<%BANNER%>

Valuing Preferences for Water Quality Improvement in the Ichetucknee Springs System

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022388/00001

Material Information

Title: Valuing Preferences for Water Quality Improvement in the Ichetucknee Springs System A Case Study from Columbia County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (68 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Foster, Chad
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study estimates Columbia County residents? willingness to pay for water quality improvements (specifically nitrate-N reductions) in the Ichetucknee Springs and River using the contingent valuation method, a stated-preference valuation technique. After developing a nutrient budget for the springshed to determine potential sources of nitrate we identified atmospheric deposition, Lake City?s wastewater sprayfield, on-site treatment discharge systems (septic tanks ~ 20% of anthropogenic nitrate load), and land uses (improved pasture, row crops, and urban) as the contributing sources. This study focuses on improvements in water quality arising from changes in septic tank technology due to the location of numerous septic tanks in the Icehtucknee Trace and the fact that they are more easily identifiable than the larger non-point sources in the basin. A contingent valuation survey, a mail-out questionnaire was sent to approximately 1,000 Columbia County residents to achieve the objective. Specifically, residents were asked whether they would support an increase in their monthly utility bill by a certain dollar amount in order to pay for a program that would update septic tanks in the springshed in order to improve wastewater treatment. Information was included in the questionnaire explaining links between septic tanks in the springshed and resulting nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee. Further, information on prior knowledge, socio-economic data, and demographic data were obtained to assist in interpretation of the results. The results of the survey reveal that majority of Columbia County residents have visited the Ichetucknee and believe that protecting water quality in the River is an important concern. The variables that affected the amount an individual was willing to pay included their political affiliation, the frequency with which they visited the site, and how important they ranked protecting water quality in the River. The mean willingness to pay was estimated to be $16.2 per household per month over the course of ten years. Extrapolated out for the entire county this amounts to a total willingness to pay of $40.7 million over the course of 10 years. This exceeds the estimated cost ($25-30 million) of implementing the program to receive the increased level of water quality. The results imply that Columbia County residents place a substantial value on water quality in the Ichetucknee River and are willing to pay for and participate in a program to improve it. Using CVM is one of the few ways to place a value on a good that is otherwise completely unknown. The results of this study help inform the debate over the allocation of funds for groundwater protection, and should provide useful information for policymakers considering stormwater planning, land-use changes in the county, and approval for increased septic tanks permits. While this study provides an estimate of citizen?s values for water quality in the Ichetucknee, it is ultimately up to policymakers at the State and County levels to implement any changes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Chad Foster.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Alavalapati, Janaki R.
Local: Co-adviser: Cohen, Matthew.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022388:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022388/00001

