHospitalityIndustryRecreation totheCoa- andGolf (1989); Waterquin Delta,Californiafor theMetropolitan Districtof Southern California Economic ActivitiesTied totheFisheryResourcesofSacramento-San Joa- 2020, forthe MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthern California(1988); and, SouthernCalifornia,Trends inFreshwaterRecreationDemand 1985and HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN JULY 2008 PAGE AD-2 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final APPENDIX D D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN #NA16RG-2195, 2002. #NA16RG-2195, merce, NationalOceanic andAtmospheric Administration,underGrant NOAA David LetsonandJ. ofCom- Walter Milon,FloridaSeaGrantProgram,USDepartment “Florida’s CoastalEnvironmental Resources: the booktitled Dr. Johnspublishedthree bibliographyin chaptersandtheannotated 3, June1999. No. Lisa A.McDonald-JournaloftheAmericanWater ResourcesAssociation,Vol.35, cial Benefit Cost Accounting IntoWatershed Restorationand Protection Programs,with counting to cleaning the BogotaRiverinBogota, Colombia.ThepaperisIntegrating So- She published, withLisaMcDonald,apaperdescribing the application offullcost ac- Commission andatnumerousartificialreefnatural resource conferences. tothe Commissions, OceanPolicy study tothePalmBeachCountyandMonroe same studyforthereefs ofMartin County,Florida.She presented the resultsof this and naturalreefsinsoutheast Florida. Dr.Johns alsomanagedandconductedthis survey researcheffortto estimatethe econom and Wildlife Conservation Commission.The2000-01 project included an 18-monthlong andMonroe(FloridaKeys)Counties, NOAAandtheFloridaBroward, Miami-Dade Fish Beach, in2000and2001.ThestudywasfundedbyPalm Florida forBrowardCounty Dr. Johnswastheproject managerfortheSocioeconomicinSoutheast Study ofReefs andthe Advisory Board MarineCouncil. Miami Waterfront District,theCityof Commission, theFloridaInlandNavigation River study tonumerous audiences including ofEngineers,the theU.S. ArmyCorps Miami scenarios.Shepresentedtheresultsofdent reactionsmanagement this toseveralBay vey researcheffortalso included contingent valuationquestions and addressed respon- Economic contributions to thecounty, theregion andtheStatewereestimated.Thesur- reation, commercialfishingandshippingthe MiamiRiver. activities onBiscayneBayand tributions includedrevenuesgeneratedfromrec- thesales,income,employmentandtax were estimated.Theevaluationfocusedonthe years1980to2004.The economic con- Florida County, Miami-Dade in River and theMiami nomic contributionofBiscayneBay theDistrict. Usingextensivesurveyresearch, currentandhistoricuses andtheeco- study wasfundedbytheStateofFloridalegislatureandInland Navigation Economic Studycompletedin2005.She wasprojectmanageroftheBiscayneBayThis ●

(1988). reported intheDEISCVPWaterContractingPrograms, TechnicalAppendixE Freshwater RecreationinNorthernCaliforniafor theU.S.BureauofReclamation, Impact ofWater Policy Regarding ReservoirWaterLevels and Instream Flowson EconomicValuationand Analysis”. Editors ic contribution andusevaluesofartificial HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN JULY 2008 PAGE AD-3 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final from theUniversityofFlorida. University ofCalifornia, Berkeley andher Dr. Johnsreceived herPh.D.inAgriculturaland NaturalResourceEconomicsfrom the Kenneth J. Miller FoundersAwardfromWaterforPeoplein 2008. in 2006andthe ofExcellence,ChairtheYear Chair’s Award received theFSAWWA forwhichshe www.waterforpeople.org) WaterforPeopleCommittee(see (FSAWWA) Group andiscurrentlychairofthe Florida Section AmericanWaterWorksAssociation She wasa member oftheFlorida Water ConservationInitiative’s Pricing Work D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN tent ofapparentwaterlossesdueto meter under-registration. tions ofclimate planningandhasstudiedthe changeforwaterdemand causes and ex- Suite softwaretoolformunicipalapplications. Mostrecently, hehasstudied theimplica- Kiefer also Water Demand Management oftheIWR-MAIN©directed the development econometric evaluationsofenduses ofwate Works AssociationResearch Foundationwhereheledstatistical (AWWARF),and He servedasprincipal