**The Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Stocking by**

**Fish and Wildlife Service Hatcheries in FY 2004.**

December 5, 2005

Prepared by:

James Caudill, Ph.D.

Division of Economics

Fish and Wildlife Service

Arlington VA

**Executive Summary**

-   The top eleven Fish and Wildlife Service hatcheries in terms of
    rainbow trout stocking in FY 2004 stocked 9.4 million fish and 1.9
    million pounds in 16 states.

-   Arkansas (2.8 million), Colorado (1.2 million) and Tennessee (1.1
    million) were the leading states in terms of number of the rainbow
    trout stocked in FY 2004.

-   **Angler days** associated with NFH rainbow trout stocking in FY
    2004 totaled **3.9 million.**

-   **Retail sales** associated with angling for NFH produced rainbow
    trout amounted to **\$172.7 million** (based on aggregated state
    impacts).

-   **Total economic output** (the \"multiplier\" effect) came to
    **\$325.1 million**.

-   The number of **jobs** associated with this output totaled
    **3,502**.

-   These jobs generated over **\$80** million in wage and salary
    **income**.

-   The **social benefits** (as measured by net economic value) of
    recreational angling for NFH stocked rainbow trout totaled **\$197.9
    million**.

-   **Sales and motor fuel taxes** totaled **\$9.9 million**.

-   **State income tax** generated came to **\$2.9 million**.

-   **Federal income** **tax** generated totaled **\$10.6 million**.

-   Rainbow trout related **hatchery budget** **expenditures** totaled
    **\$5.4 million** in FY 2004.

-   Each dollar of rainbow trout **hatchery budget** **expenditures** is
    associated with **\$32.20 of retail sales and \$36.88 of net
    economic value.**

**The Economic Impacts of Rainbow Trout Stocking by**

**Fish and Wildlife Service Hatcheries in FY 2004**[^1]

**Introduction**

This report summarizes the economic impacts associated with recreational
angling for rainbow trout (RBT) produced and stocked by Fish and
Wildlife Service hatcheries in FY 2004. The following hatcheries are
included in this report (all hatcheries with less than 15,000 pounds of
rainbow trout production in FY 2004 are excluded): **Region 2**:
Alchesay-Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH) and Willow Beach
NFH; **Region 3**: Neosho NFH; **Region 4**: Chattahoochee Forest NFH,
Dale Hollow NFH, Greers Ferry NFH, Norfork NFH, and Wolf Creek NFH;
**Region 6**: Garrison Dam NFH, Hotchkiss NFH and Jones Hole NFH[^2].

The main sections of the report include: (1) a brief discussion of the
purposes and objectives of the National Fish Hatchery system; (2) a
summary of the nation-wide stocking program, for all species stocked by
numbers and weight; (3) a summary of the rainbow trout stocking program
including descriptions of each hatchery and their respective 2004
stocking programs; (4) a discussion of the economic effects attributable
to the recreational angling of rainbow trout produced and stocked by
Federal

hatcheries, including both economic impacts and economic values.

**National Fish Hatcheries**

Over the past 120 years, Federal stewardship of the nation's fishery and
aquatic resources has been a prime responsibility of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Service works with a variety of stakeholders,
including Federal agencies, State resource agencies, Tribal governments
and private organizations, to improve fishery conservation efforts. This
field presence includes: 70 National Fish Hatcheries; 64 Fish and
Wildlife Resource Management Offices; nine Fish Health Centers, and six
Fish Technology Centers.

The Service focuses its efforts on fulfilling Federal mandates[^3] for
recovery, restoration, and inter-jurisdictional management of depleted
fish stocks. National Fish Hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Resource
Management Offices, Fish Technology Centers and Fish Health Centers
focus their efforts to recover aquatic species listed as threatened,
endangered or candidates under the Endangered Species Act; restore and
maintain depleted anadramous or highly migratory fish stocks and aquatic
habitats at productive or self-sustaining levels; and establish, protect
or restore resources for which Congress has assigned responsibilities to
the Service through legislation (i.e., mitigation of Federal water
development projects).

The Service implements several forms of mitigation associated with
existing Federal water development projects: 1) minimizing adverse
project impacts (i.e. constructing fish-passage facilities); 2)
rectifying project impacts (i.e., restoring habitat); and 3)
compensating affected parties for project impacts (i.e., enhancing
fishery resources in reservoirs and tail waters created by Federal water
development projects). The fundamental purpose of fishery mitigation is
to compensate for adverse impacts to fishery resources caused by the
construction of Federal dams and Federal water development projects.
Fisheries mitigation utilizing National Fish Hatcheries consists of
stocking a variety of species in waters impacted by Federal projects.

This report focuses on National Fish Hatchery (NFH) rainbow trout
stocking in the U.S. (for those hatcheries with over 15,000 pounds of
stocked rainbows annually). These hatcheries provide a variety of
environmental and ecological goods and services. This report focuses on
a subset of these goods and services: the economic effects of the
recreational use of hatchery-produced rainbow trout. In addition to the
direct fish-related economic effects, these hatcheries also provide
additional economic impacts to local communities and adjacent regions
through hatchery budget expenditures, including spending related to fish
production and the spending of hatchery staff salaries. This report
focuses on a **reconnaissance-level estimate** of the economic effects
associated with angler use of NFH produced and stocked rainbow trout.
Site-specific data on a variety of different types of information which
ideally would be available to estimate economic effects of NFH stocking
is not available for the vast majority of stocking sites. Different
regions had different information available. Consequently, different
data sets were combined using different estimation techniques to derive
the estimates of economic impact and economic value from the
recreational use of NFH produced and stocked fish.

**National Stocking Program**

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has an extensive stocking program
across the U.S. **Table 1** summarizes 2004 stocking by species and
number of fish stocked. Chinook salmon accounted for 32 percent of total
stocking with 44.1 million fish. Walleye accounted for 17 percent of
total stocking with 23.2 million stocked fish. Rainbow trout, with 11
million fish stocked, accounted for 8 percent of total stockings. All
salmon species accounted for 44 percent of total 2004 stocking while all
trout species accounted for 14 percent.

**Table 2** summarizes 2004 stocking by species and weight. Rainbow
trout accounted for over 2.1 million pounds, 42 percent of total
stockings by weight. Chinook salmon accounted for 862,000 pounds, 17
percent of total stockings. All trout species accounted for 54 percent
of total stockings while salmon species accounted for about 27 percent.

**Table 3** summarizes 2004 stocking by number of fish and by Region.
Region 1 accounted for over 40 percent of total stocking by number of
fish. Region 6 was next with 21 percent of total stocking and Region 4
followed with 15 percent.

**Table 4** summarizes 2004 stocking by weight and by Region. Region 1
had 40 percent of total stockings followed by Region 4 with 30 percent
of all 2004 stockings.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 1. NFH Total  |                       |                       |
| Stockings by Species: |                       |                       |
| 2004**                |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **(Species comprising |                       |                       |
| more than one percent |                       |                       |
| of total stocking)**  |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Species               | Number Stocked        | Percent of Total      |
|                       |                       | Stockings             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Chinook salmon        | 44,131,265            | 31.7%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Walleye               | 23,180,034            | 16.7%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Rainbow trout         | 11,017,255            | 7.9%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Atlantic salmon       | 10,895,312            | 7.8%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Coho salmon           | 6,354,661             | 4.6%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Lake trout            | 5,801,862             | 4.2%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Striped bass          | 5,750,795             | 4.1%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Steelhead             | 4,186,118             | 3.0%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Northern pike         | 4,075,247             | 2.9%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Fathead minnow        | 3,432,840             | 2.5%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Bluegill              | 3,198,831             | 2.3%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Cutthroat trout       | 2,415,241             | 1.7%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Largemouth bass       | 2,137,986             | 1.5%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| American shad         | 1,842,849             | 1.3%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Razorback sucker      | 1,711,473             | 1.2%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Redbreast sunfish     | 1,699,556             | 1.2%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Total                 | 131,831,325           | 94.7 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Total Number Stocked  | 139,210,540           | 100.0 %               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 2. NFH Total  |                       |                       |
| Stockings by Species  |                       |                       |
| and Weight: 2004**    |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **(Species comprising |                       |                       |
| more than one percent |                       |                       |
| of total stocking by  |                       |                       |
| weight)**             |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Species               | Weight (Lbs.)         | Percent of Total      |
|                       |                       | Stockings             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Rainbow Trout         | 2,138,537             | 41.7 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Chinook Salmon        | 862,794               | 16.8 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Steelhead             | 800,132               | 15.6 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Lake Trout            | 369,907               | 7.2 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Coho Salmon           | 318,450               | 6.2 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Atlantic Salmon       | 182,895               | 3.6 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Cutthroat Throat      | 101,821               | 2.0 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Brown Trout           | 74,634                | 1.5 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Channel Catfish       | 54,878                | 1.1 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Brook Trout           | 54,842                | 1.1 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Total                 | 4,958,890             | 96.7 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Total Stocked by      | 5,126,143             | 100.0 %               |
| weight                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 3. NFH Total  |                       |                       |
| Stockings by Region   |                       |                       |
| and Number Stocked:   |                       |                       |
| 2004**                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Region                | Number Stocked        | Percent of            |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       |                       | Total Stockings       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1                     | 56,625,377            | 40.6%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2                     | 2,733,234             | 2.0%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3                     | 16,029,627            | 11.5%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4                     | 21,454,512            | 15.4%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 5                     | 12,847,073            | 9.2%                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6                     | 29,661,922            | 21.3%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Total                 | 139,351,745           | 100.0%                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 4. NFH Total  |                       |                       |
| Stockings by Region   |                       |                       |
| and Weight Stocked:   |                       |                       |
| 2004**                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Region                | Weight Stocked        | Percent of            |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       |                       | Total Stockings       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1                     | 2,062,802             | 40.2 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2                     | 295,309               | 5.8 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3                     | 444,698               | 8.7 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4                     | 1,523,665             | 29.7 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 5                     | 287,752               | 5.6 %                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6                     | 511,917               | 10.0 %                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Total                 | 5,126,143             | 100.0%                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Rainbow Trout Stocking Program**

**Table 5** summarizes rainbow trout stocking by Region and by hatchery.
The NFH rainbow trout stocking program stocked 9.4 million fish at 1.9
million pounds in 2004. Region 4 stocked the most fish and the most
pounds with 5.6 million fish with a weight of 1.3 million pounds. Region
6 stocked 2.6 million fish with a weight of 315,000 pounds followed by
Region 2 with 847,000 stocked fish weighing 162,000 pounds. Region 4
accounted for 60 percent of all rainbow trout stockings, Region 6 for 27
percent, Region 2 for nine percent and Region 3 for 4 percent.

