Supporting	Statement	for:

Willingness	To	Pay	Survey	for	Salmon	

Recovery in	the	Willamette	Watershed

1. Identification of the Information Collection.

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Willingness To Pay Survey for Salmon Recovery in the Willamette Watershed (New), EPA 

#2489.01, OMB #2080-NEW

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

The USEPA Office of Research and Development is investigating public values for options of 

salmon recovery in the Willamette Watershed in western Oregon. These values will be estimated 

via a willingness to pay mail survey instrument. Two anadromous fish species in the Willamette 

watershed are federally listed as threatened species; Spring Chinook, and Winter steelhead. The 

survey focuses on two attributes of recovery for these fish: the recovery status; and the time to 

recovery. The levels of recovery vary between “Threatened”, “Minimal Recovery”, and “Broad 

Recovery”. The levels of time to recovery vary between 15 years, 25 years, and 50 years. The 

levels of recovery are based on two recovery possibilities described in the recovery plan (Oregon 

Dept of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013). The time to recovery is 

based on investigating periods inclusive of but also potentially shorter or longer periods than the

25 year planning horizon mentioned in the recovery plan (Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife and 

National Marine and Fisheries Service, 2013). A choice experiment framework is used with 

statistically designed tradeoff questions, where recovery options are posed as increases in a 

yearly household tax. Each choice question allows a zero cost “opt out” option. The choice 

experiment is designed to allow independent isolation of the value of recovery and of time to 

recovery. A few additional questions to further understand the motivations for respondent 

choices, their river-related recreation behavior, and their attitudes towards wild origin versus 

hatchery origin fish are also included. Several pages of background introduce the issue to survey

respondents. Limited sociodemographic questions are included to gauge how well the sample 

respondents represent the target population. The survey would be dispersed to Oregon residents. 

2. Need for and use of the Collection
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Current ORD research revolves around the theme of sustainability (USEPA, 2013a). An 

overarching goal cited on the EPA website for sustainability research is:

“EPA Sustainable communities research is providing decision tools and data for 

communities to make strategic decisions for a prosperous and environmentally

sustainable future, and providing the foundation to better understand the balance between 

the three pillars of sustainability- environment, society and economy” (USEPA, 2013b).

As part of including public input for finding the “balance” of sustainability, this survey will 

estimate public values for salmon recovery in the Willamette watershed. Salmon recovery is a 

factor for numerous watershed management actions. Salmon is also a key driver for water 

temperature being listed as a Total Mean Discharge Level contaminant for the Willamette River. 

The Willamette watershed is a subject of continuing research by ORD and other partners

(USEPA, 2012a, 2012b; Willamette Water 2100, 2013). The survey will gather public value 

information on salmon recovery scenarios to complement partnering natural science research.

Benefits to Oregonians associated with salmon recovery have not been quantified.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

A continuing problem for communities dealing with natural resource management problems has 

been the issue of how to integrate natural resource valuation - both use and non-use values - into 

a feasible decision making process. The primary goal of conducting economic valuation studies 

should be to improve the way in which communities frame choices regarding the allocation of 

scarce resources and to clarify the trade-offs between alternative outcomes. This problem is 

particularly relevant to salmon conservation efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Despite the deep 

cultural importance of salmon to the citizens of the Pacific Northwest, there is a remarkable lack 

of valid empirical economic studies quantifying this importance to the general public and tribal 

groups in the region. This is conspicuously true for the Willamette Basin, home to more than 

half of the state of Oregon's human population and to the few remaining spring-run Chinook 

salmon runs in the state. There are many competing uses for Oregon's waters and decisionmakers are often faced with trade-offs on how to allocate resources to accommodate these uses. 

Many of these uses conflict with salmon conservation and to date there is not adequate 

information to quantify societal values for salmon preservation. The goal of this project will be 

to obtain estimates of the general Oregon population's preferences and values to protect and 

restore wild origin Chinook salmon and steelhead populations in the Willamette Basin. Valid 

estimates of the public value for salmon will be useful in numerous policy contexts and will 

support numerous government agencies and community organizations to factor the value of 

salmon preservation benefits into their strategic policy and financial decisions. 

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Non duplication
While there is much research and management in the Willamette watershed pertaining to salmon 

fisheries, there is very little public value research. This research would isolate specific aspects of 

the fishery, and allow the public to tally preferences for specific marginal fishery changes. Thus, 

quantification of the benefits of salmon recovery could be compared with costs of achieving 

recovery. Furthermore, discussions on Willamette salmon tend to focus on commercial or 

recreational angling, at the exclusion of general public opinion. This survey will allow 

investigating general public values for changes in this public resource. Qualitative research from 

focus groups pretesting the survey instrument indicates the possibility of significant public value 

for fishery recovery, regardless of respondent fishing behavior.

