u.s. fish & wildlife service economic effects of …u.s. totals almost $51.9 million annually....

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Economic Effects of TroutProduction by NationalFish Hatcheries in theSoutheastSoutheast Region, Atlanta, Georgia

Economic Effects of National Fish Hatchery Trout Production and Distribution in the Southeastern U.S.

The importance of the Southeast’s fisheries andaquatic resources is clear. These resources arerecognized as National assets that contribute toquality of life and well being of the Americanpeople. Recreational fishing is deeply woveninto the lifestyle and culture of the Southeast.Anglers in the Southeast are the benefactorsof many of the contributions that our systemof National Fish Hatcheries and FisheryResource Offices provide. These anglers areoften the leaders who fight for improved waterquality in our rivers and lakes, betterenforcement to prevent overfishing of imperiledstocks, reducing contaminants entering ourrivers and streams, restoration of spawningand nursery habitats, and the need to controlinvasive exotic species entering our waterways.The focus of this report looks at the valuableeconomic benefits of recreational use ofhatchery trout in the Southeast provided bysix mitigation fish hatcheries. A significantamount of economic activity is generated asa direct result of trout stocking by NationalFish Hatcheries in the Southeast.

I am strongly committed to a viable FisheriesProgram in the Southeast Region that willaddress the needs of our fisheries and aquaticresources for the benefit of the American people.The stakeholders of the Southeast have clearlyarticulated that a balanced approach is neededthat embodies restoration and recovery ofimperiled species without abandoning ourhistoric activities that support recreationalfishing. I am committed to that approach.

1

Commitment toFisheries in theSoutheast


Sam D. Hamilton

Regional DirectorSoutheast RegionU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


■ Trout production and stocking byFederal hatcheries in thesoutheastern U.S. generates asubstantial amount of economicactivity for local and regionaleconomies.

■ Six Federal hatcheries in foursoutheastern States––Arkansas,Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia,produce over 6.8 million troutannually and distribute these fish toseven different States in thesoutheast.

■ Erwin National Fish Hatchery inTennessee distributes over 11 millioneggs annually to both Federal andState hatcheries in over 10 Statesacross the U.S.

■ Recreational angling dependent onthe 6 hatcheries generates over$107 million annually in directexpenditures.

■ These expenditures in turn generateover $212 million in related economicactivity.

■ Over 2,800 jobs annually areassociated with recreational anglingdependent on Federal troutproduction and distribution in thesoutheastern U.S.

2

Executive Summary

■ These jobs generate earnings of $56million.

■ Fishing for Federal hatchery trout inthe southeastern U.S. results in $1.6million in State income tax revenue;$5.2 million in State sales tax revenue;and over $5.4 million in Federalincome tax revenue. This totals over$12 million in State and Federal taxrevenue.

■ Budget expenditures for all sixhatcheries total $2.1 million annually.

■ Aggregate consumer surplus or neteconomic value of angling for Federalhatchery trout in the southeasternU.S. totals almost $51.9 millionannually.

■ For each budget dollar spent,recreational trout fishing in thesoutheastern U.S. generates from$109 to $141 in economic effects.

■ For each budget dollar spent,recreational trout fishing in thesoutheastern U.S. generates from$5.18 to $7.85 in State and Federal taxrevenue.


Over the past 120 years, Federalstewardship of the nation’s fishery andaquatic resources has been a primeresponsibility of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. The Service works witha variety of stakeholders, includingFederal agencies, State resourceagencies, Tribal governments andprivate organizations, to improve fisheryconservation efforts. This field presenceincludes: 70 National Fish Hatcheries;64 Fish and Wildlife ResourceManagement Offices; nine Fish HealthCenters, and six Fish TechnologyCenters.

The Service focuses its efforts onfulfilling Federal mandates for recovery,restoration, and inter-jurisdictionalmanagement of depleted fish stocks.National Fish Hatcheries, Fish andWildlife Resource Management Offices,Fish Technology Centers and FishHealth Centers focus their efforts torecover aquatic species listed asthreatened, endangered or candidatesunder the Endangered Species Act;restore and maintain depletedanadramous or highly migratory fishstocks and aquatic habitats at productiveor self-sustaining levels; and establish,protect or restore resources for whichCongress has assigned responsibilities tothe Service through legislation (i.e.,mitigation of Federal water developmentprojects).

The Service implements several formsof mitigation associated with existingFederal water development projects:1) minimizing project impacts (i.e.

Introduction

constructing fish-passage facilities);2) rectifying project impacts (i.e.,restoring habitat); and 3) compensatingfor project impacts (i.e., enhancingfishery resources in reservoirs and tailwaters created by Federal waterdevelopment projects). The fundamentalpurpose of fishery mitigation is tocompensate for adverse impacts tofishery resources caused by theconstruction of Federal dams andFederal water development projects.Fisheries mitigation in the southeasternU.S. utilizing National Fish Hatcheriesconsists of stocking trout species(rainbow, brown, brook, lake, andcutthroat trout) in waters impacted byFederal dams.

This report focuses on six mitigationhatcheries in the southeastern U.S.:1) Greers Ferry NFH, Arkansas;2) Norfork NFH, Arkansas; 3) DaleHollow NFH, Tennessee; 4) ErwinNFH, Tennessee; 5) Wolf Creek NFH,Kentucky; and 6) Chattahoochee ForestNFH, Georgia. In their capacity asmitigation hatcheries, these facilitiesprovide a variety of environmental andecological goods and services. Thisreport focuses on a subset of these goodsand services: the economic effects of therecreational use of hatchery trout. Asidefrom the direct fish-related economiceffects, the hatcheries also provideadditional economic impacts to localcommunities and adjacent regionsthrough hatchery budget expenditures,including spending related to troutproduction and the spending of hatcherystaff salaries.

3


Total trout production in the SoutheastRegion amounts to slightly over 7.5million fish annually (FY 1999). The vastmajority of these fish are produced formitigation purposes. In the southeasternU.S., fishery mitigation is necessarybecause the Federal dams on some riversystems have drastically altered theenvironmental conditions of the watersbelow the dams constructed by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and theTennessee Valley Authority (TVA).Subsequent to dam construction, thewater in the river below the dam is muchcolder than the river water. This occursbecause the water in the river passesthrough the bottom portion of the damduring the production of electric power.The resulting river water is so cold that

4

National FishHatchery Mitigationin the SoutheasternU.S.

fish species like smallmouth bass are notable to survive. Fish species such asrainbow trout were found to be ideallysuited to the new coldwater habitat.Because of fluctuating water levels in therivers associated with sporadic powergeneration and low flows, limitedspawning and reproduction occurs.Tailwaters below Federal dams requiremitigation stocking if they are to sustaina fishery. Mitigation hatcheries, as partof the National Fish Hatchery System,compensate for the impacts caused byFederal water development projects.The six hatcheries considered in thisreport are all mitigation hatcheries,although a given hatchery may haveother responsibilities in addition tomitigation.


