**1** PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT
**1. Survey Objectives, Key Variables, and Other Preliminaries**  **1(a) Survey Objectives**  The overall goal of this survey is to examine public values (including non
- use values) for improvements in water quality in the Chesapeake Bay

and its watershed. Water quality improvements are expected to follow nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment load reductions set forth in recent Chesapeake Bay

Total Maximum Dai ly

L oad (TMDL) requirements. EPA has designed the survey to provide data to support the following specific objectives:

 To estimate the total values, including non
- use values, which individuals place on improving water qualit y in the Chesapeake Bay tidal w aters and upstream lakes.
 To understand how individuals value improvements in tidal waters and lakes, including water clarity, populations of blue crab and o ys ters, and overall lake conditions.
 To understand how individuals value improvements in the quality of aquatic habitat , such as dissolved oxygen, water clarity , aquatic grasses, and overall lake condition, that are considered inputs to directly
- consumed products (like game and shell fish).
 To understand how the above values depend on the future baseli ne level of water qualit y, habitat and recreation in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
 To understand how values vary with respect to individuals’ economic and demographic characteristics. Understanding total public values for a variet y of water qualit y indicators is necessary to determine the full range of benefits associated with reductions in nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay . While direct use values can be estimated using a variety of methods, non
use valu es can only

be assessed via stated preference survey methods. Because non
- use values may be substantial, failure to recognize such values may lead to improper inferences regarding policy benefits (Freeman 2003).**2**

**1(b) Key Variables**  The key questions in the survey

ask respondents whether or not they would vote for policies that would result in improvements in water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in exchange for an increase in their cost of living. The choice experiment framework allows re spondents to view pairs of multi
- attribute policies associated with total maximum daily loads to the Chesapeake Bay . EPA developed two versions of the survey which differ in the set of environmental attributes presented in the choice questions. Respondent s are asked to choose the program that they would prefer, or to choose the status quo (i.e., reject both policy choices). The survey

design follows well
- established choice experiment methodology and format (Adamowicz et al. 1998; L ouviere et al. 2000; Bennett and Blamey 2001; Bateman et al. 2002). The first version of the survey focuses on ecological inputs that do not directly affect individual utility , but instead primarily serve to modify

aquatic species, habitats and other endpoints that are more dire ctly valued by

respondents. Specificall y, the “input version” of the survey instrument specifies changes in: (a) dissolved ox ygen (DO), (b) water clarity, (c) aquatic grasses, (d) lake condition, and (e) change in cost of living. The second version of the survey , or “endpoint version,” asks respondents about changes in attributes considered to be ecological endpoints that directly enter into household production and utility

function. Specificall y, the endpoint survey presents changes in: (a) water clarity, (b) blue crab abundance, (c) o ys ter abundance, and (d) lake condition as well as (e) cost of living. As discussed by

Boyd and Krupnick (2009), these endpoints are “things we experience, things we make choices about, and things that have tangible meani ng” (p.9). Water clarit y appears on both versions of the survey instrument as it can be categorized as both an input and an endpoint. It is an important indicator of ecological health (and therefore an input), but it may also be an endpoint valued by i ndividuals. Similarly , lake condition can be both an input and an endpoint and is included on both versions of the instrument. Also, both versions of the survey include treatments in which conditions without additional action are either declining (i.e., “declining baseline”) or are unchanged from conditions today (i.e., “constant baseline.”) The versions of the survey , including declining and constant baselines, are included in this document as Attachments 1 through 4.**3**

The anal ys is of choice questions f or both versions of the instrument will use data on how the respondent votes, the amount of the cost of living increase, the degree of improvement in the environmental attributes (inputs and endpoints) to estimate values for changes in those attributes. V ariables for socio
- economic characteristics and attitudes will also be included in the anal ys is. **1(c) Statistical Approach**  A statistical survey

approach in which a randoml y drawn sample is emplo ye d is appropriate for estimating the use and non
- use values associated with the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. A census approach is impractical because of the extraordinary cost of contacting all households who have use and non - use values for Chesapeake Bay . The relevant population includes households not only residing near Chesapeake Bay , but more distant states on the east coast. A statistical survey is the most reasonable approach to estimate the total valu e of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. An alternative approach , where individuals self

- select into the sample , is not sufficiently rigorous to provide a useful estimate of the total value of water quality and habitat improvements
. Much of the work in developing the survey instrument was conducted in
- house at the EPA, and EPA will also directly

conduct much of the analy sis of the survey results
. EPA has retained Abt Associates Inc. (55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138) as a contractor to assist in questionnair e design, sampling design, administration of the survey , and analy sis of the survey results. **1( d**  **) Feasibility**  Following standard practice in the stated preference literature (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Batemen , et al, 2002; Bennett and Blamey 2001; Johnston et al. 1995; Lo uviere et al. 2000 ), EPA conducted a series of 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews (conducted under a different I CR with OMB control # 2090
- 0028). Based on findings from these activities, EPA made various improvements to the survey instrument to reduce the potential for respondent bias, reduce respondent cognitive burden, and increase respondent comprehension of the survey materials. In addition, EPA has solicited peer review of the survey

instruments by

specialists in academia as w ell as input from other experts (see section 3c in Part A).**4**

Because of the steps taken during the survey development process, EPA does not anticipate that respondents will have difficulty interpreting or responding to any of the survey

questions. Furtherm ore, since the survey

will be administered as a mail survey , it will be easily accessible to respondents. EPA therefore believes that respondents will not face any obstacles in completing the survey , and that the survey will produce useful results. EPA has dedicated sufficient funding (under EPA contract No. EP
W
- 11
- 003 ) to design and implement the survey. Given the timetable outlined in Section A 5(d) of this document, the survey

results should be available for timely use in the final benefits anal ys is for the Chesapeake Bay

TMDLs
.

**2. Survey Design**  **2(a) Target Population and Coverage**  To assess both use
- and non
- use values for improvements in Chesapeake Bay water quality , the target population is individuals who are 18 ye ars of age or older and reside in the District of Columbia or one of 18 east coast U.S. states: Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey , New York, Penns yl vania, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. These were chosen based on their immediate proximity to the Bay

(Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia) and/or lakes, streams and rivers in its watershed (Delaware, New York, Penns yl vania, West Virginia). Households in these areas are more likely to hold “use” values for improvements to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed than those farther away . The remaining states (i.e., Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey , Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode I sland, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) are bordered b y the Atlantic Ocean, or in the case of Ohio, one of the Great Lakes and are more likely to be familiar with estuarine issues
. At the same time, the greater distance between these states and the Chesapeake Bay will improve the survey s ability to capture and isolate nonuse values. **2(b) Sampling Design**  **(I) Sampling Frame** **5**

The sampling frame for this survey is the Unite d Stat es Postal Service Computerized Delivery Sequence File (DSF)

. The universe of sample units is defined as the set of all individuals who are 18 ye ars of age or older living at a residential address in the 18 target states and the District of Columbia. The DSF includes city
- style addresses and P.O. boxes, and covers single
- unit, multi
- unit, and other ty pes of housing structures with known business excluded. In total the DSF covers 97% of residences in the U.S. For discussion of techniques that EPA will use to minimize non
- response and other non
sampling errors in the survey sample, refer to Section 2(b)(II), below. **(II) Sample Sizes**  The target responding sample size for the survey is 2, 304 1 completed household survey s. This sample size was chosen to provide statistically robust regression modeling while minimizing the cost and burden of the survey . Given this sample size, the level of precision (see section 2(c)) achieved by the anal ys is will be more than adeq uate to meet the anal yt ic needs of the benefits anal ys is for the Chesapeake Bay

TMDLs. For further discussion of the level of precision required by this anal ys is, see Section 2(c)(I) below. The sample design features three geographic strata based upon proximity to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed: Bay

States, Watershed States, and East Coast States. Relative to the geographic distribution of households across the East Coast, EPA plans to over
- sample households in states adjacent to Chesapeake Bay and within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA believes this approach is appropriate because households in these areas will incur the costs of Chesapeake Bay water quality improvements, and are most likely to receive use
- value benefits from the improvements . Within each survey region, the household sample will be allocated in proportion to the geographic distribution of households within states in the three regions
. The total number of households in each region is given below (Table B1). For discussion of the required sample size by state, please refer to Attachment 15
.

1 This number was revised downward from 2,400 after completing Part A of the supporting statement based on precision requirements.**6**

**Table B1.** Number of Households and Household Sample for Each Study R egion **Sampling Stratum and State**  **Total Households Expected household**  **sample size** Bay States Stratum, total 5,479,176 864 District of Columbia 266,707 Maryland 2,156,411 Virginia 3,056,058 Watershed States Stratum, total 13,442,787 864 Delaware 342,297 New York 7,317,755 Pennsylvania 5,018,904 West Virginia 763,831 Other East Coast States Stratum, total 30,032,913 576 Connecticut 1,371,087 Florida 7,420,802 Georgia 3,585,584 Maine 557,219 Massachusetts 2,547,075 New Hampshire 518,973 New Jersey 3,214,360 North Carolina 3,745,155 Ohio 4,603,435 Rhode I sland 413,600 South Carolina 1,801,181 Vermont 256,442 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/
.
**(III) Stratification Variables**  The population of households in the eastern United States is stratified by the geographic boundaries of three study regions in Table B1: states adjacent to Chesapeake Bay (“ Bay States ”), states which contain the Chesapeake Bay watershed (“Watershed States”), and additional East Coast states ( “East Coast States ”). Bay States include MD, VA, and DC; Watershed States include DE, NY, PA, and WV ; and East Coast States include VT, NH, NJ, MA, CT, RI , ME, OH, NC, SC, GA, and FL. As discussed above, households in the Bay States stratum will be selected at a higher rate relative to**7**

households in the other two strata. Specifically , the sample design calls for allocating the sample as 37.5 % Bay

State stratum, 37.5 % Watershed State stratum, 25 % Other East Coast stratum. The expected number of completed interviews in each stratum is presented in Table B2. This allocation is designed to minimize the variance of the main effects and interactions under an experimental design model as introdu ced in Section 4(a) of Part A . As a result of stratification, the analy sis can produce estimates of the geographic distribution of values for the Chesapeake Bay water qualit y improvements with greater precision. **(IV )**  **Sampling Method** Using the stratifi cation design discussed above, sample households will be randomly selected from the U.S. Postal Service DSF database. Assuming 92% of the sampled addresses are eligible and 30% of eligible households will return a completed mail survey , 8,348 households w ill be sampled from the DSF
. 2 For obtaining population
- based estimates of various parameters, each responding household will be assigned a sampling weight . The weights will be used to produce estimates that:
 are generalizable to the population from which the sample was selected;
 account for differential probabilities of selection across the sampling strata;
 match the population distributions of selected demographic variables within strata; and
 allow for adjustments to reduce potential nonresponse bias. These weights combine:
 a base sampling weight which is the inverse of the probability of selection of the household;
 a within
- stratum adjustment for differential non
- response across strata; and
 a nonresponse weight. If advisable, additional post
- stratification adjustments may be made to match the sample to known population values ( e.g., from Census data). That decision will be made after examining the characteristics of the surveyed sample.

2 Actual response rates could vary across study regions. A 92% eligibility rate is based on Link, et al. (2008). A 30% respon se rate is based on Helm 2012 , Mansfield , et al. 2012, and Johnston, et al. 2012
.**8**

T here are various models that can be used for nonresponse weighting. For example, nonresponse weights can be constructed based on estimated response propensities or on weighting class adjustments. Response propensities are designed to treat nonresponse as a stochastic process in which there are shared causes of the likelihood of nonresponse and the value of the survey variable. The weighting class approach assumes that within a weighting class (typically demographically
- defined), non
- respondents and responde nts have the same or very similar distributions on the survey variables. If this model assumption holds, then applying weights to the respondents reduces bias in the estimator that is due to nonresponse. S everal factors, including the difference between the sample and population distributions of demographic characteristics, and the plan for how to use weights in the regression models will determine which approach is most efficient for both estimating population parameters and for the stated
preference mode ling. To estimate total value for the quantified environmental benefits of the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs, data will be anal yz ed statistically using a standard random utility model framework. **(V) Multi**  **- Stage Sampling**  Multi
- stage sampling will not be necessary for this survey
. **2(c) Precision Requirements**  **(I) Precision Targets**  Table B2 presents expected sample sizes for each geographic stratum. The maximum acceptable sampling error for predicting response probabilities (i.e., the likelihood of choosing a given alternative) in the present case is ±10%, assuming a true response probability of 50% associated with a utility indifference point. Given the survey population size, this level of precision requires a minimum sample size of approximately 96 observations. The number of observations (i.e., completed survey s) required to obtain large sample properties for the choice experiment design provide more than sufficient observations to obtain this required precision for population parameters. Acros s all regions, a sample of**9**

2,304 households (completed survey s) will provide estimates of population percentages with a level of precision ranging from 1.3% at the 50% incidence level and 0.8% at the 10% incidence level (Table B2).
**Table B2 . Sample size a**  **nd accuracy projections** Geographic division Population

size Expected sample size

(completed survey s) Expected weights Standard

error, 50% incidence Standard

error, 10% incidence Bay States 5,479,176 864 6341 0.017 0.010 Watershed 13,442,787 864 15559 0.017 0.010 Other East Coast 30,034,913 576 52143 0.021 0.012 Overall 48,956,876 2,304 21248 0.01 4 0.008 Source for household population size : U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/
.

**(II) Non**  **-**

**Sampling Errors** Several non
- sampling errors may be encountered in stated preference survey s. First, protest responses occur when individuals reject the survey format or question design, even though they may value the resources being considered (Mitchell and Carson 1989). For example, some respondents may feel that an y amount of water qualit y impairment is unacceptable, and choose not to respond to the survey . To help identify

protest responses EPA has included several survey debriefing questions, including an open
- ended comments section. The use of such methods to identify protest responses is well
- established in the literature (Bateman et al. 2002 ). Moreover, researchers (e.g., Bateman et al. 2002) suggest that a choice experiment format, such as that proposed here, may ameliorate such responses (as opposed to say , a contingent valuation format). A second potential t ype of non
- sampling error is non - response bias. This refers to households that choose not to participate in the survey (i.e., not return the mail survey , in this case) or do not answer all relevant questions on the survey instrument. EPA has designed the survey instrument to maximiz e**10**

the response rate. EPA will also follow Dillman et al.’s (2008) mail survey approach (see subsection 4(b) for details). If necessary , EPA will use appropriate weighting or other statistical adjustments to correct for an y bias due to non
- response. Itis t ypi cally the case that nonresponse differs by sample strata. One likel y stage of sample weighting will be to correct the geographic distribution to match the totals of target population households by state. To determine whether there is an y evidence of si gnificant non
- response bias in the completed sample, EPA will conduct a non
- response follow
- up study . This will enable EPA to identify potential differences in estimates associated with respondents to the mail survey and those who received a questionnaire but did not return it.
**Non -**  **response Follow -**  **up Survey** EPA has used a set of key attitudinal and socio
- demographic variables that are thought to be associated with values for improvements in Chesapeake Bay water quality

to develop a short questionnaire that will take respondents 5 minutes to complete. The short questionnaire will be implemented using telephone or priorit y mailing contact . T he entire sample of mail addresses will be matched against the directory listed landline telephone numbers. After the matching, the nonresponding mail addresses will be divided into two strata. The first stratum will consist of those nonresponding addresses with matched telephone numbers. The second stratum will consist of nonresponding mail addresses that do not have m atched telephone numbers . Within these strata, the samples for the non
response follow up will be allocated proportionately to the number of the original mailings in the geographic division (state).
 The telephone sample of households will be selected from the first stratum with matched telephone numbers. This sample will be contacted by telephone onl y . Once contact is achieved with a household by

telephone for this subsample, one adult is selected in each household as the designated r espondent. If there is more than one eligible respondent per house hold, then a selection will be done for the individual with the most recent/next birthday. Selected households will be sent a letter prior to calling which will include $2 in cash as an un conditional incentive for participation in the telephone interview to promote a high response rate. The expected response rate in this stratum is 30%.**11**

