# Supporting	Stat ement	f or: Willingness	To	P aySurv ey	f or Salmon Re co ve ry in	the	Willamett e	Wat ershed

**1. Identification of the Information Collection** 

. 1(a) Title of the Information Collection Willingness To Pay

Survey for Salmon Recovery in the Willamette Watershed (Ne w), EPA # 2489.01, OMB #2080

- NEW 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract The USEPA Office o f 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 federall y listed as threatened species; Sp ring Chin ook, and Winter s teelhead. 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 ti me to recovery vary between 15 ye ars, 25 ye ars, 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 exp eriment framework is used with statistically

designed tradeoff questions, where recovery options are posed as increases in a ye arl y household tax. Each choice question allows a zero cost “opt out” option. The choice experiment is designed to allow independ ent isolation of the value of recovery and of time to recovery . A few a dditional 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 s ociodemographic 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 in cluding 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 Riv er. The Willamette watershed is a subject of continuing researc h by ORD and other partners (US EPA, 2012 a, 2012b; W illamette W ater 2100 , 2013). The survey will gather public value information on salmon recovery scenarios to complement partnering natural s ci ence 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 particularl y relevant to salmon conservation efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Despite the deep cultural importance of salmon to the citizens of the Pacif ic 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 Ore gon'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 decision

makers 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 value s 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 or ganizations 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 duplicationWhile 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 aspe cts of the fishery , and allow the public to tally preferences for specific marginal fishery changes. Thus, quantif ication 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 opini on. 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 fishi ng 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 org anism s, 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 t o recovery will be investigated . Finall y, this study will seek to compare recovery values across different components of Oregon’s population . Oregon subpopulations both within and outside of the w atershed, 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 (per sonal 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 s teelhea d. The options were carefull y pretested to balance background information with cognitive effort. The language, graphics, and question formats in the survey were carefull y pretested and iterativel y r efined 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 investigator s for this effort are Matthew Weber, and Michael Papenfus, both affi liated with USEPA, ORD, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon

. M. Weber has past direct experience with willingness to pay survey research, with a study

est imating public values for management changes for the river and riparian area of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, New Mexico (Weber and Stewart, 2009 ). P reviousl y approved OMB surveys were consulted in designing this survey , in particular an EPA study on fish and a quatic h abitat 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 b y NOAA and Stratus Consulting in June of 2 012 (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 attribut e that includes salmon abundance changes (OMB NO. 0648

- 0638). Th is survey

uses an explicit approach to defining ecological commodities to be valued, following gu idance in Bo yd and Banzhaf (2007 ). Dr. Paul L. Ringold, research ecologist at USEPA, ORD was c onsulted for his experience identifying publicly valued stream commodities and metrics (Ringold et al., 2009; Ringold et al., 2013). F or description s 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 us ed 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 ga p in understanding the public welfare relevance of recovering these fisheries. The public welfare relevance of natural science studies pertaining to the se fisherie s 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 I CR handbook. 3(f) Confidentiality All responses to the survey will be kept confidential

. The survey s will be processed, including data entry , by

the principal investigator s ; nobody else will have a record of who has responded or the answers of any given respondent. A list of the a ddresses of the members of the sample who have responded versus those who have not will be maintained in order to more efficientl y mail reminders and replacement survey s . This will be a single file, accessible to and updated onl y b y 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 personall y identifiable information will not be entered in the result s even if volunteered by the respondent, for example in the comments section. In the cover letter , res pondents 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, th e survey s themselves will be destroyed. The USEPA office location (the Western Ecology Division of USEPA) and USEPA electronic file sy stem used b y the principal investigator are highl y secure. A keycard possessed only b y USEPA employees and contractors is necessary to enter the building . The principal investigator s are then in a separat e keyed office space within the secure building. The computer sy stem 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 sur vey 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 y

rs or older of Oregon households. A sample of household representatives 18 y rs or older, sufficient to address goals of the study will be contacted b y 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 remin der 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 el ectronic file so that they will print correctl y 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 under stand 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 categorie s of the received sample are representative of the population s ampled. There are no record keeping requirements asked of respondents

