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 Daily Load (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 quality in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters and upstream lakes.

 To understand how individuals value improvements in tidal waters and lakes, including water 

clarity, populations of blue crab and oysters, 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 baseline level of water quality, 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 variety of water quality 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, nonuse values 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 respondents 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. Respondents 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; Louviere 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 

directly valued by respondents. Specifically, the “input version” of the survey instrument specifies 

changes in: (a) dissolved oxygen (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. Specifically, the endpoint survey presents changes in: (a) water clarity,

(b) blue crab abundance, (c) oyster 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 meaning” (p.9). 

Water clarity 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 individuals. 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 analysis of choice questions for 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. 

Variables for socio-economic characteristics and attitudes will also be included in the analysis. 

1(c) Statistical Approach

A statistical survey approach in which a randomly drawn sample is employed 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 value 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 analysis of the survey results. EPA has retained Abt 

Associates Inc. (55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138) as a contractor to assist in questionnaire 

design, sampling design, administration of the survey, and analysis 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; Louviere et al. 2000), EPA conducted a 

series of 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews (conducted under a different ICR 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 well 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. Furthermore, 

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. EPW-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 analysis 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 years 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, Pennsylvania, 

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, Pennsylvania, 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 Island, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) are bordered by 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 surveys ability to capture and isolate nonuse values.

2(b) Sampling Design

(I) Sampling Frame
5

The sampling frame for this survey is the United States Postal Service Computerized Delivery

Sequence File (DSF). The universe of sample units is defined as the set of all individuals who are 18 

years 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 

types 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 nonsampling errors in the survey sample, refer to Section 2(b)(II), below.

(II) Sample Sizes

The target responding sample size for the survey is 2,3041completed household surveys. 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 analysis will be more than adequate to meet the analytic needs of the benefits analysis for the 

Chesapeake Bay TMDLs. For further discussion of the level of precision required by this analysis, 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 Region

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 Island 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 

introduced in Section 4(a) of Part A. As a result of stratification, the analysis can produce estimates of 

the geographic distribution of values for the Chesapeake Bay water quality improvements with greater 

precision.

(IV) Sampling Method

Using the stratification 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 will 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% 

response rate is based on Helm 2012, Mansfield, et al. 2012, and Johnston, et al. 2012.
8

There 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 respondents 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. Several 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 statedpreference modeling. 

To estimate total value for the quantified environmental benefits of the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs, 

data will be analyzed 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 surveys) required to 

obtain large sample properties for the choice experiment design provide more than sufficient 

observations to obtain this required precision for population parameters. Across all regions, a sample of 
9

2,304 households (completed surveys) 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 and accuracy projections

Geographic 

division

Population 

size

Expected sample size

(completed surveys)

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 0.014 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 surveys. 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 any amount of water quality 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 type 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 maximize 
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 any bias due to non-response. It is typically the case that nonresponse differs by sample 

strata. One likely 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 any evidence of significant 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 priority mailing contact. The 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 matched telephone numbers. Within these strata, the samples for the nonresponse 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 only. Once contact is achieved 

with a household by telephone for this subsample, one adult is selected in each household as the 

designated respondent. If there is more than one eligible respondent per household, 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 unconditional 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 households will be selected in the second stratum and sent a 

questionnaire by priority 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 sample.

A sample of 400 households will be selected for the nonresponse survey. This will enable EPA 

to reject the hypothesis of no difference in population percentages between respondents and nonrespondents 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 

Priority 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.

 Familiarity with Nutrient and Sediment Issues. Responses to these 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 direction 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 itself. 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 experiment, where respondents choose their preferred option (program A, program B, or 
13

“No Further Action”). This elicitation format has been successfully used by a number of 

previous valuation studies (e.g., Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bateman et al. 2002; Bennett and 

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 specifically 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 provides 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 bequest 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 

cognitive interviews with survey respondents were conducted using think-aloud or verbal protocol 
14

analyses (see Schkade and Payne 1994 for a discussion). The pretests were used to develop a survey 

that provides respondents with necessary information to complete 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 potential biases associated with poorly-designed stated preference surveys, including hypothetical 

bias, strategic bias, symbolic (warm glow) bias, framing effects, embedding biases, methodological 

misspecification, and protest responses (Mitchell and Carson 1989). 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 selected 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 changes 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. Specifically, the pilot 

results will be used to:

 Compare the actual and expected response rates. Based on typical mail survey response 

rates for surveys of this type, 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 cost 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

 Identify unusual patterns, such as the vast majority of respondents always choosing 

Option A. (E.g., if 2/3 of respondents (66%) choose Option A it might indicate that there 

is a systematic bias). 

