Economic Importance and Public Preferences for Water Resource Management of the Ocklawaha River

Tatiana Borisova ([email protected] ), Xiang Bi ([email protected]), Alan Hodges ([email protected]) Food and Resource Economics Department, and Stephen Holland ([email protected] ) Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management,

University of Florida

November 11, 2017

Photo of the Ocklawaha River near Eureka West Landing; March 2017 (credit: Tatiana Borisova)

Ocklawaha River: Economic Importance and Public Preferences for Water Resource Management Tatiana Borisova ([email protected] ), Xiang Bi ([email protected]), Alan Hodges ([email protected]) Food and Resource Economics Department,

Stephen Holland ([email protected] ) Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management,

University of Florida

Acknowledgements: Funding for this project was provided by the following organizations: Silver Springs Alliance, Florida Defenders of the Environment, Putnam County Environmental Council, Suwannee-St. Johns Sierra Club, Marion County Soil and Water Conservation District, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Sierra Club Foundation, and Felburn Foundation. We appreciate vehicle counter data for several locations in the study area shared by the Office of Greenways and Trails (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) and Marion County Parks and Recreation. The Florida Survey Research Center at the University of Florida designed the visitor interview questionnaire, and conducted the survey interviews with visitors. Finally, we are grateful to all the visitors who took time to respond to our interview questions.

2

Contents Introduction ...... 4 Study Objectives ...... 6 Methods ...... 6 Results ...... 9 Trip Characteristics ...... 10 Types of Recreational Activities ...... 12 Choice of Recreational Activities ...... 15 Effects of the 2016 Rodman Reservoir Drawdown ...... 20 Opinions about the Future of Rodman Reservoir and Kirkpatrick Dam ...... 22 Willingness to Pay for Recreational Experiences ...... 26 Economic Impacts of Visitor Recreational Spending ...... 28 Conclusions ...... 36 References ...... 37 Appendix A. Travel Cost Method ...... 39 Appendix B. George Kirkpatrick Dam and Spillway Canal ...... 41

3

Introduction The controversy surrounding water resource management and economic development in the Ocklawaha River Basin begins far in the past, but it continues to influence current decisions. In the 1800s, the idea emerged of constructing a cross-Florida canal to allow ship passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, thus boosting economic development in the state. In the 1930s, Figure 1. Proposed Cross Florida Barge Canal* the US Army Corps of Engineers identified the optimal path for the cross-Florida passage between Jacksonville and Yankeetown, involving significant changes to the St. Johns, Ocklawaha, and Withlacoochee Rivers to be connected by an approximately 100-mile long channel across the state (Figure 1). The construction began in 1935 and after a temporary suspension restarted in 1964. In response to fierce opposition by a coalition of various interests led by environmental groups, the construction was stopped in 1971. Among the primary concerns were the potential impacts of the project on Florida’s natural resources. The project was de-authorized in 1991, and later the 110-mile corridor of the land originally set aside for the canal construction became the Cross Florida Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area, often referred to as Cross Florida Greenway. In 1998, the Greenway was officially named after Marjorie Harris Carr, who led the effort to stop the cross-Florida canal construction (FDEP 2001; Noll and Tegeder 2015). The Cross Florida Greenway provides ample recreation opportunities, with a recent estimated annual economic impact of $74.3 million (Governor Scott 2016). Source: Construction Map of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. 1971. State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory. Despite the cessation of the construction, prior to 1971, part https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/30284 (accessed 1 October 2017). of the work for the canal construction was completed, including the Buckman Canal and Lock (connecting Ocklawaha and St. Johns Rivers), Eureka Dam, and Rodman Dam, later renamed the George Kirkpatrick Dam. While the Eureka Dam was never closed, the Kirkpatrick Dam, an earth-filled structure measuring 22 feet high and 6.8 thousand feet long1 with a concrete spillway and four gates, impounded the Ocklawaha River (Shuman 1995). Over 20 springs and approximately 7000 acres of seasonally flooded forest wetlands were permanently flooded (Lewis, personal communications). The impoundment resulted in fragmentation of wildlife corridors, altering wildlife utilization of the area. Kirkpatrick Dam also prevented or complicated the upstream passage of fish and aquatic animals, such as channel catfish, striped bass, and manatees, some of which are classified as threatened or endangered species. Fish diversity became limited in the upstream portions, particularly at Silver Springs (Lewis 2015). Changes in Silver Springs’ ecosystems, caused by the reduction of the number and diversity of fish, along with the impacts of urban development in the basin, has led to changes in the clarity and color of the Springs water, impacting snorkeling, swimming, and glass bottom boat ride experiences of visitors.

1 Some sources stated that the length of the dam is 7200 feet.

4

Kirkpatrick Dam also impacted the movement of sediment and discharge volumes and flow to downstream portions of the Ocklawaha River and St. Johns River (Shuman 1995; Lewis 2015).

At the same time, in the years since construction of the Kirkpatrick Dam, the Rodman Reservoir has developed its own altered ecosystems, providing habitat for multiple species of fish, birds, and other wildlife. Fishing and motorized and non-motorized boating opportunities are available at Rodman Reservoir, which has become a preferred location for bass fishing tournaments and other reservoir-based recreation. The reservoir system is managed, with periodic drawdowns controlling aquatic vegetation and enhancing wildlife habitat.

The controversy over the Kirkpatrick Dam and Ocklawaha River management has lasted for several decades. The visitors engaged in fishing there support the current management regime, with the Kirkpatrick Dam in place, and periodic drawdowns of the Rodman Reservoir conducted. Such visitors cite superior fishing opportunities at the Rodman Reservoir. In contrast, many visitors engaged in spring-based and river-based recreation argue for river restoration via breeching or removing the Kirkpatrick Dam to protect and restore river, springs, and floodplain ecosystems and to provide for related recreational experiences. In 1993, the Florida Legislature provided funding to examine four management alternatives: (1) full restoration to remove all structures and restore the river hydrology and floodplain; (2) partial restoration with limited removal of structures and restoration of the river hydrology and floodplain function; (3) partial retention, reducing the size of the impoundment and restoring a portion of the river; and (4) full retention of the reservoir and active management of fish and wildlife (Shuman 1995; USDA-FS 2001). Potential consequences of each management alternative were examined. For the two retention alternatives, extensive aquatic plant management, limited water fluctuation and nutrient exchange, and continued habitat fragmentation and tree loss were predicted. For full retention, aquatic plant management costs varied from $14,000 to $270,000 per year. In addition, the total cost of operating the Buckman Lock and Kirkpatrick Dam were approximately $270,000 to $333,000, in FY1995-97. Recreation associated with the Rodman Reservoir was estimated to provide economic benefits of approximately $7.5 million in direct and indirect visitor expenditures supporting the local economy, with $3.3 million attributed to Reservoir-based recreation directly (USDA-FS 2001).

It was projected that the restoration process would take several years, and until the native species would become established, the management cost to control aquatic plants would be $14,000 to $200,000 per year. Cost of maintenance and use of the Buckman Lock would be eliminated ($67,000 to $115,000 per year); however, additional costs would be incurred to allow for river navigation while the Rodman Reservoir was lowed to the historic level. The restoration process would also be linked with nutrient and sediment transport downstream of the Kirkpatrick Dam. Once the river restoration is completed, historic nutrient and sediment transport, hydrology, water quality, and vegetation conditions are expected to return. Restoration would most likely change the habitat for various species. The impact would be negative for species preferring reservoir-type habitats, but positive for those preferring river or floodplain habitats. Note that there are listed species of concern among both the reservoir and river/floodplain species. For the restoration scenarios, the benefits from visitation were projected to drop; however, for partial restoration, approximately 56 percent of existing earnings associated with the Rodman Reservoir were projected to remain, with recreation expected to shift from the Rodman Reservoir to other lakes and rivers within the same region, such as Lake George, Lake Kerr, etc. (USDA-FS 2001).

With changes in demographics and recreational preferences of the population in the region, the economic studies evaluating restoration alternatives in 1990s are becoming outdated. Additional studies examining visitation and public preferences for Ocklawaha River management can help find acceptable solutions to the long-standing controversy.

5

Study Objectives This study examined the economic tradeoffs related to management of the Ocklawaha River, focusing specifically on (a) the value of recreational experiences on the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir given alternative dam management regimes, and (b) economic contributions of river-based and reservoir-based recreation to local economies. Specific objectives were to

(1) examine the recreational use of the Ocklawaha and Silver Rivers and Silver Springs, including the number of visitors, origin of visitors, types of recreational activities, and differences in recreational use for the drawdown and normal water-level management regimes of the Rodman Reservoir. (2) assess the direct and indirect economic contributions to the local economy associated with recreational activities and visitor spending. (3) estimate visitors’ willingness to pay for recreational uses of the resource.

Methods To address the study objectives, we surveyed visitors to the Ocklawaha and Silver Rivers and Silver Springs, gathering information on (a) visitors’ activities at the site; (b) visitors’ knowledge and opinions about alternative management strategies; (c) visitors’ expenditures for the trip; and (d) visitors’ frequency of visiting location and distance traveled from home. The survey information was helpful to assess the relationship between the frequency of visitation and travel cost, and the value derived from recreational use.

The sampling plan for survey interviews was designed to represent the population of visitors. The vehicle counter data shared by the Office of Greenways and Trails for locations along the Ocklawaha River from Moss Bluff to the Kirkpatrick Dam (excluding Silver Springs State Park) indicates approximately 362,000 vehicles visiting the area per year. We assumed that each vehicle represented one group of visitors. In addition, we estimated the number of vehicles visiting Silver Springs State Park to be approximately 70,000 per year.2 Over the two years of our study, an estimated 834,000 groups visited the area (or 432,000 per year). Assuming a 4 percent margin of error and 95 percent confidence level, for a population of this size, the number of interviews (i.e., the sample size) should be 600 groups. As described below, the actual number of the interviews completed was 681.

