### PEER REVIEW REPORT

Peer Review of Survey Instrument and Charge Questions for Chesapeake Bay

Stated Preference Survey

I. Summary of EPA Responses to Peer Review

II. Response from Dr. Kevin J. Boyl e Professor

, Department of Agricultural and Applied

Economics, Virginia P olytechnic Institute and State University

III. Response from Dr. John C. Whitehead Professor and Chairperson, Department of Economics

,

Appalachian State University

IV. Response from Dr. Robert J. Johnston Director, Ge orge Perkins Marsh Institute and

Pro fessor , Department of Economics, Clark University

Appendix

A.1 Peer Review Package prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. Sent 6/25/2012Summary of EPA Response to Peer Review of Chesapeake Stated Preference Survey

The stated preference survey instrument was subjected to a letter review conducted by a contractor.

There were three peer reviewers with expertise in stated preference methods, with at least one reviewer

having applied stated preference experience in a wa ter quality or ecosystem services context to estimate

non

- use value. Consistent with peer review guidance, an alphabetized list of potential peer reviewers was

provided to the contractor, although the contractor was not required to select from this list. The

contractor reviewed this list and other qualified candidates and chose the peer reviewers for the survey

instrument. The peer reviewers were Dr. Kevin J. Boyle Professor, Department of Agricultural and

Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institut e and State University; Dr. Robert J. Johnston Director,

George Perkins Marsh Institute and Professor, Department of Economics, Clark University; and Dr. John

C. Whitehead Professor and Chairperson, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

1. Administering the input version, endpoint version

, or both

All peer reviewers advised that we administer only one version of the survey but differed as to which was

preferred

. Dr. Kevin Boyle and Dr. John Whitehead favored the input version in part becaus e the

endpoint version would not fully capture total value s

. In contrast, Dr. Robert Johnston made a convincing

case for the endpoint version, citing economic theory and the difficulties focus group and interview

subjects had in understanding the attribut es in the input version (especially DO , see below ).

Action taken

Administer the endpoint version only

Dr. Johnston made a strong argument for using the endpoint version. U sing a single well

researched ecological production function is preferable to pres enting levels of ecological inputs

and allowing each respondent to impose their own subjective predictions as to how these inputs

impact ecological endpoints that directly enter their utility functions

. Although the endpoint

version of the survey focuses only on a subset of critical components of the Bay, doing so will

produce a more accurate, albeit conservative, estimate of the benefits from improving the quality

of the Bay.

Furthermore, since the quantitative links between ecological inputs and endpoin ts are not

imbedded within the endpoint version of the survey, if ecological modeling improves in the future

(i.e. the quantitative links become more accurate)

, data collected with the endpoint version of the

survey allow the flexibility to estimate benefi ts based on different forecasts of endpoint levels. In

contrast, a well designed input version of the survey would explicitly include these links within

the survey text, and so the survey responses depend directly on the quantitative links presented in

the information section of the survey

.

Options d iscussed but not taken

Administer two versions as planned

Given that all three reviewers independently advise against administering both versions and make

some pretty good arguments in doing so, we decided t o no longer consider this option

.

Administer the input version only

The upside of the input version is that it is more likely to capture total value because the input

attributes are at a higher level in the ecological process, and therefore encompass a broader

spectrum of Bay characteristics that individuals care about

. However, given the drawbacks

discussed, it remained clear that pursuing the endpoint version, and obtaining a more accurate yet

conservative benefit estimate, was preferred.2. Whether to include the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) attribute or not

The DO attribute was not readily understood by respondents and they did not make economic decisions

involving the attribute. Because DO requires respondents’ subjective ecological production fu nction the

input version will not produce meaningful welfare estimates . To s ome extent this is true for sub

- aquatic

vegetation (SAV) too.

Action taken

Drop the DO attribute and rely only on the endpoints version of the survey

The purpose of the DO attribute was to convey a quantitative measure of “overall Bay health.”

Instead we chose to rely on endpoints that are more likely to enter a household’s utility function

directly. Using endpoints is likely to provide an underestima te of total benefits but the resulting

WTP responses will be more reliable.

Options d iscussed but not taken

Rely on current version of the input survey with some improvements

Most of the cognitive difficulty with DO attribute seemed to be related to the description of goals

and technical aspects rather than understanding what dissolved oxygen itself means. These

difficulties could be addressed in the attribute description , but doing so does not address the issue

of subjective ecological production funct ions.

Better define the dissolved oxygen attribute

DO might still be a useful attribute if we can characterize what meeting a DO goal means in terms

of endpoints or ecological functioning. DO criteria are generally set at levels that “fully protect

the s urvival, growth and propagation” of fish and shellfish. The Bay R eport C ard also

characterizes meeting DO standards categorically, including letter grades and brief descriptions in

terms of letter grades. B ut it’s not clear that this depicts the ecologic al production function

enough to overcome the essential criticism. Similar concerns would still remain regarding the

SAV attribute.

3. The endpoint version of the survey could introduce o mitted variables bias

The ecological changes from reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay are too broad to capture

with a small set of endpoint attributes. Reviewers are concerned that the marginal value for a given

attribute will be overestimated because respondents m ay perceive that attribute as being positively

correlated with an omitted variable they care about

. At the same time, an endpoint version is likely to

underestimate total economic value because not all beneficial changes will be captured in the choice

sce narios.

Action taken

Add striped bass to endpoint version of the survey and add text to encourage respondent s to only

consider attributes represented in the choice scenarios

Peer reviewers and focus groups identified the following attributes that people c are about and

may be affected by policy, but are not included on the endpoint version of the survey: birds,

striped bass/game fish, and rivers and streams. However, adding another three attributes without

making any other changes would place undue cognit ive burden on the respondents. Since striped

bass are the most popular game fish in the Bay and we have the ability to model population

changes, we have decided to add striped bass population to the set of attributes on the endpoint

version of the survey

. We will also add text reminding people that only the changes shown in thechoice scenarios should be considered when voting , and that all other factors and attributes do not

vary across alternative scenarios

.

Options discussed but not taken

Rely on curr ent version of the endpoint survey

Some of the concern over omitted variables bias could be mitigated by making editorial changes

to the survey but leaving the set of endpoint attributes unchanged. Such changes would include

choosing a different picture for the cover and stressing that attributes that are not included in the

choice question would not be affected by the “additional pollution reduction programs” posed in

the survey . This would not address the underestimation of total economic value

, but our estimate s

could be characterized as conservative since they only capture the improvements explicitly

described on the survey. However, the exclusion of striped bass may lead to a significant

underestimate, since it was deemed i mportant by focus group resp ondents.

I nclude a row at the top of the choice question listing attributes that would not change from

baseline under either policy . This could be visually displeasing and redundant, and so instead this

text will be added and emphasized in pages leading u p to the choice questions.

Add multiple attributes to endpoint version and make additional changes to reduce cognitive

burden.

Some of the changes we discussed were

Switch to a two alterna tive design (No Action and one P olicy option)

Combine crabs and oysters into one “shellfish” category ( but this poses two difficulties:

(i) would have to rely on percent changes because units are different , and (ii) establishing

a reference level becomes difficult )

Only vary 3 attributes at a time but allow the set of varying attributes to change from

question to question

4. The lakes attribute could be problematic

Dr. Boyle identified t w o main reasons the lakes attribute could be problematic. First, i t is a compound

attribute which is not standard practice and prevent s us from finding the marginal benefit of any single

sub

- attribute. Second, p eople outside the watershed could be thinking about local lakes and voting for a

program based on benefits that would not accrue to them.

Action taken

C hange the lakes metric in the choice questions

, tell people whether they live in the watershed or

not , and further emphasize that lakes outside the watershed are unaffected by the additional

pollution reduction programs posed in the survey.

By redefining the lakes attribute and m aking some editorial changes to the survey we believe we

can address the major concerns regarding this attribute. We will s tress that changes would only

occur within the watershed and use the introduction letters and survey cover letters to tell

responden ts whether they live inside or outside of the watershed . We will r educe the set of lake

categories to “high algae” and “low or moderate algae ” to allow the complete characterization of

lakes in the watershed with a single metric (i.e. the percent of lakes in the “low or moderate”

category. )

Options discussed but not taken

Drop lakes attribute from surveys sent to non

- watershed states.

This would prevent people outside the watershed from mistakenly considering local benefits and

shorten the survey for that sample stratum . It would not allow us to capture use or nonuse valuethat people outside the watershed hold for lakes in the watershed

. Furthermore, reducing the

number of attribut es provided to one geographic strata of the population could confound

comparison of results, response rates, etc. across respondents in and outside of the w atershed.

Split up the lake sub

- attributes but don’t vary them independently.