Material Information

Title: Valuing Preferences for Water Quality Improvement in the Ichetucknee Springs System A Case Study from Columbia County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (68 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Foster, Chad
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study estimates Columbia County residents? willingness to pay for water quality improvements (specifically nitrate-N reductions) in the Ichetucknee Springs and River using the contingent valuation method, a stated-preference valuation technique. After developing a nutrient budget for the springshed to determine potential sources of nitrate we identified atmospheric deposition, Lake City?s wastewater sprayfield, on-site treatment discharge systems (septic tanks ~ 20% of anthropogenic nitrate load), and land uses (improved pasture, row crops, and urban) as the contributing sources. This study focuses on improvements in water quality arising from changes in septic tank technology due to the location of numerous septic tanks in the Icehtucknee Trace and the fact that they are more easily identifiable than the larger non-point sources in the basin. A contingent valuation survey, a mail-out questionnaire was sent to approximately 1,000 Columbia County residents to achieve the objective. Specifically, residents were asked whether they would support an increase in their monthly utility bill by a certain dollar amount in order to pay for a program that would update septic tanks in the springshed in order to improve wastewater treatment. Information was included in the questionnaire explaining links between septic tanks in the springshed and resulting nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee. Further, information on prior knowledge, socio-economic data, and demographic data were obtained to assist in interpretation of the results. The results of the survey reveal that majority of Columbia County residents have visited the Ichetucknee and believe that protecting water quality in the River is an important concern. The variables that affected the amount an individual was willing to pay included their political affiliation, the frequency with which they visited the site, and how important they ranked protecting water quality in the River. The mean willingness to pay was estimated to be $16.2 per household per month over the course of ten years. Extrapolated out for the entire county this amounts to a total willingness to pay of $40.7 million over the course of 10 years. This exceeds the estimated cost ($25-30 million) of implementing the program to receive the increased level of water quality. The results imply that Columbia County residents place a substantial value on water quality in the Ichetucknee River and are willing to pay for and participate in a program to improve it. Using CVM is one of the few ways to place a value on a good that is otherwise completely unknown. The results of this study help inform the debate over the allocation of funds for groundwater protection, and should provide useful information for policymakers considering stormwater planning, land-use changes in the county, and approval for increased septic tanks permits. While this study provides an estimate of citizen?s values for water quality in the Ichetucknee, it is ultimately up to policymakers at the State and County levels to implement any changes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Chad Foster.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Alavalapati, Janaki R.
Local: Co-adviser: Cohen, Matthew.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022388:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101203_AAAABU INGEST_TIME 2010-12-03T12:52:41Z PACKAGE UFE0022388_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2300 DFID F20101203_AAASXI ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH foster_c_Page_34.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b5987ca290c5474a56e2cc2850f9b3c8
SHA-1
177a353ab8048331f36f79d96bec518f310ce87b
1930 F20101203_AAASSK foster_c_Page_28.txt
cb43685c6dfa52128ad8122e383c54da
102d603e96e6615477f01f2836379692ca62d28d
99828 F20101203_AAATEF foster_c_Page_65.jpg
515cf592890340dcaee46aa9bc5f0655
fb7fe63aed3894ff619423e16259907cdd24472d
579257 F20101203_AAASXJ foster_c_Page_52.jp2
54ae37ff74b353c7d5b3738c1525d8f0
e1a9762dd900249691d9aa1a0c697ffc44549a07
59316 F20101203_AAASSL foster_c_Page_57.jpg
99ca86c0dbb3e9d0f1ae5cb5b7bdfd15
e8e062e27922545b7a51420978f3e9c255545bcd
116600 F20101203_AAATEG foster_c_Page_66.jpg
b8b4dcd6deedb259fb79011c96750ef6
2f60a50c89660f572c759a4b8c623dfffd25e654
18328 F20101203_AAASSM foster_c_Page_35.QC.jpg
7124a1d5442c9711c5bbe4502e583772
cb1684a6de4bc5b384ee7de143ae79837db605bb
22752 F20101203_AAATEH foster_c_Page_02.jp2
c70552c67d72765ee6ddc41d68f37bec
10f181554515c4ffa7a670d7c1ed0727f938dc18
1035278 F20101203_AAASXK foster_c_Page_58.jp2
783b68d1e43a2682ab113746b6637b5b
d540f672ba5903617c5df65a899731d80069723e
6626 F20101203_AAASSN foster_c_Page_18thm.jpg
5455485eebac0fe5898a764de6c8fee7
336a8f5ac88a8c909212b1d26b32ffcf26e6ac42
1051956 F20101203_AAATEI foster_c_Page_06.jp2
7427f529c59302969707f274395d1eb5
80c707758da9a541ea2d46833e6a2738444c1bcd
53297 F20101203_AAASXL foster_c_Page_31.pro
6a5c2574487ee90c961a249f4899aa88
b4060f2aeb6497df9642d2d046effa1ba2057387
20506 F20101203_AAASSO foster_c_Page_39.QC.jpg
92f02c9a10d1e9ebc578aa6a54037aa2
82de65dbc996aec7f728acef07fc3b78684f3766
765158 F20101203_AAATEJ foster_c_Page_07.jp2
6740199108d4fd10c443c7f92f9ed40c
c01db49491eafafa9520c6f7efc3e50f691e30d5
56311 F20101203_AAASXM foster_c_Page_67.jpg
dce70f3d15387cc73b92f5e85006ac26
4d206ef1fc6a0debcd3bb3682300d75893e13627
45242 F20101203_AAASSP foster_c_Page_43.pro
1e0421b6eaf3faa4ef7e61d02fab7502
6ff53af14b1829a919cf88ed19eeafd0c23f9d89
1051968 F20101203_AAATEK foster_c_Page_09.jp2
1aecbfc7b6af72bf4a24c58f5946ae90
eb504823d4840d0e8cb5f3b4c7eff25618424118
270207 F20101203_AAASSQ foster_c_Page_01.jp2
9a10370d14f9ee31da322db9260be535
e57ba7defc8705fa6d1ec050ae700ffd835f647f
1019358 F20101203_AAATEL foster_c_Page_10.jp2
1a0c7b377e9e886cbad2742d9e62e68e
cf0b06664a4d48a2815815bc804a257a8acd172a
4861 F20101203_AAASXN foster_c_Page_29thm.jpg
ee6150fef3ce77eea75919a6cc635f38
0fad75e358b8167e02f79e624c46e0efc182adfd
37673 F20101203_AAASSR foster_c_Page_38.pro
255acb6c370283978403d31b8a63af34
37878618dcd3ba4651d4ab232a3dfe76f63df285
1051981 F20101203_AAATEM foster_c_Page_15.jp2
c580fa21a8f35880f9d7c40183837fcb
f306bbc504b01f7c8f460ce212df78a8383a393a
25271604 F20101203_AAASXO foster_c_Page_13.tif
15721bf3bc0907d08b6d10af1f00dd90
7acdbbc00463f0a17fc48ebaca2194f96c89e049
1051920 F20101203_AAASSS foster_c_Page_46.jp2
20284985f10e4e1c8fa148eb20cb7530
5fc963f9a9dc10bb8dd5bd38768a2929edb82156
F20101203_AAATEN foster_c_Page_18.jp2
d176cf0d21296d392f4f0b781eeb8166
99ebb773cd03b6b992beb04af2c2d5b885c4e0af
25731 F20101203_AAASXP foster_c_Page_64.pro
15caf43b80ebdbc82b51b2d0c6dbf690
2e3a425d722d4761f66542be40d98aab65945368
1188 F20101203_AAASST foster_c_Page_64.txt
8c6e1238c94ba43a304b917e11a39a13
7b3dcb6e31395f184562cae72e898768f911ae96
1051983 F20101203_AAATEO foster_c_Page_21.jp2
0abf8e4c6f2a9ad55e0eacbaff36af7d
f8765b1479a64db0b1c68681751b4d0a4dbfd4cf
1278 F20101203_AAASXQ foster_c_Page_62.txt
9f7bedd5c3c0b150f6c1592b4fff79cc
3f9cb83e78f6cf45b360e4f0c28853b50732573c
44795 F20101203_AAASSU foster_c_Page_28.pro
b3d433c4d343813e1a3f93457856de5f
c188562f0af40bbed3c92bf211458f1cd2c6298d
1051950 F20101203_AAATEP foster_c_Page_22.jp2
87e2016098d177ac69408021613778ce
4419d04506e381d48342c4a7b169933d92d1b3f3
F20101203_AAASXR foster_c_Page_38.tif
f4f84ca87a7fa0673c2472e1ea16ac35
2bf3d8910bea1ff53d925148e53b8c539e02a440
85492 F20101203_AAASSV foster_c_Page_48.jpg
618a807ed8119a805ae30afc1ee5d614
04d7b1d57ad4cf78b113c6185cdfc270b8590a0e
962466 F20101203_AAATEQ foster_c_Page_28.jp2
8110d3256596981c78bc0cc29783a6fd
c50d4bedcc69b05998f619e97895d7e76ff7d0a0
F20101203_AAASXS foster_c_Page_21.tif
a11c6a4ec042d73a9a130db2f264f9f5
20075c66377bdabeb992fa9cac2ba26f3aa234d5
53022 F20101203_AAASSW foster_c_Page_42.pro
e92a8cd0f5bf3a9d08b7955d46fd765f
049c45584d1fcef1347165a172521128d98e8e0a
1051986 F20101203_AAATER foster_c_Page_30.jp2
8df8f86914aed68fe82c1f9506d78886
0f37a7509530f895c839310b9bef0031b6ffb5f6
F20101203_AAASXT foster_c_Page_12.tif
96fc4e0a9c1f44e3962ab0882605cb23
e9c5ba6c2476879495aed064e4ba5ff06b9184aa
F20101203_AAASSX foster_c_Page_40.tif
a32d7d1702362ce4edf14c301cc985df
08c99b1706eb927ad291321722b7479566b69b16
1051931 F20101203_AAATES foster_c_Page_34.jp2
15346079fe55340a053972baa585b039
b8f794181651ceb1ea50818a7831f15f64f60e02
27561 F20101203_AAASXU foster_c_Page_46.QC.jpg
fa10a9b4462917ed8f6f7bbd86a41697
875a0382a5bd31ae08978b46c8dca6f648e94ca4
56379 F20101203_AAASSY foster_c_Page_41.pro
ef103aed41d60c29cee3fb64c4a28241
5d87fd5aff55cf8c14bf80758cfbb8f84d66ae31
726037 F20101203_AAATET foster_c_Page_35.jp2
fa52113e88b2498218db0d9c03fcaa36
d91fc02de48aed05a01abc07bf2ecb5c8a8df031
F20101203_AAASXV foster_c_Page_64.tif
4e303577823a8024ed0870956390a878
88dee656511f4e30bc38d4eb8661c796d210333b
26369 F20101203_AAASSZ foster_c_Page_11.QC.jpg
8c894e8608f9651ef6b9438e9a3dbda0
af5ac3c880fa7a6ae4fae6ef35e19ad1dd6f29d8
1006025 F20101203_AAATEU foster_c_Page_43.jp2
40cf73798363834c90ca5caa939f784c
b2b85cdee8a0f8e7531d3309c10f9c4f86d86bb0
719187 F20101203_AAASXW foster_c_Page_23.jp2
73738b0ffadb5af7cec654ab9898a81c
26f81ce3da5a7fd430824d5e710270a7aa4f49cb
613881 F20101203_AAATEV foster_c_Page_56.jp2
c11ec194b9da4fb7101ee0165ae7f873
cca4fcebf6a8866664db8e1dc7dbd280fccde0f2
3697 F20101203_AAASXX foster_c_Page_06thm.jpg
efd008bc609094c1629aaf7f87a5d789
8bcd0eff352640e7f33c82f3c87625543b5de817
6203 F20101203_AAASQC foster_c_Page_08.QC.jpg
1c3c689db4ecad12199847637f5f3c4a
9f015edb04add3ab846ba05876126452ea9dc57a
656906 F20101203_AAATEW foster_c_Page_62.jp2
62ef1eeb743c8d2561c87a05470dc16b
7b798221715cea89988d82bdff4785a9e2a6a3b1
20758 F20101203_AAASVA foster_c_Page_07.pro
da078f4d71411ee7cef6ad0c1a9afbde
9d8f236005fb9dfaa82f215fe85630bc881a25f8
26031 F20101203_AAASXY foster_c_Page_49.QC.jpg
8469f77fe5d36623a7c52aa19f714739
06d48fe5fe945a2764df2433c35f320ef48177a5
F20101203_AAASQD foster_c_Page_17.tif
0c29a16e09cf53e09f071ef71f6df762
a10cee7f92f0fad8908cc17e9bb76f1f6a68d12d
471666 F20101203_AAATEX foster_c_Page_64.jp2
f0c736af408f4cdf27c96ebbe340f1d9
f69cdd0a9f202eec529c2a126ee9f864b7835aac
399 F20101203_AAASVB foster_c_Page_68.txt
5b043bde5aca3caf2b518906f0d6c606
ecccad9cc3ee2064762197eef6512775138d4966
839712 F20101203_AAASXZ foster_c_Page_39.jp2
461575f8173e0ed48fac832d65bcb038
fb5dc31a96a31deff7f003ebc34893709042f4f0
F20101203_AAASQE foster_c_Page_25.tif
999ff26aa8041c169756b698b1a881e0
2875c0885887d9e67f33c502938d0481bd4fc3f9
F20101203_AAATEY foster_c_Page_02.tif
751f1b1728b8e87e2886fe09103dde67
8854c71aa6a750243bb555f10ab359a4937e04b5
28582 F20101203_AAASVC foster_c_Page_21.pro
b25f0b514e9c1e07785d232e711491c9
f2e7796ebd129dc6a2078a6e1fb6d8955e035162
27600 F20101203_AAASQF foster_c_Page_22.QC.jpg
9a58328116248e0f15b8355665df9daf
6090463da298e43cd769f727334c08fca506cd8d
19266 F20101203_AAATCA foster_c_Page_47.pro
9f7feb26e83dbdbd6a32016807eee04e
1a9ba72a62b71d828e614f35776a76066555c5ce
F20101203_AAASVD foster_c_Page_61.tif
a95eb29fbcbb2dce10c1a810724ac084
dd28a775f67be4215da5d253ac86ff72cdb51a89
F20101203_AAATCB foster_c_Page_08.tif
cc89ecd35b02fc503204dc76fb3a9670
1ca4d3965bce50c8c8d1a59143da2444e41b6cc8
F20101203_AAATEZ foster_c_Page_03.tif
503263dd794be21629ae2d0379627217
0b26a3c228c0b957736b4fef1e816798c03d7822
27906 F20101203_AAASVE foster_c_Page_19.QC.jpg
084a0460ff45cd4a98745e1440f886c5
43652749707deacc9480a328b95f5ec092d6d80c
5850 F20101203_AAASQG foster_c_Page_15thm.jpg
b8752eecffa0c48d31fc071625e9c72a
5fba077453ba0b739e071b947b45bd3cab74848f
55644 F20101203_AAATCC foster_c_Page_26.pro
ba7257e7c60d5b7a2d695531773b766b
426e664ca1a26fdbd8058be0057e42c03b76e2a1
F20101203_AAASVF foster_c_Page_13.jp2
c0f07a24229d7ccd7e1e5f4c4a70226a
a098a72532b639fe053ae3d0646abfbd8140c851
6950 F20101203_AAASQH foster_c_Page_01.QC.jpg
93f187ff38561d390aa79815e12a007f
283239ad901e70f7bdf5470b9ab7788123c41226
2707 F20101203_AAATHA foster_c_Page_66.txt
e5435435068c019666ab65cc4ba814a0
f91db17be914ddf825c43e5a17fc318827c384c5
820535 F20101203_AAATCD foster_c_Page_38.jp2
221705e157a4e6da19bdb6b16e96962a
a4dd6ebc39a6d057bfbc1cd818d2c4e72ec97d0c
16479 F20101203_AAASVG foster_c_Page_67.QC.jpg
f7e4db7f6add6fabdffe850a49fc6530
c540e44285d46003244f986fddf4c3a2cad00700
2619 F20101203_AAASQI foster_c_Page_07thm.jpg
da8e3df0fa03490fba51fc351989a613
043f925770f60cb0649ef5d3b517d246d915d35b
1461 F20101203_AAATHB foster_c_Page_68thm.jpg
5ac231370683bc18dd8152d4d764eafc
612d72077f3d16cb38d29783f32658a3da715f99
62787 F20101203_AAATCE foster_c_Page_38.jpg
5aa0807fd6637716b47aa5ccd794d52c
c945acbc73e5585b9d70af5bcf89824b899d9f9a
1674 F20101203_AAASVH foster_c_Page_01thm.jpg
cbea09422c2f8b644b5bd1def6be5566
e912e4e0dfd6f85e1336f28cf2de138978ff7121
9922 F20101203_AAASQJ foster_c_Page_53.pro
d9ae2efa25fcf2cfefa2e451d3f6cdaa
83f81f2a0a061769e5a2bd740e8e782a4eb6cd1f
22396 F20101203_AAATHC foster_c_Page_44.QC.jpg
3add7c9e19c9dae555c619776e0ea660
7eeece0e9f3d8291749bf3be78d8efeab7f9b85c
30772 F20101203_AAATCF foster_c_Page_55.pro
4f5057a76811f69e10a0d22d3ef78ab5
f0133902e72d8345d2d12e3f4731bf137714f571
642779 F20101203_AAASVI foster_c_Page_59.jp2
ea895e9ef14616c23e924f946819f1ca
52f9a3ef4458a2dac46f266e4b953e8f34ba191e
220125 F20101203_AAASQK foster_c_Page_68.jp2
acb32fbee3a6f85c1e6a76881718446a
d65837690e2f938ef9bf67801f0bb87c26af1ded
5733 F20101203_AAATHD foster_c_Page_09thm.jpg
b6a8698452156327b926156cce8e765c
4129ff0d9a0c3ee6b3ab3191d834c29078fcfe5a
464926 F20101203_AAATCG foster_c_Page_08.jp2
eb8d1c98c42783a7befdd4602360e94c
835336ba89605acc3604256b6d06991e816c77e6
16146 F20101203_AAASVJ foster_c_Page_62.QC.jpg
65570fca3341c276398eb0bdcb505eab
90db08834e7023b4cf1cd4c1eb05e51504bc889f
6610 F20101203_AAASQL foster_c_Page_26thm.jpg
9390541436458249fa51dbaf390ebcfd
0f96204dff96c1906ce5366b3690738e71ba1ae9
103967 F20101203_AAATHE UFE0022388_00001.xml FULL
53d53c257e562558af629cebe36d9437
71b3ace792d840cafc111b26e674d88e4df3ca15
507784 F20101203_AAATCH foster_c.pdf
3d9db8ab4de311efde76ae48ada32f89
6f66001a3bb4e04fe29a5c129503dd46eabe644b
F20101203_AAASVK foster_c_Page_62.tif
13e08469793e11f39dc53d809fcfe2b5
d83ab4cdd95eb2d4a6700c913d73c8cd64f973cb
782251 F20101203_AAASQM foster_c_Page_29.jp2
7aea5a1d974cb8add8d6e1547d57eec7
88d744bb7ffedaeb361db25bd5b90e438f7b3d22
1000 F20101203_AAATHF foster_c_Page_02.QC.jpg
51ed3385cbedfd070edf40c2d69bc143
11180b27540abed78296703ca3f119538cac8556
F20101203_AAATCI foster_c_Page_05.tif
a17bf7fc123e6afae068392e69288c13
2be434046f59b6fd20b302e4242c4dec0d26add2
23459 F20101203_AAASQN foster_c_Page_60.pro
d43a72658cf318bd2375a4ad9db4b679
dca786efb03fcfc457956c141370f3a64489b01f
698 F20101203_AAATHG foster_c_Page_03thm.jpg
4b63ad81b639eec71f0fe39493163c1e
c464e080c5e1f04bd5e73801712c4ae8aa929f4d
38055 F20101203_AAATCJ foster_c_Page_39.pro
18d3aafb6c56caebcf2b0306b65a7566
7274112e1af9031bd3080a0c28cbd1660c989ff3
1051955 F20101203_AAASVL foster_c_Page_17.jp2
e419da9f11976aa74cd924c0baec45f8
b629b61466c0278043cc987387af9de7400fa3a2
27846 F20101203_AAASQO foster_c_Page_33.QC.jpg
75a6b8016bdd48449a74946a7ad6dabb
b0bdd1864546f77cfde045839f7a9cbdc33b4c16
13957 F20101203_AAATHH foster_c_Page_04.QC.jpg
cec3385ef540b0eaf943b806f616ead5
50d96d91ff17c0ee2b2dc2d98de0d080a21d108f
53960 F20101203_AAATCK foster_c_Page_22.pro
8e21aea298d2a0a6c4e09cf85e31d476
6e49964d2e53e49bc547d7e1e6b813ae34cbcbc5
28427 F20101203_AAASVM foster_c_Page_65.QC.jpg
2e4568ad1e90a57b40767b87604dbc4c
d799b3b06cb2787860af00f095ef6ab23e6d0eca
5012 F20101203_AAASQP foster_c_Page_54thm.jpg
be8c5542cbbe08946a8535026e8ddf56
a0b8b0aaf6c6748125cb8ad7b37edd5f6a4da6da
3199 F20101203_AAATHI foster_c_Page_04thm.jpg
87d19d39ddea9cdf95a7694b625e575c
caed0c31cff55d6889382d56b4de85bd9bcce1b2
3277 F20101203_AAATCL foster_c_Page_02.jpg
bcd8887662efc11a3e348d3d50fcb180
6b1afa206ade8f8e6e6833b41abc6be63215cb98
F20101203_AAASVN foster_c_Page_37.tif
c3bc025c6ca8eb37bf0075a93700417f
5123daa96d3f682cc2381c96e1cdb7eac705e864
2091 F20101203_AAASQQ foster_c_Page_18.txt
ee270645a84014290ac280860d77a193
c31fcfabfb4fd6762ffd6145aa8dc9a3759e3a7a
1859 F20101203_AAATHJ foster_c_Page_08thm.jpg
3db0c6f54dd675ae54eaaca86a087c76
a578b8c81256c441440746b278780b0e869835f5
2192 F20101203_AAATCM foster_c_Page_26.txt
912ccebdf71afa54d99d7fb8492ff2b1
17569079933613d9cb311ae14741ebdc5544d634
86651 F20101203_AAASVO foster_c_Page_12.jpg
951353b091b711d1ba1529987a0f590b
9a554ce3487d16781dbd69ec4a9beb53ab7f880f
581367 F20101203_AAASQR foster_c_Page_40.jp2
8108771d6e661859106c8f78a2a6f941
f79b36128c8a7388998da54c40404be619feb9fd
20062 F20101203_AAATHK foster_c_Page_20.QC.jpg
d0f1b19c815def8521aeebfc711468d2
861126259eb2fa613f54d31da57e8ac063961075
14921 F20101203_AAASVP foster_c_Page_06.QC.jpg
6f4ecca630b47082b3c68587fcde5d60
ea18fb714c04019f99e04ee9209edb73b646674c
F20101203_AAASQS foster_c_Page_39.tif
08a16aa567a8fe184191024a3cd75c42
9ab4b3521c9f565c1983ce02913f5748d8c30dea
1435 F20101203_AAATCN foster_c_Page_55.txt
bd7cdedc616781b9a817051bd0f041ce
0c06145334c66c75f38221e83c8b8c6d01006c94
4747 F20101203_AAATHL foster_c_Page_20thm.jpg
21910e98b35390e6d496875e56ea95ba
84db55c0a3a04e4a17ac809839f2deb1e12d05d7
1974 F20101203_AAASVQ foster_c_Page_16.txt
7af65bafec2642a4a4542cd4dbbe7773
3257f2185e943218c2f654c61fde902a6e990d6a
26135 F20101203_AAASQT foster_c_Page_53.QC.jpg
050cc4ebdb1254e69eda06cf10bc4083
f41830266ef9e15decb089eaf1afb2b9ee06c1cc
F20101203_AAATCO foster_c_Page_14.tif
dd1d0f174a6408dd7717d123c382e1f1
d46736f467cc1971986baffbbbf4ef89cf4b3ece
6608 F20101203_AAATHM foster_c_Page_22thm.jpg
c7e4af762137a0560dd290de1784b75d
aa835792e2b605d54710ffdb999720307228da0b
26610 F20101203_AAASVR foster_c_Page_12.QC.jpg
7b5000636e26761030e381e7c11fb637
6eeb1fcd946db385f8aeda793f5dd7f73e6ebef3
19297 F20101203_AAASQU foster_c_Page_68.jpg
0b9d3d18b92fb40ff0129c259002b739
6d7cc755e0e4d33d46bb8f6f718c000cf34f253a
54631 F20101203_AAATCP foster_c_Page_54.jpg
b494591eb8b5bb79396bb14d6c46646e
d449d353540d986f5240d175158c7bea3d7d835c
17787 F20101203_AAATHN foster_c_Page_23.QC.jpg
1b209f3783266cc8250710beb74a252e
5219cd58970dc5e340227b546ba162a10bae4e8d
F20101203_AAASVS foster_c_Page_24.tif
b809c344e633201720603dd5c4f2e51f
1375e571a2e4c096c2f94e33686c840adfbfebdb
29363 F20101203_AAASQV foster_c_Page_26.QC.jpg
11c6f0ff72e00141955561c49f3586f2
fed3f6c5f15646f170354ddee1035018baf3ce64
53486 F20101203_AAATCQ foster_c_Page_17.pro
e02462d4f4403ef19e38acb02cac44fe
cb70ecdc68ccfd14f72f9bf57e46216fbdebb4ec
26398 F20101203_AAATHO foster_c_Page_24.QC.jpg
89ad3bca65a17f8b44b88cfdee3b3d07
478019df681218131250abafaabd10e86332c36c
1198 F20101203_AAASVT foster_c_Page_40.txt
6644ed78e77da13fb7f9e6219191e6da
d2fc196de2a2b481d0d977b35716cf7be3aaca75
4272 F20101203_AAASQW foster_c_Page_56thm.jpg
21ac1ca6fd35d567915ba77dea8ac52f
d1a6bd1db42295dfede09477d232da053d3f93c5
55453 F20101203_AAATCR foster_c_Page_03.jp2
fc36a2c16781d3dd1e16afb0aaab69dc
8d47322942b2a7f101d91a9855085f05b444778f
6401 F20101203_AAATHP foster_c_Page_24thm.jpg
a8c98062cb2e2ff83953aea569bbaae7
d832985f8276ed5aadf7f4b20e0391098ab77a1a
F20101203_AAASVU foster_c_Page_68.tif
6b8bb1c935f0ad117f80a64b1d629f1b
063445bab746ce9798c6d405b1f893a805559052
5856 F20101203_AAASQX foster_c_Page_32thm.jpg
8898cf20632b93f0281eb1ac6b45b55a
805163db7ee4e4ae5b40740290bced6d74a48dd9
26433 F20101203_AAATCS foster_c_Page_59.pro
c40384610cf56e8873ace7380aea4645
e372ba74c4354ef378ee974447c2d35925501573
25788 F20101203_AAATHQ foster_c_Page_25.QC.jpg
cc08fcde5ae0ef13c35ce91af2267283
ddaf687c5d4b761f7383d84f6f4c90d301d8c14e
1051985 F20101203_AAASVV foster_c_Page_66.jp2
6f55b30c94112270a4fe22cbee95b5a1
3eaae236da7fe9714232b98df8cc97f5c614d153
F20101203_AAASQY foster_c_Page_19.tif
8b63bd9c6afc13a793a1e9820e9b1ec8
cd714538fef5929b0f45b4353912ec9e93a0db20
764 F20101203_AAATCT foster_c_Page_47.txt
4b30b52f3c50fc0e0eaa361aca309eaa
9109ff979f3a9d4121ac989871d76343e38bf655
6248 F20101203_AAATHR foster_c_Page_27thm.jpg
b410f93e648bfd39b4c6c8659e957aa5
3ead848dd5afc39a0895bea6d4975de63eb31197
2011 F20101203_AAASVW foster_c_Page_27.txt
c8d01b2b1df2ebaca954032ea8730bdf
5cb8eee6b0eae8e1ae02e1cbab9d96145a618a22
24693 F20101203_AAASQZ foster_c_Page_16.QC.jpg
cb6569946ebd26ea8659a150ea20ae69
3920996cbdb76de296a393c2a61cb4e446760590
1051938 F20101203_AAATCU foster_c_Page_25.jp2
2dda9e118a21f8725d919aa10f4dfac7
1029d2b617fb8052430abda727371af01f10c1c5
19133 F20101203_AAATHS foster_c_Page_29.QC.jpg
f4262605dbecf64ce86ce65e381ff79b
fcc25b3f8b957e619654be0f571bf12b4462339d
F20101203_AAASVX foster_c_Page_33.tif
fd9788ef09414ddd37b7eabac45bcdc1
9522bb61b1403e5c20de086ce7d61a64d6c6495e
7253 F20101203_AAATCV foster_c_Page_66thm.jpg
fb378226cd74f78ce1293b19d7ec1e1c
3e50fed5ef9174a558d1a79a3b5e90c32a8d8821
26176 F20101203_AAATHT foster_c_Page_30.QC.jpg
9d46b8926aa18d70f503b497492ce27b
03d0d4864dba59973500dc6b8561a7144bfaafc6
24413 F20101203_AAASVY foster_c_Page_43.QC.jpg
8c7c27ea1beef7489c4043feebb3cf46
9c265faf8369ebe1e30d657f44568e8fb12458c8
694970 F20101203_AAATCW foster_c_Page_55.jp2
de5350f01860e0f529b3050acae65d6e
0a317f59cd493ece670f7ad39634e331a2d63b68
26848 F20101203_AAASTA foster_c_Page_48.QC.jpg
f46d7cb9151d4823973bf282d7a0695e
faff52a6e9ad1178f7051236ed523673c8c45405
27368 F20101203_AAATHU foster_c_Page_31.QC.jpg
11025ec711d22eaafa13becd9f6737ad
990debdfab9f4b9c7c439ea51c40833ea967f309
46002 F20101203_AAASVZ foster_c_Page_09.pro
83f612361d328c6de0071bacc9b9e1b7
11da11684e63f4983d6150746dfe34c633b29f7d
10641 F20101203_AAASTB foster_c_Page_64.QC.jpg
7478d4f6b28bb381a573bba3dc473343
a1663f308a900e8c36a6eb4f631c7dc773600e26
6539 F20101203_AAATHV foster_c_Page_33thm.jpg
07c63cb02c1572dd6f464b7a3193e0f7
fb040e1fc625c53115a5ddf8538ba9b0dc9c875d
26973 F20101203_AAATCX foster_c_Page_51.QC.jpg
6782a5272b833968181563100a34cc38
3b396d56c3f1dfe9894febfae9586063034d278d
64055 F20101203_AAASTC foster_c_Page_20.jpg
ccbea3d42231f97f6f4821f0c9239806
f1131e31544e07b579b1cb360c4e2b9c3e54849e
6694 F20101203_AAATHW foster_c_Page_34thm.jpg
2ac70802e80e8801dd817dcbfcd22a94
31d65b70841a5b24911b3de4aee66a39240875b3
3959 F20101203_AAASYA foster_c_Page_67thm.jpg
69d83074fac5af12393709fb8abd19f2
f56cdd427b0c9eb54868b0023473476adcdd42ce
6898 F20101203_AAATAA foster_c_Page_21thm.jpg
e334c6b4b1ffc41de0d1b1d5c90d0f88
02e5bfd237825fdabd63e20f3091587a7fafaca3
1051971 F20101203_AAATCY foster_c_Page_51.jp2
c1d83f2cc3143f625756bfffd6166e9e
4c5350ce3f33e6233f26a4964eb4526e00fe8ad2
57451 F20101203_AAASTD foster_c_Page_34.pro
e30f74dd708a938a6dd98a30a188ce93
a8ed88719970328252eb3f78b28e312f8d300c81
21701 F20101203_AAATHX foster_c_Page_36.QC.jpg
28e5c3a1b2b6c963ba6232c1dc78960e
65329118107a9d23589ed23c9534938675391324
1051975 F20101203_AAASYB foster_c_Page_05.jp2
9eae97cfab504dc61d0587289930be7a
1f41987d77ed0326f7d91f4773926935a41bcf0b
F20101203_AAATAB foster_c_Page_48.jp2
f8ef800516ac21ba93c09f3f7b0b612b
72e8cb29c1c9660eac306a0a8872a193acebcbef
F20101203_AAATCZ foster_c_Page_27.QC.jpg
5a5ca9ce29fb8ffc19e76a14a0ae5883
5d6496c52648f199fc6ad654c15dea4af92ea49d
134 F20101203_AAASTE foster_c_Page_03.txt
352e8cd32c1ca54280702da6b2eb4521
8708903a207271db594b63a3d99119842bdb8bf9
5500 F20101203_AAATHY foster_c_Page_36thm.jpg
a423643961c8e8894e61a3e1a2f70865
5d002ea977ac16e67a3ec83347222e92fd8cec43
10046 F20101203_AAASYC foster_c_Page_07.QC.jpg
4af9c64e0dcb79e3105ca795e9fc24c2
805df0110b274851be78cf643a3a661023769978
2143 F20101203_AAATAC foster_c_Page_46.txt
e5b1584db82b713e4ab212bc79771ef9
0c35db5cb5805f8046df74d236bb495d008574f5
95 F20101203_AAASTF foster_c_Page_02.txt
d1d6165fff757ff6fa4d0a523030486e
6d9cc450a1d1d6f6ca070310b2039f655a84c3e1
19695 F20101203_AAATHZ foster_c_Page_38.QC.jpg
d2144c49edc9c0d5c750ca6d4252277c
a1871cf0e5716c5dbd1af9f03ce0f73f98f2a645
F20101203_AAATFA foster_c_Page_07.tif
d186022926183bcdc248ae297814d524
498a9ab4b4a47107550af1d6a284e3e0769d1f34
63573 F20101203_AAASYD foster_c_Page_06.jpg
ff5d8d58fb71827bcc2b8f7f360ea2de
8acbc064166f57bcdbbd4359edbfa8f4083d0726
2370 F20101203_AAATAD foster_c_Page_50.txt
aef49eabf9c7e410dda1da615ce1aa63
714a31882a464d845a642ff1119119034bddcf4c
53412 F20101203_AAASTG foster_c_Page_19.pro
a35a8d5778096993c51d37c8d3ebf55c
0ae2836840828437db385e3fefcdc4cd7c75d234
F20101203_AAATFB foster_c_Page_09.tif
dab6db8868b7439080198f5bcf96faa8
3cf552e8eb95b345ae4541b1141820899301e28c
2060 F20101203_AAASYE foster_c_Page_12.txt
bfadb9de1e125dbbf855db5d20ea2344
0620d75698e2cc2fa63481d59792158a3bd88a8e
26232 F20101203_AAATAE foster_c_Page_21.QC.jpg
dc59d734f976708e1636470eb22a9570
76124d70653c6f4bc62389cdd93a3496c9686f02
28879 F20101203_AAASTH foster_c_Page_13.QC.jpg
4d1e2be05e1bb06453209e5128c1420a
fa93a4cf1b47c05105140458819b296b2191c6ce
F20101203_AAATFC foster_c_Page_10.tif
ea1bcc4e1a880dc834d5077494b5f1e3
cf220ffbb8473ff19e922b98a964d09041a1eb77
5125 F20101203_AAASYF foster_c_Page_40thm.jpg
cda07f2b57f90f7014734e1629446aaa
6c1724f9a3d747ce438948384cc8d08f9feb6487
1833 F20101203_AAATAF foster_c_Page_10.txt
c20bbcc107f876934c4471a6d85a6de2
c263fee06b9280c1b6c170c360135c6d5ae70cbb
5587 F20101203_AAASTI foster_c_Page_28thm.jpg
616086a45976e46c0f2532ffee98c050
2fc9efedbe5930656be2d1aaf9e83841980ef9c7
F20101203_AAATFD foster_c_Page_23.tif
58990e7536499de0bf72faa8a98889f8
9241d3f9b2c89980aaabe078ffa348ddbbf47fad
1660 F20101203_AAASYG foster_c_Page_45.txt
7c9a7d372d63a4aa5e116e7b01768800
af9c9e8af77da815429e56d5eeebb58e7ef185c9
32210 F20101203_AAATAG foster_c_Page_57.pro
de6b9028455815e70a95918fb668d745
002732167c41f956041772507147613249947631
F20101203_AAATFE foster_c_Page_28.tif
215788b88d6c7dd8441ecc99788a4bb0
2dbdaf0c968e94fd069b33b107e45fec39974b38
45061 F20101203_AAASYH foster_c_Page_52.jpg
bb82faab0792a638311ba1d34d329dc1
b4e9da44cb362106fed42eae081c111d417ee12f
46150 F20101203_AAATAH foster_c_Page_61.jpg
8e7d6d74455c240a6b66e545f7db87fb
13ea83f8c708e0473a177b90880f20322699901f
2034 F20101203_AAASTJ foster_c_Page_49.txt
687107e3bcde3f12a7b71182d0c924a7
e38c45f53092547f45f6e321150deffa0010d598
F20101203_AAATFF foster_c_Page_29.tif
01f414c2e9b5497e15881bc3377ee927
b89cb1eed1c8944b15c474a5ab07cf68c7d37fa1
6046 F20101203_AAASYI foster_c_Page_50thm.jpg
9702af9079de7df23c9540b35365181b
626e667ae23ae2e0fae630811e338c038c98c2a4
69120 F20101203_AAATAI foster_c_Page_36.jpg
d42615230a304a90b005cb56313b8b5f
ed6319bc78bd0792a11b1b5f44a9beded457617a
515 F20101203_AAASTK foster_c_Page_01.txt
eb7ffb75be821a4f688b2d767042c05d
298771a8b5a56938681e89eaee8a3ebc727aaf6c
F20101203_AAATFG foster_c_Page_31.tif
654de747a355fa9b0eac1e8e1bd74ce1
5a35688a274f5eb791d6e4de96f7322c7b716a38
500555 F20101203_AAASYJ foster_c_Page_60.jp2
a3a513d678960d1ce86175c4234d4e17
3bc32b06bff28aea14a43e9facf2658ec3770d59
25462 F20101203_AAATAJ foster_c_Page_61.pro
d25007f5063ef3fd524fd788027f2c3b
b36b2a4dd3e69b7e213ff591e67e5211338e3a65
1898 F20101203_AAASTL foster_c_Page_15.txt
251eff6cc36aceab69891ff5b4f8cbce
5b1297ab0af23581eb4e47c27f999773e8f178d6
F20101203_AAATFH foster_c_Page_35.tif
b7089e1242652025d84735d6447f28d3
23c3c5e9168778749afd8525f5cb3b1c02cda64f
33691 F20101203_AAASYK foster_c_Page_67.pro
141fa743be9caa3ee1c46917c9d65f60
f371aea9727e3b8810b436863cf2e2d7a017a596
4432 F20101203_AAATAK foster_c_Page_45thm.jpg
90057e7d15c27fdc6cdf2fcaecce4ca6
64fd02ed2db07a7031634c2d5660d0f5148d0de2
50683 F20101203_AAASTM foster_c_Page_27.pro
09588b07efa1a6c7ac5f115ea7b9c91c
b6f97da66c24e6428297aaee578f2112c40aae59
F20101203_AAATFI foster_c_Page_36.tif
006da9c444d732ef040ad1051fda6fd9
e973950619045f16851e3fe4c9b98d8272030fa0
6734 F20101203_AAASYL foster_c_Page_13thm.jpg
677d2eefd729eecd31effad6eefb5fe8
f27df5bd0d6d0d717b47b238681709112b82111c
89579 F20101203_AAATAL foster_c_Page_53.jpg
066b1f99c088cc9ee28247c9621f2cd1
50e39f7a1cfd1e7868c38ae930a492548d00a142
20142 F20101203_AAASTN foster_c_Page_05.QC.jpg
3e570f7c13882d2d2ad05b7fa8bdb7b4
1e292b509d6471da645acb09b09b5ff1cb2af87d
40986 F20101203_AAASYM foster_c_Page_44.pro
f15e4adc6498f1019b5efe6c8e3def9c
8df023303afa43e07218d5c590e3385cd8072705
34922 F20101203_AAATAM foster_c_Page_47.jpg
9df6bdcf1cc50f0b9e08974568fec1f3
ddef3d4bd52993a4e55c1ec27abbd6069f04b6cf
6546 F20101203_AAASTO foster_c_Page_51thm.jpg
2aaa2daa69b98d045f0fdc8c25062cec
be22a6aa679322e1793af3878564ab24354ee2a0
F20101203_AAATFJ foster_c_Page_43.tif
a186d42c17793b486c8de99e6d31f7ec
323758b75ef7adb434e25997e8859d62c53a644e
89696 F20101203_AAASYN foster_c_Page_05.jpg
9999f3c1c337a465c8674a9037394a58
85967e2c52a10a138cc9ab7b963175fa93878255
47199 F20101203_AAATAN foster_c_Page_16.pro
41242d94d16d4c5c4de870bdcd54a85a
fa8e1f420f47305965185d8cbbc748575b23c232
4882 F20101203_AAASTP foster_c_Page_37thm.jpg
2cedbd09d34ca090186255898fed0921
5eb23a34a414b76e81693e9e55b48690f7138f17
F20101203_AAATFK foster_c_Page_45.tif
a85edc80ab7b6e3a9260762cdb8957da
e9cde4ab6eecf7bc9bfc48fc0c215e4a2296b034
F20101203_AAATAO foster_c_Page_50.jp2
be1879bd7cbd04ab6a256bcf9b16e8f9
bd7f19ac613f455a3af265c57788da5d2e181474
1116 F20101203_AAASTQ foster_c_Page_61.txt
cae390d283c022d62edd535ecc314074
91cedc059f9631e78be98e1d08a15a6593d750b6
F20101203_AAATFL foster_c_Page_47.tif
21bc069096fc875aab2b83e48594de27
af6c1c89a0d7f41df11e8b87f2683af6576750b9
87182 F20101203_AAASYO foster_c_Page_17.jpg
ebcf37b7591988fce10785c38f1a82b8
0604f2868b92ac80bea5729df819d3c60f62ef48
19167 F20101203_AAATAP foster_c_Page_54.pro
81a6d1ce5938f476549e07b7d89e645c
39af1eaa66cf2265c1f2395784eeb7aaae04c8b2
62398 F20101203_AAASTR foster_c_Page_39.jpg
ce0cc7b94216e72a86778596d92e0785
51e571270e0020d6ba362960d0523e0b8b49c351
F20101203_AAATFM foster_c_Page_48.tif
4efbdd7542f716f98beaecfe43367945
2fe5d12baefdbdd5b7f98a17c1f1b15ff2ed46db
84046 F20101203_AAASYP foster_c_Page_30.jpg
0692715118079f862d01b3cae9ce7bf3
d904fab052682ac597235f050cf429d019e1036b
6415 F20101203_AAATAQ foster_c_Page_48thm.jpg
ca0b01c7b091eff67781e124ba4a9cb4
afb1a45b3d6c2e0439b9daa2c7af3d95e809e10c
4529 F20101203_AAASTS foster_c_Page_55thm.jpg
b866cfbc3e09cf4d172192bd4b0e1d5f
1141fce81bd72800811d4fd89d5f336f93570fbc
F20101203_AAATFN foster_c_Page_52.tif
a137e902702236fd739b7725f92c0a3a