Five interview locations were selected: Kirkpatrick Dam and Recreational Areas; Kenwood Landing; Eureka Dam (West); Ray Wayside Park; and Silver Springs State Park at the parking area next to the canoe and kayak launch. These locations were chosen because they are the most popular for visitors and represent all three types of amenities available along Ocklawaha River: the reservoir, the natural stretch of the river, and springs.

2 Given 228,600 visitor-days reported for Silver Springs State Park for FY 2009-10 (FDEP 2011), and assuming occupancy of 2.2 per vehicle (Santos et al. 2011), the total number of vehicle-days is 103,900 per year. We further assumed that 91 percent of cars are for day visits to the park, and 9 percent are for visitors staying in the area for 7 days, similar to Homosassa Park data reported in Bonn and Bell (2003).

6

Figure 2. Ocklawaha and Silver River Access Points and Interview Locations*

*Based on the map shared by the Silver Springs Alliance, SSSP refers to Silver Springs State Park. Interview locations are circled.

Approximately equal numbers of interviews were conducted for each site. The goal was to collect two-thirds of the responses during weekends, and one-third during weekdays. The survey was conducted during February and March of 2016 and 2017. This period captures the peak season of visitation (March-May) and coincides with the reservoir drawdown during November 2015 to March 2016.

To examine the recreational use of the Ocklawaha and Silver Rivers and Silver Springs, the responses to the questions regarding the types of recreational activities, and the differences in recreational use for the drawdown and “normal” water-level management regimes of the Rodman Reservoir were analyzed using standard statistical methods such as chi-square and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests implemented in SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.).

7

To assess the direct and indirect economic contributions to the local economy associated with recreational activities and visitor spending, a regional economic model was constructed with the IMPLAN software and associated database for Florida counties (IMPLAN Group, LLC 2004). IMPLAN is widely used for estimating regional economic impacts of various economic events, activities, policies, and programs. IMPLAN models rely on input-output analysis and Social Accounting Matrices that describe the flow of goods and services within a local economy (Mulkey and Hodges 2000; Miller and Blair 2009). Economic contributions associated with recreation are estimated using regional multipliers calculated by the regional input-output model for each industry sector. New economic activity associated with the expansion of the regional economy, such as economic activities associated with non-local visitors, is referred to as new final demand, and it leads to three types of effects:

1. Direct effects: change in economic activity of businesses directly associated with serving the visitors’ needs. 2. Indirect effects: change in activity of businesses supplying inputs to the directly affected businesses. 3. Induced effects: change in activity of businesses selling goods and services to employee households and governments as a result of increased income in the sectors directly and indirectly affected by recreational spending.

Economic contributions are evaluated in terms of several measures (Mulkey and Hodges 2000):

• Industry output: sale revenues, the dollar value of goods, and services produced. • Value added: the increase in value of goods and services produced by a business or industry, calculated as the value of output less the cost of inputs purchased from other businesses; value added for all industries is equivalent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). • Employment: the number of full-time and part-time jobs. • Labor income: employee compensation and benefits, and business owner (proprietor) income. • Other property income: rents, royalties, interest, dividends, and other earnings on investments. • Taxes: revenues to local, state, and federal governments from taxes on sales, production, and imports.

Finally, to estimate visitors’ willingness to pay for the uses of the resource, the Travel Cost Method was applied. The willingness to pay is a reflection of the value people derive from a good or service beyond the price paid for it. For example, recall your recent trip for outdoor recreation (such as sunbathing on a beach, or hiking in a nearby park). Comparing the pleasure derived from this trip with (usually) a small entry fee and the cost of fuel spent to commute to the site, you can recognize the difference between the value and the expenses.

The Travel Cost Method is widely used by economists to estimate values derived from recreational3 experiences. The method is based on the observation that the frequency of visits to a site normally declines with the distance to the site. Since the distance determines travel cost, this decline implies an inverse relation between visitation and cost. A demand function can be estimated, that is, the number of trips as a function of trip cost. As discussed above, the willingness to pay is the difference between the total value and the price. Adding up the willingness to pay for all visitors is the same as estimating the area (an integral) under the demand function and above the price line. For this study, the responses to the interview questions regarding visitors’ home zip codes were used to estimate the distance traveled to the recreation location (using Google maps functions in MS Excel). This distance

3 Local visitors to the area can be engaged in subsistence fishing, rather than recreational fishing. The Travel Cost Method is used primarily to value recreational experiences. However, the method has also been applied to examine berry and mushroom picking and, hence, we expect that it can capture at least a part of value for subsistence activities (see Starbuck et al. 2004).

8

was then used to estimate the cost of travel to the site. Responses to the question regarding the number of visits to the area over the last 12 months was used to estimate the annual frequency of visitation. For more information about the travel cost method, see Appendix A. Results The number of interview responses collected at each site is summarized in Table 1. In total, 681 interview responses were collected. Two-thirds of respondents were male (67.3%), and the median age of respondents was 55 years old (with a range from 18 to 93 years old; N=669). Many of the respondents were employed full-time (44.5%) or retired (33.5%) (Table 2). Last year’s household income ranged from below $35,000 (20.9%) to $90,000 or more (15.4%, N = 681). Almost one-half of the respondents (46.3%) had at least a college degree.

Table 1. Number of Responses for Survey of Visitors to the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir

Interview location Description of Resource Accessed Number of Responses Percent of 2016 2017 Total Responses (reservoir (“normal” drawdown) regime) Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Reservoir, Kirkpatrick Dam, spillway 77 78 155 22.76 Recreation Areas canal, and natural stretch of Ocklawaha River below the dam Kenwood Landing Rodman Reservoir 54 68 122 17.91 Eureka West Impounded and natural stretches of Ocklawaha 76 66 142 20.85 River Ray’s Wayside Park Natural stretch of Ocklawaha River and Silver 60 50 110 16.15 River Silver Springs State Silver Springs and Silver River 73 79 152 22.32 Park Total 340 341 681 100.00

Table 2. Respondents’ Socio-Demographics

Employment status (N=681) 44.35% Employed full-time 33.48% Retired 6.17% Employed part-time 3.67% Student 2.20% Unemployed, seeking employment 3.38% Homemaker 0.73% Unemployed, not seeking employment 3.38% Disabled 2.50% Other: 0.15% Refused Household income before taxes last year (N=681) 20.85% Below $35,000 11.75% $70,000 to $89,999 14.98% $35,000 to $49,999 15.42% $90,000 or more 15.86% $50,000 to $69,999 21.15% Not sure / Refused The highest level of education completed (N=681) 5.58% Primary school (through 9th grade) 31.86% College degree (associate’s or bachelor’s) 30.10% High school diploma or GED 14.39% Graduate / Professional degree 17.33% Some college, no degree 0.73% Refused

9

Trip Characteristics For the majority of respondents, visiting the Ocklawaha River, Silver River, Silver Springs, or Rodman Reservoir was the primary reason for the trip to the area (88.8%, based on N=681). For a minority (11.2%) of respondents who combined outdoor recreation with other activities, the other purposes for the trip included visiting family, friends, or relatives; attending a personal special event; visiting Ocala; or other reasons. Among the interview locations, Silver Springs State Park had a greater share of visitors combining the trip to the park with other activities: 19.1 percent of 152 visitors interviewed at the park combined the trip with other activities, compared with the range from 7.0 percent to 9.8 percent of visitors at the other interview locations.

A majority of respondents (75.4%, N = 681) were returning visitors to the area. The percentage of first-time visitors varied among the interview locations. For example, 43 percent of respondents at Silver Springs were first- time visitors, compared with 13 percent at the Kirkpatrick Dam. Among the returning visitors, 451 provided an answer to the question about the number of trips they made to the area in the past 12 months, ranging from 1 to 280, and the median number of trips was 6, or approximately one trip every two months.

Most visitors came to the region for a day trip, while 18.2 percent stayed overnight (Figure 3). To examine the length of the overnight stay, we excluded 12 respondents who reported staying in the area for more than 31 days (some of these respondents may have misunderstood the question about the length of stay, confusing the stay in Florida over winter months with the visit to the Ocklawaha region specifically). For the remaining respondents, the median length of stay was 3 nights, and a majority of respondents (81.3%) indicated staying in the area for one week or less. The most common lodging accommodation was campgrounds (40.2%), followed by hotel/model (24.1%), family and friends (17.9%), condo / apartment / house (8.9%), and other (8.9%) (N=112).

Figure 3. Responses to the Question: “How many total nights on this trip will you spend in the area?” (N = 681)

Not sure/Refused 0% Staying overnight 18%

Day trip 82%

While a few respondents came on the recreational trip by themselves, many traveled with friends or family. Specifically, we asked respondents about the size of the immediate party with which they were traveling. The median party size was 2 adults and no children, and almost 90 percent indicated that their party size was 3 adults or less (Figure 4).