This would raise the number of attributes to 7 (including cost) and that’s before we add striped

bass. I f we keep the same relationship between the lake sub

- attributes it would not affect our

sample size requirement s, but could pose additional cognitive burden on respondents

.

Administer two different surveys, separating the impacts to lakes/rivers/streams and the Bay

mainstem and tidal waters

We are too resource constrained (both in time and funding) to pursue this option but it was

discussed

.

5. Goal reference levels are ar bitrary

Using policy goals as reference points for the attributes might encourage symbolic responses about ‘doing

enough’ for the environment. Further, responses could also be subject to manipulation because policy

goals are endogenous, subjective, and c hange over time. An unambiguous and objective reference level

for each attribute (such as a recent historical reference) would not be subject to such bias.

Action taken

Use current and recent historical levels as a reference point

Focus groups showed that “pristine conditions” or reference levels from the distant past were not

meaningful to respondents. Instead we will choose a recent point in time for which data are

available on all attributes to use as a reference level. This allows respondents link these

quantitative attribute levels with recent their recent experiences with the Bay and w atershed lakes,

thus making the environmental commodity more tangible.

Option discussed but not taken

Drop reference levels

Early versions of the survey did not include reference levels , but focus group participants wanted

some way to frame the current and projected attribute levels.

### II . Response from Dr. Kevin J. Boyle Professor, Department of Agricultural and

Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

C o mm e n t s o n :

P ee r R e v i e w P acka g e f o r S tate d P r efe r e n c e E st i m at i o n o f Be n ef i t s f r o m t h e

C h esa p eak e B a y T M D L s

J u l y 1 6

, 20 1 2

O v e r a ll i m p r ess i o n :

T h e s u r v e y i n st r u men t appear s t o b e c a r e f u l l y de sig ne d u s ing ap p ro p r ia t e p ro c ed u re s.

A c ho i ce e x per i men t i s a c o m m o n s ta t e d pre f eren ce me t ho d i n th e non m ar k e t v a lu a t i o n

l i t e r a t ur e

. I b e l i e v e th e r e a r e a nu m be r o f c h a nge s tha t c o u l d b e m ad e t o i m pro ve th e s ur v e y

i n st r u men t. M y c o mm en ts d o no t i m p l y tha t t h i s i s a poo r l y de s i gne d i n st r u men t. Ra th e r

, t h e

c a r e f u l w or k don e o n th e ins tru men t to da t e a l l o w e d me t o pro v i d e w ha t I hop e a r e h e l p f u l

c o m men ts f o r r e fi n ing t h e s u r v e y i n s t r u m en t to enhan c e th e u s e f u l ne ss o f v a l u e e s t i m a t e s fo r

[p o l i cy an a l ys e s.

De ta i l e d c o m men ts ar e l i st e d a f te r I an s w e r t h e c harg e que s t i o n s. P le a se s e e the se c o mm en ts

to s uppor t i d ea s I p ropo se in r e s p o n s e s t o th e c har g e que s ti on s.

P l ea se f e e l f r e e to c o n t ac t me i f y o u ha ve q ue st i on s

.

G e n e r a l I m p r ess i o n o f S u r v e y I n st r u m e n t a n d P r opo se d S t u d y

1

. E x t en t to w h i ch th e s u r v e y r e s u l ts a r e l i k e l y t o pro v i d e w e l f a r e e s t i m a t e s o f i m p ro v i n g w a t e r

qua l i ty in t h e C h e s apea k e B a y. S pe c i f i c a l l y,

a

. t h e a b i l i ty o f th e s u r v e y t o p ro v i d e t o t a l v a l ue s

I b e l ieve th e s ur v e y i s c apa b l e o f mea s ur i n g t o t a l v a l ue s, b u t d o ha ve s o me c on c ern s.

T h e s ur v e y s t ar ts w i th re f e ren ce p r i m ar i l y t o r e c re a ti o n a n d doe s no t s e t t h e t o n e f o r

r e s p onden ts t o t h i n k l arg e r i n t er m s o f t o t a l v a l u e s. I a m c on c ern e d tha t t h e i n c on s i s t en t

r e f e r en c e s t o lak e s an d s t rea m s i n th e s ur v e y i n s t ru men t m a y r e s u l t i n s o m e r e s ponden ts,

e s pe c i a l l y t ho se o u t s i d e t h e w a t er s hed

, v a l u i n g l o c a l w a t e r qu a l i ty c h a ng e s ou t s i d e o f

t h e w a t er s he d

.

b

. appro p r i a t ene ss o f t h e pr o po s e d c h o i ce e x pe r i men t s ur v e y fo r th e e s t i m a t i o n o f m arg i na l

w i l l i ng n e ss t o p a y fo r in d i v i du a l a t t r i b u t e s

T h e s u r v e y s ee m s w e l l de s i g n e d t o e s t i m a te m arg i na l v a lu e s f o r th e a t t r i b u t e s i n c l u d e d

i n t h e de s i gn

, bu t I ha ve a n i m por t an t c on c ern

. I w onde r i f t h er e w i l l b e a n o m i t te d

v a r i a b le b i a s f ro m peop l e t h in k i n g o f o t he r a t t r i b u t e s, e

. g

., b i r d s g i v e n t h e pho t ogra p h

o n t h e c o v e r

. T h e s ur v e y op e n s t h e i n t e r c onne c t edne ss o f aqua t i c e c o sys t e m s an d Iw onde r i f o m i t t i n g a t tr ib u t e s t ha t p e o p l e t h i n k abou t

, bu t c ann o t b e m ode l e d

, w i ll l e a d

t o o m i t te d va r i ab l e b i a s e s in e s t i m a t e s o f a t t r i bu te para me t er s. A r e re s po n den ts u s ing

t h e “ i c o n i c” a t t r i b u t e s t o s i g n a l l a r ge r c h ange s i n th e aqua t i c e c o syst e m s an d ar e

d i f f

e ren t peo p l e m a k i n g d i f f eren t a ss u m p t i on s? A r e s o me peop l e va l u i n g m or e tha n

y o u i n t e n d an d ar e o t her s v a l u ing th e w ron g c hange s ? T h i s i s n o t s i m p l e he t ero g en e i ty

o f pre f e r en c e s, b u t a f u nda men t a l i ss u e o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e c ha n g e i n q u a l i ty

v a l u e d

. Y o u c a n i n c l ud e a t t r i b u t e s i n t h e de s ign tha t c a nno t b e m ode l ed

, b u t

re s pon d en ts c a r e ab o u t. T he se a t t r i bu t e s tha t peo p l e c a r e a b ou t, b u t c ann o t b e m ode l ed

,

c a n b e h e l d c on s t an t f o r c on s er v a t i v e v a lue e s t i m a t e s fo r p o l i cy. T h i s w ou l d h e l p a v o id

o m i t te d v a r i ab l e b i a s i n e s t i m a t e s o f pre f eren ce para me t er s, w h i ch c o u l d c on f oun d

v a lue e s t i m a t i o n f o r p o l i cy an a l ys e s.

c. appro p r i a t ene ss o f a c h o i ce e x pe r i men t s ur v e y for m a t f o r th e e l i c i t a t i o n o f

pre f e r en c e s i n th i s c a se ( i

. e

., c o m p a re d t o a l t erna t i v e s s u c h a s c o n ti ngen t

v a l u a ti on)

.

A c ho i ce e x per i men t i s c o n v e n i en t to th e an a lyst an d de c i s i o n m a k er s, bu t m a y no t

e f

fe c t i v e l y c on v e y t h e i n t e r c onne c t edne ss o f t h e e c o sy s t e m

. A c on t i nge n t

- v a l u a ti o n

s u r v e y c o u l d d o t h i s w i t h ou t t h e i m p l i e d a ss u m p t i o n t o re s po n den ts o f add it i v e

s ep a ra b i l i ty o f a t t r i b u t e s. T h e l i m i t a ti o n t o s pe c i f i c a t t r i b u t e s m a y l ea d re s pon d en ts to

b r i n g o t he r a t t r i b u t e s i n to c on s i d e ra t i o n g i v e n th e e c o syst e m e f fe cts, u s i n g th e s p e cified

a t t r i bu t e s a s i n d i c a t or s o f g ene r a l e c o syst e m e f fe cts. I a m no t s a y i n g CV s ur v e y s ho u l d

b e c o n du c t ed

, bu t a m no t i n g t h i s i s a w or t h y

d i sc u s s i o n

. I t h i n k th e r e l a t i ve t rade

- o f f

s o f t h e se t w o s ta t e d

- p r e f er e n ce m e t hod s, f o r t h i s

p a r t

i c u l a r ap p l i c a t i o n

, s ho u l d b e d i sc u s s e d in th e f in a l r e p o r t. M a y a l so w an t to ad d

s o m e m or e d i re c t e d f o l l ow

- u p q u e st i o n s a f t e r th e c h o i ce q u e s t i on s t o m a ke s ur e th i s i s

n o t a p ro b l e m i n ho w r e s po n den ts an s w e r th e c h o i ce

que s t i on s.