39ed9daa805113f7646acdecfb1d13b04a324fc4
F20101203_AAATFO foster_c_Page_53.tif
7c0fa0c7b5250ab92b07dcd0867c9adf
c612f358dfc72d0018eeb8a05f9c06cf1357d485
27924 F20101203_AAASYQ foster_c_Page_34.QC.jpg
3aca53caf0a4da1294a5d85ec81c4d4e
e2a4fa69ad75fa2aca25eea302789fc71eff39e6
88414 F20101203_AAATAR foster_c_Page_51.jpg
2db9a5b41d1f165448252df8249929b7
c2abdac9ef61f6132d060f652170656f380f8244
561073 F20101203_AAASTT foster_c_Page_61.jp2
7619cb4d87b8bec9e9174cf9fb939de6
017aca968836ce92633fb21e22291744e55b69e9
F20101203_AAATFP foster_c_Page_58.tif
11cde5fcbeb629b39e042c2ab17ac57b
f4bfdf480f3cc1c81da13f6f73d76265018e0001
15035 F20101203_AAASYR foster_c_Page_59.QC.jpg
5ce9f40000c8b225471eddf5edf0e940
49456f4d5333a58135a703d7928ea5481b8ea1f4
80614 F20101203_AAATAS foster_c_Page_09.jpg
0cb73a190ee7cf1dd7911e7c972dd386
7a8c6f6e2f5795078c9d97fd1193b56c36c6c2fa
1051897 F20101203_AAASTU foster_c_Page_12.jp2
994ae67550005a9f903b12a62843ed7e
796be9f43c07efdd29f386f9297e9d5f26a457cb
F20101203_AAATFQ foster_c_Page_60.tif
f4b0372d10a1bcb1e5ff4e1ebe4986fd
b585acbf2570b8ef486536f52c7e03f11f1a71fe
2711 F20101203_AAASYS foster_c_Page_47thm.jpg
058a66933891927e227609b1fa21c875
246568fe0e688fb0812d709d0ca676481edcf89e
92079 F20101203_AAATAT foster_c_Page_13.jpg
fb623f259bcd0c55c365940a7e763cc6
9766e8ec9dbc663ce1157f1d94d4c1b97b0df8c0
26801 F20101203_AAASTV foster_c_Page_17.QC.jpg
489d6b9fb7d202711f4b6961fa94103c
9924933151f6dc985c9ea133e9dbdbfca3f2361e
F20101203_AAATFR foster_c_Page_66.tif
8f1ebfeec8e053d75d61b418034c7abe
ecdb09b3721b0c648d109ff74f19d6c106714457
6545 F20101203_AAASYT foster_c_Page_31thm.jpg
eab41b81b305fa2a50ff82746fb41350
24cd8e11686a58632bc6780ac1d707b72de7965c
27527 F20101203_AAATAU foster_c_Page_42.QC.jpg
481b41f83ed9c1d11975085388723a10
270d8e0e717d4d892e05af469ba61080ffa1d15e
49281 F20101203_AAASTW foster_c_Page_25.pro
838a6c4afad391bf149a5d8a18aa8bfa
c510e4f12ba16178e5a6a42e4f8059a9a5cacc7b
F20101203_AAATFS foster_c_Page_67.tif
8d58ad63bebb4dd068443a0446a0f9c8
12fa747ad226a4dc003929c2219b9903ad84dc9c
4978 F20101203_AAASYU foster_c_Page_38thm.jpg
bdb87a12a07c54af0493c7f109aab14a
b606b79d8cac72e0fd59db8c1ce8f8126fa6782f
1991 F20101203_AAASTX foster_c_Page_14.txt
41528a3c06821df2c732b54cf44cbd74
974ea94a54da41d582cbb6d86d7e8d9b474ca27c
8961 F20101203_AAATFT foster_c_Page_01.pro
312b8b05f21d7e7edc98b43d9df5f69b
e5b4deb417f281cf4f433eaebe72d5daafbe98c5
16298 F20101203_AAASYV foster_c_Page_40.QC.jpg
727236c7ba67762f7010981fcc68ea3a
76f00ad3a13fc92b36c6d43eab2cac8c02659829
49127 F20101203_AAATAV foster_c_Page_24.pro
8db9ce3ea0f49544797021de29a12185
12bf059336681483bc14daf721483a59abada511
1626 F20101203_AAASRA foster_c_Page_38.txt
6fca58e14aa9f371d1f5733bae9749da
6567af05835a3196df3a84b70bb2813bfd9e5fe0
1051963 F20101203_AAASTY foster_c_Page_24.jp2
3f90578818050b21a912f0f80238a3c8
7a5774b5d6abd69e0e9ca767b4357bc7ab20b934
23903 F20101203_AAATFU foster_c_Page_04.pro
944443910f8ce77a8781d95253e693e3
7388c17b298a7da9701cd1228f865dcd11698f99
F20101203_AAASYW foster_c_Page_15.tif
73d02f21d2343154148d0f04d8939217
61ba96bd0c731fb424e6be50121c0617d95fb8f9
53419 F20101203_AAATAW foster_c_Page_46.pro
4e855503cc2182242f4fb48cac9c1adc
26411f32ca484bef4f5cef43cad3652c9967a4b5
1180 F20101203_AAASRB foster_c_Page_59.txt
36bd36d1b402833dd8b8ae4bd16c1f7e
63ef6e1921f0045da62f3cc2a9d1da8bb1dc4de4
F20101203_AAASTZ foster_c_Page_65.tif
7b10941d773b379700e06acdc4cb4769
5de746b3e368a6fae4969eddd012feba953c0771
86492 F20101203_AAATFV foster_c_Page_05.pro
5c54ab41715b32e0644e38345d165a7a
b11ff6c05bc49a8cceb7e0472e539755021ea97e
1051977 F20101203_AAASYX foster_c_Page_33.jp2
7387dbe40ac93ef6693892db81513446
a078419ad951bc6c22b88b5dedcf5f4b0071e00e
47698 F20101203_AAATAX foster_c_Page_15.pro
8143fa90a228f86d3744cd9aad9e6697
cc7b45ea587761091d746343428e7afb26aa9be4
32403 F20101203_AAASRC foster_c_Page_35.pro
ca072c8cadc55a79574c1b90cf2a7ae3
66078e62c4d8f5df62c89367943a007add63ef86
16700 F20101203_AAATFW foster_c_Page_08.pro
4e28ece65eb492402b80bbf223181bf1
b02513b7160336cf021caf31006a4531324c62c4
704 F20101203_AAASYY foster_c_Page_08.txt
8d44af029ec858f7e9930ebd9a4351bc
3357577649389cb1681d522c4f5fb0c39ca4a9c6
1051976 F20101203_AAATAY foster_c_Page_16.jp2
a1bd2d5edccb211ad99d41a4d0e342da
719d99ef9a9ed6de124eec4783995de53f741b74
F20101203_AAASRD foster_c_Page_22.tif
4493a419ce414ef25c60612f50ed4793
03d7aed9e63f630153a85de2e5b3cc798c648da1
F20101203_AAASWA foster_c_Page_34.tif
6171981788c264c0d693c0af98c48815
ba677deb59cf2409b2322d90fe951776afb723d6
46130 F20101203_AAATFX foster_c_Page_10.pro
98e701dd1aa45fd543802e78efc40a89
83d8293a879ffffda13a7830c8fc2ee93288676a
2220 F20101203_AAASYZ foster_c_Page_03.QC.jpg
c811adffb0834cc496e0d9a6ff88226d
af72cf8ed62d79926468b5fa8838a36e0a82c559
F20101203_AAATAZ foster_c_Page_51.tif
08b3a2a2cd680fb565cf74a2c7485cc9
4be33b4ccdad8fdfa434e31984c07e9a2860b955
83249 F20101203_AAASRE foster_c_Page_49.jpg
74d4dd0984b467d007e51ba2f242020a
6c2d451fa58e04b532a0aff807f41958fe61ea0d
736888 F20101203_AAASWB foster_c_Page_57.jp2
41d24b2d534ec659403bfb57ca910111
2489820b148d91bdabead98b7aa3011dd242e080
56560 F20101203_AAATFY foster_c_Page_13.pro
851a66e90d484de104c61bff2721f51b
293018c60f36bac0158e7c419c75351e45f90af6
F20101203_AAASRF foster_c_Page_27.tif
2f0395fd90c9f329c55c433caf19a340
5e0591bd5b5218c54e3c9b93cf42eaed75c75092
92914 F20101203_AAASWC foster_c_Page_26.jpg
c501dfe6c2dc481412f494604cac736b
98492680bc1f74213242bfbd937334a169b10744
53093 F20101203_AAATFZ foster_c_Page_18.pro
cf81689f27bcf3e8d623fe4b4342e600
eaf7cd6e118e75a9b926b4e58fd6a3366adb0c72
30942 F20101203_AAASRG foster_c_Page_23.pro
796b5585d3a822955290d0bb5caff528
eb20d4bcd66eabab509a3f3b36fefb018ded7330
436913 F20101203_AAATDA foster_c_Page_47.jp2
11658a879d75f53604e6944c4b27d0ef
d80a485ccedf9a47124afe370f3a4864bbbbddbb
F20101203_AAASWD foster_c_Page_57.tif
d7db1179c3c6c212f4bf601e3407aad7
0c82547f57d00d31441fcc9ae794741ddfa8e9f8
86555 F20101203_AAATDB foster_c_Page_24.jpg
af4d46656d72593910409ef04ad0ee86
dadac93bb7adb818a9554ead9f74a636ba433279
59738 F20101203_AAASWE foster_c_Page_29.jpg
25a676582c0e7b06f21ac53cac926dd4
a0fe2f06d699dbcdc6d2222a2772feb21a14172c
6386 F20101203_AAASRH foster_c_Page_14thm.jpg
3141d136d59d92e0a1cc099ea36f6924
0321636b20082e8e12b9d5c77c90ba4e73909383
557009 F20101203_AAATDC foster_c_Page_04.jp2
5c84ed656d1d5125e5580f26c4773d87
be1bd81b8cd7d4e958498f042d5a91e7b276072d
F20101203_AAASWF foster_c_Page_06.tif
492a157460eda36c5c73be711cc058eb
85823d39ef5938b45a8b8d733a7461fb3a723ebc
29638 F20101203_AAATIA foster_c_Page_41.QC.jpg
8b97e293da967de9c3a1a1b532ab141f
d1513b3f6af8d9e559ed9a2f06bf906c3a8d54d6
3549 F20101203_AAASRI foster_c_Page_05.txt
fce332401abd9526ec15f780a1d025e4
fd331eec45863f1012caf61cb70adfd7b3a1a041
68823 F20101203_AAATDD foster_c_Page_44.jpg
d2ce068e1a57d89338e6f11f1ae26197
4acbd01e0de10e4c7b68751be950575f1aade42b
4414 F20101203_AAASWG foster_c_Page_35thm.jpg
1c25bc61d48fb95e899b09cfc4535eec
fdff2d26425c667f946138a32bd20f1e88554e93
6747 F20101203_AAATIB foster_c_Page_41thm.jpg
585165d7e13a3274b9cc2325eb89310a
68b3f17ffde6a67cfd8b489ed9e3fd0844c2d7fc
5247 F20101203_AAASRJ foster_c_Page_44thm.jpg
719ca72ab18e4d0b464e1e051f403aa2
a7e98382530995b7a0a49d681a3293b1b8a50ba7
1691 F20101203_AAATDE foster_c_Page_36.txt
d0427fe5a4b52b991291bd677dc46abd
f4e9f919a26f3f5841ce6e5ceccf07cca76e349b
17934 F20101203_AAASWH foster_c_Page_57.QC.jpg
a7d1dbd7ca5fcf80f31272808b052cf4
bf3e841ad9ba431e30e9f1de4ddbd2416a234c91
6048 F20101203_AAATIC foster_c_Page_43thm.jpg
425f779550979e80b87c25a78bafc5f1
cab5e24bd153ea5bac40453cc1f394fecc69c010
1051936 F20101203_AAASRK foster_c_Page_14.jp2
3b9bd7fa003234cde701dfb388ac78fc
c1758ebcdc1f203ec05e9245aff36883db2a679b
1051921 F20101203_AAATDF foster_c_Page_11.jp2
73b9d6939389fef95d0f9c74ce8f4edb
c1395e4676254f5bb3873844e303200f3643fe49
662950 F20101203_AAASWI foster_c_Page_54.jp2
d9fcd4a4188833a3536cf548ed45d24f
ff1484f4d79ad90ae955db572b8da82701379f61
17626 F20101203_AAATID foster_c_Page_45.QC.jpg
f53463b00312b122126bcfef983e88e5
72d8ce6241f833364cdebbd5fac8e2b2d89041b2
913954 F20101203_AAASRL foster_c_Page_44.jp2
44898c30912117a3c4ce8dd44e208068
d3dc75970d48668d8165512fc663ec9cf9456a79
86919 F20101203_AAATDG foster_c_Page_46.jpg
e7d4697a0fcd1c82f5ddf17cfd80d274
99eea6d868e3346fe83242634af9deedb976d714
F20101203_AAASWJ foster_c_Page_32.tif
6cdae42eb47f1831e118f50db7dfac5c
00a99c13dadc362379c9f5ae6508f026d89142ce
24381 F20101203_AAATIE foster_c_Page_50.QC.jpg
209a54040642b2174717863d9654b66d
6df5af165228ef410e68163a163e996946c30757
84029 F20101203_AAASRM foster_c_Page_27.jpg
cb74b963ffd2e21b6c8a303ae694f86b
ffc6d3542d74e0d665cec7698ef77b4d3cb60add
80661 F20101203_AAATDH UFE0022388_00001.mets
d43b897b85cc6586665fa3fe7c0c9ea3
4b599d4dc2b9dad697b78ed022066343b4ed7fc3
24705 F20101203_AAASWK foster_c_Page_10.QC.jpg
c7f3dc808e24eaca339a89dfb3fedeeb
78b86001de166365ea0674eb3fcce38082aad48b
3359 F20101203_AAATIF foster_c_Page_52thm.jpg
14343b6aa174d44115662095a8412c88
403846e202259a4a4e7d7c4861363e7895a0ffcb
25148 F20101203_AAASRN foster_c_Page_15.QC.jpg
9e3e76d198ec4a5dfe0f437ffe8c4ff1
1e09c0b1f1e2386331b66c492832b155997ba6d7
2119 F20101203_AAASWL foster_c_Page_22.txt
cc7c0e1e715a4e59bd21bc66ee95dd71
d7f47f83831b4f1e3c2c63ac8c60430b542eb5a5
18118 F20101203_AAATIG foster_c_Page_54.QC.jpg
05405a4440fb52a6dc93bd1b79a0c0de
73d514a56b0be8b9431d6ddc22be7c0962083066
2159 F20101203_AAASRO foster_c_Page_51.txt
e29bf0ec4113b37c352d5e32c593f4fa
a1ee64aeaa31a84013389cfa750f4b1cc2dbc04a
17910 F20101203_AAATIH foster_c_Page_55.QC.jpg
9d11b5b62cf27b68b1f5818b901e9c83
996a192b65c610649ac1f23d1586695ee736f1be
F20101203_AAASRP foster_c_Page_01.tif
86710448c8ef648c77f8f8320ba6c5b5
0f152bd0c7a00ebb9b0b13e1ec9e02288b124388
23472 F20101203_AAATDK foster_c_Page_01.jpg
525789c25cdeab53784d8747c9b0a7b2
bd7d6041ecad841503bb0e8b1d37d17b42c41cde
503750 F20101203_AAASWM foster_c_Page_63.jp2
93c4f816f2703d65ce052f5a9f73f135
15c91dd551c246fe93070f8292f5daf7208e5ba5
15357 F20101203_AAATII foster_c_Page_56.QC.jpg
565ab31d6d273737f6c91bfeb898cd81
0e48184ed090ae51d08066b8ac501e0a24f9a223
F20101203_AAASRQ foster_c_Page_53.jp2
c8dae90eed03e1b322b8347a9042e33b
bc31d605c7e0965fdc9a7368f65446b5e2361d69
6259 F20101203_AAATDL foster_c_Page_03.jpg
2f5fa2e29d8ff55780ff10381e21a349
aaaa2bcd4ac5bb16b3679432cb4dd7ba7998c91c
26629 F20101203_AAASWN foster_c_Page_56.pro
161d5afc4d3ac287b6873c20a806551d
b3d94836587177b1c3be92030b56d218f38300a6
5785 F20101203_AAATIJ foster_c_Page_58thm.jpg
d3e45dacf319509e25f3468eb892bc28
3312c950e5117738177fabe92759b195e8b72c10
42489 F20101203_AAATDM foster_c_Page_04.jpg
4add375a93a428643303d22b127b5175
e33319f7de24dbbcb45c4b6b9e7b307757127b21
1051960 F20101203_AAASWO foster_c_Page_65.jp2
f5094adf3a0701f26d1b3ad0fbeeed6a
b10148bda1803fce1431f12e38293b98899e4f96
2544 F20101203_AAASRR foster_c_Page_65.txt
ac9b0fcd625d742055c28674792a778a
24547f9d3d04ffcdda306c731a4be9c12037e70e
3916 F20101203_AAATIK foster_c_Page_60thm.jpg
5533315b7fb0543f3a7987df945524cf
ba4235b5a90b5638dc78bb53bd210047d1248997
34386 F20101203_AAATDN foster_c_Page_07.jpg
bc432eb37db16c71f018c92569e7def1
cb180effb4cf0a88246c089f982cee830eb8d484
23756 F20101203_AAASWP foster_c_Page_09.QC.jpg
51e391988fb969772e462b34ae708b03
e8f182a27287d93ad7acfbb0d50ea5fdea747b9c
F20101203_AAASRS foster_c_Page_32.QC.jpg
cd4894bff2cdf09fe5c8b882e3ec634f
984e203eb53a8f192bdd80c192004d7d83deddc1
14450 F20101203_AAATIL foster_c_Page_61.QC.jpg
b5bf7b1266aa0e88d01915c5a02c01ad
fc89c11e71ab8675828aaabf74acdaa21181163c
21311 F20101203_AAATDO foster_c_Page_08.jpg
8d40924de636f5427542070078bea1d4
f64cd07bc752684b21ab631ea94a042a0a84eabc
4166 F20101203_AAASWQ foster_c_Page_62thm.jpg
1968039841f6bf7c2551d93e3cd46a01
167b88058f1d652f68a87b1e3d14093bc7cdb981
6834 F20101203_AAASRT foster_c_Page_65thm.jpg
aff23f9287587ed8a1fa649838a5bb9b
22e1f3cbce8acfcc84ee55c223f75977c1b02e01
3822 F20101203_AAATIM foster_c_Page_61thm.jpg
ac12df3c82b0f80844687e77b9994882
28c23b118d08f1dc1438b6dc67ed211185c48053
86328 F20101203_AAATDP foster_c_Page_11.jpg
f3d440b20d44d4d1c5bdb1f78b386dee
16fca673c3659c99512e5612f885d2358411b2f7
755 F20101203_AAASWR foster_c_Page_02.pro
9680fe95fe2c5f9a66eae201c1e4d852
acb1f1ed2f912b52a486cb871af80c43b2fb665b
54242 F20101203_AAASRU foster_c_Page_35.jpg
785a549bc2da5f3392034e99bbfffe69
6a62878274efb74034401d55a810c30dcc5af36a
3420 F20101203_AAATIN foster_c_Page_63thm.jpg
d03f5898cb51a0e7ce30b03f7acc859d
3f4e1b70485b10785c9ba1dc6d3bd1e05b88b7fd
84320 F20101203_AAATDQ foster_c_Page_14.jpg
2cc44532f4ef087f604aba3d696d4232
4cad6f4ce92bb51f22b68d9d60bbebbff16d662c
74890 F20101203_AAASWS foster_c_Page_43.jpg
6b249c5cc0410e100e335dd009220f56
9bb255cedc6c2dab803920aa056ef59f074b3857
F20101203_AAASRV foster_c_Page_56.tif
8ec63ba005f1bed0a0893352f249bb2a
d39c12162835245293a710c22a93e9b3fc281057
2742 F20101203_AAATIO foster_c_Page_64thm.jpg
ecd7d09be61f7d82617b76ee9425d13e
fd3938874219804b7c6d912320bc39836c701ea1
79309 F20101203_AAATDR foster_c_Page_15.jpg
6591216d8e92ba7c83358d1bccee227a
ff92ac5a4d519c62f819d3eb728645a8c1a8f332
F20101203_AAASWT foster_c_Page_54.tif
d579b7bf14b9ca72549593d1cf243568
bfcb5c809a3cd263462ba7a8b3f698293995f898
4451 F20101203_AAASRW foster_c_Page_23thm.jpg
176cff058e3ec528bb557d765b508eb4
ea2c38e41aaf5e39c77713a997a045d86598a8e2
78994 F20101203_AAATDS foster_c_Page_16.jpg
5380347195a409c88c59058c3a7a77e5
a6efd0240175d42e6dad38c3e0a16767d2ee2979
1109 F20101203_AAASWU foster_c_Page_21.txt
c771f45ccbe30270341c7e52fc3cc1ae
6fe0e77745668c93e38d480c0c8cdb913bbb4b42
6117 F20101203_AAASRX foster_c_Page_16thm.jpg
1868c93b469ad5fb88090a544f4291cb
fb5974bd007a5ec8f5ca9f60a7bd4539ea9ac064
87893 F20101203_AAATDT foster_c_Page_18.jpg
76a36df0a9a2a6f30e1107f5fde617eb
058a72a72062632767dd00bcbecf8936e8d36a5f
1051887 F20101203_AAASWV foster_c_Page_32.jp2
5f2d03c6137c48f934d21714144ceb94
6f905b6f681277ba1b476f1bd0cdca0a7ddd90d5
F20101203_AAASRY foster_c_Page_30.tif
63aba60fb2238d17d2029686f2b20de7
52a2461c4759915f19fa1ef860b4897e9a0f0ca1
84780 F20101203_AAATDU foster_c_Page_21.jpg
df0f7245ea0521ce48d7474ce3aa2b23
066df3d69bdc7c679d2ebeba285e8c28ef6ee7a4
1524 F20101203_AAASWW foster_c_Page_20.txt
67618a08b09bdd82016f9a2ad040e512
3c1ed19c672b479c2c73c6d6a71e23fb40f16f47
56628 F20101203_AAASRZ foster_c_Page_45.jpg
62fd7eded47e37dc7a2c89999f433dad
a37ced73f29eb98c66c921e5f1d65a5142d40098
89525 F20101203_AAATDV foster_c_Page_22.jpg
7fb00833d9f2ecb79cb0d2495cc45228
aefd2b5fe38840e0143bb1f26844c1d942df84bf
2129 F20101203_AAASWX foster_c_Page_32.txt
6e2e4d08c6c5673ac50965cbc16a0fc8
4e7b67fcf67ae4111e5f4e8b5621d7985b7d6311
55483 F20101203_AAATDW foster_c_Page_23.jpg
d46c41c911ee04a4eb2fc8a8553e48b6
661a559dc1216953b66b0d9f9c4b8ca37ed1ac3d
52142 F20101203_AAASUA foster_c_Page_11.pro
024f6b1a7aaebe82089c7438d96aaf9e
f7474542492c11dc38ab2993af8befeb86a47c68
490 F20101203_AAASWY foster_c_Page_02thm.jpg
fc7bb7bf0ecb8ed0e481afa44ff00d04
a8553e60f470a7ebc34725122aa1e10f321f7589
81619 F20101203_AAATDX foster_c_Page_25.jpg
fe1b751aed1bc8bef1fd46e738d2fd6d
9ea12edb35e97e2086bee46580d0e615eb17d4fd
38338 F20101203_AAASUB foster_c_Page_29.pro
8dc039a5fe2dfdfc1163f6ca1035beb6
e8837fcb4886ced29beaa5a8a6f055e39d038296
51366 F20101203_AAASWZ foster_c_Page_32.pro
3c6d7a3168f2c69ed8d8ca2d06d25887
16275598f7caa60b66103c3ba292137f4bd9d52c
F20101203_AAASUC foster_c_Page_46.tif
66313065de4da4868f00de3028b9389e
3aa91a05d7fc7de988785c67f64fa4aac67b3ee9
72419 F20101203_AAATDY foster_c_Page_28.jpg
361876ec935f7ee9d714f904f5b5ac4c
e1699df7b961ee7bbdb85a7eb87bea1ce647db4d
85390 F20101203_AAASUD foster_c_Page_32.jpg
52e34fa4485f2afbdcdb493361b57c9c
2bc8fccb2174968bf2e77d5074062271ce6a0d28
50372 F20101203_AAASZA foster_c_Page_48.pro
28ca5bd138f8b4c88d3bfa61ae0e4f70
bd47a7eba92aad08a610e9df332336e97c5b4758
2131 F20101203_AAATBA foster_c_Page_11.txt
83922f903b2ee7a77eddad8286e11fc9
eb8aa9e8b4818dce82c8037324c416d6558bc91a
88017 F20101203_AAATDZ foster_c_Page_31.jpg
72e6ae38c09205732c78104ffa0ec592
289861b8a6cf3d925d9f133afae9e72c2e4887c4
F20101203_AAASUE foster_c_Page_49.tif
348bfb5a38587ef9bcb53a8203a9d7b8
44f50f405921aae9bdedd56038fc58a2ba72cc51
9055 F20101203_AAASZB foster_c_Page_68.pro
2c20191f3d964b46d7fc1ef939a78f3f
8951ac99e2e4b31508f256d59c1b5ff5358e4bab
F20101203_AAATBB foster_c_Page_04.tif
b28bb952644879be5078641b1db7fc42
a6754e774439bfd4830b48245d33e19e58e1c828
26509 F20101203_AAASUF foster_c_Page_14.QC.jpg
f791240f5e5a96477d794b77d5b5e1be
550d0741430b4034fcb085b59542369f99eecc50
47571 F20101203_AAASZC foster_c_Page_40.jpg
d8410c57989a11210e37aea85a9795ce
1eced5ddd3ed42556229b4b4b35626597f329d27
24503 F20101203_AAATBC foster_c_Page_63.pro
b1b810490321a74a100d8050ed227827
90bc53ee8d056dd92f207e4ddb341fe1d907fdcd
37160 F20101203_AAATGA foster_c_Page_20.pro
86d800b42abb13269c8bfd2c8bdf591d
84ec50168089ceeb4b389eee09addcc264efaf97
1393 F20101203_AAASUG foster_c_Page_67.txt
bd76b9c68ff8146d61be8cf1c5488ffc
5dc31b329cca74361198068f72dbcbed47e35e24
13207 F20101203_AAASZD foster_c_Page_60.QC.jpg
b8ddbe22ada9c1c64319059db4a8b5dd
0e30b13a20e79f58f8771151d434b4b486c6b165
92399 F20101203_AAATBD foster_c_Page_34.jpg
419a8fa342f7a8694f7033570208a04a
1a0c5db6ff454158ba10ae4827e0fc1ac17dd557
39144 F20101203_AAATGB foster_c_Page_36.pro
71a1221a3a55ec7d7512c6ad97d97f00
c74dce7aff95ed19991d357a04172107543ad58b
2123 F20101203_AAASUH foster_c_Page_33.txt
f749de0c153eacd045ec3af041eaec92
93e411c8ce69bdd63da2c31fb8567faf11f0d190
768627 F20101203_AAASZE foster_c_Page_67.jp2
3b32b823f407b69b55623fb3e0029eaa
4e42769d69f4704d41ea5dade499dceb4fff00de
5815 F20101203_AAATBE foster_c_Page_10thm.jpg
510ba27db9fff8858882290f8c0bbdda
39563d52fb6abf3033aef6a6f0d632e5cf64f0ed
37308 F20101203_AAATGC foster_c_Page_45.pro
6235f77ecfc06120c8abaf1a460fc833
cdc95ebaccdedc553d6d9bb6feadbab790b618fc
752804 F20101203_AAASUI foster_c_Page_37.jp2
f9ff6b885f410a372cb68ebb0cdc2fb2
1e6ffb381da409083b07965c3b680d2120a44e96
50465 F20101203_AAASZF foster_c_Page_14.pro
905466b21ac995b36279ee97205b988b
ad3451ddf070e44d06a47bd953a7c09b5e369c6f
89721 F20101203_AAATBF foster_c_Page_19.jpg
7d0f2fe355a767c203f5699215639fdf
eb16856514da3789c5dffa625d52e31547487051
26124 F20101203_AAATGD foster_c_Page_52.pro
b56ec690656c6ffaca81f4f0f2864c38
7eabc889a8964172200e3a6c7cd456aee4f884e4
1051965 F20101203_AAASUJ foster_c_Page_19.jp2
4848605c5701620d8545a6502421acc4
bb5ad428412b39dff2a41e6fa6a630e507509e25
57317 F20101203_AAASZG foster_c_Page_55.jpg
ee7eebb4374025d77e5a83064ed17e24
2af03faa9f3077c382d46017ad3df384255cff70
6498 F20101203_AAATBG foster_c_Page_17thm.jpg
f617a49c0a686a6a97256a3df0c9710e
18c0cacf744621c28439d20962f8e8c9c6b6cd72
29930 F20101203_AAATGE foster_c_Page_62.pro
0b9ba00fa10852b368bb69d1a2daa27e
f325c46692a300fc27be35caf2753097dccef864
1661 F20101203_AAASZH foster_c_Page_29.txt
c51f446e8bb89ab75ff8360d517abcac
b26cb19a266fe203cd6ebd5ac1bf06552324aea8
40361 F20101203_AAATBH foster_c_Page_60.jpg
5119482acabd57edece9952394a137f4
a7c0a52796042612f684f07e2a5753752c72aad3
62366 F20101203_AAATGF foster_c_Page_65.pro
0ed39eb62d0ab52529410e7ba3ed6c9e
a08d12555f57eb8bea7071db5f09747a68bb260a
6538 F20101203_AAASUK foster_c_Page_19thm.jpg
eb47789afb4c0ec1a3d96f8a490bea98
38254875956faea1fc172eb5a0f6c2a65f203f8b
1051879 F20101203_AAASZI foster_c_Page_27.jp2
ef2e7b764e086f397159cbac2183558f
cbb10095e30dd6c85f79d172883cbec88fd874b5
27393 F20101203_AAATBI foster_c_Page_18.QC.jpg
20e43b54665e64fb17282e7dcfb07e26
4481afc9d45df88cfa6ff1200b0ddf3880417e38
66288 F20101203_AAATGG foster_c_Page_66.pro
87a7ea96953f6c6cc63a2388108e30f3
2294f4005e31a0c3a8cb3572203b8f6095979e02
F20101203_AAASUL foster_c_Page_16.tif
de1efc363a08a207e8e83154b9a5cc74
121751873c5eb198a4303425b8437d5908b8a9e3
906260 F20101203_AAASZJ foster_c_Page_36.jp2
438b2f6cda8f5ab9ab72d48953877555
67e9715c9139a88fdb690af81ab09f601f88baa2
33082 F20101203_AAATBJ foster_c_Page_37.pro
3867b5b0d3544f531deccc3948050f29
7f9123be7eb2c2b726c70bd91698853801712efe
997 F20101203_AAATGH foster_c_Page_04.txt
071be350d1138d0d9bf4d13a12e761fb
aa4be7d118381b9155d1632c8e4782a133e07dd8
1002 F20101203_AAASUM foster_c_Page_54.txt
9287b2bad193d220a47bdfb067e473db
2d02cb34affb4f1384dbba8dd552fa57747cc38f
6268 F20101203_AAASZK foster_c_Page_25thm.jpg
4bbe0d1dd5043cd7b05a395ebe2090ee
c96d9fe7078cafefda7fa81b62f9289b205d0333
39864 F20101203_AAATBK foster_c_Page_63.jpg
639a7025e1c74157be958ee706a77860
d322328b26ccb7e72d4ce4c7d648ee32be2baa32
2224 F20101203_AAATGI foster_c_Page_13.txt
bd2ab2760fe64cfc2bf8e40c6be153b9
3fd6d1dcda903b7aef75e48870916417c66b3633
1955 F20101203_AAASZL foster_c_Page_25.txt
e7aa880a3e3b28fccb72f883448df862
200a46a168f41fa8df84ad9769cf8f5a45bac9e0
F20101203_AAATBL foster_c_Page_49.jp2
d87e034bb727f515485cd368e025abca
46d02762c3bdf636bbb41dcade0a4eb3e7a0a40b
3938 F20101203_AAASUN foster_c_Page_59thm.jpg
a777583175c7efb2b172e3a999bfdd80
997806e7c77f1e1973c725be2d461748b2a310e5
2112 F20101203_AAATGJ foster_c_Page_17.txt
4d66f2bcdec4f2b8d0a2d7c4b4587658
ef26d27a8ec8f37a5c3e09777518ec73fc457cea
38873 F20101203_AAASZM foster_c_Page_58.pro
3b953e6bd8375e3da0bfd58c0341a409
2a5159b591e29534fc77c1ad6be5f5d04bba1fe1
54027 F20101203_AAATBM foster_c_Page_33.pro
1cd09928e5a67813b7c311ce68a73432
e1ca5343e3508e00445c2bd1b76820b7ee450c05
89057 F20101203_AAASUO foster_c_Page_33.jpg
87fa671d5d2dc9e0c7cefa4c3b78d005
6e604f18837754d3acd63f97ba9ca2936779353c
1242 F20101203_AAATGK foster_c_Page_23.txt
4c64a3875d2f6bb0aee94dfdb6dcf1a7
f3d63f4769ed92debd2e7e181732d2857b10377a
88464 F20101203_AAASZN foster_c_Page_42.jpg
41658b6de11e17afbdc73113b954957e
ed6f80350d353aa0395299ff35c0854951cee4bc
31418 F20101203_AAATBN foster_c_Page_66.QC.jpg
6d969262d37c569a2e2f8d5b934aa788
a4ad0faa1ef1707b028b74e4bb6442056839cd7c
1993 F20101203_AAASUP foster_c_Page_09.txt
f65cc688da5cf08c60105404f039773a
68586420d4778ae627fb17507112c63caedc122e
2041 F20101203_AAATGL foster_c_Page_24.txt
20a0229f86a695ac962f994d623ac199
b177bc1e5b3f1f78970c8a1fa74305c24df00fa8
77928 F20101203_AAASZO foster_c_Page_58.jpg
41525497113747ea7ad1bf06c6c40762
f373ecd2f867e45c49aa3cf793585ba9a6e3f0b3
19392 F20101203_AAATBO foster_c_Page_37.QC.jpg
4550ddcb5bcb1f1a45f81c9eea77ceb5
9af0f4aa1e259cceed9530f21dc78614ff9ee483
6383 F20101203_AAASUQ foster_c_Page_49thm.jpg
f2682c4ab27ab67d93f4877cf3f611ee
551a253240ed356a8075a67e67a9856ce7d1df78
F20101203_AAATGM foster_c_Page_30.txt
29ad558fdd40c40c4d1820b8a7c4f250
0620c9604c5561df3e33f49403efcd6ad6063cab
53805 F20101203_AAATBP foster_c_Page_51.pro
cbcc7fa1ce49bdfb57d5c98bb830e6d0
693e5b3215ba61350fba8b981e6d05e844eaac92
F20101203_AAASUR foster_c_Page_59.tif
e9309cee2b0154d8490923ffaf1ccf9f
f964cb0b0993845dd4542745b76eb4009f7c5705
2100 F20101203_AAATGN foster_c_Page_31.txt
0ea35ae7c660c4b1a0f8b217d0c8ae3c
8fdef12aa7e7bd0973841d75e0fedcee32a2b1e6
22519 F20101203_AAASZP foster_c_Page_28.QC.jpg
baa75cc58240c8d8a6d7b2908893283a
51654cdde4de6d98f6193eee81344273af4e2114
5759 F20101203_AAATBQ foster_c_Page_68.QC.jpg
ff2792c6b84202c974b2e25fba760845
eb68c792ae7272eb374beebbec1fe389ce6df534
56573 F20101203_AAASUS foster_c_Page_50.pro
adfbddfc4ba53fd5f0cb06aae651df06
d8bc6f2f278c018af1d81ad5f471689f8538978b
1326 F20101203_AAATGO foster_c_Page_35.txt
d8215495619b27030029ebc0322fce68
8654ce01e47ce896086bdccef3ffae1eaae07c23
1051982 F20101203_AAASZQ foster_c_Page_26.jp2
68c6d37f10bfbbc1d1274465f3df6d0d
17568a104fe6204b2da320af5eceb55871fca850
57953 F20101203_AAATBR foster_c_Page_06.pro
01eb9ca7e1de3494dd4cd7f2ff6bc659
97fb6010281402a29768d34988f69dc88461f303
23626 F20101203_AAASUT foster_c_Page_58.QC.jpg
7120afcba185db0b6be4834346fbbf8c
6f08614b413b90c7f36996d0c55298838ae2b402
1518 F20101203_AAATGP foster_c_Page_39.txt
e995ab779bed8fc52f94785400f9163e
793a9f3d86972345bdbca098d77ef102a80f2062
6436 F20101203_AAASZR foster_c_Page_11thm.jpg
f1f7651180fe7b33cf45ff8f7d1678e5
d3ab0d439f0af121843c6e2667246e948fe55e7a
F20101203_AAATBS foster_c_Page_42.tif
5847b6ca939481427e3f640836dcbb22
0cc72a13cf5ac691e864e3c4750e7b40a7bce000
20280 F20101203_AAASUU foster_c_Page_40.pro
a24d93dbe2e1d361971b922c822b2b60
4d616106d7b25765487a3220222dc63defa07e3d
2096 F20101203_AAATGQ foster_c_Page_42.txt
9097c62ab63558a070b1d38d16d8d753
f57af7039959a2bbe0d524940f54270d84fbfec5
48880 F20101203_AAASZS foster_c_Page_59.jpg
85da082e43d45aad390ffcbad99f416d
f734e85f1678cde90c86fe54c69e3b6a3b25e771
5056 F20101203_AAATBT foster_c_Page_57thm.jpg
149b4a74b36e39da38b72d288d344171
d2e74a83c4b178c4a80ba09dc3421a11e40150b4
77550 F20101203_AAASUV foster_c_Page_10.jpg
80ec5e916bce804bbc2654b69b41cb25
46a35570ef5de9a373ebd29aabf11ad4f4b0fc9d
1809 F20101203_AAATGR foster_c_Page_43.txt
7bdd841ffb0c202c8f5033efa4a9cd4a
0c57e87f37b67440b0e0e9d60ea3adb5f222ebd8
F20101203_AAASZT foster_c_Page_50.tif
456d49b9ce28b2bf3e6878375fa9a1da
d0fcff536db215988b43e65219b4a3b5a26901bf
F20101203_AAATBU foster_c_Page_55.tif
1f1273677f724a2d952066471e7babec
98a230b36881c6325fda49f938f8424857151c78
6376 F20101203_AAASUW foster_c_Page_46thm.jpg
6a5a3630ce29a8a7a0864bac8b80040f
18e4edc1fdc684dae600dc6bbe27deafe67f00e6
2088 F20101203_AAATGS foster_c_Page_48.txt
38575b16268861fc99edfb1ee881ab56
dd4163e4cedfc74a957e4ecb3057dce5ca3876d3
50764 F20101203_AAASZU foster_c_Page_49.pro
7af5d18a0908415d27ea9f2ac0c309e7
edebed446a5c1bc5d6cb7e5ecfed3f071f2c62b0
6847 F20101203_AAATBV foster_c_Page_53thm.jpg
69605c11589492f8b3bcbd0607fdbb0b
141892a20bfe10e723240d4e6d2781a1a21a273a
1423 F20101203_AAASUX foster_c_Page_37.txt
1a15b78155c5c3a7bd740da3c2997ff1
45e2efba413bb06a6ea8944e9e2228fcba3083af
1041 F20101203_AAATGT foster_c_Page_52.txt
0d91b4b4f4fdf8b99570ebd18ae4f7e2
984ea51987538be0cc798f54a7ab77c6b9a83c7a
F20101203_AAASZV foster_c_Page_11.tif
c57b10479408accfc90456dcd7a15756
c55795c577e31ac69603bab05a3430f0bbbf23e3
52279 F20101203_AAASSA foster_c_Page_12.pro
f38f52211744372a593feb0fa9e38d2d
10e01324009d1fcc97512bd76afec6bc07819f22
2101 F20101203_AAASUY foster_c_Page_19.txt
032657defd501d0cb09457997226d024
9ca9198795dd6b85594a7a95ee80d091a8861ec5
596 F20101203_AAATGU foster_c_Page_53.txt
a92000a71e4bdc6163b9ca7ccdac107d
4dc7956619fd95f9f2a5b8f4eaff14a1ddd7c5f4
6619 F20101203_AAASZW foster_c_Page_42thm.jpg
6f8f81ecd0d1d5a853b8028845e219f8
4d60ee6f6cfb43e96e9d9474a40fb092fafafa1c
5133 F20101203_AAATBW foster_c_Page_05thm.jpg
16fad72700683806e9ce2d36218c6bf3
3d458894a0cc04340aa4e9fca6cd9cb0881b5fb1
12415 F20101203_AAASSB foster_c_Page_63.QC.jpg
0bb1dda70b9c9682386fd5bd89e6fdaa
0e599320895b12fa44d71333d0bf0d1863531ae5
11109 F20101203_AAASUZ foster_c_Page_47.QC.jpg
cdbbb966f1538415ccbecf9b88bc1e41
391da8061847855e218d76e32b4dcda7810d20ef
1143 F20101203_AAATGV foster_c_Page_56.txt
aa9f3f6464b7e806e50f48e88752b7ea
df525ecfa358630355d2519626758e3f677363d6
1650 F20101203_AAASZX foster_c_Page_44.txt
a140235ad43f1c98d7a299e1e101ed85
d7ce0e5549977a536eebe85ec902ff8f53d4d7f3
F20101203_AAATBX foster_c_Page_26.tif
a0bb4a4ca40591d55843bc87c3836a50
2508eddc35089470ffe50d6a2c3435dbff746f0c
1051973 F20101203_AAASSC foster_c_Page_42.jp2
91d3754759b72056f9479c9c1456ab71
86e367c0ee2af721d45e6741fc797aaf316b867d
1429 F20101203_AAATGW foster_c_Page_57.txt
e1719897ac3ddc80ea6153c5e310e72a
193b8d85982f29a4891e3ebe043db3ddf3ed8ba7
F20101203_AAASXA foster_c_Page_63.tif
578c360057b364063421b59a003e279d
1adbf1c46101f13f11f5a4f8dbd1847a62d00cde
F20101203_AAASZY foster_c_Page_30thm.jpg
5156b034af8d3b4e529c901ce95f7a29
20dacf8049c90cdacaa3f970e827949bdfeea6d1
2228 F20101203_AAATBY foster_c_Page_41.txt
eb1547824310f295f2c518693b905846
b3e87359ae9155ae1f757669695e537503cda8bc
F20101203_AAASSD foster_c_Page_41.tif
0b95923da26f88c8bf1a11deb1d75662
dabc57859bbb0778a59dd2350f255fc806f28745
1649 F20101203_AAATGX foster_c_Page_58.txt
e0f6b1afc7afca30db4fbf3458c613e1
e7d432bb32410db8c9b604e8da9b3033a1e0b1f2
F20101203_AAASXB foster_c_Page_41.jp2
9f647d6ba4ea1eeae272147dc72bd41b
0374f6689043ce2fd8049186724d9a39a6b6b9f9
4810 F20101203_AAASZZ foster_c_Page_39thm.jpg
bd7b452f0ed14ac70fd93fd007a48fcc
7e508164e93edd046d303f5f81c29dea3cf7911e
853628 F20101203_AAATBZ foster_c_Page_20.jp2
257b47cfdb045356b8df5845271c80ac
d4c53aee176c3dcd078a58aeeb7b9d73f54053d8
2424 F20101203_AAASSE foster_c_Page_06.txt
f1b786658a52ce09e4f9d03a81aefaac
bc4810823e1eca11034e07fd73e34d2c1e83b6f3
996 F20101203_AAATGY foster_c_Page_60.txt
8679e65e507342179302bfbc2f71b6dd
7400ddb6d79404e5733c8bbfaad63ba606050f5f
2183 F20101203_AAASXC foster_c_Page_03.pro
6ea58447839c0e86c7a3c06a690dbf77
0a2835e5723c82f9c08435d58f2a2abda30f586a
F20101203_AAASSF foster_c_Page_18.tif
ec799db61419c0118ee1570ea2010724
6dac45cb0cd8aa3523f72f5ed7f8a87272cd365f
1085 F20101203_AAATGZ foster_c_Page_63.txt
ce80a7b7da0014a1df96563a3374835d
00c1a591057ec8f5d942d5fdddb3d0d0de50941b
872 F20101203_AAASXD foster_c_Page_07.txt
5734358bd4543fd251d15d56dd129a73
dfa7ba70aad32417d560f3d187c8874c8e791449
F20101203_AAASSG foster_c_Page_44.tif
767cc58c2c88edcf08f186a3f7cb237c
b714f38b076440daa9e6d58120f9c6b8801ae988
60550 F20101203_AAATEA foster_c_Page_37.jpg
412acf3e551434d4238374d4d149d1f9
745d91bcb0871d042dccae31e43fd66656333030
92876 F20101203_AAASXE foster_c_Page_41.jpg
a377312e233aed311a1fd385a67bbe14
9773d86db05ac9fe10d7d4e50dfc923fa98fe41c
6553 F20101203_AAASSH foster_c_Page_12thm.jpg
a8ff409b99c7b739f38787c9f6c1e46c
05205eb3d0abb9971974a932ac694f56753ff9bd
88850 F20101203_AAATEB foster_c_Page_50.jpg
c1f602114572c30f79309e892e1b9c4f
280c2d3ef9ec9e5228d392a28958954c8103a1fa
51972 F20101203_AAASXF foster_c_Page_30.pro
9bdfb7eab6fb96d7bd7efb4f4be050be
9778ff5a76c029197e8695c99ad93abf961115e3
49538 F20101203_AAATEC foster_c_Page_56.jpg
e0789cd454ef96aa3ada664eff02f73e
4592bf28f38b4058f967991ef2857f43c88a938f
14351 F20101203_AAASXG foster_c_Page_52.QC.jpg
6421cd25351fb599130b72afe71834b4
7b0ba4ef387a7a00ea2c0184a3c074cd399a09db
732540 F20101203_AAASSI foster_c_Page_45.jp2
1a6f43131164a8b6f0cedd2cb39760d6
2a9aa1882d512d63b71872e6ba5f9ed55d294286
50860 F20101203_AAATED foster_c_Page_62.jpg
a772aba124d148fec3a64e1bedbc802e
5c0524590d47d6d20bd151b6e1459f17df3a5a6a
1051957 F20101203_AAASXH foster_c_Page_31.jp2
19001635692aa314466d7c7979589ec1
6781c2230eb94d1e7b4a3462ec521d142dbdb16c
F20101203_AAASSJ foster_c_Page_20.tif
47a0817b18c193a70224dd2ec649da07
6cc9cea6464e0c834cbdc4e6fe630718ab27b4e4
36781 F20101203_AAATEE foster_c_Page_64.jpg
da4afebaeeb803adae7d6f0f03aaf074
afcabbc1e1ad4a5c2ab817aa1e9b219d451f5655