10

Figure 4. Responses to the Question: “How many adults (age 18 or older) are in your party?”, by survey year

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Number of Responses of Number 20 0 Not sure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 / refused Survey Year: 2016 (N = 340) 80 181 31 22 7 12 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Survey Year: 2017 (N=341) 72 181 44 26 9 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

In 2016, 3 out of 340 respondents (<1%) indicated that their party size was larger than 10 people (Figure 4). These respondents might be confused about the definition of the “immediate party”. To more clearly differentiate tour or other larger groups from the immediate party (like a family or friends traveling together and, hence, jointly spending money of food, rental, lodging, etc.), in 2017, an additional question was introduced into the survey to specifically ask if the respondents were part of a larger group, such as a tour. Approximately 10 percent (33 out of 341 respondents) answered “yes” (Figure 5), with the median size of the group being 10 people. As described below in the section about primary activities, among 45 respondents who identified canoeing, kayaking, or paddle boarding as their primary activity, 33.3 percent responded that they were part of a larger group. For comparison, only 1.15 percent of boat fishermen were part of a larger group (statistically significant difference, chi-squired test, p<0.001).

Figure 5. Responses to the Question: “Are you, or is your party, part of a larger group, such as a tour?” (N = 341, 2017 survey responses only)

Not sure/Refused 0% Yes 10%

No 90%

11

Respondents were asked to report their party’s expenses for the current recreational trip. For the 677 respondents who indicated that their party size is less than 11 people, a majority (71%) reported non-zero gasoline/fuel expenses (generally from $10 to $49). Almost one-half of respondents (47%) also purchased food/beverages at stores (commonly, between $1 and $24). About one-third of respondents also reported spending at restaurants/bars (35%, frequently, from $10 to $99) and paying fees for parking, admission, etc. (36%, generally from $1 to $25). Visitor’s expenses and related impact on local economy are described in detail in a later section of the report.

Types of Recreational Activities As part of the interview, respondents were asked to indicate the primary outdoor recreational activity for their immediate group during the trip. The responses were recorded into one of the following categories:

• bird watching or wildlife viewing, • sightseeing (in 2017 survey only); • boating (motorized) / jet skiing; • others (not specifically listed or with • canoeing, kayaking, or paddle boarding; small numbers); • fishing from a boat; • not sure/refused to answer. • fishing from a pier or shore;

For each interview location and each activity category, we focused on assessing the total number of adults represented by the survey responses. Our interview protocol required one person to be interviewed per group traveling together. While the protocol was appropriate for interviewing one person representing a family or a small group of friends, it may be inadequate in cases when a group of people is traveling as part of a larger group, such as a tour. To address this issue, in 2017, a question was added to the interview about whether respondents were traveling as part of a larger group and, if yes, what the size of the larger group was. Based on 2017 responses, people engaged in canoeing / kayaking / paddle boarding, bird watching, and other activities, were more likely to report that they were part of a larger group (chi-squired test; p <.0001) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Responses to the Question: “Are you, or is your party, part of a larger group, such as a tour?”, by activity category (2017 survey responses only; overall sample size N=341)

100%

80%

60%

40% Yes

20% No

0% bird watching boating (N=10) canoeing / fishing from a fishing from a sight seeing other (N=28) (N=18) kayaking boat (N=87) shore (N=80) (N=73) (N=45)

12

For each activity and location, the number of adults was estimated as the total number of adults in the groups represented by the interview respondents. For respondents indicating that they were part of a larger group, the number of people in the larger group was used.4 For respondents who did not indicate that they were part of a larger group, the size of the immediate group was used in this calculation.

In total, the interview respondents represented 1776 adults (traveled in respondents’ immediate or larger groups). The proportion of these adults engaged in different activities is presented in Figure 7. Overall, the proportion of adults engaged in fishing-related activities was 39 percent, and the remaining 61 percent were engaged in activities other than fishing. Note that the response “sightseeing” was included in the survey questionnaire in 2017 only and, hence, some of the visitors involved in this activity in 2016 may be reported in the other categories. However, we believe that this change in the response categories does not significantly influence the distribution of responses between fishing and non-fishing activities.

Figure 7. Adults Represented by Respondents Interviewed as Part of the Study (5 interview locations, N=1776)*

bird watching sightseeing 7% 12% boating 3% other (hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming, etc.) 11%

canoeing / kayaking 28%

fishing from a shore 20%

fishing from a boat 19%

* “sightseeing” response option was not included into 2016 survey.

Comparison of the interview responses regarding the recreational activities in 2016 and 2017 showed that canoeing, kayaking, and paddle boarding were more popular in 2016 during the drawdown period than in 2017 during the “normal” reservoir management regime (chi-square test; p<0.0001). As discussed above, each respondent represented a group of people. Figure 8 shows the proportion of adults (based on respondents’ group sizes) engaged in different types of activities, by year. It is important to note, though, that the difference between the two years is determined by the activities at the Silver Springs State Park location. In 2016, the majority of visitors there were involved in canoeing / kayaking / paddle boarding. In 2017, the majority of visitors reported sightseeing and other activities.

4 To avoid double-counting of people from the same larger group, six responses were removed. 13

Figure 8. Percent of Respondents Engaged in Various Activities, by Survey Year (5 interview locations)*

A. 2016 (N=788)* B. 2017 (N=988)

other sightseeing bird watching (hiking, 0% 6% boating camping, boating 2% picnicking, bird 4% sightseeing swimming, watching 22% etc.) 9% 7% canoeing / fishing kayaking from a 19% shore 23%

canoeing / other (hiking, fishing fishing from kayaking camping, from a a boat 39% picnicking, boat 20% swimming, 18% etc.) 13% fishing from a shore 18%

* “sightseeing” response option was not included into 2016 survey. The 2016 pie chart shows zero percent respondents involved in sightseeing because this response option was not in the questionnaire.

The mix of recreational activities differed among the interview locations. Visitors at the Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Recreation Areas were primarily engaged in shore fishing, while visitors at Kenwood Landing were mostly fishing from a boat. Visitors at Eureka West participated in a mix of activities, while Ray Wayside Park was dominated by canoeing / kayaking / paddle boarding. At Silver Springs State Park, sightseeing and other activities accounted for more than one-half of all visitors (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Recreational Activities at Five Locations (N=1776 adults represented by survey respondents)*

100% sightseeing 90%

80% other (hiking, camping, picnicking, 70% swimming, etc.) 60% fishing from shore 50% fishing from a boat 40% 30% canoeing / kayaking 20%

10% boating 0% Silver Springs Ray Wayside Eureka West Kenwood Kirkpatrick bird watching Park Landing Dam

* “sightseeing” response option was not included into 2016 survey.

14

Since Silver Springs State Park offers unique recreational amenities that likely would not be available at the river sites, the share of recreational visitors was separately summarized for at the other four interview sites (excluding Silver Springs State Park). For these sites, recreational activities were almost equally split between fishing and non-fishing activities (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Recreational Activities at Four Interview Locations (excluding Silver Springs State Park, N=1312 adults represented by survey respondents)*

sight seeing bird watching other (hiking, 5% 9% camping, picnicking, boating swimming, etc.) 4% 6%

fishing from a shore canoeing / kayaking 27% 23%

fishing from a boat 26% * “sightseeing” response option was not included into 2016 survey.

To summarize, based on the interviews, activities other than fishing were estimated to account for almost half of recreational visitation on Ocklawaha River (and even more, if one considers response from Silver Springs visitors).

Choice of Recreational Activities Shore Fishing As indicated in Figure 9, shore fishing opportunities were available at four out of five interview sites. However, a majority of the interview respondents engaged in shore fishing were at Kirkpatrick Dam and the Rodman Recreation Areas (Figure 11). The sizes of the shore fishing groups were similar across the interview locations; therefore, the distribution of responses can be considered representative of the actual distribution of shore fishing visitors among the four sites.

Figure 11. Share of Survey Responses for Shore Fishing by Interview Location (2016 and 2017 survey years, N=175)

Ray Wayside Park Eureka West 3% 21%

Kenwood Landing 2% Kirkpatrick Dam 74%

15

The Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Recreational Areas offer three types of shore fishing locations: the Spillway Canal (fishing off the dam or fishing piers on both sides of the canal); Rodman Reservoir; and the natural stretch of the Ocklawaha River below the Kirkpatrick Dam (for additional discussion, see Appendix B). In 2017, interviewers recorded the location of respondents’ activity. Approximately one- half of shore fishing occurred on the Spillway Canal (Figure 12). This result implies that Ocklawaha River restoration proposals should focus special attention on preserving shore fishing opportunities along the Spillway Canal to minimize potential impacts on shore fishing at the Kirkpatrick Dam.

Figure 12. Distribution of Shore Fishing Activities at Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Recreation Areas (2017 interviews only; based on the sizes of groups represented by each respondent [N=128])

Ocklawaha – natural stretch 13%

Rodman Reservoir 38% Spillway Canal 49%

Visitors engaged in shore fishing at all four interview locations were also asked to provide reasons for selecting a particular site for recreation. The leading responses were “familiarity with the site” and “fishing opportunities other than bass” (41.0% and 34.1% respectively; N=173) (Figure 13). Fishing opportunities other than bass was an especially important reason for shore fishing at Kirkpatrick Dam and recreation Areas: 39.3 percent of 130 respondents (compared with 16.6 to 25.0 percent at other locations) selected that reason (chi-square test, p=0.0548).

Figure 13. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Site for Shore Fishing, four interview locations (N=173)

Familiarity with site 41% Fishing opportunity - other than bass 34% Other 23% Proximity to home 23% Number of fish caught per visit / per hr 11% On-site or nearby camping area 3% Ease of float / navigation 2% Diversity of fish types caught 2% Trophy bass fishing opportunity 1% Variety of birds / wildlife in the area 1% On-site boat ramp 1% Drawdown 1% Safe areas for swimming, snorkeling, diving, 1% Permission for use motorized boats / jet skies 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

16

Proximity to home was relatively more important for those who were shore-fishing at Eureka West: 47.2 percent of 36 respondents interviewed selected that reason, compared to 0.0 to 16.9 percent at the other sites (chi-square test, p= 0.0005). Although the number of shore fishing visitors interviewed at Ray Wayside Park was small – only five people, two of them mentioned a nearby camping area, implying that camping is an attraction for this fishing location (chi-square test, p= 0.0005).