 The priority

mail sample of h ouseholds will be selected in the second stratum and sent a questionnaire b y priorit y mail. The mailing will include $2 in cash as an unconditional incentive for completion of the short questionnaire to encourage response . We expect 20% response rate in this stratum, as well as 92% eligibility rate of the addresses in the samp le. A sample of 400 households will be selected for the nonresponse survey . This will enable EPA to reject the h ypothesis of no difference in population percentages between respondents and non
respondents with 80% power when there is a difference of 8.7% according to a two
- sided statistical test at the base incidence of 50%, or a difference of 7. 7% at the base incidence of 10%. Table B3 illustrates the distribution of the priority mail and telephone subsamples across survey regions.
**Table B3**  **: Number of Non -**  **responding Households in the Priority Mail and Telephone Subsamples** 
**Region Number in** 

**Pri ority Mail**  **Subsample Number** 

**Completed Follow**  **- ups**  **by Priority Mail**  **Number in**

**Telephone Subsample**  **Number of**

**Completed Follow**  **- ups**  **by Telephone Total** 

**Number Completed** 

Bay 340 68 341 102 170 Watershed 230 46 232 69 115 Other East Coast 225 45 239 70 115
Total 812 159 795 241 400

**2(d) Questionnaire Design**  The information requested by the survey

is discussed in Section 4(b)(I) of Part A of the supporting statement. The full text of the draft questionnaire of the “input” versions of the survey is**12**

provided in Attachment 1 and 3, and the full text of the draft questionnaire of the “endpoint” versions of the survey

is provided in Attachment 2 and 4. Several categories of questions are included in the survey . The reasons for including each of these categories are discussed below:
 **Recreational Experience** . Responses to these questions elicit recreational experience data to test if certain respondent characteristics influence responses to the choice questions. These questions will also allow EPA to identify resource non - users for purposes of estimating non
- user WTP, and therefore to gauge the relative importance of non
- use values to overall benefits. The questions will also identify

frequency

of use and whether the respondent’s recreational experiences have included lakes and rivers in the watershed, tidal waters in the watershed, or both.
 **Fa miliarity with Nutrient and Sediment Issues.**  Responses to th ese questions provide information about respondent awareness of issues related to nutrient and sediment loading and sources in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Respondents who are more familiar with these pollutants may

have different values, although the di rection of the effects is unknown.
 **Concern for Environmental Conditions.** Responses to these questions provide information about respondents’ perceptions of the condition of lakes and rivers in the Chesapeake watershed, as well as the Chesapeake Bay itsel f. These questions also provide insight regarding respondents’ concerns of pollution levels in lakes and river, and the Chesapeake Bay . Respondents with more concern for the environment are expected to have higher values for improvements in environmental conditions.
 **Knowledge of Chesapeake Bay Goals and Programs**  **.** Responses to these questions provide information about respondent knowledge of goals and programs for improving Chesapeake Bay environmental quality

prior to taking the survey . They will be used to assess respondents’ a priori knowledge and potentially test its effect on respondent answers to the program choice questions.
 **Voting for Regulations to Improve the Condition of Chesapeake Bay, tidal waters, and lakes.**  The questions in this section are the key part of the survey
. Respondents’ choices among alternatives with specific environmental quality improvements and household cost increases are the main data that allow estimation of willingness
- to - pay . The questions are presented in a choice experi ment, where respondents choose their preferred option (program A, program B, or**13**

“No Further Action”). This elicitation format has been successfull y used b y a number of previous valuation studies (e.g., Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bateman et al. 2002; Bennett an d Blamey 2001; Louviere et al. 2000; Johnston et al. 2002, 2005; Opaluch et al. 1993).
 **Importance of Attributes.** These questions ask respondents to identify the factors that were most important when choosing between alternative programs or “No Further Action.” This includes the importance of improvements in lakes versus the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters, the relative importance of changes in specific Bay attributes, and other factors not specifica lly listed in the choice questions (e.g., availability and/or price of seafood, value of property near the Bay , etc.). Responses to these questions will allow EPA to assess the importance of geographic factors, environmental attributes, and other factors related to the environmental attributes.
 **Understanding and Reasons for Voting.**  Questions in this category are designed to identify respondents who incorrectly interpreted the choice questions or the uncertainty of outcomes, and to identify other factors that affect their perception of outcomes presented in the survey
.  **Reasons for Voting “No Further Action”.** This question provides information that will be used to identify

protest responses.
 **Reasons for Voting for Program A or Program B.** This question provi des information that will be used to identify

respondents’ reasoning for choosing one program or “No Further Action” option over another, and therefore to assess the importance of use and non
- use values to respondent choices, including existence and beques t values.
 **Demographics.** Responses to these questions will be used to estimate the influence of demographic variables on respondents’ voting choices, and ultimately , their values to improve environmental quality

in the Chesapeake Bay

tidal water and lakes. **3. Pretests and Pilot Tests**  EPA conducted extensive pretests of the survey instrument during a set of 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews ( OMB Control Number 2090
- 0028 ) . Individuals in these focus groups participated in discussions about the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, completed draft survey questionnaires and provided comments and feedback about the survey format and content, their interpretations of the questions, and other issues relevant to stated preference estimation. Individual c ognitive interviews with survey respondents were conducted using think
- aloud or verbal protocol**14**

anal ys es ( see Schkade and Pay ne 1994 for a discussion)
. The pretests were used to develop a survey that provides respondents with necessary information to comp lete the questionnaire, develop choice scenarios that are incentive compatible, and minimize the burden placed on respondents while collecting the necessary

information. Particular emphasis in these survey pretests was on testing for the presence of pote ntial biases associated with poorly
- designed stated preference survey s, including hy pothetical bias, strategic bias, s ymbolic (warm glow) bias, framing effects, embedding biases, methodological misspecification, and protest responses (Mitchell and Carson 1 989). Based on focus group and cognitive interview responses, EPA made various improvements to the questionnaire including making changes to ameliorate and minimize these biases in the final survey instrument. EPA intends to implement this survey in two stages: a pilot study and a main study . First, EPA will administer the pilot survey to a sample of 400 households using a mail survey and the Dillman Total Design Method. Households in the pilot study will be sel ected from each of the three geographic strata. Responses and preliminary findings to this pilot study will be used to inform EPA regarding the response rates and the quality of survey data. EPA will evaluate pilot responses and determine whether any chang es to the survey

instrument or implementation approach are needed before proceeding with the administration of the main survey
. EPA will use results from the pilot study to validate the survey

responses. Specificall y, the pilot results will be used to:

 Compare the actual and expected response rates. Based on t ypical mail survey response rates for survey s of this ty pe, the expected response rate is approximately 30% ( Helm 2012; Mansfield, et al
. 2012 ; Johnston, et al. 2012 )
. Assess whether demographic characteristics of the respondents are significantly different from the average demographic characteristics in the study region.
 Examine the proportion of respondents choosing the status quo. If no one is choosing the status quo, it often indicates that the c ost levels are too low. Pure random selection would result in 33% of survey

respondents choosing status quo. If less than 15
- 20% of responses choose the status quo in the pilot study EPA would consider increasing the cost levels.**15**

 Id entify

unusual patte rns, such as the vast majorit y of respondents alway s choosing Option A
. ( E .g., if 2/3 of respondents (66%) choos e O ption A it might indicate that there is a sy stematic bias )
.  Determine whether responses suggest that appropriate tradeoffs are being made a nd that people feel confident about responses (e.g., question 15). If either the median or the mean answer is less than 4.0 for these questions (neutral) that this would indicate potential problems with the attribute levels.
 Examine response rates for ind ividual survey questions and evaluate whether adjustments to survey questions are required to promote a higher response rate. If required, EPA will make the appropriate adjustments to the sampling frame or attribute levels (e. g., increase or reduce the number of survey s mailed to households, or increase costs to households in the choice questions).

**4. Collection Methods and Follow**  **- up**  **4(a) Collection Methods**  The survey

will be administered as a mail survey
. Respondents will be asked to mail the completed survey

back to EPA. **4(b) Survey Response and Follow**  **- up**  The estimated response rate for the mail survey is 30 % ( Helm 2012; Mansfield, et al. 2012; Johnston, et al. 2012). That is, 30 % of the eligible households which are sent the mail survey are expected to return a completed survey . To improve the response rate, all of these households will receive a reminder postcard approximately one week after the initial questionnaire mailing. Then, approximately three weeks after the reminder postcard, all those who have not responded will receive a second copy of the questionnaire with a revised cover letter. The following week, a letter reminding them to complete the survey

will be sent.**16**

**5. Analyzing and Reporting Survey Results**  **5(a) Data Preparation**  Since the survey

will be administered as a mail survey , survey responses will be entered into an electronic database after they are returned. Abt Associates will also clean the data to ensure that the data are entered in a consistent manner and an y inconsistencies are addressed. Specificall y, we will use the Double Entry

data entry

method for closed
- ended responses. The Double Entry method consists of data being keyed twice and compar ed. Discrepancies are reconciled upon completion of the second entry
. After all responses have been entered, the database contents will be converted into a format suitable for use with a statistical analy sis software package. The mail survey , database man agement, and data set conversion will be conducted b y Abt Associates Inc. **5(b) Analysis**  Once the survey

data has been converted into a data file, it will be anal yz ed using statistical anal ys is techniques. The following section discusses the model that wi ll be used to anal yz e the stated preference data from the survey
. Analysis of Stated Preference Data The model for anal ys is of stated preference data is grounded in the standard random utility model of Hanemann (1984) and McConnell (1990). This model is applied extensively within stated preference research, and allows well
- defined welfare measures (i.e., willingness to pay) to be derived from choice experiment models (Bennett and Blamey 2001; Louviere et al. 2000). Within the standard random utility

mod el applied to choice experiments, hy pothetical program alternatives are described in terms of attributes that focus groups reveal as relevant to respondents’ utility , or well
- being (Johnston et al. 1995; Adamowicz et al. 1998; Opaluch et al. 1993)
. One of these attributes would include a mandatory

monetary

cost to the respondent’s household. Applying this standard model to choices among programs to improve environmental quality in the Chesapeake Bay , a standard utility function U

i ( **.** ) includes environmental attributes of pollution reduction programs and the net cost of the program to the respondent. Following standard random utility**17**

theory , utility

is assumed known to the respondent, but stochastic from the perspective of the research er, such that : (1) U i ( **.** ) = U( **X** i , **D** , Y
- F i ) = v( **X** i , **D** , Y
- F i ) + ε i where: **X** i = a vector of variables describing attributes of pollution reduction program i and the baseline conditions if no further action is taken ; **D** = a vector characterizing demographic and other attributes of the respondent. Y = disposable income of the respondent. F i = mandatory

additional cost faced b y the household under program i ; v( **.** ) = a function representing the empiricall y estimable component of utility ; ε i = stochastic or unobservable component of utility , modeled as an econometric error. Econometricall y, a model of such a preference function is obtained by methods designed for limited dependent variables, because researchers only observe the respondent’s choice among alte rnative programs, rather than observing values of U i (.) directly ( Maddala, 1983; Hanemann, 1984 ). Standard random utility

models are based on the probability that a respondent’s utility from p rogram i , U i (.) , exceeds the utility

from alternative p rograms j , U j (.) , for all potential programs j≠ i considered b y the respondent. In this case, the respondent’s choice set of potential programs also includes maintaining the status quo. The random utility model presumes that the respondent assesses the utility th at would result from each pollution reduction program i (including the “No Further Action” or status quo option ) , and chooses the program that provides the highest utility
. When faced with k distinct programs defined by their attributes, the respondent wi ll choose program i if the anticipated utility from program i exceeds that of all other k
- 1 programs. Drawing from (1), the respondent will choose program i if : (2) (v( **X** i , **D** ,Y
- F i ) + ε i ) ≥ (v( **X** j , **D** , Y
- F

j ) + ε j )  j ≠i.**18**

If the ε i are assumed independently and identicall y drawn from a t ype I extreme value ( Gumbel) distribution, the model may be estimated as a conditional logit model, as detailed by Maddala (1983), Greene (2003)
. This model is most commonly used when the respondent considers more than two options in each choice set (e.g., Program A, Program B, No Further Action), and results in an econometric (empirical) estimate of the s ys tematic component of utility v( **.** ) , based on observed choices among different programs. Based on this estimate, one may calculate welfare measures (willingness to pay) following the well
- known methods of Hanemann (1984) , as described by Freeman (2003)
. Following standard choice experiment methods (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bennett and Blamey 2001) , e ach respondent will consider questions including three potential choice options (i.e., Program A, Program B, No Further Action)

— choosing the program that provides the highest utility a s noted above. Following clear guidance from the literature, a “no furth er action” or status quo option is alway s included in the visible choice set, to ensure that WTP measures are well
- defined (Louviere et al. 2000)
. Three choice question s are included within the same survey to increase information obtained from each respon dent. This is standard practice within choice experiment and dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey s (Poe et al. 1997; Lay ton 2000). While respondents will be instructed to consider each choice question as independent of other choice questions, i t is nonetheless standard practice within the literature to allow for the potential of correlation among questions answered within a single survey

by a single respondent. That is, responses provided b y individual respondents may be correlated even though responses across different respondents are considered independent and identically

distributed ( Poe et al. 1997; Lay ton 2000; Train 1998). There are a variety

of approaches to such potential correlation. Models to be assessed include random effects and random parameters (mixed) discrete choice models, common in the stated preference literature (Greene 2003; McFadden and Train 2000; Poe et al. 1997; L ay ton 2000 ). Within such models, selected elements of the coefficient vector are assumed normally distributed across respondents, often with free correlation allowed among parameters ( Greene 2002 ). If only the model intercept is assumed to include a random component, then a rand om effects model is estimated
. If both slope and intercept parameters may

vary across respondents, then a random parameters model is estimated. S uch models will be estimated using standard maximum likelihood for mixed conditional logit techniques, as des cribed b y Train (1998), Greene (2002) and others. Mixed logit model performance of alternative**19**

specifications will be asses sed using standard statistical measures of model fit and convergence, as detailed b y Greene (2002, 2003) and Train (1998). Advantages of Choice Experiments Choice experiments following the random utility model outlined above are favored by many researchers over other variants of stated preference methodology (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bennett and Blamey 2001), and may

be viewed as a “natural generalization of a binary discrete choice CV [contingent valuation]” (Bateman et al. 2002, p. 271). Advantages of choice experiments include a capacity to address choices over a wide array of potential policies, grounded in well
- developed random ut ility theory , and the similarity of the discrete choice context to familiar referendum or voting formats (Bennett and Blamey

2001). Compared to other ty pes of stated preference valuation, choice experiments are better able to measure the marginal value of changes in the characteristics or attributes of environmental goods, and avoid response difficulties and biases (Bateman et al. 2002). For example, choice experiments may

reduce the potential for ‘yea - saying’ and s ymbolic biases (Blamey et al. 1999; Mitc hell and Carson 1989), as man y pairs of multi
- attribute policy choices (e.g., Program A, Program B, No Further Action) will offer no clearly superior choice for a respondent wishing to express solely sy mbolic environmental motivations. For similar reasons choice experiments may ameliorate protest responses (Bateman et al. 2002). An additional advantage of such methods is that they permit straightforward assessments of the impact of resource scope and scale on respondents’ choices. This will enable EPA to easily conduct scope tests and other assessments of the validity of survey responses (Bateman et al. 2002, p. 296
- 342). Finally , such methods are well
- established in the stated preference literature (Bennett and Blamey 2001). Additional details of choi ce experiment methodology (also called choice modeling) are provided by Bennett and Blamey