VALUING PREFERENCES FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN THE
ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY FROM COLUMBIA COUNTY, FL
























By

CHAD FOSTER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008






































2008 Chad Foster































To my grandmother, Donna Foster, for all of her encouragement and support









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank everyone who helped me complete my thesis and acknowledge

them here. I would like to first thank the members of my committee, Janaki Alavalapati, Matt

Cohen, and Laila Racevskis for all of their many contributions and constant guidance. Thanks

also go to Sanjay Lamasal for assistance with the GIS related aspects of the study. I would also

like to thank all the fellow students in the Cohen and Alavalapati Labs, who went through the

majority of this experience alongside me, many of whom offered me words of encouragement

and advice.

I am also extremely grateful to my family for their love and support during my graduate

career. Thanks to my parents, Eddie and Amanda Foster, for their understanding and for letting

me move back home for several months at the age of 24. Thanks go out to my grandparents

Harry and Shirley Davis, and my grandmother Donna Foster.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S ...................... ............... ....................................................... . 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

ABSTRAC T ...........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ....................................................................................... .......... .. .. .. 11

2 BACKGROUND AND AREA OF STUDY ............................................................... 16

R e la te d S tu d ie s ................................................................................................................. 1 6
S tu d y A rea ..............................................................................................................................2 0
Ecological and Physical Characteristics of the Study Area........................................20
Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Study Area..................... ..... .............. 23

3 METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A NUTRIENT INVENTORY AND PUBLIC
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER QUALITY IN THE ICHETUCKNEE
SPRINGS SYSTEM .............. ......................................................... 24

Nutrient Inventory of the Ichetucknee Springshed............... ......... .................... 24
Ichetucknee River .................. ..........................................24
A tm ospheric D eposition................... ............................. ....................................... 24
Lake City's Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) Sprayfield.............................24
O S T D S ..............................................................................2 5
L an d -U se s ..............................................................................2 6
C contingent V valuation Survey ........................................................................ ...................28
T theoretical F ram ew ork ............................................................................... .........2 8
Survey Design ................................. ................................ ......... 29
P re -T e stin g .................................................................................................3 3
Im p le m en tatio n ............................................................................................................. 3 4

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... .........36

Ichetucknee Springshed Nutrient Budget Results: Total and Relative Nitrate Loads from
In v en to rie d S o u rce s................................................................................................. 3 6
Ichetucknee River ........................................................................... .. ...... .......... ......... 36
Atmospheric Deposition...................................... 36
Lake City's Waste-Water Sprayfield ................................ ...............36









O S T D S .................................................. 3 7
L an d U ses ..................................... ..........................................................3 7
Summary of Total and Relative Loads.................. ....... ...............38
Results from the Contingent Valuation Survey of Columbia County ..................................41
D escriptiv e Statistics.............................................................................. ............ 4 1
Logit Analysis ................ ................................................... ......... 43
Interpretation of Regression Results .................................. .............................. ....... 45
M ean W T P ...................................................................4 6

5 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS................................................... ..................48

S u m m ary o f S tu d y ....................................... ............................................................. .. 4 8
L im stations and A ssum options ........................................................................ ...................49
L im itatio n s ................................................................5 0
A ssu m option s .................................................................................................... 50
C onclu sions.......... ..........................................................5 1

APPENDIX

A LAND-USE MAP OF THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGSHED ....................................... 53

B CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEY: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE
IC H E T U C K N E E R IV E R ................................................................................................. 54

C COMPLETE STATISTICAL RESULTS ....................................... ...............61

Survey Response Results ......... .. ... ........ ......................61

LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................... ... ............. ............... 65

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ................................................................................................... 68






















6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Estimated amount of nitrate-N leaving the Ichetucknee River..........................................36

4-2 Estimated nitrate-N load from Lake City's WWTF Sprayfield.............................36

4-3 Estimated nitrate-N load from On-Site Sewage Treatment Discharge Systems (Septic
T an k s) ......................................................... ...................................3 7

4-4 Estimated nitrate-N load from land Ises in the Ichetucknee Springshed ...........................38

4-5 Complete Inventory of nitrate-N Loads in the Ichetucknee Springshed...........................38

4-6 Logistic regression model of probability to pay vote for increased utility bill ................45









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

2-1 Hydrologic Map of the Ichetucknee Springshed ................... ............................... 21

4-1 Relative Contribution of Inventoried Sources to nitrate-N to the Ichetucknee
S p rin g sh ed ............................. .................................................................. ............... 4 0

4-2 Relative Contribution of Anthropogenic Sources of nitrate-N to the Ichetucknee
S p rin g sh ed ............................. .................................................................. ............... 4 0









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

VALUING PREFERENCES FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN THE
ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY FROM COLUMBIA COUNTY, FL

By

Chad Foster

August 2008

Chair: Janaki Alavalapati
Cochair: Matthew Cohen
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

This study estimates Columbia County residents' willingness to pay for water quality

improvements (specifically nitrate-N reductions) in the Ichetucknee Springs and River using the

contingent valuation method, a stated-preference valuation technique. After developing a nutrient

budget for the springshed to determine potential sources of nitrate we identified atmospheric

deposition, Lake City's wastewater sprayfield, on-site treatment discharge systems (septic tanks

~ 20% of anthropogenic nitrate load), and land uses (improved pasture, row crops, and urban) as

the contributing sources. This study focuses on improvements in water quality arising from

changes in septic tank technology due to the location of numerous septic tanks in the Icehtucknee

Trace and the fact that they are more easily identifiable than the larger non-point sources in the

basin.

A contingent valuation survey, a mail-out questionnaire was sent to approximately 1,000

Columbia County residents to achieve the objective. Specifically, residents were asked whether

they would support an increase in their monthly utility bill by a certain dollar amount in order to

pay for a program that would update septic tanks in the springshed in order to improve

wastewater treatment. Information was included in the questionnaire explaining links between









septic tanks in the springshed and resulting nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee. Further, information

on prior knowledge, socio-economic data, and demographic data were obtained to assist in

interpretation of the results.

The results of the survey reveal that majority of Columbia County residents have visited

the Ichetucknee and believe that protecting water quality in the River is an important concern.

The variables that affected the amount an individual was willing to pay included their political

affiliation, the frequency with which they visited the site, and how important they ranked

protecting water quality in the River. The mean willingness to pay was estimated to be $16.2 per

household per month over the course of ten years. Extrapolated out for the entire county this

amounts to a total willingness to pay of $40.7 million over the course of 10 years. This exceeds

the estimated cost ($25-30 million) of implementing the program to receive the increased level of

water quality.

The results imply that Columbia County residents place a substantial value on water

quality in the Ichetucknee River and are willing to pay for and participate in a program to

improve it. Using CVM is one of the few ways to place a value on a good that is otherwise

completely unknown. The results of this study help inform the debate over the allocation of

funds for groundwater protection, and should provide useful information for policymakers

considering stormwater planning, land-use changes in the county, and approval for increased

septic tanks permits. While this study provides an estimate of citizen's values for water quality in

the Ichetucknee, it is ultimately up to policymakers at the State and County levels to implement

any changes.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Ichetucknee River, in north-central Florida, begins at Ichetucknee Springs and runs 6.2

miles to the Santa Fe River, a tributary of the Suwannee River. The river is a pristine, crystal

clear spring run and is one of the largest tourist attractions in Columbia County, attracting around

200,000 visitors per year (FFWCC, 2006) and directly contributing an estimated $23 million per

year to the local economy (Bonn and Bell, 2003). The Ichetucknee is a unique environmental,

economic, and cultural resource for Columbia County. While immensely popular for tubing, it

provides many other recreational opportunities such as swimming, birding, kayaking, and scuba

diving.

Over the past two decades, nitrate levels in the springs and river have been increasing. The

amount of nitrate-N in the River has reached levels between .6 and .8 milligrams per liter (mg/L)

(SRWMD, 2006). This excessive nitrate-N has also occurred in association with dense growth of

algae that has occurred in some areas of the river, smothering vegetation and creating floating

mats on the surface. Certain varieties of algae (specifically Lyngbia wollei, a filamentous mat-

forming cyanobacterium) pose a health risk for swimmers and tubers that are allergic to it. While

it is hard to draw a mechanistic relationship between nitrate levels and toxic algae in the

Ichetucknee, there has been evidence of a correlation between the two (WSI, 2003). The nitrate

in the Ichetucknee also eventually ends up discharged into the Santa Fe and Suwannee rivers,

larger rivers of regional importance.

Nitrate (NO3) is an inorganic form of Nitrogen (N) that under certain circumstances

stimulates plant growth, while ammonium (NH4) is the preferred form of nitrogen for most

plants, plants can readily assimilate nitrate for the formation for amino acids. Nitrite (NO2) can

be formed from nitrate by a chemical process called N reduction and can be very toxic however









it is unstable and does not generally occur in significant levels (Phelps, 2004). Nitrate in drinking

water is typically measured in terms of the amount of nitrogen (not including oxygen); the

federal standard for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L nitrate-N.

Nitrate in groundwater not only causes ecological problems but can be a serious threat to

public health. Short-term exposure to drinking water with a nitrate level at or above the health

standard of 10 mg/L nitrate-N is a potential health problem primarily for infants and the elderly,

leading to a disease called methemoglobinemia. Methemoglobin is formed when nitrite oxidizes

the ferrous iron in hemoglobin to the ferric form which means that it cannot bind oxygen (Fan et

al. 1987). Infants consume large quantities of water relative to their body weight and their

immature digestive systems are more likely than adults' to allow the reduction of nitrate to nitrite

(Pierzynski et al, 1994).

Identifying and quantifying the sources of nitrate pollution within the springshed is the first

step in developing proper management practices and legal framework to protect the water quality

of Florida's springs (Katz, 1999). The definition of a springshed was developed by

Hydrogeology Consortium in 2002 and is stated as "those areas within groundwater and surface-

water basins that contribute to the discharge of the spring" (Upchurch and Champion, 2002).

This definition is important because it includes surface-water drainage basins, such as Rose

Creek and Alligator Lake that discharge into the Ichetucknee's groundwater basin via sinkholes,

swallets, and sinking streams. Contaminants in surface water run-off ultimately end up in the

Ichetucknee and could be significant sources of pollution in the springs. Therefore to gain an

understanding of the level of nutrient pollution in a spring one must account for all of the sources

in the entire springshed, a process referred to as nutrient budgeting.









Columbia County is mostly rural, and the majority of households are not connected to any

type of municipal sewage treatment system. This has led to the proliferation of thousands of on-

site sewage treatment discharge systems (OSTDS), more commonly known as septic tanks, in

the Ichetucknee springshed. A large percentage of the soils in Florida are unsuitable for

conventional septic tanks, mainly due to high water tables and shallow depth to bedrock. Owners

of septic tanks face the options of leaving their current systems alone and maintaining the status

quo, or paying for the installation of advanced on-site treatment systems which significantly

reduce nitrate load by an estimated 80 % (WCDOH).

Other sources include Lake City's wastewater treatment facility, which discharges its

effluent, which discharges its effluent on a spray-field in the Ichetucknee springshed. Various

land uses also contribute nitrate to the landscape in the springshed as well. Urban areas in the

springshed generally located in and around Lake City contribute nitrate mostly via fertilizer

runoff from residential lawns. Agricultural lands such as improved pasture and row-crops are

applied fertilizers to enhance their productivity and to increase benefits for their owners.

All of these sources of nitrates can be considered the negative consequences of human

actions, whether growing crops, fertilizing a yard, or simply flushing the toilet. Most of the

people who contribute to the loading of nitrates in the basin only see the benefits of their actions

such as a healthier crop or higher beef profits, and are not aware of, or affected by, the negative

results of their actions. These negative consequences, referred to as externalities, occur when a

person undertakes an action that costs or negative impacts to external stakeholders which need

not be paid or accounted for according to existing laws. These users have little incentive to stop

impacting the resource because all of the benefits accrue privately while the costs are spread

across the public, often from the use of a public good. A public good is a good whereby the









consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for

consumption by others; and no one can be effectively excluded from using that good (Mitchell

and Carson, 1989).

The nature of public goods prevents them from being publicly traded in any type of market

structure; however people still value these resources. Groundwater quality is a typical example of

a public good, one which is vitally important to humans and often impacted by human actions.

Estimating the values of these goods, and the public's preference for them, provides valuable

information to public decision-makers and natural resource managers. This information gives

them the ability to make better decisions regarding the use of public goods, and could provide

reasoning for creating incentives to discourage the affect of externalities. There are a number of

methods that provide ways of estimating the value of public goods (Carson, 2000). In order to

estimate the citizens of Columbia County's values for the Ichetucknee this study will utilize the

contingent valuation method.

The aim of the contingent valuation method (CVM) is to elicit preferences for the

provision of a good using a carefully designed survey or questionnaire. The survey asks

respondents to state their preferences by directly asking them their willingness to pay (WTP) for

a change in the quality or quantity of a public good. In the survey the respondent is presented

with a hypothetical market situation where the good can be purchased. The WTP response is

contingent on this hypothetical market, which is where the name of the methodology is derived

(Mitchell and Carson, 1989). In this study the difference in the level of water quality in the

Ichetucknee system is the good that is being purchased. This will allow us to estimate the value

of water quality in the Ichetucknee for residents of Columbia County.









There are several reasons why estimates for economic values of environmental resources

are required. The main reason is to just to justify and decide how to allocate public tax dollars on

conservation initiatives and to consider the public's support for environmental

initiatives. Natural resource valuation is also useful in order to compare the benefits of different

projects, to prioritize conservation or restoration projects, and to maximize the efficiency of

benefits per dollar spent. Ecosystem valuation also appeals to a wide array of groups, from

environmentalists who feel that natural ecosystems are severely undervalued and free-market

economists who believe valuation can enhance efficiency and allocation of environmental

benefits (Carpenter and Turner, 2000).

The purpose of this study is to provide the Columbia County Government, Suwannee

River Water Management District, and all other interested parties an inventory of the sources of

nitrate pollution in the Ichetucknee springshed. The nutrient budget is needed due to a lack of

information and misconceptions of nutrient sources in the basin among decision makers and

constituents in the Basin. By identifying the sources and loads of N in the basin, if there is a

policy that needs to be implemented concerning the Ichetucknee, this data should inform it.

The other objective of this study is to estimate the public's willingness to pay to improve

and protect water quality in the Ichetucknee using the contingent valuation method. The results

of this study help inform the debate over the allocation of funds for groundwater protection, and

should provide useful information for policymakers in the region. This information can only be

provided by surveying the public and asking them directly to state their values and preferences.









CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND AREA OF STUDY

Related Studies

The Ichetucknee is not the only spring system in Florida that is facing threats from nitrate

contamination. In fact over the past 40 years many springs in Florida, including those that

contribute to the Suwannee River watershed, have shown increasing trends in regard to levels of

nitrate-N (Katz 1992, Hornsby and Ceryak 1999).

Many of the elements of the nutrient budget portion of this study were designed using

similar methods to studies based on other water- and springshed nutrient studies in Florida

(Pittman et al 1997, Katz 1999, Chellette 2002, Phelps 2004). All of these studies analyzed

nitrate loading from various anthropogenic sources as the main parameter of concern.

Katz (1999) conducted a nutrient inventory of the Suwannee River basin in order to

account for sources of nitrate pollution in the many springs discharging into the Santa Fe and

Suwannee River. Each source is accounted for on a county by county basis as opposed to

hydrologic boundaries, such as a springshed. The study also accounts for fertilizer sales and

animal wastes individually, as opposed to estimating the output from agricultural land-uses that

account for their combined load. Isotope analysis was used to help determine whether the

sources of nitrates were primarily from organic such as human or animal wastes or mineral

sources, such as fertilizers.

Approximately 50 years worth of Nitrogen data was analyzed to show the influences and

changes of different sources over time. The investigators found that in Columbia County, the

largest sources of nitrates in recent years were fertilizers, atmospheric deposition, and wastes

from beef cattle. As the Ichetucknee is a sub-component of the Santa Fe and Suwannee River









systems, the sources presented in the Katz (1999) study were closely scrutinized for their

applicability to our study.

In order to account for elevated nitrate levels in the Wakulla Springs system Chellette et al

(2002) quantify the various inputs of nitrogen to the landscape of Wakulla and Leon counties.

One of the major sources of nitrates in these regions is waste-water sprayfields, which are also

present in the Ichetucknee system, although to a much lesser extent.

CVM provides a way to estimate values for goods where no markets existed and revealed

preference methods could not be used (Brown et al, 2003). The contingent valuation is well

suited for estimating the value of a public good such as groundwater quality (Brown et al, 2003).

The method has been used successfully to estimate public willingness to pay for water quality

improvements in numerous other studies, (Ahtian 2007, d'Arge and Shogren 1989, Loomis et al

2000, Shrestha and Alavalapati, 2004).

Loomis, et al. (2000) used CVM to estimate household's WTP for five ecosystem services

associated with restoration of a section of the Platte River in Colorado. The services that were

examined included dilution of wastewater, natural water purification, recreation, erosion control,

and wildlife habitat. The investigators used a dichotomous-choice WTP question to determine if

residents' would pay for increases in these ecosystems services by an increase in their water bill.

The funds generated from this increase were to be used for a variety of habitat restoration

projects, conservation easements and implementation of best management practices.

The study found that participants were willing to pay an average of $21 per month for the

services for a total value of $19-70 million for the population along the river (Loomis et al.

2000). The results indicate that citizens are willing to pay a monthly fee $20 per month to protect

water quality in rivers. This study went to great lengths to ensure that participants correctly









interpreted and understood the information presented in the interviews and questionnaires, which

enhances its validity.

The rivers of New Mexico's Four Corners Region provide miles of critical habitat for nine

threatened or endangered species of fish. Protection of these species required habitat

improvements, fish passageways, and releases of water from dams to imitate natural water flows

required by the fish (Barrens et al 1996). A CV survey was sent to a sample of 800 households

in the Four Corners states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. They were told that

some State and Federal officials thought the combined costs of the habitat improvements and the

restrictions on hydropower were too costly, and were asked if they would contribute to the Four

Corners Region Threatened and Endangered Fish Trust Fund (Barrens et al 1996). The annual

mean WTP was estimated to be $195 per household, which is a comparable figure from the

results of the Loomis (2000) study.

In order to determine WTP for protection from a higher level of environmental threat than

increased nutrients runoff, Ahtian (2007) conducted a CV study to determine the value of

increased protection from oil spills in the Gulf of Finland. The respondents were asked a

dichotomous choice question, whether they would vote for an increase in federal taxes of a

certain Bid amount, and the oil spill response and prevention services were described to be

provided by the Finnish government. The results reveal a mean WTP from 22.6-83.7 euros ($34-

$125.6 US) and a conservative aggregate WTP of 109 million euros for the entire nation.

This estimate is considered very conservative because it uses the lower estimate for mean

WTP and assumes that non-respondents values for oil spill protection are zero. The study also

does not take into account the values from citizens from other countries surrounding the Gulf,

such as Russia and Estonia. While the mean WTP is smaller than in several other studies of river









ecosystems (Loomis 2000, Bishop 1989) the respondents represent a much broader geographic

range and are therefore not as closely tied to the resource as the participants in many other CVM

studies of water quality. The aggregate WTP is also much larger than in other CVM studies due

to the large population size. The Ichetucknee is a much smaller river than those valued in the

previous studies and our study will encompass a much smaller geographic area, Columbia

County, FL.

Many early CVM studies met with a great deal of criticism and many researchers were

skeptical of the "hypothetical market". Many of the criticisms were addressed by several validity

studies that took place in subsequent years, the most crucial being Bishop and Heberlein's (1979)

validity study. Their study compared CV to two more widely accepted valuation methods, travel-

cost method (TCM) and cash transactions showed that CVM generated values that were quite

comparable to TCM estimates and slightly conservative compared to cash transactions.

Mitchell and Carson's (1989) book on contingent valuation made a large impact on the

practice of CVM, and provided recommendations for designing a CV study, a broad overview of

the method for novices, and prescriptive recommendations that led to a new standard for research

on the validity of the method (Brown, 2003). While there continued to be doubts pertaining to

the reliability of CVM, the 1993 NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel to evaluate the credibility of utilizing

CVM to estimate non-use values for environmental goods helped to increase the reliability of the

method (NOAA, 1993). The panel provided guidelines and procedures for CVM study design

and implementation that develop "reliable" estimates of non-use values (Arrow et al. 1993).

Most of the guidelines suggested by the NOAA Panel (Arrow et al. 1993) and Boyle (2003) were

taken into account in this study in order to ensure validity and reliable estimates for the value of

water quality improvements in the Ichetucknee.









While this study uses a very common version of CVM, it is unique in that (as far as the

knowledge of the author) it is one of the only studies to combine this with a complete nutrient

inventory of the sample region in which the study is conducted. This combination allows for a

more direct relationship between the sources of pollution that are detrimental to the resource and

the estimated amount individuals will pay to reduce those sources.

Study Area

Ecological and Physical Characteristics of the Study Area

The Ichetucknee Springs Basin is approximately 300 square miles located mostly in

Columbia County. Eight named springs create the Ichetucknee River that joins the Santa Fe

River four miles south of the headspring. The springs that collectively comprise the Ichetucknee

complex are first magnitude, with an average flow of 222 million gallons per day (SRWMD,

2007). The creeks and lakes in the basin drain through sinkholes into conduits in the limestone.

The conduits are gaps in the limestone where the rock has been dissolved away and through

which groundwater flows down gradient to Ichetucknee Springs. Large portions of groundwater

recharge occur in the un-confined areas of the springshed. Separate dye trace studies have

confirmed the connection of Rose Sink to the springs, and Black and Dyal Sinks, located in

Clayhole Creek, with Rose Sink and the springs (Upchurch and Champion, 2003).











Legend
* GW Levels Clie
S GW ualty Walebodie
n Sfpngs | I ch ckneS Splng St in
A UES ftw gages labelei r Ilchelucknepe Spingshed


0 5 10 Kilometers

Figure 2-1. Hydrologic Map of the Ichetucknee Springshed
Figure 2-1. Hydrologic Map of the Ichetucknee Springshed


ti'


The Cody Scarp is a geological divide that separates lands to the north that are part of the

confined region of the aquifer and lands to the south that are considered unconfined. The clay

layer in the confined areas north of the scarp helps decrease groundwater intrusion and thus

protects groundwater somewhat from pollution. The unconfined areas south of the scarp are

more susceptible to groundwater pollution due to this lack of protection.

Ichetucknee Springs State Park (ISSP) was established in 1970 and today it is the premier

tubing river in the country. Trampling of the river bottom by tubers during the 1970's caused

severe damage to the native aquatic plant communities of the springs and river. A carrying









capacity was initiated in the 1980's to maintain a balance between recreational use and

preservation of the river (ISBWG, 2006). A survey of submerged aquatic vegetation was

conducted in 2003 and found that approximately 78% of the Ichetucknee river-bottom is covered

with submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). By comparing this to an older study conducted before

the formation of ISSP, they found that SAV had increased by 350% since 1979 (Kurtz et al

2004)

In 2006 FDEP conducted a water quality study of the Ichetucknee, comparing data

between 1995-2006, with the purpose of determining whether sites of contamination in the basin

were affecting water quality and to see if algal growth in areas of the river were having a

negative affect. Several sampling sites were established in the recharge basin and compared to

sites along the river. The study found that pesticide, herbicide, and metals were not an issue

along the river. Total phosphorous was found to be relatively low in the river and showed no

significant change from 1995-2006. Nitrate-nitrite levels in the springs however were elevated,

and many exceeded the 85-90th percentile concentration for Florida rivers (FDEP, 2006a). The

2006 nitrate concentrations also tended to be slightly higher than those in 1995 indicating an

increasing trend over time. However, this study could not provide conclusive links between the

presence of nitrates and overgrowth of algae that has occurred in parts of the river.

Another FDEP ecological study was conducted in 2006 that measured water quality data,

as well as conducting a habitat assessment and benthic macro-invertebrate stream condition

index (SCI). This study also found levels of nitrates to be elevated in the Ichetucknee. The

habitat assessment score was 134 and which is considered in the "optimal" range. The results of

the SCI, a complex method of comparing taxa of macro-invertebrates, revealed a score of 56

which is comparable to other relatively undisturbed streams in the state (FDEP, 2006b). Both of









these studies conclude that the main issue of concern in the Ichetucknee system is the level of

nitrate-N, however cannot conclude that Nitrate is necessarily causing the problems of algae

growth, based on their evidence.

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Study Area

Columbia County located in North-central Florida has a population of approximately

67,000 and a relatively low population density of 71 people per square mile. The area has seen

fast population growth, almost 19% between the years 2000-2006, higher than even Florida's

average of 13% during that period (USCB, 2007). There are around 21,000 households in the

county, with approximately 2.6 people per household. The county seat is the City of Lake City,

its largest population center with approximately 14,000 residents.

Median household income was $32,455 which is lower than the State average of $40,900

and the poverty level is around 14%. In 2000, the home-ownership rate was 77% which is higher

than the state average. Healthcare is the largest employment sector with over 3,000 paid

employees; other large employers in the county include Retail and Accommodation and Food

Services (USCB, 2007).









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A NUTRIENT INVENTORY AND PUBLIC
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER QUALITY IN THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS
SYSTEM

Nutrient Inventory of the Ichetucknee Springshed

Ichetucknee River

To quantify the N mass-balance equation of the Ichetucknee springshed system, the total

mass of Nitrate leaving the system via the River was needed. This was calculated by multiplying

the mean concentration, by mass, of nitrate in the river water by the total flow in Liters-per-day

Atmospheric Deposition

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and other elements is a naturally occurring

phenomenon that has been altered by human activities, specifically the burning of fossil fuels

and the release of nitrogen- and sulphur-oxides into the atmosphere. It is then deposited on the

land surface by rainfall and dry deposition. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program

(NADP) is a cooperative effort between the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, U.S.

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and numerous other governmental and

private entities which monitors atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and other substances. The

estimate for nitrate loading contributed by atmospheric deposition were obtained using data

collected by the NADP/NTN station located in Bradford Forest (Bradford County, Florida; ca.

50km from Ichetucknee) (NADP, 2006) and multiplying by the area of the springshed.

Lake City's Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) Sprayfield

Lake City is a town of roughly 14,000, located in Columbia County. The city's effluent

irrigation spray-field system was completed in 1987, sending secondary effluent from the St.

Margaret Road Water Reclamation Facility through 4 miles of pipeline to the effluent irrigation

site. Effluent is applied to the treatment fields through an irrigation system consisting of 70









fixed-gun type sprinklers (CLC, 2006). The Lake City Waste-Water Treatment Facility (WWTF)

is located south of the Cody Scarp in the springshed. To calculate the nitrate load from the Lake

City WWTF, the average annual concentration of nitrate was multiplied by the average annual

loading rate of the system.

OSTDS

On-site Sewage Treatment Discharge Systems (OSTDS) are the most common form of

domestic wastewater treatment in rural and unincorporated areas outside of cities. Due to the

rural nature of the Ichetucknee Springs Basin, the majority of households located in the area are

not connected to any type of municipal sewage treatment facility. Therefore most use OSTDS,

more commonly referred to as septic tanks. For most properly sited and installed septic tanks

nitrification is the most prominent mechanism in aerobic soils, and leads to a conversion of

organic and ammonium nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. The majority of soils are incapable of

absorbing these nitrates, which eventually penetrate the groundwater (Bicki, 1984).

Septic tank effluent typically contains levels of total N between 40 and 80 mg/1 and mean

levels around 55mg/l (Otis, 1975). Many studies have demonstrated high levels of nitrates, those

exceeding the safe drinking-water level of 10 mg/1, great distances from OSTDS sites. Nitrate is

very soluble and travels easily through aerobic soils into groundwater.

A large percentage of the soils in Florida are unsuitable for conventional septic tanks,

mainly due to high water tables and shallow depth to bedrock. However, these conventional

systems can be modified to improve the treatment of effluent and reduce nitrates in the

groundwater. Some advanced modifications include mechanical aeration, separated chambers,

nutrient removal systems, pressurized application systems, and electro-osmosis systems (Bicki,

1984)









Due to unreliable records it is difficult to determine the actual number of active septic

tanks in the basin. This study instead attempts to simply determine the approximate population of

people in the basin using septic tanks. The amount of N input from septic tanks was determined

by estimating the total number of people within the basin that were not on municipal water

supply (therefore assumed to be on septic systems). This was done by multiplying the area of the

basin by the population density of Columbia County to obtain a total population for the basin

(25,123 people), and subtracting the number of citizens served by Lake City's municipal water

supply (approximately 13,500 people) for a total of 11,623. This figure was multiplied by the per

capital load of 4.2kg N/yr (Otis, 1993) for the total annual load from septic tanks. This per capital

figure was used by Katz, et al in a nutrient study of the Suwannee River watershed (Katz, 1999)

as well as Chellette in a study of the Wakulla Springs system (Chellette, 2002).

Land-Uses

Land-use within a drainage basin is on of the most important factors in determining the

characteristics of runoff and groundwater quality in the basin. Several different types of land-

uses are associated with elevated levels of nitrogen, most obviously agricultural land-uses.

Several studies have used fertilizer sales as a proxy for the amount of nitrogen applied to

agricultural lands (Chelette 2002, Phelps, 2004) though there are several drawbacks to this

technique. There is no guarantee that fertilizer sold in a county is used only in that county, or that

fertilizer is not imported from outside the county and subsequently applied to agricultural land in

the study area.

This study examines the specific types of land-uses in the Ichetucknee Springshed and the

nutrient loads associated with these lands. This was accomplished using GIS mapping and data.

By overlapping the SRWMD 1995 Land-Use Map with the delineated boundaries of the

Ichetucknee Springshed we were able to determine the area of hectares of every type of land-use









in the Ichetucknee Springshed (Appendix A). While there are a variety of land-use designations

in the area, improved pasture land, row crops, and urban land-uses were examined closely due to

their associated levels of nitrogen input.

For the urban and improved pasture land-use categories, per hectare values of nitrate-N

loading were obtained from Harper's (1994) study of stormwater run-off from various types of

land-uses in Central and South Florida.

Urban. The Urban land-use designation used in this study is very general and is defined as

"urban and built-up lands consisting of areas of intensive use with much of the land occupied by

man-made structures" (FDOT, 1999). This includes strip malls, residential areas, shopping

centers, commercial and industrial complexes, government buildings, etc. The Urban category

takes precedent over other categories if the area meets the criteria for more than one designation.

For example, a Residential area with sufficient tree canopy cover to be considered an Upland

Forest designation will still be classified as Urban.

Urban land-uses are often associated with large percentages of impermeable surfaces such

as buildings and parking lots, and therefore have a significant affect on stormwater run-off. Other

sources of nitrates associate with the urban land-use designation include fertilizer run-off from

residential lawns. To calculate the amount of nitrate loading associated with urban land-use the

area of urban land was multiplied by the per-area amount from the Harper (1994) study.