To summarize, based on 2017 responses, approximately one-half of visitors who fished from shore at Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Recreation Areas preferred the Spillway Canal, while a little more than one-third of shore fishermen actually fished in the Rodman Reservoir. Fishing opportunities other than bass are a key reason for selecting a location for shore fishing, and especially for selecting Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Recreation Areas. Hence, if Ocklawaha River restoration is to minimize potential impact on shore fishing, the focus should be on preserving fishing opportunities (especially, other than bass) along the Spillway Canal. It is important to remember that shore fishing may be an important subsistence activity for low-income families in the area.

Fishing from a Boat Fishing from a boat dominated the activities at the Kenwood Landing site (Figure 9). Overall, while a majority of boat fishing visitors were at Kenwood Landing, there was also boat fishing at locations outside the Rodman Reservoir, such as Ray Wayside and Eureka West, which offer access to both the Rodman Reservoir and natural stretches of the Ocklawaha River (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Distribution of Boat Fishing Activities among the Four Interview Locations (2016 and 2017 interviews, accounting for the size of groups represented by each respondent; N=345)

Kirkpatrick Dam Ray Wayside 5% 13%

Eureka West 26%

Kenwood Landing 56%

In 2016, during the drawdown period of the Rodman Reservoir, we asked respondents to draw on a map the locations of their activities during their current trip; 58 out of 68 respondents engaged in boat fishing indicated locations they were planning to visit or had visited. A majority (84.5%) indicated visiting the Rodman Reservoir area, defined here as the area north of Eureka, and west of the Kirkpatrick Dam. This implies that 15.5 percent of boat fishing visitors focused on areas outside the Rodman Reservoir.

17

In 2017, during the “normal” management regime of the Rodman Reservoir, instead of asking respondents to draw the locations on a map, we offered a list of locations and asked them to select the ones they had visited or were planning to visit. A majority (59.7%) again selected locations along the Rodman Reservoir. Note that this percentage is lower than the proportion of boat fishing in the Rodman Reservoir area reported in 2016. The result was surprising, since the 2016 drawdown may have prevented some fishermen/fisherwomen to access the reservoir areas east of Kenwood Landing. However, this result confirms anecdotal reports that fishing activity at Kenwood Landing is higher during the drawdown period. The differences in the format of the question between 2016 and 2017 interviews do not allow us to explore the specific locations visited in 2016, nor to compare the responses between the two survey years using statistical tests. However, a summary of the responses for the two survey years is presented in Figure 15. Overall, while 70 percent of respondents indicated boat fishing in the Rodman Reservoir, the remaining 30 percent did not, implying that there are substantial boat fishing opportunities outside the Rodman Reservoir.

Figure 15. Share of Respondents Reporting Boat Fishing, by Survey Location (2016 and 2017 survey years, based on survey respondents and with no assessment of group sizes represented by the respondents; N=135)

North of Eureka - Rodman Reservoir / Pool 70%

South of Eureka 16%

Other 15%

Barge Canal 7%

Spillway Canal 1%

Ocklawaha - downstream of the Dam 1%

When asked about the reasons for selecting particular locations for boat fishing, the most common response was “familiarity with the site” (41%, Figure 16). Other important reasons included proximity to home (22%), number of fish caught per hour (19%), and availability of a boat ramp (14%). Comparison of the responses among the interview locations showed that trophy bass fishing opportunities were relatively more important for selecting the Kenwood Landing location: 20 percent of respondents engaged in boat fishing compared with 0.0 – 2.3 percent at the other locations (chi-squared test, p= 0.0016). In contrast, at Ray Wayside Park, proximity to home was a more important reason for boat fishing: 47 percent of 17 visitors compared with 0.0 – 27.9 percent at the other locations (chi-square test, p= 0.0096). Availability of an on-site boat ramp was also important for Ray Wayside Park boat fishing visitors (35.3% out of 17), as well as for Eureka West visitors (25.6% out of 43; chi-square test, p= 0.0147).

18

Figure 16. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Location for Fishing from a Boat (N=153)

Familiarity with site 41% Proximity to home 22% Number of fish caught per visit / per hr 19% On-site boat ramp 17% Fishing opportunity - other than bass 14% Trophy bass fishing opportunity 12% Other 10% Diversity of fish types caught 6% Variety of birds / wildlife in the area 3% Permission for use motorized boats / jet skis 1% On-site or nearby camping area 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

To summarize, while a majority of boat fishing visitors used Rodman Reservoir, approximately one-third visited locations other than Rodman Reservoir. Trophy size bass fishing, the number of fish caught per visit / per hour, proximity to home, and on-site boat ramps are important draws for boat fishing visitors. These amenities should be preserved or enhanced in future if the goal is to keep or increase boat fishing in the area. The fact that approximately one-third of boat fishing visitors used locations outside the Rodman Reservoir implies that successful boat fishing is possible in the other lakes and rivers in the area beyond the Rodman Reservoir.

Canoeing, Kayaking, and Paddle Boarding Canoeing, kayaking, and paddle boarding were popular activities at Silver Springs State Park, Ray Wayside, and Eureka West locations, but not at all at Kenwood Landing or Kirkpatrick Dam (Figure 17). This result is not surprising, since canoeing and kayaking is primarily river-based activities (and paddle boarding activity in the area is very low).

In 2016, during the drawdown of the Rodman Reservoir, 81 respondents engaged in canoeing, kayaking, or paddle boarding indicated locations they were planning to visit or had visited during the trip. When we accounted for the number of people in the party represented by each response, we found that the majority (65%) indicated visiting Silver Springs and Silver River, while 17.2 percent also visited the Ocklawaha River north of Eureka, and 7.7 percent visited the Ocklawaha River south of Eureka (N=233).

In 2017, during the “normal” management regime of the Rodman Reservoir, a majority (84.5%) of respondents engaged in canoeing, kayaking, or paddle boarding indicated plans to visit Ocklawaha River south of Eureka, while many also indicated locations north of Eureka (15.9%), as well as Silver Springs and Silver River (18.2%). Differences in the format of the question in 2016 and 2017 interviews do not allow comparison of responses between the two survey years using statistical tests; however, the results indicate that the natural stretch of the Ocklawaha River, as well as the Silver River, are popular locations for canoeing, kayaking, and paddle boarding.

19

Figure 17. Distribution of Canoeing, Kayaking and Paddle Boarding Activities at Four Interview Locations (2016 and 2017 survey years; based on the sizes of groups represented by each respondent; N=497)

Kenwood Landing Kirkpatrick Dam 1% 0%

Eureka West Silver 20% Springs 39%

Ray Wayside Park 40%

Visitors offered a variety of reasons for selecting a particular location for canoeing, kayaking, or paddle boarding. In fact, most of the reasons offered were in the “other” category (48.7%, N=158). These answers included such responses as recommendations by friends, proximity to Silver River, and quietness and peacefulness of the place. Proximity to home and familiarity with the site were also important (31.0% and 26.0%, respectively).

Other Activities

We also examined responses of visitors engaged in bird watching, motor boating, picnicking, sightseeing, hiking, and other activities. Most of such visitors were interviewed at Silver Springs State Park, but their proportion at Ray Wayside Park and Eureka West was also large. Visitors offered a variety of reasons for selecting a particular location. Most of the reasons fell into the category of “other” (46.6%, N=193), although familiarity with the site and proximity to home were also important (31.1% and 23.3%, respectively). The presence of an on-site boat ramp was particularly important at Ray Wayside Park, with 15.4 percent of respondents selecting this reason, compared with 0.0 – 6.7 percent of respondents who mentioned this reason at the other sites (chi-square, p= 0.0033). Given that boat fishing visitors also mentioned on-site boat ramp at Ray Wayside Park, and shore fishing visitors mentioned nearby camping, we conclude that facilities at / near the Ray Wayside Park is an important draw for this location.

Effects of the 2016 Rodman Reservoir Drawdown

In 2016, respondents were asked if they were aware of the drawdown regime for the Rodman Reservoir, and a majority (56%, N=340) replied “yes”. Not surprisingly, awareness of the drawdown was especially high for the locations around the Rodman Reservoir, with 100 percent of respondents being aware of the drawdown at Kenwood Landing, while only 15 percent were aware of it at Silver Springs (Figure 18).

20

Figure 18. Responses to the Question: “Rodman Reservoir is currently in a ‘drawdown period’, when the water level is reduced to control aquatic vegetation and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Were you aware of the drawdown period when you planned this trip?” (2016 survey year only; N=340 survey respondents; no accounting for the size of the group represented by respondents)

100% 0% 24% 31% 80% 44% 75% 60% 85% 100% No 40% 76% 69% 56% Yes 20% 25% 15% 0% Silver Springs Ray Wayside Eureka W Kenwood Kirkpatrick Total sample Landing Dam

A majority of respondents (76%) in 2016 did not feel any positive or negative impact from the drawdown, while 21 percent indicated that they did feel an impact on their trip, and 3 percent were not sure or refused to answer (N=340). Responses about the impact of the drawdown differed among the survey locations. At Kenwood Landing, 54 percent of respondents stated that the drawdown had an impact on their trip, while at Silver Springs, only 1 percent indicated an impact. At Eureka West, one-third of respondents (33%) reported an impact, either positive or negative, from the drawdown (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Did the Drawdown Impact Today’s Trip in Any Way?