**Norfork NFH** in Region 4 stocked the most fish at 1.8 million,
accounting for 19 percent of total rainbow trout stockings. **Hotchkiss
NFH** in Region 6 followed with 1.5 million fish, 16 percent of total
stockings. The top four hatcheries in terms of numbers stocked accounted
for 60 percent of all rainbow trout stocked in 2004.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 5. National   |                       |                       |
| Fish Hatchery Rainbow |                       |                       |
| Trout Stocking: FY    |                       |                       |
| 2004**                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Hatchery              | Number of Fish        | Pounds Stocked        |
|                       | Stocked               |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 2**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Alchesay-Williams   | 814,291               | 143,050               |
| > Creek               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Willow Beach        | 32,537                | 18,904                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 2 Total**    | **846,828**           | **161,954**           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 3**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Neosho              | **354,504**           | **94,304**            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 4**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Chattahoochee       | 647,543               | 122,398               |
| > Forest              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Dale Hollow         | 996,768               | 254,078               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Greers Ferry        | 1,312,700             | 229,210               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Norfork             | 1,779,220             | 502,837               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Wolf Creek          | 883,985               | 228,974               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 4 Total**    | **5,620,216**         | **1,337,497**         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 6**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Garrison Dam        | 49,999                | 21,755                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Hotchkiss           | 1,455,674             | 149,970               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Jones Hole          | 1,067,789             | 143,397               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 6 Total**    | **2,573,462**         | **315,122**           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ***Total 2004 RBT     | **9,395,010**         | **1,908,877**         |
| Stocking***           |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**[Table 6 shows rainbow trout stocking in each of the 20 states where
NFH produced rainbow trout are stocked. Arkansas accounted for 2.8
million fish, 30 percent of the total 2004 stocking. Colorado received
1.2 million fish, accounting for 13 percent of the total. Tennessee
received 1.1 million fish for 12 percent of the total. By pounds,
Arkansas received 659,768 pounds for 35 percent of total pounds stocked.
Tennessee received 249,227 pounds accounting for 13 percent of the
total, and Kentucky received 226,171 pounds for 12 percent of total 2004
stockings.]{.underline}**

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 6. Rainbow    |                       |                       |
| Trout Stocking by     |                       |                       |
| State: FY 2004**      |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Region                | Number of Fish        | Pounds Stocked        |
|                       | Stocked               |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 2**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Arizona             | 613,699               | 125,830               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > New Mexico          | 229,129               | 35,254                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > California          | 4,000                 | 870                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 3**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Missouri            | 347,948               | 91,925                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Kansas              | 5,000                 | 1,825                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Iowa                | 1,556                 | 554                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 4**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Arkansas            | 2,809,559             | 659,768               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Georgia             | 711,935               | 125,604               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Kentucky            | 690,235               | 226,171               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > North Carolina      | 81,249                | 640                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Oklahoma            | 174,750               | 56,906                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Tennessee           | 1,090,380             | 249,227               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Region 6**          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Colorado            | 1,173,028             | 119,162               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > North Dakota        | 49,999                | 21,755                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Utah                | 615,940               | 108,318               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Wyoming             | 451,849               | 35,079                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

In addition to the FWS stocking programs described previously, the NFH
system produces and supplies rainbow trout to a variety of other
entities for stocking purposes. These entities then carry out the actual
fish stocking activity in the field. **Table 7** shows the rainbow trout
produced by the NFH system which were supplied to these entities and
then stocked

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers accounted 3.2 million fish, almost 30
percent of the total 2004 stocking. State governments, usually fish and
game agencies or state hatcheries, received 3.1 million fish for 28.8
percent of total stockings. Tribal entities, including both Bureau of
Indian Affairs and individual tribal governments, received about 15
percent of total stockings accounting for 1.5 million fish in 2004.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 7. 2004 RBT   |                       |                       |
| Stocking by Receiving |                       |                       |
| Agency**              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Agency                | Number of Fish        | Percent of total      |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       |                       | RBT Stocked           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Corps of Engineers    | 3,217,323             | 29.8%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| State Government      | 3,111,746             | 28.8%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Bureau of Reclamation | 1,554,560             | 14.4%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Indian Tribal         | 1,376,202             | 12.7%                 |
| (Non-BIA)             |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Tennessee Valley      | 632,782               | 5.9%                  |
| Authority             |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| U.S. Fish & Wildlife  | 428,611               | 4.0%                  |
| Service               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Bureau of Indian      | 232,913               | 2.2%                  |
| Affairs               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Forest Service        | 93,380                | 0.87%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Army                  | 43,698                | 0.41%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Dept. of Energy       | 43,645                | 0.40%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Local Government      | 31,791                | 0.29%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Natural Resources     | 7,525                 | 0.07%                 |
| Conservation Service  |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Private               | 5,661                 | 0.05%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Veterans              | 2,796                 | 0.02%                 |
| Administration        |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Air Force             | 975                   | 0.01%                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Hatchery Descriptions**

This section gives a brief description of each hatchery in the study by
Region and summarizes its 2004 rainbow trout stocking. Two tables are
shown for each hatchery. The first table shows stocking by water type,
including tailwater (water downstream from a dam), reservoir, lake or
pond, stream or canal and transfers to other hatcheries, state or
Federal. The second table shows the state distribution for the
hatcheries 2004 rainbow trout stocking.

**[Region 2]{.underline}**

**Alchesay-Williams Creek NFH**

Located on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in eastern Arizona, the
Alchesay and Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery Complex raises five
species of trout for stocking in Indian waters, in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Colorado. The Williams Creek unit is known for its leading role in
the recovery of the threatened Apache trout, a rare trout native only to
Arizona. The Williams Creek Unit was established in the mid-1930s with
funds provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a trout-producing
station. The Alchesay Unit, established in 1959, also raises trout for
Indian reservations. Both hatchery units operate in cooperation between
the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| 8.      |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| Alc     |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| hesay-W |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| illiams |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| Creek   |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| NFH     |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| 2004    |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| S       |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| tocking |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| by      |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| Water   |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| Type**  |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| **(     |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| numbers |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| of      |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| fish)** |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | R |     | La      | Stre |   | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | e |     | ke/Pond | am/C |   | Hat     |        |
|         |         | s |     |         | anal |   | cheries |        |
|         |         | e |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | r |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | v |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | o |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | i |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | r |     |         |      |   |         |        |
+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 0       | 1 |     | 802,991 | 0    |   | 0       | 8      |
| Trout   |         | 1 |     |         |      |   |         | 14,291 |
|         |         | , |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | 3 |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | 0 |     |         |      |   |         |        |
|         |         | 0 |     |         |      |   |         |        |
+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| 9.      |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| Alc     |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| hesay-W |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| illiams |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| Creek   |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| NFH     |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| 2004    |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| RBT     |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| S       |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| tocking |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| by      |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
| State** |         |   |     |         |      |   |         |        |
+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+
| Species |         |   | A   |         |      | N |         |        |
|         |         |   | riz |         |      | e |         |        |
|         |         |   | ona |         |      | w |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | M |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | e |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | x |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | i |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | c |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | o |         |        |
+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+
| Rainbow |         |   | 72  |         |      | 2 |         |        |
| trout   |         |   | %   |         |      | 8 |         |        |
|         |         |   |     |         |      | % |         |        |
+---------+---------+---+-----+---------+------+---+---------+--------+

**Willow Beach NFH**

The Willow Beach NFH is located on the Colorado River (upper Lake
Mojave) 11 miles downstream from Hoover Dam. The hatchery actively
carries out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Resource
Priorities (ref) and mandated Federal Indian Trust Responsibilities.
These include the production of rainbow trout for recreational fishing
and economic development on five Native American tribal reservations and
along the Colorado River. In addition, the hatchery plays a very active
role in developing culture protocol for endangered razorback suckers and
bonytail chub. Each summer thousands of these fishes are stocked in
their native habitat, the Colorado River, with the aim of aiding their
recovery.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 10.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Willow  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Beach   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 0       | 0       | 32,537  | 0        | 0       | 32,537 |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Table 11. Willow                              
  Beach NFH 2004 RBT                              
  Stocking by State**                             

  Species                 Arizona                 California

  Rainbow trout           88 %                    12%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**[Region 3]{.underline}**

