The Economic Impacts of Trout Stocking on Tailwaters in the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP)

November 6, 2007

Prepared by: James Caudill, Ph.D. Division of Economics U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arlington VA

The Economic Impacts of Trout Stocking on Tailwaters in the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP)1

Introduction

This report summarizes the economic impacts associated with recreational for trout stocked in tailwaters in the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). There are 11 member states in this report, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Table 1 shows the 54 in these states included in this report.

The main sections of the report include: (1) a brief discussion of the purposes and objectives of the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership; (2) a summary of the current stocking program at each of the dams; (3) a discussion of the economic effects attributable to the recreational angling of rainbow trout produced; (4) an estimate of recreational angling days, (5) an estimate of the retail expenditures associated with recreational angling on tailwaters; (6) the economic impacts associated with these expenditures; (7) an estimate of the economic value of the recreational angling on these tailwaters; and (8) a comparison of economic impacts and value with stocking costs.

SARP Background and Objectives

The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) was initiated in 2001 to address the myriad issues related to the management of aquatic resources in the southeastern United States. These issues include significant threats to the aquatic resources of the Southeast, as illustrated by the fact that 34% of North American fish species and 90% of the native mussel species designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern are found in the Southeast. Given these stark realities, and the predicted increased pressure on Southeast aquatic resources in the future, SARP was established with the following mission:

With partners, protect, conserve, and restore aquatic resources including habitats throughout the Southeast, for the continuing benefit, use, and enjoyment of the American people.

This partnership envisions a southeastern United States with healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems that support sustainable public use. The SARP was formed under the realization that the individual members lack sufficient resources to effectively meet the aquatic resource management and conservation challenges throughout the Southeast on a landscape basis and must therefore work cooperatively to design a process that will attain the desired common goals.

The intent of the SARP is to develop State and Federal partnerships that will extend beyond the traditional boundaries of resource management agencies and will establish a commitment to truly work together for the benefit of the resource. It will shift the focus beyond what are individual Federal and State responsibilities to what are joint responsibilities to the resource. Long term success of this partnership will require a move to a higher level of coordination built upon mutual trust that will focus on making things happen at the ground level. The SARP is comprised of representatives from:

1 Significant help and assistance from Frank Fiss, Trout and Stream Coordinator for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is gratefully acknowledged. Any and all errors of fact or interpretation are the sole responsibility of the author. The views and conclusions in this report do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department of the Interior or the Fish and Wildlife Service. 2  14 southeastern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; inland and marine divisions in most coastal states).  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management councils (GMFMC and SAFMC).  All Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) states are invited to participate.  Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), grassroots groups, industry, business, and private sector interests are also invited to participate.

SARP focuses on six key issue areas of greatest concern and interest to the Southeast:

1. Public Use 2. Fishery Mitigation 3. Imperiled Fish and Aquatic Species Recovery 4. Inter-jurisdictional Fisheries 5. Aquatic Habitat Conservation 6. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)

This report focuses on one particular issue, the economic effects of trout stocking associated with fisheries mitigation.

SARP Stocking by State

Table 1 shows the dams by state which are considered in this report. Of the 54 dams, Alabama has one dam, Arkansas has eight, Georgia has two, Kentucky has fourteen, Missouri has one, North Carolina has five, Oklahoma has two, South Carolina has two, Tennessee has thirteen, Texas has one and Virginia has five. These dams are associated with 56,776 square miles of watershed and 592 river management miles. The Army Corps of Engineers manages 28 of the dams, the Tennessee Valley Authority operates 12, and city, state or regional power companies manage the remaining 14 dams.

Table 2 shows annual tailwater stocking below each dam for recent years by state (some tailwaters may not be currently stocked). Both catchables (6-8 and 9-11 inch trout) and fingerlings are shown. Stocked catchable trout average about 4.1 million annually and fingerlings average 1 million annually, totaling 5.1 stocked trout on average each year.

Table 3 shows annual stocking by state. Arkansas stocks about 1.9 million trout annually (38 percent of total), Tennessee 1.3 million (26 percent), and Missouri 760,000 (15 percent). The remaining eight states account for 21 percent of total stocking. Of the total stocking, 9 - 11 inch trout account for 77 percent of annual stocking, 6-8 inch trout account for 3 percent and fingerlings account for 20 percent.