. (ii) Respondent ActivitiesThe 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 ty pically took no longer than 30 minutes to complete the survey , so 30 minutes per response is the estimate d 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 IC R# 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 specif ic purposes of pretesting a willingness to pay survey (Johnston et al., 1995; Kaplowitz et al. 2001, Hoehn et al. 2003 ). Under this I CR, a genc y 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 no n - respondents as needed  Data entry

and quality

assurance of data file  Analy sis 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 rat e (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 b y 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 b y this information collection. 5(d) Collection Schedule A breakdown of the expected collection schedule is as follows :

 Week 1: Printing survey s  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 th e 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 a dditional reminders and replacement survey s 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 r eplacement 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 Willame tte 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 CostsThe Bureau of Labor Statistics reports an average hourly wage for Oregon for all occupations. The most recent data is an average w age of $21.75 per hour, for May 201 2 ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 201 2) . 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 anti cipated 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 investigator s , with an associated hourl y 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 co st would be 320 hours times $32.50 per hour or $10 ,400. 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Assuming 7 50 participants throughout Oregon fill out the survey , the total labor cost is estimated at $8,156. 6(e) Bottom L ine 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 $1 75 Prenotice envelopes 2,5 00 pieces $ 2 50 Prenotice postage (bulk mail) 2,5 00 pieces $ 1,000 Color survey s paper and printing 3 ,000 pieces $ 4,4 00(includes estimated replacements) Printing return envelopes 10.5” x 7.5” 3 ,000 pieces (includes estimated replacements) $ 60 0 Outgoing envelopes 11.5” x 8.75” 3 ,000 pieces (includes estimated replacements) $ 45 0 Outgoing survey

postage (bulk mail) 3 ,000 pieces (includes estimated replacements) $ 2 , 8 00 Return survey

postage (bulk mail) 75 0 pieces $75 0 Reminder postcard paper & printing 2,5 00 pieces $ 1 5 0 Total $30 , 131 The estimated respondent burden for this study is 7 50 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 b y 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 s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, pr ocessing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to compl y 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 currentl y 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 IC R 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 ConstitutionAvenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading R oom is open from

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the 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 sy stem, 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

- ORD

2013

- 0448 and OMB Control Number 2080

-NEW in any correspondence. 

# Pa rt	B	of	Supporting	Stat ement

**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 water shed Spring Chinook and s teelhead.  To estimate public values for the time to recovery (if recovery is chosen) for Willamette water shed Spring Chinook and s teelhead.  To comp are 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 s cope 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 ba seline is termed 'No Intervention / Threatened' . With this option there is no change in recovery status or fish abundance from current conditions. The ris k of Spring Chinook salmon goin g 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 increas e 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 ye ar: Each change varying from the e xpected future of reduced flows and cottonwood/willow acreages in the North and South has an associated cost. These cost levels currentl y vary from $0 for the Expected Future, to as high as $50 (subject to change based on pilot survey

results) . These cost levels are n ot 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 anal yz ing survey results will be a multinomial logit model (Ben

Akiva 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 investigator s 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 mailin g lists, available from companies specializing in preparing mail ing lists for survey s. (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 ofS awtooth 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 Oreg on 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 “anal ys is 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 mai n 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 s ub population s 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 Willame tte valley will be treated as different sub populations. (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 TargetsLouviere 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 l arge 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 * a2 )Φ - 1 ((1+α)/2) where “p” is the population pro portion, 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 proportion s 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 3 0% there will be a large percentage of nonrespondents. If preferences of nonrespondents differ markedl y from respondents, nonrespons e bias will affect the results. A nonresponse anal ys is 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 . I f respondents and nonrespondents have markedly different sociodemographics, the sociodemographic vecto r 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 (not e that the pages numbers are out of sequence on the electronic file, they are sequenced so that they will print correctly

double

sided) . 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 ration ale 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 Co lumbia 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 t he Willamette basin is shown beneath the background information. Page 4 provides detailed ba ckground 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 Wi llamette basin and other wild salmon and steelhead populations in Oregon. Page 5 provides a description ofhatchery

origin salmon and steelhead in the Willamette basin. These descriptions are p rovided so that respondents clearl y understand the differences between hatchery origin fish and the populations of wild origin fish that are target of the recovery plan. Page s 6, 7, 8 , and 9 provide information on the subsequent choice questions including detailed descriptions of the different recovery options. A description of the pay ment 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 ye ars that the recovery pl an 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 h as 4 different levels (no recovery , 15 ye ars, 25 years, and 50 years). **PART 2 Question**  **s 1**  **- 2**  : Th ese 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 recove ry 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 su