investigator ontwoNationalstudies forthe American Water Phoenix. andtheCity of BayWater California, theWaterAuthority,Tampa SanDiegoCounty water utilities intheUnitedStates,including MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthern long-term waterdemandforecasts and waterconservationplansforsome ofthelargest lednumerouseconometricculminating analysesofwaterdemand, in Dr. Kieferhas senior-level scientist and strategistwithHazenandSawyer. quisition lasting of through Camp,Dresser,andMcKee(CDM) PMCL by todayas a with histenure atPlanning andManagement Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL),throughthe ac- Dr.Kieferhasan establishedservation programevaluation. consulting history,starting agement andplanning, particularly intheareas ofwaterdemand forecastingand con- Jack Kiefer issuesrelatedman- is anationally towaterdemand recognizedexperton Senior Associate,Hazen andSawyer Jack Kiefer,Ph.D. Econometric Analysis Principal Investigator / SAS Programming SASProgramming / B.S. degree inFood and ResourceEconomics r inmunicipalandindustrial sectors. Dr. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN JULY 2008 PAGE AD-4 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final his B.A.inEconomicsfrom SouthernIllinois University. fromSouthernIllinois Economics Universityand Monetary EconomicsandDevelopment Dr. Kiefer received his Ph.D. in Geography fr hisPh.D.inGeography Dr. Kieferreceived ware andis experienced initsuse and programming. In thecourse ofconductinghisresearch,Dr. Kiefer uses Soft- the SASProgramming D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ter’s DegreeinAgricultural EconomicsfromtheUniversityofFlorida. data neededtoconductbenefit-cost and financial hisMas- analysis.Mr.Sayersreceived uses surveys,interviews,andliterature reviewstoquickly obtain theinformationand lications inthe finance, economics and natural resource managementfields.Mr.Sayers efforts through maintenanceofanextensivedatabasearticles,reports, and otherpub- has maintainedHazen Mr. SayersandSawyer’sinformation retrievaland management ARCVIEW. and ARCINFO expertise in model developmentanddataanalysi has developedefficient access tothe neededresources. He isaGISprofessional with and fromestablisheddirect channelswithlocal, stateandfederal agency personnel.He ture searches fromlocaldocumentdepositories,viastandard InternetandFTPsites, databases, litera- He obtainsdataandinformationthroughinterviews,propertyappraiser Mr. Sayersisexpertin accessing, collecting and managingdataand survey research. Inc. Management, Resource inOrlando,Florida asSayersPlanning&Environmental and nowresides among otherprojects.He wasaneconomist withHazenand Sawyerfrom1994to 2007 Study andtheSocioeconomicofReefsinSoutheast andMartinCounty,Florida, project.Heconducted theseservicesduringthement forthe BiscayneBayEconomic providedsurveyresear Dave Sayers Sayers Planning&EnvironmentalResource Management, Inc. Dave Sayers,Economist Survey Research, DataManage Principal Investigator ment andGISApplications ch management,anddatacollection andmanage- om Southern Illinois University, his M.A. in SouthernIllinoisUniversity,hisM.A.in om s usingsoftware applicationsincluding HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN JULY 2008 PAGE AD-5 PAGE 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final economic valueofenvironmentalimprovements. is a leading practitioner ofproperty value/hedonicpricing techniques to measure the resources,policyandappliedpublicfinance.of freshwaterandmarine environmental He Dr. Milonprovidesresearch andanalysis servicesinthe areas ofnon-market valuation Economics professorat the UniversityofFlorida. in2000after21yearsasFoodandResource Florida (UCF).HejoinedtheUCFfaculty of EconomicsattheUniversityCentral guished ResearchProfessorintheDepartment Provost’s Distin- and statisticalanalysisofusenon-usevalues.HeisChair Dr. Milonprovidedtechnical advice asthe pr Department ofEconomics, University ofCentral Florida Professor Research Distinguished J. WallyMilon,Ph.D., Chair andProvost’s Technical Advisor D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN tions are: source Economics,others.His PolicyStudiesReviewand most recent, relevantpublica- American JournalofAgriculturalthe Economics, Bulletinof MarineScience,Re- the EconomicsandManagement, journals includingtheJournalofEnvironmental and aquaticplantmanagement.Hehaspublishedthesevaluationsinpeer-reviewed ecosystem restoration,Florida reefs, Florida recreational fishing,shellfish product safety, He hasextensiveexperienceconducting cont ofcontingentimplementation valuationsurveys. (3) Kiker, ClydeF.,J.Walter Milon,andAlanW. Hodges.