**Neosho NFH**

The Neosho National Fish Hatchery is the oldest federal hatchery in
operation today. Established in 1888, it is located in southwestern
Missouri near the Kansas border on the west and the Arkansas border on
the south. The hatchery has a number of on-going fisheries programs,
including: (1) provide mandated mitigation for rainbow trout, primarily
for Lake Taneycomo, MO; (2) provide recovery efforts for the endangered
Pallid Sturgeon;; (3) provide protection for the endangered Ozark
Cavefish; (4) provide recovery efforts for threatened or endangered
Native Mussels; (5) provide restoration efforts for candidate species
Lake Sturgeon; and (6) provide restoration efforts for candidate
species, Paddlefish.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 12.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Neosho  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 0       | 0       | 239,159 | 3,530    | 111,815 | 3      |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         | 54,504 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Table 13.                                           
  Neosho NFH 2004                                       
  Stocking by                                           
  State**                                               

  Species           Missouri          Kansas            Iowa

  Rainbow Trout     98 %              1.4 %             0.6%
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

> **[Region 4]{.underline}**

**Chattahoochee Forest NFH**

Number range CHAPTERThe Chattahoochee Forest NFH is located in Fannin
County in northern Geogia. It is surrounded by 750,000 acres
Chattahoochee National Forest. The original facility was constructed in
1938 by the Civilian Conservation Corps and was owned and managed by the
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries. The original
purpose of the facility was to conserve, restore and enhance the
recreational fisheries on waters within the Chattahoochee National
Forest. Brook, brown and rainbow were reared at the hatchery and
distributed throughout the streams and lakes of the National Forest.
Early production approximated 20,000 fish annually. In 1955, a bilateral
agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife assigned full responsibility to the Bureau.
Production of the facility has been greatly increased through advances
in feed and fish culture technology and by upgrading from circular
production ponds to raceways. Rainbow trout are the only species
currently propagated and presently distribution commitments exceed
900,000 fish annually. The mission of the station has been expanded to
include the mitigation of three Federal water impoundments, providing
fish to satisfy obligations of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
the State of Georgia, and providing fish to satisfy the obligations of
an MOU with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 14.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Chatta  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| hoochee |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Forest  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 19,305  | 37,890  | 850     | 319,858  | 241,416 | 6      |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         | 47,543 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Table 15.                                     
  Chattahoochee Forest                            
  NFH 2004 RBT Stocking                           
  by State**                                      

  Species                 Georgia                 North Carolina

  Rainbow trout           96 %                    4%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Dale Hollow NFH**

Operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, this National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is one of many serving a
vital role in the management of our country's fishery resources. Dale
Hollow NFH was established to mitigate for fishery resources which were
lost due to the construction of federal water development projects in
the Southeast. This is accomplished by stocking rainbow, brown, and lake
trout in waters impacted by federal dams. Stocking trout in public
waters supports a significant recreational fishery which generates a
substantial amount of economic activity for local and regional
economies. This facility is also involved in the conservation of
imperiled freshwater mussels and non-game fishes.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 16.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Dale    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Hollow  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 669,288 | 175,980 | 8,709   | 12,221   | 130,233 | 9      |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         | 96,768 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Table 17. Dale Hollow NFH 2004    
  Stocking by State**                 

  Species                             Tennessee

  Rainbow Trout                       100 %
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Greers Ferry NFH**

Number range CHAPTERThe Greers Ferry NFH is located next to the tail
waters of the Greers Ferry Dam (administered by the COE) on the Little
Red River, in north central Arkansas. Hatchery construction began in
1965 after the Greers Ferry Dam was completed. The first trout were
produced in 1966. Currently, the hatchery produces rainbow and brook
trout to mitigate the fishery losses from COE water development projects
in central and southeastern Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 18.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Greers  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Ferry   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 1,      | 0       | 0       | 0        | 0       | 1,3    |
| Trout   | 312,700 |         |         |          |         | 12,700 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Table 19. Greers                              
  Ferry NFH 2004 RBT                              
  Stocking by State**                             

  Species                 Arkansas                Oklahoma

  Rainbow trout           89 %                    11%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Norfork NFH**

Number range CHAPTERThe Norfork NFH is located below Norfork Dam and
Reservoir in Baxter County Arkansas. Authorizing legislation for the
Norfolk NFH was based on meeting the fishery needs arising from COE
projects in the White River of northern Arkansas and southern Missouri.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 20.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Norfork |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 995,895 | 0       | 4,690   | 10,804   | 767,831 | 1,7    |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         | 79,220 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  **Table                                                        
  21.                                                            
  Norfork                                                        
  NFH 2004                                                       
  Stocking                                                       
  by State**                                                     

  Species    Arkansas     Missouri     Tennessee    Oklahoma     Georgia

  Rainbow    92 %         2.1 %        2.1 %        1.9 %        1.8 %
  Trout                                                          
  ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

**Wolf Creek**

Number range CHAPTERWolf Creek NFH is located in Russell County in
south-central Kentucky. The hatchery is situated about 1,800 feet below
Wolf Creek Dam. Construction of the 240-foot concrete and earth dam,
designed primarily for flood control and hydroelectric generation, was
completed in 1950. The resultant impoundment, Lake Cumberland, totals
63,530 surface acres with 1,255 miles of shoreline.

Wolf Creek NFH currently provides mitigation fish for stocking in
tailwaters below 13 COE impoundments across six different river basins
in Kentucky. That portion of the trout program that takes place on state
managed lands is very important to the state of Kentucky. The fish
distributed in support of the trout stream program provided over 163
miles of stream fishing in FY 1998. Wolf Creek NFH provided advanced
fingerling (6-8 inches) brown trout and catchable (9 inches) rainbow
trout in support of ongoing sportfishing programs in 18 state managed
lakes and 32 state managed streams in FY 1998. These 50 management areas
are located in 43 counties in Kentucky. The hatchery also provides
fingerling and advanced fingerling brown trout and advanced fingerling
and catchable rainbow trout to the Daniel Boone National Forest in
eastern Kentucky. The hatchery distributes both rainbow and brown trout
to two military installations in western Kentucky, Fort Campbell and
Fort Knox.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 22.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Wolf    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Creek   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 349,125 | 186,900 | 38,810  | 195,950  | 113,025 | 8      |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         | 83,985 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Table 23.                                                 
  Wolf Creek NFH                                              
  2004 Stocking                                               
  by State**                                                  

  Species        Kentucky       Tennessee      Georgia        North Carolina

  Rainbow trout  78.1 %         9.1 %          6.8 %          6 %
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[Region 6]{.underline}**

**Garrison Dam NFH**

Garrison Dam National Fish Hatchery was originally established in 1957
to provide fish for recreational fishing in new reservoirs created by
federal water development projects in the Midwest. Today, the hatchery
continues to provide management and production of many freshwater fishes
for the Missouri River Dam development projects, National Wildlife
Refuges, Native American waters, and state programs of North Dakota.

As many of the native fishes struggle with the changes in the Missouri
aquatic ecosystems, the hatchery\'s role has changed to include
maintaining migratory fishes, such as the paddlefish, and restoring
endangered species, such as the pallid sturgeon.

To meet the high fish production demands, Garrison Dam National Fish
Hatchery encompasses 209 acres of land and has a total of 64 rearing
ponds.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 24.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| G       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| arrison |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Dam NFH |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 0       | 40,175  | 7,769   | 3,405    | 0       | 51,549 |
| Trout   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Table 25. Garrison Dam NFH 2004   
  Stocking by State**                 

  Species                             North Dakota

  Rainbow Trout                       100 %
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Hotchkiss NFH**

Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery was established in 1967 as part of the
Colorado River Storage Project Act. Located in west-central Colorado
about 50 miles southeast of Grand Junction, the hatchery rears rainbow
trout for stocking in Colorado and New Mexico reservoirs and Federal
water developments. Facilities include 24 nursery tanks, 32 concrete
raceways and six earthen ponds.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 26.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Ho      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tchkiss |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 0       | 1,      | 41,306  | 3,292    | 0       | 1,4    |
| Trout   |         | 411,076 |         |          |         | 55,674 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Table 27. Hotchkiss                           
  NFH 2004 RBT Stocking                           
  by State**                                      

  Species                 Colorado                New Mexico

  Rainbow trout           80.6 %                  19.4 %
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Jones Hole NFH**

Jones Hole National Fish Hatchery was established in 1956 under Section
8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, and produced its first
trout in 1970. Located on 390 acres in northeastern Utah near the town
of Vernal, the hatchery provides management and production of trout for
mitigation of Colorado River Storage Project waters of the Upper
Colorado River System and to meet Tribal trust responsibilities on
Native American land.

+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| **Table |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 28.     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Jones   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Hole    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| NFH     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| 2004    |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| S       |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| tocking |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| by      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Water   |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| Type**  |         |         |         |          |         |        |
|         |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| **(     |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| numbers |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| of      |         |         |         |          |         |        |
| fish)** |         |         |         |          |         |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
|         | Ta      | Re      | La      | Stre     | Other   | Total  |
|         | ilwater | servoir | ke/Pond | am/Canal | Hat     |        |
|         |         |         |         |          | cheries |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+
| Rainbow | 0       | 1,      | 18,720  | 5,290    | 0       | 1,0    |
| Trout   |         | 043,779 |         |          |         | 67,789 |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+--------+

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Table 29. Jones Hole                          
  NFH 2004 RBT Stocking                           
  by State**                                      

  Species                 Utah                    Wyoming

  Rainbow trout           57.7 %                  42.3 %
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Economic Effects of Hatchery Stocking**

Federal hatcheries provide a variety of environmental and natural
resource goods and services. These services can be grouped into four
broad categories:

> **  Recreation:**
>
> **-** Replacing lost fishing opportunities
>
> \- Creating additional fishing opportunities
>
> \- Visitor center and facility tours
>
> \- Expenditures by anglers and their effect on local and regional
> economies
>
> **  Information:**
>
> **-** Environmental and fisheries educational programs
>
> \- Fisheries research
>
> \- Fish health diagnostics
>
> **  Ecological use**
>
> **-** Mitigation of environmental damages
>
> **  Federal spending**
>
> **-** Hatchery budget expenditures and their effect on local and
> regional economies

While this report focuses on recreation, people who use any of the above
services benefit in the sense that their individual welfare or
satisfaction level increases with the use of a particular good or
service. 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***. Aside
from these impacts, a measure of the magnitude of the change in welfare
or satisfaction associated with using a particular good or service is
***economic value***. For this report, the term ***economic effect***
encompasses both economic impacts and economic value.