2

. Ov er a ll q u a l i ty an d de s i g n o f t h e propo s e d s ur v e y.

T h e o v e r a ll qu a l i ty an d de sign o f th e s ur v e y i s v er y go o d

. I d o s e e a nu m be r o f w a ys t o

t i gh t e n th e s u r v e y d e sign a n d a c o u p le o f m a j o r i ss ue s. E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e :

• I w ou l d dr o p th e endp o i n t de s i gn

.

• W i l d l i fe n e ed s t o b e de f i n ed

.

• Re feren c e s to l a k e s a n d s t r ea m s nee d t o b e m or e c on s i st en t.

S u r v e y I n st r u m e n t

3

. A dequa cy o f ba ck g roun d in for m a t i o n t o en a b l e t h e r e s pon d en ts to an s w e r th e c h o i ce

que s t i on s. Is t h e i n f o r m a t i o n ne c e s s ar y, s u f f i cie n t, an d a cc ura t e ?

I b e l ieve th e r e a r e a n u m be r o f neede d i m pr o v e m en ts:

• Co n s i st e n t r e f er e n ce to l a k e s an d s t rea m s i n t h e w a t er s he d so t ha t r e s pon d en ts w i ll no t

v a lue w a t e r qu a l i ty ou t s i d e t h e watershed.• De f i n i t i o n o f w i l d l i f e

.

• C l e a r r o l e f o r s t rea m s; regu la r l y men t i on e d

, b u t q u i e tl y d i s a ppea r w he n on e ge ts to th e

c h o i c e que s t i o n s.

4

. Do e s th e s ur v e y pro v i d e app r op r i a t e an d s u f f i c i e n t i n t r odu ct o r y an d deb r i e fi n g que s t i on s t o

, f o r

e x a m p l e

, i den t i fy pro t e s t re s p on s e s an d sy m bo l i c r e s pon s e s

, t e st re t en t i o n an d

u nder s t an d i n g o f i n f o r m a t i on

, e l i c i t n o n

- u se v a l ue s, e tc

. ? A r e t her e an y add itio n a l

i n t ro d u c t or y o r de b r ie f i n g q ue s t i on s y o u fe e l m a y b e u s e f u l f o r th e ana l y s i s ?

• I b e l ieve t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i s t o o fo c u s e d o n u s e fo r a t o t a l v a l u e s ur v e y an d en c our a g e

ad d ing a t l e a st on e que s t i o n tha t g e ts re s p o nden ts th i n k i n g a bou t t o t a l v a l ue s.

• De b r i e f q u e s t i on s d o no t a ddre ss i f re s p o nde n ts ar e v a l u i n g c ha n ge s ou t s i d e th e w a t er s he d

o r a r e c o rre c t l y i n t erp r e t i n g a t t r i bu t e s an d l e v e l s. I t h i n k t w o que s t i o n s nee d t o b e ad d e d

t o t h e d e b r i e f i n g s e c t i on

.

5

. Do e s th e s ur v e y p lace s u f f i c i e n t an d app r o pr ia t e e m pha s i s o n t h e budge t c on st r a int f a c i n g

r e s p onde n ts, an d o n po t en t i a

l s ub s tit u t e u s e s o f t h e i r b u dge t?

Y e s, bu t I ha v e a c on c er n a bou t t h e o v e ru se o f t h e w or d “ c o s t ” i n t h i s s e c ti o n o f t h e s ur v e y.

I w onde r i f a ll o f t h e r e f eren c e s t o c o s t her e w i l l en c oura g e pe o p le to t h ink abou t t h e c o st o f

t h e p rog r a m ( c o st c a l c u l a t o r s ) an d c o m par e b i d t i me s hou s eh o l d s to s e e i f i t i s rea s o n a b l e

,

n o t t h i n k a bou t t h e i r hou s eh o l d v a lu e s.

6

. Co n s i de r i n g a ll fo u r v er s i o n s o f t h e s ur v e y, ar e th e pro g ra m op t i on s unde r c on s i d era t i o n

ap p rop r ia t e l y an d s u f f i c i en t l y c h ara ct e r i z ed ? F o r e x a m p l e

, g i v e n th e f o c u s gr o u p

s u m m ar y pro v i d e d

, a r e th e app r o pr ia t e a t t r i bu t e s i n c l ude d in t h e c h o i ce e x per i men t?

• I w orr y tha t o m i t t ing a t t r i bu t e s t ha t a r e o f c on c er n t o re s po n den ts, bu t c a n no t b e

m ode l e d ph y s i c a l l y, w i l l le a d t o o m i t te d v a r i a b le b ias e s i n t h e e s t i m a t i o n o f i m p li c i t

p r i c e s. T h e l i k e l y o u tc o me i s o v e r e s t i m a t i on

.

• A r e r e s po n den ts u s ing th e “ i c o n i c” a t t r i b u t e s t o s i g n a l l ar g e r c h a nge s i n t h e aqua t i c

e c o sys t e m s an d ar e d i f f

e ren t p eo p l e m a k i n g d i f f

e ren t a ss u m p t i on s? A r e s o me peop l e

v a l u i n g m or e tha n y o u i n t e n d a n d ar e o t her s v a l u i n g t h e w ron g c hange s?

• W i l l peo p l e b e l oo k i n g fo r b i rd s ( p i ct u r e o n s ur v e y c o v er ) o r s t r i pe d b a s s

, an d m a ke

a ss u m p t i on s o n th e ab s en c e ?

• S c i en t i f

i c m ode l i n g l i m i t a t i on s a r e n o t ne c e ss a r i l y rea s on s t o o m i t w ha t m a y b e

i m por t an t a t t r ib u t e s t o r e s p onden t s

. Y o u c a n inc l u d e the se a t t r i b u t e s i n t h e de s i g n

, bu t

h o l d t he i r l e v e l s c o n st an t f o r c o n s er v a t i ve v a l u e e s t i m a t e s fo r p o l i cy. T h i s w ou l d h e lp

a v o i d o m i t te d v a r i a b l e b i a s i n e st i m a t e s o f pre f eren c e para me t er s, w h i ch c o u l d

c o n f ou n d v a l u e e s ti m a t i o n fo r p o l i cy a n a l ys e s.

• I b e l ieve t h e La k e s a t t r i bu t e i s c on f o unde d d u e t o th e ag g l o mera t i o n o f s u b a t t r i bu t e s

w i t h in t h i s a t t r i bu t e

. La ke c on d i t i o n c on c ern s me be c au se i t i s a c o m poun d a t tr ib u te

a n d y o u c anno t b e s u r e w ha t p i e ce o f i n f or m a t i o n peo p l e ar e rea c t i n g t o

– c o l o r

, c l a r i ty

o r f i s h

. N o r d o w e k no w w ha t t he y ar e a ss u m i n g abou t f i sh s t o cks an d c a tc ha b i l i ty. I

w onde r i f re s po n den ts w i ll i m p l i c i t l y t h i n k t ha t ba ss w i ll i ncr e a se b y 3 3 % w i th

P rogra m A be c au se o f t h e w a y y o u ha ve link e d c l a r ity an d f i sh i n t h e ta b l e an d t e x t

pre c e d i ng

, o r 6 7 % i f y o u a d d p e r c en t t o v i s i b i l ity i n t h i s bo x

. W ha t i f y o u a r e no t ar e s id en t i n a s t a te i n th e w a t er s h ed

, st a t e

- s pe c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i s no t r e l e v a n t? I w onde r

i f lev e l s an d fee t o f c l a r i ty, t w o nu m ber s, w i ll c on f u s e r e s p onde n ts an d w h i c h nu m be r

the y ar e re s p o n d i n g t o an d i f e v er y on e i s re s p o n d i n g t h e s a me ? I d o no t th i n k t h e

e s t i m a t e d i m p li c i t p r i ce f o r t h i s a t t r i bu t e w i ll b e u s e fu l fo r e s t i m a t i n g an c i l la r y,

up s t rea m bene f i ts fro m th e B a y.

7

. Re gar d ing th e “ I n p u t” v e r s i o n o f t h e s u r v e y, ar e th e links be t w ee n a t t r ib u t e s i n t h e progra m

op ti on s ( s u c h a s D i ss o lved O x

y ge n ) an d a s pe cts o f t h e B a y r e s p o nden ts m a y d i re ct l y

c ar e a bou t a ppr o p r i a t e l y de sc r i b e d ? A r e th e r e w a ys t o i m pro ve th e de sc r i p t i o n o f t ho se

links?