3

Table 1. SARP Dams with Current and Proposed Tailwater Stocking State Dam State Dam

AL Lewis Smith NC Chatuge

AR Beaver NC Linville

AR Blakely Mountain NC Nantahala

AR Bull Shoals NC Summit

AR Carpenter OK Broken Bow

AR Greers Ferry OK Tenkiller Ferry

AR Narrows SC Lake Murray

AR Norfork SC/GA Hartwell

AR Remmel TN Apalachia

GA Blue Ridge TN Center Hill

GA Buford TN Cherokee

KY Buckhorn Lake TN Dale Hollow

KY Carr Creek TN Fort Patrick Henry

KY Cave Run Lake TN J Percy Priest

KY Dewey Lake TN Normandy

KY Dix TN Norris

KY Fishtrap TN Ocoee #1 (Parksville)

KY Grayson Lake TN South Holston

KY Laurel River Lake TN Tims Ford

KY Martins Fork TN Watauga

KY Nolin River Lake TN Wilbur

KY Paintsville Lake TX Canyon

KY Rough River Lake VA Flannagan

KY Wolf Creek VA Gathright

KY Yatesville Lake VA Philpott

MO Table Rock VA Talbott

NC Cedar Cliff VA Townes

4

Table 2. SARP Tailwater Stocking

State Dam 9 - 11 inch 6 - 8 inch Fingerlings Total

AL Lewis Smith 24,500 0 0 24,500

AR Beaver 96,230 0 5,000 101,230

AR Blakely Mountain 34,620 0 0 34,620

AR Bull Shoals 1,032,475 0 247,000 1,279,475

AR Carpenter 38,610 0 0 38,610

AR Greers Ferry 257,303 0 0 257,303

AR Narrows 76,615 0 0 76,615

AR Norfork 117,295 0 22,000 139,295

AR Remmel 12,320 0 0 12,320

GA Blue Ridge 19,000 0 75,000 94,000

GA Buford 225,000 0 0 225,000

KY Buckhorn Lake 3,800 0 0 3,800

KY Carr Creek 8,400 0 0 8,400

KY Cave Run Lake 8,500 0 0 8,500

KY Dewey Lake 3,200 0 0 3,200

KY Dix 4,600 1,000 0 5,600

KY Fishtrap 6,600 0 0 6,600

KY Grayson Lake 8,000 0 0 8,000

KY Laurel River Lake 250 250 0 500

KY Martins Fork 4,800 0 0 4,800

KY Nolin River Lake 16,600 0 0 16,600

KY Paintsville Lake 16,600 300 0 16,900

KY Rough River Lake 5,000 0 0 5,000

KY Wolf Creek 160,000 38,000 0 198,000

KY Yatesville Lake 1,800 0 0 1,800

5

Table 2. SARP Tailwater Stocking (cont.)

State Dam 9 - 11 inch 6 - 8 inch Fingerlings Total

MO Table Rock 760,000 0 0 760,000

NC Cedar Cliff 60,000 0 0 60,000

NC Linville 9,000 0 50,000 59,000

NC Nantahala 25,500 0 0 25,500

NC Summit 17,650 0 0 17,650

OK Broken Bow 126,000 15,000 15,000 156,000 Tenkiller OK Ferry 112,420 0 15,000 127,420

SC Lake Murray 20,000 15,000 0 35,000

SC/GA Hartwell 36,000 0 0 36,000

TN Apalachia 86,000 21,500 15,000 122,500

TN Center Hill 114,500 20,000 45,000 179,500

TN Cherokee 14,000 0 60,000 74,000

TN Dale Hollow 57,500 1,000 0 58,500 Fort Patrick TN Henry 10,500 5,000 0 15,500

TN J Percy Priest 14,000 0 0 14,000

TN Normandy 48,000 0 0 48,000

TN Norris 36,000 20,000 160,000 216,000 Ocoee #1 TN (Parksville) 1,000 0 0 1,000

TN South Holston 47,000 0 50,000 97,000

TN Tims Ford 37,000 20,000 0 57,000

TN Watauga 3,200 0 0 3,200

TN Wilbur 49,000 17,500 50,000 116,500

TX Canyon 29,123 0 0 29,123

VA Flannagan 0 1,200 0 1,200

VA Philpott 32,800 0 0 32,280

Totals -- 3,927,791 175,750 809,000 4,912,541

6

Table 3. Annual Tailwater Stocking by State

9 - 11 inch 6 - 8 inch Fingerlings Total

AL 24,500 0 0 24,500

AR 1,665,468 0 274,000 1,939,468

GA 244,000 0 75,000 319,000

KY 287,700 39,550 0 327,250

MO 760,000 0 0 760,000

NC 112,150 0 50,000 162,150

OK 253,420 15,000 30,000 298,420

SC 71,000 15,000 0 86,000

TN 622,700 105,000 380,000 1,107,700

TX 29,123 0 0 29,123

VA 32,280 1,200 0 33,480

3,927,791 175,750 809,000 4,912,541

Economic Effects Associated with SARP Tailwater Stocking

This report focuses on a rather narrow subset of the goods and services derived from aquatic resources: the economic impacts and values associated with recreational angling for SARP stocked trout. From an economic perspective, people who fish benefit in the sense that their individual welfare or satisfaction level increases with the use of a particular good or service, in the present context, SARP stocked trout. One measure of the magnitude of the change in welfare or satisfaction associated with using a particular good or service is economic value. Use of the good or service usually entails spending money in some fashion and these expenditures, in turn, create a variety of economic effects collectively known as economic impacts. For this report, the term economic effects encompasses both economic impacts and economic value.