 Determine whether responses suggest that appropriate tradeoffs are being made and 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 individual 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 surveys 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 any inconsistencies are addressed. Specifically, we will use the 

Double Entry data entry method for closed-ended responses. The Double Entry method consists of data 

being keyed twice and compared. 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 analysis software package. The mail survey, database management, and data set 

conversion will be conducted by Abt Associates Inc.

5(b) Analysis

Once the survey data has been converted into a data file, it will be analyzed using statistical 

analysis techniques. The following section discusses the model that will be used to analyze the stated 

preference data from the survey.

Analysis of Stated Preference Data

The model for analysis 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 model applied to choice experiments, hypothetical 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 Ui(

.

) 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 researcher, 

such that:

(1) Ui(

.

) = U(Xi, D, Y-Fi) = v(Xi, D, Y-Fi) + εi

where:

Xi = 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.

Fi = mandatory additional cost faced by the household under program i;

v(.) = a function representing the empirically estimable component of utility;

εi = stochastic or unobservable component of utility, modeled as an econometric error.

Econometrically, 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 alternative 

programs, rather than observing values of Ui(.) directly (Maddala, 1983; Hanemann, 1984). Standard 

random utility models are based on the probability that a respondent’s utility from program i, Ui(.), 

exceeds the utility from alternative programs j, Uj(.), for all potential programs j≠i considered by 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 that 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 will 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(Xi, D,Y-Fi) + εi) ≥ (v(Xj, D, Y-Fj) + εj)  j≠i.
18

If the εi are assumed independently and identically drawn from a type 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 systematic 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), 

each 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 as noted above.

Following clear guidance from the literature, a “no further action” or status quo option is always 

included in the visible choice set, to ensure that WTP measures are well-defined (Louviere et al. 2000).

Three choice questions are included within the same survey to increase information obtained 

from each respondent. This is standard practice within choice experiment and dichotomous choice 

contingent valuation surveys (Poe et al. 1997; Layton 2000). While respondents will be instructed to 

consider each choice question as independent of other choice questions, it 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 by individual respondents may be 

correlated even though responses across different respondents are considered independent and 

identically distributed (Poe et al. 1997; Layton 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; Layton 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 random effects model is estimated. If both slope and intercept 

parameters may vary across respondents, then a random parameters model is estimated. Such models 

will be estimated using standard maximum likelihood for mixed conditional logit techniques, as 

described by Train (1998), Greene (2002) and others. Mixed logit model performance of alternative 
19

specifications will be assessed using standard statistical measures of model fit and convergence, as 

detailed by 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 

utility theory, and the similarity of the discrete choice context to familiar referendum or voting formats 

(Bennett and Blamey 2001). Compared to other types 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 symbolic biases (Blamey et al. 1999; 

Mitchell and Carson 1989), as many 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 

symbolic 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 choice 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 applied to assess values for ecological resource improvements of a type 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 by their attributes. The proposed choice experiment survey versions 

will allow respondents to choose among a wide variety of hypothetical program options, some with 

larger and others with smaller changes in the presented attributes (including household cost). That is, 

because the survey 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 

property 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 levels are chosen to (almost certainly) bound the 

actual levels expected under pollution reduction programs. Given that there will almost certainly be 

some uncertainty regarding the specifics of the actual baselines and improvements, the resulting 

valuation estimates 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; Desvousges 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 have a clear understanding 

of the policies and goods under consideration, such that informed choices may be made that reflect 

respondents’ underlying 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 conducted using thinkaloud or verbal protocol analyses (Schkade and Payne 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 respondents 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 ways 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 numbers used in typical applications of 

stated preference valuation. Moreover, EPA incorporated cognitive interviews as detailed by Kaplowicz 

et al. (2004).

Econometric Specification

Based on prior focus groups, expert review, and attributes of the policies under consideration, 

EPA anticipates that four attributes will be incorporated in the vector of variables describing attributes 

of the pollution reduction programs (vector Xi), in addition to the attribute characterizing unavoidable 

household cost Fi. The attributes will differ across the “input” and “endpoint” versions of the survey. 