Did the drawdown impact today’s trip in any way? 100% 90% 80% 42.6% 70% 65.8% 60% 85.7% 75.9% 50% 94.5% 83.3% Not sure / refuse to answer 40% No 30% 53.7% 20% 32.9% Yes 10% 20.9% 10.0% 13.0% 0% 1.4% Silver Ray Eureka W Kenwood Kirkpatrick Total Springs Wayside (N=76) Landing Dam sample (N=73) (N=60) (N=54) (N=77) (N=340)

Although the number of responses with examples of the impacts is small, they still indicate that the impact can be positive or negative. For example, among the visitors engaged in shore or boat fishing who specified the impact of the drawdown on their trip, a majority (55.0%; N=40) indicted an increase in the number of fish caught (Figure 20). Some also mentioned a decrease in the number of fish caught or decreased access.

21

Figure 20. Impacts of 2016 Rodman Reservoir Drawdown: Fishing (N=40)

increased caught fish number 55.0%

decreased caught fish number 22.5%

decreased access 22.5%

increased caught fish size 10.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

For activities other than fishing, only 25 respondents provided any examples of either positive or negative impacts of the drawdown. The impacts mentioned were

• More birds/wildlife to observe (14 responses) • Submerged springs visible (13 responses) • Increased water transparency (9 responses)

To summarize, while a majority of the 2016 respondents were aware of the drawdown regime, most of them did not report any impact of the drawdown. Visitors at Kenwood Landing were more likely to report an impact of the drawdown compared with visitors at other locations. Generally, boat fishing was the activity most affected by the drawdown; however, the impact can be positive for many fishermen.

Opinions about the Future of Rodman Reservoir and Kirkpatrick Dam

Overall, 44.4 percent of respondents indicated that they were not at all informed about the debate around the future of the Kirkpatrick Dam, while 55.6 percent indicated that they were somewhat or very informed (Figure 21). The level of awareness differed among the interview locations, with the greatest number of very informed respondents were at the locations around the reservoir (Figure 22).

22

Figure 21. Responses to the Question: “There is an on-going debate about whether to breach the George Kirkpatrick Dam (often referred to as the Rodman Dam), or leave it as it is. People have offered arguments on both sides of the debate. How informed would you say you are about this issue?” (2016 and 2017 survey years; no accounting for the size of the groups represented by respondents; N=664)

Very informed 27% Not at all informed 45%

Somewhat informed 28%

Figure 22. Interview Location and Responses to the Question: “There is an on-going debate about whether to breach the George Kirkpatrick Dam (often referred to as the Rodman Dam), or leave it as it is. People have offered on both sides of the debate. How informed would you say you are about this issue?” (2016 and 2017 survey years; no accounting for the size of the groups represented by respondents; N=664)

100% 2.8% 90% 13.9% 11.8% 80% 32.2% 34.0% 70% 54.1% 31.5% 60% Very informed 50% 34.9% 31.2% 40% 85.4% Somewhat informed 30% 33.6% 54.6% Not at all informed 20% 32.9% 34.8% 10% 12.3% 0% Kirkpatrick Dam Kenwood Eureka W Ray's Wayside Silver Springs Landing

23

Overall, the majority of respondents (56%) indicated that they would leave the dam as is. One-third of respondents were not sure or refused to answer, and 15 percent supported breaching the Kirkpatrick Dam (Figure 23)5.

Figure 23. Responses to the Question: “If it were up to you, would you choose to breach the dam or leave it as it is?” (2016 and 2017 survey years; no accounting for the size of the groups represented by respondents; N = 641)

Breach the dam Not sure/Refused 15% 29%

Leave it as is 56%

When asked about why they support a specific decision regarding the future of the Kirkpatrick Dam, respondents who supported breaching the dam stated that this would restore Silver Springs and Silver River, improve or protect aquatic ecosystems, restore submerged springs, and improve or protect birds and wildlife habitat (Figure 24). In turn, those who supporting leaving the Kirkpatrick Dam as is primarily thought that this would improve or protect fishing (Figure 25).

5 We also examined the respondents’ opinions for four locations only (excluding Silver Springs State Park), and accounted for the sizes of the groups represented by the survey respondents. The results changed by a few percentage points. The support for the dam breaching increased to 19 percent, while the support for keeping the dam increased to 60 percent. 24

Figure 24. Reasons Suggested by Those Respondents Who Support Breaching the Dam (2016 and 2017 survey years; no accounting for the size of the groups represented by respondents; N=104)

Restore Silver Springs and Silver River 56.73% Improve / protect aquatic ecosystems 46.15% Restore lost / submerged springs 34.62% Improve/ protect birds / wildlife habitat 29.81% Restore Ocklawaha River (2017 only) 19.23% Improve / protect passage of manatees 18.27% Other 11.54% Improve / protect fishing 8.65% Improve / protect potential water supply source 6.73% Help St Johns River 3.85% Not sure/Refused 2.88% Help local / regional economy 2.88% Improve / protect on-shore recreation 1.92% Improve / protect water-based recreation 1.92% Cost of dam maintenance / breaching 0.96% Sense of place / connection 0.96% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

Figure 25. Reasons Suggested by Those Respondents Who Support Keeping the Dam Intact (2016 and 2017 survey years; no accounting for the size of the groups represented by respondents; N=381)

Improve / protect fishing 60.10% Other 18.64% Improve/ protect birds / wildlife habitat 17.59% Improve / protect aquatic ecosystems 17.06% Improve / protect on-shore recreation 16.54% Help local / regional economy 13.91% Improve / protect water-based recreation 11.29% Sense of place / connection 8.92% Not sure/Refused 6.82% Cost of dam maintenance / breaching 4.46% Improve / protect potential water supply source 2.10% Improve / protect passage of manatees 1.84% Help St Johns River 0.52% Restore Ocklawaha River (2017 only) 0.26% Restore lost / submerged springs 0.26% Restore Silver Springs and Silver River 0.26% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%

In 2017, we asked respondents to indicate whether their visitation would change if the Kirkpatrick Dam is breached. One-third of respondents were not sure or refused to answer (Figure 26). Another 39 percent indicated that they would never return or would decrease their visitation, while 25 percent replied that their visitations would stay the same or increase. Note that to fully account for the effect of the dam breaching on visitation, one must account for the frequency of visitations for each response, as well as the group size represented by each respondent. For those who stated that they would stop visiting the area or decrease their visitation, the current medium number of trips to the area was higher (with visits to the area

25 monthly or bi-monthly), as compared with the other visitors. On the other hand, those who said that they would increase their visitations tend to come in larger groups (in comparison with those visitors who said that they would decrease their visitation).

In addition, for the interview question regarding alternative sites for recreation, many of the respondents who said that they would stop visiting the area or decrease their visitation indicated sites nearby. Specifically, among fishing visitors who expected to decrease visitation if the dam is breached, alternative recreational locations were (N=93):

• St. Johns River (46.2%) • Lake George (10.8%)

• Santa Fe Lake (16.1%) • Orange Lake (8.6%)

• Lake Lochloosa (11.8%)

These responses show that even if Rodman Reservoir visitation decreases, recreation activity in the area may stay the same, with respondents switching to other nearby sites.

Figure 26. Responses to the Question: “Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘decrease greatly’ and 5 is ‘increase greatly’, please tell me how you think your visits to the area for recreational activities would change if the dam were breached?” (2017 survey years; no accounting for the size of the groups represented by respondents; N=341)

Never come again 7%

Decrease greatly 22% Not sure / refused to Decrease answer 10% 36% Stay the same 12%

Increase greatly Increase 9% 4%

Willingness to Pay for Recreational Experiences Following the travel cost method, we used the interview responses regarding the frequency of visits to the area within the past 12 months, and the home zip codes to assess travel distances and approximate travel costs. This information was then used to estimate an econometric model predicting the number of trips to the area as a function of travel cost and other variables (see Appendix A for additional information). Note that the estimation was conducted excluding respondents who traveled more than 500 miles away.

Econometric model results are presented in Table 3. As expected, the number of trips is negatively related to the distance to the site, and positively related to the distance to an alternative site. Females tend to visit

26 the region less frequently than males do. Visitors engaged in fishing reported greater number of visits to the area than the visitors engaged in the other types of activities.

Table 3. Travel Cost Method: Econometric model for the trip number as a function of travel cost and other variables

VARIABLES Coefficient Std.Err

Travel cost (hundred dollars) -0.567*** (0.102) Travel cost to an alternative site (hundred dollars) 0.052** (0.026) Household income (hundred dollars) -0.001** (0.000) Female -0.315* (0.165) Fishing 0.874*** (0.153) Constant -9.390*** (0.374) Ln (α) 12.020*** (0.298) Number of observations 479 479 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

This model was used to estimate the median value the visitors derive from their trips to the Ocklawaha region as $175 per trip per household (95% confidence interval is $129 to $292). Given the average number of visitor groups in the area as 361,655 per year, and assuming the size of the group is approximately equal to the size of an average household, the estimated total willingness to pay of visitors to the area is $63.3 million per year.