“Adaptive Learning for “ApplyingHabitatEquivalencyAnalysis (2) J. Walter MilonandRichardE.Dodge, (4) Milon, J.Walter,Alan Hodges andArbindraRimal.“Multiattribute ChoiceAnaly- (4) Scrogin,“LatentPreferences andValuationofWetland J. WalterMilonandDavid (1) Science-Based Policy: TheEvergladesRestoration,” ence, September 2001,Vol.69,No.2,pp.975-988. AssessmentandRestoration,” for CoralReefDamage 2, No.pp.176-187. sis inEcosystemRestorationPlanning.” June 2001, Vol. 37,No. 3, pp.403-46. Ecosystem Restoration”, Ecological Economics oject teamconducted the surveyresearch ingent valuation surveys to value Florida ingent valuationsurveystovalueFlorida , June2000, Vol.Environmental Practice He is an expert in the development and Heisanexpertinthedevelopment , forthcoming. Bulletin ofMarineSci- Ecological Economics HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN JULY 2008 PAGE AD-6 PAGE , 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final APPENDIX D D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN posal’s scope ofwork. of propertyandamenityvalues.Thisist Economics Consultants, Inc.This study incl rected allaspectsofthis studyassub-consultant ResearchandResource toApogee di- inJanuary1996.He pleted fortheIndianRiverLagoonNationalEstuary Program Analysis ofthe IndianRiverLagoon–NaturalResourceValuation ofthe Lagoon”com- Dr. Milonwasthetechnical director ofthe study titled,“Economic Assessmentand mental Protectionandthe FloridaSea GrantCollege. Protection Agency,gineers, the theFlorida U.S.Environmental DepartmentofEnviron- ofEn- District, the Army Corps Southwest FloridaWaterDistrict,theU.S. Management Dr. Milonhasconducted research projects for the St.Johns RiverWaterManagement nomic StudyofReefsinFlorida. Martin County, Reefs inSoutheastFloridaandtheSocioeco- nomic Study,theSocioeconomicStudyof Dr. MilonwasakeyHazen andSawyer projectteammemberfortheBiscayne BayEco- (5) Suman, Daniel, ManojShivlani,andJ.Wa Suman, Daniel, (5) (7) Milon, J.Walter, “Sustainability Concepts and Total EconomicValuation”. (7) (6) forStrategicBehavior.” Milon, J.Walter,“ContingentValuationExperiments (8) Letson, D. and J.Walter Milon,editors. Florida’s CoastalEnvironmental Re- No. 3,pp.293-308. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics andManagement 1999, Vol.42, No.4,pp.1019-1040. Journal, MarineSanctuary,”OceanandCoastalManagement Keys National Regarding MarineReserves:AComparisonof Stakeholder Groupsinthe Florida NOAA Grant #NA16RG-2195,2002. NOAA Grant Commerce, NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,underpartment of sources: Economic ValuationandAnalysis 1998, pp.157-167. andJ.vanderStraaten,KluwerAcademicPublishers, Faucheux, M.O’Conner tainable Development:Concepts, Rationalities andStrategies he study thatwillbeupdated under this pro- uded surveyresearchand economic analysis . FloridaUSDe- SeaGrantProgram, lter milon. “Perceptionsand Attitudes , December1989,Vol.17, HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN , edited by S. , edited byS. JULY 2008 PAGE AD-7 PAGE In Sus- 40548-001\Wpdocs\Report\R1 Final projects since1981including, mostrecently: hasworkedwithProfessorMilononnumerous Grace Johns Dr. Sawyer and Hazen and D APPENDIX UPDATE ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC LAGOON RIVER INDIAN PROGRAM ESTUARY NATIONAL LAGOON RIVER INDIAN ● ● ●

in 2004and 2005 Studyforthe S Biscayne BayEconomic in 2000and 2001 Florida ReefsinSoutheastFloridaforBrowardCounty Socioeconomic Studyof 2003 and2004 Socioeconomic StudyofReefsin MartinCounty,Floridafor County in outh FloridaWaterDistrict Management HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. P.C. SAWYER, AND HAZEN JULY 2008 PAGE AD-8 PAGE