There has been one prior general public stated preference survey featuring threatened Willamette 

watershed salmon. Wallmo and Lew (2012) conducted a choice experiment survey to investigate 

public values for recovery of a variety of marine organisms, including Willamette Spring 

Chinook, with a nationwide sample. This study differs from that prior study in the following 

respects. This study derives further information and recovery levels from the recent recovery

plan, and furthermore considers two levels of recovery. Furthermore, preferences for time to 

recovery will be investigated. Finally, this study will seek to compare recovery values across 

different components of Oregon’s population. Oregon subpopulations both within and outside of 

the watershed, and both urban and rural will be sampled (see Supporting Statement Part B for 

more information). The nationwide sample from Lew and Wallmo is not extensive enough to

allow isolating preferences of Oregonians, nor subpopulations of Oregonians (personal 

communication, Lew and Wallmo, 2012). 

EPA has not identified any other studies that would consider Oregonians’ public values for the 

different levels of recovery and time to recovery posed for Willamette watershed Spring Chinook 

and steelhead. The options were carefully pretested to balance background information with 

cognitive effort. The language, graphics, and question formats in the survey were carefully 

pretested and iteratively refined through seven focus groups. These focus groups were all in 

Oregon, occurring both within and outside of the Willamette watershed, and with both urban and 

rural participants. 

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

This is the first of two federal register notices.

3(c) Consultations

The principal investigators for this effort are Matthew Weber, and Michael Papenfus, both 

affiliated with USEPA, ORD, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. M. Weber has past 

direct experience with willingness to pay survey research, with a study estimating public values 

for management changes for the river and riparian area of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, New

Mexico (Weber and Stewart, 2009). Previously approved OMB surveys were consulted in 

designing this survey, in particular an EPA study on fish and aquatic habitat impacts from 

cooling water intake structures (OMB # 2020-0283). The survey instrument booklet format and 

several questions formats were adapted from that study. M. Weber participated in a workshop 

amongst stated preference survey practitioners working on federal government projects, 
convened by NOAA and Stratus Consulting in June of 2012 (NOAA and Stratus Consulting, 

2012). That workshop was a helpful forum for comparing notes in willingness to pay survey

design, with an emphasis on strategies for presenting ecological goods in a way meaningful to 

the lay public. Several completed or working draft willingness to pay survey instruments were 

presented for group discussion, including a NOAA study on Elwha River restoration, with an 

attribute that includes salmon abundance changes (OMB NO. 0648-0638).

This survey uses an explicit approach to defining ecological commodities to be valued, following 

guidance in Boyd and Banzhaf (2007). Dr. Paul L. Ringold, research ecologist at USEPA, ORD 

was consulted for his experience identifying publicly valued stream commodities and metrics 

(Ringold et al., 2009; Ringold et al., 2013). 

For descriptions of salmon abundance changes and management actions that could contribute to 

recovery, this survey relies on the recovery plan (Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife and National

Marine and Fisheries Service, 2011).

Additional consultations with experts within ODFW, NOAA, EPA Region 10, and several 

external experts in stated preference survey design were used to assist in the design of the 

survey. 

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Without this collection the public values for Oregonians for different options for Willamette 

watershed salmon recovery could not be estimated. There would then be a gap in understanding 

the public welfare relevance of recovering these fisheries. The public welfare relevance of 

natural science studies pertaining to these fisheries would also remain uncertain. 

3(e) General Guidelines

The survey will not violate any of the general guidelines described in 5 CFR 1320.5 or in

EPA’s ICR handbook.

3(f) Confidentiality

All responses to the survey will be kept confidential. The surveys will be processed, including 

data entry, by the principal investigators; nobody else will have a record of who has responded or 

the answers of any given respondent. A list of the addresses of the members of the sample who 

have responded versus those who have not will be maintained in order to more efficiently mail 

reminders and replacement surveys. This will be a single file, accessible to and updated only by 

the principal investigator. To protect confidentiality in survey results, each respondent will be 

identified by a numeric code in that file rather than their name or address. The survey questions 

do not ask for any personally identifiable information and personally identifiable information 

will not be entered in the results even if volunteered by the respondent, for example in the 

comments section. In the cover letter, respondents will be informed that their responses will be 

kept confidential. After the data collection is complete, the respondent status file will be deleted, 
and only the numeric code assigned to each respondent will remain. After data entry is complete, 

the surveys themselves will be destroyed.