For the “input version”, these attributes will characterize improvements in dissolved oxygen (x1), water 

clarity (x2), aquatic grasses (x3), and lake condition (x4). For the “endpoint version”, these attributes will 

characterize improvements in water clarity (x1), blue crab abundance (x2), oyster abundance (x3), and 

lake condition (x4). 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 researchers applying 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 anticipates 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 literature, 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 oxygen) + 2(change in water clarity) + 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 oyster 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 surveys 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 (Louviere 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 developing 

appropriate choice sets (Bennett and Blamey 2001).

Based on these guiding principles, the following experimental design framework is proposed by 

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 framework. Each treatment (survey question) includes two 

choice options (Program A and Program B) and a “No Further Action”, each characterized by four 

attributes and a cost variable. Hence, there is a total of fifteen attributes for each treatment. Based on 

focus 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. It also allows for two different 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 OxygenN (2 levels)

 Dissolved OxygenA, Dissolved OxygenB (3 levels)

 Water ClarityN (2 levels)

 Water ClarityA, Water ClarityB (3 levels)

 Aquatic GrassesN (2 levels)

 Aquatic GrassesA, Aquatic GrassesB (3 levels)

 Lake ConditionN (2 levels)

 Lake ConditionA, Lake 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 ClarityN (2 levels)

 Water ClarityA, Water ClarityB (3 levels)

 Blue Crab AbundanceN (2 levels)

 Blue Crab AbundanceA, Blue Crab AbundanceB (3 levels)

 Oyster AbundanceN (2 levels)

 Oyster AbundanceA, Oyster AbundanceB (3 levels)

 Lake ConditionN (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 such choices provide negligible statistical 

information compared to choices involving non-dominant/dominated pairs, they are typically avoided in 

choice experiment statistical designs. For example, Hensher and Barnard (1990) recommend eliminating 

profiles including dominating or dominated profiles, because such profiles generally 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 analysis for the Chesapeake 

Bay TMDLs. Provided information will include summary statistics for the survey data, extensive 

documentation for the statistical analysis, and a detailed description of the final results. The survey data 

will be released only after it has been thoroughly 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 Approaches 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). Economic 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 quality: 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.

Boyd, 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, September 

2009. 

Cropper, M., & Isaac, W. (2011). The benefits of achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total 

Maximum Daily Loads): a scoping study. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Desvousges, W.H., and V.K Smith. (1988). Focus Groups and Risk Communication: 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 Values: 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., McConnell, 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 

Indicators. 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 for Coastal Wetland Restoration. Water Resources Research 41(7), 

doi:10.1029/2004WR003766.

Johnston, R.J., S.K. Swallow, T.J. Tyrrell, and D.M. Bauer. (2003b). Rural Amenity Values and Length 

of Residency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 1000-1015.

Johnston, 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. Water 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 Public 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. Lesser, E. 

Martin, J. Martin, and E. Singer. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
27

Kemp, W. M., Boynton, 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 Associated with the Degradation of an 

Ecosystem: 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.

Layton, D.F. 2000. “Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys.” 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 in 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 University Press, Cambridge.

Mansfield, C., G. Van Houtven, 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 Environmental 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 Logit 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 Analysis Inc. 124 pp.

Opaluch, J.J., S.K. Swallow, T. Weaver, C. Wessells, and D. Wichelns. (1993). Evaluating impacts from 

noxious facilities: Including 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 quality: A local 

watershed-based study. Ecological Economics, 60, 797-806.

Schkade, D.A. and J.W. Payne. (1994). “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A 

Verbal Protocol Analysis 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 workers, by 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 ecosystem services associated with alternative levels of 

ecological indicators. In: Risk and Exposure Assessment for Review of the Secondary 

National 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 

your 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 you 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 policymakers. 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 Watershed, 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. Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and 

eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:

The freshwater lakes and 

rivers of the Watershed

support wildlife and provide 

recreational opportunities like 

swimming, boating, and fishing.

The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters

include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers 

and streams that flow into the Bay. Bay waters 

are salty and support different types of wildlife

than the rest of the Watershed. People 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? 

Lakes and rivers in 

the Watershed

Chesapeake 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. 

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 □ □
35

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of 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. But 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.

 Sediment. Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the 

environment. Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and 

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing 

more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

For the following questions, check the box next to your answer.