The Greers Ferry NFH is located nextto the tail waters of the Greers FerryDam (administered by the COE) onthe Little Red River, in north centralArkansas. Hatchery construction beganin 1965 after the Greers Ferry Damwas completed. The first trout wereproduced in 1966. Currently, thehatchery produces rainbow and brooktrout to mitigate the fishery losses fromCOE water development projects incentral and southeastern Arkansas andeastern Oklahoma. Table 1 shows theannual average distribution of fishreleases for the period 1995 to 1999.

Table 2. Greers Ferry NFH:Fish Distribution by StateFive-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Table 1. Greers Ferry NFH:Fish Distribution SummaryFive-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Species Tailwater Reservoirs Research To Other Total Hatcheries

Rainbow 600.8 17.8 15.8 608.2 1,242.6

Brook 84.9 0 0 0 84.9

Total 685.7 17.8 15.8 608.2 1,327.5

Species Arkansas Percent Oklahoma Percent Georgia Percentof Species of Species of Species

Total Total Total

Rainbow 1,058.8 86.3% 145.6 11.9% 22.3 1.8%

Brook 84.9 100.0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 1,143.7 87.2% 145.6 11.1% 22.3 1.7%

Greers Ferry NFHArkansas

About 52 percent of total releases arereleased into tailwaters or rivers and46 percent are transferred to otherhatcheries. Other hatchery transfersinclude fingerling trout provided toFederal and State hatcheries involvedin fishery mitigation for grow-outpurposes. Rainbow trout accountfor over 93 percent of all releases, whilebrook trout account for the rest.

Table 2 shows fish distribution by State.Over 87 percent of all fish releases go toArkansas with the remainder going toGeorgia and Oklahoma.

5


The Norfork NFH is located belowNorfork Dam and Reservoir in BaxterCounty Arkansas. Authorizinglegislation for the Norfolk NFH wasbased on meeting the fishery needsarising from COE projects in the WhiteRiver of northern Arkansas andsouthern Missouri. Table 3 showsNorfolk NFH fish distribution from 1995to 1999. Rainbow trout comprise about82 percent of total fish distributed,followed by cutthroat trout at 12 percentand brown trout at 6 percent. Themajority of fish are released intailwaters and rivers (74.3 percent),followed by transfers to other hatcheries

Norfork NFHArkansas

(25.3 percent), reservoirs and lakes(0.3 percent) and research. Otherhatchery transfers include fingerlingtrout provided to Federal and Statehatcheries involved in fishery mitigationfor grow-out purposes. Rainbowscomprise over 82 percent of all releases,followed by cutthroat trout at 11.9percent and brown trout at 6 percent.

Table 4 shows fish distribution by state.Arkansas receives the vast majority offish distributed from the Norfork NFH(95.1 percent) while Oklahoma receivesabout 3.6 percent and Georgia slightlyover 1 percent.

Table 3. Norfork NFH:Fish Distribution SummaryFive-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Table 4. Norfork NFH:Fish Distribution by StateFive year annual average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Species Tailwater/ Reservoirs Research To Other TotalRivers Hatcheries

Rainbow 1,175.0 2.5 0.2 445.7 1,623.4

Brown 116.2 3.3 0 0 119.5

Cutthroat 179.4 0 0 55.1 234.5

Total 1,470.6 5.8 0.2 500.8 1,977.4

Species Arkansas Percent Oklahoma Percent Georgia Percentof Species of Species of Species

Total Total Total

Rainbow 1,547.1 95.3% 58.8 3.5% 25.0 1.3%

Brown 111.0 92.9% 8.5 7.1% 0 0%

Cutthroat 234.5 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 1,879.6 95.1% 71.1 3.6% 25.0 1.3%

6


Dale Hollow NFH is located in ClayCounty in north-central Tennessee,just south of the Kentucky border.Dale Hollow’s original mission was tomitigate the impacts of Federal waterdevelopment projects in Tennessee andKentucky by providing rainbow troutto affected reservoirs, rivers, andtailwaters. The production program hasevolved somewhat over the years. Theconstruction of Wolf Creek NFH in

Table 5. Dale Hollow NFH:Fish Distribution Summary5-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Table 6. Dale Hollow NFH:Fish Distribution by State5-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Species Tennessee Percent Georgia Percent Alabama Percent Arkansas Percentof Species of Species of Species of Species

Total Total Total Total

Rainbow 927.9 75.2% 268.6 21.8% 23.9 1.9% 12.7 1.0%

Brown 179.1 93.1% 13.3 6.9% 0 0% 0 0%

Lake 63.0 100.0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 1,170.0 78.6% 281.9 18.9% 23.9 1.6% 12.7 0.9%

Dale Hollow NFHTennessee

These fish directly support recreationaltrout fisheries in 64,000 surface acres ofimpoundment and 115 miles of river/tailwater.

Table 5 shows average annual fishdistribution by species for FY 1995-1999.Fish distribution into rivers/tailwatersaccounts for 56 percent of total fishdistributed, transfers to other hatcheriesaccounts for 29 percent, fish distributioninto reservoirs accounts for 15 percent,and fish utilized for research account forless than 0.01 percent. Rainbow troutaccount for about 83 percent of allreleases, brown trout for 13 percent andlake trout 4 percent.

Table 6 shows fish distribution by state.Overall, Tennessee receives almost 80percent of total releases, Georgia about19 percent, Alabama less than 2 percentand Arkansas less than 1 percent.


Rainbow 649.2 164.6 0 419.3 1,233.2

Brown 178.1 1.0 0 13.3 192.4

Lake 0 63.0 0 0 63.0

Total 827.3 228.6 0 432.7 1,488.6

Jamestown, Kentucky in 1975 hasenabled Dale Hollow NFH to focus moreon needs within Tennessee, Georgia,and Alabama. Current productioncommitments call for the rearing anddistribution of 1.1 million rainbow trout,200,000 brown trout, and 100,000 laketrout. All of the lake trout and browntrout production as well as the majorityof the rainbow trout production (96%) isearmarked for mitigation stocking.Rainbow trout are also provided to theStates of Tennessee and Georgia forgrow-out on their production facilities.These fish are subsequently stocked intoboth State and Federal mitigationwaters. Rainbow trout are also providedto the Veterans Administration and theDepartment of Defense for stocking onnon-Service lands. All of the non-mitigation fish produced at the DaleHollow NFH are paid for by the user.