The USEPA office location (the Western Ecology Division of USEPA) and USEPA electronic 

file system used by the principal investigator are highly secure. A keycard possessed only by 

USEPA employees and contractors is necessary to enter the building. The principal investigators

are then in a separate keyed office space within the secure building. The computer system where 

the personal names and addresses associated with respondent numeric codes will be stored 

during the process of data entry is a secure server requiring principal investigator personal login

username and password. At the conclusion of data entry, this file linking personal names and 

addresses to respondent codes will destroyed (along with hard copy survey responses 

themselves) at the conclusion of data entry and only respondent codes will remain. 

3(g) Sensitive Questions

There are no questions of a sensitive or personal nature in the survey.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes

The target respondents for this survey are representatives 18 yrs or older of Oregon households. 

A sample of household representatives 18 yrs or older, sufficient to address goals of the study

will be contacted by mail following multiple contact protocol in Dillman (2009). A response rate 

of 30% will be targeted for each subpopulation of Oregon to be studied. To increase response 

rates from the sample, several contacts will be used, including a prenotice to all recipients, a 

reminder postcard, and follow-up mailing.

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items, including record keeping requirements

The current draft survey has also been uploaded to the federal register (note that the pages 

numbers are out of sequence on the electronic file so that they will print correctly double-sided). 

The survey is divided into 4 main parts. The first part is background for the choice questions. 

The second part is the choice questions themselves. The third part is questions designed to 

understand the context for why respondents responded to the choice questions as they did. These 

questions include attitudinal questions as well as recreational preferences questions. The fourth 

part is designed to assess whether major sociodemographic categories of the received sample are 

representative of the population sampled. There are no record keeping requirements asked of 

respondents.

(ii) Respondent Activities
The following respondent activities are envisioned. Participants will read the cover letter and 

survey, respond to the survey questions, and return the survey using a provided postage paid 

envelope. Focus group and cognitive interview participants typically took no longer than 30

minutes to complete the survey, so 30 minutes per response is the estimated burden for the 

average respondent. 

5. The Information Collected–Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and 

Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

Development of the survey questionnaire through focus group and cognitive interview pretesting 

is occurring under the separate ICR# 2090-0028. Pretest techniques follow standard approaches 

in the qualitative methods literature (Morgan and Krueger, 1998; Rubin and Rubin, 2005), as 

well as guidance in the economics literature for the specific purposes of pretesting a willingness 

to pay survey (Johnston et al., 1995; Kaplowitz et al. 2001, Hoehn et al. 2003).

Under this ICR, agency activities will include:

 Develop the choice experiment design

 Obtain a representative sample mailing list for Oregon households sufficient for the 

goals of the study (see Supporting Statement Part B)

 Printing of questionnaires

 Mailing of prenotices

 Mailing of cover letters and questionnaires

 Reminder mailings

 Follow-up mailings and replacement questionnaires to non-respondents as needed

 Data entry and quality assurance of data file

 Analysis of survey results, including characterization of nonresponse and potential 

degree of nonresponse bias

 Modeling choice experiment results with a standard multinomial logit approach

 Reporting survey results

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

The proposed survey is a choice experiment questionnaire delivered and returned by mail. 

Standard multi-contact mail survey methods will be used to increasing response rate (Dillman, 

2009, pg. 242). The target response rate of 30% for each subpopulation of Oregon to be studied.

Data quality will be monitored by checking returned survey responses for consistency, and by 

assessing any comments made on the survey or returned with the survey that signal strategic 

responses or respondent confusion. Coded survey data will not include any identifying 

information of the respondents. Returned survey data will be coded and used as the dataset for 

multinomial logit regression modeling.
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

This survey will be administered to individuals, not businesses. Thus, no small entities

will be affected by this information collection.

5(d) Collection Schedule

A breakdown of the expected collection schedule is as follows:

 Week 1: Printing surveys

 Week 2: First contact mailing for pilot survey, notifying that a survey will be mailed in 1-

2 weeks

 Week 3 and 4: Pilot survey mailing

 Week 5 and 6: Pilot survey reminder postcards mailing

 Week 7 through 9: Data entry of pilot survey results. Revising estimation of the beta 

vector (coefficients on utility variables, see part B of the supporting statement). Adjusting 

the choice experiment and cost levels for the main survey mailing based on the beta 

vector estimated from the pilot survey

 Week 10: First contact mailing for main survey mailing, notifying that a survey will be 

mailed in 1-2 weeks

 Week 11 and 12: Main survey mailing

 Week 13 and 14: Main survey reminder postcards mailing

 Week 15 through 18: Main survey additional reminders and replacement surveys as 

necessary to reach target response rate

 Week 19 to 20: Data entry

The schedule above is staged such that if response rates are higher or lower than expected, the 

appropriate number of replacement surveys will be printed and mailed to most efficiently use

funds.

6. Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

For a typical respondent, a conservative estimate of their time to review and respond to survey

questions is 30 minutes. The target will be 250 responses from each of the three subpopulations 

of Oregon to be studied: the urban population within the Willamette valley; the rural population 

within the Willamette valley; and the population residing outside of the Willamette valley . 

Assuming the target of 750 people total respond to the survey, the burden is 375 hours. This 

would be a one-time expenditure of their time. 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimating Labor Costs
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports an average hourly wage for Oregon for all occupations. 

The most recent data is an average wage of $21.75 per hour, for May 2012 (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2012). Assuming 750 participants fill out the survey, the total estimated respondent 

labor cost is $8,156.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

There are no anticipated capital, operations or maintenance costs associated with this collection.

(iii) Capital/Start-up Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

There are no anticipated capital, operations or maintenance costs associated with this collection.

(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs

There are no anticipated capital, operations or maintenance costs associated with this collection.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The various aspects of the survey mailing are assumed to be done by the principal investigators, 

with an associated hourly wage rate of $32.50. Preparing survey mailings, tracking 

nonrespondents, sending new mailings as needed, and data entry are anticipated to amount to 8 

weeks total or 320 hours of work. Agency labor cost would be 320 hours times $32.50 per hour 

or $10,400. 

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Assuming 750 participants throughout Oregon fill out the survey, the total labor cost is estimated 

at $8,156.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Item Quantity Cost

Public Burden

Time burden: 0.5 hours per 

respondent

750 persons 375 hours; $8,156 labor

Agency Burden

Time burden Entire project 320 hrs; $10,400 labor

Mailing list Mailing lists for Oregon, 

including sufficient coverage 

of subpopulations

$1,000

Prenotice letter paper and 

printing

2,500 pieces $175

Prenotice envelopes 2,500 pieces $250

Prenotice postage (bulk mail) 2,500 pieces $1,000

Color surveys paper and printing 3,000 pieces $4,400
(includes estimated

replacements)

Printing return envelopes 10.5” x 

7.5”

3,000 pieces

(includes estimated 

replacements)

$600

Outgoing envelopes 11.5” x 

8.75”

3,000 pieces

(includes estimated 

replacements)

$450

Outgoing survey postage (bulk 

mail)

3,000 pieces

(includes estimated 

replacements)

$2,800

Return survey postage (bulk 

mail)

750 pieces $750

Reminder postcard paper & 

printing

2,500 pieces $150

Total $30,131

The estimated respondent burden for this study is 750 hours and $8,156. The estimated agency

cost for this study is 320 hours and $10,400. Agency costs besides labor hours total $11,575 for

the mailing list, paper, printing, and postage.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

The survey is a one-time data collection activity.

6(g) 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; 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. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket 

ID Number EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0448, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Research & Development (ORD) 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center 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 ORD Docket is (202) 

566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This 

site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of 

the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 

electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number 

identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, 

Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-ORD2013-0448 and OMB Control Number 2080-NEW in any correspondence.

Part	B	of	Supporting	Statement

1. Survey Objectives, Key Variables, And Other Preliminaries

(a) Survey Objectives

The objectives of the survey are bulleted below:

 To estimate public values for changing the status of threatened Willamette watershed 

Spring Chinook and steelhead. 

 To estimate public values for the time to recovery (if recovery is chosen) for Willamette 

watershed Spring Chinook and steelhead. 

 To compare estimated public values for urban and rural households within the Willamette 

watershed. 

 To compare estimated public values for households within and outside of the Willamette 

watershed.

 

(b) Key Variables

The survey asks respondents whether they would choose an annual household tax increase for 

the next 25 years in exchange for changes in the scope and timing of Willamette basin Spring 

Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery. The key variables are:

Status of Willamette Basin Wild Salmon and Steelhead: This is a variable describing the

recovery status and annual abundance of wild fish returning to the Willamette basin. The survey

considers three possible levels of this variable. The future baseline is termed 'No Intervention / 

Threatened'. With this option there is no change in recovery status or fish abundance from 

current conditions. The risk of Spring Chinook salmon going extinct in the next 100 years 

remains between 60 and 100 percent. Two different increases from the baseline are posed. 

These increases are termed 'minimal recovery' and 'broadsense recovery'. 'Minimal recovery' 
represents an increase in wild fish returning to the Willamette basin from 20,000 (current status) 

to 40,000 fish. Under this option, the risk of going extinct in the next 100 years is 'no longer 

significant'. 'Broadsense recovery' represents an increase in wild fish returning to the 

Willamette basin from 20,000 (current status) to 70,000 fish. Under this option, the risk of going 

extinct in the next 100 years is 'no longer significant'.