27

Economic Impacts of Visitor Recreational Spending The analysis of regional economic impacts of recreational visitors to the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir was based on annual visitor numbers together with information from the previously described public survey conducted in 2016 and 2017. A map of public recreation sites and access points on the Rodman Reservoir (Lake Ocklawaha) and lower Ocklawaha River is shown in Figure 27. In addition to the locations shown on the map, there are access points on the upper Ocklawaha River at Gore’s Landing, Highway 40 (Ray’s Wayside) and Moss Bluff. A total of 16 access points are monitored by The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails, and Marion County Department of Parks and Recreation. Visitor vehicle counts were captured using inductive-loop sensors placed in the roadways such that traffic is measured in one direction only, thereby avoiding double-counting. In addition, the sensors are calibrated to avoid double- counting of vehicles with trailers, according to the manufacturer (Diamond Traffic). The vehicle count data are assumed to be representative of the number of visitor groups, rather than individuals. Note that visitation data for Rodman Campground, Rodman Road West, Rodman Recreation Area-East, and Rodman Recreation Area-West sites were determined to be duplicated in the counts from the Rodman Road East location that gathers information for all vehicles entering the area from Highway 19, based on conversations with staff at the Office of Greenways and Trails. Therefore, the counts for these four areas were subtracted from the counts for Rodman Road East to estimate net visitation in the Rodman Dam area. Figure 27. Map of Public Recreation Access Points for Rodman Reservoir and Lower Ocklawaha River in Marion and Putnam Counties in Florida

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

28

Information on monthly visitation for the monitored access points was obtained for the period of July 2002 through June 2017. Data were incomplete for some sites in 2002-09, and for other short periods due to vehicle counter malfunction. A plot of monthly visitation during 2003-17 is shown in Figure 28. It is apparent that visitation is highly variable and seasonal, with the largest numbers of visitors during the cool-season months of October through April. Monthly visitation ranged from a low of around 18,000 to a high of 39,000 (except for two high outlier values). Average monthly visitation was calculated for each site to exclude missing values, and then was aggregated over 12 months to estimate annual visitation. Visitation for all sites over the entire period of record averaged 31,174 monthly or 374,089 annually, excluding missing and duplicated counts. A best-fitting linear regression fitted to the annual visitor data indicates a declining trend over time, with an average of 4334 fewer visitor groups each year (Figure 29).

Figure 28. Plot of Monthly Visitor Groups to the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir, 2003-17

Data represent automatic vehicle counts. Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Marion County Parks and Recreation Department.

29

Figure 29. Trend in Annual Number of Visitor Groups to the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir, 2004-16

The recreation sites were categorized as either “River” or “Reservoir” locations, depending upon whether they provided access to the natural stretches of the Ocklawaha River or Rodman Reservoir, respectively. Reservoir access sites included Buckman Lock/Visitor Center, Rodman Campground, Kenwood Road, Hog Valley, and Orange Springs Boat Ramp, while river access sites were Ray Wayside Park, Moss Bluff Park North, Moss Bluff Park South, Eureka Boat Ramp East, Eureka Boat Ramp West, Gores Landing, and St. Johns Trail Loop-South. In addition, the East and West Rodman Recreation Area sites were considered river access points because they are below the Rodman Dam and provide access to the natural river level. Visitation during the most recent five years (2013-17) was taken as representative of current conditions for economic analysis. As shown in Table 4, average annual visitation for all sites in recent years was estimated at 317,504 groups, including 191,744 to Ocklawaha River sites and 125,760 to Rodman Reservoir sites, excluding the duplicated counts at Rodman Road East Side. The most popular river sites were Ray’s Wayside (51,370), Rodman Recreation Area-East (39,249), Moss Bluff Park South (36,406), and Moss Bluff Park North (31,791), while the most popular reservoir sites besides Rodman Road East were Kenwood Road (25,193) and Orange Springs BoatRramp (23,702). The trend in number of visitors to Ocklawaha River access sites has remained fairly steady, while visitors to Rodman Reservoir sites has declined since 2004 (Figure 30).

30

Table 4. Estimated Average Annual Number of Visitor Groups to Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir Recreation Sites, 2010-17

Site Type Recreation Access Site Average Annual Visitor Groups

Buckman Lock/Visitor Center 6,887 Rodman Campground 35,137 Rodman Road East Side 20,133 Reservoir Kenwood Road 24,519 Hog Valley 18,690 Orange Springs Boat Ramp 24,938 Rodman Rec Area-East 38,156 Rodman Rec Area-West 30,670 Ray Wayside Park 53,027 Moss Bluff Park South 32,116 River Moss Bluff Park North 28,981 Eureka Boat Ramp East 14,962 Eureka Boat Ramp West 21,656 Gores Landing 6,255 St. Johns Trail Loop-South 5,527 Total Rodman Reservoir sites (net of duplicated counts) 130,304 Total Ocklawaha/St. Johns River sites 231,350 Total all sites less duplicated counts 361,655

Figure 30. Trend in Annual Visitor Groups to Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir Recreation Sites, 2004-17

31

Respondents for the on-site survey were asked to provide information on their home zip code, number of adults and children in the party, number of nights stayed in the area, types of recreational activities, primary activity, and trip expenditures in eleven different categories (see survey methods for further details). Trip expenditures were reported by survey respondents either as a specific value or as a range of values ($0, $1–9, $10–24, $25–49, $50–99, $100–249, $250–499, $500+), for which the mid-point was taken as a point estimate. Expenditures reported by survey respondents were summarized by primary recreational activity, type of recreational site (river, reservoir), and residence location (local, nonlocal). The zip code information was used to calculate the driving distance to the recreation site on the shortest road pathway using the Google Map distance function in Mircrosoft Excel software. Respondents who traveled less than 50 or miles to the site were considered “local” residents, while those traveling 50 or more miles were deemed “nonlocal” residents. Survey results for the analysis of economic impacts is presented in Table 5. A total of 681 respondents were interviewed in 2016 and 2017, with the largest numbers of respondents interviewed at Silver Springs (152), Eureka Landing (142), Kenwood Landing (122) and Ray’s Wayside (110), with smaller numbers at the Kirkpatrick Dam, Rodman Reservoir, Spillway Canal6 and the natural stretch of the Ocklawaha River below the Kirkpatrick Dam. Respondents reported an average of 2.32 adults and 0.31 children in the accompanying party. Based on the reported number of days (nights) for the trip, respondents accounted for 2050 visitor party-days, or 4590 individual visitor-days, calculated counting children at one-half visitor day, as is typical in travel/recreation/tourism studies. In regard to origin of visitors, overall 55.2 percent were nonlocal residents, with 66.9 percent of visitors to reservoir sites and 47.5 percent of visitors to Ocklawaha River sites. Visitor expenditures were expressed on a per group-day basis by dividing total reported expenditures by the number of groups and days stayed. Trip spending reported by respondents averaged $57.22 per party- day, with the highest amounts for lodging ($11.74), gasoline ($11.57), restaurants ($9.96), food and beverages at stores ($7.51), shopping ($4.35), and fees ($3.06), as summarized in Table 5. The highest average spending per visitor party-day were at Kenwood Landing ($80.2), Eureka ($73.8), Ray’s Wayside ($55.2), and Rodman Reservoir ($52.9).

6 For more information regarding the Spillway Canal, see Appendix B. 32

Table 5. Summary of Visitor Responses on Number in Party, Visitor Nonlocal Origin, and Expenditures, by Survey Location in 2016-17*

Reservoir Recreation Sites River Recreation Sites Ocklawaha- All Kenwood Kirkpatrick Rodman Spillway Ray's Silver natural Eureka Locations Landing Dam Reservoir Canal* Wayside Springs stretch Number of respondents 122 77 25 42 11 142 110 152 681 Average number adults in party 2.08 1.83 2.84 2.21 1.91 2.15 2.63 2.65 2.32 Average number children in party 0.09 0.19 0.60 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.32 0.46 0.31 Total visitor party-days 299 208 50 279 14 350 507 343 2,050 Total visitor-days 636 401 157 664 29 816 1,037 851 4,590 Percent nonlocal visitor party-days 71.9% 76.9% 82.0% 51.3% 14.3% 67.7% 28.8% 48.7% 55.2% Average trip spending by category

per party-day ($) Restaurants $13.39 $0.44 $14.30 $7.63 $0.00 $10.50 $8.64 $13.40 $9.96 Food and beverage retail stores $11.60 $1.75 $16.60 $6.43 $11.79 $10.83 $8.18 $4.40 $7.51 Lodging $16.97 $8.85 $7.50 $4.93 $0.00 $13.76 $11.92 $12.74 $11.74 Rental Car $1.23 $0.32 $0.00 $1.45 $0.00 $1.68 $5.71 $1.76 $2.15 Gas $20.86 $3.52 $10.50 $9.89 $10.71 $14.13 $10.30 $9.75 $11.57 Fees $0.94 $0.29 $0.00 $1.70 $0.00 $0.97 $2.76 $8.00 $3.06 Transportation $4.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.00 $2.24 $1.46 $1.57 $1.85 Entertainment $0.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.75 $0.00 $1.66 $0.82 $1.27 $0.96 Recreation Gear $3.45 $3.46 $3.60 $0.84 $6.61 $4.39 $1.61 $1.49 $2.46 Shopping $3.88 $0.00 $0.00 $2.84 $0.00 $11.55 $4.08 $3.09 $4.35 Other Purchases $2.11 $0.65 $0.35 $0.00 $0.00 $2.10 $0.07 $3.48 $1.61 Total $80.20 $19.28 $52.85 $37.43 $29.11 $73.80 $55.57 $60.95 $57.22 Nonlocal visitors defined as traveling 50+ miles from home zip code centroid to recreation site. Children counted as ½ visitor-day. * The Spillway Canal is classified as “Reservoir recreation site” in this report. However, since it is linked with the natural stretch of the Ocklawaha River, opinions differ regarding the site classification. See more in Appendix B.