Economic impacts refer to employment, employment income, industrial output and federal and state tax revenue that occur as the result of consumer expenditures (retail sales) on angling-related goods and services.

Economic value is the economic trade-off people would be willing to make in order to obtain some good or service. It is the maximum amount people would be willing to pay in order to obtain a particular good or service minus the actual cost of acquisition. In economic theory this is known as net economic value or consumer surplus (see Aiken and La Rouche [p. 4] for more detailed information).

Economic impacts of angler expenditures

Spending associated with angling can generate a substantial amount of economic activity in local and regional economies. Anglers spend money on a wide variety of goods and services. Trip-related

7 expenditures may include expenses for food, lodging and transportation. For example, most anglers also buy equipment and anglingBrelated goods and services such as rods, reels, lures, hooks, lines, bait, boats, boat fuel, guide and outfitter services, camping equipment, and memberships in clubs and organizations. Because this spending directly affects towns and communities where these purchases are made, angling can have a significant impact on local economies, especially in small towns and rural areas. These direct expenditures are only part of the total picture, however. Businesses and industries that supply the local retailers where the purchases are made also benefit from angler expenditures. For example, a family may decide to purchase a set of fishing rods for an upcoming vacation. Part of the total purchase price will go to the local retailer, say a sporting goods store. The sporting goods store in turn pays a wholesaler who in turn pays the manufacturer of the rods. The manufacturer then spends a portion of this income to cover manufacturing expenses. In this way, each dollar of local retail expenditures can affect a variety of businesses at the local, regional and national level. Consequently, consumer spending associated with angling can have a significant impact on economic activity, employment, household income and local, county, State and Federal tax revenue.

Estimating recreational angling days based on SARP trout stocking

The basis for estimating the economic effects of SARP trout stocking is to determine the number of angling days associated with the number of stocked trout. Once angling days are estimated, determining economic effects is a relatively straightforward process, at least conceptually.

General approach

The general approach to estimating economic impacts associated with recreational angling for SARP stocked trout is to link stocking information to angler days. Once angler days are determined, total retail sales can be calculated and economic impacts estimated. So, in a general sense:

Fish Stocking Angler Days Retail Sales Economic Impacts

The basic approach is to link the quantity of fish stocked in a given tailwater with an estimate of the number of anglers who fished for these stocked fish. Ideally, the following information would be available to estimate angler days: (1) the number of anglers at each stocking site; (2) the total number of angling days at the stocking site; and (3) the total number of fish stocked at the site. Unfortunately, comprehensive information on the first two items are not available for the majority of SARP tailwaters in this report. Survey information on the number of anglers and angler days is available for only 15 tailwaters. Consequently, alternative approaches must be identified which make use of the information which is available and use this information in conjunction with assumptions about the applicability of information that does exist on anglers and angling days to all the remaining sites where such information is not available.

Currently, only 15 SARP dams have angler use data for tailwater angling (see Reference section for creel surveys and other angler use reports). A variety of methods were considered for estimating angler use on tailwaters where use data is unavailable. However, most approaches would require a considerable amount of time and resources, even if feasible, and consequently are beyond the scope of the present study.

However, given that the objective is to derive an order of magnitude, reconnaissance-level estimate of angler use for the system as a whole, the available data on stocking and angler use does point to one approach which may be useful.

If one charts angler use (in hours) and catchable stocking levels for the 15 tailwaters (multiple year observations for some tailwaters), a relatively tight correlation is shown (Figure 1).

8

Figure 1. Angling Hours and Stocked Catchable Trout by Observation

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

Angler Hours

400,000 Angling Hours and Stocked CatchableTrout

200,000 Stocking numbers

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Observations

Figure 2. Angler Hours and Stocked Catchable Trout

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 Angler Hours

400,000

200,000

0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Stocked Catchable Trout

9 Figure 2 shows an x - y plot with stocked catchable fish on the x-axis and angler hours on the y-axis. Similar to Figure 1, it shows a relatively linear relationship between the two variables .