Tax increase per year: Each change varying from the expected future of reduced flows and 

cottonwood/willow acreages in the North and South has an associated cost. These cost levels 

currently vary from $0 for the Expected Future, to as high as $50 (subject to change based on 

pilot survey results). These cost levels are not tied to actual costs estimates for the changes, but 

rather are designed to bracket values. That is, the design goal is to set cost levels such that some 

people agree to them and some people don’t agree to them. A pilot survey will be used to test 

whether cost levels posed in the survey should be revised.

(c) Statistical Approach

The statistical approach to analyzing survey results will be a multinomial logit model (BenAkiva and Lerman, 1985).

(d) Feasibility

The survey has been extensively pretested, as described below, to balance providing background 

needs and cognitive difficulty for respondents. The principal investigators have research funding 

to cover the costs of the survey. 

2. Survey Design

(a) Target Population And Coverage

The target population is households in the state of Oregon. Respondent coverage will be such 

that each household in each respective area has an equal probability of being selected to receive a 

survey, based on the mailing list.

(b) Sample Design

(i) Sampling Frame

The sample frame is households in the state of Oregon.. A sample will be such that each 

household in each respective area has an equal probability of being selected to receive a survey, 

based on best available mailing lists, available from companies specializing in preparing mailing 

lists for surveys.

(ii) Sample Size

There is no single sample size choice since there will be uncertainty with estimates regardless of 

sample size. This survey design will utilize the rule of thumb of available from the developers of 
Sawtooth Software (Orme, 1998), a software popular for designing choice sets. This formula was 

also recently utilized by NOAA (OMB # 0648-0585). The rule of thumb formula for a minimum 

sample size for each Oregon subpopulation is:

(n × t × a)/c > = 500

Where:

n = minimum number of respondents

t = number choice questions

a = number of alternatives per task (not including the “status quo” option)

c = number of “analysis cells.”

When considering main effects, c is equal to the largest number of levels for any single attribute. 

If considering all two-way interactions, c is equal to the largest product of levels of any two

attributes (Orme, 1998). The sample size for each Oregon subpopulation will be based on a main 

effects model. A minimum of 3 choice questions will be in each survey, with two options each 

(not counting “expected future”), and the maximum number of levels for any single attribute is 3. 

Thus the minimum sample size “n” is 250 for each of the three subpopulations to be sampled. 

This value is larger than the 200 minimum suggested when the intent is to compare subgroups 

(Orme, pg 67). Bateman et al. (2002; pg. 110) recommend a sample size of 500 to 1,000 (for 

each subgroup) for close-ended contingent valuation questions, but also note a smaller sample 

size can be used if one collects more information per respondent (as with replications in choice 

experiments). With a target response rate of 30%, this means approximately 2,500 Oregon 

households total will receive a survey, distributed across the three target subpopulations.

(iii) Stratification Variables

Urban Oregon households within the Willamette valley, rural Oregon households within the 

Willamette valley, and Oregon households outside of the Willamette valley will be treated as 

different subpopulations.

(iv) Sampling Method

A sample mailing list for each Oregon subpopulation will be purchased from a mail survey

support company. The company will be given instructions to prepare the sample such that each 

household in each subpopulation has an equal chance of being chosen (a simple random sample

approach).

(v) Multi-Stage Sampling

Not applicable.

(c) Precision Requirements

(i) Precision Targets
Louviere et al. (2000) provide a formula, based on elementary statistical theory, for the minimum 

sample size “n” for target accuracy and confidence interval of predicting a proportion, assuming 

a large sample frame population, a simple random sample strategy is used, and choice occasions 

from each respondent can be assumed to be independent:

n > = (q/r*p*a

2

)Φ-1((1+α)/2)

where “p” is the population proportion, as predicted within “a” percent of the true value with 

probability “α” or greater, “q” = 1-p, “r” is replications (choice occasions per respondent) and 

“Φ

-1

(.)” is the inverse cumulative normal distribution function. This study will use a target of 

plus or minus 10% for predicting population proportions to be estimated, with a probability of 

0.95. Assuming a population proportion of 0.3, and a minimum r of 3, the minimum sample size 

is 174 respondents, less than the 250 sample size planned for each subpopulation.