In regard to primary recreational activities reported by respondents, the most popular activities were fishing from pier or shore (25.7% of respondents), followed by canoeing/kayaking (23.2%), fishing from boat (22.8%), bird watching (6.3%), motor boating (3.2%), and hiking (2.1%), while 3.7 percent reported miscellaneous other activities (Table 6). The primary activities of fishing from shore, canoeing/kayaking, and fishing from boat also accounted for the majority of reported visitor party-days. The share of respondents who were nonresident visitors to the area (traveling 50+ miles) was highest for camping (77.8%), sightseeing (52.8%), picnicking (50.0%) and motor boating (50.0%). The reported average spending per party-day was highest for fishing from boat ($104), other unspecified activities ($103), camping ($73), motor boating ($71) and bird watching ($63). Note that only one respondent reported bicycling as a primary activity, so data for this activity may not be reliable.

33

Table 6. Summary of Survey Responses on Visitor Party-Days, Nonlocal Origin, and Expenditures, by Primary Activity in 2016-17

Number Percent of Total Visitor Percent Nonlocal Average Spending Primary Activity Respondents Respondents Party-Days Residents per Visitor Party-Day Bird watching 43 6.3% 137 31.0% $63.1 Hiking 14 2.1% 74 42.9% $34.8 Motor boating 22 3.2% 24 50.0% $71.3 Canoeing/kayaking 158 23.2% 575 43.1% $53.1 Camping 9 1.3% 29 77.8% $73.2 Picnicking 6 0.9% 7 50.0% $39.3 Fishing from boat 155 22.8% 292 38.8% $103.6 Bicycling 1 0.1% 1 0.0% $36.0 Fishing from shore 175 25.7% 493 39.0% $35.1 Other 25 3.7% 54 40.0% $102.5 Sightseeing 73 10.7% 433 52.8% $51.5 Total 681 100.0% 2,119 41.9% $57.2

The average expenditures per group-day were multiplied against the average annual number of local and nonresident visitor groups during 2010-17 to estimate total annual visitor spending as shown in Table 7. Total annual recreational spending of $19.66 million, was comprised of $6.03 million for visitors to reservoir sites and $13.63 million for visitors to river sites; however, a higher share of spending by nonlocal residents was observed at reservoir sites ($4.46 million vs. $1.60 million) than at river sites ($7.76 million vs. $5.87 million).

Table 7. Estimated Total Annual Visitor Expenditures by Local/Nonlocal Origin and Recreation Site

Rodman Reservoir Ocklawaha River All Groups Expenditure type Local Non-local Total Local Non-local Total & Locations Restaurants/bars $220,841 $728,029 $948,871 $791,008 $1,223,722 $2,014,731 $2,963,601

Food/beverages at stores $421,084 $808,174 $1,229,258 $932,827 $1,329,262 $2,262,089 $3,491,347

Lodging $13,150 $1,163,792 $1,176,942 $630,362 $1,506,020 $2,136,381 $3,313,323

Rental vehicle $1,387 $105,433 $106,820 $113,588 $569,780 $683,367 $790,188

Gasoline/oil $476,929 $976,865 $1,453,794 $1,425,487 $1,342,705 $2,768,192 $4,221,986

Fee (parking, admission, etc.) $19,821 $70,845 $90,666 $524,519 $336,154 $860,673 $951,339

Bus, taxi, sightseeing tours $11,835 $180,650 $192,485 $129,519 $205,140 $334,658 $527,143 Entertainment (attractions, $9,548 $47,120 $56,668 $82,718 $173,964 $256,682 $313,349 concerts, movies) Recreation gear (fishing, $242,075 $180,967 $423,042 $568,932 $239,383 $808,315 $1,231,357 boating, cycling) Shopping (clothing, gifts, etc.) $88,924 $146,535 $235,459 $438,459 $658,308 $1,096,767 $1,332,226

Other $64,137 $50,555 $114,692 $236,677 $170,801 $407,478 $522,170

Total all expenditures $1,569,731 $4,458,966 $6,028,697 $5,874,095 $7,755,238 $13,629,333 $19,658,030

34

The total expenditures were applied to the economic multipliers from a regional economic model to estimate total regional economic impacts. The model was created for the three local area counties of Putnam, Marion, and Alachua using the IMPLAN economic impact analysis and social accounting software and 2014 county databases (Implan Group, LLC). The IMPLAN model provides multipliers that capture direct spending and employment (direct effects), industry supply chain activity (indirect effects) and household and government spending (induced effects). Expenditures by nonlocal visitors are considered as new final demand, subject to the full multiplier effects, while spending by local residents are treated as a transfer, subject only to the direct multiplier effect, as is common practice for economic contribution analysis. Each expenditure category was assigned to the appropriate IMPLAN industry sector (Table 8). Note that visitor expenditures for purchases at retail gasoline stores, food and beverage stores, clothing stores, and other miscellaneous stores are subject to a retail trade margin of 11 to 47 percent that represents the share of spending retained locally after deducting the cost of goods sold.

Table 8. IMPLAN Multipliers and Retail Margins for Survey Expenditure Industry Sectors Evaluated in Local Three-County Area (Marion, Putnam, Alachua Counties) Employment Labor Income Value Added Output ($/$) Retail (Jobs/M$) ($/$) ($/$) Expenditure type IMPLAN Industry Sector Margin Direct Total Direct Total Direct Total Direct Total Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects 501-Full-Service Restaurants/bars 1.000 2.0391 23.3874 32.7733 0.4759 0.8426 0.5279 1.1467 Restaurants Food/beverages at 400-Retail Food and 27.7% 1.000 2.2522 16.5324 27.9592 0.4228 0.8710 0.6449 1.3940 stores Beverage Stores 499-Hotels and Motels, Lodging 1.000 2.2017 11.3199 22.6841 0.2471 0.7001 0.5659 1.2880 Including Casino Hotels 442-Automotive Equipment Rental vehicle 1.000 2.1608 4.6995 15.3074 0.2012 0.6335 0.5910 1.2959 Rental and Leasing

Gasoline/oil 402-Retail Gasoline Stores 11.6% 1.000 2.2766 14.6842 26.3217 0.4250 0.8786 0.6028 1.3637

Fee (parking, 496-Other Amusement and 1.000 2.1142 18.1309 28.2752 0.3439 0.7201 0.4925 1.1443 admission, etc.) Recreation Industries 414-Scenic and Sightseeing Bus, taxi, sightseeing Transportation and 1.000 2.2126 7.4430 18.8123 0.3499 0.7979 0.4342 1.1216 tours Support Activities For Transportation Entertainment 496-Other Amusement and (attractions, 1.000 2.1142 18.1309 28.2752 0.3439 0.7201 0.4925 1.1443 Recreation Industries concerts, movies) Recreation gear 443-General and Consumer (fishing, boating, Goods Rental Except 1.000 2.2680 12.0055 23.4728 0.5321 0.9796 0.6827 1.4482 cycling) Video Tapes and Discs 403-Retail Clothing and Shopping (clothing, Clothing Accessories 45.9% 1.000 2.2405 14.5134 25.8301 0.2530 0.6955 0.5639 1.3024 gifts, etc.) Stores 406-Retail Miscellaneous Other 47.2% 1.000 2.2986 27.3778 39.1894 0.5507 1.0083 0.6220 1.3946 Store Retailers

The total economic impacts of visitor spending for recreational use of the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir are summarized in Table 9. Total impacts included employment of 278 full-time and part-time jobs, $12.62 million in value added contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), $7.98 million in labor income, and $21.80 million in industry output (revenues). The impacts for spending by visitors to river- based recreational sites were 190 jobs and $8.51 million GDP. These impactsmore than twice those for visitors to reservoir sites (88 jobs, $4.12 million GDP) due to a greater number of annual visitors and 35 higher spending per group-day, although the higher share of nonresident visitors to reservoir sites that are associated with new spending in the area somewhat offset these effects.

Table 9. Economic Impacts of Annual Visitor Spending for Recreation at the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir Industry Labor Income Employment Value Added Site Type Output (Wages, Salaries, (Fulltime, Part- (GDP) (Revenues) Benefits) time Jobs) Rodman Reservoir $7,063,632 $4,117,781 $2,618,244 88

Oklawaha River $14,741,094 $8,508,074 $5,364,822 190

Total $21,804,726 $12,625,855 $7,983,065 278

Conclusions Overall, we draw the following conclusions from this study:

• Both fishing and non-fishing opportunities are important attractions for visitors to the area. • The value that the visitors derive from their trips to Ocklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir is high (as reflected in the high willingness to pay for the recreational trips, long distances the visitors traveled to visit the site, or high frequency of trips to the area). • The analysis of visitors’ expenditures shows that the activities on the natural stretches of the Ocklawaha River result in greater contributions to the regional economy, compared to the recreation on the Rodman Reservoir sites. • To minimize potential impacts of breaching / removing Kirkpatrick Dam on fishing activities in the region and related visitation, Ocklawaha restoration plans might focus on o Preserving shore fishing opportunities along the Spillway Canal since they are a major attraction for bank fishing in the area. o Enhancing fishing experiences on/along the restored river (such as managing the system to increase the number of fish caught per hour and to enhance non-bass fishing opportunities). o Enhancing fishing opportunities available at other sites in the region, such as St. Johns River and Lake George (to ensure that fishing activities continue to serve as a main attraction to the region as a whole). • Given that only relatively few Silver Springs State Park visitors were aware of the Ocklawaha River drawdown and management regimes, educational programs can be implemented to raise awareness among the Park visitors about the links between the Silver Springs’ conditions and Ocklawaha River and Silver River management.