Comparing total catchable stocking levels with angler use hours, the ratio is 0.990518, essentially one stocked catchable fish per angling hour. Note this is not caught or harvested fish per angling hour but simply a ratio of total catchable stocked fish to angling hours. Correlation, of course, is not causation. Most people consider a variety of factors in the decision to go fishing and where to fish (see, for example, Jakus et al. 1998, Malvestuto and Churchill 2000, and Bason 1999). The probability of catching a fish and the effort required (which is presumably associated with stocking levels and site characteristics) may not be the most significant consideration with anglers. However, lacking any other data and given the correlation as discussed above, this approach may be adequate for a ballpark estimate of total angler use for tailwaters associated with the 54 SARP dams.

Using total catchable stocking numbers from Appendix B in Assessment of Fisheries Mitigation at Trout Tailwaters in the Southeastern USA (SARP 2007), these numbers were multiplied by the ratio of stocked catchable trout to angler hours, 0.995018, to get total angler hours for the system as a whole and by state. Since angler expenditure information is on a per day basis, it was necessary to convert angler hours to days, an angling day being defined as four angling hours. Table 4 shows total annual angler hours and days for the 11 SARP states. Total angler hours are estimated to be 4.3 million and angling days to be about 1.1 million. When available, actual angler use data (most recent available) is used for angler hours and days; otherwise angler hours and days are estimated using the approach described above.

Table 4. Estimated Annual Angler Hours and Days (Four Angler Hours equals One Angler Day)

State Angler Hours Angler Days

AL 24,268 6,067

AR 2,104,961 526,240

GA 305,086 76,271

KY 284,972 71,243

MO 610,362 152,591

NC 111,087 27,772

OK 251,017 62,754

SC 70,327 17,582

TN 447,050 111,762

TX 7,683 1,921

VA 33,163 8,291

Total 4,249,975 1,062,494

10

Estimating retail expenditures associated with SARP Tailwater stocking

Once angler days are estimated, the next step is to combine these estimates with per day angler expenditures to derive total retail expenditures associated with SARP stocking. Table 5 shows per day angling expenditures by state adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars.

The expenditures in the first two columns were obtained from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (FHWS) (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002) and represent Statewide averages for per day per angler freshwater fishing-related expenditures. The expenditures in the first column are travel-related expenditures including: (1) food; (2) lodging; (3) transportation; (4) guide fees; (5) public land access; (6) private land access; (7) equipment rental; (8) bait; (9) ice; and (10) boat fuel. The expenditures in the second column include both travel-related expenditures and equipment expenditures2. The expenditures in the third column are from a study by the American Sportfishing Association, Sportfishing in America (2002). The expenditures are based on the FHWS and include both travel-related expenditures and equipment expenditures but also include additional expenditures not included in the FHWS3. Table 5. Retail Expenditures per Angler Day (2006 $) FHWS Travel-related American Sportfishing FHWS Travel-related plus Equipment Association State Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures

AL $25.26 $47.42 $61.91

AR $16.10 $27.17 $39.68

GA $19.15 $32.86 $41.66

KY $20.36 $28.03 $61.07

MO $27.31 $41.02 $70.48

NC $21.84 $43.93 $55.08

OK $18.99 $29.48 $39.08

SC $25.50 $41.90 $42.76

TN $20.09 $33.16 $40.50

TX $38.73 $54.33 $57.84

VA $29.16 $39.72 $42.22

Average $19.28 $31.33 $46.18

2 Equipment includes reels, rods, lines, hooks, sinkers, artificial lures and flies, creels, stringers, fish bags, landing nets, gaff hooks, traps, bait containers, electronic fish equipment, tackle boxes, tents, special clothing, magazines and books, membership dues and contributions, licenses, stamps, tags and permits. 3 "The expenditures ...are greater than those reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sportsmen often attributed purchases to both fishing and hunting (especially vehicles and big ticket items). These items were not included in the Service's fishing expenditure estimates. Such items were included ... by prorating each item's cost based on each respondent's total days of hunting and fishing activity." (p. 10). 11 Total economic impacts of retail expenditures.

Combining angler days with angling expenditures, total angler retail expenditures associated with SARP tailwaters are estimated. Tables 6, 7 and 8 show total angler expenditures associated with recreational angling for SARP stocked trout along with estimates of associated industrial output, jobs and job income, sales and motor fuel taxes, state income tax and Federal income tax revenue. Each of the tables reflect economic impacts based on one of the three sets of expenditures shown in Table 5.