(2001), Adamowicz et al. (1998), and Louviere et al. (2000). An additional advantage of choice experiments in the present application is that they are commonly

app lied to assess values for ecological resource improvements of a ty pe quite similar to those at issue in Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Examples of the application of choice experiments to estimate values associated with changes in aquatic environmental quality and habitat include Hoehn et al. (2004), Johnston et al. (2002b), and Opaluch et al. (1999), among others. EPA has drawn upon these and other**20**

examples of successful choice experiment design to provide a basis for survey design in the present case. A final key

advantage of choice experiments in the present application is the ability to estimate respondents’ values for a wide range of different potential outcomes of Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction programs, differentiated b y their attributes. The p roposed choice experiment survey versions will allow respondents to choose among a wide variety of hy pothetical program options, some with larger and others with smaller changes in the presented attributes ( including household cost). That is, because the s urvey

is to be implemented as a choice experiment survey , levels of attributes in choice scenarios will vary

across respondents (Louviere et al. 2000). The ability

to estimate values for a wide range of different policy outcomes is a fundamental propert y of the choice experiment method (Bateman et al. 2002; Louviere et al. 2000; Adamowicz et al. 1998). The experimental design (see below) will allow for survey versions showing a range of different baseline and resource improvement levels, where these leve ls are chosen to (almost certainl y) bound the actual levels expected under pollution reduction programs. Given that there will almost certainly be some uncertaint y regarding the specifics of the actual baselines and improvements, the resulting valuation es timates will allow flexibility in estimating values for a wide range of circumstances. Comment on Survey Preparation and Pretesting Following standard practice in the stated preference literature (Johnston et al. 1995; Desvousges and Smith 1988; Desvousg es et al. 1984; Mitchell and Carson 1989), all survey elements and methods were subjected to extensive development and pretesting in focus groups to ameliorate the potential for survey biases (cf. Mitchell and Carson 1989), and to ensure that respondents h ave a clear understanding of the policies and goods under consideration, such that informed choices may be made that reflect respondents’ underl yi ng preferences. Following the guidance of Arrow et al. (1993), Johnston et al. (1995), and Mitchell and Carson (1989), focus groups were used to ensure that respondents are aware of their budget constraints and the scope of the environmental quality improvements under consideration. As noted above, survey

pretests included individual cognitive interviews conduct ed using think
aloud or verbal protocol anal ys es (Schkade and Pay ne 1994). Individuals in these pretests completed**21**

draft survey

questionnaires and provided comments and feedback about the survey format and content, their interpretations of the questions, and other issues relevant to stated preference estimation. Based on their responses, EPA made various improvements to the survey questionnaire including how the attributes are described and labeled, including an example choice question before asking respond ents to complete theirs, and the appearance of the choice questions. Results from focus groups and cognitive interviews provided evidence that respondents answer the stated preference survey in way s appropriate for stated preference WTP estimation, and that respondents were evaluating trade
- offs between program attributes and the household cost. The number of focus groups and cognitive interviews used in survey design, 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews, exceed the number s used in ty pical applicati ons of stated preference valuation. Moreover, EPA incorporated cognitive interviews as detailed b y Kaplowicz et al. (2004). Econometric Specification Based on prior focus groups, expert review, and attributes of the policies under consideration, EPA ant icipates that four attributes will be incorporated in the vector of variables describing attributes of the pollution reduction programs (vector **X** i ), in addition to the attribute characterizing unavoidable household cost F i . The attributes will differ acro ss the “input” and “endpoint” versions of the survey. For the “input version”, these attributes will characterize improvements in dissolved oxygen ( x 1 ), water clarity ( x2 ), aquatic grasses (

x 3 ), and lake condition (

x 4 ). For the “endpoint version”, these attributes will characterize improvements in water clarity ( x 1 ), blue crab abundance ( x2 ), oyster abundance (

x 3 ), and lake condition (

x 4 ). These variables will allow respondents’ choices to reveal the potential impact of Chesapeake Bay

environmental quality improvements on utility
. Although the literature offers no firm guidance regarding the choice of specific functional forms for v( **.** ) within choice experiment estimation, in practice, linear forms are often used (Johnston et al. 2003b), with some research ers appl yi ng more flexible (e.g., quadratic) forms (Cummings et al. 1994). Standard linear forms are anticipated as the simplest form to be estimated by EPA, from which more flexible functional forms (e.g., quadratic) can be derived and compared. EPA antic ipates estimating all models within the mixed logit framework outlined above. Model fit will be assessed following standard practice in the literature (e.g., Greene 2003; Maddala 1983). Functional forms discussed here, as they are**22**

common practice in the li terature, are presented and discussed in many existing sources (e.g., Hoehn 1991, Cummings et al. 1994, Johnston et al. 1999, and Johnston et al. 2003b). For example, for each choice occasion, the respondent may choose Program A, Program B, or No Further Action. Assuming that the model is estimated using a standard approximation for the observable component of utility , an econometric specification of the desired model (within the overall multinomial logit model) for the “input version” it might appear as: v(  ) =  0 +  1 (change in dissolved ox ygen) +  2 (change in water clarit y) +  3 (change in aquatic grass coverage) +  4 (change in lake condition) +  5 (Cost) For the “endpoint version” it might appear as: v(  ) =  0 +  1 (change in water clarity) +  2 (change in blue crab abundance) +  3 (change in oy ster abundance) +  4 (change in lake condition) +  5 (Cost) This sample specification allows one to estimate the relative “main effects” of program attributes on utility . Specifications such as this allow WTP to be estimated for a wide
- range of potential program outcomes. Experimental Design Experimental design for the choice experiment survey s will follow established practices. Fractional factorial design will be used to construct choice questions with an orthogonal array of attribute levels, with questions randomly divided among distinct survey versions (L ouvie re et al. 2000). Based on standard choice experiment experimental design procedures (Louviere et al. 2000), the number of questions and survey

versions will be determined by , among other factors: a) the number of attributes in the final experimental design and complexity of questions, b) pretests revealing the number of choice experiment questions that respondents are willing/able to answer in a single survey session, and c) the number of attributes that may be varied within each question while maintaining respondents’ ability to make appropriate neoclassical tradeoffs.**23**

Based on the models proposed above and recommendations in the literature, EPA anticipates an experimental design that allows for an ability to estimate main effects of program attributes ( Louviere et al. 2000). Choice sets (Bennett and Blamey 2001), including variable level selection, were designed by EPA based on the goal of illustrating realistic policy scenarios that “span the range over which we expect respondents to have preferences, and/or are practically achievable” (Bateman et al. 2002, p. 259), following guidance in the literature. This includes guidance with regard to the statistical implications of choice set design (Hanemann and Kanninen 1999) and the role of focus groups in deve loping appropriate choice sets (Bennett and Blamey 2001). Based on these guiding principles, the following experimental design framework is proposed b y EPA. The experimental design will be developed by Abt Associates Inc . A preliminary description of the statistical design is presented in Attachment 15
. The experimental design will allow for estimation of main effects based on a choice experiment frame work. Each treatment (survey question) includes two choice options (Program A and Program B) and a “No Further Action”, each characterized b y four attributes and a cost variable. Hence, there is a total of fifteen attributes for each treatment. Based on fo cus groups and pretests, and guided by realistic ranges of attribute outcomes, EPA allows for three different potential levels for environmental attributes and six different levels of annual household cost for Programs A and B. Italso allows for two diffe rent potential levels for environmental attributes under “No Further Action,” the first set reflecting a declining baseline, and the second reflecting a constant baseline. The “No Further Action” option included for each question will be characterized by a household cost of $0. The number of combinations for each attribute may be summarized for “input version” as follows, where A denotes Program A, B denotes Program B, and N denotes “No Further Action”:
 Dissolved Ox yg en N ( 2 levels)  Dissolved Ox ygen A , Dissolved OxygenB (3 levels)  Water Clarity N ( 2 levels)  Water Clarity A , Water Clarity

B (3 levels)  Aquatic Grasses N ( 2 levels)  Aquatic Grasses A , Aquatic Grasses B (3 levels)  Lake Condition N ( 2 levels)  Lake ConditionA , L ake ConditionB (3 levels)  CostA, CostB (6 levels)**24**

The “endpoint version” has the same number of attribute combinations and can be summarized as follows:
 Water Clarity N ( 2 levels)  Water Clarity A , Water Clarity

B (3 levels)  Blue Crab Abundance N ( 2 levels)  Blue Crab Abundance A , Blue Crab Abundance B (3 levels)  Oy ster Abundance N ( 2 levels)  Oy ster Abundance A , Oy ster Abundance B (3 levels)  Lake Condition N ( 2 levels)  Lake ConditionA , Lake ConditionB (3 levels)  CostA, CostB (6 levels) For a more detailed discussion of attribute levels assigned across survey versions , refer to Attachment 15
. Following standard practice, EPA will constrain the design to remove dominant/dominated pairs, where one option dominates the other in all attributes. Respondents have been found to react negatively and often protest when offered such choices. Given that s uch choices provide negligible statistical information compared to choices involving non
- dominant/dominated pairs, they are t ypically avoided in choice experiment statistical designs. For example, Hensher and Barnard (1990) recommend eliminating profiles i ncluding dominating or dominated profiles, because such profiles generall y provide no useful information. Following this guidance, EPA will constrain the design to eliminate such dominant/dominating pairs. **5(c) Reporting Results**  The results of the survey will be made public as part of the benefits anal ys is for the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs. Provided information will include summary statistics for the survey

data, extensive documentation for the statistical analy sis, and a detailed description of the final resu lts. The survey data will be released only

after it has been thoroughl y vetted to ensure that all potentially identifying information has been removed.**25** REFERENCES Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. (1998). Stated Preference Approach es for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1): 64
- 75. Anderson, E. A. (1989). Economic benefits of habitat restoration: seagrass and the Virginia hard
- shell blue crab fishery
. North American Journal of Fisheries Management , 9 (2), 140
- 149. Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day , M. Hanemann, N. Hanley , T. Hett, M. Jones
- Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Ozdemiroglu, D.W. Pierce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson. ( 2002 )
. Ec onomic Valuation with Stated Preference Surveys: A Manual . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Bennett, J. and R. Blamey, eds. ( 2001 )
. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation
. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Bockstael, N. E., McConnell, K. E., & Strand, I. E. (1989). Measuring the benefits of improvements in water qualit y: the Chesapeake Bay
. Marine Resource Economics, 6 , 1
- 18. Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I .E. Strand. ( 1988 )
. Benefits from Improvements in Chesapeake Bay Water Quality, Volume III . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. Bo yd, R. and A. Krupnick. ( 2009 ) . The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, RFF DP 09
- 35, Septembe r 2009. Cropper, M., & Isaac, W. (2011). The benefits of achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily

L oads): a scoping study . Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Desvousges, W.H., and V.K Smith. ( 1988 ) . Focus Groups and Risk Communi cation: the Science of Listening to Data. Risk Analysis 8: 479
- 484. Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith, D.H. Brown, and D.K. Pate. ( 1984 ) . The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a Contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. Research Triangle Institute: Research Triangle Park, NC. Dillman, D.A. ( 2008 )
. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Freeman, A.M., III. ( 2003 )
. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Va lues: Theory and Methods . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Greene, W.H. 2002. NLOGIT Version 3.0 Reference Guide
. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc. Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis
. 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.**26**

Hanemann, W.M. 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332
- 41. Helm, E. (2012). Stated Preference (SP) Survey

– Suvey Methods and Model Results, Memorandum to the Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule Record. June 5, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/316bmemo.pdf Hicks, R., Kirkley , J. E., M cConnell, K. E., Ryan, W., Scott, T. L ., & Strand, I . (2008). Assessing stakeholder preferences for Chesapeake Bay restoration options: a stated preference discrete choice
- based assessment (pp. 1
- 56). Annapolis, MD: NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, National Marine Fisheries Service and Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ramachandran. 2012. Enhancing the Content Validity

of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Ind icators. Land Economics 88(1): 102
- 120. Johnston, R.J., J.J. Opaluch, M.J. Mazzotta, and G. Magnusson. ( 2005 ). Who Are Resource Non
- users and What Can They

Tell Us About Non
- use Values? Decomposing User and Non
- user Willingness to Pay

f or Coastal Wetland Restoration. Wa ter Resources Research 41(7), doi:10.1029/2004WR003766. Johnston, R.J., S.K. Swallow, T.J. Ty rrell, and D.M. Bauer. ( 2003b ) . Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency
. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 1000
- 1015. Johnsto n, R.J., G. Magnusson, M. Mazzotta, and J.J.Opaluch. ( 2002a) . Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 1362
- 1370. Johnston, R.J., S.K. Swallow, C.W. Allen, and L .A. Smith. ( 2002b ) . Designing Multidimensional Environmental Programs: Assessing Tradeoffs and Substitution in Watershed Management Plans. Wa ter Resources Research 38(7): IV1
- 13. Johnston, R.J., T.F. Weaver, L.A. Smith, and S.K. Swallow. ( 1995 ) . Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights From Ethnographic Interview Techniques. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(1): 56
- 69. Just, R.E., D.L . Hueth, and A. Schmitz. ( 2004 )
. The Welfare Economics of Pub lic Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation . Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA. Kaplowicz, M.D., F. Lupi, and J.P. Hoehn. ( 2004 ) . Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated
- Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands. Chapter 24 in Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires , eds. S. Presser, J.M. Rothget, M.P. Coupter, J.T. L esser, E. Martin, J. Martin, and E. Singer. New York: John Wiley and Sons.**27**

Kemp, W. M., Boy

nton, W. R., Adolf, J. E., Boesch, D. F., Boicourt, W. C., Brush, G., . . . Stevenson, J. C. (2005). Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay : historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 303 , 1
- 20. Kahn, J.R., and W.M. Kemp. ( 1985 ) . Economic Losses A ssociated with the Degradation of an Ecosy stem: The Case of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay
. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12: 246

–263. Krupnick, A. ( 1988 ) .Reducing Bay Nutrients: An Economic Perspective. Maryland Law Review 47:453

–480. Layt on, D.F. 2000. “Random coefficient models for stated preference survey s.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40(1): 21
- 36. Leggett, C., & Bockstael, N. E. (2000). Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land Prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39 , 121
- 144. Lipton, D., & Hicks, R. (2003). The cost of stress: low dissolved oxygen and economic benefits of recreational striped bass (Morone saxatilis) fishing i n the Patuxent River. Estuaries, 26(2A), 310
- 315. Lipton, D. (2004). The value of improved water quality to Chesapeake Bay boaters. Marine Resource Economics, 19 , 265
- 270. Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. ( 2000 )
. Stated Preference Methods: Analysis and Application . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Maddala, G.S. 1983. “Limited
- Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.” Econometric Society Monographs No. 3, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge. Mansfield, C., G. Van Ho utven, A. Hendershott, P. Chen, J. Porter, V. Nourani, and V. Kilambi. (2012). Klamath River Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey, Final Report . Prepared for the US Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento, CA. http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/DDDDD.Printable.Klamath%20 Nonuse%20Survey%20Final%20Report%202012%5B1%5D.pdf Massey , D.M., S.C. Newbold, and B. Genter. ( 2006 ) . Valuing Water Quality Changes Using a Bioeconomic Model of a Coastal Recreational Fishery
. Journal of Environme ntal Economics and Management 52:482

– 500. McConnell, K.E. 1990. “Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1): 19
- 34. McFadden, D., and K. Train. 2000. “Mixed Multinomial L ogit Models for Discrete Responses.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5): 447
- 470.**28**

Mistiaen, J.A., I .E. Strand, and D. Lipton. ( 2003 ) . Effects of Environmental Stress on Blue Crab ( Callinectessapidus ) Harvests in Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Estuaries 26: 316

– 322. Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method . Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Opaluch, J.J., T.A . Grigalunas, M. Mazzotta, R.J. Johnston, and J. Diamantedes. ( 1999 )
. Recreational and Resource Economic Values for the Peconic Estuary. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program. Peace Dale, RI: Economic Anal ys is Inc. 124 pp. Opaluch, J.J., S.K. Swallow, T. Weaver, C. Wessells, and D. Wichelns. ( 1993 ) . Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: In cluding public preferences in current siting mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24(1): 41
- 59. Poe, G.L ., M.P. Welsh, and P.A. Champ. 1997. “Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay when Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses are not Independent.” Land Economics 73(2): 255
- 267. Poor, P., Pessagno, K., & Paul, R. (2007). Exploring the hedonic value of ambient water qualit y: A local watershed
- based study. Ecological Economics, 60 , 797
- 806. Schkade, D.A. and J.W. Pay ne. ( 1994 ) . “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analy sis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 88
- 109. Train, K. 1998. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People.” Land Economics 74(2): 230
- 239. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ( 2012 )
. Table 1: Civilian w orkers, b y major occupational and industry group. May 2012. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
. U.S. EPA. ( 2000 )
. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . (EPA 240
- R
- 00
- 003). U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC, September 2000. Van Houtven, G. L. (2009). Changes in ecos ys tem services associated with alternative levels of ecological indicators. In: Risk and Exposure Assessment for Review of the Secondary Nationa l Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur
. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Von Haefen, R.H. ( 2003 ) . Incorporating Observed Choice into the Construction of Welfare Measures from Random Utility Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45:145

– 165.29

**Attachment** 1 : **Full Text of DRAFT**  **Input -**  **Based , Constant Baseline**  **Stated Preference Survey Component** 30 

# Cover **Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey**  **Input Version Constant Baseline**  **May 22, 2012**31



## About this survey In this survey

we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about yo ur experiences. We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed is managed. We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether yo u would vote for different plans. Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household. Your answers will help inform policy makers. All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in this survey was provided by

the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , and other state and federal offices.32



## The Chesapeake Bay **Watershed The**  **Chesapeake Bay**  **W atershed**  **,** shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC. The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes
. W ater that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventuall y enters the Chesapeake Bay
. The Chesapeake Bay

Watershed inclu des two t ypes of water bodies:



### The freshwater **lak es and**  **rivers of the Watershed**  support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.