Improved Pasture. The Improved Pasture land-use designation used in this study was

defined as "land which has been cleared, tilled, reseeded with specific grass and periodically

improved with brush control and fertilizer applications" (FDOT, 1999). This was one of the

largest land-uses in the basin and therefore played a significant role in the overall nutrient









budget. To determine the nitrate load from Improved Pasture lands the area of coverage was

multiplied by the loading rate from the Harper study.

Row Crops. The Row Crops land-use designation is defined as fields where "rows remain

well-defined even after crops have been harvested" (FDOT, 1999) and typically include potatoes,

beans, corn and tomatoes. These types of land-uses are often associated with heavy levels of

nutrient input, mainly in the form of fertilizers.

To determine the amount of nitrate loading per hectare from Row Crops, a value was

obtained from a watershed assessment study by Soil and Water Engineering Technology for

SRWMD (SWET, 1998). The study used computer modeling to simulate N loading to

groundwater from various types of land-uses. Their figure for Row Crops was multiplied by the

amount of hectares of Row Crops in the basin to obtain a total load. This value is much higher on

a per-hectare basis than the other land-uses, as would be expected from a higher-intensity

agricultural designation.

Contingent Valuation Survey

Theoretical Framework

The model for contingent valuation method is based in random utility theory (McFadden,

1973). Utility is defined as a function of a household's income, y, given price of goods which are

constant, a vector of environmental quality, q, and a vector of individual characteristics, C:

u= u(y, q, C) (1)

Indirect utility, v, is composed of two parts, one that can be estimated by the researcher

and one that is random:

v = u + (2)

The utility for maintaining the status quo for environmental quality, qo is:

vo= uo(y, qo, C)+ 8o (3)









while the utility for a change in environmental quality, q1, where p is the price paid, is:

vi= ui(y-p, ql, C) + E1 (4)

where 8, (i = 0, 1) are the random, unobserved components of utility that are

independently and identically distributed.

u,j = oC, + B(y, p) + E1 (5)



u1o = aCi + By, +eo (6)



For an individual that must answer a question: "Would you vote for a program that permanently

increased water quality from qo to q1 if it would increase your monthly utility bill by $p for this

year?" the individual would respond yes if



ui (y-p, q',C) + Ei uo (y, qO,C) + o > 0 (7)

The probability of a yes response is given by the probability that utility received with the

program is greater than the utility received without the program:

Pr(Y) = Pr[vi (y-p, q',C)+C > v(y, q,C)+ Co] = Pr [Au >0] (8)

Survey Design

The design of the survey instrument is the most important part of the contingent valuation

method, because the results of contingent valuation surveys are extremely sensitive to what

respondents believe they are being asked to value, as well as the context that is described in the

survey (Holmes and Boyle, 2005). It is important to clearly define the good that is being valued

and the method of its provision, and to demonstrate that respondents are actually stating their

values for the good when they answer the WTP question.









The contingent valuation portion of this study focused on the nitrate load from septic tanks.

This source was chosen for several reasons, first, they are point source in the sense that the

majority of the tanks in the basin can be located and identified. Second, information on the

method to reduce this load, installing advanced treatment tanks, is available and the cost of such

a program can be estimated readily. Third, while septic tanks may be a relatively small fraction

of the total load of nitrate to the landscape, many tanks are located in areas of the Springshed

(Ichetucknee Trace) that are particularly vulnerable to N loading and transport. The sample

population for this study was chosen to be all the residents of Columbia County due mainly to

their proximity to the Ichetucknee.

While citizens from other counties and most likely other states visit the River and value the

health of the ecosystem, it was not feasible to account for these non-residents due to time and

cost restraints. It was also not considered feasible to target only residents of the Ichetucknee

Springshed due to the difficulty of obtaining addresses for that limited area as well as the fact

that any implementation of a tax or utility fee increase across a non-standard political boundary

is unrealistic.

A sample size of approximately 1,000 residents was chosen to ensure significant numbers

for statistical analysis for the population of Columbia County, which is approximately 64,000

people. Addresses were obtained from the Columbia County Property Appraisers Office, which

resulted in a sample of households who are home-owners as opposed to renters. This is

significant in that renters would have very little incentive to pay increased fees for a septic

system they do not own.

A mail survey was selected as the form of data collection mode for several reasons. First,

mail surveys are the most commonly used method for contingent valuation studies (Brown,









2003) and Columbia County has reliable records for mailing addresses. Second, because the

information to be collected was easily presented in such a format, it was unnecessary to

communicate directly with participants via phone or in person. Third, this collection mode was

consistent with the budget and time restraints of the investigators.

An important component of the survey design process was development of the information

and questions to be included in the survey (Mitchell and Carson 1989, Boyle 2003). The survey

was designed based on input from experts, policymakers in the area, and residents of the area.

The booklet first gave a description of Ichetucknee and asked questions concerning the

participants' interaction with the River. The next section described generally the role of nitrates

in the environmental change and common man-made sources of nitrates. It then described the

problem of nitrates in the Ichetucknee, a brief description of septic tanks, and the role septic

tanks play in the problem.

Following each information treatment, questions were asked to determine the participants'

prior knowledge of each subject, and understanding of the issue. These questions were included

in order to help ensure that respondents would carefully read the material in the questionnaire, so

they could make an informed choice when responding to the WTP question. The WTP question

proposes a creating a program that would replace standard septic tanks in the Ichetucknee

Springshed with advanced models that greatly reduce nitrate pollution. The program would result

in an increase in the respondents' monthly utility bill.

For the response format of the contingent valuation question this study used a dichotomous

choice or For/Against question format. This essentially allows the participant to vote for or

against a set monetary amount (Bid Amount), which was varied evenly across the sample

population. The dichotomous choice format forces respondents to choose between the utility









associated with paying the stated amount or maintaining the status quo. If the participant

perceives the increased utility is greater than the $ amount, he will vote "For" the program

(Hanemann, 1984). The dichotomous choice format was chosen for its applicability to the

subject and simplicity of analysis. The actual wording for the CV question was:



Q-8 Suppose that Columbia County is considering implementing a program to update,
modify, and maintain septic tanks in the county in order to improve water quality in the
Ichetucknee River. The program would use tax dollars to create incentives to compensate
home-owners who currently have septic tanks to update to new treatment technologies.
Based on scientific evidence this program is expected to reduce nitrate loading to the
Ichetucknee River by approximately 20% over the next 10 years.

The ecological benefits in the Ichetucknee would include improved water clarity, reduction
of excessive algae growth, and protection of natural wildlife habitat. The funding for this
program would come from an increase in Columbia County households' utility bills of
$ per month for the next 10 years. If this initiative were on the next election ballot
would you vote:


0 For DAgainst



The time frame for payment was described as monthly payments over the period of 10

years, which was selected in order to be realistic about the amount of time it would take to get a

program such as the one described in the survey operating. The bid amounts were set as $5, $10,

$15, $20, and $25 per month and were evenly dispersed through the sample. The estimated cost

of this program was estimated to be approximately $25 million based on the estimated number of

septic tanks in the basin (5,000) and the approximate cost of installation for advanced treatment

systems ($5,000 per unit -WCDOH, 2007). Ancillary questions were asked in order to obtain

socio-economic data on the participants.









Pre-Testing

Pre-testing helps to ensure that survey questions are stated clearly, easily understandable to

respondents, and are eliciting the information they are intended to (Brown et al, 2003). Pre-

testing of the survey was limited due to budgetary constraints. After designing the survey and

reviewing it with several experts and colleagues on campus at the University of Florida the

survey was sent via email too several local contacts in Columbia County. The draft survey was

sent electronically to several knowledgeable local experts on the area including the Columbia

County Manager at the time Dale Williams and the head of the Ichetucknee Springs Basin

Working Group, Jim Stevenson, for review.

The pre-testing was conducted on a one-on-one basis with the investigator and pre-test

subjects from Alachua and Columbia Counties. Three pre-test subjects were interviewed at

Ichetucknee Springs, while two were interviewed at local area establishments. Participants were

asked to read through and complete the entire survey as if they had just received it in the mail,

while recording any comments or concerns they had. After completing they survey, they were

asked to share their comments and were questions to determine how well they understood the

content of the survey.

Results of the pre-tests varied but most of the participants had little problem interpreting

the problems associated with nitrates or the WTP question. Two participants were not very

familiar with the Ichetucknee but felt the survey conveyed the issues quite well. Most of the

concerns from pre-testing involved the fairness of taxing the entire county when only a small

portion of county residents septic tanks are located in the springshed. Several participants

reasoned that only those residents with septic tanks near the springs should be responsible for

paying for water quality improvements. Some participants were also concerned about the

equitability of the tax and its impact on low-income residents. The comments received during









pre-testing were incorporated into the survey as best as possible, and after a final review the

surveys were deemed ready for mass printing and mailing.

Implementation

Following a modified version of Dillman's method (2000), a technique designed to

improve response rates from surveys, a pre-notification was sent to every participant several days

before they received the surveys. The notification was in the form of a postcard which explained

that the respondent had been randomly selected for a study by the University of Florida

concerning water quality in the Ichetucknee River. It informed them that they would be receiving

a questionnaire in the next few days and that their opinions were greatly needed. It also

explained that their answers were strictly confidential. The actual wording of the notification

postcard was:

The University of Florida is conducting a study to explore the possibility of improving and
protecting water quality in the Ichetucknee River. In a few days you will receive a
questionnaire in the mail. In this study we will ask you a series of questions regarding your
interactions with the Ichetucknee and your preference towards improving water quality in
the river and springs.

The information we are collecting will help us better manage the River and protect its
waters. The questionnaire takes approximately 10 minutes and is completely confidential.
Please take the time to answer the questions, as we greatly value your opinions and need
your assistance.


In total, 948 surveys were sent out via first class mail from the University of Florida Mail

Room on July 9, 2007. Due to budget constraints neither a follow-up reminder letter nor a second

wave of surveys could be sent. The mailing addresses were selected randomly from a list of

approximately 20,000 that was composed by the Columbia County Property Appraisers Office.

Of the 1,000 surveys that were planned to be sent out approximately 52 were no included due to

bad addresses, deceased residents, or where it was indicated the property was held in a trust. The

total amount of surveys mailed out was 948, of which only two were returned to sender, for a









total of 946. The number of valid returned surveys was 169, for a response rate of 17.8%. The

first surveys to be returned were received on July 23rd and the majority were received by the 20th

of August.

Analysis

Since the respondents to the survey were asked to give a "Yes/No" response to a specific

dollar amount to implement the program, as represented by Equation 8 of the theoretical model,

the probability of them answering "Yes" to a certain amount is statistically calculated using the

logit model (Hanemann, 1984). The relationship is presented as:

Probability Yes = 1 { 1+exp[Bo Bi($X)]}-1 (9)

Where B's are coefficients estimated using logit analysis, $X is a monetary amount the

household is asked to pay. The coefficients must include the bid amount, and may also include

socio-economic information and responses to attitude questions (Loomis, 2000).

Different specifications of the logit model are possible. The model present here includes

several theoretically important socio-economic variables as well questions concerning opinions

and interactions with the Ichetucknee. The logistic regression was performed using STATA

statistical program, the results of which will be discussed in Chapter 4.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ichetucknee Springshed Nutrient Budget Results: Total and Relative Nitrate Loads from
Inventoried Sources



Ichetucknee River

The mean concentration of nitrate in the Ichetucknee River in 2006 was 0.6 mg/L (FDEP,

2006a) and the total flow of the river was 222.26 million GPD. This amounts to a total of

184,235 kg N per year flowing from the Ichetucknee River.



Table 4-1. Estimated amount of nitrate-N leaving the Ichetucknee River
Flow(L per day) mg/L N Kg N/yr

222,260,000 0.6 184,235


Atmospheric Deposition

The estimate for nitrate loading contributed by atmospheric deposition was obtained using

data collected by the NADP/NTN station which was then multiplied by the area of the

springshed (approximately 92,000 ha), to give an estimate of the total amount of nitrate-N

contributed to the Ichetucknee Springshed by atmospheric deposition. The estimated nitrate-N

Load From atmospheric deposition was 199,603 KgN/yr.

Lake City's Waste-Water Sprayfield

To calculate the nitrate load from the Lake City WWTF, the average annual concentration

of nitrate (approximately 10mg/L) was multiplied by the average annual loading rate of the

system (2.5 million GPD) for a total of 34,538 kgN/year. The potential nitrate load was also

calculated using the total permitted loading rate of 3.0 million GPD for a total of 41,446 kgN/yr.

Table 4-2. Estimated nitrate-N load from Lake City's WWTF Sprayfield









WWTF
MGD


L/Gallon


mg/L N


Actual 2,500,000 3.785 10 94.625 34,538
Permit 3,000,000 3.785 10 113.55 41,446


OSTDS

The amount of N input from septic tanks was determined by estimating the total number of

people within the basin that were not on municipal water supply multiplied by the per capital load

of 4.2kg N/yr. The total annual load from septic tanks was estimated to be 48,817 kgN/yr.

Table 4-3. Estimated nitrate-N load from On-Site Sewage Treatment Discharge Systems (Septic
Tanks)
OSTDS
Population kg-N/yr per capital kg-N/yr
11,623 4.2 48,817


Land Uses

Urban. To calculate the amount of nitrate loading associated with urban land-use the area

of urban land (8,400 ha) was multiplied by the per-area load (7.4 kgN/ha-yr) for a total of 62,160

kgN/yr.

Improved Pasture. To determine the nitrate load from improved pasture lands the area of

coverage (20,500 ha) was multiplied by the loading rate (1 lkgN/ha-yr) for a total of 225,500 kg-

N/yr.

Row Crops. The estimated load from row crops was determined by multiplying the

loading rate of 38 lbs/ac-yr (42.6 kgN/ha-yr) by the amount of hectares of row crops in the basin

(1,300), for a total of 55,380 kg-N/yr.


Kg/day


kgN/yr









Table 4-4. Estimated nitrate-N load from land Ises in the Ichetucknee Springshed
Land Use
Type Kg-N/ha yr Ha Kg-N/yr
Urban 7.4 8400 62160
Improved Pasture 11 20500 225500
Row Crops 42.6 1300 55380
Total N L-Use 343040


Summary of Total and Relative Loads

The estimates in Table 6 represent total loads to the landscape within the Ichetucknee

Springshed in 2006, not necessarily total loads to the aquifer, which has been standard practice

for other nutrient budget studies (Chellette 2002, Katz, 1999). This fact accounts for the large

difference between the total nitrate load (approximately 626,000 kgN/yr) compared to the yield

from the River (184,235 kgN/yr). The difference between the load and yield must be assumed to

be the result of a variety of uptakes, sinks, and transformations that occur between the point that

the nitrate is release to the landscape and the time that it emerges in the River. Attempting to

accurately account for the affect of these dissimilarity processes was considered beyond the

scope of this project, due mainly to time constraints, but would be a very useful exercise for

future studies.


Table 4-5. Complete Inventory of nitrate-N Loads in the Ichetucknee Springshed
Source
Load (kg-N/yr)
WWTF 34,538
OSTDS 48,817
Atm Dep 199,603
Urban 62,160
Crop 55,380
Pasture 225,500
Total 625,998









Another factor that most likely contributed to the large difference between the load of

nitrates and the yield is the affect of geology on the amounts and rates of nitrate intrusion in the

different areas of the springshed. While certain sources of nitrates might occur mainly in the

relatively protected, confined areas of the springshed, other sources might have more immediate

impacts in the unconfined areas of the Ichetucknee Trace. The application of nitrate from sources

such as the Lake City WWTF and septic tanks are typically constant and concentrated in a small

area, while the application of nitrates in the form of fertilizers are most likely seasonal and

relatively diffuse.

There is also a significant time-lag that is not accounted for in this study, which only

considers the nitrate loads from 2006. While the loading occurred in 2006, the amount of time it

will take for that water to emerge in the springs is not really known, and could likely vary from

weeks in the Ichetucknee Trace to years in the confined areas in the northern regions of the

springshed. Water that was discharged years before this study was conducted could be having an

affect on the current level of nitrate in the springs and river. One of the largest assumptions this

study makes is the assertion that reducing loads from current sources will have a more or less

immediate impact on the water quality of the springs, which may simply not be the case.


































Figure4-1. Relative Contribution of Inventoried Sources to nitrate-N to the Ichetucknee
Springshed



VWVTF
8%/0


PASTURE
53%


OBTDS
11%





URBAN 15%





CROP 13%


Figure 3. Relative Contribution from Anthropogenic nitrate-N Sources in
Ichetucknee Springshed


Figure 4-2. Relative Contribution of Anthropogenic Sources of nitrate-N to the Ichetucknee
Springshed

Figure 3 summarizes the relative contribution of each inventoried source of nitrate in the

Springshed in 2006, while Figure 4 summarizes the relative contribution of the anthropogenic


S 'WIVF 6%
1h, /STDS 8%


Pasture 35%/c




Atm Eep 32%



FURWCRDP 9%0/
URBAN 10%

Figure 2 Relative Contribution of the Inventoried Sources of nitrate-N in the Ichetucknee
Springshed









sources of nitrate, therefore it does include atmospheric deposition. While the levels of nitrate

contributed from Atmospheric Deposition have been influenced by human actions, particularly

emissions of Nitrous oxides into the atmosphere, this issue could not be addressed in this study.

The results of the nutrient budget reveal that at the scale of the Ichetucknee Springshed it is

clear that runoff from Land Uses comprises around 80% of the anthropogenic load, with over

half derived from Improved Pasture land-uses. Septic Tanks and Lake City's WWTF comprise

the remainder of the load. Fertilizer runoff from agricultural land uses (improved pasture and

row crops) is the greatest contributor of nitrate to the landscape, and should be a major focus in

managing the Springshed. Lake City's WWTF does not appear to be a major contributor of

nitrates to the Springshed. While septic tanks were utilized in the CVM portion of this study,

they do not represent a major relative load to the landscape.

Results from the Contingent Valuation Survey of Columbia County

Descriptive Statistics

This section is a brief summary of some of the descriptive statistics obtained from the

contingent valuation survey. The attitudinal and behavioral questions that were included in the

survey allow the researcher to gain an understanding of how the population feels and how often

they interact with the resource that is being valued. These questions are useful to gauge how well

the participants understand the information described in the survey and their prior knowledge. A

complete version of the results from the survey can be found in Appendix: C. The descriptive

statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel and STATA statistical package.

Visitation: Approximately 84% of those surveyed indicated they have visited Ichetucknee

Springs at least once, while 60% of respondents visit the springs 1-2 times per year, 15% visit 3-

5 times per year, 3% visit 6-10 times per year, and 5% visit over 11 times per year. The fact that

such a large proportion of the sample population has visited the Ichetucknee indicates how









popular the site is among residents of Columbia County. There is a possibility that this high rate

of visitation (84%) could be an effect of sample bias, however, the researchers feel that this is

unlikely. Ichetucknee Springs is the largest tourist attraction in Columbia County and it stands to

reason that a large percentage of local residents would have visited the site. Almost 20,000 local

residents visited in 2002 alone (Bonn and Bell, 2003), therefore it seems that 84% is not an

unrealistic figure and would most likely be reflected in the total population.

Importance: When asked "How important is it to you to protect Ichetucknee Springs from

nitrate pollution?" 57% responded 'Very Important', 33% responded 'Important', 8% responded

'Somewhat Important', and only 2% responded 'Not Important'. These results indicate that a

high percentage of Columbia County residents are concerned about the health of the Ichetucknee.

This could also be affected by response bias, as individuals who have little regard of the

Ichetucknee would not be likely to participate in a study on it.

Participation: When septic tank owners were asked "How likely are you to participate in

an incentive program such as the one described, if such a program was implemented?" 20.9%

responded 'Unlikely', 11.2% responded 'Somewhat Unlikely', 39.4% responded 'Somewhat

Likely', and 28.4% responded 'Very Likely'. The fact that almost 70% of septic tank owners in

the sample indicated they would be likely to participate in this type of program is encouraging. It

can be inferred that a septic tank replacement and improvement program could stand a chance of

being successfully implemented in Columbia County and have a high level of voluntary

participation.

Demographic Data: The participants' average household income in 2006 was between

$55,000-65,000 which is higher than the county and state average. The average level of

education was an associate degree; however there were an unusually high percentage of









participants that claimed to have a graduate or other advanced degree. All of the participants

were homeowners, which is due to fact that the addresses for the sample population were

obtained from the Columbia County Property Appraisers office and therefore only included

property owners (while Columbia County's home ownership rate is 77%). This might explain the

higher level of income in the sample, since property owners are likely to have high income

versus renters.

Logit Analysis

The final statistical model was:

A u = Bo -B(Bid) +B2(Income) +B(Education) +B(Politic) B(Importance) +B(Visitation)

+ error

Where 'yes' is the dependent variable and records if a person was or wasn't willing to pay

the amount asked in the survey. (1 = Yes, 0 = No),

Bid: The Bid variable refers to the dollar amount that the participant was asked to pay.

This variable is always included in a logit model and sign on the coefficient is expected to be

negative. This indicates that as the dollar amount participants were asked to pay increases, the

less likely they would be to vote for the program. The amounts varied from $5, $10, $15, $20,

and $25.

Income: Income level was included because it usually has a positive relation to

willingness to pay. The higher a persons income, the larger the amount they are usually willing

to pay for environmental services, therefore we would expect a positive sign on the coefficient.

(0 = less than $45,000 household annual income, 1 = greater than $45,000 household annual

income)

Education: A person's level of education is another socio-economic variable that can have

an affect on one's values for environmental goods and services. A positive sign would be









expected on the Education coefficient, indicating that as education level increases, so does the

tendency to answer positively to the WTP question. (0 = Less than college education, 1 =

College Education)

Politic: Political affiliation was included because it is has been shown to have an impact

on WTP estimates. Politically conservative individuals tend to have more anti-environmental

leanings when compared to more liberal individuals (Dietz et al 19998). A positive sign on the

coefficient is expected, meaning respondents who consider themselves more liberal are more

likely to vote for the program. (0= Conservative, 1= Liberal)

Importance: The Importance variable was added because how individuals answer

attitudinal questions have shown to have an impact on WTP for environmental goods (Loomis,

2000a). A negative sign is expected, meaning the less important the respondent believes the issue

of "protecting Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution" is, the less likely they will vote for the

program. (0= Important, 1= Not Important)

Visitation: The Visitation variable was included because there is a positive relationship

between frequency with which the participant uses or interacts with the resource that is being

valued and their WTP. A positive sign is expected in this case, which would indicate that the

more often a participant visits Ichetucknee Springs the more likely they are to vote for the

program. (0 = None, 1-2 visits per year, 1 = 3 or more visits per year)

The results of the logistic regression are summarized in Table 7.









Table 4-6. Logistic regression model of probability to pay vote for increased utility bill

WTP Coef.

Bid -0.0926***

Income -.1014

Education .4654

Politic 1.0298*

Importance -2.1103***

Visitation 1.1802**

Constant 2.0281

Number of obs 131

*** indicates the variable was significant at the .01 level
** indicates the variable was significant at the .05 level
* indicates the variable was significant at the .1 level
Log likelihood = -73.5355

Interpretation of Regression Results

Bid: Bid has a statistically significant affect on the probability of a 'Yes' response at the

.01 level. The negative sign on the coefficient indicates that as the higher the dollar amount

participants were asked to pay, the less likely they would be to vote for the program. This result

was expected and conforms to economic theory.

Politic: Politic has a significant affect on the probability of a 'Yes' response, at the .1

level. The positive sign indicates that respondents who consider themselves more liberal are

more likely to vote for the program, as was predicted. This result could have interesting

implications in Columbia County as it is a mostly conservative area, and only about 20% of the

sample population identified themselves as liberal.









Importance: The Importance variable has statistically significant affect at the .01 level.

The negative sign indicates that the less important the respondent believes the issue of

"protecting Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution" is, the less likely they will vote for the

program. This affect was expected and conforms with other results in the literature (Loomis,

2000a). This result implies that if policy makers or educators were to enact programs that

increase awareness and concern for the ecological health of the Ichetucknee, it would increase

the value that individuals place on the river.

Visitation: Visitation has a significant affect at the .05 level. The positive sign indicates

that the more often a participant visits Ichetucknee Springs the more likely they are to vote for

the program. This sign was expected and conforms to theory as well. The result is interesting in

that it might provide managers of Ichetucknee incentive to implement programs to increase

visitation at the park by local residents. However the river already has an enforced capacity in

summer, and can only withstand a certain increase in activity during those months. One possible

solution could be to attempt to increase visitation by local residents during other times of the

year, with an emphasis on more passive uses of the resource.

Mean WTP

Hanemann's (1984) formula to calculate the value of mean willingness to pay is:

Mean WTP = (1/Bi)*ln(1 + eBo) (8)

where B1 is the coefficient on the Bid amount and Bo is either the estimated constant (if

there are no other independent variables in the model) or the sum of the constant plus the product

of the other independent variables times their respective means.

Using this formula mean WTP was calculated and found to be $18.7 per household per

month, without incorporating the independent variables. After incorporating the effects of the

independent variables, mean WTP was estimated to be $16.9 per household per month for the









increase in water quality in the Ichetucknee River. This amounts to an average annual value of

$202 per household. Expanded across all households in Columbia County this comes to total

WTP of $42.4 million dollars over ten years. This figure is within the range of other river studies

such as Loomis et al (2000) study of the South Platte River ($252 annually) or Hanemann et al

(1991) study of salmon restoration in the San Joaquin River ($452 annually). However, the

Ichetucknee is a fraction of the size of those larger rivers, yet still commands a similar value

from local residents. This again emphasizes the point that citizens of Columbia County are

genuinely concerned for the health of the Ichetucknee Springs system.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Summary of Study

The purpose of this study was identify the sources of nitrate pollution in the Ichetucknee

Springshed and to gain a greater understanding of the value's that citizens of Columbia County

place water quality in the Ichetucknee. The results of the nutrient budget reveal that at the scale

of the Ichetucknee Springshed it is clear that runoff from Land Uses comprises around 80% of

the anthropogenic load, with over half derived from Improved Pasture land-uses. Septic Tanks

and Lake City's WWTF comprise the remainder of the load. Fertilizer runoff from agricultural

land uses (Improved Pasture and Row Crops) is the greatest contributor of nitrate to the

landscape, and should be a major focus in managing the Springshed. Lake City's WWTF does

not appear to be a major contributor of nitrates to the Springshed.

The Contingent Valuation survey reveals a good deal of information about Columbia

County residents' attitudes and preferences towards the Ichetucknee. A large percentage of

participants (84%) have visited the springs and a majority feels that protecting water quality in

the river is "Very Important". The general level of knowledge towards the problems associated

with nitrates in the Ichetucknee was moderate. These results should be motivation for decision-

makers and environmental managers in the area to implement education efforts in the County

and springshed, aimed at increasing the knowledge and concern that residents have for the

Ichetucknee.

The logit model shows the affects a variety of factors have on participants' willingness to

pay responses. As the bid amount increases, the probability of a positive response decreases.

These effects of the variables are statistically significant and conform to theoretical and

empirical expectations. The probability of accepting the bid amount increases with the









participants' level of visitation to the Ichetucknee and how important they believe water quality

in the river to be. The probability of accepting the bid is also higher the more liberal the

participants' identify themselves politically, which could have interesting implications due to the

generally conservative nature of Columbia County

The mean willingness to pay for the increase in water quality in the Ichetucknee River was

calculated to be $16.9 per household, per month over the course of 10 years. This amounts to a

total WTP of $42.4 million for Columbia County. This value may be considered a high estimate,

due to the fact that it assumes non-respondents have the same WTP as respondents. The

aggregate WTP value exceeds the estimated cost of implementing the program of $25 million.

While this study uses septic tanks as the method for a 20% improvement water quality, the value

that is estimated is not necessarily restricted to improvement from septic tanks, it is for any

general 20% improvement in water quality. This is valuable information that can only be

provided by surveying the public and asking them directly to state their values and preferences.

It also allows for a greater representation of populace's interests in public decision-making.

Limitations and Assumptions

Creating a nutrient budget for a specific springshed within the Floridan Aquifer is

complicated and requires a number of simplifying assumptions (Chellette, 2002). Many of the

processes that are summarized here are highly variable over time, and certain areas of the

Ichetucknee Springshed are highly permeable to groundwater while others are well confined.

The contingent valuation method has been proven to provide reliable estimates for non-market

values, but still relies on some basic assumptions and faces several limitations. The limitation

and assumptions associated with this the study are presented here:









Limitations


This data only represents the total load to the landscape of the springshed and not to the
aquifer.

The rates of de-nitrification and uptake of nitrate sources in the springshed are not well
understood.

The data presented here only represents the loads that occurred in 2006. Nitrate levels in
the Icheutcknee system are highly variable over time and

The survey only includes Columbia County residents and does not incorporate the values
of visitors from nearby counties or from farther distances whom may have also have a
value for the Ichetucknee. Considering that 80% of visitors to the Springs are not local
residents, it is highly likely that residents of surrounding counties such as Alachua and
Suwannee also value the resource.

Assumptions

The Land-Use Data from 1995 is still accurate in 2006. This is very unlikely; however at
the time of the study, this was the most accurate land-use data available.

Land-use Loading Rates from the Harper and SWET studies are representative of the
actual loading rates in the Springshed. Both studies were conducted in Florida so it is not
unlikely that these rates are applicable.

0.6 mg/L nitrate-N was representative of conditions in the River for the entire year of
2006.

The flow rate of 222 MGD was representative of conditions in the Ichetucknee River for
the entire year of 2006. Water levels and flows change with time, depending on rainfall
and other factors.

Survey respondents answered truthfully to all questions. This is an inherent problem with
all stated-preference methods, and must be assumed to be true.

Respondents would actually pay the amount stated in the survey if it were presented in a
real-life situation.

It is assumed that the payment vehicle did not have an affect on WTP. There is a
possibility that respondents to the survey did not agree with the idea of a flat tax on all
citizens of the county. Pre-testing revealed some concerns that a flat rate was inequitable
to lower income residents and that it was unfair to charge non-septic tank users. This
could have an effect on a respondent's WTP.









Conclusions

While the nutrient budget gives a general idea of the major sources of nitrate in the basin, it

is still limited in its ability to determine the amounts of pollution that actually enter the

groundwater and end up in the springs. Further analysis in this area could include various types

of modeling to predict actual nitrate flows to groundwater from all sources in the springshed.

Using spatial and hydrological data to predict areas in the springshed that are most vulnerable to

groundwater contamination would also be useful to managing nutrients in the springshed.

Further study of the karst systems and the movement of groundwater in the springshed could also

provide insight into how nutrients are transported from the landscape to the springs.

The results of the CVM survey imply that Columbia County residents place a substantial

value on water quality in the Ichetucknee River and are willing to pay for and participate in a

program to improve it. Using CVM is one of the few ways to place a value on a good that is

otherwise completely unknown. This information is important for policymakers to have in order

to make informed decisions that affect the water resources that citizen's depend on for drinking

water, tourism, and recreation (Loomis, 2000b). The results of this study help inform the debate

over the allocation of funds for groundwater protection, and should provide useful information

for policymakers considering stormwater planning, land-use changes in the county, and approval

for increased septic tanks permits.