**Economic impacts** refer to total economic output, jobs, job income,
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).

Spending associated with angling can generate a substantial amount of
economic activity in local and regional economies. For example, anglers
spend money on a wide variety of goods and services. Trip-related
expenditures may include expenses for food, lodging and transportation.
For example, most anglers also buy equipment and angling--related goods
and services such as rods, reels, lures, hooks, lines, bait, boats, boat
fuel, guide and outfitter services, camping equipment, and memberships
in fishing 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.

**[General approach]{.underline}**

The general approach to estimating economic impacts associated with
hatchery stocking 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:

**[Estimating recreational angling days associated with NFH RBT
stocking]{.underline}**

The basic approach is to link the quantity of fish stocked by the
hatcheries 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 associated with annual RBT stocking:
(1) the number of anglers at each stocking site; (2) the total number of
angling days at the stocking site; (3) the percent of total stocking at
each site comprised of NFH produced fish; and (4) the total number of
fish stocked at the site by NFH hatcheries. Unfortunately, information
on items (1) and (2) is not available for the vast majority of RBT
stocking sites. For example, in 2004 NFH RBT hatcheries stocked 603
different sites across 16 states for a total of 1,963 separate stockings
(many sites were stocked multiple times). Survey information on the
number of anglers and angler days is available for very few sites.
Consequently, alternative approaches must be identified which make use
of the information which **is** available (RBT stocking totals) 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.

Given the above situation, three ways (not necessarily all-inclusive) to
obtain angler day estimates from stocking information are the **angler
effort** approach, the **angler visitation** approach, and the
**statewide** approach.

**[Angler effort approach]{.underline}**

In addition to stocking information, this approach relies on information
about the number of fish caught over a given period of time and how many
hours an angler fishes on an average day or over a given trip length.
For example, a creel survey may indicate that at a particular lake
anglers average 0.5 rainbow trout caught per hour and that they average
about four hours of fishing per day. Consequently, about two fish per
day per angler are caught at this lake, on average. This information is
used in conjunction with modified or adjusted stocking data to estimate
the number of angling days associated with the level of trout stocking
for the lake under consideration. Stocking data is adjusted to reflect
that not all stocked fish are caught by anglers. For a given stocking
year, a number of the fish die or carryover into the next year before
being caught. As an example, say a lake is stocked with 10,000 rainbow
trout annually. It is estimated that mortality and carryover account for
40 percent of all fish stocked in a given year, consequently about 60
percent of total annual stocking is caught. If creel surveys indicate
that two trout per day are caught per angler, then total angler days
equals (10,000 x .60) divided by 2 or 3,000 angler days. For an example
of this particular approach, see **The Economic Effects of the
Recreational Use of National Fish Hatchery 2004 Stocking in Region 6
(Mountain-Prairie Region)** (Caudill 2005). For a more detailed
discussion of this approach, see **Appendix 1**.

**[Angler visitation approach]{.underline}**

This approach relies on information concerning the number of anglers and
angler days in a given location which is used in conjunction with
stocking information to obtain estimates of the number of stocked fish
per angling day (more precisely the ratio of stocked fish to angler days
for the given location). This information in turn can be used to
estimate angler days for stocking areas where information on total
number of anglers or angler days is not available. As an example, take
the above situation where 10,000 trout are stocked in a particular lake
and all the fish are produced by the same hatchery. Surveys show the
average annual number of anglers at this location is 2,000. In this
case, the ratio of stocked fish to angler days is 5:1. Further, there
are nine other locations which are stocked by the same hatchery (all
trout) for which angler and angler day numbers are unknown. Using this
ratio of 5:1, angler days for the other nine locations can be estimated
by dividing the total number of stocked fish at each site by five. Note
that this method does not rely on angler effort data or mortality or
carryover information. However, it does assume the lake with data
sufficient to calculate the stocking ratio is representative of the
other nine lakes. This may or may not be the case; consequently the
calculated stocking ratio at Lake 1 may result in overstating angler
days at Lakes 2, 5, 7 and 9 and understating angler days at Lakes 3, 4,
6, and 8. However, **in lieu of any other information**, this particular
approach may be adequate to obtain, ball-park, reconnaissance-level
estimates of angler days associated with hatchery stocking programs.

Which particular approach to use depends on the type and scope of
available information. Since this report is based on several previous
reports, both methods are used. Region 2 angler day estimates are based
on the angler visitation approach. Region 4 estimates are based on a
combination of the two approaches and Region 6 estimates are based on
the angler effort approach.

**[Statewide Approach]{.underline}**

This approach is appropriate when information on total statewide fish
availability can be separated out into state hatchery produced fish,
Federal hatchery produced fish and wild fish. In conjunction with
statewide angler day estimates available from state agencies or the
National Fish-Hunt Survey, this information can be used to estimate the
proportion of statewide angling days attributable to Federal hatcheries.
For example, if it is known that Federal hatcheries account for 70
percent of all trout in a given state, then it can be reasonably assumed
70 percent of angler days are also attributable to Federal hatcheries.
See **Appendix 2** for more information.

**[Methodology for Region 2]{.underline}**

Using the **angler visitation approach**, Region 2 angler days are based
on the stocking ratio for lakes stocked by the Alchesay-Williams Creek
NFH on the Ft. Apache Indian Reservation, home of the White Mountain
Apache Tribe. Creel surveys for four lakes documented the number of
anglers and angler days over a two year period, 2003 to 2004. Additional
information was obtained from tribal fishing permit sales and the number
of angling days associated with these permits. Angling days were
compared with the number of stocked fish on the Ft. Apache Indian
Reservation to derive the ratio of stocked fish to angler days. In 2003,
this ratio was estimated at 7.79; in 2004 8.34 for a two-year average of
8.09 (weighted average). Since additional information for the remaining
stocking sites was not available, the two-year average stocking ratio
was used for all remaining stocking sites in both Arizona and New
Mexico. For more details, see: **The Economic Effects of the
Recreational Use of Alchesay-Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery 2004
Stocking (**Caudill 2005).

**[Methodology for Region 4]{.underline}**

Region 4 angler days are based primarily on the approach used in the
2001 report, **The Economic Effects of National Fish Hatchery Production
and Distribution in the Southeastern U.S.** (Caudill 2001), updated to
reflect 2004 stocking levels for the five trout hatcheries in the
Region. Given the availability of information, the basic approach is to
determine statewide stocking ratios for states stocked with Region 4
produced trout. The states with a majority of NFH trout stocking include
Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia. The number of trout anglers
in a state was obtained from the **1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation** (U.S. Department of the
Interior et al. 1997). These numbers were compared with the average
number of stocked trout from National Fish Hatcheries for the period
1995 to 1999, adjusted to incorporate state agency data when available
(primarily for Arkansas; see pp. 19-20 in Caudill , 2001). The weighted
average of the stocking ratio for these four states was 2.15.
Considering just 1996, the year of the National Survey, the stocking
ratio was 2.13. Since the Southeastern report was released, the 2001
National Survey has been published (U.S. Department of the Interior et
al. 2002). Using information on state-wide trout angler days and NFH
trout stocking levels for 2001, the average stocking ratio for Region 4
hatcheries in 2001 was 2.0 stocked fish per angler day. Since the three
stocking ratio estimates are fairly close together, the more
conservative average estimate, 2.15, was used in this report. (Note:
because only one hatchery is in Region 3 and its close proximity to
Region 4, the 2.15 stocking ratio is used for the Region 3 hatchery
\[Neosho NFH\]).

**[Methodology for Region 6]{.underline}**

Region 6 angler days are based on the 2005 report, **The Economic
Effects of the Recreational Use of National Fish Hatchery 2004 Stocking
in Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region)** (Caudill 2005). Angler days are
estimated using the **angler effort approach**. Hatchery managers and
fisheries biologists were able to reach a consensus on mortality and
carryover percentages for Region 6 produced and stocked fish. Using 2004
stocking data in conjunction with creel and angler effort surveys, total
angler days associated with Region 6 stocking were estimated. For
comparison with Regions 2 and 4, the 2004 stocking ratio for Region 6
hatcheries averaged 2.99 stocked fish per angler day (weighted average)
across the three hatcheries.