36

References

Adamowicz, W.L., J.J. Fletcher, and T. Graham-Tomasi. 1989. Functional form and the statistical properties of welfare measures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(2):414-421. Anderson, D.M. 2010. Estimating the economic value of ice climbing in Hyalite Canyon: An application of travel cost count data models that account for excess zeros. Journal of Environmental Management 91(4):1012-1020. Bockstael, N.E., and I.E. Strand. 1987. The effect of common sources of regression error on benefit estimates. Land Economics 63(1):11-20. Bonn, M.A., and F.W. Bell. 2003. Economic impact of selected Florida springs on surrounding local areas. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, 99p. Englin, J., and J.S. Shonkwiler. 1995. Estimating social welfare using count data models: An application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. The Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1):104-112. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1995. A Socio-Economic Study of the Rodman Reservoir. Vol. 1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Economic Analysis Section, Office of General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2001. Basin Status Report: Ocklawaha. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2011. Economic Impact Assessment – Florida State Park System. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 9p. Governor Rick Scott. 2016. Florida’s Award-Winning State Parks and Trails Continue Record-Breaking Success. http://www.flgov.com/floridas-award-winning-state-parks-and-trails-continue-record-breaking- success-2/. Haab, T.C., and K.E. McConnell. 2002. Single site demand estimation. In Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation, edited by T.C. Haab and K.E. McConnell, 151-189. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. IMPLAN Group, LLC. 2004. IMPLAN Software for Impact Analysis and Social Accounting (Version 3.0). IMPLAN, Huntersville, NC. http://www.implan.com. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 2015. Standard Mileage Rate (2015). Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates. Landry, C.E., A.R. Lewis, H. Liu, and H. Vogelsong. 2016. Addressing onsite sampling in analysis of recreation demand: Economic value and impact of visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Marine Resource Economics 31(3):301-322. Lewis, R.R. 2015. Management and Restoration of the Fish Populations of Silver Springs and the Middle and Lower Ocklawaha River, Florida, USA. Report to Putnam County Environmental Council. Revised Version 1. 30 p + append. Martinez-Espineira, R., and J. Amoako-Tuffour. 2008. Recreation demand analysis under truncation, overdispersion, and endogenous stratification: An application to Gros Morne National Park. Journal of Environmental Management 88(4):1320-1332.

37

Miller, R.E., and P.D. Blair. 2009. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, Second Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mulkey, D., and A. Hodges. 2000. Using Implan to Assess Local Economic Impacts. EDIS #FE168. Gainesville, FL: UF/IFAS Extension. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe168. Noll, S., and D. Tegeder. 2015. Ditch of Dreams: The Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Struggle for Florida’s Future. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press. Parsons, G.R. 2003. The travel cost model. In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, edited by P.A. Champ, K.J. Bole, and T.C. Brown, 269-329. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Santos A., N. McGuckin, H.Y. Nakamato, D. Gray, and S. Liss. 2011. Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Report # FHWA-PL-11-022. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1200 New Jersey, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590, 83p. Shaw, D. 1988. On-site samples’ regression: Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification. Journal of Econometrics 37(2):211-223.

Shuman, J.R. 1995. Environmental considerations for assessing dam removal alternatives for river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 11:249-261. Starbuck, C.M., S.J. Alexander, R.P. Berrens, and A.K. Bokhara. 2004. Valuing special forest products harvesting: A two-step travel cost recreation demand analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 10:37-53 Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, DC: Water Resources Council. Whitehead, J.C., T.C. Haab, and J. Huang. 2000. Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resource and Energy Economics 22(4):339-354. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA-FS). 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ocklawaha River Restoration Project. Management Bulletin R8-MB 88. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

38

Appendix A. Travel Cost Method The travel cost method uses the individual’s travel cost to a recreation site as the implicit price for recreation. With observations on individual travel frequency and travel cost, a downward recreation demand curve can be estimated. Individuals incurring higher travel cost would visit the site less often. The areas above the travel cost and below the demand curve represent an individual’s derived benefit (or consumer surplus) from recreation, representing total willingness to pay to access to the recreation site. We estimate a single-site TCM with a substitute site following Haab and McConnell (2002): = ( , , , ).

The model uses the number of trips undertaken𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖1 𝑓𝑓by𝑝𝑝 respondent𝑖𝑖1 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖2 𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖1 𝑦𝑦 𝑖𝑖to site 1 as a function of respondent travel cost to site 1, ; the travel cost to an alternate site, ; the water quality at site 1, ;7 and 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖1 𝑖𝑖 the′ visitor’s demographics, , (such as household income). 𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖1 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖2 𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖1 In the analysis, site 1 includes𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 five interview locations and site 2 was reported by respondents (i.e., responses to the question “Outside of this area – Ocklawaha, Rodman, Silver Springs and Silver River – what lake, spring, or river do you visit most often for outdoor recreation?”). The travel costs to the site and alternate site are estimated using the monetary cost of travel and the opportunity cost of travel time, as shown below. 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖1 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖2 = + ( ) j =1, 2 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 The first part of the travel cost equals𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 the𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐round∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 trip 𝛾𝛾distance∗ 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 ∗ from𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ the mid-point of the respondent’s home zip code to a site j ( ) multiplied by the cost per mile traveled (cpm). The cost per mile is $0.575 based on the standard mileage rate determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS 2015). The second 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 part of the travel cost includes the opportunity cost of the traveling time, which is calculated by multiplying the implicit hourly wage rate (i.e., a fraction, 0< <1, of the hourly wage rate ) (Water Resources Council 1983, p. 78) by the time spent traveling. The hourly wage rate is calculated as the 𝑖𝑖 household income divided by 2080 hours, assuming a 40-hour𝛾𝛾 workweek for 52 weeks a year.𝑤𝑤 The fraction of the wage rate is assumed to be 0.33 based on previous studies (e.g., Whitehead, Haab, and Huang 2000; Parsons 2003; Anderson 2010;). Similarly, the travel cost to alternative site is calculated by using the𝛾𝛾 mid-point of the home zip code of each respondent to the reported alternative site outside of the Ocklawaha river area and the corresponding opportunity cost of time. The expected number of trips a household takes is represented by the parameter, otherwise known as latent demand. The demand function is represented in a log-linear form to ensure nonnegative 𝑖𝑖 probabilities: 𝜆𝜆 ln ( ) = + + + + , which can be transformed into 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖1 𝛽𝛽0 𝛽𝛽1𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖1 𝛽𝛽2𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖2 𝛽𝛽3𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖1 𝛽𝛽4𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 = ( + + + + ) .

Given that the expected number𝜆𝜆̂𝑖𝑖1 of 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒trips𝑒𝑒 𝛽𝛽iŝ0 a nonnegative𝛽𝛽̂1𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖1 𝛽𝛽̂2𝑝𝑝 integer,𝑖𝑖2 𝛽𝛽̂3 𝑞𝑞a𝑖𝑖 1TCM𝛽𝛽̂4 is𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 typically estimated using a Poisson distribution. However, Poisson distribution has the drawback of assuming that the conditional

7 Note that the final results do not include the indicator for freshwater quality since it did not have a statistically significant effect on the frequency of visits. Instead, we included a dummy variable reflecting visitors engaged in fishing activities. 39 mean is equal to the variance (equi-dispersion). Given the presence of over-dispersion in the sample of interview responses collected for this project, we estimate a negative binomial model (Parsons 2003). Moreover, standard negative binomial or Poisson models might be inconsistent or inefficient when applied to on-site samples. This is because on-site samples include only the number of trips greater than zero (truncated at zero); on-site samples are also endogenously stratified by the number of trips. In other words, respondents who visited the site more frequently are more likely to be included in the sample. Several articles presented approaches to correcting for endogenous stratification due to avidity bias of onsite sampling (Shaw 1988, Englin and Shonkwiler 1995; Martínez-Espiñeira and Amoako-Tuffour 2008; Landry et al. 2016). In our analysis, we follow this literature by using the probability distribution of a truncated negative binomial correcting for endogenous stratification. The consumer surplus (CS) of a trip to site 1 can then be assessed using the results from the estimation using (Bockstael and Strand 1987; Adamowicz, Fletcher, and Graham-Tomasi 1989) as follows:

/ / = . 1 The annual consumer surplus at the household𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 levelℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜can𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 be𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 found− 𝛽𝛽�by1 multiplying this result by the reported number of trips taken in the last 12 months:

/ / = . 𝜆𝜆�𝑖𝑖1 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 − 𝛽𝛽�1

40

Appendix B. George Kirkpatrick Dam and Spillway Canal The George Kirkpatrick Dam is a four-gate dam that controls the level of the Rodman Reservoir and releases reservoir water through the Spillway Canal. Two recreation areas (Rodman Recreation Area-East and Rodman Recreation Area-West) allow bank and boat fishing access to both sides of the spillway canal, as well as to the natural channel of the Ocklawaha River. In addition to the two recreation areas, those visitors interested in bank fishing can use the Kirkpatrick Dam to access the Spillway Canal and the Rodman Reservoir (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Ocklawaha River, George Kirkpatrick Dam, and Spillway Canal

The Spillway Canal connects two points of the meandering original channel of the Ocklawaha River and, hence, it can be considered part of the Ocklawaha River. However, since the Spillway Canal, Kirkpatrick Dam, and Rodman Reservoir were created as a part of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal constriction project, we integrate recreation along the Spillway Canal with the recreation on other sites along the Rodman Reservoir. Future recreational opportunities along the Spillway Canal (such as the number of access points and catch rate next to the dam) will depend on the specifics of the Ocklawaha River management / restoration scenario.

41