E m p l o y i n g th e i n pu t a n d en d p o i n t v e r sio n s m a y pro v i d e unne c e s s ar y c o m p l e x i t i e s i n po l i cy

a n a l ys e s. I f t he y p ro v i d e t h e s a me v a l u e e s t i m a t e s th i s c o u l d b e c on s t rue d a s a f a

i lu r e o f

s c op e an d u n der m i ne s th e s ur v e y. If the y p ro v i d e d iff er e n t v a l u e e st i m a t e s an d a r e v a l u i n g

t h e s a m e e c o l o g i c a l c o n d itio n s, j u st d i f fer e n t a t t r i bu te me t r i cs, t he n t h i s c o u l d b e v i e w e d a s a

v iol a t ion o f p r o c ed u r a l i n v a r ia n c e

. I n t h i s l a t e r c a s e

, w h i c h v a l u e s w o u l d y o u pro p o se f o r

p o l i cy? T h i s s ee m s t o b e a m a j o r i ss u e l e ft un d e c i de d a t t h e d e s i g n t a b le. I re c o mm en d

de l e t i n g th e e ndp o i n t v er sio n s a n d r e a l l o c a t i n g t h e s a m p l e t o t h e i n pu t v er s i on s be c au s e y o u

a

r e w or king w i th m i n i m a l s a m p l e s i z e s.

8

. Do e s t h e s ur v e y i n c orp o ra te appr o p r i a te l a nguag e t o a me li o ra te sy m bo l i c r e s pon s e s an d ' y e a

s a y i n g ' ?

• I d o no t th i n k th e s ur v e y ha s do n e en o ug h t o addre ss re s po n den ts i n t erp re t i n g a t t r i bu t e s

a s sy m bo l s o f l a r ge r e c o syst e m e f fe cts t ha n i n t e nded

.

• I s ugge st a d d i n g ch ea p t a l k s c r i p t to r e i n f o r ce peo p l e f r o m y e a s a y i ng

.

9

. Do e s th e s ur v e y t a ke a p pro p r i a te s t e p s t o m i n i m i ze h y po t he t i c a l a n d s t r a t e g i c b i a s, i n c l u d i n g

s u f f i c i en t s tep s t o e m pha s i ze c on s e quen t i a

l i ty?

I ha ve m ad e nu merou s s ugge s t i on s i n m y de t a i l e d c o m men t s t o enhan ce

c on s equen t ial i t y

. I t h i n k th e w or d i ng

, a s c u rr e n t l y pre s e n t ed

, i s t o o eq u i v o c a l t o

re in for ce c on s e q uen t i a

l i ty.

10

. Is t h e f or m a t o f t h e c h o i ce que s t i o n s ap p r op r i a te a c c or d i n g t o c u rren t s tand a rd s i n t h e s ta t e d

pre f eren c e l it era t ur e (e

. g

., a l lo w i n g f o r a s ta t u s qu o op t i on

, en c o u ra g i n g neo clas s i c a l

tr a deo f f

s, ord e r an d pre s en t a t i o n o f a t t r i b u t e s, e t c .)

Y e s, w i th a fe w o f e x c ep t i on s:

• Re pe titi o n o f s t a t u s q u o c on d i t io n s i n t h e f i r st t w o c o l u m n s m a y b e c on f u s i ng

.

• La k e s i s a c o m poun d a t t r ib u te w i t h t hre e s u b a t t r i bu t e s, w h i ch i s no t s tand a r d

pra c t i c e

.

• Cost i s no t c l e a r l y in a n a t t r i bu t e r o w

, bu t i s i n t h e re s p on se r o w

,

• Ca r r y i n g c o s t f or w ar d i n to per p e t u i ty i s n o t c o mm on

. I t i s m or e c o mm o n t o d o a one

s ho t pa y men t o f pa y m en t f o r a f i x e d pe r i o d o f t i me

.11

. Is t h e r e e v i d e n ce o f f unda men t a l o r c r i t i c a l f l a w s i n th e s u r v e y? S u ch a s b i a s i n t h e s ur v e y

o r pre s e n t e d i n f or m a t i on ?

T hre e k e y c on c e rn s st a n d ou t t o m e :

• La k e s ar e no t c l e a r l y de f i n e d a s w i t h i n th e w a t er s hed

.

• S t r ea m s ar e i n t r odu c ed

, bu t n o t ad e qua t e l y a ddre ss e d in t h e c h o i ce que s ti on s. T her e i s a

on e

- b u l l e t d i s m i ss a l w i t h i n t h e l a ke de sc r i p t i o n

.

• T h e l a ke a tt r i b u te i s c on f ound e d an d I doub t t h e i m p l i c i t p r i ce e s t i m a te w il l b e u s e f u l

f

o r p o l i cy a n a l ys e s

.

S t u d y D es i g n

12

. A r e th e pro p o s e d a t t r i bu t e l e v e l s a n d u se o f a c on st a n t v er s u s de c l i n i n g ba s e l i n e

appro p r i a te f o r e s t i m a t i n g t h e be n e f i ts o f t h e T M DL?

In S e ct i o n 1

. 1

, 1 s t p a ra

. , y o u s ta te “ T h e se T M DLs c a l l e d fo r redu c ti on s o f 25

, 24

, an d 20 %

,

re s pe c t i v e l y, o f t he s e p o l l u t a n ts ( EP A 2011)”

. T h e a t t r i b u te l e v e l s d o no t s ee m re f i ne d e noug h

t o d i s t i n gu i sh be t w ee n t he s e d i f f

e ren t l e v e l s

. T h e a t t r ib u te l e v e l s a ct u a ll y a l l o w e st i m a t i o n o f

non m arg i n a l c ha n ge s, no t m arg i na l i n th e t r u e s en s e

.

I l i ke t h e i de a o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g t w o d i f fe r en t ba s e l i ne s. T o o o f te n th e a s s u m p t i o n i s a

c on st an t b a s e l i n e w he n t h i s i s no t in fa ct t h e c a s e

. T h i s c o m par i s o n i s i m po r t an t f o r t h e

c u rren t p o l i cy deba t e s an d t o i n f o r m th e de s i g n o f f u t

ur e s t u d i e s.

13

. Is t h e s a m p li n g p l a n a n d p r opo s e d geo g r a ph i c s t r a t i f

i c a t i o n ap p rop r ia t e f o r e st i m a t i n g t h e

to t a l bene f i ts o f t h e T M DL, i n c lu d i n g no n u se v a l ue s ?

De t a i l e d C o mm e n t s

– De v e l o p e d i n d e p e nd e n t ly a n d s o m e m a y b e c o n t r a d i c t o r y b as e d o n

f

l o w o f t h e s u r v e y i n f o rm at i o n

. S o m e a r e r e p ea t e d i n a n s w e r s t o c h a r g e q u est i o n s a bo v e

.

P 1

- 1

– B lue R i bbo n P an e l ( 2 006 ) rep o r t i s no t i n t h e r e f er e n c e s.

P 1

- 1

, 3 rd

para

. – I m p li c i t l y i m p l i e s o n l y u s e v a l ue s f o r t h e f i r st gro u p

, w h i ch i s l i k e l y a

f

a l se a ss u m p t i on

. T hu s, h edo n i c a n d RUM m ode l s w i ll p ro v i d e lo w e r bound s o f

bene f i ts.

In ad d i t i on

, the se s t a t e d p re f e ren ce m ode l s a r e c h a l le nge d fo r non m arg i n a l c hange s s u ch

a s p r opo s e d f o r t h e C he s a pea k e i n t er m s o f ob s er v e d vs. u nob s e r v e d l e v e l s o f w a t e r

qua l i ty, m arg i n a l vs. n on m arg i n a l c h an g e s i n qu a l i ty, a n d s h i f t s i n l o c a t i o n o r u s ag e th a t

m

i gh t o cc ur

.

P 1

- 1

, 4 t h

para

. – M ee ti n g T M DLs w i l l r e qu i r e la n d

- u se c hange s

, w h i ch a l so m a y

genera t e be n e f i ts t ha t ar e no t b e i n g c ap t u re d in t h e de s c r i be d a n a l ys e s.P 1

- 2

, 1 s t p ara

. – A ss er ts, i m p li c i tl y, a c h o i ce e x per i men t ( C E )

, bu t n o d i s c u ssion o f w he t he r a

c on t i n g en t

- v a lu a t i o n ( C V ) st ud y m a y ha ve be e n m or e appro p r i a t e

. A CE i s c on v e n i en t t o

th e an a l yst a n d de c i s i o n m a k er s, bu t m a y no t e f fe c t i v e l y c on v e y t h e i n t e r c on n e ct edne ss o f

t h e e c o syst e m

. A CV s ur v e y c o u l d d o t h i s w i t h ou t t h e i m p li e d a ss u m p t i o n t o r e s pond e n ts o f

a d d i t i ve s e p ar a b i l i ty o f a t t r i b u t e s. I a m no t s a y i n g CV s ur v e y s ho u ld b e c o ndu ct e d

, bu t a m

no ti n g t h is i s a w or t h y d i s c u ssio n

.