**[Summary of Stocking Ratios]{.underline}**

**Table 30** summarizes the stocking ratios for each of the three
Regions.

+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Table 30.    |                                   |                 |
| RBT Stocked    |                                   |                 |
| Fish to Angler |                                   |                 |
| Day Ratios by  |                                   |                 |
| Region**       |                                   |                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
|                |                                   |                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Region         | Year and Area                     | Stocked Fish    |
|                |                                   |                 |
|                |                                   | per Angler Day  |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Region 2       | 2004: Ft. Apache IR, AZ           | 8.09            |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Region 4       | 2001 (four state average)         | 2.00            |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
|                | 1995-1999 Region 4 Trout          | 2.15            |
|                | Hatcheries                        |                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
|                | 1996 (four state average)         | 2.13            |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Region 6       | 2004 (Garrison Dam, Hotchkiss,    | 2.99            |
|                | Jones Hole)                       |                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+

**[Estimating resident and non-resident angler days]{.underline}**

From the perspective of local communities, economic benefits accrue
because of spending by visitors. For example, spending on
angling-related goods and services by **residents** within a given area
(town, county, state, etc.) is money *not* spent on non-angling goods
and services; it is simply a transfer of spending from one set of goods
and services (non angling-related) to a different set of goods and
services (angling-related). However, from the perspective of residents
of the area, spending by non-residents creates a net addition to area
wealth and economic well-being.

**Table 31** summarizes the percent of residents and non-residents for
each of the states stocked with NFH produced rainbow trout.
**Residents** refer to state residents and **non-residents** refer to
anglers residing outside of the state stocked. Information from the
**2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated
Recreation** (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002) on the
percentage of annual angler days for each group by state was used. These
percentages are based on state-wide estimates for all freshwater
recreational species in 2001. For this report, it is assumed that these
percentages also pertain to the estimates of state-wide angler days
associated with NFH RBT stocking.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 31. Resident  |                       |                       |
| and Non-Resident      |                       |                       |
| Angler Days as        |                       |                       |
| Percentage**          |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **of Total Angler     |                       |                       |
| Days, by State**      |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| State                 | Percent Residents     | Percent Non-Residents |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Arkansas              | 88%                   | 12%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Tennessee             | 89%                   | 11%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Colorado              | 70%                   | 30%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Kentucky              | 90%                   | 10%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Utah                  | 90%                   | 10%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Wyoming               | 71%                   | 29%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Georgia               | 96%                   | 4%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| New Mexico            | 84%                   | 16%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Missouri              | 85%                   | 15%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Oklahoma              | 97%                   | 3%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Arizona               | 91%                   | 9%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| North Carolina        | 94%                   | 6%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| North Dakota          | 90%                   | 10%                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Kansas                | 97%                   | 3%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| California            | 97%                   | 3%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Iowa                  | 94%                   | 6%                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

(Source: U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002)

Applying the stocking ratios summarized in Table 30 to the number of
fish stocked by each hatchery, the number of angling days associated
with rainbow trout stocked by each hatchery can be estimated. **Table
32** summarizes the number of resident and non-resident angler days for
each of the eleven hatcheries based on 2004 stocking. Region 4 accounts
for 2.8 million angler days, about 71 percent of the total number of
rainbow trout angler days in 2004. Region 6 followed with 855,702 angler
days accounting for 22 percent of the total. Region 3 had 4 percent of
total angler days and Region 2 had 3 percent. \[note: stocking numbers
in Tables 32 and 33 are slightly different because of rounding.\]

+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Table 32.    |                |                |                |   |
| Angling Days   |                |                |                |   |
| Generated by   |                |                |                |   |
| National Fish  |                |                |                |   |
| Hatchery**     |                |                |                |   |
|                |                |                |                |   |
| **Rainbow      |                |                |                |   |
| Trout          |                |                |                |   |
| Stocking: FY   |                |                |                |   |
| 2004**         |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| Hatchery       | Resident       | Non-Resident   | Total Angler   |   |
|                | Angler Days    |                | Days           |   |
|                |                | Angler Days    |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 2**   |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Alc          | 90,241         | 11,116         | 101,357        |   |
| hesay-Williams |                |                |                |   |
| > Creek        |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Willow Beach | 3,731          | 336            | 4,067          |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 2     | **93,972**     | **11,452**     | **105,424**    |   |
| Total**        |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
|                |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 3**   |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Neosho       | **137,325**    | **23,813**     | **161,138**    |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
|                |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 4**   |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| >              | 215,650        | 9,192          | 224,841        |   |
|  Chattahoochee |                |                |                |   |
| > Forest       |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Dale Hollow  | 416,490        | 51,476         | 467,966        |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Greers Ferry | 569,667        | 70,674         | 640,341        |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Norfork      | 917,547        | 121,892        | 1,039,439      |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Wolf Creek   | 363,868        | 37,943         | 401,811        |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 4     | **2,483,222**  | **291,177**    | **2,774,398**  |   |
| Total**        |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
|                |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 6**   |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Garrison Dam | 24,920         | 2,699          | 26,989         |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Hotchkiss    | 315,032        | 118,204        | 433,236        |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| > Jones Hole   | 324,145        | 71,332         | 395,477        |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| **Region 6     | **664,097**    | **192,235**    | **855,702**    |   |
| Total**        |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
|                |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+
| ***Total 2004  | **3,378,616**  | **518,677**    | **3,897,293**  |   |
| RBT            |                |                |                |   |
| Stocking***    |                |                |                |   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Table     |             |             |             |             |
| 33** shows  |             |             |             |             |
| rainbow     |             |             |             |             |
| trout       |             |             |             |             |
| angler days |             |             |             |             |
| by state.   |             |             |             |             |
| Arkansas    |             |             |             |             |
| had the     |             |             |             |             |
| most angler |             |             |             |             |
| days with   |             |             |             |             |
| 1.5 million |             |             |             |             |
| angler days |             |             |             |             |
| accounting  |             |             |             |             |
| for 39      |             |             |             |             |
| percent of  |             |             |             |             |
| total       |             |             |             |             |
| rainbow     |             |             |             |             |
| trout       |             |             |             |             |
| angler      |             |             |             |             |
| days.       |             |             |             |             |
| Tennessee,  |             |             |             |             |
| Colorado    |             |             |             |             |
| and         |             |             |             |             |
| Kentucky    |             |             |             |             |
| followed    |             |             |             |             |
| with 14     |             |             |             |             |
| percent, 9  |             |             |             |             |
| percent and |             |             |             |             |
| 8 percent   |             |             |             |             |
| re          |             |             |             |             |
| spectively. |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| **Table 33. |             |             |             |             |
| Total NFH   |             |             |             |             |
| Rainbow     |             |             |             |             |
| Trout       |             |             |             |             |
| Angler Days |             |             |             |             |
| by State**  |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| State       | Resident    | N           | Total       | Percent of  |
|             |             | on-Resident |             | Total       |
|             | Angler Days | Angler Days | Angler Days | Angler Days |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **AR        | 1,345,578   | 183,488     | 1,529,066   | 39.2%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **TN        | 468,479     | 57,902      | 526,381     | 13.5%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **CO        | 244,432     | 104,757     | 349,188     | 9.0%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **KY        | 282,433     | 31,381      | 313,815     | 8.1%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **GA        | 250,560     | 10,440      | 261,000     | 6.7%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **UT        | 205,371     | 22,819      | 228,190     | 5.9%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **MO        | 152,801     | 26,965      | 179,765     | 4.6%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **WY        | 118,774     | 48,513      | 167,287     | 4.3%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **NM        | 94,524      | 18,005      | 112,529     | 2.9%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **OK        | 85,637      | 2,649       | 88,286      | 2.4%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **AZ        | 69,563      | 6,880       | 76,443      | 2.0%        |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **NC        | 31,962      | 2,040       | 34,002      | 0.87%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **ND        | 24,290      | 2,699       | 26,989      | 0.69%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **KS        | 2,188       | 68          | 2,256       | 0.06%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **IA        | 909         | 58          | 967         | 0.02%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **CA        | 485         | 15          | 500         | 0.01%       |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Grand     | 3,377,987   | 518,678     | 3,896,664   | 100.0%      |
| Total**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**[Estimating retail expenditures associated with NFH rainbow trout
stocking]{.underline}**

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 NFH rainbow trout stocking. **Table 34**
shows per day angling expenditures by Region adjusted for inflation to
2004 dollars.

These expenditures were obtained from the **2001 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation** (U.S. Department
of the Interior et al. 2002) and represent Region-wide averages for per
day per angler freshwater fishing-related expenditures. These
expenditures include: (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

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 34. Angling   |                       |                       |
| Day Expenditures by   |                       |                       |
| Region and by         |                       |                       |
| Resident and          |                       |                       |
| Non-Resident**        |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **(2004 \$)**         |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Region                | Resident              | Non-Resident          |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | Expenditures          | Expenditures          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1                     | \$64.32               | \$116.92              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2                     | \$56.91               | \$92.30               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3                     | \$29.58               | \$72.29               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4                     | \$34.24               | \$91.57               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6                     | \$36.01               | \$114.72              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

source: U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002

Combining angler days with angling expenditures for residents and
non-residents for each hatchery, total angler retail expenditures are
estimated. **Table 35** shows total angling related retail expenditures
by hatchery and Region. These figures represent retail spending
associated with angling for rainbow trout stocked by the respective
hatchery.