The impact estimates were obtained using multipliers from the reports, The Economic Importance of Sport Fishing and Sportfishing in America, both published by the American Sportfishing Association (see Appendix 3). The multipliers were derived using the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce (Maharaj and Carpenter, pp. 3-4, 1997c), and were subsequently updated to reflect state economies in 2004 (the most recently available data). The estimated economic impacts in this report are statewide impacts; information is not available to disaggregate impacts down to the local community or county level.

Table 6 shows the annual average economic impacts of recreational angling on SARP tailwaters based on travel-related expenditures only. Total retail sales averaged $20.5 million annually with associated industrial output of $39.1 million. Employment totaled 411 with salaries and wages of $9.5 million. Total tax revenue (sales and motor fuel taxes, state and federal income tax revenue) amounted to $2.8 million.

Table 7 shows the annual average economic impacts of recreational angling on SARP tailwaters based on travel-related plus equipment expenditures. Total retail sales averaged $33.3 million annually with associated industrial output of $63.5 million. Employment totaled 680 with salaries and wages of $15.5 million. Total tax revenue (sales and motor fuel taxes, state and federal income tax revenue) amounted to $4.6 million.

Table 8 shows the annual average economic impacts of recreational angling on SARP tailwaters based on the American Sportfishing Association report, Sportfishing in America. Total retail sales averaged $49.2 million annually with associated industrial output of $93.5 million. Employment totaled 998 with salaries and wages of $22.6 million. Total tax revenue (sales and motor fuel taxes, state and federal income tax revenue) amounted to $6.8 million.

Retail sales show the total annual expenditures associated with the recreational angling of trout stocked on SARP tailwaters.

Industrial output shows the total industrial output generated by retail sales. Total output is the production value (alternatively, the value of all sales plus or minus inventory) of all output generated by angling expenditures. Total output includes the direct, indirect and induced effects of angling expenditures. Direct effects are simply the initial effects or impacts of spending money; for example, spending money in a grocery store for a fishing trip or purchasing or bait are examples of direct effects. The purchase of the fishing line by a sporting goods retailer from the line manufacturer or the purchase of canned goods by a grocery from a food wholesaler would be examples of indirect effects. Finally, induced effects refer to the changes in production associated with changes in household income (and spending) caused by changes in employment related to both direct and indirect effects. More simply, people who are employed by the grocery, by the food wholesaler, and by the line manufacturer spend their income on various goods and services which in turn generate a given level of output. The dollar value of this output is the induced effect of the initial angling expenditures. The economic impact of a given level of expenditures depends, in part, on the degree of self-sufficiency of the area under consideration. For example, an area with a high degree of self-sufficiency (where out-of-area imports are comparatively small) will generally have a higher level of impacts associated with a given level of

12 expenditures than an area with significantly higher imports (a comparatively lower level of self- sufficiency). Consequently, the economic impacts of a given level of expenditures will generally be less for rural and other less economically integrated areas compared with other, more economically diverse areas or regions.

Additionally, the economic impacts estimated in this report are state-level impacts. Information on where exactly expenditures may occur and the magnitude of resident and non-resident local and regional expenditures is not currently available for areas associated with angling for Southeast Region warmwater hatchery stocked fish. Generally speaking, non-resident expenditures bring “outside” money into the area and thus generate increases in real income or wealth. Spending by residents is simply a transfer of expenditures on one set of goods and services to a different set. In order to calculate “net” economic impacts, much more detailed information would be necessary on expenditure patterns and angler characteristics. Since this information is not currently available for all areas associated with Southeast Region warmwater hatchery stocked fish, gross state-level estimates are used (for additional information, see Loomis p. 191 and U.S. Department of Commerce pp. 7-9).

Jobs and job income include direct, indirect and induced effects in a manner similar to total industrial output. Employment includes both full and part-time jobs, with a job defined as one person working for at least part of the calendar year, whether one day or the entire year

Tax revenues are shown for sales and motor fuel taxes, State income tax, and Federal income tax generated by angler expenditures. Like output, employment and income, tax impacts include direct, indirect and induced tax effects of angling expenditures (Tennessee and Texas do not have state income tax) .