bsequent 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 rec overy plan options. There is alway s 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 yi eld 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 trad eoffs for model estimation. These practices save expense and also reduce the sample siz e and associated public burden. Page 13 provides an example choice question for respondents to review before proceeding to the actual choice questions. **Choice Experime nt 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 cho ice sets, likely to yield the most preference information. The computergenerated design will be manually checked for any

potentiall y dominating choices, or scenarios that may seem unlikely

to respondents. The total number of choic e sets must be at least as large as the number of parameters to be estimated and is ty picall y 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 Questi**  **ons 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 o ther 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 2**  **9** : 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 I CR # 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 p articipants were recruited from the general public by a market research contractor using standard market research methods, including paying participants an incentive fee as compe nsation 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 eas y t o understand and elicited information from respondents that is consist ent 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 correctl y 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 anal ys is of the results, in particular the cost levels may need to be adjusted to efficientl y bracket values. Costswill not vary between the subpopulations to guard against “ starting point bias ” as being a potential reason for any s tatistically significant changes in values between sub populations.
**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 -**  **u p**  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 Investigator s . 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 pay ment vehicle used in this survey , i.e. philosophical objection to increased taxes, will not be used. Responses from persons less than 18 y

rs of age as indicated from the ‘what year were you born’ question will no t 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 z in of attributes for alternative i , as perceived b y household respondent n . The variation of preferences b etween individuals is partially explained by a vector S

n of s ociodemographic characteristics for person n . U in = V ( z in , S n ) + ε ( z in , S n ) = V in + ε in The “ V ” term is known a s indirec t 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 C

n : P ( i │ C

n ) = Pr[ V

in + ε in ≥ V

jn + ε jn , for all j ∈ C

n , j not equal to i ]If error terms are assumed to be independentl y 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 ) = e

μVin / ∑ e

μ Vjn The s ummation occurs over all options Jn in a choice set. The assumption of independent and identically

distribute d error terms implies independence of irrelevant attributes, meaning the ratio of choice probabilities for any two alternatives is unchanged b y 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 anal ys t must speci fy 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 eco nometrics 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 particul ar attribute for welfare estimation. Welfare of a change is given by (Holmes & Adamowicz 2003): $ Welfare = (1/β c )[V 0

- V 1 ] where β c is the c oefficient on cost, V 0 is an initial scenario, and V 1 is a change scenario. **Econometric Specification** A main effects utility

function is hy

pothesized. A generic format of the indirect utility function to be model ed is : V = β o + β 1 ( Recovery

status ) + β 2 ( Time to recovery) + β 5 (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 Survey s: A Manual . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Ben
- Akiva, M., and S. R. L erman. 1985. Discrete choice anal ys is. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Blamey , R. K., J. W. Bennett, J. J. L ouviere, M. D. Morrison, and J. Rolfe. 2000. A test of policy labels in environmental choice modeling studies. Ecological Economics 32:269

–286. Bo yd, J., Banzhaf

, S., 2007. What are ecos ys tem 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. 201 2

. 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. Smy

th, and L .M. Christian. Internet, Mail, and Mixed

- Mode Survey s: The Tailored Design Method. Third Edition. 2009. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J. Hoehn, J.P., Lu

pi, F., Kaplowitz , M.D
. , July , 2003. Untying a Lancastrian bundle: valuing ecos ys tems and ecos ys tem 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 Ethnograph ic 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 analy sis of qualitative choice behavior. Pages 105

– 142 in P. Zarembka, edi tor. 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: Analy sis 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. Ecosy stem Valuation Workshop (binder prepared for workshop participants). Dates: June 6

- 7, 2012. Location: Asheville, N.C. Oregon Department of Fis h 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 I ssues for Conjoint Analy sis Studies. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, Sawtooth Software, Inc. Ringold, P.L ., Boyd, J.W., L anders, D., Weber, M., Meeting Date: July 13 to 16, 2009. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecos ys tem 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. Lan ders, and M. Weber. 2013. What data should we collect? A framework for identifying indicators of ecos ys tem 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. 2012 b . 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. US EPA. 2013 b . Sustainability

. http://www.epa.gov/sustainability / . Retrieved April, 2013. Wallmo, K. and D. L ew. 2012. Public Willingn ess 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.