The results also imply that if a referendum program of this nature were placed on a ballot

in Columbia County, it could face a fair chance of passing. If a flat tax increase for the entire

county is unfeasible, one possible action might be to create a special taxing district along

hydrologic boundaries, to better ensure that the people who are most drastically impacting the

resource are the ones who pay more to improve it. While this study provides an estimate of









citizen's values for water quality in the Ichetucknee, it is ultimately up to policymakers at the

State and County levels to implement any changes.

A great amount of research in this area lies ahead. The variety of nutrient sources in the

springshed, their relative impacts, and the methods of nutrient transport should all be examined

in greater detail. Continued research on the affects of nitrates in the river and other possible

causes for the problems of excessive algae growth in the Ichetucknee should also be explored.

An interesting area for future socio-economic studies would be to vary the sources of nutrients in

the springshed, the level of pollution reduction that would be provided, and the costs of the

improvement. This could allow different attributes of the good to be valued as well as provide

incremental values for improved water quality in the Ichetucknee. Using another method, such as

TCM, to be compared to the results from this study would also be informative.










APPENDIX A
LAND-USE MAP OF THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGSHED


Residential
V_ Improved pasture
i Row crops
0 4 8 12 16 Feeding operations
-- ___ Rangeland
Kilometers T Upland forest
1 1ater
Data Source Wetlands
1995 Land Use Data Others
Suwanniee River Water Management District









APPENDIX B
CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEY: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE
ICHETUCKNEE RIVER

Improving Water Quality in the

Ichetucknee River













The University of Florida is conducting a study to explore the possibility of improving water
quality in the Ichetucknee. In this survey we will ask you a series of questions regarding your
interactions with the Ichetucknee River and your preferences and opinions related to water
quality in the river. Please answer all the questions to the best of your ability. We value your
opinions greatly and need your help.

Thank you for your time!
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Florida


WTUF UNIVERSITY of
UF FLORIDA
The Foundation for The Gator Nation











The Ichetucknee River


Q-1 Have you ever visited Ichetucknee Springs?

Yes
No = Please go to Q-4


Q-2 How many times a year do you visit Ichetucknee Springs?


O 1-2 times per year
0 3-5 times per year
0 6-10 times per year
O 11+ times per year


Q-3 What activities do you participate in when you visit the Ichetucknee (please check
all that apply)
O Tubing O Swimming
O Canoeing/Kayaking O Hiking
O Wildlife Viewing O Scuba Diving
O Picnicking O Other


What are Nitrates?


* The Ichetucknee River is a pristine, crystal clear 5-mile spring run and is the largest
tourist attraction in Columbia County, attracting between 3,000-5,000 people a day in
busy summer months. While immensely popular for tubing, it has many other
recreational opportunities such as swimming, birding, kayaking, and scuba diving.
* The River is also a unique ecological resource and provides habitat for a wide range of
fish, reptiles, birds, and aquatic mammals.
* However, over the past decade, the Ichetucknee Springs and River have become
threatened by increased groundwater contamination, especially higher levels of nitrates.




























Q-4 How familiar were you with the role of nitrates in the environment before reading this
questionnaire?

O Very Familiar
O Somewhat Familiar
O Not Familiar




Q-5 How familiar were you with the sources of nitrates in groundwater resulting from
human activities before reading this questionnaire?


O Very Familiar
O Somewhat Familiar
O Not Familiar





Nitrates in the Ichetucknee


* Nitrate (NO3) is a naturally occurring form of nitrogen found in soil and is a nutrient
essential to all plant life.
* Nitrates form when microorganisms break down fertilizers, decaying plants, manures or
other organic matter. Usually plants take up these nitrates, but sometimes rain or
irrigation water can cause them to be released into groundwater.
* Although nitrate occurs naturally in some groundwater, in most cases higher levels are
thought to result from human activities. Common sources of nitrate generated by human
activity include fertilizers and manure, municipal wastewater and sludge, and septic
systems.

































Q-6 How familiar were you with the problem of increased Nitrates in the Ichetucknee before
reading this questionnaire?


O Very Familiar
O Somewhat Familiar
O Not Familiar


Q-7 How important is it to you to protect Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution?
O Very Important
L Important
0 Somewhat Important
D Not Important


What are Septic Tanks?


* Scientific studies have shown that there are unnaturally high levels of nitrate in the
Ichetucknee.
* The excessive nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee can cause dense growth of algae that
smothers the native eelgrass and creates floating mats on the surface. The increased
amounts of algae reduce water clarity which detracts from the snorkeling and scuba
diving experience.
* Certain varieties of noxious algae pose a health risk for swimmers and tubers that are
allergic to it.
* Excessive nitrates can have negative effects on habitat for aquatic turtles, crawfish, and
other species of wildlife.
* Several of scientific studies have shown that one of the major sources of nitrates in the
Ichetucknee is septic tanks in the surrounding area. Septic tanks are used by households
that are not connected to a city's municipal sewer system, for waste disposal.









A septic tank generally consists of a 1,500 gallon tank which is connected to an inlet
wastewater pipe at one end and to a leaching or drain field at the other.














Wastewater from the home enters through the inlet pipe, and treatment of the wastewater
is accomplished by physical, chemical, and biological processes in the tank system.
The remaining impurities, including high levels of nitrates, are released through the drain
field, which usually consists or a gravel bed and are eventually taken up through the root
system of plants or added to the groundwater.


Septic Tanks in Columbia County

Septic tanks are regulated by Columbia County's Department of Health and it is
estimated that there are approximately 5,000 septic tanks in the area that are impacting
the Ichetucknee.
This addition of run-off from thousands of septic tanks in the Ichetucknee River basin has
contributed to the increase of nitrates in the spring system and accounts for
approximately 20% of the nitrate load to the springs.
Advanced septic systems have been developed that use improved artificial and natural
filtration techniques to reduce the amount of nitrates released into the groundwater.




Q-8 Suppose that Columbia County is considering implementing a program to update,
modify, and maintain septic tanks in the county in order to improve water quality in the
Ichetucknee River. The program would use tax dollars to create incentives to compensate home-









owners who currently have septic tanks to update to new treatment technologies. Based on
scientific evidence this program is expected to reduce nitrate loading to the Ichetucknee River by
approximately 20% over the next 10 years.
The ecological benefits in the Ichetucknee would include improved water clarity,
reduction of excessive algae gi ii h, and protection of natural wildlife habitat. The funding for
this program would come from an increase in Columbia County households' utility bills of

$ per month for the next 10 years. If this initiative were on the next election ballot
would you vote:


0 For DAgainst



Q-9 Does your home use a septic system?


O Yes Q-10
0 No
O Not Sure



Q-10 How likely are you to participate in an incentive program such as described in
Question 8, if such a program was implemented?

O Unlikely
O Somewhat Unlikely
O Somewhat Likely
O Very Likely







Please provide some information about yourself for analysis purposes:


1) Are you 0 Male 0 Female











2) How old are you?


3) Please check your highest level of education:


O Some High School
O High School Graduate
Or Equivalent
O Trade of Vocational School


O Some College
O Associate Degree
o College Graduate
O Graduate or Professional Degree


4) Are you a member of any environmental organizations?


DYES


O NO


If YES, please specify:


5) How many people live in your household?

Persons



6) Do you own or rent your home?


O OWN


O RENT


7) Please indicate the range of your 2006 annual household income (before taxes):


BELOW $15,000
$16,000 25,000
$25,001 35,000
$35,001 45,000
$45,001 55,000


0 $55,001 65,000
0 $65,001 75,000
0 $75,001 100,000
0 $100,001- 125,000
0 OVER $125,000


Please Continue on Back *


8) How many people contribute to your household income?

Persons


9) How would you describe your political views?











O Very Conservative
O Somewhat Conservative
O Moderate
O Somewhat Liberal
O Very Liberal

10) What is your ethnicity?


White
African American or Black
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Native American or Alaskan native


O Asian
O Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
O Other


Please fold the survey in half and insert it into the pre-paid envelope included. Feel free to
make any additional comments about your answers to these questions or about the survey
itself.

Comments:









Thank you for participating in this survey!


For further information, please contact:

Dr. Janaki Alavalapati or Mr. Chad Foster
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida
Newins-Ziegler Hall, PO Box 110410
Gainesville, FL 32611
Phone: (352) 846-0899 or (352) 222 0911
Email: janaki@ufl.edu or chadrfos@ufl.edu


ID# 0001


APPENDIX B
COMPLETE STATISTICAL RESULTS

Survey Response Results

Q-1 Have you ever visited Ichetucknee Springs?










Yes 84%
No 16%

Q-2 How many times a year do you visit Ichetucknee Springs?

1-2 times per year 60.0%
3-5 times per year 15.3%
6-10 times per year 2.3%
11+ times per year 5.3%

Q-3 What activities do you participate in when you visit the Ichetucknee (please check all that
apply)

Tubing 61%
Canoeing/Kayaking 12.2%
Wildlife Viewing 33.5%
Picnicking 36%
Swimming 56%
Hiking 15.2%
Scuba Diving 2.4%

Q-4 How familiar were you with the role of nitrates in the environment before reading this
questionnaire?

Very Familiar 20.9%
Somewhat Familiar 54.6%
Not Familiar 24.5%

Q-5 How familiar were you with the sources of nitrates in groundwater resulting from human
activities before reading this questionnaire?

Very Familiar 23.3%

Somewhat Familiar 51.5%

Not Familiar 25.2%

Q-6 How familiar were you with the problem of increased Nitrates in the Ichetucknee before
reading this questionnaire?

Very Familiar 17.2%
Somewhat Familiar 44.8%
Not Familiar 38.0%

Q-7 How important is it to you to protect Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution?











Very Important 56.9%
Important 33.1%
Somewhat Important 7.70%
Not Important 2.30%

Q-9 Does your home use a septic system?

Yes 83.5%
No 16.5%

Q-10 How likely are you to participate in an incentive program such as described in Question 8,
if such a program was implemented?

Unlikely 20.9%
Somewhat Unlikely 11.2%
Somewhat Likely 39.6%
Very Likely 28.4%


1) Gender

Male 52%
Female 48%

2) How old are you?

Mean =55

3) Please check your highest level of education:

1-Some High School 1.5%
2-High School Graduate 13.8%
3-Trade of Vocational School 4.6%
4-Some College 25.4%
5-Associate Degree 15.4%
6-College Graduate 16.2%
7-Graduate or Professional Degree 23.1%

Mean = 4.8

4) Are you a member of any environmental organizations?

YES 7.3%
NO 92.7%

5) How many people live in your household?

Mean = 2.4 persons











6) Do you own or rent your home?


Own = 100%

7) Please indicate the range of your 2006 annual household income (before taxes):

1-BELOW $15,000 3.8%
2-$16,000 25,000 9.2%
3-$25,001 35,000 10.8%
4-$35,001 45,000 7.7%
5-$45,001 55,000 13.1%
6-$55,001 65,000 8.5%
7-$65,001 75,000 8.5%
8-$75,001 100,000 12.3%
9-$100,001 125,000 9.2%
10-OVER $125,000 16.9%

Mean = 6.1

8) How many people contribute to your household income?

Mean = 1.58 Persons

9) How would you describe your political views?

Very Conservative 9.2%
Somewhat Conservative 28.5%
Moderate 41.5%
Somewhat Liberal 16.9%
Very Liberal 3.8%

Mean = 2.78

10) What is your ethnicity?

White 94.5%
African American or Black 3.1%
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin 1.2%
Native American or Alaskan native 0.6%
Asian 0.6%
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0%









LIST OF REFERENCES


Ahtian, H. 2007. The willingness to pay for reducing the harm from oil spills in the Gulf of
Finland- an application of the contingent valuation method. University of Helsinki,
Finland. Department of Economics.

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report to the
NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Feral Register 58(10), 4602-4614.

Bicki, T., Brown, R., Collins, M., Mansell, R, and D. Rothwell., 1984. Impact of on-site sewage
disposal systems on surface and groundwater quality. Report to the Florida Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

Bishop, R., Heberlein, T., 1979.Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are direct measures
biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926-930.

Bonn, M.A., Bell, 2003. Economic impact of selected Florida springs on surrounding local areas.
Prepared for the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Fl.

Brown, T.C., Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., 2003. Contingent valuation in practice. A Primer on
Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.

Carpenter, S. and Turner, M.2000. Opening black boxes: ecosystem science and economic
valuation. Ecosystems.3(1).

Carson, R.T. 2000. Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environmental Science and Technology
34:1423-1418.

Chellette, A., Katz, B., 2002. Nitrate loading as an indicator of non-point source pollution in the
Lower St. Marks-Wakulla rivers watershed. Report to the Northwest Florida Water
Management District, Water Resources Special Report 02-1.

Davis, R., 1963. The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the Maine Woods.
Doctoral dissertation in economics. Harvard University.

Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. and G.A. Guagnano. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases
of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior. 30:450-471.

Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edition. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Fan A.M., Willhite, C.C., and Book, SA. Evaluation of the nitrate drinking water standard with
reference to infant methemoglobinemia and potential reproductive toxicology. Regul
Toxicol Pharmacol. 1987;7(2):135-148.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2006a. EcoSummary: Ichetucknee
Springs. Environmental Assessment Section Tallahassee.









Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2006b. Water quality study of the
Ichetucknee River. Division of Laboratories Tallahassee.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2006. Itchetucknee Springs State Park.
Feb, 2006. Obtained via the world wide web at
www.floridastateparks.org/ichetuckneesprings/.

Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT), 1999. Florida Land Use, Land Cover Classification
System (FLUCCS) manual. FDOT Surveying and Mapping Office, Geographic Mapping
section.

Hanemann, M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete
responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(3), 332-341.

Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bonded
dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Economics 79, 544-554.

Harper, H. H., 1994. Stormwater loading rates for central and south Florida. Environmental
Research and Design, Inc. Orlando, FL.

Holmes, T. D., and Boyle, K.J., 2005. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential,
attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81, 114-126.

Katz, B., Hornsby, D.H., Bolke, J.F., Mokray, M.F., 1999. Sources and chronology of nitrate
contamination in spring waters, Suwannee River Basin, Forida. U.S. Geological Survey:
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4252.

Kurtz, R.C., D.C., Woithe, S.K. Notestein, T.K. Frazer, J.A. Hale, and S.R. Keller., 2004.
Mapping and monitoring submerged aquatic vegetation in Ichetucknee Springs-2004.
Final Report to Suwannee River Water Management District, Live Oak, FL.

Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., Covich, A., 2000. Measuring the total economic
value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent
valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33, 103-117.

McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in
Econometrics, P. Zarembka, New York: Academic Press, 105-142.

Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation
Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

Milon, J., Scrogin, D., 2006. Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem evaluation.
Ecological Economics, 56 (2), 162-175.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2006. NADP/NTN wet deposition annual
data 2006. Accessed via the world wide web in February, 2006 at
nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?net=NTN&id=FL03.









Otis, R.J., Boyle, W.C., Saur, D., 1975. Performance of household wastewater treatment systems
under field conditions. National Home Sewage Symposium, 191-201.

Phelps, G. G., 2004. Chemistry of ground water in the Silver Springs Basin, Florida, with and
emphasis on nitrate. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5144.

Pierzysnki, G.M., Sims, J.T., Vance, M., 1994. Soils and environmental quality. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.

Shrestha, R.K., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2004. Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture
practice: A case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida". Ecological
Economics 49, 349-359.

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET), 1998. GIS watershed assessment final
report. Part A SR-WAM technical references manual. Gainesville, FL.

Suwannee River Water Management District, 2006. Latest Spring Details: Itchetuknee..
Accessed via the world wide web in February, 2006 at
www.srwmd.state.fl.us/water+data/springs/.

Upchurch, S.B., Champion, K.M., 2003. Delineation of spring-water source areas in the
Ichetucknee springshed. SDII Global Corporation. Tampa, FL.

Wetland Solutions Inc. (WSI), 2006. Ichetucknee River Florida, Ecosystem Evaluation and
Impairment Assessment. Report prepared for Three Rivers, Inc.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Chad Foster graduated Cum Laude from the University of Florida's School of Natural

Resources and Environment with a B.A. in environmental science in 2005. He is currently

pursuing a Degree of Master of Science in interdisciplinary ecology, in the University of

Florida's School of Natural Resources and Environment.





PAGE 1

1 VALUING PREFERENCES FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY FROM COLUMBIA COUNTY, FL By CHAD FOSTER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Chad Foster

PAGE 3

3 To my grandmother, Donna Foster, for all of her encouragement and support

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone who helped m e complete my thesis and acknowledge them here. I would like to first thank the memb ers of my committee, Janaki Alavalapati, Matt Cohen, and Laila Racevskis for all of their many contributions and constant guidance. Thanks also go to Sanjay Lamasal for assistance with th e GIS related aspects of the study. I would also like to thank all the fellow students in the C ohen and Alavalapati Labs, who went through the majority of this experience alongside me, many of whom offered me words of encouragement and advice. I am also extremely grateful to my family for their love and support during my graduate career. Thanks to my parents, Eddie and Ama nda Foster, for their understanding and for letting me move back home for several months at th e age of 24. Thanks go out to my grandparents Harry and Shirley Davis, and my grandmother Donna Foster.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................112 BACKGROUND AND AR EA OF STUDY .......................................................................... 16Related Studies.......................................................................................................................16Study Area..............................................................................................................................20Ecological and Physical Charact eristics of the Study Area..........................................20Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Study Area...................................................... 233 METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A NUTRI E NT INVENTORY AND PUBLIC WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER QUALITY IN THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS SYSTEM...............................................................................................................24Nutrient Inventory of the Ichetucknee Springshed.................................................................24Ichetucknee River.......................................................................................................... 24Atmospheric Deposition................................................................................................24Lake Citys Waste Water Treatmen t Facility (WWTF) Sprayfield.............................. 24OSTDS.......................................................................................................................... 25Land-Uses.....................................................................................................................26Contingent Valuation Survey................................................................................................. 28Theoretical Framework................................................................................................. 28Survey Design...............................................................................................................29Pre-Testing....................................................................................................................33Implementation............................................................................................................. 344 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................. 36Ichetucknee Springshed Nutrient Budget Result s: Total and Relative Nitrate Loads from Inventoried Sources....................................................................................................... 36Ichetucknee River.......................................................................................................... 36Atmospheric Deposition................................................................................................36Lake Citys Waste-Water Sprayfield............................................................................ 36

PAGE 6

6 OSTDS.......................................................................................................................... 37Land Uses......................................................................................................................37Summary of Total and Relative Loads.......................................................................... 38Results from the Contingent Valua tion Survey of Columbia County.................................... 41Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................... 41Logit Analysis............................................................................................................... 43Interpretation of Regression Results.............................................................................45Mean WTP....................................................................................................................465 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................48Summary of Study..................................................................................................................48Limitations and Assumptions................................................................................................. 49Limitations.................................................................................................................... 50Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 50Conclusions.............................................................................................................................51APPENDIX A LAND-USE MAP OF THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGSHED............................................. 53B CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEY: IMPR OVING WATER QUALITY IN THE ICHETUCKNEE RIVER.......................................................................................................54C COMPLETE STATISTICAL RESULTS............................................................................... 61Survey Response Results........................................................................................................ 61LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................65BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................68

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Estimated amount of nitrate-N leaving the Ichetucknee River ..........................................364-2 Estimated nitrate-N load from Lake Citys WWTF Sprayfield......................................... 364-3 Estimated nitrate-N load from On-Site Sewage Treatment Discharge Systems (Septic Tanks)................................................................................................................................374-4 Estimated nitrate-N load from la nd lses in the Ichetucknee Springshed........................... 384-5 Complete Inventory of nitrate-N Loads in the Ichetucknee Springshed............................ 384-6 Logistic regression model of probability to pay vote for increased utility bill.................. 45

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Hydrologic Map of the Ichetucknee Springshed ............................................................... 214-1 Relative Contribution of Inventoried Sources to nitr ate-N to the Ichetucknee Springshed..........................................................................................................................404-2 Relative Contribution of Anthropogenic S ources of nitrate-N to the Ichetucknee Springshed..........................................................................................................................40

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science VALUING PREFERENCES FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY FROM COLUMBIA COUNTY, FL By Chad Foster August 2008 Chair: Janaki Alavalapati Cochair: Matthew Cohen Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology This study estimates Columbia County reside nts willingness to pay for water quality improvements (specifically nitrat e-N reductions) in the Ichetuckn ee Springs and River using the contingent valuation method, a stated-preference valuation technique. After developing a nutrient budget for the springshed to determine potential sources of nitrate we identified atmospheric deposition, Lake Citys wastewater sprayfield, on-site treatment discharge systems (septic tanks ~ 20% of anthropogenic nitrate load ), and land uses (improved pasture, row crops, and urban) as the contributing sources. This study focuses on improvements in water quality arising from changes in septic tank technology du e to the location of numerous se ptic tanks in the Icehtucknee Trace and the fact that they are more easily identi fiable than the larger non-point sources in the basin. A contingent valuation survey, a mail-out qu estionnaire was sent to approximately 1,000 Columbia County residents to achieve the objectiv e. Specifically, reside nts were asked whether they would support an increase in their monthly u tility bill by a certain dollar amount in order to pay for a program that would update septic ta nks in the springshed in order to improve wastewater treatment. Information was include d in the questionnaire explaining links between

PAGE 10

10 septic tanks in the springshed and resulting nitrate levels in the Ichetuckne e. Further, information on prior knowledge, socio-economic data, and dem ographic data were obtained to assist in interpretation of the results. The results of the survey reveal that major ity of Columbia County residents have visited the Ichetucknee and believe that protecting water quality in the River is an important concern. The variables that affected the amount an indivi dual was willing to pay included their political affiliation, the frequency with which they vis ited the site, and how important they ranked protecting water quality in the River. The mean willingness to pay was estimated to be $16.2 per household per month over the course of ten years. Extrapolated out for the entire county this amounts to a total willingness to pay of $40.7 million over the course of 10 years. This exceeds the estimated cost ($25-30 million) of implementi ng the program to receive the increased level of water quality. The results imply that Columbia County re sidents place a substantial value on water quality in the Ichetucknee Rive r and are willing to pay for a nd participate in a program to improve it. Using CVM is one of the few ways to place a value on a good that is otherwise completely unknown. The results of this study help inform the debate ov er the allocation of funds for groundwater protection, and should provide useful information for policymakers considering stormwater planning, land-use chan ges in the county, and approval for increased septic tanks permits. While this st udy provides an estimate of citizen s values for water quality in the Ichetucknee, it is ultimately up to policymakers at the State and County levels to implement any changes.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Ichetucknee River, in north -central Florida, begins at Ichetucknee Springs and runs 6.2 m iles to the Santa Fe River, a tributary of the Suwannee River. The river is a pristine, crystal clear spring run and is one of the largest touris t attractions in Columbia County, attracting around 200,000 visitors per year (FFWCC, 2006) and dir ectly contributing an estimated $23 million per year to the local economy (Bonn and Bell, 2003). Th e Ichetucknee is a unique environmental, economic, and cultural resource for Columbia County. While immensely popular for tubing, it provides many other recreational opportunities such as swimming, birding, kayaking, and scuba diving. Over the past two decades, nitrate levels in the springs and river have been increasing. The amount of nitrate-N in the River has reached leve ls between .6 and .8 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (SRWMD, 2006). This excessive nitr ate-N has also occurred in asso ciation with dense growth of algae that has occurred in some areas of the river, smothering vegetation and creating floating mats on the surface. Certain vari eties of algae (specifically Lyngbia wollei a filamentous matforming cyanobacterium) pose a health risk for swim mers and tubers that are allergic to it. While it is hard to draw a mechanistic relationship between nitrate levels and toxic algae in the Ichetucknee, there has been ev idence of a correlation between the two (WSI, 2003). The nitrate in the Ichetucknee also eventual ly ends up discharged into the Santa Fe and Suwannee rivers, larger rivers of regional importance. Nitrate (NO3) is an inorganic form of Nitrogen (N) that under certain circumstances stimulates plant growth, while ammonium (NH4) is the preferred form of nitrogen for most plants, plants can readily assimilate nitrate fo r the formation for amino acids. Nitrite (NO2) can be formed from nitrate by a chemical process called N reduction and can be very toxic however

PAGE 12

12 it is unstable and does not genera lly occur in significant levels (P helps, 2004). Nitrate in drinking water is typically measured in terms of the amount of nitr ogen (not including oxygen); the federal standard for nitrate in drin king water is 10 mg/L nitrate-N. Nitrate in groundwater not only causes ecologica l problems but can be a serious threat to public health. Short-term exposure to drinking wate r with a nitrate level at or above the health standard of 10 mg/L nitrate-N is a potential health problem prim arily for infants and the elderly, leading to a disease called methemoglobinemia. Methemoglobin is formed when nitrite oxidizes the ferrous iron in hemoglobin to the ferric form which means that it cannot bind oxygen (Fan et al. 1987). Infants consume large quantities of wa ter relative to their body weight and their immature digestive systems are more likely than adu lts to allow the reduction of nitrate to nitrite (Pierzynski et al, 1994). Identifying and quantifying the sources of nitrat e pollution within the springshed is the first step in developing proper management practices a nd legal framework to protect the water quality of Floridas springs (Katz, 1999). The de finition of a springshed was developed by Hydrogeology Consortium in 2002 a nd is stated as those areas within groundwater and surfacewater basins that contribute to the discharge of the spring (Upchurch and Champion, 2002). This definition is important because it includes surface-water drainage basins, such as Rose Creek and Alligator Lake that discharge into the Ichetucknees groundwater basin via sinkholes, swallets, and sinking streams. Contaminants in surface water run-off ultimately end up in the Ichetucknee and could be signifi cant sources of pollution in the springs. Therefore to gain an understanding of the level of nutrient pollution in a spring one must account for all of the sources in the entire springshed, a process referred to as nutrient budgeting.

PAGE 13

13 Columbia County is mostly rural, and the majo rity of households are not connected to any type of municipal sewage treatment system. This has led to the prolifera tion of thousands of onsite sewage treatment discharge systems (OST DS), more commonly known as septic tanks, in the Ichetucknee springshed. A large percentage of the soils in Florida are unsuitable for conventional septic tanks, mainly due to high wa ter tables and shallow depth to bedrock. Owners of septic tanks face the options of leaving their current systems alone and maintaining the status quo, or paying for the installation of advanced on-site treatment systems which significantly reduce nitrate load by an es timated 80 % (WCDOH). Other sources include Lake Citys wastewater treatment facility, which discharges its effluent, which discharges its effluent on a sp ray-field in the Ichetucknee springshed. Various land uses also contribute nitrate to the landscape in the springshe d as well. Urban areas in the springshed generally located in and around Lake City contribute nitrate mostly via fertilizer runoff from residential lawns. Agricultural lands such as improved pasture and row-crops are applied fertilizers to enhance their productivity and to increase benef its for their owners. All of these sources of nitrat es can be considered the negative consequences of human actions, whether growing crops, fertilizing a yard, or simply flushing the toilet. Most of the people who contribute to the loading of nitrates in the basin only s ee the benefits of their actions such as a healthier crop or highe r beef profits, and ar e not aware of, or affected by, the negative results of their actions. These negative consequences referred to as externalities, occur when a person undertakes an action that costs or negative impacts to external stakeholders which need not be paid or accounted for according to existing laws. These users have little incentive to stop impacting the resource because all of the benefits accrue privately while the costs are spread across the public, often from the use of a public good. A public good is a good whereby the

PAGE 14

14 consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others; and no one can be eff ectively excluded from using that good (Mitchell and Carson, 1989). The nature of public goods prevents them from being publicly traded in any type of market structure; however people still value these resources. Groundwater quality is a typical example of a public good, one which is vitally important to humans and often impacted by human actions. Estimating the values of these goods, and the pub lics preference for them, provides valuable information to public decision-makers and natu ral resource managers. This information gives them the ability to make better decisions regard ing the use of public goods, and could provide reasoning for creating incentives to discourage the a ffect of externalities. There are a number of methods that provide ways of estimating the va lue of public goods (Car son, 2000). In order to estimate the citizens of Columbia Countys values for the Ichetucknee this study will utilize the contingent valuation method. The aim of the contingent valuation met hod (CVM) is to elicit preferences for the provision of a good using a careful ly designed survey or questionnaire. The survey asks respondents to state their prefer ences by directly asking them th eir willingness to pay (WTP) for a change in the quality or quantity of a public good. In the survey the respondent is presented with a hypothetical market situ ation where the good can be purchased. The WTP response is contingent on this hypothetical market, which is where the name of the methodology is derived (Mitchell and Carson, 1989). In this study the diff erence in the level of water quality in the Ichetucknee system is the good that is being purchased. This will allow us to estimate the value of water quality in the Ichetucknee for residents of Columbia County.