+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Table 35.  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Recreational |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Use of FY    |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| 2004 NFH     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Rainbow      |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Trout        |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Stocking:**  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| **Retail     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Ex           |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| penditures** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| **(all       |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| dollar       |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| figures in   |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| \'000\'s of  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| dollars;     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| inflation    |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| adjusted to  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| 2004 \$)**   |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| Reg          | Retail |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| ion/Hatchery | sales  |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 2** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Alche      | \$6    |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| say-Williams | ,161.6 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| > Creek      |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Willow     | \      |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| > Beach      | $247.3 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 2   | *      |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Total**      | *\$6,4 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | 08.9** |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 3** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Neosho     | *      |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | *\$5,8 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | 00.5** |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 4** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > C          | \$8    |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| hattahoochee | ,225.5 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| > Forest     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Dale       | \$18   |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| > Hollow     | ,974.3 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Greers     | \$27   |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| > Ferry      | ,485.2 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Norfork    | \$42   |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | ,863.9 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Wolf Creek | \$15   |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | ,933.3 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 4   | **\    |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Total**      | $113,4 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | 82.2** |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 6** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Garrison   | \$1    |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| > Dam        | ,184.3 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Hotchkiss  | \$26   |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | ,078.7 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Jones Hole | \$19   |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | ,855.7 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 6   | **     |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Total**      | \$47,1 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              | 18.7** |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| ***Total RBT | **\    |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Retail       | $172,6 |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Exp          | 75.1** |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| enditures*** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+

**[Total economic impacts of retail expenditures]{.underline}.**

Number range CHAPTERRecreational fishing for trout produced and stocked
by the various hatcheries results in considerable expenditures for
recreation-related goods and services. **Table 36** shows total angler
expenditures associated with recreational angling for rainbow trout
produced and stocked by Federal hatcheries along with estimates of total
industrial output, jobs and job income, sales and motor fuel taxes,
state income tax and Federal income tax revenue. These estimates were
obtained using multipliers from the report, **The Economic Importance of
Sport Fishing** published by the American Sportfishing Association (see
**Appendix 3**). The multipliers were derived using the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II)^1^[^4] developed by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce (Maharaj and Carpenter,
pp. 3-4, 1997c). The estimated economic impacts in this report are
state-wide impacts; information is not available to disaggregate impacts
down to the local community or county level.

**Retail salesNumber range CHAPTER** shows the total annual angling
expenditures associated with the recreational catch of the specified
hatchery's rainbow trout stocking. The figures include spending in all
states where hatchery fish are released.

**Total** Number range CHAPTERNumber range CHAPTER**Industrial output**
shows the total industrial output generated by the angler expenditures.
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 fishing line 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 For more information, see **Regional
Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling
System (RIMS II)** (U.S. Department of Commerce 1997). [^5].

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, a area with a high degree of self-sufficiency (out-of-area
imports are comparatively small) will generally have a higher level of
impacts associated with a given level of 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 expenditures may occur locally
and the magnitude of resident and non-resident local and regional
expenditures is not currently available for the states associated with
rainbow trout angling. 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 the states affected by NFH fish stocking, gross state-level
estimates are used (for additional information, see Loomis p. 191 and
U.S. Department of Commerce 1997, pp. 7-9).

**JobsNumber range CHAPTER and job** **income** includes both full and
part-time jobs with associated wages and salaries, with a job defined as
one person working for at least part of the calendar year, whether one
day or the entire year

Number range CHAPTER**Taxes** include revenues from sales and motor fuel
taxes, state income taxes (where applicable) and federal income tax
generated by angler expenditures on NFH stocked rainbow trout.

Retail sales associated with recreational angling for NFH rainbow trout
totaled \$172.7 million in FY 2004 which generated \$325.1 million in
total economic output. Over 3,500 jobs are associated with this economic
activity with wage and salary income of over \$80 million. Sales and
motor fuel taxes totaled \$9.9 million, state income tax \$2.9 million
and Federal income tax came to \$10.6 million.

+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Table 36.  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Recreational |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Use of FY    |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| 2004 NFH     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Rainbow      |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Trout        |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Stocking:**  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| **Summary of |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Economic     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| Impacts**    |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| **(all       |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| dollar       |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| figures in   |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| \'000\'s of  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| dollars;     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| inflation    |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| adjusted to  |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
| 2004 \$)**   |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| Reg          | Retail | Total  | Jo | Job   | Sales | S    | Fe    |
| ion/Hatchery | sales  |        | bs | I     | and   | tate | deral |
|              |        | Indu   |    | ncome | motor | in   | I     |
|              |        | strial |    |       | fuel  | come | ncome |
|              |        | Output |    |       | taxes | Tax  | tax   |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 2** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Alche      | \$6    | \$11   | 1  | \$2,  | \$    | \$   | \$    |
| say-Williams | ,161.6 | ,299.9 | 15 | 788.3 | 355.3 | 75.8 | 416.6 |
| > Creek      |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Willow     | \      | \      | 5  | \$    | \     | \    | \     |
| > Beach      | $247.3 | $473.4 |    | 121.8 | $14.6 | $3.3 | $20.3 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 2   | *      | **     | *  | **\   | *     | **   | *     |
| Total**      | *\$6,4 | \$11,7 | *1 | $2,91 | *\$36 | \$79 | *\$43 |
|              | 08.9** | 73.3** | 20 | 0.1** | 9.9** | .1** | 6.9** |
|              |        |        | ** |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 3** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Neosho     | *      | **     | *  | **\   | *     | **   | *     |
|              | *\$5,8 | \$10,9 | *1 | $2,80 | *\$33 | \$68 | *\$46 |
|              | 00.5** | 85.6** | 10 | 8.5** | 3.3** | .1** | 0.7** |
|              |        |        | ** |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 4** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > C          | \$8    | \$16   | 1  | \$4,  | \$    | \$2  | \$    |
| hattahoochee | ,225.5 | ,512.9 | 55 | 112.4 | 308.3 | 17.9 | 692.5 |
| > Forest     |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Dale       | \$18   | \$39   | 3  | \$9,  | \$1,  | na   | \$1,  |
| > Hollow     | ,974.3 | ,157.1 | 92 | 975.5 | 398.7 |      | 636.2 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Greers     | \$27   | \$50   | 5  | \$12, | \$1,  | \$6  | \$1,  |
| > Ferry      | ,485.2 | ,300.1 | 97 | 593.2 | 658.1 | 30.9 | 293.5 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Norfork    | \$42   | \$77   | 9  | \$19, | \$2,  | \$9  | \$2,  |
|              | ,863.9 | ,618.6 | 16 | 484.6 | 594.7 | 21.7 | 073.7 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Wolf Creek | \$15   | \$31   | 3  | \$7,  | \$    | \$3  | \$1,  |
|              | ,933.3 | ,216.5 | 18 | 188.2 | 942.9 | 50.0 | 079.1 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 4   | **\    | **\    | *  | **\$  | **\   | \    | \$*   |
| Total**      | $113,4 | $214,8 | *2 | 53,35 | $6,90 | $**2 | *6,77 |
|              | 82.2** | 05.2** | ,3 | 3.9** | 2.7** | ,120 | 5.0** |
|              |        |        | 78 |       |       | .5** |       |
|              |        |        | ** |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
|              |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 6** |        |        |    |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Garrison   | \$1    | \$2    | 21 | \$    | \     | \    | \     |
| > Dam        | ,184.3 | ,021.3 |    | 435.5 | $71.6 | $4.5 | $44.2 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Hotchkiss  | \$26   | \$50   | 4  | \$12, | \$1,  | \$4  | \$2,  |
|              | ,078.7 | ,413.7 | 97 | 849.1 | 167.6 | 27.6 | 056.0 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| > Jones Hole | \$19   | \$35   | 3  | \$7,  | \$1,  | \$2  | \$    |
|              | ,855.7 | ,054.5 | 76 | 914.6 | 082.2 | 10.9 | 811.9 |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **Region 6   | **     | **     | *  | **\$  | \$*   | **\  | **\   |
| Total**      | \$47,1 | \$87,4 | *8 | 20,83 | *2,32 | $643 | $2,91 |
|              | 18.7** | 89.5** | 94 | 9.2** | 1.4** | .0** | 2.1** |
|              |        |        | ** |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+
| ***Total RBT | **\    | **\    | *  | **\$  | **\   | *    | **\$  |
| Impacts***   | $172,6 | $325,0 | *3 | 80,27 | $9,92 | *\$2 | 10,58 |
|              | 75.1** | 53.6** | ,5 | 1.7** | 7.5** | ,910 | 4.7** |
|              |        |        | 02 |       |       | .7** |       |
|              |        |        | ** |       |       |      |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+----+-------+-------+------+-------+

**Net economic value (consumer surplus)**

Number range CHAPTER**Table 37** 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
\$47.42 (based on 129 studies from 1967 to 2003, adjusted for inflation
to 2004 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 for NFH stocked
rainbow trout) 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 for NFH produced and
stocked fish.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Table 37. Trout     |                       |                       |
| Fishing Net Economic  |                       |                       |
| Values Per Day**      |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **(2004 \$)**         |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | Resident              | Non-Resident          |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | Net Economic Value    | Net Economic Value    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Trout Fishing Values  | \$48                  | \$69                  |
| per Day               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Table 38** summarizes net economic value generated by anglers fishing
for NFH-produced and stocked rainbow trout. Almost \$198 million in net
economic value is generated by the hatcheries. Region 4 contributes
\$139.3 million in net economic value, Region 6 almost \$45.1 million,
Region 3 \$8.2 million and Region 2 \$5.4 million.