(ii) Nonsampling error

With a target response rate of 30% there will be a large percentage of nonrespondents. If 

preferences of nonrespondents differ markedly from respondents, nonresponse bias will affect 

the results. A nonresponse analysis will be conducted by comparing the sociodemographics of 

the respondents with the sampling frame. A description of any sociodemographics that were less 

represented in the responses will be included in the results write-up. If respondents and 

nonrespondents have markedly different sociodemographics, the sociodemographic vector of the 

sampling frame (as opposed to the respondents) will be fed into the model to obtain valuation 

estimates for an “average” household (Morrison, 2000).

(d) Questionnaire Design

The current draft survey is also uploaded to the federal register (note that the pages numbers are 

out of sequence on the electronic file, they are sequenced so that they will print correctly doublesided). Below is a description of the sections and questions.

PART 1

Background. The title on the cover page reads "Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Recovery - What 

do YOU think should be done?" and the cover photo shows a salmon jumping up a waterfall. 

Page 2 describes the rationale for the survey and provides a brief description of what the survey

is about. Short descriptions of the fish species considered, the geographic extent of the recovery

plan, and current population numbers of salmon and steelhead are provided and compared to 

estimates of fish returning to the rest of the Columbia basin. Page 3 provides additional 

background information on Willamette basin salmon and steelhead and lists some of the primary

factors that have led to them being added to the Endangered Species list. A map of the 

Willamette basin is shown beneath the background information. Page 4 provides detailed 

background information on the wild origin salmon and steelhead that are the focus of the 

recovery plan. Additional information is provided describing the definition of the current 

'threatened' status and some information is given on additional fisheries in the Willamette basin 

and other wild salmon and steelhead populations in Oregon. Page 5 provides a description of 
hatchery origin salmon and steelhead in the Willamette basin. These descriptions are provided so 

that respondents clearly understand the differences between hatchery origin fish and the 

populations of wild origin fish that are target of the recovery plan. Pages 6, 7, 8, and 9 provide

information on the subsequent choice questions including detailed descriptions of the different 

recovery options. A description of the payment mechanism is also provided. The first attribute 

of the recovery option is the wild salmon and steelhead status. This includes its label 

('threatened', 'minimal recovery', or 'broadsense recovery') along with the projected number of 

wild fish returning annually to the Willamette basin. The second attribute for each recovery

option is 'time to recovery'. This attribute describes the number of years that the recovery plan 

will take to implement before the chosen recovery status is achieved. Under the 'no recovery' 

option there is no schedule of recovery. Page 9 also presents a graph showing the fish population 

abundances as a function of recovery time. This attribute has 4 different levels (no recovery, 15 

years, 25 years, and 50 years).

PART 2

Questions 1-2: These question evaluate the respondent's understanding of the different recovery

options described presented in the pages above. Question 1 evaluates the respondent's 

understanding of the different recovery options and Question 2 evaluates the respondent's 

understanding of the 'time to recovery' options.

Questions 3- 4 evaluate the respondent's attitudes towards public issues besides the Willamette 

recovery plan for salmon and steelhead. These questions serve as a reminder of the many public 

issues for which public resources can be allocated.

Question 5 begins the respondents' thought process of weighing the different attributes that will 

comprise the subsequent choice questions. This questions asks them to the rate the importance 

of each attribute.

Questions 6 through 8: These questions comprise the choice experiment portion of the survey, 

where respondents choose between different cost levels and recovery plan options. There is 

always an opt-out zero cost option. Following standard techniques of choice experiments, the 

options (also known as profiles) presented to respondents will be a fraction of the theoretically

possible combinations of attributes, selected to yield the most informative preference 

information. There will be different survey versions, with three questions per survey (also 

known as “replications”). These replications serve as an efficient method of allowing sufficient 

number of tradeoffs for model estimation. These practices save expense and also reduce the 

sample size and associated public burden. Page 13 provides an example choice question for 

respondents to review before proceeding to the actual choice questions.

Choice Experiment Design

All possible choice profile tradeoffs could be presented to respondents, but would be an 

inefficient way to gauge preferences. Instead, “fractional factorial” models are a standard 

approach (Louviere et al., 2000). A statistical software will be used to develop the most efficient 

choice experiment design, given a total number of design choice sets to manipulate, as well as a 

provisional beta vector (Kuhfeld, 2010). Essentially the software will search for the questions, 

given the constraint on choice sets, likely to yield the most preference information. The computer 
generated design will be manually checked for any potentially dominating choices, or scenarios 

that may seem unlikely to respondents. The total number of choice sets must be at least as large 

as the number of parameters to be estimated and is typically much more. A number of choice sets 

that allows each level to occur an equal number of times is also desirable, for balance (Kuhfeld, 

2010; pg. 78).