### The Chesapeak**e Bay tidal waters** include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay. Ba y waters are salt y and support different ty pes of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed
. P eople also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.33

**1. Over**  **the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?**  

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters** Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing 

# □ □ Fishing 

# □ □ Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □ Viewing nature, including bird watching 

# □ □ Biking or walking on trails along the water 

# □ □
Other _______________________ 

# □ □34

**2. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the**  **Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities? Please**  **check one statement in each column**  **that best describes your experience.** 

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters**
I have never visit ed 

# □ □ I have not visited in the last 5 years 

# □ □
Once over the last 5 ye ars 

# □ □ A few times over the last 5 years 

# □ □
About once a ye ar 

# □ □ 2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □
More than 10 times a ye ar 

# □ □35



## Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed **Pollutants in**  **the Chesapeake**  **Bay Watershed**  degrade the quality o f the water in lakes , rivers and the Chesapeake Bay , and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 **Nutrients.** Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems. B ut too much can lead to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure , and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

 **Sedi ment.**  Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment. T oo much sed iment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals. P aved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and s treams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay. **For the following questions, c**  **heck the box next to your answer.**  **3. Before taking this survey, w**  **ere you aware of the negative effects that too much sediment**  **or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No **4. Have you previously heard of**  **the sources of**  **excess nutrients and sediments in the**  **Chesapeake Bay Watershed?** 

# □ Yes 

# □ No36



## Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**

**Practices to Improve Water Quality**   Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land  Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities  Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewe r surfaces to slow storm water runoff  Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat 

### Water Quality **Improvements**
 Clearer water because l ess nutrients and sediment enter the water  More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them  Smaller, less frequent algae blooms  More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae 

### Ecosystem **and Recreation Improvements**   Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment  M ore game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen  More enjoyable boating and swimming  More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality Changing the way

land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A s a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay
.37

**5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes**  **and rivers closest to your home**  **and in**  **the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column**  **)** Lakes and Rivers Chesapeake Bay Better than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □ About the same as they were 10 years ago 

# □ □
Worse than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

**6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the**  **following statements by circling a number**  **.** Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Don’t

Know
I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in envi ronmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows . 1 2 3 4 5 DK38



## Environmental Quality in the **Chesapeake Bay** Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different t ypes of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the qua lity of the Chesapeake Bay
.

For **the Chesapeake**  **Bay** , environmental goals are based on several measurements of environmental quality and aquatic life:
**Dissolved Oxygen**  Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen in the water, something needed b y all aquatic life  Di ssolved oxygen goals were set for different areas of the Chesapeake Bay based on the ty pes of aquatic life that live there **Water Clarity**  Water clarit y is measured by how far one can see into the water  Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow  People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water **Aquatic Grasses**   Aquatic grasses provide food and habitat for other aquatic life

**7. Before**  **taking this**  **survey, had**  **you read**  **or heard**  **about any**  **environmental goals**  **for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, or aquatic grasses?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No39



## Environmental Quality **in the Chesapeake Bay**  State and local governments already have some pollution reduc tion programs in place but some additional actions are being considered. S cientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future under different pollution reduction programs. The tabl e here shows both **current conditions**  and predicted **conditions in**  **2025** for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment. 

## Current **Conditions Conditions in** 

**2025 with no further action** * **Dissolved Oxygen (DO)**  Percent of waters meeting DO goals Some plans being considered would achieve 100% in 2025 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## Water Clarity H ow many feet you can see down into the water. Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet Average of visibility of



## 3 feet No Change 

## Aquatic Grasses A cres of underwater grasses on the Bay floor. S cientists recommend **185,000 acres** be restored based on historic levels 

## 80,000 acres **80,000 acres** No Change
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.40



## Environmental Quality in Lakes

Sc ientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water. High amounts of algae:  Changes the color of the water and reduce s visibility.  Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish. 

### Lake **Condition Water Color**  **Water Clarity Most Common**  **Types of fish** 

## 1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly r ough fish 

## 2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green About 3 feet B ass and rough fish 

## 4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly b ass 

## 5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly Bass and some walleye 

## 6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout 

## 7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and t rout

**8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home?**  **(please c ircle**  **one )**  

## 1 **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **Don’t Know** 41



## Lakes in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**  Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.  Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.  Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions. The table below shows the **current condi**  **tion** and **conditions in**  **2025** that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution. The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershe d. This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.



## Current Conditions **Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions**  ***** **Average C ondition**  **of <State> Lakes in**  **the Watershed 3**  Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.42



## Pollution Reduction Programs **for the Chesapeake Bay**  **Watershed** Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

**Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program.** For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

**9. Before taking this survey, had**  **you read or**  **heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No43 

## Paying for **Pollution Reduction Program s**  The changes required under pollution reduction program s would result in higher costs for your househol d
.
**Costs to Your Household** Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive . For example:

 H igher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed . For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households b oth outside and inside the W atershed , including the area where you live . This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed. A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanentl y increase the cost of living for your household.44



## Deciding Future Actions Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs. In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different program s that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts. You will be asked three questions. In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.



## An **Example Question** is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.45 

# An Example **Question**

**Conditions in 2025**

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## 5 **0 %** 

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 70%

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water Cla **rity** Average visibility

of **3** feet Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 3 **feet** 67 % increase 

### Aquatic G **rasses** C overage is **80, 000 acres**  

## 80,000 acres No Change 

## 100,000 acres

25% increase 

## 1 **5 0,000 acres** 

50% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly Bass 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish
**Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 36**  **per year** or $3 per month 

## $ **50 per year** 

or $ 4.16 per month **Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B 

### If you **do not want A or**  **B**, mark this box If you want **Program A,**  mark this box If you want **Program B,**  mark this box46

**Please think carefully** about how you would actually vote in these situations. W e urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision makers in state and federal governments
. **Consider the Outcomes and the Costs** P lease take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your house hold
. A sk yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household
. Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even toward s resolving other environmental problems you care about. You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year from now on
. Only you know what is best for you and your household , so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B
.47

**10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options.**  **Mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.** 



## Conditions **in 2025**

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## 8 **5%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 100 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water Cla **rity** Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 50 % increase 

### Aquatic Grasses Current c overage is **80,000 acres**  

## 80,000 acres No Change 

## 130 **,000 acres** 

25% increase 

## 165 **,000 acres**

50 % increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in <state > 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass
**Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 250**  **per year** or $20.83 per month 

## $ **180 per year** 

or $ 15 per month
**Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B48



## As you vote on the next questions please remember **...**

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of p rogram options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.

 Consider e ach question separately , imagining that the options are the onl y ones available to choose from.

 The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered
.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.49

**11. Now suppose**  **instead that a different**  **set of options were available. Please m ark the**  **box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would v ote for.** 



## Conditions in 2025

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **T i** **d a** **l W** **a t** **e r** **s** 

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## 85 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 40 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water **Clarity** Average visibility

of **3** feet Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** No Change 

### Aquatic Grasses C overage is **80,000 acres**  

## 80,000 acres No Change 

## 1 **30 ,000 acres** 

25% increase 

## 80 **,000 acres**

50% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass **Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$40 per year** or $3
. 33 per month 

## $6 **0 per year**

or $ 5 per month
**Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B50

**12. Now suppose**  **instead that a different**  **set of options were available. Please m ark the**  **box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.**



## Conditions in 2025

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## 100 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 85 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water **Clarity** Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase 

### Aquatic Grasses Current c overage is **80,000 acres**  

## 80,000 acres No Change 

## 130 **,000 acres** 

20 % increase 

## 165 **,000 acres**

75 % increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass **Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 370**  **per year** or $30.83 per month 

## $ **180 per year** 

or $ 15 per month
**Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B51

**13.** For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to th e Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally Considered Only the Bay Waters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

**14.** Using each of the numbers 1 through 5, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs. (1 = Most Important , 5 = Least Important)

______ Dissolved oxygen ______ Water clarity ______ Aquatic g rass coverage ______ Lake category ______ Cost of the program

**15.** Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.) Recreation on the Bay Recreation in Lakes Preserving the environment for future generations Availability and/or price of seafood Value of property near the Bay Value of property near Lakes The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future Other __________________52

**16.** Thinking about how you voted among programs , please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gre e Neutral Strongly A gree My choices would have been different if the econom y in my area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high the costs
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I do not think I should have to contribute an y amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned that the programs would hurt the econom y. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe the programs will improve the environment as described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The changes offered b y the programs happen too far into the future for me to reall y care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The survey

provided me with the information Ineeded to make a choice between the options shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 753

**17. If you**  **voted for NO FURTHER**  **ACTION in any of the choices**  **you were given** , please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip to the next question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would not vote for an y program even if there were no costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because I am against more government requirements and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

**18. If you**  **voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices you were given,**  please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip this question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water qualit y closer to my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program more for future generations than for m ys elf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few ye ars. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay and Lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for my self. 1 2 3 4 5 6 754



## Questions about you and your household Finally , we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your answers will not be saved or sto red in a way that can be associated with your name or address . You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey
. **19. Are you male or female?**   Male  Female
**20. What is your age?**  _________ years old
**21. What is your current marital status?**   Single, never married  Married or living with a long
- term partner  Separated or divorced  Widowed
**22. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?**  ____________ children
**23. What was your total pre**  **- tax household income, including all earners in your household, in**  **201 1**  **?**  Under $25,000  $25,000
– $34,999  $35,000
– $49,999  $50,000
– $74,999  $75,000
– $99,999  $100,000

- $199,999  $200,000 or more
**24. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?**   No high school diploma  High school diploma or GED  Some college credit or college degree55

 Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree

**25. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?**   Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan  Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan  Rented  Other: ____________________________________________________

**26. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or**  **jobs? (Please fill in the box next to**  **all that apply.)**   Agriculture  Commercial fishing  Tour guide for fishing  No one in my family has worked in these industries

**Thank you very much for your help.**56

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, inc luding through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any corresponden ce. Do not send the materials to this address .5 7

**Attachment 2**  **: Full Text of**  **DRAFT Endpoint**  **- Based**  **, Constant Baseline Stated Preference**  **Survey Component** 

# Cover **Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey Endpoint Version**  **Constant Baseline**  **May 22, 2012**58



## About this survey In this survey

we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about yo ur experiences. We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed. We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether yo u would vote for different plans. Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household. Your answers will help inform policy makers. All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in this survey was provided by

the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency , and other state and federal offices.59



## The Chesapeake Bay **Watershed The**  **Chesapeake Bay**  **W atershed**  **,** shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC. The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes
. W ater that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventuall y enters the Chesapeake Bay
. The Chesapeake Bay

Watershed includes two t ypes of water bodies:



### The f **reshwater lak** **es and rivers**  **of the Watershed** support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.



### The Chesapeak**e Bay tidal waters** include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay. Ba y waters are salt y and support different ty pes of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed
. P eople also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.60

**9. Over**  **the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?**  

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters** Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing 

# □ □ Fishing 

# □ □ Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □ Viewing nature, including bird watching 

# □ □ Biking or walking on trails along the water 

# □ □
Other _______________________ 

# □ □61

**10. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the**  **Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities? Please**  **check one statement in each column**  **that best describes your experience.** 

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters**
I have never visit ed 

# □ □ I have not visited in the last 5 years 

# □ □
Once over the last 5 ye ars 

# □ □ A few times over the last 5 years 

# □ □
About once a ye ar 

# □ □ 2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □
More than 10 times a ye ar 

# □ □62



## Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed **Pollutants in**  **the Chesapeake**  **Bay Watershed**  degrade the quality o f the water in lakes , rivers and the Chesapeake Bay , and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 **Nutrients.** Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems. B ut too much can lead to algae that deprive fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure , and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

 **Sedi ment.**  Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment. T oo much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals. P aved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and s treams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay. **For the following questions, check the box**  **next to your answer. 11.**  **Before taking this survey, w ere y**  **ou aware of the negative effects that too much sediment**  **or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No **12. Have you previously heard of**  **the sources of**  **excess nutrients and sediments in the**  **Chesapeake Bay Watershed?** 

# □ Yes 

# □ No63



## Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**

**Practices to Improve Water Quality**   Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land  Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities  Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewe r surfaces to slow storm water runoff  Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat 

### Water Quality **Improvements**
 Clearer water because l ess nutrients and sediment enter the water  More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them  Smaller, less frequent algae blooms  More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae 

### Ecosystem **and Recreation Improvements**   Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment  M ore game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen  More enjoyable boating and swimming  More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality Changing the way

land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A s a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opp ortunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay
.64

**13. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes**  **and r ivers closest to**  **your home and**  **in the Chesapeake Bay? (Please**  **check one box in each column )**  Lakes and Rivers Chesapeake Bay Better than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □ About the same as they were 10 years ago 

# □ □
Worse than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

**14. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the**  **following statements by circling a number**  **.** Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Don’t

Know
I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in envi ronmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows . 1 2 3 4 5 DK65



## Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different t ypes of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesap eake Bay
. For **the Chesapeake**  **Bay** , environmental goals are based measurements of water quality and aquatic life:
**Water Clarity**  M easured by how far one can see into the water  People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water  Clearer water means m ore sunlight for underwater plants to grow **Blue Crab**  A key ecological species and p opular shellfish for recreational fishermen **Oysters**  Their shells form reefs that provide habitat for other aquatic life  As “filter feeders” they clean the waters of the Bay
**15. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any environmental goals for**  **water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay or for any Chesapeake Bay species**  **?** 

# □ Yes 

# □ No66



## Environmental Quality **in the Chesapeake Bay**  State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but additional actions are being considered. S cientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future u nder different pollution reduction programs. The table here shows both **current conditions**  and **predicted c**  **onditions in**  **2025** for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment. 

## Current **Conditions Condition**  **s in**

**2025 with no further action**  ***** **Water Clarity** H ow many feet you can see down into the water. Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet Average of visibility of



## 3 feet No Change 

## Blue Crabs G oal is 415 million crabs 

## 250 million crabs 

## 250 million crabs No Change 

## Oysters G oal is 35,000 tons 

## 3,300 tons 

## 3,300 tons No Change All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.67



## Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water. High amounts of algae:  Changes the color of the water and reduce s visibility.  Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish. 

### Lake **Condition Water Color**  **Water Clarity Most Common**  **Types of fish** 

## 1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly r ough fish 

## 2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green About 3 feet B ass and rough fish 

## 4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly b ass 

## 5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly Bass and some walleye 

## 6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout 

## 7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and t rout

**16. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home?**  **(please c ircle**  **one )**  

## 1 **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **Don’t Know** 68



## Lakes in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**  Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.  Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.  Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will im prove the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions. The table below shows the **current condition**  and **conditions in**  **2025** that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution. The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.