13

Table 6. Annual Economic Impacts based on Travel-related Expenditures (FHWS) Sales and motor fuel state Federal State Retail sales Output jobs income taxes income tax income tax

AL $153,248 $298,834 3.5 $74,598 $7,509 $3,059 $7,758

AR $8,474,212 $15,168,839 180.5 $3,795,567 $516,927 $185,983 $390,943

GA $1,460,619 $2,921,239 27.2 $723,851 $54,043 $38,364 $122,331

KY $1,450,773 $2,799,992 28.6 $624,234 $87,046 $34,333 $91,138

MO $4,166,702 $8,125,068 74.8 $1,818,234 $208,335 $70,911 $289,099

NC $606,671 $1,267,943 13.6 $325,268 $30,334 $15,613 $51,067

OK $1,191,685 $2,442,955 28.1 $602,869 $69,118 $34,966 $62,698

SC $448,402 $865,416 9.3 $215,549 $27,801 $8,191 $32,763

TN $2,245,528 $4,625,788 46.3 $1,177,541 $166,169 $0 $193,117

TX $74,386 $153,979 1.3 $36,466 $4,240 $0 $6,236

VA $241,736 $464,133 4.3 $107,695 $11,845 $4,739 $17,447

Totals $20,513,962 $39,134,185 417.4 $9,501,872 $1,183,367 $396,158 $1,264,598

14

Table 7. Annual Economic Impacts based on Travel-related and Equipment Expenditures Sales and motor fuel State Federal State Retail sales Output Jobs Income taxes income tax income tax

AL $287,688 $560,992 6.5 $140,042 $14,097 $5,742 $14,564

AR $14,299,272 $25,595,697 304.6 $6,404,589 $872,256 $313,825 $659,673

GA $2,506,620 $5,013,239 46.6 $1,242,227 $92,745 $65,838 $209,936

KY $1,996,829 $3,853,880 39.3 $859,189 $119,810 $47,255 $125,442

MO $6,259,799 $12,206,608 112.3 $2,731,604 $312,990 $106,533 $434,325

NC $1,220,008 $2,549,817 27.3 $654,111 $61,000 $31,397 $102,695

OK $1,850,109 $3,792,724 43.6 $935,963 $107,306 $54,286 $97,340

SC $736,634 $1,421,704 15.4 $354,103 $45,671 $13,456 $53,824

TN $3,705,696 $7,633,733 76.3 $1,943,243 $274,221 $0 $318,692

TX $104,348 $216,000 1.9 $51,154 $5,948 $0 $8,747

VA $329,304 $632,264 5.9 $146,707 $16,136 $6,455 $23,767

Totals $33,296,307 $63,476,658 679.7 $15,462,932 $1,922,180 $644,787 $2,049,005

15

Table 8. Annual Economic Impacts based on American Sportfishing Association Travel-related and Equipment Expenditures Sales and motor fuel State Federal State Retail sales Output Jobs Income taxes income tax income tax

AL $375,631 $732,480 8.5 $182,850 $18,406 $7,497 $19,016

AR $20,882,445 $37,379,577 444.8 $9,353,166 $1,273,829 $458,305 $963,376

GA $3,177,792 $6,355,583 59.1 $1,574,845 $117,578 $83,467 $266,149

KY $4,350,491 $8,396,448 85.6 $1,871,916 $261,029 $102,955 $273,300

MO $10,754,613 $20,971,495 192.9 $4,693,018 $537,731 $183,028 $746,190

NC $1,529,536 $3,196,730 34.2 $820,065 $76,477 $39,363 $128,750

OK $2,452,186 $5,026,981 57.8 $1,240,551 $142,227 $71,952 $129,017

SC $751,870 $1,451,110 15.7 $361,427 $46,616 $13,734 $54,937

TN $4,526,208 $9,323,988 93.2 $2,373,514 $334,939 $0 $389,256

TX $99,565 $206,099 1.8 $48,809 $5,675 $0 $8,346

VA $250,522 $481,002 4.5 $111,609 $12,276 $4,911 $18,081

Totals $49,150,858 $93,521,493 998.2 $22,631,771 $2,826,783 $965,212 $2,996,419

16 Net economic value of recreational angling on SARP tailwaters

Table 9 shows per angling day estimates of net economic value for trout fishing (Aiken and La Rouche 2003). These values are based on statewide averages for 19 states and represent the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence interval (Aiken and La Rouche 2003, p. 9). The numbers are fairly close to those in Kaval and Loomis (p. 7) which show a per person per day value for recreational angling of $50.74 (based on 129 studies from 1967 to 2003, adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars). These numbers represent the maximum amount anglers would be willing to pay (minus their actual expenses) for the angling experience associated with trout fishing. Alternatively, net economic value (also know as consumer surplus) is the difference between the total value people receive from the consumption of a particular good (in this case recreational angling ) and the total amount they pay for the good. The amount people pay to obtain a good or service (e.g., retail sales) plus net economic value (consumer surplus) is also know as gross benefits or total consumer's surplus; see Varian (p. 244) and Just et al. (p. 101) for additional information). However it is net benefits (net economic value) which are the most appropriate measure of the social or public economic benefits of recreational angling (U.S. Water Resources Council, p. 67). Table 9. Trout Economic Value Per Day (2006 $)

Net Economic Value per Angling Day

Trout Fishing Value per Day $51.36 Source: Aiken and La Rouche, 2003.