PART 3

Questions 9 - 18 These questions shed light on motivations underlying the respondent's

answers, and also to test for inconsistencies in their responses. Question 10 helps identify

“protest bids” for respondents that choose not to pay for philosophical reasons other than a price 

that is too high. 

Question 19: This question asks respondents for their views on hatchery origin versus wild origin 

salmon and steelhead in the Willamette basin.

PART 4

Questions 20 through 29: These are sociodemographic questions that allow comparing the 

received sample with the sample population as a gauge of representativeness. 

3. PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS

Pretests

The survey content and format has undergone extensive pretesting. Focus groups to test and 

refine the survey instrument were conducted in April 2013. Eight focus groups were held 

throughout Oregon under ICR # 2090-0028. Six of the focus groups were held within the 

Willamette basin and two were held outside the Willamette basin. Focus groups were held in 

both urban and rural areas. Focus group participants were recruited from the general public by a 

market research contractor using standard market research methods, including paying 

participants an incentive fee as compensation for their opportunity cost of time. 

The information collected from the focus groups was used to refine and develop the survey

instrument to ensure that each question was easy to understand and elicited information from 

respondents that is consistent with each question's intent. The current draft survey instrument has 

also been uploaded to the federal register (note that the pages numbers are out of sequence on the 

electronic file, they are sequenced so that they will print correctly double-sided).

Pilot Test

A pilot survey will be mailed to a subset of the Oregon subpopulation samples. This will not 

represent an additional burden, but will be some designated fraction of the total mailing. This 

will allow for the possibility of adjusting the survey for any problems that may surface after this 

initial wave of survey returns before committing to the full mailing. The entire beta parameter 

vector (see econometric specification section below) may be revised based on analysis of the 

results, in particular the cost levels may need to be adjusted to efficiently bracket values. Costs 
will not vary between the subpopulations to guard against “starting point bias” as being a 

potential reason for any statistically significant changes in values between subpopulations.

4. COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW-UP.

(a) Collection Methods

A mail survey collection method is selected due to its frequent and successful use in the choice 

experiment literature and its relatively low cost.

(b) Survey Response And Follow-up

Multiple contact methods (Dillman, 2009; pg 242) will be used. Thus, those who have already 

responded will be tracked in a spreadsheet to ensure follow-up mailings are only sent to those 

who have not yet responded.

5. ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS

(a) Data Preparation

All data entry will be conducted by the Principal Investigators. Debriefing question responses 

that are at odds with voting question responses will be used to flag respondent confusion, and 

these data will not be used. Responses that indicate protest to the payment vehicle used in this 

survey, i.e. philosophical objection to increased taxes, will not be used. Responses from persons 

less than 18 yrs of age as indicated from the ‘what year were you born’ question will not be used. 

(b) Analysis

A standard multinomial logit model, as described by Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985), will be fit 

to the data. Let U = utility of household (well-being). Consider U to be a function of a vector zin

of attributes for alternative i, as perceived by household respondent n. The variation of 

preferences between individuals is partially explained by a vector Sn of sociodemographic 

characteristics for person n.

Uin = V(zin, Sn) + ε(zin, Sn) = Vin + εin

The “V” term is known as indirect utility and “ε” is an error term treated as a random variable 

(McFadden 1974), making utility itself a random variable. An individual is assumed to choose 

the option that maximizes their utility. The choice probability of any particular option (Expected 

Future, Option A, or Option B) is the probability that the utility of that option is greatest across

the choice set Cn:

P (i│Cn) = Pr[Vin + εin ≥ Vjn + εjn , for all j ∈ Cn, j not equal to i]
If error terms are assumed to be independently and identically distributed, and if this distribution 

can be assumed to be Gumbel, the above can be expressed in terms of the logistic distribution:

Pn(i) = eμVin / ∑ e

μVjn 

The summation occurs over all options Jn in a choice set. The assumption of independent and 

identically distributed error terms implies independence of irrelevant attributes, meaning the 

ratio of choice probabilities for any two alternatives is unchanged by addition or removal of 

other unchosen alternatives (Blamey et al. 2000). The “μ” term is a scale parameter, a convenient 

value for which may be chosen without affecting valuation results if the marginal utility of 

income is assumed to be linear. The analyst must specify the deterministic portion of the utility

equation ‘‘V,’’ with subvectors z and S. The vector z comes from choice experiment attributes, 

and the vector S comes from attitudinal, recreational, and sociodemographic questions in the 

survey. An econometrics software will be used to estimate the regression coefficients for z and S, 

with a linear-in-parameters model specification. These coefficients are used in estimating 

average household value for a change in one level to another level of a particular attribute for 

welfare estimation. Welfare of a change is given by (Holmes & Adamowicz 2003):

$ Welfare = (1/βc)[V0- V

1

] 

where βc is the coefficient on cost, V

0

is an initial scenario, and V1is a change scenario.