PAGE 15

15 There are several reasons why estimates for economic values of environmental resources are required. The main reason is to just to justify and decide ho w to allocate public tax dollars on conservation initiatives and to consider the publics support for environmental initiatives. Natural resource valuation is al so useful in order to compar e the benefits of different projects, to prioritize conservati on or restoration projects, and to maximize the efficiency of benefits per dollar spent Ecosystem valuation also appeal s to a wide array of groups, from environmentalists who feel that natural ecosy stems are severely undervalued and free-market economists who believe valuation can enhance efficiency and allocation of environmental benefits (Carpenter and Turner, 2000). The purpose of this study is to provide the Columbia County Government, Suwannee River Water Management District, and all other inte rested parties an inventory of the sources of nitrate pollution in the Ichetucknee springshed. The nutrient b udget is needed due to a lack of information and misconceptions of nutrient sources in the basin among decision makers and constituents in the Basin. By identifying the sour ces and loads of N in the basin, if there is a policy that needs to be impleme nted concerning the Ichetucknee, this data should inform it. The other objective of this study is to estimate the publics willingness to pay to improve and protect water quality in the Ichetucknee using the contingent valuati on method. The results of this study help inform the debate over th e allocation of funds for groundwater protection, and should provide useful information for policymakers in the region. This information can only be provided by surveying the public and asking them directly to state th eir values and preferences.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND AND AREA OF STUDY Related Studies The Ichetucknee is not the only spring system in Florida that is facing threats from nitrate contamination. In fact over the past 40 years many springs in Florida, including those that contribute to the Suwannee River watershed, have s hown increasing trends in regard to levels of nitrate-N (Katz 1992, Hornsby and Ceryak 1999). Many of the elements of th e nutrient budget porti on of this study were designed using similar methods to studies based on other waterand springshed nutrien t studies in Florida (Pittman et al 1997, Katz 1999, Chellette 2002, Phel ps 2004). All of these studies analyzed nitrate loading from various anthropogenic sources as the main parameter of concern. Katz (1999) conducted a nutrient inventory of the Suwannee River basin in order to account for sources of nitrate pollution in the ma ny springs discharging into the Santa Fe and Suwannee River. Each source is accounted fo r on a county by county basis as opposed to hydrologic boundaries, such as a springshed. The study also accounts for fertilizer sales and animal wastes individually, as opposed to estimati ng the output from agri cultural land -uses that account for their combined load. Isotope analys is was used to help determine whether the sources of nitrates were primarily from organic such as human or animal wastes or mineral sources, such as fertilizers. Approximately 50 years worth of Nitrogen data was analyzed to show the influences and changes of different sources over time. The inve stigators found that in Columbia County, the largest sources of nitrates in recent years we re fertilizers, atmospheri c deposition, and wastes from beef cattle. As the Ichetucknee is a s ub-component of the Santa Fe and Suwannee River

PAGE 17

17 systems, the sources presented in the Katz (1999) study were closely scrutinized for their applicability to our study. In order to account for elevated nitrate levels in th e Wakulla Springs system Chellette et al (2002) quantify the various inputs of nitrogen to the landscape of Wakulla and Leon counties. One of the major sources of nitrates in these regions is waste-water sprayfields, which are also present in the Ichetuc knee system, although to a much lesser extent. CVM provides a way to estimate values for goods where no markets existed and revealed preference methods could not be used (Brown et al, 2003). The contingent valuation is well suited for estimating the value of a public good su ch as groundwater quality (Brown et al, 2003). The method has been used successfully to estim ate public willingness to pay for water quality improvements in numerous other studies, (Aht ian 2007, dArge and Shogren 1989, Loomis et al 2000, Shrestha and Alavalapati, 2004). Loomis, et al. (2000) used CVM to estimate households WTP for five ecosystem services associated with restoration of a section of the Platte River in Colorado. The services that were examined included dilution of wastewater, natura l water purification, recr eation, erosion control, and wildlife habitat. The investigators used a dichotomous-choice WTP qu estion to determine if residents would pay for increases in these ecosystems services by an increase in their water bill. The funds generated from this increase were to be used for a variety of habitat restoration projects, conservation easements and implem entation of best management practices. The study found that participants were willing to pay an average of $21 per month for the services for a total value of $19-70 million fo r the population along the river (Loomis et al. 2000). The results indicate that ci tizens are willing to pay a mont hly fee $20 per month to protect water quality in rivers. This study went to great lengths to ensure that participants correctly

PAGE 18

18 interpreted and understood the information presente d in the interviews and questionnaires, which enhances its validity. The rivers of New Mexicos Four Corners Regi on provide miles of critical habitat for nine threatened or endangered species of fish. Protection of these sp ecies required habitat improvements, fish passageways, and releases of water from dams to imitate natural water flows required by the fish (Barrens et al 1996). A CV survey was sent to a sample of 800 households in the Four Corners states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. They were told that some State and Federal officials thought the comb ined costs of the hab itat improvements and the restrictions on hydropower were too costly, and were asked if they would contribute to the Four Corners Region Threatened and Endangered Fish Trust Fund (Barrens et al 1996). The annual mean WTP was estimated to be $195 per househ old, which is a comparable figure from the results of the Loomis (2000) study. In order to determine WTP for protection from a higher level of environmental threat than increased nutrients runoff, Ahtian (2007) conduc ted a CV study to determine the value of increased protection from oil spills in the Gulf of Finland. The respondents were asked a dichotomous choice question, whether they would vote for an increase in federal taxes of a certain Bid amount, and the oil spill response a nd prevention services were described to be provided by the Finnish government. The result s reveal a mean WTP from 22.6-83.7 euros ($34$125.6 US) and a conservative aggregate WTP of 109 million euros for the entire nation. This estimate is considered very conservative because it uses the lower estimate for mean WTP and assumes that non-respondents values fo r oil spill protection are zero. The study also does not take into account the values from c itizens from other countri es surrounding the Gulf, such as Russia and Estonia. While the mean WTP is smaller than in several other studies of river

PAGE 19

19 ecosystems (Loomis 2000, Bishop 1989) the responde nts represent a much broader geographic range and are therefore not as closely tied to th e resource as the participants in many other CVM studies of water quality. The aggregate WTP is al so much larger than in other CVM studies due to the large population size. The Ichetucknee is a much smaller river than those valued in the previous studies and our study will encompa ss a much smaller geographic area, Columbia County, FL. Many early CVM studies met with a great deal of criticism and many researchers were skeptical of the hypothetical market. Many of th e criticisms were addressed by several validity studies that took place in subsequent years, the most crucial being Bis hop and Heberleins (1979) validity study. Their study compared CV to two more widely accepted valuation methods, travelcost method (TCM) and cash transactions showed that CVM generated values that were quite comparable to TCM estimates and slightly c onservative compared to cash transactions. Mitchell and Carsons (1989) book on contingent valuation made a large impact on the practice of CVM, and provided recommendations for designing a CV study, a broad overview of the method for novices, and prescriptive recommendati ons that led to a new standard for research on the validity of the method (Brown, 2003). While there continued to be doubts pertaining to the reliability of CVM, the 1993 NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel to evaluate the cr edibility of utilizing CVM to estimate non-use values for environmental goods helped to increase the reliability of the method (NOAA, 1993). The panel provided guide lines and procedures for CVM study design and implementation that develop reliable es timates of non-use values (Arrow et al. 1993). Most of the guidelines suggest ed by the NOAA Panel (Arrow et al 1993) and Boyle (2003) were taken into account in this study in order to ensure validity and reli able estimates for the value of water quality improvements in the Ichetucknee.

PAGE 20

20 While this study uses a very common version of CVM, it is unique in that (as far as the knowledge of the author) it is one of the only stud ies to combine this w ith a complete nutrient inventory of the sample region in which the st udy is conducted. This combination allows for a more direct relationship between the sources of pollution that are detrimental to the resource and the estimated amount individuals wi ll pay to reduce those sources. Study Area Ecological and Physical Charac teristics of th e Study Area The Ichetucknee Springs Basi n is approximately 300 square miles located mostly in Columbia County. Eight named springs create th e Ichetucknee River that joins the Santa Fe River four miles south of the headspring. The spri ngs that collectively co mprise the Ichetucknee complex are first magnitude, with an average flow of 222 million gallons per day (SRWMD, 2007). The creeks and lakes in the basin drain th rough sinkholes into condu its in the limestone. The conduits are gaps in the limestone where the rock has been disso lved away and through which groundwater flows down gradient to Iche tucknee Springs. Large portions of groundwater recharge occur in the un-confined areas of th e springshed. Separate dye trace studies have confirmed the connection of Rose Sink to the springs, and Black and Dyal Sinks, located in Clayhole Creek, with Rose Sink and the springs (Upchurch and Champion, 2003).

PAGE 21

21 Figure 2-1. Hydrologic Map of the Ichetucknee Springshed The Cody Scarp is a geological divide that separates lands to the north that are part of the confined region of the aquifer and lands to the south that are considered unconfined. The clay layer in the confined areas north of the scar p helps decrease groundwat er intrusion and thus protects groundwater somewhat from pollution. The unconfined areas south of the scarp are more susceptible to groundwater pollu tion due to this lack of protection. Ichetucknee Springs State Park (ISSP) was esta blished in 1970 and today it is the premier tubing river in the country. Trampling of the river bottom by tubers during the 1970s caused severe damage to the native aquatic plant co mmunities of the springs and river. A carrying

PAGE 22

22 capacity was initiated in the 1980s to maintain a balance between recreational use and preservation of the river (ISBWG, 2006). A survey of submerged aquatic vegetation was conducted in 2003 and found that approximately 78% of the Ichetucknee river-bottom is covered with submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). By comp aring this to an older study conducted before the formation of ISSP, they found that SAV had increased by 350% since 1979 (Kurtz et al 2004) In 2006 FDEP conducted a water quality study of the Ichetucknee, comparing data between 1995-2006, with the purpose of determining whether sites of contamination in the basin were affecting water quality and to see if alga l growth in areas of the river were having a negative affect. Several sampling si tes were established in the r echarge basin and compared to sites along the river. The study f ound that pesticide, herbicide, and metals were not an issue along the river. Total phosphorous was found to be relatively low in the river and showed no significant change from 1995-2006. Nitr ate-nitrite levels in the springs however were elevated, and many exceeded the 85-90th percentile concentration for Flor ida rivers (FDEP, 2006a). The 2006 nitrate concentrations also te nded to be slightly higher than those in 1995 indicating an increasing trend over time. However, this study co uld not provide conclusive links between the presence of nitrates and overgrowth of algae that has occurred in parts of the river. Another FDEP ecological study was conducted in 2006 that measured water quality data, as well as conducting a habitat assessment and benthic macro-invertebrate stream condition index (SCI). This study also found levels of nitr ates to be elevated in the Ichetucknee. The habitat assessment score was 134 and which is cons idered in the optimal range. The results of the SCI, a complex method of comparing taxa of macro-invertebrates, revealed a score of 56 which is comparable to other re latively undisturbed stre ams in the state (FDEP, 2006b). Both of

PAGE 23

23 these studies conclude that the main issue of concern in the Iche tucknee system is the level of nitrate-N, however cannot conclude that Nitrat e is necessarily causing the problems of algae growth, based on their evidence. Socio-Economic Characteri stics of the Study Area Colum bia County located in North-central Florida has a population of approximately 67,000 and a relatively low populati on density of 71 people per squa re mile. The area has seen fast population growth, almost 19% between th e years 2000-2006, higher than even Floridas average of 13% during that period (USCB, 2007). There are around 21,000 households in the county, with approximately 2.6 people per household. The county seat is the City of Lake City, its largest population center with approximately 14,000 residents. Median household income was $32,455 which is lower than the State average of $40,900 and the poverty level is around 14%. In 2000, the ho me-ownership rate was 77% which is higher than the state average. Hea lthcare is the largest employme nt sector with over 3,000 paid employees; other large employers in the count y include Retail and Accommodation and Food Services (USCB, 2007).

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A NUTRI E NT INVENTORY AND PUBLIC WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER QUAL ITY IN THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS SYSTEM Nutrient Inventory of the Ichetucknee Springshed Ichetucknee River To quantify the N m ass-balance equation of th e Ichetucknee springshed system, the total mass of Nitrate leaving the system via the Rive r was needed. This was calculated by multiplying the mean concentration, by mass, of nitrate in the river water by the total flow in L iters-per-day Atmospheric Deposition At mospheric deposition of nitrogen and ot her elements is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has been altered by human activ ities, specifically the burning of fossil fuels and the release of nitrogenand sulphur-oxides in to the atmosphere. It is then deposited on the land surface by rainfall and dry deposition. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) is a cooperative effort between the Stat e Agricultural Experiment Stations, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agricu lture, and numerous other governmental and private entities which monitors atmospheric de position of nitrogen and other substances. The estimate for nitrate loading contributed by atmo spheric deposition were obtained using data collected by the NADP/NTN station located in Br adford Forest (Bradford County, Florida; ca. 50km from Ichetucknee) ( NADP, 2006) and multiplying by th e area of the springshed. Lake Citys Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) Sprayfield Lake City is a town of roughly 14,000, located in Colum bia County. The citys effluent irrigation spray-field system was completed in 1987, sending sec ondary effluent from the St. Margaret Road Water Reclamation Facility through 4 miles of pipe line to the effluent irrigation site. Effluent is applied to the treatment fiel ds through an irrigation system consisting of 70

PAGE 25

25 fixed-gun type sprinklers (CLC, 2006). The Lake City Waste-Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) is located south of the Cody Scarp in the springshe d. To calculate the nitrate load from the Lake City WWTF, the average annual concentration of nitrate was multiplied by the average annual loading rate of the system. OSTDS On-site Sewage Treatment Discharge Systems (OSTDS) are the most common form of domestic wastewater treatment in rural and unincorporated areas outside of cities. Due to the rural nature of the Ichetucknee Springs Basin, th e majority of households located in the area are not connected to any type of municipal sewage treatment facility. Therefore most use OSTDS, more commonly referred to as septic tanks. For most properly sited and installed septic tanks nitrification is the most prom inent mechanism in aerobic soils, and leads to a conversion of organic and ammonium nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. The majority of soils are incapable of absorbing these nitrates, which eventually penetrate the groundwater (Bicki, 1984). Septic tank effluent typica lly contains levels of total N between 40 and 80 mg/l and mean levels around 55mg/l (Otis, 1975). Many studies have demonstrated high leve ls of nitrates, those exceeding the safe drinking-water level of 10 mg/l, great distances from OSTDS sites. Nitrate is very soluble and travels easily through aerobic soils into groundwater. A large percentage of the soils in Florida are unsuitable fo r conventional septic tanks, mainly due to high water tables and shallow depth to bedrock. However, these conventional systems can be modified to improve the treatm ent of effluent and reduce nitrates in the groundwater. Some advanced modifications include mechanical aeration, separated chambers, nutrient removal systems, pressu rized application systems, and electro-osmosis systems (Bicki, 1984)

PAGE 26

26 Due to unreliable records it is difficult to de termine the actual numb er of active septic tanks in the basin. This study instead attempts to simply determine the approximate population of people in the basin using septic tanks. The amount of N input from septic tanks was determined by estimating the total number of people within the basin that were not on municipal water supply (therefore assumed to be on septic system s). This was done by multiplying the area of the basin by the population density of Columbia Co unty to obtain a total population for the basin (25,123 people), and subtracting th e number of citizens served by Lake Citys municipal water supply (approximately 13,500 people) for a tota l of 11,623. This figure was multiplied by the per capita load of 4.2kg N/yr (Otis, 1993) for the total annual load from septic tanks. This per capita figure was used by Katz, et al in a nutrient study of the Suwannee River watershed (Katz, 1999) as well as Chellette in a study of the Wa kulla Springs system (Chellette, 2002). Land-Uses Land-use within a drainage basin is on of th e m ost important factors in determining the characteristics of runoff and gr oundwater quality in the basin. Several different types of landuses are associated with elevated levels of nitrogen, most obviously agricultural land-uses. Several studies have used fertilizer sales as a proxy for the amount of nitrogen applied to agricultural lands (Che lette 2002, Phelps, 2004) though there ar e several drawbacks to this technique. There is no guarantee that fertilizer sold in a county is used only in that county, or that fertilizer is not imported from outside the county and subsequently applied to agricultural land in the study area. This study examines the specific types of la nd-uses in the Ichetuc knee Springshed and the nutrient loads associated with these lands. This was accomplished using GIS mapping and data. By overlapping the SRWMD 1995 Land-Use Map with the delineated boundaries of the Ichetucknee Springshed we were able to determine the area of hectares of every type of land-use

PAGE 27

27 in the Ichetucknee Springshed (Appendix A). While there are a variety of land-use designations in the area, improved pasture la nd, row crops, and urban land-uses were examined closely due to their associated levels of nitrogen input. For the urban and improved pasture land-use ca tegories, per hectare values of nitrate-N loading were obtained from Harpers (1994) study of stormwater run-off from various types of land-uses in Central and South Florida. Urban. The Urban land-use designation used in this study is very genera l and is defined as urban and built-up lands consistin g of areas of intensive use with much of the land occupied by man-made structures (FDOT, 1999). This includ es strip malls, residential areas, shopping centers, commercial and industria l complexes, government build ings, etc. The Urban category takes precedent over other categories if the area m eets the criteria for more than one designation. For example, a Residential area with sufficient tree canopy cover to be considered an Upland Forest designation will still be classified as Urban. Urban land-uses are often associated with la rge percentages of impermeable surfaces such as buildings and parking lots, and therefore have a signifi cant affect on stormwater run-off. Other sources of nitrates associate w ith the urban land-use designation include fertilizer run-off from residential lawns. To calculate the amount of nitr ate loading associated with urban land-use the area of urban land was multiplied by the perarea amount from the Harper (1994) study. Improved Pasture. The Improved Pasture land-use de signation used in this study was defined as land which has been cleared, tilled, reseeded with specific grass and periodically improved with brush control and fertilizer a pplications (FDOT, 1999). This was one of the largest land-uses in the basin a nd therefore played a significant role in the overall nutrient

PAGE 28

28 budget. To determine the nitrate load from Impr oved Pasture lands the area of coverage was multiplied by the loading rate from the Harper study. Row Crops. The Row Crops land-use designation is defined as fields where rows remain well-defined even after crops have been harveste d (FDOT, 1999) and typi cally include potatoes, beans, corn and tomatoes. These types of land-uses are often associated with heavy levels of nutrient input, mainly in the form of fertilizers. To determine the amount of nitrate loadi ng per hectare from Row Crops, a value was obtained from a watershed assessment study by Soil and Water Engineering Technology for SRWMD (SWET, 1998). The study used computer modeling to simulate N loading to groundwater from various types of land-uses. Their figure for Row Crops was multiplied by the amount of hectares of Row Crops in the basin to obtain a total load. This value is much higher on a per-hectare basis than the other land-uses, as would be expected from a higher-intensity agricultural designation. Contingent Valuation Survey Theoretical Framework The m odel for contingent valuation method is based in random utility theory (McFadden, 1973). Utility is defined as a f unction of a households income, y, given price of goods which are constant, a vector of environmental quality, q, and a vector of individu al characteristics, C: u= u(y, q, C) (1) Indirect utility, v is composed of two parts, one that can be estimated by the researcher and one that is random: v = u + (2) The utility for maintaining the status quo for environmental quality, q0 is: v0= u0( y q0, C)+ 0 (3)

PAGE 29

29 while the utility for a change in environmental quality, q1, where p is the price paid, is: v1= u1( y-p q1, C ) + 1 (4) where i ( i = 0, 1) are the random, unobserved components of utility that are independently and identically distributed. ui1 = Ci + B ( yi p) + 1 (5) ui0 = Ci + Byi +0 (6) For an individual that must answer a question: Would you vote for a program that permanently increased water quality from q0 to q1 if it would increase your monthly utility bill by $ p for this year? the individual would respond yes if u1 ( y-p, q1,C ) + 1 u0 ( y, q0,C) + 0 0 (7) The probability of a yes response is given by the probability that utility received with the program is greater than the uti lity received without the program: Pr( Y ) = Pr[ v1 (y-p, q1,C)+1 > v(y, q0,C)+ 0] = Pr [ u >0] (8) Survey Design The design of the survey instrum ent is the most important part of the contingent valuation method, because the results of contingent valuat ion surveys are extremely sensitive to what respondents believe they are being as ked to value, as well as the context that is described in the survey (Holmes and Boyle, 2005). It is important to clearly define the good that is being valued and the method of its provision, and to demonstr ate that respondents are actually stating their values for the good when they answer the WTP question.

PAGE 30

30 The contingent valuation portion of this study fo cused on the nitrate load from septic tanks. This source was chosen for several reasons, first, they are point source in the sense that the majority of the tanks in the basin can be lo cated and identified. Second, information on the method to reduce this load, installing advanced treatment tanks, is available and the cost of such a program can be estimated readily. Third, while se ptic tanks may be a relatively small fraction of the total load of nitrate to the landscape, many tanks are located in areas of the Springshed (Ichetucknee Trace) that are particularly vulnerable to N loading and transport. The sample population for this study was chosen to be all th e residents of Columbia County due mainly to their proximity to the Ichetucknee. While citizens from other counties and most lik ely other states visit the River and value the health of the ecosystem, it was not feasible to account for these non-residents due to time and cost restraints. It was also not considered feasible to target on ly residents of the Ichetucknee Springshed due to the difficulty of obtaining addre sses for that limited area as well as the fact that any implementation of a ta x or utility fee increase across a non-standard political boundary is unrealistic. A sample size of approximately 1,000 residents was chosen to ensure significant numbers for statistical analysis for the population of Columbia County, which is approximately 64,000 people. Addresses were obtained from the Colu mbia County Property Appr aisers Office, which resulted in a sample of households who are home-owners as opposed to renters. This is significant in that renters would have very little incentive to pa y increased fees for a septic system they do not own. A mail survey was selected as the form of da ta collection mode for several reasons. First, mail surveys are the most commonly used met hod for contingent valu ation studies (Brown,

PAGE 31

31 2003) and Columbia County has reliable record s for mailing addresses. Second, because the information to be collected was easily presented in such a format, it was unnecessary to communicate directly with partic ipants via phone or in person. Third, this collection mode was consistent with the budget and time restraints of the investigators. An important component of the survey design process was development of the information and questions to be included in the survey (Mitchell and Carson 1989, Boyle 2003). The survey was designed based on input from experts, policym akers in the area, and residents of the area. The booklet first gave a descri ption of Ichetucknee and as ked questions concerning the participants interaction with the River. The next section described generally the role of nitrates in the environmental change and common man-made sources of nitrates. It then described the problem of nitrates in the Ichetucknee, a brief description of septic tanks, and the role septic tanks play in the problem. Following each information treatment, questions were asked to determine the participants prior knowledge of each subject, and understanding of the issue. These questions were included in order to help ensure that re spondents would carefully read the material in the questionnaire, so they could make an informed choice when responding to the WTP question. The WTP question proposes a creating a program that would replace standard septic tanks in the Ichetucknee Springshed with advanced models that greatly reduce nitrate pollution. The program would result in an increase in the respondents monthly utility bill. For the response format of the contingent valuation question this study used a dichotomous choice or For/Against question format. This esse ntially allows the participant to vote for or against a set monetary amount (Bid Amount), which was varied evenly across the sample population. The dichotomous choice format for ces respondents to choose between the utility

PAGE 32

32 associated with paying the stated amount or maintaining the status quo. If the participant perceives the increased utility is greater than the $ amount, he will vote For the program (Hanemann, 1984). The dichotomous choice format was chosen for its applicability to the subject and simplicity of an alysis. The actual wording for the CV question was: Q-8 Suppose that Columbia County is considering implementing a program to update, modify, and maintain septic tanks in the count y in order to improve water quality in the Ichetucknee River. The program would use tax dollars to create incentives to compensate home-owners who currently have septic tanks to update to new treatment technologies. Based on scientific evidence this program is expected to reduce nitrate loading to the Ichetucknee River by approximately 20% over the next 10 years. The ecological benefits in the Ichetucknee w ould include improved wa ter clarity, reduction of excessive algae growth, and protection of natural wildlife habitat. The funding for this program would come from an increase in Co lumbia County households utility bills of $______ per month for the next 10 years. If th is initiative were on th e next elect ion ballot would you vote: For Against The time frame for payment was described as monthly payments over the period of 10 years, which was selected in order to be realis tic about the amount of time it would take to get a program such as the one described in the surv ey operating. The bid amounts were set as $5, $10, $15, $20, and $25 per month and were evenly disper sed through the sample. The estimated cost of this program was estimated to be approxima tely $25 million based on the estimated number of septic tanks in the basin (5,000) and the approximate cost of inst allation for advanced treatment systems ($5,000 per unit -WCDOH, 2 007). Ancillary questions were asked in order to obtain socio-economic data on the participants.

PAGE 33

33 Pre-Testing Pre-te sting helps to ensure that survey questions are stated clearly, easily understandable to respondents, and are eliciting the information they are intended to (Brown et al, 2003). Pretesting of the survey was limite d due to budgetary constraints. After designing the survey and reviewing it with several experts and colleagues on campus at the University of Florida the survey was sent via email too se veral local contacts in Columb ia County. The draft survey was sent electronically to several knowledgeable lo cal experts on the area including the Columbia County Manager at the time Dale Williams and the head of the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group, Jim Stevenson, for review. The pre-testing was conducted on a one-on-one ba sis with the investigator and pre-test subjects from Alachua and Columbia Counties. Three pre-test subjects were interviewed at Ichetucknee Springs, while two were interviewed at local area establishments. Participants were asked to read through and complete the entire survey as if they had just received it in the mail, while recording any comments or concerns they had. After completing they survey, they were asked to share their comments and were questions to determine how well they understood the content of the survey. Results of the pre-tests varied but most of the participants had little problem interpreting the problems associated with nitrates or the WTP question. Two participants were not very familiar with the Ichetucknee but felt the survey conveyed the issues quite well. Most of the concerns from pre-testing invol ved the fairness of taxing the entire county when only a small portion of county residents septic tanks are located in the sp ringshed. Several participants reasoned that only those residents with septic tanks near the spri ngs should be responsible for paying for water quality improvements. Some pa rticipants were also concerned about the equitability of the tax and its impact on lowincome residents. The comments received during

PAGE 34

34 pre-testing were incorporated into the survey as best as possible, and after a final review the surveys were deemed ready for mass printing and mailing. Implementation Following a modified version of Dillm ans method (2000), a technique designed to improve response rates from surveys, a pre-notifica tion was sent to every pa rticipant several days before they received the surveys. The notification was in the form of a postcard which explained that the respondent had been randomly selected for a study by the University of Florida concerning water quality in the Iche tucknee River. It informed them that they would be receiving a questionnaire in the next few days and that their opinions were greatly needed. It also explained that their answers were strictly confidential. The actual wording of the notification postcard was: The University of Florida is conducting a study to explore th e possibility of improving and protecting water quality in the Ichetucknee River. In a few days you will receive a questionnaire in the mail. In this study we will ask you a series of questions regarding your interactions with the Ichetucknee and your preference towards improving water quality in the river and springs. The information we are collecting will help us better manage the River and protect its waters. The questionnaire takes approximately 10 minutes and is completely confidential. Please take the time to answer the questions, as we greatly value your opinions and need your assistance. In total, 948 surveys were sent out via first class mail from the Univ ersity of Florida Mail Room on July 9, 2007. Due to budget constraints ne ither a follow-up reminder letter nor a second wave of surveys could be sent. The mailing addr esses were selected randomly from a list of approximately 20,000 that was composed by the Co lumbia County Property Appraisers Office. Of the 1,000 surveys that were planned to be sent out approximately 52 were no included due to bad addresses, deceased residents, or where it wa s indicated the property was held in a trust. The total amount of surveys mailed out was 948, of wh ich only two were returned to sender, for a

PAGE 35

35 total of 946. The number of va lid returned surveys was 169, for a response rate of 17.8% The first surveys to be returned were received on July 23rd and the majority were received by the 20th of August. Analysis Since the respondents to the survey were asked to give a Yes/No response to a specific dollar amount to implement the program, as repr esented by Equation 8 of the theoretical model, the probability of them answering Yes to a certa in amount is statistica lly calculated using the logit model (Hanemann, 1984). The relationship is presented as: Probability Yes = 1 {1+exp[B0 B1($X)]}-1 (9) Where B s are coefficients estimated using logi t analysis, $X is a monetary amount the household is asked to pay. The coefficients must include the bid amount, and may also include socio-economic information and responses to attitude questions (Loomis, 2000). Different specifications of the logit model ar e possible. The model present here includes several theoretically important socio-economic variables as well questions concerning opinions and interactions with the Ichetucknee. The logistic regression was performed using STATA statistical program, the results of which will be discussed in Chapter 4.

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Ichetucknee Springshed Nutrient Budget Results: Total and Relative Nitrate Loads from Inventoried Sources Ichetucknee River The m ean concentration of nitrate in the Ichetucknee River in 2006 was 0.6 mg/L (FDEP, 2006a) and the total flow of the river was 222.26 million GPD. This amounts to a total of 184,235 kg N per year flowing from the Ichetucknee River. Table 4-1. Estimated amount of nitrate-N leaving the Ichetucknee River Flow(L per day) mg/L N Kg N/yr 222,260,000 0.6 184,235 Atmospheric Deposition The estim ate for nitrate loading contributed by atmospheric deposition was obtained using data collected by the NADP/NTN station wh ich was then multiplie d by the area of the springshed (approximately 92,000 ha), to give an estimate of the total amount of nitrate-N contributed to the Ichetucknee Springshed by atmospheric deposition. The estimated nitrate-N Load From atmospheric deposition was 199,603 KgN/yr. Lake Citys Waste-Water Sprayfield To calculate the nitrate load from the Lake City WWTF, the average annual concentration of nitrate (approximately 10mg/L) was multiplied by the average annual loading rate of the system (2.5 million GPD) for a total of 34,538 kgN /year. The potential nitrate load was also calculated using the total permitted loading rate of 3.0 million GPD for a total of 41,446 kgN/yr. Table 4-2. Estimated nitrate-N load from Lake Citys WWTF Sprayfield

PAGE 37

37 WWTF MGD L/Gallon mg/L N Kg/day kgN/yr Actual 2,500,000 3.785 10 94.625 34,538 Permit 3,000,000 3.785 10 113.55 41,446 OSTDS The am ount of N input from septic tanks was determined by estimati ng the total number of people within the basin that were not on municipal water supply multiplied by the per capita load of 4.2kg N/yr. The total annual load from septic tanks was estimated to be 48,817 kgN/yr. Table 4-3. Estimated nitrate-N load from On-Site Sewage Treatment Discharge Systems (Septic Tanks) OSTDS Population kg-N/yr per capita kg-N/yr 11,623 4.2 48,817 Land Uses Urban. To c alculate the amount of nitrate loading associated with urban land-use the area of urban land (8,400 ha) was multiplied by the pe r-area load (7.4 kgN/ha-yr) for a total of 62,160 kgN/yr. Improved Pasture. To determine the nitrate load from improved pasture lands the area of coverage (20,500 ha) was multiplied by the loading rate (11kgN/ha-yr) for a total of 225,500 kgN/yr. Row Crops. The estimated load from row crops was determined by multiplying the loading rate of 38 lbs/ac-yr (42.6 kgN/ha-yr) by the amount of hectares of row crops in the basin (1,300), for a total of 55,380 kg-N/yr.