P 1

- 2

, 2 n d

para

. – P e op l e d o no t c a r e ab o u t g r a ss e s d i re c t l y. In s o me c a s e s gra ss e s ar e a

n ega t i ve a n d o t h er s p o sit i v e t o re c re a ti o na l e x per i e n c e s. T h i s m a y c arr y o v e r o v e r t o

n onu se v a lu e s a s w e l l

.

P 1

- 2

, 2 n d

para

. – E m p l o y i n g t h e i npu t an d e n dpo int v er s io n s m a y pro v i d e unne c e ss ar y

c o m p l e x i t i e s i n p o li cy an a l ys e s. I f t he y pro v i d e th e s a me v a l u e e s t i m a t e s th i s c o u l d b e

c on st r ue d a s a f a

i l u r e o f sc o p e an d und e r m i ne s th e s ur v e y. If the y pro v i d e d i f f eren t v a l u e

e s t i m a t e s an d a r e v a l u i n g t h e s a me e c o l og i c a l c on d i t i o n s, j u st d i f f eren t a t t r i b u te m e t r i cs,

t h e n t h i s c o u l d b e v ie w e d a s a v i o l a ti o n o f pro c e d ur a l i n v a r i an c e

. In t h i s l a t e r c a s e

, w h i ch

v a l ue s w ou l d y o u p ropo se fo r p o l i cy? T h i s s ee m s t o b e a m a j o r i ss u e l e ft u n de c i de d a t t h e

de s i g n t a b le.

P 1

- 2

, l a st p a ra

. – A r e r e s pond e n ts u s i n g th e “ i c on i c” a t t r i bu t e s to s i gn a l l a rg e r c han g e s i n th e

aq u a t i c e c o syst e m s an d ar e d i f fe r en t p e op l e m a k i n g d i f fe r en t a ss u m p t i on s ? A r e s o me peop l e

v a l u ing m or e tha n y o u i n t e n d an d a r e o t h er s v a l u i n g th e w ron g c hange s? T h i s i s n o t s i m p l e

he t e r ogen e i ty o f pre f e r en c e s, b u t a f u nda men t a l i ss u e o f t h e d e fi n i t i o n o f t h e c h a ng e i n

qu a l i ty v a l u e d

.

P 1

- 3

, t o p

– T h i s i s a c on t i n u a t i o n o f th e c o n c er n f r o m th e bo t to m o f t h e pre v i ou s p a ge

. W i l l peo p l e b e l oo k i n g fo r s t r i p e d ba ss a n d m a ke a ss u m p t i on s o n th e ab s e n c e ? Y o u ha ve

c l a r i ty a n d DC to a ddre ss no t u s i n g th e in de x

, bu t d o no t s ee m t o ha ve a w a y to d i re c t l y

a ddre ss t he se o t he r a t t r i b u t e s. S c ie n tif i c m ode li n g i s no t ne c e ss a r i l y a rea s o n t o o m i t w ha t

m a y b e i m por t an t a t t r ib u t e s t o r e s p onde n ts. Y o u c a n i n c l ud e t he se a t t r ib u t e s i n t h e d e sig n

, b u t h o l d t h e i r l e v e l s c o n st an t f o r c o n s er v a t i ve v a l u e e st i m a t e s fo r p o l i cy. T h i s w ou ld h e l p

a v o i d o m i t te d v ar ia b l e b i a s in e s t i m a t e s o f pre f e r en ce p ara m e t er s, w h i ch c o u l d c on f ou n d

v a l u e e s t i m a t i o n f o r p o l i cy a na l ys e s.

P 1

- 3

, 7 t h

para

. – W ha t d o r e s p onden ts a ss u m e abou t w her e c h ange s w i l l o cc u r a n d w ha t d o

y o u w an t t he m t o a ss u me ?

P 1

- 4

, t o p

– Y o u r e f eren c e th e f our t h fo c u s gr ou p he r e

. I t w ou ld b e u s e f u l t o do c u men t t h e

nu m be r o f f o c u s g roup s an d t h e ob j e ct i v e s o f ea ch g roup

.

P 1

- 5

, S e c t i o n 1

. 2 .6

– CV c a n b e u s e d t o e s t i m a te the se v a l ue s; it j u st req u i re s m u l t i p l e sc ena r i o s

a n d l ar g e r s a m p l e s i z e s.

P 1

- 5

, S e c t i o n 1

. 2 .7

– I l i k e th e i d e a o f i n v e s t ig a ti n g t w o d i f f

ere n t ba s e l i ne s

. T o o o f t e n t h e

a ss u m p t i o n i s a c on st an t ba s e l i n e w he n t h i s i s n o t i n fa ct th e c a s e

. T h i s c o m par i s o n i s

i m por t an t f o r t h e c u r ren t p o l i cy deba t e s a n d t o i n f or m th e de sign o f f u t ur e s t u d i e s.P 1

- 6

, 2 n d f u ll p ara

. – Ng en e c o u l d b e u s e d t o de v e lop a m or e e f f i c i en t a t t r i b u te de s i g n

.

P 1

- 6

, 3 rd f u ll pa r a

. – I re c o m mend

, g i v e n t h i s in for m a t i on

, j u st i m p l e men t i n g t h e i npu t

v er sio n

. S e e m y c o m men ts abo ve ( P 1

- 2

, 2 n d

para

. )

.

T a b l e 1

– L i n k i n g c o lor a n d c l a r i ty doe s n o t m a tch m y f i r st

– ha n d k no w l e d g e f r o m re s ear ch i n

N e w E ng l an d

. Gr e e n w a t e r i s du e t o a l ga e b lo o m s fr o m nu t r i e n t en r i c h men t. B ro w n i s

t y p i c a l l y du e to na tur a l t ann ins i n th e w a t er

. Cle a r l a k e s ar e o f te n a g ree n i sh c o l or

, no t b l u e

. T rou t a r e i n s o m e green i sh w a t er s; t h i s i s th e c a s e f o r th e l a ke w her e m y f a m il y ha s a c a m p

,

an d r oug h f i sh o cc u r in s o me v er y c l e a r l a k e s. I w a s j u st o n a nu m be r o f l a k e s i n th e

nor t hea s t f o r o t he r r e s e ar ch l a st w ee k an d th e c o lor sc he me her e d oe s no t m a tch wh a t I

ob s e r v ed

. I a m c on c erne d t h e c o l o r / f

i sh c a t ego r i e s

, l ink e d t o cl a r i ty, w i l l c on f u se s o me

r e s ponden ts an d w onde r i f c o l o r i s a ct u a l l y need e d an d f i s h c a n b e p l a c e d a s a s e p ara te

a t t r i b u t e ?

T a b l e 3

– In S e c t i o n 1

. 1

, 1 s t pa r a

. y o u s t a te “T he se T M DLs c a l l e d f o r r edu c t i on s o f 25

, 24

, a n d

20 %

, re s pe c t i v e l y, o f t h e se p o l l u t an ts ( EP A 2011)”

. T h e a t t r i bu t e l e v e l s d o no t s ee m r e f i n e d

en o ug h t o d i s t i ng u i sh be t w ee n d i f fe r en t l e v e l s w i th d i f fe r en c e s o f 1 an d 4 %

.

T a b l e 5

– It w i l l b e i m por t an t to s t a te t h a t y o u c anno t g e ner a l i ze to s pe c i f i c s t a t e s w i th t he se

s a m p l e s i z e s. Is th i s g o i n g to b e a pr o b le m

, par t i c u l a r l y i n t h e B a y S t a t e s, w her e ther e m a y

b e a de m an d fo r s ta t e

- s pe c i f i c b e ne f i t e s t i m a t e s?

G i v e n the se s a m p l e s i z e s, w h i ch a r e m ode st, I e m pha s i ze m y r e c o m menda t i o n t o re m o ve

th e endp o i n t c e l l s s o y o u c a n fo c u s a ll ob s er v a t i o n o n th e p r i m ar y p o l i cy v a l u a ti on s.

S u r v e y C o mm e n t s B ase d o n A ttac h m e n t A

S ur v e y c o v e r

– Y o u sy m bo li c a l l y i m p l y th a t b i r d s ar e a n a t t r ib u te w i th t h e c o v e r p i ct u re

. W h i l e t h i s i s v er y a t t r a c t i v e

, I st r o n g l y r e c o m men d t ha t t h i s pho t ogr a p h b e re p l a ce w i th a

m or e neu t r a l p i ct u re ; p erhap s a m a p o f t h e w a t er s hed

.