3. Before taking this survey, were 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

□ No
36

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 fewer 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 less 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 

 More 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. As 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 environmental quality is 

inevitable as our economy grows.

1 2 3 4 5

DK
38

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types 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 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 by all aquatic life

 Dissolved oxygen goals were set for different areas of the Chesapeake Bay based on the 

types of aquatic life that live there

Water Clarity

 Water clarity 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

□ No
39

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. Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future 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 

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 

How 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 

Acres of underwater grasses on the Bay floor.

Scientists 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

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 reduces 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 rough fish 

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish 

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

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 trout

8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle 

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 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 Condition 

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

□ No
43

Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs 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:

 Higher 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 both

outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live. This is 

because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently 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 programs 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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

a

n

d

Tid

al W

ate

rs Dissolved Oxygen

40% of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

40 %

of the Bay areas

meet DO goals

50%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

70%

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

3 feet

67% increase

Aquatic Grasses

Coverage is 

80,000 acres

80,000 acres

No Change

100,000 acres

25% increase

150,000 acres

50% increase

L

a

k

es Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 box
46

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations. We 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

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. 

Ask 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 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.
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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

a

n

d

Tid

al W

ate

rs 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

100%

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

50% increase

Aquatic Grasses

Current coverage is 

80,000 acres

80,000 acres

No Change

130,000 acres

25% increase

165,000 acres

50% increase

L

a

k

es Lake 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 B
48

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

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. 

These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas. 

 Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only 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 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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

Tid

al W

ate

rs 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

Coverage is 

80,000 acres

80,000 acres

No Change

130,000 acres

25% increase

80,000 acres

50% increase

L

a

k

es Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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

$60 per year

or $5 per month

Your Vote

Please mark one of the 

boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B
50

12. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available. Please 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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

a

n

d

Tid

al W

ate

rs 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 coverage is 

80,000 acres

80,000 acres

No Change

130,000 acres

20% increase

165,000 acres

75% increase

L

a

k

es Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 B
51

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to 

improvements in lakes compared to the 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 grass 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 

Disagre

e 

Neutral

Strongly 

Agree

My choices would have been different 

if the economy 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 economy. 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 by the programs 

happen too far into the future for me to 

really care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

The survey provided me with the 

information I needed to make a choice 

between the options shown.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
53

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 

Disagree 

Neutral Strongly Agree

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 any program even 

if there were no costs to my

household. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

because the costs were too high 

compared to the environmental 

improvements.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

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 

Disagree 

Neutral Strongly Agree

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 myself. 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 Lakes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for a program so others could 

enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than 

for myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
54

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 stored 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 

2011?

 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 degree
55

 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, including 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 correspondence. Do not send the materials to this address.
57

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 

your 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 you 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 policymakers. 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.
59

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 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. Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and 

eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:

The freshwater lakes and 

rivers of the Watershed

support wildlife and provide 

recreational opportunities like 

swimming, boating, and fishing.

The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters

include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers 

and streams that flow into the Bay. Bay waters 

are salty and support different types of wildlife

than the rest of the Watershed. People 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? 

Lakes and rivers in 

the Watershed

Chesapeake 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. 

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 □ □
62

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of 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. But 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.

 Sediment. Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the 

environment. Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and 

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing 

more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

For the following questions, check the box next to your answer.

11. Before taking this survey, were you 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

□ No
63

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 fewer 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 less 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 

 More 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. As a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities 

will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.
64

13. 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 □ □

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 environmental quality is 

inevitable as our economy grows.

1 2 3 4 5

DK
65

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types 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 Chesapeake Bay.

For the Chesapeake Bay, environmental goals are based measurements of water quality and 

aquatic life:

Water Clarity

 Measured by how far one can see into the water

 People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water

 Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

Blue Crab

 A key ecological species and popular 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

□ No
66

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay 

State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but 

additional actions are being considered. Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future 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

Conditions in 

2025 with no 

further action*

Water Clarity 

How 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

Goal is 415 million crabs

250

million crabs

250

million crabs

No Change

Oysters 

Goal 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 reduces 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 rough fish 

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish 

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

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 trout

16. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle 

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 improve 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 Condition 

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 improve 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

□ No
70

Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs 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:

 Higher 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 both

outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live. This is 

because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently 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 programs 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.
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

Tid

al

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 Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 $150 per year

or $12.50 per month

$200 per year

or $16.67 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 box
73

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations. We 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

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. 