+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Table 38.     |             |                   |                 |
| National Fish   |             |                   |                 |
| Hatchery FY     |             |                   |                 |
| 2004 Rainbow    |             |                   |                 |
| Trout           |             |                   |                 |
| Stocking:**     |             |                   |                 |
|                 |             |                   |                 |
| **Net Economic  |             |                   |                 |
| Value (Consumer |             |                   |                 |
| Surplus)**      |             |                   |                 |
|                 |             |                   |                 |
| **(\'000\'s of  |             |                   |                 |
| dollars;        |             |                   |                 |
| inflation       |             |                   |                 |
| adjusted to     |             |                   |                 |
| 2004 \$)**      |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Hatchery        |             | Net Economic      |                 |
|                 |             | Value             |                 |
|                 |             |                   |                 |
|                 |             | (consumer         |                 |
|                 |             | surplus)          |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 2**    |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Al            |             | \$5,098.6         |                 |
| chesay-Williams |             |                   |                 |
| > Creek         |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Willow Beach  |             | \$202.3           |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 2      |             | **\$5,300.9**     |                 |
| Total**         |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 3**    |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Neosho        |             | **\$8,234.7**     |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 4**    |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Chattahoochee |             | \$10,985.4        |                 |
| > Forest        |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Dale Hollow   |             | \$23,543.4        |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Greers Ferry  |             | \$32,220.6        |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Norfork       |             | \$52,452.8        |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Wolf Creek    |             | \$20,083.7        |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 4      |             | **\$139,285.9**   |                 |
| Total**         |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 6**    |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Garrison Dam  |             | \$1,352.2         |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Hotchkiss     |             | \$23,277.6        |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| > Jones Hole    |             | \$20,480.9        |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Region 6      |             | **\$45,110.7**    |                 |
| Total**         |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
|                 |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| ***2004 RBT     |             | \$**197,932.1**   |                 |
| Total***        |             |                   |                 |
+-----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+

Table 39 summarizes retail sales, total industrial output, jobs and job
income by the Region where stocking takes place. Table 40 summarizes
sales and motor fuel tax revenue, state income tax and Federal tax
revenue.

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Table 39. |             |             |             |             |
| Economic    |             |             |             |             |
| Impacts of  |             |             |             |             |
| NFH Rainbow |             |             |             |             |
| Trout       |             |             |             |             |
| Stocking by |             |             |             |             |
| Region:     |             |             |             |             |
| 2004**      |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| **(all      |             |             |             |             |
| dollar      |             |             |             |             |
| figures in  |             |             |             |             |
| thousands,  |             |             |             |             |
| 2004 \$)**  |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Region      | Retail      | Total       | Jobs        | Job Income  |
|             | Sales       | Output      |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1           | \$33.0      | \$67.9      | 1           | \$17.9      |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 2           | \$16,753.1  | \$31,081.3  | 335         | \$7,446.3   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3           | \$6,500.2   | \$12,303.5  | 123         | \$3,149.7   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 4           | \$107,577.9 | \$202,834.8 | 2,242       | \$50,383.3  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 6           | \$41,946.2  | \$78,766.1  | 802         | \$19,274.5  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total**   | **\$        | **\$        | **3,502**   | **\         |
|             | 172,810.4** | 325,053.6** |             | $80,271.7** |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Table 40. |             |             |             |             |
| Economic    |             |             |             |             |
| Impacts of  |             |             |             |             |
| NFH Rainbow |             |             |             |             |
| Trout       |             |             |             |             |
| Stocking by |             |             |             |             |
| Region:     |             |             |             |             |
| 2004**      |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| **(all      |             |             |             |             |
| dollar      |             |             |             |             |
| figures in  |             |             |             |             |
| thousands,  |             |             |             |             |
| 2004 \$)**  |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Region      | Sales and   | State       | Federal     | Total Tax   |
|             | Motor Fuel  |             |             | revenue     |
|             | Tax         | Income tax  | Income tax  |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1           | \$2.3       | \$0.8       | \$3.2       | \$6.3       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 2           | \$969.3     | \$303.3     | \$902.0     | \$2,174.6   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3           | \$372.9     | \$75.3      | \$517.4     | \$965.6     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 4           | \$6,563.2   | \$1,961.2   | \$6,444.4   | \$14,968.8  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 6           | \$2,019.8   | \$570.1     | \$2,717.8   | \$5,307.7   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total**   | **          | **          | **\         | **\         |
|             | \$9,927.5** | \$2,910.7** | $10,584.7** | $24,423.0** |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Table 41** shows economic impacts by state (where stocking occurred)
with respect to retail sales, industrial output, jobs and job income.
**Table 42** shows motor fuel and sales tax revenue, state income tax
revenue and federal income tax revenue also by state.

  -------------- ------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------------
  Table 41. NFH                                                     
  Rainbow Trout                                                     
  Stocking: 2004                                                    
  Economic                                                          
  Impacts by                                                        
  State                                                             

  State          Retail Sales        Industrial      Jobs           Job Income
                                     Output                         

  Arkansas       \$62,874,586        \$112,749,257   1,346          \$28,300,570

  Tennessee      \$21,342,806        \$44,044,922    441            \$11,220,695

  Colorado       \$20,819,664        \$41,520,361    403            \$10,884,561

  Kentucky       \$12,544,114        \$24,256,470    248            \$5,422,377

  Utah           \$10,013,226        \$20,529,252    225            \$5,213,913

  Wyoming        \$9,842,478         \$14,525,279    151            \$2,700,691

  Georgia        \$9,535,169         \$19,103,716    178            \$4,749,765

  New Mexico     \$7,041,220         \$11,907,068    127            \$2,630,320

  Missouri       \$6,469,131         \$12,239,870    123            \$3,135,367

  Oklahoma       \$5,118,069         \$10,482,565    121            \$2,589,525

  Arizona        \$4,593,823         \$8,691,708     87             \$2,226,469

  North Carolina \$1,281,177         \$2,680,473     29             \$689,874

  North Dakota   \$1,184,305         \$2,021,332     21             \$435,483

  Kansas         \$86,563            \$169,867       2              \$39,893

  California     \$32,966            \$67,850        1              \$17,856

  Iowa           \$31,076            \$63,577        1              \$14,325

  Total          **\$172,810,372**                   **3,502**      **\$80,271,685**
  -------------- ------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------------

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Table 42.   |             |             |             |             |
| NFH Rainbow |             |             |             |             |
| Trout       |             |             |             |             |
| Stocking:   |             |             |             |             |
| 2004        |             |             |             |             |
| Economic    |             |             |             |             |
| Impacts by  |             |             |             |             |
| State       |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| **          |             |             |             |             |
| (Thousands, |             |             |             |             |
| 2004 \$)**  |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| State       | Sales and   | State       | Federal     | Total Taxes |
|             | Motor Fuel  |             |             |             |
|             | Taxes       | Income Tax  | Income tax  |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arkansas    | \$3,822.6   | \$1,375.0   | \$2,902.6   | \$8,100.1   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Tennessee   | \$1,573.3   | \$0         | \$1,840.5   | \$3,413.8   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Colorado    | \$860.4     | \$352.9     | \$1,855.8   | \$3,069.1   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Kentucky    | \$751.8     | \$300.0     | \$790.3     | \$1,842.2   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Utah        | \$660.5     | \$210.9     | \$557.5     | \$1,428.9   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Wyoming     | \$421.8     | \$0         | \$254.4     | \$676.1     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Georgia     | \$352.0     | \$252.9     | \$802.6     | \$1,407.4   |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| New Mexico  | \$411.3     | \$100.0     | \$268.1     | \$779.4     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Missouri    | \$371.1     | \$74.5      | \$515.1     | \$960.7     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Oklahoma    | \$294.5     | \$150.4     | \$268.1     | \$713.0     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Arizona     | \$263.5     | \$52.9      | \$365.8     | \$682.2     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| North       | \$63.4      | \$33.2      | \$108.4     | \$205.0     |
| Carolina    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| North       | \$71.6      | \$4.5       | \$44.1      | \$120.2     |
| Dakota      |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Kansas      | \$5.5       | \$1.9       | \$5.9       | \$13.3      |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| California  | \$2.3       | \$0.86      | \$3.2       | \$6.5       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Iowa        | \$1.8       | \$0.78      | \$2.2       | \$4.9       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total       | **          | **          | **\         | **\         |
|             | \$9,927.5** | \$2,910.7** | $10,584.7** | $23,422.9** |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Table 43 compares retail sales and net economic value with rainbow trout
expenditures in FY 2004. For every \$1 of rainbow trout budget
expenditures, \$32.20 of retail sales and \$36.88 of net economic value
are associated with these budget expenditures. These comparisons are
provided only for the purpose of broadly comparing the magnitude of
economic effects resulting from recreational angling for NFH stocked
rainbow trout to budget expenditures and should not be interpreted as a
benefit-cost ratio.

+--------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Table 43.        |             |                                   |
| Comparison of      |             |                                   |
| Selected Impacts   |             |                                   |
| with Rainbow Trout |             |                                   |
| Expenditures**     |             |                                   |
|                    |             |                                   |
| **(first line of   |             |                                   |
| table, \'000\'s of |             |                                   |
| dollars; inflation |             |                                   |
| adjusted to 2004   |             |                                   |
| \$)**              |             |                                   |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| FY 2004            | Retail      | Net Economic Value                |
|                    | Sales       |                                   |
| RBT Expenditures   |             |                                   |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| \$5,366.6          | \$172,810.4 | \$197,932.1                       |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| Per \$1 of RBT     | \$32.20     | \$36.88                           |
| Expenditures       |             |                                   |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+

**Appendices**

**Appendix 1: Angler Effort Approach**

**Appendix 2: Statewide Approach**

**Appendix 3: Economic Impact Indices**

**Appendix 1**

**Angler Effort Approach**

**(A) Determine number of fish caught**:

Starting with the number of stocked fish, the basic approach is to
estimate the number of fish caught at each stocking site for each
species and for each size stocked. Using general notation, for each
hatchery in a given year:

\(1\)

where:

= number of fish stocked annually at site *i* of species *j* and size
*s*.

= annual probability of mortality at site *i* of species *j* and size
*s*.

= annual probability of survival into following year at site *i* of
species *j* and size *s*.