7

Economic Effects of National Fish Hatchery Trout Production and Distribution in the Southeastern U.S.8

Wolf Creek NFH is located in RussellCounty in south-central Kentucky. Thehatchery is situated about 1,800 feetbelow Wolf Creek Dam. Constructionof the 240-foot concrete and earth dam,designed primarily for flood control andhydroelectric generation, was completedin 1950. The resultant impoundment,Lake Cumberland, totals 63,530 surfaceacres with 1,255 miles of shoreline. Wolf

Table 7. Wolf Creek NFH:Fish Distribution Summary5-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Table 8. Wolf Creek NFH:Fish Distribution by State5-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Wolf Creek NFHKentucky

Creek NFH currently providesmitigation fish for stocking in tailwatersbelow 13 COE impoundments across sixdifferent river basins in Kentucky. Thatportion of the trout program that takesplace on state managed lands is veryimportant to the state of Kentucky. Thefish distributed in support of the troutstream program provided over 163 milesof stream fishing in FY 1998. Wolf CreekNFH provided advanced fingerling(6-8 inches) brown trout and catchable(9 inches) rainbow trout in support ofongoing sportfishing programs in 18state managed lakes and 32 statemanaged streams in FY 1998. These 50management areas are located in 43counties in Kentucky. The hatchery alsoprovides fingerling and advancedfingerling brown trout and advancedfingerling and catchable rainbow trout tothe Daniel Boone National Forest ineastern Kentucky. The hatchery

distributes both rainbow and browntrout to two military installations inwestern Kentucky, Fort Campbell andFort Knox. Table 7 summarizes fishdistribution from 1995 to 1999.Distribution to tailwaters and riversaccount for 55 percent of total hatcherydistribution; reservoirs and lakesaccount for 27 percent; transfers to otherhatcheries accounts for 17 percent andresearch accounts for 0.3 percent. Otherhatchery transfers include fingerlingtrout provided to Federal and Statehatcheries involved in fishery mitigationfor grow-out purposes.

Table 8 shows Wolf Creek NFH fishdistribution by state. Kentucky receivesmost of the releases, accounting for 82percent, Georgia receives about 9percent, Tennessee over 6 percent andNorth Carolina less than 3 percent.

Species Kentucky Percent Tennessee Percent Georgia Percent North Percentof Species of Species of Species Carolina of Species

Total Total Total Total

Rainbow 687.2 82.9% 54.9 6.6% 62.7 7.6% 24.4 2.9%

Brown 114.6 77.2% 9.6 6.5% 24.3 16.4% 0 0%

Total 801.8 82.0% 64.5 6.6% 87.0 8.9% 24.4 2.5%


Rainbow 449.7 234.6 2.9 141.9 829.1

Brown 89.9 31.6 0 28.8 150.3

Total 539.6 266.2 2.9 170.7 979.4


Table 9. Chattahoochee Forest NFH:Fish Distribution Summary5-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

Table 10. Chattahoochee Forest NFH:Fish Distribution by State5-year Annual Average (1995-99)(thousands of fish)

The Chattahoochee Forest NFH islocated in Fannin County in northernGeogia. It is surrounded by the 750,000acre Chattahoochee National Forest.The original facility was constructed in1938 by the Civilian Conservation Corpsand was owned and managed by the U.S.

Chattahoochee Forest NFHGeorgia

include the mitigation of three Federalwater impoundments, providing fish tosatisfy obligations of a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) to the State ofGeorgia, and providing fish to satisfy theobligations of an MOU with the EasternBand of Cherokee Indians (NorthCarolina). Table 9 shows fish distributionfrom 1995 to 1999. Transfers to otherhatcheries accounted for 44 percent of allhatchery releases, tailwater and riverstockings accounted for 31.4 percent andthe Cherokee MOU accounted for 24percent. Other hatchery transfersinclude fingerling trout provided to Statehatcheries for grow-out and to theEastern Band of the Cherokee Indians .

Table 10 shows hatchery fish distributionby state; with Georgia accounting for 76percent of total fish distributions andNorth Carolina 24 percent (Tribalfingerling production).

Forest Service and the Bureau of SportFisheries. The original purpose of thefacility was to conserve, restore andenhance the recreational fisheries onwaters within the ChattahoocheeNational Forest. Brook, brown andrainbow were reared at the hatchery anddistributed throughout the streams andlakes of the National Forest. Earlyproduction approximated 20,000 fishannually. In 1955, a bilateral agreementbetween the U.S. Forest Service and theBureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlifeassigned full responsibility to theBureau. Production of the facility hasbeen greatly increased through advancesin feed and fish culture technology andby upgrading from circular productionponds to raceways. Rainbow trout arethe only species currently propagatedand presently distribution commitmentsexceed 900,000 fish annually. The missionof the station has been expanded to

Species Tailwater/ Cherokee MOU To Other TotalRivers Hatcheries

Rainbow 19.6 82.8% 4.1 17.2%

Species Georgia Percent North Percentof Species Carolina of Species

Total Total

Rainbow 785.5 75.9% 250 24.1%

9


Erwin NFHTennessee

eggs annually. These eggs are currentlyprovided by 4 strains of rainbow troutthat yield eggs at various times of theyear. After the trout are spawned, theyare either stocked locally in Tennesseestreams and reservoirs or aretransferred to other hatcheries inTennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia.Table 11 shows the distribution ofrainbow trout released from ErwinNFH. Transfers to other hatcheriesaccount for 65 percent of all releases,research 15 percent, tailwaters 12percent and reservoirs 7 percent. Otherhatchery transfers include fingerlingtrout access to numbers needed indeveloping brood stocks.

Table 12 shows fish distribution by state.Tennessee accounts for over 82 percentof all fish releases and North Carolinaaccounts for 17 percent.

Table 11. Erwin NFH:Fish Distribution 5-year AnnualAverage (1995-99)(thousands of fish)


Rainbow 31.4 6.6 6.4 2.0 46.4

Table 12. Erwin NFH:Fish Distribution by State FY 1999(thousands of fish)

Species Tennessee Percent North Percentof Species Carolina of Species

Total Total

Rainbow 19.6 82.8% 4.1 17.2%

The Erwin NFH is located in UnicoiCounty in Eastern Tennessee nearErwin. It is one of three National FishHatcheries rearing rainbow trout insupport of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService’s National Broodstock Program.The hatchery’s primary mission is toprovide disease-free, eyed trout eggs tothe Federal and State hatcheries in theSoutheast that rear trout for mitigationstocking. Secondary functions of thehatchery are to provide trout eggs to:1) fulfill Tribal trust responsibilities forthe Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,according to a Memorandum ofAgreement; 2) States for theirrecreational fishing programs in returnfor services provided to the FWS; and3) laboratories needing trout eggs forvital research projects. The eggcommitments of the hatchery for allprograms range from 10-15 million eyed


Economic Effects ofHatchery Mitigation

Federal trout hatcheries provide avariety of environmental and naturalresource goods and services. Theseservices can be grouped into three broadcategories:

■ Recreation:- Replacing lost fishing opportunities- Creating additional fishing opportunities- Visitor center and facility tours

■ Information:- Environmental and fisheries educational programs- Fisheries research- Fish health diagnostics

■ Federal spending- Hatchery budget expenditures and their effect on local and regional economies

People who use the above servicesbenefit in the sense that their individualwelfare or satisfaction level increaseswith the use of a particular goods orservice. One measure of the magnitudeof the change in welfare or satisfactionassociated with using a particular goodor service is economic value. Aside fromthe effect on the individual, use of thegood or service usually entails spendingmoney in some fashion. Theseexpenditures, in turn, create a variety ofeconomic effects collectively known aseconomic impacts.