PAGE 38

38 Table 4-4. Estimated nitrate-N load from land lses in the Ichetucknee Springshed Land Use Type Kg-N/ha yr Ha Kg-N/yr Urban 7.4 8400 62160 Improved Pasture 11 20500 225500 Row Crops 42.6 1300 55380 Total N L-Use 343040 Summary of Total and Relative Loads The estim ates in Table 6 represent total load s to the landscape within the Ichetucknee Springshed in 2006, not necessarily total loads to the aquifer, which has been standard practice for other nutrient budget studies (Chellette 2002, Katz, 1999). This fact accounts for the large difference between the total nitrate load (appr oximately 626,000 kgN/yr) compared to the yield from the River (184,235 kgN/yr). The difference betw een the load and yield must be assumed to be the result of a variety of uptakes, sinks, and tr ansformations that occur between the point that the nitrate is release to the landscape and the ti me that it emerges in the River. Attempting to accurately account for the affect of these dissimilarity processes was considered beyond the scope of this project, due mainly to time constraints, but wo uld be a very useful exercise for future studies. Table 4-5. Complete Inventory of nitrat e-N Loads in the Ichetucknee Springshed Source Load (kg-N/yr) WWTF 34,538 OSTDS 48,817 Atm Dep 199,603 Urban 62,160 Crop 55,380 Pasture 225,500 Total 625,998

PAGE 39

39 Another factor that most likely contributed to the large difference between the load of nitrates and the yield is the a ffect of geology on the amounts and ra tes of nitrate in trusion in the different areas of the springshed. While certain so urces of nitrates might occur mainly in the relatively protected, confined areas of the spri ngshed, other sources might have more immediate impacts in the unconfined areas of the Ichetuckn ee Trace. The application of nitrate from sources such as the Lake City WWTF and septic tanks are typically constant and concentrated in a small area, while the application of nitrates in the form of fertilizers are most likely seasonal and relatively diffuse. There is also a significant time-lag that is not accounted for in this study, which only considers the nitrate loads from 2006. While the loading occurred in 2006, the amount of time it will take for that water to emerge in the springs is not really known, and could likely vary from weeks in the Ichetucknee Trace to years in the co nfined areas in the northern regions of the springshed. Water that was discha rged years before this study was conducted could be having an affect on the current level of nitrate in the springs and river. One of the largest assumptions this study makes is the assertion that reducing loads fr om current sources will have a more or less immediate impact on the water quality of the springs, which may simply not be the case.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2. Relative Contribution of the Inventoried Sources of nitrate-N in the Ichetucknee Springshed ROW CROP 9 % URBAN 10 % OSTDS 8 % WWTF 6 % Pasture 35 % A tm Dep 32 % Figure4-1. Relative Contribution of Inventorie d Sources to nitrate-N to the Ichetucknee Springshed Figure 3. Relative Contribution from Anthropogenic nitrate-N Sources in Ichetucknee Springshed PASTURE 53% WWTF 8% OSTDS 11% URBAN 15% CROP 13% Figure 4-2. Relative Contribution of Anthropogenic Sources of n itrate-N to the Ichetucknee Springshed Figure 3 summarizes the relative contribution of each inventoried source of nitrate in the Springshed in 2006, while Figure 4 summarizes th e relative contribution of the anthropogenic

PAGE 41

41 sources of nitrate, therefore it does include atmospheric deposition. While the levels of nitrate contributed from Atmospheric De position have been influenced by human actions, particularly emissions of Nitrous oxides into the atmosphere, this issue could not be addressed in this study. The results of the nutrient budget reveal that at the scale of the Ichetucknee Springshed it is clear that runoff from Land Uses comprises ar ound 80% of the anthropo genic load, with over half derived from Improved Pasture land-uses. Septic Tanks and Lake Citys WWTF comprise the remainder of the load. Fertilizer runoff fr om agricultural land uses (improved pasture and row crops) is the greatest contributor of nitrate to the landscape, and should be a major focus in managing the Springshed. Lake Citys WWTF does not appear to be a major contributor of nitrates to the Springshed. While septic tanks were utilized in the CVM portion of this study, they do not represent a major re lative load to the landscape. Results from the Contingent Valu ation Survey of Columbia County Descriptive Statistics This section is a brief summary of som e of the descriptive statistics obtained from the contingent valuation survey. The attitudinal and behavioral questions that were included in the survey allow the researcher to gain an understanding of how the population feels and how often they interact with the resource th at is being valued. These questi ons are useful to gauge how well the participants understand the information descri bed in the survey and their prior knowledge. A complete version of the results from the survey can be found in Appendix: C. The descriptive statistics were performed using Microsof t Excel and STATA statistical package. Visitation : Approximately 84% of thos e surveyed indicated they have visited Ichetucknee Springs at least once, while 60% of respondents visit the springs 1-2 times per year, 15% visit 35 times per year, 3% visit 6-10 times per year, and 5% visit over 11 times per year. The fact that such a large proportion of the sample populati on has visited the Iche tucknee indicates how

PAGE 42

42 popular the site is among residents of Columbia County. There is a po ssibility that this high rate of visitation (84%) could be an effect of sample bias, however, the research ers feel that this is unlikely. Ichetucknee Springs is the largest touris t attraction in Columbia County and it stands to reason that a large percentage of local resident s would have visited the site. Almost 20,000 local residents visited in 2002 alone (B onn and Bell, 2003), therefore it seems that 84% is not an unrealistic figure and would most likely be reflected in the total population. Importance: When asked How import ant is it to you to protect Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution? 57% responded Very Importa nt, 33% responded Important, 8% responded Somewhat Important, and only 2% responded Not Important. These results indicate that a high percentage of Columbia County residents are concerned about the health of the Ichetucknee. This could also be affected by response bias, as individuals who have little regard of the Ichetucknee would not be likely to participate in a study on it. Participation: When septic tank owners were asked How likely are you to participate in an incentive program such as the one describe d, if such a program was implemented? 20.9% responded Unlikely, 11.2% responded Som ewhat Unlikely, 39.4% responded Somewhat Likely, and 28.4% responded Very Likely. The fact that almost 70% of septic tank owners in the sample indicated they would be likely to partic ipate in this type of program is encouraging. It can be inferred that a septic tank replacement a nd improvement program could stand a chance of being successfully implemented in Columbia County and have a high level of voluntary participation. Demographic Data: The participants aver age household income in 2006 was between $55,000-65,000 which is higher than the county and state average. The average level of education was an associate degree; however th ere were an unusually high percentage of

PAGE 43

43 participants that claimed to have a graduate or other advanced degree. All of the participants were homeowners, which is due to fact that the addresses for the sample population were obtained from the Columbia County Property A ppraisers office and th erefore only included property owners (while Columbia Countys home ow nership rate is 77%). This might explain the higher level of income in the sample, since pr operty owners are likely to have high income versus renters. Logit Analysis The f inal statistical model was: u = B0 B1(Bid) +B2(Income) +B (Education) +B (Politic) B (Importance) +B (Visitation) + error Where yes is the dependent variable and reco rds if a person was or wasnt willing to pay the amount asked in the survey. (1 = Yes, 0 = No), Bid: The Bid variable refers to the dollar amount that the participant was asked to pay. This variable is always included in a logit mode l and sign on the coefficient is expected to be negative. This indicates that as the dollar amount partic ipants were asked to pay increases, the less likely they would be to vote for the program. The amounts varied from $5, $10, $15, $20, and $25. Income: Income level was included because it usually has a positive relation to willingness to pay. The higher a persons income, the larger the amount they are usually willing to pay for environmental services therefore we would expect a positive sign on the coefficient. (0 = less than $45,000 household annual income 1 = greater than $45,000 household annual income) Education: A persons level of education is another socio-economic variable that can have an affect on ones values for environmental goods and services. A positive sign would be

PAGE 44

44 expected on the Education coefficient, indicating th at as education level increases, so does the tendency to answer positively to the WTP ques tion. (0 = Less than college education, 1 = College Education) Politic: Political affiliation was included because it is has been shown to have an impact on WTP estimates. Politically conservative indivi duals tend to have more anti-environmental leanings when compared to more liberal indivi duals (Dietz et al 19998). A positive sign on the coefficient is expected, meaning respondents who consider themselves more liberal are more likely to vote for the program. (0= Conservative, 1= Liberal) Importance: The Importance variable was added because how individuals answer attitudinal questions have shown to have an impact on WTP for environmental goods (Loomis, 2000a). A negative sign is expected, meaning the le ss important the respondent believes the issue of protecting Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollu tion is, the less likely they will vote for the program. (0= Important, 1= Not Important) Visitation: The Visitation variable was included b ecause there is a positive relationship between frequency with which the participant uses or interacts with the resource that is being valued and their WTP. A positive sign is expected in this case, which would indicate that the more often a participant visits Ichetucknee Springs the more likely they are to vote for the program. (0 = None, 1-2 visits per ye ar, 1 = 3 or more visits per year) The results of the logistic regr ession are summarized in Table 7.

PAGE 45

45 Table 4-6. Logistic regression model of probability to pay vote for increased utility bill WTP Coef. Bid -0.0926*** Income -.1014 Education .4654 Politic 1.0298* Importance -2.1103*** Visitation 1.1802** Constant 2.0281 Number of obs 131 *** indicates the variable was significant at the .01 level ** indicates the variable was significant at the .05 level indicates the variable was significant at the .1 level Log likelihood = -73.5355 Interpretation of Regression Results Bid: Bid has a statistically significant affect on the probability of a Yes response at the .01 level. The negative sign on the coefficient indicates that as the higher the dollar amount participants were asked to pay, the less likely they would be to vote for the program This result was expected and conforms to economic theory. Politic: Politic has a significant affect on the prob ability of a Yes re sponse, at the .1 level. The positive sign indicates that respondent s who consider themselves more liberal are more likely to vote for the program, as was pr edicted. This result could have interesting implications in Columbia County as it is a mos tly conservative area, and only about 20% of the sample population identified themselves as liberal.

PAGE 46

46 Importance: The Importance variable has statistically significant affect at the .01 level. The negative sign indicates that the less importa nt the respondent believes the issue of protecting Ichetucknee Springs fr om nitrate pollution is, the le ss likely they will vote for the program. This affect was expected and conforms with other results in the literature (Loomis, 2000a). This result implies that if policy make rs or educators were to enact programs that increase awareness and concern for the ecologica l health of the Ichetu cknee, it would increase the value that individuals place on the river. Visitation: Visitation has a significant affect at the .05 level. The positive sign indicates that the more often a participant visits Ichetuc knee Springs the more likel y they are to vote for the program. This sign was expected and conforms to theory as well. The result is interesting in that it might provide managers of Ichetuckn ee incentive to implement programs to increase visitation at the park by local re sidents. However the river alrea dy has an enforced capacity in summer, and can only withstand a certain increase in activity during those months. One possible solution could be to attempt to increase visita tion by local residents du ring other times of the year, with an emphasis on more passive uses of the resource. Mean WTP Hane manns (1984) formula to calculate the value of mean willingness to pay is: Mean WTP = (1/ B1)*ln(1 + eB0) (8) where B1 is the coefficient on the Bid amount and B0 is either the estimated constant (if there are no other independent vari ables in the model) or the sum of the constant plus the product of the other independent variable s times their respective means. Using this formula mean WTP was calcu lated and found to be $18.7 per household per month, without incorporating the independent variables. After in corporating the effects of the independent variables, mean WTP was estimated to be $16.9 per household per month for the

PAGE 47

47 increase in water quality in the Ichetucknee Rive r. This amounts to an av erage annual value of $202 per household. Expanded across all households in Columbia County this comes to total WTP of $42.4 million dollars over ten years. This fi gure is within the range of other river studies such as Loomis et al (2000) study of the South Platte River ($252 annually) or Hanemann et al (1991) study of salmon restora tion in the San Joaquin River ($452 annually). However, the Ichetucknee is a fraction of the size of those larger rivers, yet still commands a similar value from local residents. This again emphasizes th e point that citizens of Columbia County are genuinely concerned for the health of the Ichetucknee Springs system.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS Summary of Study The purpose of this study was identify the sour c es of nitrate pollution in the Ichetucknee Springshed and to gain a greater understanding of the values that citizens of Columbia County place water quality in the Ichetucknee. The result s of the nutrient budget reve al that at the scale of the Ichetucknee Springshed it is clear that runoff from Land Uses comprises around 80% of the anthropogenic load, with over half derived from Improve d Pasture land-uses. Septic Tanks and Lake Citys WWTF comprise the remainder of the load. Fertilizer runoff from agricultural land uses (Improved Pasture and Row Crops) is the greatest c ontributor of nitrate to the landscape, and should be a major focus in ma naging the Springshed. Lake Citys WWTF does not appear to be a major contribut or of nitrates to the Springshed. The Contingent Valuation survey reveals a good deal of information about Columbia County residents attitudes and preferences towards the Ichetucknee. A large percentage of participants (84%) have visited the springs and a majority feels that protecting water quality in the river is Very Important. The general leve l of knowledge towards the problems associated with nitrates in the Ichetucknee was moderate. These results should be motivation for decisionmakers and environmental managers in the area to implement education efforts in the County and springshed, aimed at increasing the knowledge and concern that residents have for the Ichetucknee. The logit model shows the affects a variety of factors have on participants willingness to pay responses. As the bid amount increases, th e probability of a positive response decreases. These effects of the variables are statistically significant and conform to theoretical and empirical expectations. The probability of accepting the bid amount increases with the

PAGE 49

49 participants level of visitation to the Ichetuc knee and how important they believe water quality in the river to be. The probability of accepting the bid is also higher the more liberal the participants identify themselves politically, whic h could have interesting implications due to the generally conservative nature of Columbia County The mean willingness to pay for the increase in water quality in the Ichetucknee River was calculated to be $16.9 per household, per month over the course of 10 years. This amounts to a total WTP of $42.4 million for Columbia County. This value may be considered a high estimate, due to the fact that it assumes non-respondents have the same WTP as respondents. The aggregate WTP value exceeds the estimated cost of implementing the program of $25 million. While this study uses septic tanks as the met hod for a 20% improvement water quality, the value that is estimated is not necessari ly restricted to improvement fr om septic tanks, it is for any general 20% improvement in water quality. This is valuable informati on that can only be provided by surveying the public and asking them directly to state th eir values and preferences. It also allows for a greater representation of populaces interests in public decision-making. Limitations and Assumptions Creating a nutrient budget for a specific sp ringshed within the Floridan Aquifer is com plicated and requires a numbe r of simplifying assumptions (Chellette, 2002). Many of the processes that are summarized he re are highly variable over time, and certain areas of the Ichetucknee Springshed are highly permeable to groundwater while others are well confined. The contingent valuation method has been proven to provide reliable es timates for non-market values, but still relies on some basic assumptions and faces several limitations. The limitation and assumptions associated with this the study are presented here:

PAGE 50

50 Limitations This data on ly represents the total load to the landscape of the sp ringshed and not to the aquifer. The rates of de-nitrification and uptake of n itrate sources in the sp ringshed are not well understood. The data presented here only represents the lo ads that occurred in 2006. Nitrate levels in the Icheutcknee system are highly variable over time and The survey only includes Columbia County resi dents and does not incorporate the values of visitors from nearby counties or from fart her distances whom may have also have a value for the Ichetucknee. Considering that 80 % of visitors to the Springs are not local residents, it is highly likely that residents of surrounding co unties such as Alachua and Suwannee also value the resource. Assumptions The Land-Use Data fro m 1995 is still accurate in 2006. This is very unlikely; however at the time of the study, this was the most accurate land-use data available. Land-use Loading Rates from the Harper a nd SWET studies are representative of the actual loading rates in the Springshed. Both stud ies were conducted in Florida so it is not unlikely that these rates are applicable. 0.6 mg/L nitrate-N was represen tative of conditions in the River for the entire year of 2006. The flow rate of 222 MGD was representative of conditions in the Ichetucknee River for the entire year of 2006. Water levels and flows change with time, depending on rainfall and other factors. Survey respondents answered truthfully to all questions. This is an inherent problem with all stated-preference methods, and must be assumed to be true. Respondents would actually pay the amount stated in the survey if it were presented in a real-life situation. It is assumed that the payment vehicle di d not have an affect on WTP. There is a possibility that respondents to the survey did not agree with the idea of a flat tax on all citizens of the county. Pre-testing revealed some concerns that a flat rate was inequitable to lower income residents and that it was unfair to charge non-septic tank users. This could have an effect on a respondents WTP.

PAGE 51

51 Conclusions While the nutrient budget gives a general idea of the m ajor sources of nitrate in the basin, it is still limited in its ability to determine the amounts of pollution that actually enter the groundwater and end up in the spring s. Further analysis in this area could include various types of modeling to predict actual n itrate flows to groundwater from all sources in the springshed. Using spatial and hydrological data to predict areas in the springshe d that are most vulnerable to groundwater contamination would also be usef ul to managing nutrients in the springshed. Further study of the karst systems and the moveme nt of groundwater in th e springshed could also provide insight into how nutrients are tran sported from the landscape to the springs. The results of the CVM survey imply that Columbia County residents place a substantial value on water quality in the Ichetucknee River an d are willing to pay for and participate in a program to improve it. Using CVM is one of the few ways to place a value on a good that is otherwise completely unknown. This information is important for policymakers to have in order to make informed decisions that affect the wa ter resources that citizens depend on for drinking water, tourism, and recreation (Loomis, 2000b). The results of this study help inform the debate over the allocation of funds for groundwater prot ection, and should provide useful information for policymakers considering stormwater planni ng, land-use changes in the county, and approval for increased septic tanks permits. The results also imply that if a referendum program of this nature were placed on a ballot in Columbia County, it could face a fair chance of passing. If a flat tax increase for the entire county is unfeasible, one possibl e action might be to create a special taxing district along hydrologic boundaries, to better ensu re that the people who are mo st drastically impacting the resource are the ones who pay more to improve it. While this study provides an estimate of

PAGE 52

52 citizens values for water quality in the Ichetuck nee, it is ultimately up to policymakers at the State and County levels to implement any changes. A great amount of research in this area lies ahead. The variety of nut rient sources in the springshed, their relative impacts, and the methods of nutrient transport sh ould all be examined in greater detail. Continued research on the aff ects of nitrates in the river and other possible causes for the problems of excessive algae growth in the Ichetucknee should also be explored. An interesting area for future socio-economic studies would be to vary the sources of nutrients in the springshed, the level of pollution reduction th at would be provided, and the costs of the improvement. This could allow diffe rent attributes of the good to be valued as well as provide incremental values for improved wa ter quality in the Ichetucknee. Using another method, such as TCM, to be compared to the results from this study would also be informative.

PAGE 53

53 APPENDIX A LAND-USE MAP OF THE ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGSHED

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX B CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEY: IMPR OVING WATER QUALITY IN THE ICHETUCKNEE RIVER Improving Water Quality in the Ichetucknee River The University of Florida is conducting a study to explore the possibility of improving water quality in the Ichetucknee. In this survey we will ask you a series of questions regarding your interactions with the Ichetuc knee River and your preferences and opinions related to water quality in the river. Please answer all the questions to the best of your ability. We value your opinions greatly and need your help. Thank you for your time! School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Florida

PAGE 55

55 The Ichetucknee River The Ichetucknee River is a pristine, crystal clear 5-mile spring run and is the largest tourist attraction in Columbia County, attracting between 3,000-5,000 people a day in busy summer months. While immensely popular for tubing, it has many other recreational opportunities such as swimming, birding, kayaking, and scuba diving. The River is also a unique ecological resource and provides habitat for a wide range of fish, reptiles, birds, and aquatic mammals. However, over the past decade, the Ichetucknee Springs and River have become threatened by increased groundwater contaminat ion, especially higher levels of nitrates. Q-1 Have you ever visited Ichetucknee Springs? Yes No Please go to Q-4 Q-2 How many times a year do you visit Ichetucknee Springs? 1-2 times per year 3-5 times per year 6-10 times per year 11+ times per year Q-3 What activities do you participate in when you visit the Ichetucknee (please check all that apply) Tubing Swimming Canoeing/Kayaking Hiking Wildlife Viewing Scuba Diving Picnicking Other _______ What are Nitrates?

PAGE 56

56 Nitrate (NO3) is a naturally o ccurring form of nitrogen f ound in soil and is a nutrient essential to all plant life. Nitrates form when microorganisms break dow n fertilizers, decaying plants, manures or other organic matter. Usually plants take up these nitrates, but sometimes rain or irrigation water can cause them to be released into groundwater. Although nitrate occurs naturally in some gr oundwater, in most cases higher levels are thought to result from human activities. Comm on sources of nitrate generated by human activity include fertilizers and manure, municipal wastewater and sludge, and septic systems. Q-4 How familiar were you with the role of ni trates in the environment before reading this questionnaire? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar Q-5 How familiar were you with the sources of nitrates in groundwater resulting from human activities before r eading this questionnaire? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar Nitrates in the Ichetucknee

PAGE 57

57 Scientific studies have show n that there are unnaturally hi gh levels of nitrate in the Ichetucknee. The excessive nitrate levels in the Ichetuc knee can cause dense growth of algae that smothers the native eelgrass and creates floating mats on the surface. The increased amounts of algae reduce water clarity which detracts from the snorkeling and scuba diving experience. Certain varieties of noxious algae pose a hea lth risk for swimmers and tubers that are allergic to it. Excessive nitrates can have negative effects on habitat for aq uatic turtles, crawfish, and other species of wildlife. Several of scientific studies have shown that one of the major sources of nitrates in the Ichetucknee is septic tanks in the surrounding area. Septic tanks are used by households that are not connected to a citys muni cipal sewer system, for waste disposal. Q-6 How familiar were you with the problem of increased Nitrates in the Ichetucknee before reading this questionnaire? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar Q-7 How important is it to you to protect Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution? Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important What are Septic Tanks?

PAGE 58

58 A septic tank generally consists of a 1,500 gallon tank which is c onnected to an inlet wastewater pipe at one end and to a l eaching or drain field at the other. Wastewater from the home enters through the in let pipe, and treatmen t of the wastewater is accomplished by physical, chemical, and biological processes in the tank system. The remaining impurities, including high levels of nitrates, are released through the drain field, which usually consists or a gravel bed and are eventu ally taken up through the root system of plants or added to the groundwater. Septic Tanks in Columbia County Septic tanks are regulated by Columbia C ountys Department of Health and it is estimated that there are approximately 5,000 se ptic tanks in the ar ea that are impacting the Ichetucknee. This addition of run-off from thousands of se ptic tanks in the Ichetucknee River basin has contributed to the increase of nitrates in the spring system and accounts for approximately 20% of the nitr ate load to the springs. Advanced septic systems have been developed that use improved artificial and natural filtration techniques to redu ce the amount of nitrates re leased into the groundwater. Q-8 Suppose that Columbia County is considering implementing a program to update, modify, and maintain septic tanks in the county in order to improve water quality in the Ichetucknee River. The program woul d use tax dollars to create incentives to compensate home-

PAGE 59

59 owners who currently have septic tanks to upd ate to new treatment technologies. Based on scientific evidence this program is expected to reduce nitrate loading to the Ichetucknee River by approximately 20% over the next 10 years. The ecological benefits in the Ichetucknee would include improved water clarity, reduction of excessive algae growth, and protection of natural wildlife habitat. The funding for this program would come from an increase in Columbia County households utility bills of $______ per month for the next 10 years. If th is initiative were on the next election ballot would you vote: For Against Q-9 Does your home use a septic system? Yes Q-10 No Not Sure Q-10 How likely are you to participate in an incentive pr ogram such as described in Question 8, if such a program was implemented? Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Please provide some information about yourself for analysis purposes: 1) Are you Male Female

PAGE 60

60 2) How old are you? ________ 3) Please check your highest level of education: Some High School Some College High School Graduate Associate Degree Or Equivalent College Graduate Trade of Vocational School Graduate or Professional Degree 4) Are you a member of any environmental organizations? YES NO If YES, please specify: ____________________ 5) How many people live in your household? _____________ Persons 6) Do you own or rent your home? OWN RENT 7) Please indicate the range of your 2006 annual household income (before taxes): BELOW $15,000 $55,001 65,000 $16,000 25,000 $65,001 75,000 $25,001 35,000 $75,001 100,000 $35,001 45,000 $100,001 125,000 $45,001 55,000 OVER $125,000 Please Continue on Back 8) How many people contribute to your household income? ______________ Persons 9) How would you describe your political views?

PAGE 61

61 Very Conservative Somewhat Conservative Moderate Somewhat Liberal Very Liberal 10) What is your ethnicity? White Asian African American or Black Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Other _________________ Native American or Alaskan native Please fold the survey in half and insert it in to the pre-paid envelope included. Feel free to make any additional comments about your answers to these questions or about the survey itself. Comments: Thank you for participating in this survey! For further information, please contact: Dr. Janaki Alavalapati or Mr. Chad Foster School of Forest Resources and Conservation University of Florida Newins-Ziegler Hall, PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: (352) 846-0899 or (352) 222 0911 Email: janaki@ufl.edu or chadrfos@ufl.edu ID# 0001 APPENDIX B COMPLETE STATISTICAL RESULTS Survey Response Results Q-1 Have you ever visited Ichetucknee Springs?

PAGE 62

62 Yes 84% No 16% Q-2 How many times a year do you visit Ichetucknee Springs? 1-2 times per year 60.0% 3-5 times per year 15.3% 6-10 times per year 2.3% 11+ times per year 5.3% Q-3 What activities do you par ticipate in when you visit the Iche tucknee (please check all that apply) Tubing 61% Canoeing/Kayaking 12.2% Wildlife Viewing 33.5% Picnicking 36% Swimming 56% Hiking 15.2% Scuba Diving 2.4% Q-4 How familiar were you with the role of ni trates in the environment before reading this questionnaire? Very Familiar 20.9% Somewhat Familiar 54.6% Not Familiar 24.5% Q-5 How familiar were you with the sources of nitrates in groundwater resulting from human activities before reading this questionnaire? Very Familiar 23.3% Somewhat Familiar 51.5% Not Familiar 25.2% Q-6 How familiar were you with the problem of increased Nitrates in the Ichetucknee before reading this questionnaire? Very Familiar 17.2% Somewhat Familiar 44.8% Not Familiar 38.0% Q-7 How important is it to you to protect Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution?

PAGE 63

63 Very Important 56.9% Important 33.1% Somewhat Important 7.70% Not Important 2.30% Q-9 Does your home use a septic system? Yes 83.5% No 16.5% Q-10 How likely are you to participate in an incentive program such as described in Question 8, if such a program was implemented? Unlikely 20.9% Somewhat Unlikely 11.2% Somewhat Likely 39.6% Very Likely 28.4% 1) Gender Male 52% Female 48% 2) How old are you? Mean =55 3) Please check your highest level of education: 1-Some High School 1.5% 2-High School Graduate 13.8% 3-Trade of Vocational School 4.6% 4-Some College 25.4% 5-Associate Degree 15.4% 6-College Graduate 16.2% 7-Graduate or Professional Degree 23.1% Mean = 4.8 4) Are you a member of any environmental organizations? YES 7.3% NO 92.7% 5) How many people live in your household? Mean = 2.4 persons

PAGE 64

64 6) Do you own or rent your home? Own = 100% 7) Please indicate the range of your 2006 annual household income (before taxes): 1-BELOW $15,000 3.8% 2-$16,000 25,000 9.2% 3-$25,001 35,000 10.8% 4-$35,001 45,000 7.7% 5-$45,001 55,000 13.1% 6-$55,001 65,000 8.5% 7-$65,001 75,000 8.5% 8-$75,001 100,000 12.3% 9-$100,001 125,000 9.2% 10-OVER $125,000 16.9% Mean = 6.1 8) How many people contribute to your household income? Mean = 1.58 Persons 9) How would you describe your political views? Very Conservative 9.2% Somewhat Conservative 28.5% Moderate 41.5% Somewhat Liberal 16.9% Very Liberal 3.8% Mean = 2.78 10) What is your ethnicity? White 94.5% African American or Black 3.1% Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin 1.2% Native American or Alaskan native 0.6% Asian 0.6% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0%

PAGE 65

65 LIST OF REFERENCES Ahtian, H. 2007. The willingness to pay for reducing the harm from oil spills in the Gulf of Finlandan application of the contingent valuation method. University of Helsinki, Finland. Department of Economics. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report to the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Feral Register 58(10), 4602-4614. Bicki, T., Brown, R., Collins, M., Mansell, R, and D. Rothwell., 1984. Impact of on-site sewage disposal systems on surface and groundwater quality. Report to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Bishop, R., Heberlein, T., 1979.Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are direct measures biased? American Journal of Ag ricultural Economics 61, 926-930. Bonn, M.A., Bell, 2003. Economic impact of select ed Florida springs on surrounding local areas. Prepared for the Florida Dept. of En vironmental Protection. Tallahassee, Fl. Brown, T.C., Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., 2003. Contingent valuation in practice A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. Carpenter, S. and Turner, M.2000. Opening bl ack boxes: ecosystem science and economic valuation. Ecosystems.3(1). Carson, R.T. 2000. Contingent valuation: a use rs guide. Environmental Science and Technology 34:1423-1418. Chellette, A., Katz, B., 2002. Nitrate loading as an indicator of non-point source pollution in the Lower St. Marks-Wakulla rivers watershe d. Report to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water Resources Special Report 02-1. Davis, R., 1963. The value of outdoor recreati on: an economic study of the Maine Woods. Doctoral dissertation in ec onomics. Harvard University. Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. and G.A. Guagnano. 1998. Social structural and soci al psychological bases of environmental concern. Envir onment and Behavior. 30:450-471. Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and internet su rveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Fan A.M., Willhite, C.C., and Book, SA. Evaluation of the nitrate drinking water standard with reference to infant methemoglobinemia and potential reproductiv e toxicology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1987;7(2):135. Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection (FDEP), 2006a. EcoSummary: Ichetucknee Springs. Environmental Assessm ent Section Tallahassee.

PAGE 66

66 Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection (FDEP), 2006b. Water quality study of the Ichetucknee River. Division of Laboratories Tallahassee. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Co mmission, 2006. Itchetucknee Springs State Park. Feb, 2006. Obtained via the world wide web at www.floridastateparks.org/ichetuckneesprings/ Florida Dept. of Transportation (FD OT), 1999. Florida Land Use, Land Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) manual. FDOT Surveyi ng and Mapping Office, Geographic Mapping section. Hanemann, M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in conti ngent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(3), 332-341. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bonded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Economics 79, 544-554. Harper, H. H., 1994. Stormwater loading rates fo r central and south Florida. Environmental Research and Design, Inc. Orlando, FL. Holmes, T. D., and Boyle, K.J., 2005. Dynamic l earning and context-depe ndence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81, 114-126. Katz, B., Hornsby, D.H., Bolke, J.F., Mokray, M.F., 1999. Sources and chronology of nitrate contamination in spring waters, Suwannee Ri ver Basin, Forida. U.S. Geological Survey: Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4252. Kurtz, R.C., D.C., Woithe, S.K. Notestein, T. K. Frazer, J.A. Hale, and S.R. Keller., 2004. Mapping and monitoring submerged aquatic vegetation in Ichetucknee Springs-2004. Final Report to Suwannee River Water Ma nagement District Live Oak, FL. Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K ., Covich, A., 2000. Measur ing the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an im paired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33, 103-117. McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics, P. Zarembka, New York: Academic Press, 105-142. Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Va lue Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Milon, J., Scrogin, D., 2006. Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem evaluation. Ecological Economics, 56 (2), 162-175. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (N ADP), 2006. NADP/NTN wet deposition annual data 2006. Accessed via the world wide web in February, 2006 at nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/site info.asp?net=NTN&id=FL03.

PAGE 67

67 Otis, R.J., Boyle, W.C., Saur, D., 1975. Performa nce of household wastewater treatment systems under field conditions. National Home Sewage Symposium ,191-201. Phelps, G. G., 2004. Chemistry of ground water in the Silver Springs Basin, Florida, with and emphasis on nitrate. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5144. Pierzysnki, G.M., Sims, J.T., Vance, M., 1994. Soils and environmental quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Shrestha, R.K., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2004. Valu ing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: A case study of the Lake Okeec hobee watershed in Florida. Ecological Economics 49, 349-359. Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET), 1998. GIS watershed assessment final report. Part A SR-WAM technical re ferences manual. Gainesville, FL. Suwannee River Water Management District, 2006. Latest Spring Details: Itchetuknee.. Accessed via the world wide web in February, 2006 at www.srwmd.state.fl.us/water+data/springs/. Upchurch, S.B., Champion, K.M., 2003. Delineation of spring-water source areas in the Ichetucknee springshed. SDII Globa l Corporation. Tampa, FL. Wetland Solutions Inc. (WSI), 2006. Ichetucknee River Florida, Ecosystem Evaluation and Impairment Assessment. Report pr epared for Three Rivers, Inc.

PAGE 68

68 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chad Foster graduated Cum Laude from the University of Floridas School of Natural Resources and Environment with a B.A. in environmental science in 2005. He is currently pursuing a Degree of Master of Science in in terdisciplinary ecology, in the University of Floridas School of Natural Resources and Environment.