## Current Conditions **Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions**  ***** **Average C ondition**  **of <State> Lakes in**  **the Watershed 3**  Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.69



## Pollution Reduction Programs **for the Chesapeake Bay**  **Watershed** Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

**Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program.**  For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improv e aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

**27. Before taking this survey, had**  **you read or**  **heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No70 

## Paying for **Pollution Reduction Program s**  The changes required under pollution reduction program s would result in higher costs for your household
.
**Costs to Your Household** Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive . For example:

 H igher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed . For renters, rent or ut ility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households b oth outside and inside the W atershed , including the area where you live . This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed. A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanentl y increase the cost of living for your household.71



## Deciding Future Actions Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs. In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different program s that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts. You will be asked three questi ons. In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGR AM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.



## An **Example Question** is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.72 

# An Example **Question**

**Conditions in 2025 Current**  **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Water Clarity Average visibility

of **3** feet Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 3 **feet** 67 % increase


## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 250 million crabs No Change 

## 300

million crabs 20% increase 

## 275

million crabs 10 % increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 3,300 tons No Change 

## 3,960

tons 20 % increase 

## 4,950

tons 50% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **ondition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass 

### P **ermanent Increase in the Cost of Living**  **for your Household** 

## $0 per year **$150 per year**  or $ 12.50 per month 

## $ **200 per year** 

or $ 16.67 per month 

### You **r Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B 

### If you **do not want A or B**  , mark this box If you want **Program A,**  mark this box If you want **Program B,**  mark this box73

**Please think carefully**  about how you would actually vote in these situations. W e urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision makers in state and federal governments
. **Consider the Outcomes and the Costs** P lease take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household
. A sk yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watersh ed are worth the additional cost to your household
. Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about. You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year from now on
. Only you know what is best for you and your household , so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B
.74

10. **Suppose you could choose from the following three options. M**  **ark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.** 



## Conditions in 2025 **Current Conditions**  **No Further**

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Water Clarity Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 50 % increase


## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 250 million crabs No Change 

## 280

million crabs 12% increase 

## 312

million crabs 25 % increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 3,300 tons No Change 

## 5,250

tons 50 % increase 

## 4,300

tons 23% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **ondition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass 

### P **ermanent Increase in the Cost of Living**  **for your Household** 

## $0 per year **$180 per year**  or $ 15 per month 

## $ **250 per year** 

or $ 20.83 per month 

### Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B75



## As you vote on the next questions please remember **...**

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of p rogram options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.

 Consider e ach question separately , imagining that the options are the onl y ones available to choose from.

 The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered
.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.76

11. **Now suppose a different set of options were available . Please m**  **ark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for**  **.**



## Conditions in 2025 **Current Conditions**  **No Further**

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B B** **a y** **T i** **d a** **l W** **a t** **e r** **s** 

### Water Clarity Average visibility

of **3** feet Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** No Change 

## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 250 million crabs No Change 

## 250

million crabs No Change 

## 2 **80**

million crabs 12% increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 3,300 tons No Change 

## 4 **, 3**  **00**

tons 30% increase 

## 5,250

tons 5 9 % increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **onditions** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly Bass 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

### Permanent Increase **in the Cost of Living for your Household**  

## $0 per year **$ 60**  **per year** or $ 5 per month 

## $ **40 per year** 

or $ 20.83 per month 

### Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the ri ght No Further Action Program A Program B77

12. **Now suppose a different set of options were available , instead of those in the**  **previous question. Please m ark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you**  **would vote for.** 

## Conditions in 2025 **Current Conditions**  **No Further**

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B B** **a y** **T i** **d a** **l W** **a t** **e r** **s** 

### Water Clarity Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet No Change Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase 

## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 250 million crabs No Change 

## 280

million crabs 12 % increase 

## 312

million crabs 25 % increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 3,300 tons No Change 

## 5,250

tons 50% increase 

## 3, **3 00** 

tons no change**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **ondition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

### Perm **anent Increase in the Cost of Living**  **for your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 60**  **per year** or $ 3.33 per month 

## $ **180 per year** 

or $ 15 per month 

### Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B78

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to th e Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally Considered Only the Bay Waters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. Using each of the numbers 1 through 4, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs. (1 = Most Important , 5 = Least Important) ______ Clarity ______ Striped Bass ______ Blue Crab ______ Lake Category ______ Cost of the program

15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.) Recreation on the Bay Recreation in Lakes Preserving the environment for future generations Availability and/or price of seafood Value of property near the Bay Value of property near Lakes The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future Other __________________79

16. Thinking about how you voted among programs , please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gre e Neutral Strongly A gree My choices would have been different if the econom y in my area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high the costs
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I do not think I should have to contribute an y amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned that the programs would hurt the econom y. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe the programs will improve the environment as described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The changes offered b y the programs happen too far into the future for me to reall y care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The survey

provided me with the information Ineeded to make a choice between the options shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 780

17. **If you voted for NO**  **FURTHER ACTION**  **in any of the choices you were given**  , please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip to the next question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would not vote for an y program even if there were no costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because I am against more government requirements and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. **If you voted for Program A or Program B**  **in any of the choices you were given,** please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip this question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water qualit y closer to my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program more for future generations than for m ys elf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few ye ars. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay and Lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for my self. 1 2 3 4 5 6 781



## Questions about you and your household Finally , we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your answers will not be saved or sto red in a way that can be associated with your name or address . You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey
. 19. **Are you male or female?**  Male  Female
20. **What is your age?** _________ years old
21. **What is your current marital status?**  Single, never married  Married or living with a long
- term partner  Separated or divorced  Widowed
22. **How many children under age 18 are living at your home?** ____________ children
23. **What was your total pre -**  **tax household income, including all earners in your household, in 201**  **1 ?**   Under $25,000  $25,000
– $34,999  $35,000
– $49,999  $50,000
– $74,999  $75,000
– $99,999  $100,000

- $199,999  $200,000 or more
24. **What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?**  No high school diploma82

 High school diploma or GED  Some college credit or college degree  Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree

25. **Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?**  Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan  Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan  Rented  Other: ____________________________________________________

26. **Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or jobs?**  **(Please fill in the box next to all**  **that apply.)**  Agriculture  Commercial fishing  Tour guide for fishing  No one in my family has worked in these industries

**Thank you very much for your help.**83

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, inc luding through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any corresponden ce. Do not send the materials to this address . 27.84

**Attachment 3**  **: Full Text of DRAFT**  **Input -**  **Based Declining Baseline**  **Stated Preference Survey Component**  

# Cover **Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey Input Version**  **Declining Baseline**  **May 22, 2012**85



## About this survey In this survey

we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about yo ur experiences. We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed. We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether yo u would vote for different plans. Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household. Your answers will help inform policy makers. All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in this survey was provided by

the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency , and other state and federal offices.86



## The Chesapeake Bay **Watershed The**  **Chesapeake Bay**  **W atershed**  **,** shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC. The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes
. W ater that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventuall y enters the Chesapeake Bay
. The Chesapeake Bay

Watershed includes two t ypes of water bodies:



### The freshwater **lak es and**  **rivers of the Watershed**  support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.



### The Chesapeak**e Bay tidal waters** include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay. Ba y waters are salt y and support different ty pes of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed
. P eople also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.87

**17. Over the last five years have you done any of the following activities in**  **lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?**  

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters** Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing 

# □ □ Fishing 

# □ □ Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □ Viewing nature, including bird watching 

# □ □ Biking or walking on trails along the water 

# □ □
Other _______________________ 

# □ □88

**18. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the**  **Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities? Please**  **check one statement in each column**  **that best describes your experience.** 

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters**
I have never visit ed 

# □ □ I have not visited in the last 5 years 

# □ □
Once over the last 5 ye ars 

# □ □ A few times over the last 5 years 

# □ □
About once a ye ar 

# □ □ 2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □
More than 10 times a ye ar 

# □ □89



## Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed **Pollutants in**  **the Chesapeake**  **Bay Watershed**  degrade the quality o f the water in lakes , rivers and the Chesapeake Bay , and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 **Nutrients.** Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems. B ut too much can lead to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure , and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

 **Sedi ment.**  Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment. T oo much sed iment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals. P aved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and s treams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay. **For the following questions, check the box**  **next to your answer. 19.**  **Before taking this survey, w ere you aware of the negative effects that too much**  **sediment or**  **nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?** 

# □ Yes 

# □ No **20. Have you previously heard of**  **the sources of**  **exce ss**  **nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No90



## Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**

**Practices to Improve Water Quality**   Changing the way farmers d ispose of livestock manure and till their land  Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities  Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm water runoff  Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water a nd improve fish habitat 

### Water Quality **Improvements**
 Clearer water because l ess nutrients and sediment enter the water  More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them  Smaller, less frequent algae blooms  More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae 

### Ecosystem **and Recreation Improvements**   Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment  M ore game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen  More enjoyable boating and swimming  More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality Changing the way

land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A s a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay
.91

**21. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes**  **and rivers closest to your home**  **and in**  **the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column**  **)** Lakes and Rivers Chesapeake Bay Better than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □ About the same as they were 10 years ago 

# □ □
Worse than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

**22. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the**  **following statements by circling a number**  **.** Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Don’t

Know
I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in envi ronmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows . 1 2 3 4 5 DK92



## Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different t ypes of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the qualit y of the Ches apeake Bay
.

For **the Chesapeake**  **Bay** , environmental goals are based on several measurements of environmental quality and aquatic life:
**Dissolved Oxygen**  Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen in the water, something needed b y all aquatic life  Dissolved oxygen g oals were set for different areas of the Chesapeake Bay based on the ty pes of aquatic life that live there **Water Clarity**  Water clarit y is measured by how far one can see into the water  Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow  People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water **Aquatic Grasses**   Aquatic grasses provide food and habitat for other aquatic life

**23. Before**  **taking this**  **survey, had**  **you read**  **or heard**  **about any**  **environmental goals**  **for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, or aquatic grasses?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No93



## Environmental Quality **in the Chesapeake Bay**  State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but some additional actions are being considered. S cientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the fut ure under different pollution reduction programs. The table here shows both **current conditions**  and predicted **conditions in**  **2025** for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment. 

## Current **Conditions Co**  **nditions in**

**2025 with no further action** * **Dissolved Oxygen (DO)** Percent of waters meeting DO goals Some plans being considered would achieve 100% in 2025 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## 40 % of the Bay areas meet DO goals 

## Water Clarity H ow many feet you can see down into the water. Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet Average of visibility of



## 3 feet No Change 

## Aquatic Grasses A cres of underwater grasses on the Bay floor. S cientists recommend **185,000 acres** be restored based on historic levels 

## 80,000 acres **80,000 acres** No Change
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.94



## Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water. High amounts of algae:  Changes the color of the water and reduce s visibility.  Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish. 

### Lake **Condition Water Color**  **Water Clarity Most Common**  **Types of fish** 

## 1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly r ough fish 

## 2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green About 3 feet B ass and rough fish 

## 4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly b ass 

## 5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly Bass and some walleye 

## 6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout 

## 7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and t rout

**24. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home?**  **(please c ircle**  **one )**  

## 1 **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **Don’t Know** 95



## Lakes in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**  Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.  Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.  Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will im prove the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions. The table below shows the **current condition**  and **conditions in**  **2025** that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution. The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.



## Current Conditions **Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions**  ***** **Average C ondition**  **of <State> Lakes in**  **the Watershed 3**  Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.96



## Pollution Reduction Programs **for the Chesapeake Bay**  **Watershed** Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

**Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program.**  For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improv e aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

**28. Before taking this survey, had**  **you read or**  **heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No97 

## Paying for **Pollution Reduction Program s**  The changes required under pollution reduction program s would result in higher costs for your household
.
**Costs to Your Household** Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive . For example:

 H igher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed . For renters, rent or ut ility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households b oth outside and inside the W atershed , including the area where you live . This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed. A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanentl y increase the cost of living for your household.98



## Deciding Future Actions Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs. In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different program s that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts. You will be asked three questi ons. In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGR AM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.



## An **Example Question** is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.99 

# An Example **Question**

**Conditions in 2025**

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 33 **%** of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 5 **0 %** 

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 70%

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water Cla **rity** Average visibility

of **3** feet Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 3 **feet** 67 % increase 

### Aquatic G **rasses** C overage is **80, 000 acres**  

## 56 **,000 acres** 30% Decrease 

## 100,000 acres

25% increase 

## 1 **5 0,000 acres** 

50% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly Bass 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish
**Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 36**  **per year** or $3 per month 

## $ **50 per year** 

or $ 4.16 per month **Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B 

### If you **do not want A or B** , mark this box If you want **Program A,**  mark this box If you want **Program B,**  mark this box100

**Please think carefully** about how you would actually vote in these situations. W e urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision m akers in state and federal governments
. **Consider the Outcomes and the Costs** P lease take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household
. A sk yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are worth th e additional cost to your household
. Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about. You would be making a commit ment to pay the additional amount every year from now on
. Only you know what is best for you and your household , so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B
.101

**29. Suppose you could choose from the following three options.**  **Mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.** 



## Conditions in 2025

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program **B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 33 **%** of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 8 **5%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 100 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water Clarity Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 50 % increase 

### Aquatic Grasses Current c overage is **80,000 acres**  

## 56 **,000 acres** 30% Decrease 

## 130 **,000 acres**

25% increase 

## 165 **,000 acres**

50 % increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in <state > 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass
**Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 250**  **per year** or $20.83 per month 

## $ **180 per year** 

or $ 15 per month
**Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B102



## As you vote on the next questions please **remember ...** 

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of p rogram options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.

 Consider e ach question separately , imagining that the options are the onl y ones available to choose from.

 The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered
.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.103

**30. Now suppose**  **instead that a different**  **set of options were available. Please m ark the**  **box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.**



## Conditions in 2025

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **T i** **d a** **l W** **a t** **e r** **s** 

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 33 **%** of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 85 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 40 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water Clarity Average visibility

of **3** feet Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** No Change 

### Aquatic Grasses C overage is **80,000 acres**  

## 56 **,000 acres** 30% Decrease 

## 1 **30 ,000 acres** 

25% increase 

## 80 **,000 acres**

50% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass **Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$40 per year** or $3
. 33 per month 

## $6 **0 per year**

or $ 5 per month
**Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B104

**31. Now suppose**  **instead that a different**  **set of options were available. Please m ark the**  **box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.**



## Conditions in 2025

**z** 

## Current **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**2** 

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Dissolved Oxygen **40** % of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 33 **%** of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 100 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

## 85 **%**

of the Bay areas will meet DO goals 

### Water Clarity Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase 

### Aquatic Grasses Current c overage is **80,000 acres**  

## 56 **,000 acres** 30% Decrease 

## 130 **,000 acres**

20 % increase 

## 165 **,000 acres**

75 % increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

### Lak**e Condition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass **Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for**  **your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 370**  **per year** or $30.83 per month 

## $ **180 per year** 

or $ 15 per month
**Your Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B105

**32.** For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to th e Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally Considered Only the Bay Waters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

**33.** Using each of the numbers 1 through 5, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs. (1 = Most Important , 5 = Least Important)

______ Dissolved oxygen ______ Water clarity ______ Aquatic g rass coverage ______ Lake category ______ Cost of the program

**34.** Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.) Recreation on the Bay Recreation in Lakes Preserving the environment for future generations Availability and/or price of seafood Value of property near the Bay Value of property near Lakes The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future Other __________________106

**35.** Thinking about how you voted among programs , please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gre e Neutral Strongly A gree My choices would have been different if the econom y in my area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high the costs
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I do not think I should have to contribute an y amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am concerned that the programs would hurt the econom y. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe the programs will improve the environment as described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The changes offered b y the programs happen too far into the future for me to reall y care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The survey

provided me with the information Ineeded to make a choice between the options shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7107

**36. If you**  **voted for NO FURTHER**  **ACTION in any of the choices**  **you were given** , please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip to the next question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would not vote for an y program even if there were no costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because I am against more government requirements and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

**37. If you**  **voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices you were given,**  please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip this question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water qualit y closer to my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program more for future generations than for m ys elf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few ye ars. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay and Lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for my self. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7108



## Questions about you and your household Finally , we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your answers will not be saved or sto red in a way that can be associated with your name or address . You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey
. **38. Are you male or female?**   Male  Female
**39. What is your age?**  _________ years old
**40. What is your current marital status?**   Single, never married  Married or living with a long
- term partner  Separated or divorced  Widowed
**41. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?**  ____________ children
**42. What was your total pre**  **- tax household income, including all earners in your household, in**  **201 1**  **?**  Under $25,000  $25,000
– $34,999  $35,000
– $49,999  $50,000
– $74,999  $75,000
– $99,999  $100,000

- $199,999  $200,000 or more
**43. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?**   No high school diploma  High school diploma or GED  Some college credit or college degree109

 Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree

**44. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?**   Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan  Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan  Rented  Other: ____________________________________________________

**45. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or**  **jobs? (Please fill in the box next to**  **all that apply.)**   Agriculture  Commercial fishing  Tour guide for fishing  No one in my family has worked in these industries

**Thank you very much for your help.**110

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, inc luding through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any corresponden ce. Do not send the materials to this address .111

**Attachment 4**  **: Full Text of**  **DRAFT Endpoint**  **- Based**  **Declining Baseline Stated Preference**  **Survey Component** 

# Cover **Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey Endpoint Version**  **Declining Baseline**  **May 22, 2012**112



## About this survey In this survey

we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about yo ur experiences. We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed. We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether yo u would vote for different plans. Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household. Your answers will help inform policy makers. All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in this survey was provided by

the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency , and other state and federal offices.113



## The Chesapeake Bay **Watershed The**  **Chesapeake Bay**  **W atershed**  **,** shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC. The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes
. W ater that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventuall y enters the Chesapeake Bay
. The Chesapeake Bay

Watershed includes two t ypes of water bodies:



### The f **reshwater lak** **es and rivers**  **of the Watershed** support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.