Table 10 summarizes net economic value generated by anglers fishing for trout on tailwaters below SARP dams. About $54.6 million in economic value is generated annually. Table 10. Annual Number of Angler Days and Associated Net Economic Value Net Economic Value States Angler Days (2006 $)

AL 6,067 $311,597

AR 526,240 $27,027,704

GA 76,271 $3,917,302

KY 71,243 $3,659,041

MO 152,591 $7,837,048

NC 27,772 $1,426,352

OK 62,754 $3,223,059

SC 17,582 $902,996

TN 111,762 $5,740,118

TX 1,921 $98,650

VA 8,291 $425,807

Total 1,062,494 $54,569,674

17 Table 11 shows total economic effects (defined as retail sales plus net economic value) for each of the three sets of angler expenditures. Total economic effects are then compared with total stocking costs (SARP 2007, Appendix B). The ratio shown is essentially total economic effects per $1 of stocking costs. These comparisons are provided only for the purpose of broadly comparing the magnitude of economic effects resulting from recreational trout angling to stocking costs and should not be interpreted as a benefit-cost ratio or production function relationship.

Table 11. Total Economic Effects under Alternative Expenditures (2006 $) FHWS Travel-related FHWS Travel-related and Equipment American Sportfishing Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Total Economic Effects (Expenditures plus net economic value) $75,083,636 $87,865,981 $103,720,532

Stocking Costs $7,364,802 $7,364,802 $7,364,802

Ratio of Total Economic Effects to Stocking Costs $10.19 $11.93 $14.08

Table 12 compares net economic value with stocking costs. Recreational angling on tailwaters below SARP dams generate $7.41 of net economic value for each $1 of stocking costs. Since only net economic value is considered, the $7.41 can be considered the net economic benefits of recreational angling per $1 of stocking costs on SARP tailwaters.

Table 12. Comparison of Net Economic Value and Stocking Costs (2006 $) Stocking Costs Net Economic Value Net Economic Value per $1 Stocking Costs

$7,364,802 $54,569,674 $7.41

18 Appendix 1

Economic Impact Indices

The economic impacts associated with angling expenditures were estimated using information from a series of reports by Vishwanie Maharaj and Janet Carpenter (see Reference section) of the American Sportfishing Association which are summarized in The Economic Importance of Sport Fishing published by the American Sportfishing Association (1997) and Sportfishing in America (2002), also by the American Sportfishing Association. The economic impact estimates were based on freshwater sportfishing expenditures obtained from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002).

Economic Impact Indices (all dollar figures in 2006 $) Sales and Jobs Motor fuel State Federal Output (per tax Income tax Income tax (per $1 of $1 million Job Income (percent of (percent of (percent of State retail sales) of output) (per job) retail sales) retail sales) retail sales)

Alabama 1.95 11.6 $21,520 4.9% 4.1% 10.4%

Arkansas 1.79 11.9 $21,027 6.1% 4.9% 10.3%

Georgia 2.00 9.3 $26,644 3.7% 5.3% 16.9%

Kentucky 1.93 10.2 $21,857 6.0% 5.5% 14.6%

Missouri 1.95 9.2 $24,324 5.0% 3.9% 15.9% North Carolina 2.09 10.7 $23,975 5.0% 4.8% 15.7%

Oklahoma 2.05 11.5 $21,459 5.8% 5.8% 10.4% South Carolina 1.93 10.8 $23,062 6.2% 3.8% 15.2%

Tennessee 2.06 10.0 $25,456 7.4% 0.0% 16.4%

Texas 2.07 8.7 $27,221 5.7% 0.0% 17.1%

Virginia 1.92 9.3 $24,950 4.9% 4.4% 16.2%

19 References

Aiken, Richard and Genevieve Pullis La Rouche. Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001. Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife- Associated Recreation. Report 2001-3. Division of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC. September 2003.

American Sportfishing Association. Sportfishing in America. Alexandria VA. 2002.

Bason, James J. Georgia Trout Angler Survey. The Survey Research Center at The University of Georgia for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Lake Burton Hatchery. July 1999.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Clinch River Creel Survey Results - April - October 2005. TWRA Fisheries Report 06-08. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. July 2006.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the Hiwassee River. Fisheries Report 05-11. A Report Submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville TN. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. August 2005.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the Caney Fork River. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. September 2004.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the South Fork of the Holston River, March - October 2002. A Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Fisheries Report 03-06. U.S. Geological Survey. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. March 2003.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the Watauga River, March-October 2002. A Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville Tennessee. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. February 2003.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the Obey River Below Dale Hollow Dam. March - October 2001. TWRA Fisheries Report 02-06. Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville TN. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. April 2002.