I w ou l d r e m o ve “ S t a t e d P re f eren c e ” f r o m th e c o v er

. T h i s i s te c h n o t a l k; re me m be r y o u ar e

w r i t i n g f o r ab o u t a n 8 t h

g r ad e a ud i en c e an d s h o u ld a v o i d a c ade m i c j arg o n.

S ur v e y, 1 s t p a ge

, 1 s t para

. – T o enh a n ce c on s equen t i a

l i ty  “ Th e s u r v e y ’ s p u r p o se i s t o c o l l e c t

in f or m a t i o n t o h e l p p o l i c ym a k e r s w il l u s e d t o m a k e d e c i s i o n s th at a ff

e c t wa t e r q u a lit y

,

w i l d li f e a n d r e c r e a t i o n

. ”

S ur v e y, 1 s t p a ge

, 2 n d

para

. – F i r s t s en t e n ce s e e m s t o b e abrup t.  “ W e w il l p r e s e n t a nu m b e r o f

p l a n s a n d a s k wa n t t o k n o w w h i ch o f the se p l a n s y o u w o u l d v o t e f o r i f a r e f

e r en d u m w e r e

h e l d t o d a y

. ”

S ur v e y, 1 s t p a ge

, 3 rd

pa r a

. – Not re a l l y g i v i n g the m a n oppor t u n i ty to “ v o i ce y ou r op i n io n s ”

,

ra t h e r i n d i c a t e th e i r pre f eren c e s fo r l i k e l y a l t e rna t i ve p l an s.S ur v e y, 1 s t p a ge

, 4 t h

par a

. – “ agen c i e s ” i n st e a d o f “o f f i c e s”

S ur v e y, 2 n d

pag e

– Is t her e po t en t ial c on f u s i o n s ho w i n g t h e w a t er s he d i n g ree n w he n gree n

i s l i n k e d t o w a t e r q ua l ity?

S ur v e y, 2 n d

pag e

– Do e s t h e “ F re s h w a t e r lak e s an d r i v e r s ” bo x an d a rro w c on v e y t h a t t he se

o cc u r th r ough o u t t h e w a t er s h ed

. F o r “ T i d a l W a t er s” y o u d e no te t h e ba y w i th t h e c r o s s

ha tc h e d bo x

, bu t d o no t de s c r i b e th e dar k b l u e

.

S ur v e y, 2 n d

page

, 1 s t p ara

. – T o cla r i fy  “ W a te r d r a i n i n g f ro m these l a n d s i n t h e wa te r s he d

e nte r s the se wa te r wa y s a n d e v e n tu a ll y th e C h e sa p e a k e B a y

. ”

S ur v e y, 2 n d

page

, 2 n d

para

. – S en t en ce le a v e s r ead e r han g ing an d beg s f o r e x p la na t i o n o f t h e

p o in t s r a i s e d

.

S ur v ey

, 3 rd

pag e a n d e l s e w her e

– A n s w e r c a t ego r i e s a r e s o me t i me s c he ck bo x e s, s o me t i m e s

n u mer i c a l an d o t h e r t i me s a l phan u mer i c ( e

. g

., D K )

. I ha ve l e arne d tha t on e r e s p on se f o r m a t

s hou l d b e c on s i st e n tl y u s e d t o m i n i m i ze r e s pond e n t c on f u s io n

.

I m a y ha ve m i ss e d i t, bu t I d i d no t s e e th e s u r v e y i m p l e men t a t i o n m od e i m p l e men t ed

. I a m

a ss u m i n g tha t i t i s g o i n g t o b e a m a i l s ur v e y. If y o u ar e g o i n g t o sc a n th e r e t u r ne d s u r v e ys

th e n c he ck b o x e s ar e ap p rop r i a t e

. I f y o u a r e g o i n g t o d o m anua l da ta en t r y, t h e n nu m ber s

r edu c e da ta en t r y e rr o r s. A lp ha n u m er i c d o no t ha ve a r o le.

I b e l ieve th a t w e l l

- de s i g ne d s u r v e ys ha v e d i r e ct i on s o n ho w t o an s w e r a ll que s ti on s

. F o r Q 1

t h i s m i gh t b e “ P l e a se c he ck a ll t ha t ap p l y i n ea ch c o l u m n .” Y o u ha ve th e d i r e c t i o n f o r Q2

.

S ur v ey

, 2 n d

an d 3 rd

page s

– F o c u s in bo x e s o n 2 n d

pag e i s re c r ea t i o n a n d y o u s t ar t w i th a

r e c r e a t i o n q ue s t i on

. I w onde r i f t h i s i s t h e b e st app r oa ch t o ge t r e s pon d en ts to t h i n k in a

“ t o t a l v a l u e ” f r a me w or k.

Q1

– Q ue s t i o n i s no t c on s i st en t w i th an s w e r b o x

. Y o u s ta t e ” an y f re s h w a t e r l a k e s an d r i v e r s” i n

t h e q u e s t i on

, b u t t h e hea d i n g i n th e bo x s a ys “ i n t h e w a t er s he d ”

. I t h ink t h e l a t e r i s w ha t

y o u w an t. T id a l w a t er s o n 2 n d

pag e i s n o t de f i n e d t o i n c lu d e th e dar k b l u e a r ea s, bu t t h i s

w her e m o st o f t he se a ct i v i t i e s w o u l d o cc u r fo r th e C h e s apea k e

.

W i l l peo p l e

, e s pe c i a l l y i n t h e b a y s ta t e s, s t r u g g l e w i th w her e t i d a l w a t er s en d ? I ha ve ha d

t h i s pr ob l e m i s c oa st a l s ur v e ys o f s a l m o n ang l e r s an d nee d e d t o c l e a r l y de fi ne

.

F i r st an s w e r c a t e gor y s e e m s odd ; s w i m m i n g doe s no t s ee m t o g o w i th o t he r t w o

, an d

o t h e r t w o ar e v a r ia n ts o f boa t i n g

. W o u l d re s pon d en ts c he ck w a t e r s k i i n g an d boa t i n g a n d

th e s a me fo r j e t sk ii n g ?

Q2

– S a m e f i r st t h r e e c o m men ts a s fo r Q1

.

Ne e d t o m a ke c l e a r tha t t he se a c t i v i t i e s r e f e r t o tho se l i st e d in Q1

.Is “ f i ve y e a r s” t o o l on g o f a p e r i od

, e s pe c i a l l y f o r l o c a l w a t er s? Rec a ll b ias w i ll b e v er y

pr ob l e m a t i c.

W h a t abou t peo p l e w h o l i ve o n t h e w a t e r o r d r i ve b y d a i l y o n w a y t o a n d fro m w or k, o r

w or k o n o r b y th e w a t er

. H o w w i ll t h e y an sw e r th i s que s ti on ? Not r e a l l y a v i s i t

, bu t

i n t e r a ct o n a d a i l y ba s i s.

S ur v e y, 5 t h

page

, 1 s t par a

. – W i l d l i fe i s u se he r e an d e a r l i e r w i t h o u t de f initi on

. D oe s it

i n c l u d e f i s h ? W h a t ab o u t aq u a t i c v ege t a t i on ?

S ur v e y, 5 t h

page

, 2 n d & 3 rd

para

. – “ S e d i men t” men t i on s r i v er s a n d s t r ea m s, bu t doe s no t

c l e a r l y c on v e y t ha t t h i s i s c ar r i e d t o t h e C he s a pea k e

. W ha t abou t l a k e s? No s pe c i f i c w a t er s

m en t i o n e d f o r “ Nu t r i en ts ”

. T h e i n f or m a t i o n p r e s en t e d he r e ne e d s t o b e m or e par a l l e l an d

en c o m pa ss i n g o f th e w a t er s he d a n d l i n ks t o t h e C he s apea k e

.

S ur v e y, 6 t h

page

, P ra c t i c e s ...

– “ til l ” i s j argon ; I s ugge st c han g i n g t o “ m anage”

. W h a t i s mean t

b y “ be t te r e qu i p men t ” ; I t h i n k y o u c a n b e c l e are r

.

S ur v e y, 6 t h

page

, W a t e r

... – F i r st s t a t e men t is unne c e ss a r il y a w k w ard ; “ W a t e r w i ll

be c o m e c l eare r be c au s e ...” “

... a lg a e b l oo m s be c au se o f l e ss nu t r i en t s ”

S ur v e y, 6 t h

page

, E c o syst e m

... – No te

, t h e r e i s n o l i n k t o b i r d s so t h i s s upp o r ts re m o v i n g b i r d

p i c t ur e f ro m c o v er

. H o w frequ e n t l y w er e b i rd s m en t i one d in t h e f o c u s group s? I s t h i s a

po t en t ial s our ce o f o m i t te d v ar ia b l e b i a s i f y o u d o no t h a ve a b i r d a t t r i bu t e ?