### The Chesapeak**e Bay tidal waters** include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay. Ba y waters are salt y and support different ty pes of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed
. P eople also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.114

**25. Over**  **the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?**  

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters** Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing 

# □ □ Fishing 

# □ □ Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □ Viewing nature, including bird watching 

# □ □ Biking or walking on trails along the water 

# □ □
Other _______________________ 

# □ □115

**26. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the**  **Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities? Please**  **check one statement in each column**  **that best describes your experience.** 

### Lak**es and rivers**  **in the Watershed**  **Chesapeak e Bay**  **tidal**

**waters**
I have never visit ed 

# □ □ I have not visited in the last 5 years 

# □ □
Once over the last 5 ye ars 

# □ □ A few times over the last 5 years 

# □ □
About once a ye ar 

# □ □ 2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □
More than 10 times a ye ar 

# □ □116



## Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed **Pollutants in**  **the Chesapeake**  **Bay Watershed**  degrade the quality o f the water in lakes , rivers and the Chesapeake Bay , and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 **Nutrients.** Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems. B ut too much can lead to algae that deprive fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure , and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

 **Sedi ment.**  Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment. T oo much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals. P aved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and s treams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay. **For the following questions, check the box**  **next to your answer. 27.**  **Before taking this survey, w ere y**  **ou aware of the negative effects that too much sediment**  **or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No **28. Have you previously heard of**  **the sources of**  **excess nutrients and sediments in the**  **Chesapeake Bay Watershed?** 

# □ Yes 

# □ No117



## Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**

**Practices to Improve Water Quality**   Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land  Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities  Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewe r surfaces to slow storm water runoff  Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat 

### Water Quality **Improvements**
 Clearer water because l ess nutrients and sediment enter the water  More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them  Smaller, less frequent algae blooms  More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae 

### Ecosystem **and Recreation Improvements**   Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment  M ore game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen  More enjoyable boating and swimming  More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality Changing the way

land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A s a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opp ortunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay
.118

**29. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes**  **and r ivers closest to**  **your home and**  **in the Chesapeake Bay? (Please**  **check one box in each column )**  Lakes and Rivers Chesapeake Bay Better than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □ About the same as they were 10 years ago 

# □ □
Worse than they were 10 years ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

**30. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the**  **following statements by circling a number**  **.** Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Don’t

Know
I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay
. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in envi ronmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows . 1 2 3 4 5 DK119



## Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different t ypes of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesap eake Bay
. For **the Chesapeake**  **Bay** , environmental goals are based measurements of water quality and aquatic life:
**Water Clarity**  M easured by how far one can see into the water  People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water  Clearer water means m ore sunlight for underwater plants to grow **Blue Crab**  A key ecological species and p opular shellfish for recreational fishermen **Oysters**  Their shells form reefs that provide habitat for other aquatic life  As “filter feeders” they clean the waters of the Bay
**31. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any environmental goals for**  **water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay or for any Chesapeake Bay species**  **?** 

# □ Yes 

# □ No120



## Environmental Quality **in the Chesapeake Bay**  State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but additional actions are being considered. S cientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future u nder different pollution reduction programs. The table here shows both **current conditions**  and **predicted c**  **onditions in**  **2025** for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment. 

## Current **Conditions Condition**  **s in**

**2025 with no further action**  ***** **Water Clarity** H ow many feet you can see down into the water. Average of visibility of 

## 3 feet Average of visibility of



## 3 feet No Change 

## Blue Crabs G oal is 415 million crabs 

## 250 million crabs 

## 250 million crabs No Change 

## Oysters G oal is 35,000 tons 

## 3,300 tons 

## 3,300 tons No Change All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.121



## Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water. High amounts of algae:  Changes the color of the water and reduce s visibility.  Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish. 

### Lake **Condition Water Color**  **Water Clarity Most Common**  **Types of fish** 

## 1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly r ough fish 

## 2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green About 3 feet B ass and rough fish 

## 4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly b ass 

## 5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly Bass and some walleye 

## 6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout 

## 7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and t rout

**32. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home?**  **(please c ircle**  **one )**  

## 1 **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **Don’t Know** 122



## Lakes in the **Chesapeake Bay Watershed**  Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.  Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.  Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will im prove the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions. The table below shows the **current condition**  and **conditions in**  **2025** that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution. The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.



## Current Conditions **Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions**  ***** **Average C ondition**  **of <State> Lakes in**  **the Watershed 3**  Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 3 Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.1 23



## Pollution Reduction Programs **for the Chesapeake Bay**  **Watershed** Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

**Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program.**  For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improv e aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

**46. Before taking this survey, had**  **you read or**  **heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?**  

# □ Yes 

# □ No124 

## Paying for **Pollution Reduction Program s**  The changes required under pollution reduction program s would result in higher costs for your household
.
**Costs to Your Household** Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive . For example:

 H igher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed . For renters, rent or ut ility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households b oth outside and inside the W atershed , including the area where you live . This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed. A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanentl y increase the cost of living for your household.125



## Deciding Future Actions Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs. In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different program s that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts. You will be asked three questi ons. In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGR AM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.



## An **Example Question** is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.126 

# An Example **Question**

**Conditions in 2025 Current**  **Conditions No Further** 

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Water Clarity Average visibility

of **3** feet Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 3 **feet** 67 % increase


## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 2 **35** million crabs 6% decrease 

## 300

million crabs 20% increase 

## 275

million crabs 10 % increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 2,7 **00** tons 18% decrease 

## 3,960

tons 20 % increase 

## 4,950

tons 50% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **ondition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass 

### P **ermanent Increase in the Cost of Living**  **for your Household** 

## $0 per year **$150 per year**  or $ 12.50 per month 

## $ **200 per year** 

or $ 16.67 per month 

### You **r Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B 

### If you **do not want A or B**  , mark this box If you want **Program A,**  mark this box If you want **Program B,**  mark this box127

**Please think carefully**  about how you would actually vote in these situations. W e urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision makers in state and federal governments
. **Consider the Outcomes and the Costs** P lease take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household
. A sk yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watersh ed are worth the additional cost to your household
. Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about. You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year from now on
. Only you know what is best for you and your household , so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B
.128

10. **Suppose you could choose from the following three options. M**  **ark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.** 



## Conditions in 2025 **Current Conditions**  **No Further**

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B C** **h e** **s a** **p e** **a k** **e B** **a y** **a n** **d T** **i d** **a l** **W a** **t e** **r s**  

### Water Clarity Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 50 % increase 

## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 2 **35** million crabs 6% Decrease 

## 280

million crabs 12% increase 

## 312

million crabs 25 % increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 2,7 **00** tons 18% Decrease 

## 5,250

tons 50 % increase 

## 4,300

tons 23% increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **ondition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly bass 

### Permanent Increase **in the Cost of Living for your Household**  

## $0 per year **$180 per year**  or $ 15 per month 

## $ **250 per year** 

or $ 20.83 per month 

### Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B129 

## As you vote on the next questions please remember **...**

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of p rogram options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.

 Consider e ach question separately , imagining that the options are the onl y ones available to choose from.

 The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered
.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.130

11. **Now suppose a different set of options were available . Please m**  **ark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for**  **.**



## Conditions in 2025 **Current Conditions**  **No Further**

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B B** **a y** **T i** **d a** **l W** **a t** **e r** **s** 

### Water Clarity Average visibility

of **3** feet Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** No Change 

## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 2 **35** million crabs 6% Decrease 

## 250

million crabs No Change 

## 2 **80**

million crabs 12% increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 2,7 **00** tons 18% Decrease 

## 4 **, 3**  **00**

tons 30% increase 

## 5,250

tons 5 9 % increase**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **onditions** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 4

Blue/Brown Water 5 feet of visibility Mostly Bass 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

### Permanent Increase **in the Cost of Living for your Household**  

## $0 per year **$ 60**  **per year** or $ 5 per month 

## $ **40 per year** 

or $ 20.83 per month 

### Your **Vote** Please mark one of the boxes to the ri ght No Further Action Program A Program B131

12. **Now suppose a different set of options were available , instead of those in the previous**  **question. Please m ark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.** 



## Conditions in 2025 **Current Conditions**  **No Further**

**Action .** 

**2** 

## Program**A .** 

**0 5**  

## Program**B B** **a y** **T i** **d a** **l W** **a t** **e r** **s** 

### Water Clarity Average visibility of **3 feet**  Average visibility of



## 1.5 **feet** 50% Decrease Average visibility of 

## 5 **feet** 83 % increase Average visibility of 

## 4 **feet** 33 % increase 

## Blue Crab **250** million crabs 

## 2 **35** million crabs 6% Decrease 

## 280

million crabs 12 % increase 

## 312

million crabs 25 % increase 

## Oysters **3,300** tons 

## 2,7 **00** tons 18% Decrease 

## 5,250

tons 50% increase 

## 3, **3 00** 

tons no change**L a** **k e** **s** 

## Lake C **ondition** Average of **3** in yo ur state 

## 2 Green Water 1 foot of visibility Mostly rough fish 

## 5

Blue/Brown Water 8 feet of visibility Bass and walleye 

## 3

Brown/Green Water 3 feet of visibility Bass and rough fish 

### Perm **anent Increase in the Cost of Living**  **for your Household** 

## $0 per year **$ 60**  **per year** or $ 3.33 per month 

## $ **180 per year** 

or $ 15 per month 

### Your Vote Please mark one of the boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B132

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to th e Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally Considered Only the Bay Waters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. Using each of the numbers 1 through 4, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs. (1 = Most Important , 5 = Least Important) ______ Clarity ______ Striped Bass ______ Blue Crab ______ Lake Category ______ Cost of the program

15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.) Recreation on the Bay Recreation in Lakes Preserving the environment for future generations Availability and/or price of seafood Value of property near the Bay Value of property near Lakes The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future Other __________________133

16. Thinking about how you voted among programs , please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree My choices would have been different if the econom y in my area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high the costs
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I do not think I should have to contribute any amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay

watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned that the programs would hurt the econom y. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe the programs will improve the environment as described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The changes offered b y the programs happen too far into the future for me to reall y care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The survey

provided me with the information Ineeded to make a choice between the options shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7134

17. **If you voted for NO**  **FURTHER ACTION**  **in any of the choices you were given**  , please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip to the next question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would not vote for an y program even if there were no costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for NO FURTHER ACTI ON because I am against more government requirements and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. **If you voted for Program A or Program B**  **in any of the choices you were given,** please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements. **If not, skip this question.**  ( Circle the number that matches your answer.) Strongly Disa gree Neutral Strongly A gree I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water quality closer to my

home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program more for future generations than for m ys elf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility

to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay

and L akes
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for my self. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7135 

## Questions about you and your household Finally , we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your answers will not be saved or sto red in a way that can be associated with your name or address . You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey. 19. **Are you male or female?**  Male  Female
20. **What is your age?** _________ years old
21. **What is your current marital status?**  Single, never married  Married or living with a long
- term partner  Separated or divorced  Widowed
22. **How many children under age 18 are living at your home?** ____________ children
23. **What was your total pre -**  **tax household income, including all earners in your household, in 201 1**  **?**  Under $25,000  $25,000
– $34,999  $35,000
– $49,999  $50,000
– $74,999  $75,000
– $99,999  $100,000

- $199,999  $200,000 or more
24. **What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?**  No high school diploma  High school diploma or GED  Some college credit or college degree136

 Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree

25. **Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?**  Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan  Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan  Rented  Other: ____________________________________________________

26. **Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to**  **all that apply.)**   Agriculture  Commercial fishing  Tour guide for fishing  No one in my family has worked in these industries

**Thank you very much for your help.**137

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, inc luding through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any corresponden ce. Do not send the materials to this address . 27.138

**Attachment 5**  **: First Federal Register Notice**
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6560 -**  **50 -**  **P [EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OA**  **- 2012**  **- 0033; FRL**  **- 9674**  **- 7]**  **Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request**  ; **Valuing Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Using Stated Preference Methods; EPA ICR No. 2456.01, OMB Control No. 20XX**  **- new**  **AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency
. **ACTION:** Notice.
**SUMMARY:** In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq .), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request for a new Information Collection Request (I CR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.
**DATES:** Comments must be submitted on or before [insert date **60** day s after publication in the Federal Register ].
**ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OA -**  **2012 -**  **0033** by one of the following methods: • www.regulations.gov : Follow the on
- line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: oei.docket@epa.gov • Fax: (202) 566
- 9744 • Mail: Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency , Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 **,** Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. **EP A**  **- HQ**  **- OA**  **- 2012**  **- 0033**  . EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including any139

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or othe r information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e
- mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anon ym ous access” s ys tem, which means EPA wi ll not know yo ur identit y or contact information unless you provide it in the body of yo ur comment. If you send an e - mail comment directl y to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e - mail address will be automaticall y captured and included as p art of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include yo ur name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
- ROM yo u submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may

not be able to consider yo ur comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, an y form of encry ption, and be fr ee of an y defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Dr. Nathalie Simon, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy , (1809T), Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202
- 566
- 2347; fax number: 202
- 566
- 2363 **;** email address: simon.nathalie@epa.gov
. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**
**How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?** EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. **EP A**  **- HQ**  **- OA**  **** **2012 -**  **0033** , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Publ ic Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202
- 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is 202
- 566
- 1752. Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a cop y of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the140

public docket that are available electronicall y. Once in the s ys tem, select “search, ” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. **What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?** Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency , including whether the information will have practical utility ; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology

and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality , utility , and clarit y of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology , e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is request ing comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected b y this collection.
**What Should I Consider when I Pre pare My Comments for EPA?**  You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearl y as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe an y assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of an y t echnical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative way s to improve the collection activity
. 6. Make sure to submit your comm ents by the deadline identified under DATES.141

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify

the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Regis ter citation. **What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Apply to?** Docket ID No. **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OA -**  **2012 -**  **0033. Affected entities:**  Entities potentially affected by

this action are members of the general public who may be contacted to participate in the study
. **Title: Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay ICR numbers:**  EPA I CR No. 2456.01, OMB Control No. **2012 -**  **new** . **ICR status:** This ICR is for a new information collection activity . An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it display s a currentl y valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are li sted in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either b y publication in the Federal Register or b y other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolid ated in 40 CFR part 9. **Abstract:** On May