= number of fish caught at site *i* of species *j* and size *s*

and

*i* **=** the *i*th stocking location of *n* total stocking
locations**;**

*j* = the *j*th species stocked of *m* total species stocked**;**

*s* = the *s*th fish size (length) stocked of *q* total sizes
stocked**;**

**(B) Determine the number of angling days based on number of fish
caught**

Once the number of fish caught is estimated, the next step is to
determine the number of angling days associated with the fish caught.
Again, using general notation, angling days at site *i* for species *j*
of size *s* are calculated as follows:

Using information from creel and angler effort surveys,

\(2\)

where:

= number of fish caught at site *i* of species *j* and size *s*

fish caught per angling day at location *i* of species *j* and size *s,*
and

= total angler days at site *i* for species *j* of size *s*

**(C) Estimate total angler days for each hatchery**

To obtain total angler days for a given hatchery *z*;

(2a)

where

= total annual angler days aggregated across all sites, species and
sizes for hatchery z.

The following section contains a short discussion of the variables in
the above equations focusing on the available information which was used
to derive estimates of these variables. It should be noted that in many
cases, certain types of site specific information, such as creel
surveys, mortality rates and carryover rates, are not available for the
vast majority of stocking sites (for example, in 2004, individual site
stockings across all FWS hatcheries in Region 6 totaled almost 800; the
average number of site stockings annually from 2001 - 2004 exceeded
1,000). Consequently, in order to make the determination of fish catch
and angler day estimates tractable, it was necessary to make a variety
of assumptions regarding the variable values. The general assumption is
that what site specific information is available is representative of
all stocking areas (such information being adjusted by the "best
professional judgment" of hatchery managers and fisheries biologists to
reflect region-wide characteristics). While this approach is probably
inaccurate for any given site, when aggregated across a given regional
stocking area, it is a reasonable approach to obtaining
reconnaissance-level estimates of region-wide fish-catch and angler
days.

**Recreational stocking**:

These numbers are typically obtained from the hatchery or obtained from
the Fish Information System maintained by the Division of Fisheries,
USFWS, Washington DC office.

**Post stocking mortality**:

Post stocking mortality estimates are typically obtained through
discussions with Federal hatchery mangers and represents best
professional judgment. Obtaining mortality estimates across numerous
species, stocking locations, different fish sizes, at different times
during the year is problematic in the extreme. Consequently, the
estimates used (in conjunction with estimates of ***b*** above, percent
of carryover) represent a conservative consensus of average mortality
and carryover across all species for the three main size categories.

**Carryover**:

Carryover represents fish not caught which survive into the following
year and hence are not available for the recreational catch of the
current year. As with post stocking mortality, obtaining estimates of
carryover for each species, size and geographic location is also
problematic. Estimates based on best professional judgment are used in
conjunction with post stocking mortality estimates to come up with a
combined estimate of ***a*** and ***b*** above. The concept of carryover
also addresses the timing and availability of stocked fish for angling
purposes. For example, species which are stocked when quite small may
take several years before they are of sufficient size to be caught.
Fingerlings released in 2004 may not be catchable until 2007. However,
subcatchables released in 2001 would become available in 2004.
Consequently, a typical assumption is that past stockings become
available in the current year in roughly the same numbers that current
stockings become available in the future.

**Appendix 2**

**Statewide approach**

> For each species produced, estimate annual:
>
> X = State-wide Federal hatchery production;
>
> Y = State-wide State hatchery production;
>
> Z = State-wide private hatchery production;
>
> W = Natural/wild production;
>
> P = Total annual state-wide fish production = X + Y + Z + W;
>
> K = Total state angling days for given species;
>
> M = Angling days associated with state-wide federal hatchery
> production =
>
> (X / P) x K
>
> L~i~ = Annual production at Federal hatchery ***i***
>
> N~i~ = Angling days associated with Federal hatchery ***i*** = (L~i~ /
> X) x M

**Appendix 3**

**Economic Impact IndicesNumber range CHAPTER**

The economic impacts associated with angling expenditures for Federally
produced trout 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 **1996
and 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation** (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 1997 and 2002).

+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **E     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| conomic |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Impact  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| In      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| dices** |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| State   | Output  | Jobs    | Job     | Sales   | State   | Federal |
|         |         |         | Income  | and     | Income  | Income  |
|         | (per    | (per    |         | Motor   | tax     | tax     |
|         | \$1 of  |         | (per    | fuel    |         |         |
|         | retail  | \$1     | job)    | tax     | (per    | (per    |
|         | sales)  | million |         |         | \$1 of  | \$1 of  |
|         |         |         |         | (per    | retail  | retail  |
|         |         | of      |         | \$1 of  | sales)  | sales)  |
|         |         | output) |         | retail  |         |         |
|         |         |         |         | sales)  |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| A       | 1.79    | 11.94   | \       | 0.061   | 0.022   | 0.046   |
| rkansas |         |         | $21,027 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Arizona | 1.89    | 10.04   | \       | 0.057   | 0.012   | 0.080   |
|         |         |         | $25,520 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Cal     | 2.06    | 8.67    | \       | 0.071   | 0.026   | 0.099   |
| ifornia |         |         | $30,366 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| C       | 1.99    | 9.70    | \       | 0.041   | 0.017   | 0.089   |
| olorado |         |         | $27,032 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Georgia | 2.00    | 9.33    | \       | 0.037   | 0.027   | 0.084   |
|         |         |         | $26,644 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Iowa    | 2.05    | 9.62    | \       | 0.059   | 0.025   | 0.071   |
|         |         |         | $23,426 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Kansas  | 1.96    | 10.54   | \       | 0.064   | 0.021   | 0.068   |
|         |         |         | $22,284 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| K       | 1.93    | 10.23   | \       | 0.060   | 0.024   | 0.063   |
| entucky |         |         | $21,857 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| M       | 1.89    | 10.04   | \       | 0.057   | 0.012   | 0.080   |
| issouri |         |         | $25,520 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| North   | 2.09    | 10.73   | \       | 0.050   | 0.026   | 0.085   |
| C       |         |         | $23,975 |         |         |         |
| arolina |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| North   | 1.71    | 10.50   | \       | 0.060   | 0.004   | 0.037   |
| Dakota  |         |         | $20,513 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| New     | 1.69    | 10.65   | \       | 0.058   | 0.014   | 0.038   |
| Mexico  |         |         | $20,750 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| O       | 2.05    | 11.51   | \       | 0.058   | 0.029   | 0.052   |
| klahoma |         |         | $21,459 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Te      | 2.06    | 10.01   | \       | 0.074   | 0.000   | 0.086   |
| nnessee |         |         | $25,456 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Utah    | 2.05    | 10.97   | \       | 0.066   | 0.021   | 0.056   |
|         |         |         | $23,159 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Wyoming | 1.48    | 10.40   | \       | 0.043   | 0.000   | 0.026   |
|         |         |         | $17,875 |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

**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.

Caudill, James. **The Economic Effects of Trout Production by National
Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast**. USFWS Region 4, Southeast Region,
Atlanta GA. August 2001.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. **The Economic Effects of the Recreational Use of
Alchesay-Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery 2004 Stocking**. USFWS
Division of Economics, Arlington VA October 2005.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. **The Economic Effects of the Recreational Use of
National Fish Hatchery 2004 Stocking in Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie
Region)**. USFWS Division of Economics, Arlington VA June 2005.

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.

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.

Number range CHAPTERMaharaj, Vishwanie and Janet E. Carpenter. **The
1996 Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in Alabama.** American
Sportfishing Association. Alexandria VA. 1997a.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
**The 1996 Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in Georgia.** American
Sportfishing Association. Alexandria VA. 1997b.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
**The 1996 Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in the United States.**
American Sportfishing Association. Alexandria VA. 1997c.

Number range CHAPTERMiller, Ronald E. and Peter D. Blair. **Input-Output
Analysis: Foundations and Extensions**. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985.

U.S. Department of Commerce. **Consumer Price Index - All Urban
Consumers. U.S. city average.** Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington
D.C. 2005.
[http://stats.bls.gov/cpihome.htm](http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. **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.

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.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.** Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, October 1997.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. **Fish Information System**. Division of
Fisheries, Washington DC.

2005\.

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

WMAT Wildlife and Outdoor Recreation Division. **Sales of Fishing
Permits.** White Mountain

Apache Tribe, Ft. Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona. 2005.

> Number range CHAPTER

[^1]: The draft report was reviewed by Dr. David Harpman, Bureau of
    Reclamation, Denver CO; Dr. Bruce Peacock, National Park Service,
    Ft. Collins CO and Dr. John Charbonneau, Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Arlington VA. Their comments and suggestions for improving the draft
    are gratefully acknowledged. Any and all errors of fact or
    interpretation are the sole responsibility of the author.

[^2]: Fish and Wildlife Service Regions include: Region 1: California,
    Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii; Region 2: Arizona, New
    Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma; Region 3: Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota,
    Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan; Region 4: Arkansas,
    Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama,
    Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina; Region 6: Montana, Wyoming,
    North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah.

[^3]: These mandates include, but are not limited to: Fish and Wildlife
    Act of 1956; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Water Resources
    Development Act of 1976; Mitchell Act; Endangered Species Act of
    1973; Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act; Great Lakes Fishery
    Act of 1956; Recreation Use of Fish and Wildlife Areas; Sikes Act;
    and the New England Fishery Resources Act of 1990.

[^4]: ^1^

[^5]: ^3^ More technically, direct effects are production changes
    associated with the immediate effects of changes in final demand (in
    this case, changes in angling expenditures); indirect effects are
    production changes in those industries directly affected by final
    demand; induced effects are changes in regional household spending
    patterns caused by changes in regional employment (generated from
    the direct and indirect effects) see Miller and Blair 1985.