Economic value is the economic trade-off people would be willing to make inorder to obtain some good or service. Itis the maximum amount people wouldbe willing to pay in order to obtain aparticular good or service minus theactual cost of acquisition. In economictheory this is known as net economicvalue or consumer surplus for moredetailed information). In the context ofthis report, estimates of the economicvalue of a trout angling day (one person

fishing for a portion of one day fortrout) are used to determine theaggregate economic value ofrecreational fishing for trout producedby federal trout hatcheries in thesoutheastern U.S.

Economic impacts refer to employment,employment income, industrial outputand federal and state tax revenue thatoccur as the result of consumerexpenditures on hatchery-related goodsand services. For this report, two typesof impacts are addressed: 1) impactsassociated with annual consumerexpenditures on angling for Federallyproduced trout; and 2) impactsassociated with annual hatchery budgetexpenditures.

A comprehensive economic analysis ofFederal trout hatcheries wouldincorporate estimates of the totalsocietal benefits and costs associatedwith the hatcheries. For example,benefits would include not only thevaluation of trout angling but also thevaluation of the scientific knowledge andenvironmental education servicesprovided by the hatcheries. On the costside, in addition to annual budgetexpenditures, the opportunity costs ofnatural resources such as land and waterand the costs of capital improvementswould also be included. This reportfocuses on three types of economiceffects: 1) the economic impacts ofangler expenditures, which include theeffects of angler expenditures onindustrial output, employment,employment earning, and Federal andState tax revenue; 2) the economicimpacts of hatchery budgetexpenditures, including both salary andnon-salary expenditures and 3) theeconomic value of recreational troutfishing defined as the net economic valueor consumer surplus estimate of a troutangler day.

11


Spending associated with angling cangenerate a substantial amount ofeconomic activity in local and regionaleconomies. Anglers spend money on awide variety of goods and services. Trip-related expenditures may includeexpenses for food, lodging andtransportation. Most anglers also buyequipment and angling related goodsand services such as rods, reels, lures,hooks, lines, bait, boats, boat fuel, guideand outfitter services, campingequipment, and memberships in fishingclubs and organizations. Because thisspending directly affects towns andcommunities where these purchases aremade, angling can have a significantimpact on local economies, especially insmall towns and rural areas. Thesedirect expenditures are only part of thetotal picture, however. Businesses andindustries that supply the local retailerswhere the purchases are made alsobenefit from angler expenditures. For

12

Economic Impactsof AnglerExpenditures

example, a family may decide topurchase a set of fishing rods for anupcoming vacation. Part of the totalpurchase price will go to the localretailer, say a sporting goods store.The sporting goods store in turn pays awholesaler who in turn pays themanufacturer of the rods. Themanufacturer then spends a portion ofthis income to cover manufacturingexpenses. In this way, each dollar of localretail expenditures can affect a variety ofbusinesses at the local, regional andnational level. Consequently, consumerspending associated with angling canhave a significant impact on economicactivity, employment, household incomeand local, State and Federal tax revenue.Table 13 shows freshwater anglingparticipation, associated expendituresand economic impacts for the U.S. andthe four states in the Southeast Regionwhere the hatcheries addressed in thisreport are located.

Table 13. Freshwater Angling Effortand related Expenditures, 1996.(All figures except jobs in millions;jobs in thousands)

2 Angling day is defined as one person fishing at least part of one day.

3 Includes both travel-related and equipment costs

4 Output is the total value of production or total sales plus or minus inventory (Minnesota IMPLANGroup, Inc., p. 253)

5 Includes both full and part-time employment

6 Earnings are defined as “the earnings that are received by households form the production ofregional goods and services and that are available for spending on these goods and services.” Thus,earnings are calculated as the sum of wages and salaries, proprietors’ income, director’s fees, andemployer contributions for health insurance less personal contributions for social insurance.

Area Angling Expenditures3 Output4 Jobs5 Earnings6

Days2

U.S. 485.5 $25,022 $71,508 794.2 $81,502

Arkansas 9.7 $302 $585 9.1 $154

Kentucky 9.6 $517 $1,046 14.1 $267

Tennessee 11.3 $474 $989 12.8 $265

Georgia 12.9 $1,041 $2,122 25.6 $568

State Totals 43.5 $2,334 $4,742 61.6 $1,254


In 1996, U.S. participation in freshwaterfishing resulted in over 485 millionangler days with over $25 billion inrelated expenditures. One way to helpplace these expenditures in context is tothink of these expenditures as the annualsales revenue of a company. If such werethe case, this company would rank 71st

associated with trout angling. The basicobjective is to estimate the Federal trouthatcheries contribution to the overalleconomic effects of recreational troutfishing in the southeastern U.S.

Number of Trout Anglers:Information on the number of troutanglers comes from the 1996 NationalSurvey of Fishing, Hunting andWildlife-Associated Recreation (1996FHS) and from State surveys or Stateinformation on trout permit sales. Table14 summarizes the estimated number oftrout anglers (both resident and non-resident) by state.

Since the 1996 FHS data matches upfairly well with information provided byState fisheries agencies, the 1996 FHStrout angler data is used in theexpenditure and economic outputcalculations.

Table 14. Annual Number of TroutAnglers by State

on the 2000 Fortune 500 list, ahead ofsuch companies as Dow Chemical,Microsoft and American Express(Fortune 2001). These expendituresresulted in over $71 billion in industrialoutput, $18 billion in earnings and almost800,000 jobs. For the four states wherethe six National Fish hatcheries arelocated, freshwater fishing participationamounted to almost 44 million anglerdays, with associated expenditures of$2.3 billion, industrial output of $4.7billion, earnings of over $1.2 billion andalmost 62,000 jobs.

Estimating the Economic Impacts ofHatchery-Related Angler Expenditures:To estimate the economic impacts ofrecreational angling for trout producedby Federal hatcheries, several types ofinformation are needed: 1) the number ofState anglers who fish for trout; 2) theannual number of days these anglersfished for trout; and 3) expenditures

State 1996 FHS State Information State Source

Kentucky 39,000 36,094 2-yr. average(FY 1999-2000) trout permit

holders

Tennessee 120,000 117,000 University of Tennessee

Georgia 160,000 160,000 1996 FHS

Arkansas 152,000 140,000 (1995) Trout permit holders

13


Angler Days:The report Trout Fishing in the U.S.,based on the 1996 FHS, providesestimates of the number of annual troutangler days for each state. Table 15summarizes data for each state. Alsoshown for comparison is the annualnumber of freshwater angling days perangler (freshwater angling includes allfreshwater sport fish).