Q5

– E m pha s i ze (? ) “ c l o s e s t ” b y u n de r l i n i n g o r s o me t h i n g a s t h i s i s a c ha n g e i n geogr a p h i c fo c u s.

I ha ve a l w a ys bee n t a ugh t t ha t on c e y o u a sk peo p l e t o f o c u s do w n i n a s u r v e y y o u s hou ld no t

g o ba ck to a l a r g e r s ca l e

, bu t a f t e r t h i s f o c u s i ng

, w h i c h m a y no t b e in th e Ch e s apea k e

, y o u d o

b r i n g re s p o nden ts ba ck t o th e C he s a pea ke w a t er s h e d fo r th e c ho i ce que s t i o n s. D oe s th i s

c au se a p o i n t o f c on f u s i o n so t ha t r e s pon d en ts o u t s i d e t h e C he s ap e a ke w i l l v a l u e l o c a l la k e s

th a t ar e ou t s i d e t h e w a t er s hed ? T h i s i s o n e o f m y l arg e r c on c e rn s.

Is 1 0 y ear s to o l o n g g i v e n t h e t i me tha t peo p l e t y p i c a l l y re s i d e i n th e h o m e s ? Ce n s u s

da ta (19 9 8 ) w a s 8 .2 y e a r s fo r o w ne r o cc up ied a n d 2 .1 y ear s f o r r e n t er

.

Q6

– Y o u a r e ba ck t o a ll “ l a k e s an d r i v er s ”

. T h i s i n c o n s i st en cy n eed s t o b e c l e a ne d u p

a s I fea r it w i ll b e c on f u sing r e s pond e n ts.

S ur v e y, 8 t h

pag e

– Y o u ha ve a b u l l e t t a l k i n g a bou t d i f f

e ren t DC g o a l s, bu t n o s i m il a r bu l l e t fo r

w a t e r c l a r i ty an d gra ss ha b i t a t. A r e t he y th e s a me t hroug h ou t t h e B a y? If y e s, I t h i n k y o u

s ho u l d t e ll r e s p onde n ts t h i s.

Q7

– Re fer s t o “ t he se e n vi ron m en t a l g o a l s” b u t n o s pe c i f i c go a l s men t i one d

. C ro s s i n g ou t “an y

o f t he s e ” w i l l m a ke que st i o n m or e c on s i st e n t w i th te x t.Y o u ha ve be e n t a l k

i n g abou t l a k e s an d r i v er s in t h e w a t er s hed

, bu t a r e s i l en t o n t he m here

. W h a t ar e th e u p st r ea m c on s equ e n c e s? I t h i n k the se l i n k age s s h ou l d b e de v e lo pe d here

.

S ur v e y, 9 t h

page

, 1 s t par a

. – Y o u m en t i o n “h e a l t h ” h e r e a n d ea r l i e r

, bu t d o n o t de f i n e it.

I t h ink i t w o u l d b e be t t e r t o s t i ck w i th th e t er m i no l o g y y o u h a ve b e e n u s i n g (qu a l i t y )

. Y o u

d o no t h a ve an y t hre s h o l d f o r he a l t

h y i n y ou r de s i g n

.

S ur v e y, 9 t h

page

, DO

– Re m o ve “ S o me p l an s be i n g c on s i d e re d w o u l d a c h i e v e 100 % i n

2025 .” Y o u ha ve s a id “ n o fur t he r a c ti o n ” a bo v e

. W h y ad d “ w i l l ” t o l a st c o l u m n ? W h y

n o t st a te “n o c hang e ” l i ke y o u d o f o r c l a r ity an d g r a ss e s?

I t h ink y o u n ee d t o s ta te t ha t c u rren t pro g ra m s c a n pre v en t f u r t he r de c l i ne s, bu t w i l l no t

i m pro ve qua l i ty an d t h i s i s w h y add i t i o n a l progra m s ar e ne e ded.

S ur v e y, 1 0 t h

pag e

– Y o u j u m p t o l a k e s, bu t d o no t t e ll r e s pond e n ts i f t h er e a r e g oa l s fo r l a k e s o r

i f t h i s i s j u st a n ad d i t i on a l bene f i t o f m ee ti n g th e C he s ap e a ke go a l s

. T h i s i s st a t e d o n pag e

11

, bu t I t h i n k y o u ne e d t o c h a ng e th e ord e r an d p l a ce t h e st a t e men ts here

.

I ha ve a l r ead y c o m men t e d o n t h i s ta b l e abo v e

.

Q8

– A g a i n

, w h y r e f e r t o l a k e s “ c l o s e st t o y ou r ho me ” w he n c ho i c e que s t io n s w i l l o n l y re f e r t o

th e C h e s apea k e w a t er s hed ?

S ur v e y, 1 1 t h

page

, 1 s t b u l l e t

– “ i n ” ins tea d “ o f t h e w a t er s hed”

.

S ur v e y, 1 1 t h

page

, 2 n d bu l l e t

– S t rea m s nea r p oo r l y m anage d nu t r i e n t s o u r c e s ( e

. g

., l a r g e

d a i r ies) c a n b e v e r y eu t rop h i c. S e e m s o d d t o t h ro w i n o n e s en t e n ce o n st r ea m s i n th e

m

i d d l e o f a s e c t i o n title “ La k e s ”

.

S ur v e y, 1 1 t h

page

, t e x t be l o w 3 rd bu l l e t

– F o r s o me r e s ponden ts t h e r e w i l l no t b e “ p ar t o f t h e

w a t er s he d i n y o u r s t a t e”

. A n d pa r agra p h be l o w

, w ha t ar e y o u g o i n g t o d o f o r “ < st a t e > ” i f t h e

w a t er s he d i s n o t i n a re s p o nd e n ts st a t e ?

S ur v e y, 1 1 t h

page

, t a b l e

– W h y no t st a te “ n o c hange ” l i ke y o u d i d f o r t h e ba y? A d d st a t e men t

aga i n t ha t c u rre n t pr o gra m s ar e s u f f i c i en t t o m a i n t a i n

...

S ur v e y, 1 2 t h

page

. 1 s t pa r a

. – Ch a ng e “bu t” t o “and ” i n th e l a st lin e

.

S ur v e y, 1 2 t h

page

. bo x

– I re c o m men d s a y i n g s o me t h i n g abou t i m pro v e m en ts i n

up st r ea m l a k e s a n d s tr e a m s an d no t j u st t h e nega t i ve s t a t e men t here

.

S ur v e y, 1 3 t h

pag e

– I t h i n k t ha t t h e gen e r a l c o st o f li v ing i s ap p ro p r ia t e a n d th e be st pa y m en t

v eh i c l e

. I j u st w orr y abou t a l l o w i n g i t t o c on t i n u e fore v er

. O n th e on e h and , t h e pe r pe t u i ty

m a y i ndu c e peo p le to v o t e no

, bu t o n t h e o t h e r ha n d ag g rega t ion m i gh t re s u l t i n a nunr e a l i s t i c a l l y la r g e t o t a l b e ne fit e s t i m a t e

. T her e i s n o a g ree men t o n t h i s i n t h e l it era t ure

, bu t

y o u c o u l d s a y t ha t w he n th e pro g ra m w i ll b e p a i d f o r i n 1 0 o r 2 0 y ear s

.

S ur v e y, 1 4 t h

pag e

– M a ke P rogra m s A an d B s epara t e

, an d t he n a d d a c o n clu d i n g

s en t en ce a f te r t h e b u l l e ts e x p l a i n i n g ho w the y d i f f er

.

S ur v e y, 1 5 t h

pag e

– Do y o u re a l l y ne e d t o re p ea t c u rren t c o n d i t i on s i n f i r st t w o c o lu m n s.

I s ugge st m a k i n g t h e f i r st c o lu m n t i tle “ A t t r i b u t e s” an d re m o v i n g c u r ren t c on d i t i on s, an d ad d

“ M a i n t a i n Cu r ren t C o n d i t i on s ” a f t e r N o F ur the r A c t i o n in t h e s e c on d c o l u m n

.

If y o u a r e g o i n g to u se ar r o w s, t he n u se th e e v er y w her e the r e i s a n i n c rea se an d a l w a ys s a y

“ n o c hang e ” w he n the r e i s n o c h a nge

.

It s ee m s a l i t tle od d to ha ve per c e n t age s f o r t h e B a y a t t r i b u t e s, b u t no t f o r l a k e s.