Econometric Specification

A main effects utility function is hypothesized. A generic format of the indirect utility function 

to be modeled is:

V = βo + β1(Recovery status) + β2(Time to recovery) + β5(Cost)

(c) Reporting Results

The results will be written up and submitted to a peer-reviewed environmental journal.
References

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Leamer, E., Portney, P., Rander, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the 

NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58(10): 4602-14. 

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.

Ben-Akiva, M., and S. R. Lerman. 1985. Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts.

Blamey, R. K., J. W. Bennett, J. J. Louviere, M. D. Morrison, and J. Rolfe. 2000. A test of policy

labels in environmental choice modeling studies. Ecological Economics 32:269–286.

Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized 

environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63 (2–3), 616–626.

Brouwer, R. 2000. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological

Economics 32(1): 137-152.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_or.htm#00-0000 . 

Retrieved May, 2013.

Desvousges, W.H., Naughton, M.C., and G.R. Parsons. 1992. Benefit transfer: conceptual 

problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources Research 

28 (3), 675–683.

Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The 

Tailored Design Method. Third Edition. 2009. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J.

Hoehn, J.P., Lupi, F., Kaplowitz, M.D., July, 2003. Untying a Lancastrian bundle: valuing 

ecosystems and ecosystem services for wetland mitigation. Journal of Environmental 

Management 68(3): 263-272. 

Holmes, T. P., and W. L. Adamowicz. 2003. Attribute-based methods. Pages 171–220 in P. A. 

Champ, K. J. Boyle, and T. C. Brown, editors. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Chap . 6. 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Johnston, R.J., Weaver, T.F., Smith, L.A., Swallow, S.K., April, 1995. Contingent Valuation 

Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques. Agricultural and Resource 

Economics Review, 56-68.
Kaplowitz, M.D., Hoehn, J.P., February, 2001. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal 

the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics 36(2): 237-247.

Kuhfeld, W.F. 2010. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. SAS 9.2 Edition, MR-2010. 

Available for download at: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010.pdf. 

McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Pages 105–142 in 

P. Zarembka, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. Chap. 4. Academic Press, New York.

Morrison, M. 2000. Aggregation biases in stated preference studies. Australian Economic Papers 

39:215–230.

Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and 

Application. Cambridge University Press. 402 p. 

Morgan, D.L., and R.A. Krueger. 1998. Focus Group Kit (6 volumes). Sage Publications, 

Thousand Oaks, CA.

NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation and Office of Response and Restoration, and Stratus 

Consulting. 2012. Ecosystem Valuation Workshop (binder prepared for workshop participants). 

Dates: June 6-7, 2012. Location: Asheville, N.C. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Upper 

Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/upper_willamette_river_plan.asp. Retrieved May, 2013.

Orme, B. 1998. Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis Studies. Sawtooth Software Research 

Paper Series, Sawtooth Software, Inc.

Ringold, P.L., Boyd, J.W., Landers, D., Weber, M., Meeting Date: July 13 to 16, 2009. Report 

from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams. EPA/600/R-09/137. 

56 p. http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html

Ringold, P.L., J. Boyd, D. Landers, and M. Weber. 2013. What data should we collect? A 

framework for identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment 11: 98–105.

Rubin, H.J., Rubin, I.S, 2005. Qualitative Interviewing. 2nd Edition. Sage Publications. 

Thousand Oaks, CA.

USEPA. 2012a. Sustainable and Healthy Communities: Strategic Research Action Plan 2012-

2016. http://www.research.epa.gov/research/docs/shc-strap.pdf. Retrieved May, 2013.

USEPA. 2012b. Safe and Sustainable Water Resources.

http://www.epa.gov/research/docs/sswr-strap.pdf. Retrieved May, 2013.
USEPA. 2013a. Research Programs: Science for a Sustainable Future. 

http://www.epa.gov/ord/research-programs.htm. Retrieved April, 2013.

USEPA. 2013b. Sustainability. http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/. Retrieved April, 2013.

Wallmo, K. and D. Lew. 2012. Public Willingness to Pay for Recovering and Downlisting 

Threatened and Endangered Marine Species. Conservation Biology. 26(5):830-839.

Willamette Water 2100, 2013. http://www.water.oregonstate.edu/ww2100/. Retrieved May

2013.

Weber, M., Stewart, S., 2009. Public Valuation of River Restoration Options on the Middle Rio 

Grande. Restoration Ecology 17(6):762-771.