With the exception of Arkansas, theestimates of trout angling days for theother three states are fairly closetogether, ranging from 9.1 to 10.6 daysper year. For all four states, the numberof annual freshwater angling days is alsofairly close together, ranging from 12.5to 14.8 days. It is not clear whether thelower number of trout angler dayscompared with freshwater angler days isan accurate reflection of trout anglerbehavior or represents an artifact of the

14

methodology or data used to estimatetrout angler days. However, since theangler day estimates are tolerablyconsistent across states and across troutand freshwater anglers (in that troutangler days are consistently lower thanfreshwater days for all states), troutangler days as noted above will be usedin estimating expenditures. Thisprovides, in all likelihood, a reasonable,conservative estimate. However, theestimate of Arkansas trout angler daysrepresents a problem. The 4.2 troutangler days is considerably below theother estimates for the three states andis far below the Arkansas freshwaterangler day estimate of 13.1. TheArkansas Game and Fish Commissionconducted mail and telephone surveys oftrout permit holders in 1988, 1993 and1999. The most recent information showsthat Arkansas trout anglers spent an

Table 15. Annual Number of TroutAngling Days per Angler (resident and non-resident)

average of 15.9 days per year fishing fortrout. While this number is considerablyhigher than the trout angler days for theother three states, it is close to thenumber of freshwater angler days forArkansas, 13.1. Given the otherestimates of trout and freshwater anglerdays, it seems reasonable to assume thatthe Arkansas survey estimate of 15.9days is a more accurate estimate than 4.2days. Consequently, the Arkansas Statetrout survey estimate of 15.9 days will beused in estimating expenditures and theresultant economic impacts.

Angler Expenditures:The expenditures used in this reportwere obtained from the 1996 FHS. Theexpenditures in Table 16 representstatewide averages for freshwaterfishing, including both warm and cold-water species. Certain types ofequipment purchases, mostly vehiclesand boats, are not included. In the actual

State Annual number of trout Annual number of freshwaterangling days per angler angling days per angler

Kentucky 10.6 12.5

Tennessee 9.1 14.8

Georgia 10.1 13.3

Arkansas 4.2 13.1


calculations of total angling expendituresassociated with each hatchery,expenditures for each State where thefish are caught are used.

It should be noted that theseexpenditures are on a per angler perday basis. The objective in the 1996 FHSwas to obtain information on angling-related expenditures: interviewees wereasked about their respective share oftrip expenses, not total trip expenses forall members of the party. Consequently,the angling expenditures in the 1996FHS represent expenditures of theindividual angler; expenditures of non-anglers are not accounted for. Whilethese expenditures are not specific totrout fishing in the southeastern U.S., itis assumed that these expenditures arereasonable, conservative estimates ofexpenditures associated with troutangling. Few States have conducted aneconomic analysis of trout fishing and

State Per angler per day expenditures

Kentucky $37.65

Tennessee $32.07

Georgia $37.02

Arkansas $28.07

Table 16. Expenditures per TroutAngler per Angling Day(1999 dollars)

when they have, the 1996 FHS hastypically been the source of economicdata used in the analysis. An exceptionhas been a survey conducted by theArkansas Game and Fish Commission in1993 and updated in 1999. Statewide, thesurvey found that anglers (includingboth residents and non-residents) spentan average of $194.79 per trip (1993dollars) for trout fishing. Given that theaverage trip lasted three days, this givesa per day expenditure total of about$64.93. The 1996 FHS data show a perday expenditure of $26.61 (1996 dollars).Adjusted for inflation to 1999 dollars, theArkansas survey figure is $74.73 per dayand the 1996 FHS figure is $28.07 perday. While the Arkansas state surveyfigure is over twice the 1996 FHSnumber, it is not clear if these numbersare exactly comparable since theArkansas state survey appears to show aper party per day estimate and the 1996FHS shows a per angler per dayestimate.

Just as the 1996 FHS expendituredata may undercount non-anglerexpenditures on fishing trips, theArkansas state survey may overestimateexpenditures. For example, the Arkansasreport estimated total state-wide troutangling expenditures by multiplying thetotal number of trout permit holders in1993 (129,489) by annual expendituresper trout permit holder (average totalfishing trip-related expenditures per trip($194.79) multiplied by the averagenumber of annual fishing trips taken(5.3) equals $1,032.39). This gives annualexpenditures of $133,683,149.Multiplying annual expenditures of troutpermit holders by the number of troutpermits sold in the state may overstatetrout expenditures under certainconditions: 1) the $1,032.39 annualexpenditure estimate includes familieswith more than one trout permit holder,as would be the case, for example, for afamily where both the husband and wifehold trout permits. If the $1,032.39

15


figure represents total annualexpenditures for the family as a whole,than multiplying $1,032.39 by thenumber of trout permit holders in thiscase, two, results in $2,064.78 in annualexpenditures, substantially overstatingactual expenditures; 2) the annualexpenditure figure includes minors overthe age of 15 (in Arkansas, trout permitsare required for 16-year olds andabove)(Arkansas Game and FishCommission 2000). Counting a minortrout permit holder who is a member ofa family spending $1,032.39 a year ontrout angling the same as the adultpermit holder(s) for the purpose ofcalculating total expenditures results inthe overestimation of annualexpenditures; and 3) if intervieweesincluded expenditures on the non-fishingportion of multipurpose trips in theirestimate of fishing trip expenditures.

The purpose of this discussion is not tocriticize the two surveys but to accountfor the rather wide range of the twoexpenditure estimates. The surveyswere done for different purposes usingdifferent methodologies and both makea significant contribution in theprovision of information on thecharacteristics of recreationalfreshwater and trout angling. Oneapproach that may assist in comparingthe two estimates is to adjust theArkansas data to a per angler per daybasis. The Arkansas state survey doesnot contain information on party size;however, a (hopefully) reasonableapproach is to assume that party size is

17

equivalent to household size for the Stateas a whole and to further assume that allmembers of the party fish. The mostrecent (1998) estimate of household sizestatewide is 2.56 (U.S. Census Bureau1999). If the per day expenditure total of$74.73 is divided by 2.56, then the perday per person expenditure comes to$29.19 compared with $28.07 for theArkansas state estimate in the 1996FHS. Likewise, if the $74.73 is per partyper day, multiplying the 1996 FHS perangler per day estimate of $28.07 times2.56 results in a per party per dayestimate of $71.86. While the viability ofthis comparison depends on thereasonableness of assuming that partysize and household size are comparableand that all party members fish, it doesshow that the two estimates may befairly close when adjusted to becomparable.

For the purposes of this report, anglerexpenditures from the 1996 FHS will beused to calculate trout anglerexpenditures and associated economicimpacts with the understanding that the1996 FHS expenditures may understateactual expenditures and thus most likelyrepresent a conservative estimate ofactual trout angling expenditures.