Ask 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 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. Mark 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

Tid

al

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 Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 $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 B
75

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

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. 

These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas. 

 Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only 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 mark 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

Tid

al 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

280

million crabs

12% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons

3,300

tons

No Change

4,300

tons

30% increase

5,250

tons

59% increase

L

a

k

e

s

Lake Conditions

Average of 3 in 

your 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 right No Further Action Program A Program B
77

12. Now suppose a different set of options were available, instead of those in the 

previous question. Please mark 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

Tid

al 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

3,300

tons

no change

L

a

k

e

s

Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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

Permanent 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 B
78

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to 

improvements in lakes compared to the 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 

Disagre

e 

Neutral

Strongly 

Agree

My choices would have been different 

if the economy 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 economy. 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 by the programs 

happen too far into the future for me to 

really care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

The survey provided me with the 

information I needed to make a choice 

between the options shown.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
80

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 

Disagree 

Neutral Strongly Agree

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 any program even 

if there were no costs to my

household. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

because the costs were too high 

compared to the environmental 

improvements.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

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 

Disagree 

Neutral

Strongly Agree

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 myself. 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 Lakes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for a program so others could 

enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than 

for myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
81

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 stored 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 

2011?

 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
82

 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, including 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 correspondence. 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 

your 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 you 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 policymakers. 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.
86

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 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. Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and 

eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:

The freshwater lakes and 

rivers of the Watershed

support wildlife and provide 

recreational opportunities like 

swimming, boating, and fishing.

The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters

include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers 

and streams that flow into the Bay. Bay waters 

are salty and support different types of wildlife

than the rest of the Watershed. People 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? 

Lakes and rivers in 

the Watershed

Chesapeake 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. 

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 □ □
89

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of 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. But 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.

 Sediment. Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the 

environment. Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and 

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing 

more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

For the following questions, check the box next to your answer.

19. Before taking this survey, were 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 excess nutrients and sediments in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed? 

□ Yes

□ No
90

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 fewer 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 less 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 

 More 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. As 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 environmental quality is 

inevitable as our economy grows.

1 2 3 4 5

DK
92

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types 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 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 by all aquatic life

 Dissolved oxygen goals were set for different areas of the Chesapeake Bay based on the 

types of aquatic life that live there

Water Clarity

 Water clarity 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

□ No
93

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. Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future 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 

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 

How 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 

Acres of underwater grasses on the Bay floor.

Scientists 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 reduces 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 rough fish 

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish 

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

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 trout

24. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle 

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 improve 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 Condition 

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 improve 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

□ No
97

Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs 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:

 Higher 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 both

outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live. This is 

because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently 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 programs 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.
99

An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

z

Current 

Conditions

No Further

Action

.

2

Program A .

2

Program B

C

h

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

a

n

d

Tid

al W

ate

rs Dissolved Oxygen

40% of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

33 %

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

50%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

70%

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

3 feet

67% increase

Aquatic Grasses

Coverage is 

80,000 acres

56,000 acres

30% Decrease

100,000 acres

25% increase

150,000 acres

50% increase

L

a

k

es Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 box
100

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations. We 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

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. 

Ask 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 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.
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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

a

n

d

Tid

al W

ate

rs 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

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 coverage is 

80,000 acres

56,000 acres

30% Decrease

130,000 acres

25% increase

165,000 acres

50% increase

L

a

k

es Lake 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 B
102

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

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. 

These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas. 

 Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only 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 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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

Tid

al W

ate

rs 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

Coverage is 

80,000 acres

56,000 acres

30% Decrease

130,000 acres

25% increase

80,000 acres

50% increase

L

a

k

es Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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

$60 per year

or $5 per month

Your Vote

Please mark one of the 

boxes to the right No Further Action Program A Program B
104

31. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available. Please 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

esa

p

e

a

k

e

B

a

y

a

n

d

Tid

al W

ate

rs 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 coverage is 

80,000 acres

56,000 acres

30% Decrease

130,000 acres

20% increase

165,000 acres

75% increase

L

a

k

es Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 B
105

32. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to 

improvements in lakes compared to the 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 grass 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 

Disagre

e 

Neutral

Strongly 

Agree

My choices would have been different 

if the economy 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 economy. 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 by the programs 

happen too far into the future for me to 

really care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

The survey provided me with the 

information I needed to make a choice 

between the options shown.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
107

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 

Disagree 

Neutral Strongly Agree

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 any program even 

if there were no costs to my

household. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

because the costs were too high 

compared to the environmental 

improvements.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

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 

Disagree 

Neutral Strongly Agree

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 myself. 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 Lakes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for a program so others could 

enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than 

for myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
108

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 stored 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 

2011?