Bettoli, Phillip W. and Stacy M. Xenakis. An Investigation of the Trout Fishery in the Caney Fork River Below Center Hill Dam. Fisheries Report 96-23. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. April 2002.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Clinch River Creel Survey Results: March - October 2001. TWRA Fisheries Report 02-01. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. December 2001.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Duck River Creel Survey May - October 2000. Fisheries Report 01-43. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. September 2001.

20

Bettoli, Phillip W. Elk River Creel Survey Results April - October 2000. TWRA Fisheries Report 01- 42. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. August 2001.

Bettoli, Phillip W., Steven J. Owens and Mark Nemeth. Trout Habitat, Reproduction, Survival, and Growth in the South Fork of the Holston River. Fisheries Report No. 99-3. A Final Report Presented to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. U.S. Geological Survey, Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. March 1999.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Creel Survey and Population Dynamics of Salmonids Stocked into the Watagua River Below Wilbur Dam. Fisheries Report 99-41. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. November 1999.

Bettoli, Phillip and Lisa Bohm. Interim Report and Summary of Project Activities: Clinch River Trout Investigations and Creel Survey, September 1995-June 1997. Fisheries Report Number 97-39. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. August 1997.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the Duck River Below Normandy Dam. Fisheries Report 96-21. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. September 1996.

Bettoli, Phillip W. Survey of the Trout Fishery in the Obey River Below Dale Hollow Dam. Fisheries Report 96-16. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. September 1996.

Bettoli, Phillip W. and D.A. Besler. An Investigation of the Trout Fishery in the Elk River Below Tims Ford Dam. Fisheries Report 96-22. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. September 1996.

Bowman, Darrell W., Tom R. Bly, Steve P. Fillpek, Carl A. Perrin, John D. Stark, and Brian K. Wagner. Angler Use, Success, and Characteristics on Greers Ferry Tailwater, Arkansas, with Implications to Management. Proceedings: Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. No. 48:499-511. 2004.

Bowman, Darrell W. and Melissa Jones. Trout Management Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. January 2004.

Bradle, Tim A., Stephen J. Magnelia and John B. Taylor. Trout Angler Utilization, Attitudes, Opinions and Economic Impact at the Canyon Tailrace. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division. Austin Texas. March 2006.

Devlin III, George J. and Phillip W. Bettoli. Creel Survey and Population Dynamics of Salmonids Stocked into the Caney Fork River Below Center Hill Dam. A Final Report Presented to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. U.S. Geological Survey, Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. May 1999.

21 Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Fisheries Section Annual Report. Fiscal Year 2004. July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004. Wildlife Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources. Social Circle, GA.

Jakus, Paul, Dimitrios Dadakas, Becky Stephens, and J. Mark Fly. Fishing and Boating by Tennessee Residents in 1997 and 1998. Research Report 99-17. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Institute of , Agricultural Experiment Station. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. November 1999.

Just, Richard E., Darrell L. Hueth and Andrew Schmitz. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy. Edward Elgar. North Hampton MA. 2004

Kaval, Pam and John Loomis. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values with Emphasis on National Park Recreation. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO. October 2003.

Klein, Lisa. Investigation of the Trout Fishery in the Chattahoochee River Below Buford Dam. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division. Social Circle GA. January 2003.

Loomis, John B. Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges and BLM Lands. Columbia University Press. New York. 1993.

Luisi, Michael P. and Phillip W. Bettoli. An Investigation of the Trout Fishery in the Hiwassee River. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville TN. June 2001.

Malvestuto, Stephen and Timothy N. Churchill. Tennessee Reservoir Creel Survey. 1999 Results. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Division. Nashville TN. June 2000.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Evaluation of a Year-Round Put-and-Take Rainbow Trout Fishery in the Mountain Fork River. January 1, 1989 through February 28, 1994. Federal Aid Project No. F-37-R. Fish Research and Surveys for Oklahoma Lakes and . Job No. 18. No date.

SARP. Assessment of Fisheries Mitigation at Trout Tailwaters in the Southeastern USA. Mitigation Fisheries Workgroup, Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). November 2007.

Taylor, Carol, Susan Winter, Greg Alward and Eric Siverts. Micro IMPLAN User=s Guide. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Land Management Planning Systems Group, 1993.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers. U.S. city average. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington D.C. 2007. http://stats.bls.gov/cpihome.htm

U.S. Department of Commerce. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 3rd Edition. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. March 1997.

22 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 2002.

U.S. Water Resources Council. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington DC. March 10, 1983.

Varian, Hal R. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1987

23