Method of Estimating National FishHatchery Related Expenditures:Once the basic information componentshave been identified, it is a relativelystraightforward process to calculatetrout expenditures which can beattributed to Federal trout hatcheryproduction and releases. The basicapproach is as follows: 1) calculate theannual number of trout angler days ineach State, 2) determine the proportionof the total number of trout angling dayswhich can be attributed to the Federaltrout hatcheries in the State, 3) multiplythe estimates in items 1 and 2 above toobtain total annual trout angler daysassociated with Federal hatcheries in theState, and 4) multiply the estimatesobtained in item 3 by the appropriate perday per angler expenditure.

This approach results in an estimate ofthe total angler expenditures (for a givenState) related to fishing for troutproduced at Federal trout hatcheries inthe southeastern U.S. Determining item2 above entails two separate estimates:1) for a given State, the proportion ofstocked trout available for recreationalangling which can be attributable toFederal trout hatcheries; and 2) theproportion of the total economic effectsassociated with a hatchery’s grossannual production which can beattributed to that hatchery giventransfers of trout to other hatcheries.With respect to item 1, estimates wereobtained as to the proportion of totaltrout stocked in a given Stateattributable to federal trout hatcheries(both as catchables and as transfers tostate hatcheries). State fisheriespersonnel and Federal hatcherymanagers (need specific sources)provided the following estimates:Kentucky (100%), Arkansas (100%),Georgia (30%), and Tennessee (65%).With respect to item 2, while mostFederal trout hatcheries release amajority of their fish as catchables, asignificant number of fish aretransferred as fingerlings to otherhatcheries (both Federal and non-Federal) for further grow-out beforebeing released. It is important to notethat expenditures attributable to aspecific hatchery have been adjusted toreflect these transfers so that thehatchery only gets credit for its specificcontribution to the total grow-out time ofthe trout eventually released and caught(this is related to item 2 above).

A simple example may help clarify thispoint. Say the XYZ National FishHatchery produces 100 rainbow troutper year. Of this 100, 75 are kept in theFederal hatchery until they reach nineinches, at which time they are releasedat various stocking points around theState. The remaining 25 are transferredto a State hatchery when 4 1/2 inches;the State hatchery keeps the fish untilthey reach nine inches and are released.Of the 25 transfers, 50 percent of thetotal grow-out is attributable to the XYZ


NHF and 50 percent to the Statehatchery. Consequently, in determiningthe angler expenditures attributable tothe XYZ NFH, the hatchery receivescredit for 75 trout plus 50 percent of the25 transfers, or 87.5. Consequently, ofthe total economic effects associatedwith the 100 released trout, the XYZNFH gets credit for 87.5 percent.

The estimates obtained from the aboveapproach need to be further adjusted toreflect the proportion of trout anglingfor wild trout. Tennessee estimates wereadjusted to reflect that about 9.8 percentof annual trout angling effort was forwild trout. Georgia estimates wereadjusted to reflect that about 33 percentof trout angling effort was for wild trout(Georgia Department of NaturalResources 2000). Kentucky andArkansas do not have appreciablenumbers of wild trout. The abovemethods are primarily applicable forthose States where the southeasternFederal trout hatcheries are located

days associated with transfers toOklahoma can be estimated using theArkansas ratio. This assumes that troutangling characteristics and effort aresimilar in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Usingthis method, trout angler days associatedwith transfers to states other than thefour above were obtained. The remainderof this report summarizes the economiceffects of recreational trout anglingattributable to Federal trout hatcheryproduction and stocking. Erwin NationalFish Hatchery is not specifically includedbecause of the difficulty in separating outthe economic effects attributable to troutegg production and distribution from theeconomic effects attributable to thereleased trout. Since all the eggs from theother five Federal hatcheries come fromthe Erwin National Fish Hatchery, agross estimate of the economic effects ofErwin NFH egg production anddistribution is the aggregate economiceffects of the five hatcheries. To this mustbe added the economic effects of ErwinNFH egg production and distribution tonon-Federal hatcheries across the U.S.

(Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia andTennessee). For other States receivingtrout from Federal hatcheries (bothcatchables and fingerlings), analternative method was used to calculatetrout anglers based on the number offish released in the State. After troutangler days and adjusted fish releases(to compensate for transfers) wereestimated for each hatchery, the ratio ofangler days per released fish wascalculated. “Angler” days are defined astotal trout angler days associated withthe adjusted trout releases for a givenhatchery. “Released fish” are the totalnumber of trout releases in the stateadjusted for transfers to other facilities.Table 18 shows the estimated ratios forthe four states where Federal trouthatcheries are located.

These estimates can be used to calculatethe number of trout angler daysassociated with transfers to other Statesby using the ratio of an adjacent state.For example, the number of trout angler

State Trout angler day Released fishper released fish per trout

Arkansas 0.80 1.25

Georgia 0.57 1.75

Tennessee 0.54 1.85

Kentucky 0.48 2.08

Table 17. Trout Angler Days perReleased Fish

17


Recreational fishing for trout producedand stocked by the various hatcheriesresults in considerable expenditures forboth travel-related goods and servicesand equipment purchases. Table 18shows total angler expendituresassociated with trout production anddistribution for each hatchery along withestimates of the economic output,employment and employment earningsassociated with the given expenditures.These estimates were obtained usingmultipliers from the report, TheEconomic Importance of Sport Fishingpublished by the American SportfishingAssociation (see Appendix A). Themultipliers were derived using theRegional Input-Output Modeling Systemdeveloped by the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis of the Department ofCommerce. The estimated economicimpacts in this report are state-wideimpacts; information is not available to

18

Economic Impactsof AnglerExpenditures

disaggregate impacts down to the localcommunity or county level.

Total angling expenditures shows thetotal annual expenditures associatedwith the recreational catch of thespecified hatchery’s trout releases. Thefigures include spending in all stateswhere hatchery fish are released. Thedifferent dollar amounts acrosshatcheries are mainly attributable tofour factors: 1) differences in productionand release levels; 2) differences in theproportion of total production which istransferred to other hatcheries; 3)differences in the amount of time spentin a Federal hatchery before beingtransferred; and 4) differences in anglerexpenditures per angler per day(ranging from $26 to $38 across eightStates).