 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 degree
109

 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, including 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 correspondence. 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 

your 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 you 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 policymakers. 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.
113

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 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. Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and 

eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:

The freshwater lakes and 

rivers of the Watershed

support wildlife and provide 

recreational opportunities like 

swimming, boating, and fishing.

The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters

include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers 

and streams that flow into the Bay. Bay waters 

are salty and support different types of wildlife

than the rest of the Watershed. People 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? 

Lakes and rivers in 

the Watershed

Chesapeake 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. 

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 □ □
116

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of 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. But 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.

 Sediment. Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the 

environment. Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and 

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing 

more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

For the following questions, check the box next to your answer.

27. Before taking this survey, were you 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

□ No
117

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 fewer 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 less 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 

 More 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. As a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities 

will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.
118

29. 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 □ □

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 environmental quality is 

inevitable as our economy grows.

1 2 3 4 5

DK
119

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types 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 Chesapeake Bay.

For the Chesapeake Bay, environmental goals are based measurements of water quality and 

aquatic life:

Water Clarity

 Measured by how far one can see into the water

 People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water

 Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

Blue Crab

 A key ecological species and popular 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

□ No
120

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay 

State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but 

additional actions are being considered. Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future 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

Conditions in 

2025 with no 

further action*

Water Clarity 

How 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

Goal is 415 million crabs

250

million crabs

250

million crabs

No Change

Oysters 

Goal 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 reduces 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 rough fish 

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish 

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

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 trout

32. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle 

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 improve 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 Condition 

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.
123

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 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

□ No
124

Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs 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:

 Higher 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 both

outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live. This is 

because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently 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 programs 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.
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

Tid

al

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

235

million crabs

6% decrease

300

million crabs

20% increase

275

million crabs

10 % increase

Oysters

3,300 tons

2,700

tons

18% decrease

3,960

tons

20 % increase

4,950

tons

50% increase

L

a

k

e

s

Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 $150 per year

or $12.50 per month

$200 per year

or $16.67 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 box
127

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations. We 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

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. 

Ask 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 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. Mark 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

Tid

al

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

235

million crabs

6% Decrease

280

million crabs

12% increase

312

million crabs

25 % increase

Oysters

3,300 tons

2,700

tons

18% Decrease

5,250

tons

50% increase

4,300

tons

23% increase

L

a

k

e

s

Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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 B
129

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

 On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. These 

options require a different mix of management practices in different areas. 

 Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only 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 mark 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

Tid

al 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

235

million crabs

6% Decrease

250

million crabs

No Change

280

million crabs

12% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons

2,700

tons

18% Decrease

4,300

tons

30% increase

5,250

tons

59% increase

L

a

k

e

s

Lake Conditions

Average of 3 in 

your 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 right No Further Action Program A Program B
131

12. Now suppose a different set of options were available, instead of those in the previous 

question. Please mark 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

Tid

al 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

235

million crabs

6% Decrease

280

million crabs

12% increase

312

million crabs

25% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons

2,700

tons

18% Decrease

5,250

tons

50% increase

3,300

tons

no change

L

a

k

e

s

Lake Condition

Average of 3 in 

your 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

Permanent 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 B
132

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to 

improvements in lakes compared to the 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 

Disagree 

Neutral

Strongly 

Agree

My choices would have been different if 

the economy 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 economy. 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 by the programs 

happen too far into the future for me to 

really care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

The survey provided me with the 

information I needed to make a choice 

between the options shown.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
134

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 

Disagree 

Neutral Strongly Agree

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 any program even if 

there were no costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

because the costs were too high 

compared to the environmental 

improvements.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION 

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 

Disagree 

Neutral

Strongly Agree

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 myself. 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 Lakes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

I voted for a program so others could 

enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for 

myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7
135

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 stored 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 2011?

 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 degree
136

 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, including 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 correspondence. 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 

(ICR) 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 days 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. EPA-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 any
139

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 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 “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will 

be automatically captured and included as part 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 

your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 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. EPA-HQ-OA2012-0033, 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 Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 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 copy 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 the 
140

public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, 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 clarity 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 requesting 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 by this collection.