12, 2009 the President signed Executive Order 13508 calling for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay . In response t o the Executive Order and other considerations the Environmental Protection Agency e stablished Total Maximum Daily L oads (TMDL s) of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for the Chesapeake Bay. These TMDLs called for reductions of 25, 24, and 20%, respectively , of these pollutants (EPA 2011). The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses 64,000 s quare miles in parts of six states and the District of Columbia. While efforts have been underway to restore the Bay

for more than 25 years, and significant progress has been made over that period, the TMDL s are necessary

to continue progress toward the go al of a healthy Bay . As might be expected, a program on this scale is likely to be expensive. A 2004 report on implementation of the “tributary strategies” proposed under an earlier plan for Bay restoration estimated their cost at $28 billion in capital costs plus an additional $2.7 billion dollars per year in perpetuity for operating and maintenance costs (Blue Ribbon Panel 2004). The watershed states of New York, Penns yl vania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the District of C olumbia, have developed Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) detailing the steps each will take to meet its obligations under the TMDLs. EPA has begun a new study to estimate costs of compliance with the TMDLs. While these costs may prove high, a multitud e of benefits may also be anticipated to arise from restoring the Chesapeake Bay . It is important to put cost estimates in perspective b y estimating corresponding benefits.142

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is undertaking a benefits analy sis of improvements in Bay

water quality

under the TMDL s, as well as of ancillary benefits that might arise from terrestrial measures taken to improve water quality . As part of this analy sis, NCEE plans to conduct a broad
- based inquiry into benefits using a state
- of
- the
- art stated preference survey . Benefits from the TMDLs for the Chesapeake will accrue to those who live on or near the Bay and its tributaries, as well as to those who live further away and may never visit the Bay but have a general con cern for the environment. The latter category of benefits is ty

pically called “non
- use values” and estimating the monetary value can onl y be achieved through a stated preference survey
. In addition, a stated preference survey is able to estimate “use valu es,” those benefits that accrue to individuals who choose to live on or near the Bay or recreate in the watershed. Stated preference survey s allow the anal ys t to define a specific object of choice or suite of choices such that benefits are defined in as pr ecise a manner as feasible. While use benefits of water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed will also be estimated through other revealed preference methods, the stated preference survey allows for careful specification of the choice scenarios and will complement estimates found using other methods. Participation in the survey will be voluntary

and the identity

of the participants will be kept confidential. **Burden Statement:** The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this col lection of information is estimated to average **0.5** hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includ es the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology

and sy stems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information ; adjust the existing way s to comply

with any previously

applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The I CR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency ’s estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:  Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1500.  Frequency

of response: once.  Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.  Estimated total annual burden hours: 750 hours.  Estimated total annual costs: $ 15,975. This includes estimated respondent burden costs onl y as there are no capital costs or operatin g and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. **What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?** EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for rev iew and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA143

will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the I CR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Dated: May

2, 2012. Al McGartland, Office Director, National Center for Environmental Economics. BILLING CODE: 6560
- 50
- P **[FR Doc. 2012 -**  **12298 Filed 05/23/2012 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 05/24/2012]**144

**Attachment 6**  **: Preview Letter to Mail Survey Recipients**  Dear Resident: I am writing to let you know about an important survey on environmental protection and government regulations affecting the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding lands
. Over time, human activities have caused many changes in Chesapeake Bay and the rivers , streams, and lakes around it
. The Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA) and state governments are considering policies that could impact water quality , wildlife, and recreation in this region . These policies differ in their outcomes and their costs. Because of this, policy makers would like to know what policies woul d be supported b y residents of the Chesapeake Bay region, as well as people who live further away
. Your address was randomly selected to receive a survey about these policies as part of a scientifically
- determined regional sample of households. This survey , The Future of the Chesapeake , will help officials from the EPA and state governments to better understand your preferences over policies that would affect the future of water quality , wildlife and recreation in Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas. Sometime in the next few weeks, you will receive the survey booklet by

mail. Your participation is completely voluntary , and there are no penalties for not answering any questions. Your help, however, is very

important. We cannot send this survey to e veryone, so your answers will represent the opinions of many

other Eastern U.S. residents like you . By filling out this survey

when it arrives, yo u will be participating in an important study that will help officials understand your priorities for public policy and the environment. Your answers will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your participation is extremely important to ensure that the survey results are complete and accurate. Please keep in mind that by quickl y returning your complete d survey , you will be helping to keep down the costs of collecting this important information
. We hope that you find this survey important and interesting and thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerel y,

[I NSERT NAME ], [I

NSERT TI TLE] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Economics145

**Attachment 7**  **: Cover Letter to Mail Survey Recipients**  Dear Resident: Within the last two weeks you received a letter informing you that, your household was selected at random to receive a short survey regarding environmental protection and government regulations affecting the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas. Thank yo u for your participation . The survey , The Future of the Chesapeake Bay, is enclosed with this letter. Over time, human activities have caused man y changes in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding rivers, streams , and lakes. The Environmental Protection Agency and state governments are considering policies that could affect water qualit y, wildlife and recreation in these areas. These policies differ in their outcomes and their costs. Your answers to the survey will help government officials understand yo ur priorities for public policy and the environment. Your responses to this survey are extremel y important to ensure that the survey results are complete and accurate. All answers to the survey are kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Once we have received your survey , we will delete your name from all lists, so that your responses can never be traced back to you. Of course, your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any or all questions. We hope that you find this survey important and interesting and thank you for your assistance in this project. We would greatly appreciate if you could complete and return the survey using the prepaid envelope in the near future. Sincerel y,

[I NSERT NAME] , [I

NSERT TI TLE] U. S. E nvironmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Economics146

**Attachment 8**  **: Post Card Reminder to Mail Survey Recipients**  FRONT

BACK OMB Control No. xxxx - xxxx Last week a survey , The Future of the Chesapeake Bay , was mailed to you concerning environmental protection and government regulations in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas. If you have already returned your completed survey, please accept our sincere thanks. If you have not yet completed your surv ey, we ask that you please do so today. You are one of a select few who have been chosen to participate
. Y our answers will help us understand your priorities for public policy and the environment in the Eastern U.S. If you did not receive the survey or it was misplaced , please contact TBD at (###) ###
- #### or xxx@xxx and we will send a replacement today
. Regards, [INSERT NAME] Environmental Protection Agency

United States Last week a survey was mailed to you concerning Environmental Protection Agency and government regulatiNortheast Washington, DC 20460 you have already returned your completed Mail Code XXX our sincere thanks.147

**Attachment 9**  **: Cover Letter to Recipients of the S**  **econd Survey Mailing** Dear Resident: Within the last few weeks a survey , The Future of the Chesapeake Bay, was sent to you about environmental protection and government regulations in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas
. Our records indicate that you have not yet returned a completed survey . You are one of a select few who have been chosen to participate . Y our answers to the survey will help officials from the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and state governments to better understand your preference over policies which would affect the future of water qualit y, wildlife and recreation in the Eastern U.S. Your responses to this survey are extremel y important to ensure that the survey results are complete and accur ate. If you have not yet returned your survey , we ask that you please do so today. Another cop y of the survey is enclosed with this letter. Over time, human activities have caused man y changes in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding rivers, streams , and lakes. The Environmental Protection Agency and state governments are considering policies that could affect water quality , wildlife and recreation in these areas. T hese policies differ in their outcomes and their costs. Your answers to the survey w ill help government officials understand yo ur priorities for the environment and regulations. All answers to the survey are kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Once we have received your survey , we will delete your name from all lists, so that your responses can never be traced back to you. Of course, your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer an y or all questions. We hope that you find this survey important and interesting and thank you for your assistance in this project. We would greatly appreciate if you could complete the survey today and return it using the prepaid envelope
. Sincerel y,

[I NSERT NAME ], [I

NSERT TI TLE] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Economics148

**Attachment 10**  **: Reminder**  **Letter to Recipients of the Second Survey Mailing**  Dear Resident: Within the last week a survey , The Future of the Chesapeake Bay, was mailed to you concerning environmental protection and government regulations in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas. Through a random process, your address was selected to receive the survey as part of a scientificall y determined regional sample. If you have not yet completed your survey, we ask that you please do so today . You are one of a select few who have been chosen to participate . Y our answers to the survey will help officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state governments to better understand your preference over policies which would affect the future of water qualit y, wildlife and recreation in the Eastern U.S. Your responses to this survey are extremel y important to ensure that the survey results are complete and a ccurate. Over time, human activities have caused man y changes in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding rivers, streams , and lakes. The EPA and state governments are considering policies that could affect water qualit y, wildlife and recreation in these are as. These policies differ in their outcomes and their costs. Your answers to the survey will help government officials understand your priorities for the environment and regulations. All answers to the survey are kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Once we have received your survey , we will delete your name from all lists, so that your responses can never be traced back to you. Of course, your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer an y or all questions. We hope that you find the survey important and interesting and thank you for your assistance in this project. We would greatly appreciate if you could return the completed survey using the prepaid envelope in the near future. If you have misplaced your survey , please contact TBD at (###) ###
- ### or XXX@XXX for a replacement.

Sincerel y,

[I NSERT NAME ], [I

NSERT TI TLE] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Economics149

**Attachment 11**  **: Letter to Participants in the Telephone Non**  **- response Survey**  Dear Resident: Within the last week a survey , The Future of the Chesapeake Bay, was mailed to you concerning environmental protection and government regulations in the Chesapeake Bay and surroun ding areas. Your address was randomly selected to receive the survey as part of a scientifically
- determined regional sample. Our records indicate that you did not return the completed survey . While we are no longer asking that you complete the full survey , we will be contacting you b y phone to participate in a brief telephone survey

that is expected to take less than 5 minutes. Included with this letter is a small token of our appreciation which is your to keep. Your answers to the telephone survey will he lp officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and state governments to better understand preferences over policies which would affect the future of water quality , wildlife and recreation in the Eastern U.S. Y ou will be participating in an important study

that will help government officials understand your priorities for the environment and regulations. Your responses are extremely important to ensure that the survey results are complete and accurate . All answers to the telephone survey are kept c onfidential to the extent provided by law. After yo u participate we will delete your name from all lists, so that your responses can never be traced back to you. Of course, your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer an y or all questions. We hope that you will find the telephone survey important and interesting and thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerel y,

[I NSERT NAME ], [I

NSERT TI TLE] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Economi cs150

**Attachment 12**  **: Cover Letter to Recipients of the Priority Mail Non -**  **response Questionnaire** Dear Resident: Within the last week a survey , The Future of the Chesapeake Bay, was mailed to you concerning environmental protection and government regulations in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas. Through a random process, your address was selected to receive the survey as part of a scientificall y determined regional sample. Our records indicate that you did not return the completed survey . While we are no longer asking that you complete the full survey , a brief questionnaire is enclosed with this letter that is expected to take less than 5 minutes to complete. Also included is a small token of our appreciation which is your to keep. Your answers to the questionnaire will help officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and state governments to better understand preferences over policies which would affect the future of water qualit y, wildlife and recreation in the Eastern U.S. By filling out this questionnaire , you will be participating in an important study that will help government officials understand your priorities for the environment and regulations. Your responses to this questionnaire are extremel y important to ensure that the survey results are complete and accurate . All answers to the survey are kept confidential to the extent provided by law
. Once we have received y our questionnaire , we will delete your name from all lists, so that your responses can never be traced back to you. Of course, your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer an y or all questions. We hope that you find this questionnaire i mportant and interesting and thank you for your assistance in this project. We would greatly appreciate if you could return the questionnaire in the next several day s . Sincerel y, [I NSERT NAME] , [I

NSERT TI TLE] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Natio nal Center for Environmental Economics151

**Attachment 13**  **: Priority Mail Non -**  **response Questionnaire**



## The Chesapeake Bay Watershed **The Chesapeake Ba y**  **Watershed is** shown below in green. The Watershed spreads over parts of six states and Washington DC. It contains 150 major rivers and thousands of lakes, small rivers and streams. Water draining from these lands enters these waterways and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Wa tershed includes two types of water bodies, with different characteristics and potential problems.152 

### 1. In the last five years, about how often have you visited watershed lakes or rivers, or the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters to do recreational activities such as swimming, water skiing or jet skiing; fishing; sailing, motor boating or kayaking; viewing nature, including bird watching; biking or walking on trails along the water ? Lakes and rivers in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay tidal waters I have never visited   I have not visited in the last 5 years   Once over the last 5 years   A few times over the last 5 years   About once a year   2 to 10 times a year   More than 10 times a year  153 

### 2. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column ) Lakes and Rivers near you Chesapeake Bay Better than they were 10 years ago   About the same as they were 10 years ago   Worse than they were 10 years ago   Don’t know  
3. On a scale from 1 to 5 , please circle the number that indicates how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Don’t

Know I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5 DK
I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay. 1 2 3 4 5 DK
Some decrease in environmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows. 1 2 3 4 5 DK I am against more government requirements and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 DK154 

### 4. Have you read or heard of programs to reduce pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?  Yes  No
5. Are you male or female?  Male  Female
6. What is your age?

_____ years old
7. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?  No high school diploma  High school diploma or GED  Some college credit or college degree  Some graduate school, professional school credit, or a graduate or professional degree

8. In 2011, what was your total pre - tax household income, including all earners in your household?  Under $25,000  $ 75,000 - $99,999  $ 25,000 - $34,999  $ 100,000 - $199,999  $ 35,000 - $49,999  $ 200,000 or more  $ 50,000 - $74,999155

**Attachment 14**  **: Telephone Non -**  **response Screener Script**

**The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Telephone Nonresponse Questionnaire**  Hello, this is _________________calling from Abt Associates. W e are conducting an important survey of U.S. reside nts for the Environmental Protection Agency , or EPA. This is not a sales call. This is a follow
- up to a survey

that was mailed to your household last week along with a letter from the EPA and a small incentive. Your participation is extremely i mportant to ensure that the survey r esults are complete and accurate. **SL1** In order to select just one person to interview, may Iplease speak to the person in your household, age 18 or older, who has had the most recent birthday? 1 Rspn on line **SKIP TO SL2**  2 Eligible rspn is not on phone **SKIP TO SL1 b**  3 Rspn unavailable **SCHEDULE CALLBACK** 4 No respondent over 18 **THANK AND SCREEN OUT** 8 Don’t Know (VOL) **THANK AND TERMINATE**

**– Soft Refusal**  9 Refused (VOL) **THANK AND TERMINATE**

**– Hard Refu**  **s al**  **SL1b** May

Ispeak with that person? 1 Rspn called to phone **SKIP TO SL1c** 2 Rspn unavailable **SCHEDULE CALLBACK** 8 Don’t Know (VOL) **THANK AND TERMINATE**

**– Soft Refusal**  9 Refused (VOL) **THANK AND TERMINATE**

**– Hard Re**  **fusal**
**SL1c** Hello, this is _________________calling from Abt Associates. W e are conducting an important survey o f U.S. residents for the Environmental Protection Agency , or EPA. T his is a follow
- up to a survey

that was mailed to your household last week along with a letter from the EPA and a small incentive. Your participation is extremely i mportant to ensure that the survey r esults are complete and accurate. Could we begin now? IF ASKED: This is a short survey which should take no more than five minutes. 1 Yes 2 No time **SCHEDULE CALLBACK** 8 Don’t Know (VOL) **THANK AND TERMINATE**

**– Soft Refusal**  9 Refused (VOL) **THA NK AND TERMINATE** 

**– Hard Refusal** 156

**SL2** Do you have a cell phone in addition to the line on which we’re speaking right now? 1 Yes, also have cell phone 2 No, this is only

phone **SKIP TO SA2** 8 Don’t know (VOL) **THANK AND END, screen out** 9 Refused (VOL) **THANK AND END, soft refusal**
**SA1** Of all of the phone calls that you or your family receives, are... (Read List) 1 all or almost all calls received on cell phones, 2 some received on cell phones and some received on land lines, or 3 very few or none on cell phones. 8 Don’t know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL) **SA2** Record gender from observation. ( Ask only if N ecessary) (MATCHES QUESTION 18 IN MAI N SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 3 IN NON RESPONSE SURVEY) 1 Male 2 Female 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL)157