Economic output shows the totalindustrial output generated by the

Table 18. State-wide EconomicImpacts Associated with AnnualAngling Expenditures,by Hatchery(dollar figures in thousands,1999 dollars)

Hatchery Total Angling Economic Employment EmploymentExpenditures Output Earnings

Dale Hollow TN $22,714.5 $46,796.2 571 $12,539.9

Chattahoochee $13,335.2 $25,012.8 286 $6,634.3Forest GA

Wolf Creek KY $16,555.6 $33,357.5 420 $8,549.7

Norfork AR $36,858.6 $71,571.8 1,047 $18,838.5

Greers Ferry AR $18,366.3 $35,998.2 523 $9,432.1

angler expenditures. Total output is theproduction value (alternatively, the valueof all sales plus or minus inventory) ofall output generated by anglingexpenditures. Total output includes thedirect, indirect and induced effects ofangling expenditures. Direct effects aresimply the initial effects or impacts ofspending money; for example, spendingmoney in a grocery store for a fishingtrip or purchasing fishing line or bait areexamples of direct effects. The purchaseof the fishing line by a sporting goodsretailer from the line manufacturer orthe purchase of canned goods by agrocery from a food wholesaler would beexamples of indirect effects. Finally,induced effects refer to the changes inproduction associated with changes inhousehold income (and spending) causedby changes in employment related toboth direct and indirect effects. Moresimply, people who are employed by thegrocery, by the food wholesaler, and by


the line manufacturer spend theirincome on various goods and serviceswhich in turn generate a given level ofoutput. The dollar value of this output isthe induced effect of the initial anglingexpenditures.

The economic impact of a given level ofexpenditures depends, in part, on thedegree of self-sufficiency of the areaunder consideration. For example, acounty with a high degree of self-sufficiency (out-of-county imports arecomparatively small) will generally havea higher level of impacts associated witha given level of expenditures than acounty with significantly higher imports(a comparatively lower level of self-sufficiency). Consequently, the economicimpacts of a given level of expenditureswill generally be less for rural and otherless economically integrated areas

Table 19. Tax Revenue Impacts(thousands, 1999 dollars)

compared with other, more economicallydiverse areas or regions.

Additionally, the economic impactsestimated in this report are gross state-wide impacts. Information on whereexpenditures may occur locally and themagnitude of resident and non-residentexpenditures (resident and non-residentrelative to the geographical area ofinterest) is not currently available for allthe states associated with angling forFederally produced trout. Generallyspeaking, non-resident expendituresbring “outside” money into the area andthus generate increases in real income orwealth. Spending by residents is simplya transfer of expenditures on one set ofgoods and services to a different set.In order to calculate “net” economicimpacts, much more detailed informationwould be necessary on expenditurepatterns and angler characteristics.

Since this information is not currentlyavailable for all the states affected byFederal trout production, gross state-wide estimates are used as an upper-bound for net economic impacts.

Employment and employmentearnings include direct, indirect andinduced effects in a manner similar tototal industrial output. Employmentincludes both full and part-time jobs,with a job defined as one person workingfor at least part of the calendar year,whether one day or the entire year. Taxrevenues are shown in Table 19 for Statesales tax, State income tax and Federalincome tax generated by anglerexpenditures. Local and county leveltaxes are not included. Like output,employment and income, tax impactsinclude direct, indirect and induced taxeffects of trout angling expenditures.

Hatchery State State Federal TotalSales Tax Income Tax Income Tax Tax RevenueEarnings

Dale Hollow TN $1,293.5 $66.3 $1,287.6 $2,647.4

ChattahoocheeForest GA $497.0 $293.5 $701.8 $1,492.3

Wolf Creek KY $959.6 $383.6 $849.1 $2,192.3

Norfork AR $1,658.1 $577.7 $1,738.9 $3,974.7

Greers Ferry AR $827.2 $274.7 $871.4 $1,973.3

19


Table 20. Net Economic Value ofRecreational Trout AnglingAssociated with Federal Hatcheries

Economic Value ofRecreational TroutAngling

Currently there are no availableestimates of consumer surplus for troutfishing in the southeastern U.S. Boyle etal. estimate net economic value per(fishing) day for several species of fish inseveral regions across the U.S. usingU.S. Bureau of the Census regions, troutconsumer surplus values ranged from $2to $27 (Pacific, Mountain and MiddleAtlantic regions). For U.S. Fish andWildlife Service trout regions, consumersurplus ranged from $0 to $27 (Western,Mountain and Northeast regions). In lieuof any additional information, it was

decided to take the approximate mean ofboth ranges and use $15 as a reasonableestimate of the net economic value perday of fishing for trout produced by thesix federal hatcheries. This $15 figurewas then multiplied by total angler daysfor each hatchery to obtain net economicvalue shown in Table 20. It is interestingto note that even if consumer surpluswere only 76 cents per angling day, thiswould still result, for each hatchery,in,consumer surplus totals greater thanthe annual hatchery budget.

Hatchery Annual Angler Net Economic ValueDays at $15 per Angling Day

Dale Hollow TN 698,173 $10.5 million

ChattahoocheeForest GA 360,216 $5.4 million

Wolf Creek KY 444,750 $6.7 million

Norfork AR 1,306,035 $19.6 million

Greers Ferry AR 648,327 $9.7 million

Total 3,457,501 $51.9 million


Economic Impactsof Hatchery BudgetExpenditures

In addition to angler expenditures,hatchery budget expenditures alsocontribute to local and regionaleconomies. Table 21 summarizes theeconomic impacts of both salary and non-salary budget expenditures for eachhatchery. Salary expenditures have beenreduced by 30 percent to account fortaxes, insurance and other deductions.Separate input-output models were usedto estimate the impacts of local spending,

regional (in-State but not local) and outof State spending for each hatchery forboth salary and non-salary budgetexpenditures. The figures shown foreconomic output, employment,employment income and tax revenueare aggregate totals for each hatcheryacross all spending locales. Tax revenueincludes local, county, state and federaltax revenue generated by hatcherybudget expenditures.

Table 21. Economic Impacts ofHatchery Budget Expenditures(dollar figures in thousands,1999 dollars)

Hatchery Expenditures Economic Employment Employment TaxOutput Income Revenue

Dale Hollow TN $422.2 $568.2 7.3 $158.5 $74.9

ChattahoocheeForest GA $208.8 $297.7 4.1 $84.2 $39.9

Wolf Creek KY $236.2 $361.5 4.3 $89.5 $43.7

Norfork AR $589.9 $776.6 9.9 $201.1 $94.6

Greers Ferry AR $273.0 $391.8 5.3 $99.5 $51.6

Erwin NFH TN $311.0 $418.6 5.4 $116.8 $55.2

Total $2,041.0 $2,814.0 36.6 $749.6 $359.9

21


Over and above the major contributionsof the Federal hatcheries to fisheriesconservation in the southeastern U.S.,the production and stocking of trout bythe six hatcheries results in a significantamount of related economic activity.Table 22 summarizes these effects. Totaleconomic effects (defined here to beeconomic output plus net economicvalue) associated with each hatcheryrange from $30.4 million to over $91.1million annually. State and Federal taxrevenue range from $1.5 million to over$4 million. These totals are far in excessof the annual budgets for each of thehatcheries. The economic effects per $1of budget expenditure ranges from $109

22

Summary

to $141. Total tax revenue (State andFederal) per $1 of budget expenditurerange from $5.18 to $7.85 (note: thesefigures are not multipliers. They aresimply total economic effects divided bythe hatchery budget, and total taxrevenue divided by the hatchery budget,respectively).