What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical 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 ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments 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 

Register 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 ICR 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 displays a 

currently 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 listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 

either by publication in the Federal Register or by 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 consolidated 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 to the Executive Order and other considerations the 

Environmental Protection Agency established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 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 

square 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 

TMDLs are necessary to continue progress toward the goal 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, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, 

Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia, 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 

multitude of benefits may also be anticipated to arise from restoring the Chesapeake Bay. It is important 

to put cost estimates in perspective by estimating corresponding benefits.
142

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is undertaking a benefits analysis of 

improvements in Bay water quality under the TMDLs, as well as of ancillary benefits that might arise 

from terrestrial measures taken to improve water quality. As part of this analysis, 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 concern for the 

environment. The latter category of benefits is typically called “non-use values” and estimating the 

monetary value can only be achieved through a stated preference survey.

In addition, a stated preference survey is able to estimate “use values,” those benefits that accrue to 

individuals who choose to live on or near the Bay or recreate in the watershed. Stated preference surveys 

allow the analyst to define a specific object of choice or suite of choices such that benefits are defined in 

as precise 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 collection 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 includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing 

ways 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 ICR 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 only as 

there are no capital costs or operating 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 review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA 
143

will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the 

submission of the ICR 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 Agency (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, policymakers would like to know what policies would be supported by 

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 everyone, so your answers will represent the 

opinions of many other Eastern U.S. residents like you. By filling out this survey when it arrives, you 

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 quickly returning your completed 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. 

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME], [INSERT TITLE]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Economics
145

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 you for your participation. The survey, The Future of the Chesapeake Bay, is enclosed 

with this letter. 

Over time, human activities have caused many 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. These policies differ in 

their outcomes and their costs. Your answers to the survey will help government officials understand 

your priorities for public policy and the environment.

Your responses to this survey are extremely 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.

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME], [INSERT TITLE]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Economics
146

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 survey, we ask that you please do so 

today. You are one of a select few who have been chosen to participate. 

Your 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 Agencyand 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 Second 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. Your 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 quality, wildlife and recreation in the Eastern U.S.

Your responses to this survey are extremely important to ensure that the survey results are 

complete and accurate. If you have not yet returned your survey, we ask that you please do so today. 

Another copy of the survey is enclosed with this letter.

Over time, human activities have caused many 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. 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 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 the survey today and return it using the 

prepaid envelope.

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME], [INSERT TITLE]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Economics
148

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 scientificallydetermined 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. Your 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 quality, wildlife and 

recreation in the Eastern U.S.

Your responses to this survey are extremely important to ensure that the survey results are 

complete and accurate. 

Over time, human activities have caused many changes in the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding 

rivers, streams, and lakes. The EPA and state governments are considering policies that could affect 

water quality, 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 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 any 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.

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME], [INSERT TITLE]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Economics
149

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 surrounding 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 by 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 help 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. You 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 confidential to the extent provided by law. After 

you 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 any or all questions. 

We hope that you will find the telephone survey important and interesting and thank you for your 

assistance in this project. 

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME], [INSERT TITLE]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Economics
150

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 scientificallydetermined 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 quality, 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 extremely 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 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 any or all questions. 

We hope that you find this questionnaire important 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 days.

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME], [INSERT TITLE]

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Economics
151

Attachment 13: Priority Mail Non-response Questionnaire

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay 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 Watershed 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 DK
154

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 - $74,999
155

Attachment 14: Telephone Non-response Screener Script

The Future of the Chesapeake Bay Telephone Nonresponse Questionnaire

Hello, this is _________________calling from Abt Associates. We are conducting an important survey 

of U.S. residents 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 important to ensure that the survey results are 

complete and accurate.

SL1

In order to select just one person to interview, may I please 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 SL1b

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 Refusal

SL1b

May I speak 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 Refusal

SL1c

Hello, this is _________________calling from Abt Associates. We are conducting an important 

survey of U.S. residents for the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. 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 important to ensure that the survey results 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) THANK 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 Necessary) (MATCHES QUESTION 18 IN MAIN 

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 you have visited the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

lakes 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 years

4 A few times over the last 5 years

5 About once a year

6 2 to 10 times a year

7 More than 10 times a year

8 Don’t Know (VOL)

9 Refused (VOL)

Q2

Now, could you please tell me about how often you have visited Chesapeake Bay tidal waters to 

do any of the same recreational activities? 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 years

4 A few times over the last 5 years

5 About once a year

6 2 to 10 times a year

7 More than 10 times a year

8 Don’t Know (VOL)

9 Refused (VOL)

Q3a

In your opinion, how do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to 

your home? Are they... (MATCHES...)