**Q1** First, could you please tell me about how often yo u have visited the Chesapeake Bay watershed l akes or rivers to do recreational activities? Recreational activities include swimming, water skiing or jet skiing; fishing; sailing, motor boating or kayaking; viewing nature, including bird watching; biking or walking on trails along the water. Is it... ( MATCHES QUESTION 2 IN MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 1 IN NONRESPONSE SURVEY) 1 Never visited 2 Have not visited in the last 5 years 3 Once over the last 5 ye ars 4 A few times over the last 5 years 5 About once a ye ar 6 2 to 10 times a year 7 More than 10 times a ye ar 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL) **Q2** Now, could you please tell me about how often yo u have visited Chesapeake Bay tidal waters to do any of the sam e recreational activities? I s it... (MATCHES QUESTION 2 IN MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 1 IN NONRESPONSE SURVEY) 1 Never visited 2 Have not visited in the last 5 years 3 Once over the last 5 ye ars 4 A few times over the last 5 years 5 About once a ye ar 6 2 to 10 times a year 7 More than 10 times a ye ar 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL) **Q3a** Inyour opinion, how do yo u think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to yo ur home? Are they ... (MATCHES...) 1 Better than they

were 10 ye ars ago 2 About the same as they were 10 ye ars ago 3 Worse than they

were 10 years ago 4 Don’t know (VOL) 5 Refused (VOL)158

**Q3b** Inyour opinion, how do yo u think environmental conditions have changed in the Chesapeake Bay? Are they ... (MATCHES...) 1 Better than they

were 10 years ago 2 About the same as they were 10 ye ars ago 3 Worse than they

were 10 years ago 4 Don’t know (VOL) 5 Refused (VOL) **Q 4**  **a** On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”, how much do you agree or disagree with this statement: “I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers”? (MATCHES QUESTI ON 5 IN THE MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUEST IO N 2 IN THE NON RESPONSE SURVEY)
1 2 3 4 5 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL)159

**Q 4**  **b** On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”, how much do you agree or disagree with this statement: “I am concerne d about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay”? (MATCHES QUESTI ON 5 IN THE MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 2 IN THE NON RESPONSE SURVEY)
1 2 3 4 5 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL) **Q 4**  **c** On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”, how much do you agree or disagree with this statement: “Some decrease in environmental quality is unavoidable as our econom y grows”? (MATCHES QUESTION 5 IN THE MAIN SURVEY, MATC HES QUESTION 2 IN THE NON RESPONSE SURVEY)
1 2 3 4 5 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL) **Q 4d**  On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”, how much do you agree or disagree with this statement: “ I am a gainst any additional government requirements and spending.” (MATCHES QUESTION 16 INTHE MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTI ON **X** INTHE NON RESPONSE SURVEY)
1 2 3 4 5 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL) **Q5** Have you read or heard of programs to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay W atershed? (MATCHES QUESTION 8 INT HE MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTI ON **X** IN THE NON RESPONSE SURVEY) 1 Yes 2 No 4 Don’t know (VOL) 5 Refused (VOL)160

Now, I have just a few questions for classification purposes. **D1** NOTE: We should not accept an y ages younger than 18 for this question What is your age? (MATCHES QUESTION 19 INM AI N SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 4 IN NON RESPONSE SURVEY) ________ Years 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL)

**D3** What is the highest level of education that you have completed? I s it... (READ LI ST) (MATCHES QUESTION 23 IN MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 6 IN NON RESPONSE SURVEY) 1 No high school diploma 2 High school diploma or GED 3 Some college credit or college degree 4 Some graduate school, professional school credit, or a graduate or professional degree 8 Don’t Know (VOL) 9 Refused (VOL)161

**D6** In cluding everyone living in your household, which of the following categories best describes your total household income before taxes? I s it ... (READ LI ST) (MATCHES QUESTION 22 IN MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTI ON 10 IN NON RESPONSE SURVEY) 1 Less than $25,0 00, 2 $25,000 to $34,999, 3 $35,000 to $49,999, 4 $50,000 to $74,999, 5 $75,000 to $99,999, 6 $100,000 to $199,999, 7 $200,000 or more 98 Don’t know (VOL) 99 Refused (VOL)

**CLOSING:** Thank you very

much for your time, and have a great evening/day162

**Attachment 15**  **: Description of Statistical Survey Design** The following represents an anticipated experimental design for survey implementation, along with the associated number of completed survey s that will be required. Part B of this supporting statement provides detail on the sampling design. The proposed design and sampling plan is based on standard design and sampling theory for choice experiments and population survey s, as outlined by Louviere et al. (2000), Kuhfeld (2009) and Dillman (2000). EPA notes that the anticipated experimental design described here is preliminary and it may

be subject to refinements during design evaluations to account for issues such as dominant or dominated pairs, ecological feasibility , and to remove attribute combinations which do not provide information for estimation. The purpose of the Chesapeake Bay survey is to calculate average per household parameters (e.g., willingness to pay

and choice probabilities) within a given survey population. A dditional analysis that differentiates per
- household parameters may be conducted within groups of households which use or do not use the Chesapeake Bay
. **Experimental design for the choice experiments** Based on focus groups and pretests, and guided by realistic ranges of attribute outcomes, the anticipated experimental design includes two multi
- attribute choice options or alternatives , A and B, together with a fixed status quo or “no policy” option. Choi ce options, named Program A and Program B, are characterized b y three potential levels for environmental attributes and six different levels of annual household cost. Furthermore, there are two additional factors of the split
- sample experiments: 1. C onstant vs. declining baseline environmental attributes in the “No action” choice ; 2. Attributes will be offered in terms of either “inputs” or “endpoints
. ” Different split
- sample experiments will be produced in the three geographic divisions: 1. Bay States: Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia 2. Watershed States: Delaware, New York, P enns yl vania, and West Virginia 3. Other East Coast States: Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey , Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida163

Within these geographic divisions, the split
- sample experiment cells will collect more detailed information in the Bay

states, with “input” information only in the Watershed and Other East Coast states, as stipulated in Table A15
- 1. Contingent on the available budget and required accuracy , Cell 8 can be added for Watershed States utilizing “constant” baseline and “endpoint”
- based attributes. **Table A1**  **5 -**  **1 . Split**  **- sample design cel**  **l s.** 

Geographic division Baseline factor Stated preferences over Cell 1 Bay States Constant Input Cell 2 Bay States Declining Input Cell 3 Bay States Declining Endpoint Cell 4 Watershed Constant Input Cell 5 Watershed Declining Input Cell 6 Other East Coast Constant Input Cell 7 Other East Coast Declining Input Cell 8* Watershed Constant Endpoint Note: Implementation of Cell 8 (*) sample is contingent on available budget and accuracy requirements. For the “inputs” version of the questionnaire, options A and B are characterized by levels for the following five attributes:

1. Change in dissolved ox ygen in A and B (x 1 A ; x 1 B )

– 3 possible levels 2. Change in water clarit y in A and B (x 2 A ; x 2 B )

– 3 possible levels 3. Change in aquatic grass coverage in A and B (x 3 A ; x 3 B )

– 3 possible levels 4. Change in lake condition in A and B (x 4 A ; x 5 B )

– 3 possible levels 5. Cost in A and B (x 5 A ; x 5 B )
- 6 possible levels For the “endpoints” version of the questionnaire, options A and B are characterized by levels for the following five attributes:

1. Change in water clarit y in A and B (x 1 A ; x 1 B )

– 3 possible levels 2. Change in blue crab abundance in A and B (x 2 A ; x 2 B )

– 3 possible levels 3. Change in o ys ter abundance in A and B (x 3 A ; x 3 B )

– 3 possible levels 4. Change in lake condition in A and B (x 4 A ; x 5 B )

– 3 possible levels 5. Cost in A and B (x 5 A ; x 5 B )
- 6 possible levels This implies an experimental design characterized by [3 4 × 6] for each alternative, or [3 8 × 6 2 ] for alternatives A and B combined for either “inputs” or “endpoints” version of the instrument.164

To construct a preliminary m ain effects design that is sufficiently flexible to estimate alternative specific main effects and response patterns (i.e., a non
- generic design), we begin with the smallest available 100% efficient linear main effects plan for a full 3 8 x6 2 design. This tr eats each attribute of each alternative as a separate design element. Elimination of duplicate profiles reduces efficiency to 99.3%. From this candidate design, an initial evaluation was conducted to identify dominant/dominated pairs. These were adjusted to eliminate dominance, as well as to remove duplicates sy mmetric with respect to swapping Options A and B. These adjustments result in only minimal changes in orthogonality and other design properties. The result is a design with 72 profiles, with attributes labeled following the above notation, and levels indicated by integers 1...N, where N for each attribute is the number of levels identified above. Following common practice in the environmental economics literature, we anticipate three choice questio ns per survey . This allows the 72 profiles to be included (orthogonall y blocked) in 24 unique survey

booklets, as illustrated in Table A1 5
- 2. The attribute levels applied within survey s are summarized in Table A15
- 3. Monte Carlo evidence suggests that 6 t o 12 completed responses are required for each profile in order to achieve large sample statistical properties for choice experiments (L ouviere et al. 2000, p. 104, citing Bunch and Batsell 1989). Following this guidance, the above design will require 24× 12 = 288 completed survey s, or 12 completed survey s for each unique survey booklet. This will provide a total of 864 profile responses per cell.

**Table A1**  **5 -**  **2: Set of 72 Design Profiles used within each design cell Version**  **Choice**

**Question x1A**  **x2A x3A**  **x4A x5A**  **x1B x2B**  **x3B x4B**  **x5B** 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 3 1 3 4 1 2 2 3 2 1 6 3 3 3 2 5 1 3 2 3 1 2 6 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 6 3 2 3 2 2 3 5 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 3 6 1 1 3 1 6 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 5 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 5165 **Table A1**  **5 -**  **2: Set of 72 Design Profiles used within each design cell Version**  **Choice**

**Question x1A**  **x2A x3A**  **x4A x5A**  **x1B x2B**  **x3B x4B**  **x5B** 6 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 6 6 2 3 3 1 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 6 3 2 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 7 1 2 1 3 3 4 3 1 3 1 1 7 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 5 7 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 6 8 1 1 2 3 1 6 3 2 3 3 3 8 2 3 1 2 1 5 2 3 2 1 6 8 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 1 2 2 2 9 1 1 3 1 3 6 2 3 2 1 4 9 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 6 9 3 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 4 10 1 2 3 3 1 5 2 1 3 1 2 10 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 4 10 3 2 1 2 2 6 3 3 2 3 3 11 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 2 5 11 2 3 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 2 11 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 12 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 1 4 12 2 1 1 1 3 5 3 2 1 3 5 12 3 2 1 3 2 6 2 1 1 2 6 13 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 13 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 4 13 3 1 2 3 2 5 1 2 3 1 5 14 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 14 2 1 3 2 2 5 3 2 1 2 6 14 3 3 3 1 1 4 2 1 3 1 5 15 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 15 2 2 2 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 15 3 3 2 3 1 6 2 1 2 3 5 16 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 2 3 5 16 2 2 3 3 3 4 1 2 2 1 3 16 3 1 2 1 2 6 3 1 3 1 2 17 1 3 2 1 3 4 3 2 2 1 6 17 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 17 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 5 18 1 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 3 18 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 6 18 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 19 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 19 2 3 2 1 2 5 3 1 1 1 3 19 3 1 3 2 2 6 1 2 2 2 2 20 1 1 1 3 2 5 1 3 3 1 4 20 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2166 **Table A1**  **5 -**  **2: Set of 72 Design Profiles used within each design cell Version**  **Choice**

**Question x1A**  **x2A x3A**  **x4A x5A**  **x1B x2B**  **x3B x4B**  **x5B** 20 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 21 1 3 3 1 1 6 1 3 1 3 1 21 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 21 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 22 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 22 2 3 1 3 3 6 2 2 1 2 4 22 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 23 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 23 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 23 3 2 3 2 1 4 3 2 3 3 3 24 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 3 3 1 24 2 2 1 1 3 6 1 2 1 1 3 24 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 6 **Table A1 5**  **- 3: Attribute Levels Included in Each Survey Version**  Attribute Baseline **Attribute Levels 1**  **2 3**  **4 5**  **6** Declining Constant “Input Version” Dissolved Ox ygen 35% 43% 43% 85% 100%
- - - Water Clarity 1.5 3 3 4 5
- - - Aquatic Grasses (acres) 38,000 80,000 80,000 130,000 165,000
- - - Lake Condition 2 3 3 4 5
- - - Annual Household Cost $0 $0 $40 $60 $180 $250 $370 $500 “Endpoint Version” Water Clarity 1.5 3 3 4 5
- - - Blue Crab (millions) 235 250 250 280 312
- - - Oy sters (tons) 2,800 3,300 3,300 4,300 5,250
- - - Lake Condition 2 3 3 4 5
- - - Annual Household Cost $0 $0 $40 $60 $180 $250 $370 $500
**Realized Sample Sizes for Maximum Acceptable**  **Sampling Error** The goal of the choice experiment is to estimate regression coefficients from mixed or conditional logit models that may be used to estimate willingness to pay for multi
- attribute policy alternatives, or the likelihood of choosing a given multi
- attribute a lternative, following standard random167

utility modeling procedures (Haab and McConnell 2002). Hence, the sample size requirements are determined b y the accuracy of the parameter estimates in the WTP models. The resulting sample design will be a single stag e stratified sample. No clustering (multiple stages of selection) will be necessary . Unequal probabilities of selection will result in different geographic divisions defined in Part B, Section 2 “Survey design”, and lead to varying sampling weights, as d emonstrated in Table A15
- 4 (assuming that the design contains 8 cells). Due to these varying weights, under assumptions of constant response rate and fixed sample size, the expected design effect due to differential baseline weights is 1. 7 5. The realized design effect will likely be higher due to extra variability

of weights within cells due to non
- response adjustments. **Table A15**  **- 4. Sample size and accuracy projections**  Geographic division Population

size Expected

sample size Expected

weights Standard

err or, 50% incidence Standard

error, 10% incidence
Bay States 5,479,176 864 6341 0.017 0.010 Watershed 13,442,787 864 15559 0.017 0.010 Other East Coast 30,034,913 576 46563 0.021 0.012 Overall 48,956,876 2,304 21248 0.01 4 0.008 Source: The household population size for each region was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/
. The maximum acceptable sampling error for predicting response probabilities (the likelihood of choosing a given alternative) in the present case is ±10%, assuming a true response probability of 50% associated with a utility

indifference point. Given the survey population size, this level of precision requires a minimum sample size of approximately 96 observations. The number of observations (completed survey s) required to obtain large sample properties for the choice experiment design provide more than sufficient observations to obtain this required precision for population parameters.168

**Projected sample sizes given the potential non -**  **response** Survey non - response is a common phenomenon. The sample design must be proactive and account for the potential non
- response. Based on recent experience with survey s of similar nature, EPA expects the response rate for the Chesapeake Bay survey to be close to 30%. Additionally , the expected eligibility rate for a mail survey

is 92%, and accounts for vacant, seasonal, non
- existent , and otherwise ineligible units. The projected number of required mailings is given in Table A15
- 5 for different scenarios (response rates of 20% and 30%) and different sample size determination methods (expected number of mailings vs. the number of mai lings that ensures 90% probability of reaching the cell target sample size)
. **Table A15**  **- 5**  **. Required sample size**  Target cell size: n =288 r=20% response rate r=30% response rate Mean projection, n/r 90% prob

to achieve cell size Mean

projection, n/r 90% prob to

achieve cell size Required cell size 1565 1672 1043 1100 District of Columbia 229 244 152 162 Maryland 1848 1974 1231 1311 Virginia 2619 2798 1745 1857 Delaware 120 128 80 85 New York 2556 2731 1703 1813 P ennsylvania 1753 1873 1168 1243 West Virginia 267 285 178 189 C onnecticut 160 171 107 113 Florida 866 925 577 614 Georgia 418 447 279 297 Maine 65 69 43 46 Massachusetts 297 318 198 211 New Hampshire 61 65 40 43 New Jersey 335 358 223 238169

North Carolina 437 467 291 310 Ohio 537 574 358 381 Rhode I sland 48 52 32 34 South Carolina 210 225 140 149 Vermont 30 32 20 32 Total: 12522 13379 8343 8880 The sample size required for 90% probability of achieving the cell size is computed as the 90
- th percentile of the negative binomial distribution with success probability equal to the response rate and the number of successes equal to the target cell size.