Table 23 shows selected economic indiceson a per released fish basis. Again, theseare not multipliers but the ratio of theselected variable and the number offish released annually. In general,comparisons across hatcheries are notvalid and should be avoided. Hatcherieshave different management objectives

and mandates, and consequentlydiffering budgets with which to achievetheir respective objectives. Diversegeographic locations result in diverseangling characteristics, effort andexpenditures. States have different salesand income tax rates. In addition, thevalues in Table 23 are average values,not marginal values. The indicesrepresent a “snap shot” of economiceffects based upon current conditions.The indices cannot be used to determine,for example, the economic impact ofdoubling (or halving) production at anyparticular hatchery. Nevertheless, theseindices may provide a convenientsummary statistic based on currentconditions and use.

Table 23. Selected Indices per(dollars per released fish)

Table 22. Annual Economic EffectsSummary for National Fish HatcheryTrout Production (1999 dollars)

Hatchery Total Total State Actual Economic TaxEconomic and Federal Hatchery Effects per Revenue

Effects Tax Revenue Budget $1 of Budget Generated(thousands) Generated Expenditures Expenditures per $1 of

(thousands) (thousands) BudgetExpenditures

Dale Hollow TN $57,268.8 $2,722.3 $525.8 $109 $5.18

ChattahoocheeForest GA $30,416.0 $1,532.2 $261.8 $116 $5.85

Wolf Creek KY $40,028.7 $2,236.0 $284.9 $141 $7.85

Norfork AR $91,162.3 $4,069.3 $694.4 $131 $5.86

Greers Ferry AR $45,723.1 $2,024.9 $346.0 $132 $5.85

Hatchery Angler Economic Tax BudgetExpenditures Value Revenue Cost

Dale Hollow TN $15.26 $7.04 $1.83 $0.36

ChattahoocheeForest GA $12.88 $5.22 $1.48 $0.25

Wolf Creek KY $16.90 $6.81 $2.28 $0.29

Norfork AR $18.64 $9.91 $2.06 $0.35

Greers Ferry AR $13.84 $7.33 $1.53 $0.26


Appendix A

Multipliers and per Angling DayEconomic Impact Indices: Theeconomic impacts associated withangling expenditures for Federallyproduced trout were estimated usinginformation from a series of reports byVishwanie Maharaj and Janet Carpenterof the American Sportfishing Associationwhich are summarized in The EconomicImportance of Sport Fishing publishedby the American SportfishingAssociation (no date). The economic

impact estimates were based onfreshwater sportfishing expendituresobtained from the 1996 National Surveyof Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Table A1 showseconomic impacts per $1 of expendituresbased on in-state freshwater anglingexpenditures. Table A2 shows economicimpacts per angling day (based on in-state freshwater angling expendituresand total annual freshwater angling daysfor each state).

Table A2. Economic Impacts perFreshwater Angling Day

Table A1. Economic Impactsper $1 of Sport Fishing Expenditures State Output Earnings Jobs per State State Federal

$1 million Sales Income IncomeExpenditures Tax Tax Tax

Arkansas $1.94 $0.51 30.08 $0.045 $0.016 $0.047

Georgia $1.89 $0.51 22.80 $0.037 $0.023 $0.054

Tennessee $2.08 $0.56 26.99 $0.060 none $0.057

Kentucky $2.02 $0.52 27.24 $0.060 $0.025 $0.051

Oklahoma $2.06 $0.53 30.15 $0.045 $0.011 $0.049

Mississippi $1.78 $0.37 22.39 $0.070 $0.008 $0.040

Alabama $1.97 $0.52 26.45 $0.040 $0.019 $0.052

North Carolina $1.90 $0.46 22.99 $0.040 $0.019 $0.049

State Output Earnings Jobs per State State Federal1,000 Sales Income Income

Angling Days Tax Tax Tax

Arkansas $51.53 $13.58 0.80 $1.20 $0.42 $1.25

Georgia $66.38 $17.79 0.80 $1.31 $0.79 $1.88

Tennessee $63.35 $16.98 0.82 $1.82 none $1.74

Kentucky $72.26 $18.47 0.97 $2.14 $0.87 $1.82

Oklahoma $57.33 $14.66 0.84 $1.25 $0.31 $1.37

Mississippi $58.76 $12.27 0.74 $2.31 $0.26 $1.33

Alabama $61.30 $16.23 0.82 $1.24 $0.60 $1.62

North Carolina $61.33 $14.82 0.74 $1.29 $0.63 $1.58

23


Hatchery LocationsState Boundary Lines

Wolf Creek NFH Distribution CountiesNorfork NFH Distribution CountiesGreers Ferry NFH Distribution CountiesErwin NFH Distribution CountiesDale Hollow NFH Distribution CountiesChattahoochie Forest NFH Distribution CountiesShared Distribution - Erwin NFH/Wolf Creek NFHShared Distribution - Dale Hollow NFH/Wolf Creek NFHShared Distribution - Dale Hollow NFH/Erwin NFHShared Distribution - Norfork NFH/Greers Ferry NFH

This map was produced at the GIS Center in the Cookeville, TN Field Office, February 2001

Legend

Greers Ferry NFH

Norfork NFH Dale Hollow NFH

Wolf Creek NFH

Summary ofFish StockingLocations

Norfork NFH

Chattahoochie Forest NFH

Acknowledgments

all photos: USFWS

This documents represents a summaryof the paper entitled “The EconomicEffects of National Fish Hatchery TroutProduction and Distribution in theSoutheastern U.S.;” by Dr. Jim Caudill,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisionof Economics, Arlington, Virginia, April2001. Dr. Caudill received help andassistance from the following individuals:Roger Schulz, R4 Fisheries Program.Supervisor; Rick Nehrling, R4 FisheriesProgram Supervisor; Allan Muellar,Field Supervisor, Arkansas Field Office;Mike Cleary, Greers Ferry NFH;Kenneth Boyles, Norfork NFH; AndrewCurrie, Dale Hollow NFH; Jack Jones,Erwin NFH; James Gray, Wolf Creek

NFH; Deborah Burger, ChattahoocheeForest NFH; Frank Fiss, FisheriesManagement Division, TennesseeWildlife Resources Agency; MikeGennings, Georgia Department ofNatural Resources; Jim Axon, KentuckyDepartment of Fish and WildlifeResources; Mike Gibson, ArkansasGame and Fish Commission; Dr. AlanFox, Northwest Economic Associates;Dr. David Harpman, Bureau ofReclamation; Dr. Michael Hay, USFWS;and Dr. Elliot Rosenberg, EPA. Any andall errors of fact or interpretation arethe sole responsibility of the author.

Assistant Regional DirectorU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1875 Century BoulevardAtlanta, Georgia 30345404/679 7082

1 800/344 WILDhttp://southeast.fws.gov

August 2001

u.s. fish & wildlife service economic effects of …u.s. totals almost $51.9 million annually....

Documents