1 Better than they were 10 years ago

2 About the same as they were 10 years ago

3 Worse than they were 10 years ago

4 Don’t know (VOL)

5 Refused (VOL)
158

Q3b

In your opinion, how do you 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 years ago

3 Worse than they were 10 years ago

4 Don’t know (VOL)

5 Refused (VOL)

Q4a

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 QUESTION 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)
159

Q4b

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 the 

Chesapeake Bay”? (MATCHES QUESTION 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)

Q4c

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 economy grows”? (MATCHES QUESTION 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)

Q4d

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 against any additional government requirements and 

spending.” (MATCHES QUESTION 16 IN THE MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION X

IN THE 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 Watershed? 

(MATCHES QUESTION 8 IN THE MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 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 any ages younger than 18 for this question

What is your age? (MATCHES QUESTION 19 IN MAIN 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? Is it... (READ LIST) 

(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

Including everyone living in your household, which of the following categories best describes your 

total household income before taxes? Is it ... (READ LIST) (MATCHES QUESTION 22 IN

MAIN SURVEY, MATCHES QUESTION 10 IN NON RESPONSE SURVEY)

1 Less than $25,000,

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/day
162

Attachment 15: Description of Statistical Survey Design

The following represents an anticipated experimental design for survey implementation, along 

with the associated number of completed surveys 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 surveys, 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. Additional 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. Choice options, named Program A and Program 

B, are characterized by 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. Constant 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, Pennsylvania, 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 

Florida
163

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 A15-1. Split-sample design cells.

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 oxygen in A and B (x1A; x1B) – 3 possible levels

2. Change in water clarity in A and B (x2A; x2B) – 3 possible levels

3. Change in aquatic grass coverage in A and B (x3A; x3B) – 3 possible levels

4. Change in lake condition in A and B (x4A; x5B) – 3 possible levels

5. Cost in A and B (x5A; x5B) - 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 clarity in A and B (x1A; x1B) – 3 possible levels

2. Change in blue crab abundance in A and B (x2A; x2B) – 3 possible levels

3. Change in oyster abundance in A and B (x3A; x3B) – 3 possible levels

4. Change in lake condition in A and B (x4A; x5B) – 3 possible levels

5. Cost in A and B (x5A; x5B) - 6 possible levels

This implies an experimental design characterized by [34×6] for each alternative, or [38×6

2

] for 

alternatives A and B combined for either “inputs” or “endpoints” version of the instrument.
164

To construct a preliminary main 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 38x62design. This treats 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 symmetric 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 questions per survey. This allows the 72 profiles to be included (orthogonally blocked) in 24 

unique survey booklets, as illustrated in Table A15-2. The attribute levels applied within surveys are 

summarized in Table A15-3. Monte Carlo evidence suggests that 6 to 12 completed responses are 

required for each profile in order to achieve large sample statistical properties for choice experiments 

(Louviere et al. 2000, p. 104, citing Bunch and Batsell 1989). Following this guidance, the above design 

will require 24×12 = 288 completed surveys, or 12 completed surveys for each unique survey booklet. 

This will provide a total of 864 profile responses per cell.

Table A15-2: 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 5
165

Table A15-2: 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 2
166

Table A15-2: 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 A15-3: Attribute Levels Included in Each Survey Version

Attribute Baseline Attribute Levels

1 2 3 4 5 6

Declining Constant

“Input Version”

Dissolved Oxygen 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 - - -

Oysters (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 alternative, following standard random 
167

utility modeling procedures (Haab and McConnell 2002). Hence, the sample size requirements are 

determined by the accuracy of the parameter estimates in the WTP models.

The resulting sample design will be a single stage 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 demonstrated 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 1.75. 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 

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 46563 0.021 0.012

Overall 48,956,876 2,304 21248 0.014 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 surveys) 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 surveys 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 mailings 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

Pennsylvania 1753 1873 1168 1243

West Virginia 267 285 178 189

Connecticut 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 335 358 223 238
169

North Carolina 437 467 291 310

Ohio 537 574 358 381

Rhode Island 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.