W h i l e y o u ha ve c on t i nu a l l y d i s c u ss e d s t r ea m s abo v e

, t h e y ar e dr o ppe d h ere

. I t h i n k s o me

peop l e w i l l a ss u me the y ar e i n l a k e s, o t her s w i l l no t, a n d o t h er s w i l l j u st b e c on f u s ed

.

Red Di re c t i on s a r e a c on c e r n

. I h a ve be e n t a ugh t to a v o i d r e d w hene v e r po s s ible i n s ur v e ys

be c a u se so m an y peo p l e a r e t r a i ne d t ha t re d in d i c a t e s a n e r ro r o f p r o h i b i t e d a ct i o n

. I s u gge st

c h an g i n g t h e c o l o r o f t h e se d i r e c t i on s a n d a rro w s.

S ur v ey

, 15 t h

page

, DO, 1 s t t w o c o lu m n s

– Ch ang e “ w i l l mee t” t o “ mee ts” so a c t i ve v o i ce l i ke

t h e o t h e r b u l l e ts b e l l o w

. A d d n o c ha n g e u nde r No F ur t he r a c ti o n l i ke t w o a t t r i bu t e d d i re c tl y

b e l o w

.

S ur v e y, 1 5 t h

page

, W a t e r C l a r i t y

, 4 t h

c o lu m n

– “n o c ha n ge ” no t 67 % i n c r ea s e

.

S ur v e y, 1 5 t h

page

, G ra ss e s, 4 t h

c o l u m n

– 50 % i n c rea se o v e r P r o gra m A

, bu t s ho u l d b e

88 % i n c r ea se o v e r c u rren t c on d i t i o n o f 8 0

, 00 0

.

No t e t he r e ar e pro b le m s l i ke t h e t w o no t e d a b o ve in th e t hre e c h o i ce q u e s t i on s.

S ur v e y, 1 5 t h

page

. La ke C o n d iti o n

– L a ke c o n d i t i o n r e a l l y c o n c ern s me be c au se i t i s a

c o m poun d a t tr ib u te a n d y o u c anno t b e s u r e w ha t p i e ce o f i n f or m a t i o n peo p l e ar e rea c t i n g t o

– c o l o r

, c l a r i ty o r f i s h

. N o r d o w e k no w w ha t t he y ar e a ss u m i n g abou t f i sh s t o cks an d

c a tc ha b i l i ty. I w onde r i f re s po n den ts w i ll i m p l i c i tl y t h i n k t ha t ba ss w i ll i n c r ea se b y 33 %

w i th P rog r a m A be c au se o f t h e w a y y o u ha ve l i n k e d c la r i ty a n d f i sh i n t h e ta b l e an d t e x t

pre c e d i ng

, o r 67 % i f y o u ad d per c en t to v i s i b i l i ty i n t h i s bo x

.

W h a t i f y o u a r e no t a r e s i d en t i n a st a te i n th e w a t er s hed

, st a t e

- s pe c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t

r e l e v a n t?

No m en t i o n o f f i sh u nde r c ur r en t c o n d itio n s.I w onde r i f lev e l s an d f ee t o f c l a r i ty, t w o nu m ber s, w i ll c on f u se re s p o nden ts an d w h i ch

nu m be r the y ar e re s p o n d i n g t o an d i f e v er y on e i s r e s po n d ing t h e s a me ?

I d o no t th i n k th e e s t i m a t e d i m p li c i t p r i ce f o r t h i s a t t r i bu te w i l l b e u s e f u l f o r e s t i m a t i n g

an ci l l a r y, up s t rea m bene f i ts fro m th e B a y.

S ur v e y, 1 5 t h

pag e

– T o i n c rea se c on s eq u en t i a

l i t y

, I s ugge st s a ying

– “ P l e a se a ss u me t ha t y o u a r e

a c tu a l l y v o t i n g o n the s e pr o gra m s r ig h t no w

. S t a te a n d fed e r a l de c i s i o n m a k er s w i ll u se t h e

o u tc o me o f t h e v o t e s b y y our s e l f a n d o t h e r s t o c hoo se t h e be st progra m t o i m pro ve w a t e r

qu a l i ty i n t h e Ch e s a pea ke B a y an d its w a t er s hed .” Or s o me t h i n g l i ke t h i s. T h i s c a n re p l a ce

t h e l a st s en t en ce i n t h e f i r st pa r agra p h

. I t h ink y o u ar e u sing t o i n de c i s i ve w or d i n g t o i m p l y

c on s equen t ial i t y

.

I w onde r i f a l l o f t h e r e f e ren c e s t o c o st her e w i l l en c o ura g e pe o p le to t h ink abo u t t h e c o st o f

t h e pro g ra m ( c o st c a l c u la tor s ) an d co m par e b i d t i me s hou s eh o l d s t o s e e i f i t i s r ea s on a b le, no t

t h i n k a b ou t t h e ir hou s eh o l d v a l ue s

.

In th e l a st para g rap h

, ad d a t t h e en d o f th e l a s t s en t en ce

– “ w he n an s w er ing ea c h o f t h e ne x t

t hre e s en t en c e s.

I a m no t a b i g f a n o f c h ea p t a l k, b u t I t h i n k y o u w i ll b e c r i t i c i z e d f o r no t i n c lu d i n g c hea p

t a

l k. S i n ce c h o i ce e x pe r i men ts gener a l l y g i ve l a rg e r v a l ue s t ha n c o n t i ngen t v a l u a ti on

, I th i n k

i t i s w or t h w h i l e t o ad d w ha t e v e r y o u c a n t o m a ke v a l ue s c on s er v a t i v e

.

Q 10

, Q 1 1 & Q 1 2

– T o r e p lace 1 s t

s en t en ce t o enhan ce c o n s equ e n t i a

l i ty

– “ P l ea s e v o te o n th e

t h

re e a l t ern a t i v e s b e l o w .”

I s ugge st c h an g i n g “p e r y ea r ” t o “e v er y y ea r ” f o r P rog r a m s A an d B t o r e i n f or ce t o

perpe t u i ty o f t h e pa y m en t. S a me w i th m on t h

.

Is t her e a r ea s o n w h y c o st i s no t a s epa r a te r o w fr o m th e re s pon s e s? T h i s f or m a t c ou l d

r e s u l t in t o o m u ch o r t o o l i t t le f o c u s o n P rogra m c o st an d I d o no t k n o w w ha t ou tc o me i s

m or e l i ke l y

.

It i s no t c l e a r w he t he r th e “ c o st o f l i ving i n y o u r hou s e ho l d ” i s t o y o u o r y o u r en t i r e

hou s eh o l d

.

S ur v e y, 1 8 t h

pag e

– I w onde r i f i t w ou ld b e b e t t e r t o re p l a ce t h e l a st bu l let w i th

– “ O n l y on e

pr o gra m w il l b e s e l e ct e d b y de c i s i o n m a k er s.” I ha ve n o t s ee n ad d i n g u p a s a pro b l e m i n

c h o i ce q ue s t i on s an d w orr y t h a t t h e ad d i n g

- u p s ta t e men t m a y c r ea te a ne w p rob l e m w i th

tho se w h o m a y no t ha ve t h ough t a b ou t t h i s be f o r e

.

Q 1 3

– Y o u s a y “ Ch e s a p ea ke B a y t i d a l w a t er s” her e

, bu t th e l ab e l i n th e c h o i c e que s t i on s w a s

Ch e s apea k e B a y an d t id a l w a t er s ”

. 1

, 4 an d 7 i n L i k e r t sc a l e ar e n o t a l i g n e d w i th l a b e l s

. T h ink t h e d i re c t i o n s ho u l d b e

– “ P l ea se ci r c l e o n e nu m be r ”

– so re s pon d en ts w i l l no t c i r cleon e o f t h e t hr e e c a t ego r i e s.

Q 1 4

– T h i s que s t i o n i s pr ob l e m a t i c be c au se it m a y ha ve v a r i e d f r o m que st i o n t o que s t i on

. F o r

e x a m p l e

, i f a n a t t r i bu t e ha d n o c hang e i n o n e q u e s t i o n i t m a y ha ve bee n no t i m por t an t, bu t

i m por t an t i n an o t he r q ue sti o n w her e th e r e w a s a n i n c r e a s e . I w ou l d no t k no w ho w t o

i n t erp re t t h e r e s pon s e t o t h i s q u e s t i on

. I s ugge st t w o ne w que s t i on s:

• P l ea se i n d i c a te i f y o u ne v e r c on s i d e re d e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w he n c hoo s i n g be t w ee n

prog r a m s.

• P l ea se i n d i c a te i f y o u a l w a ys c on s i d ere d ea ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w he n c hoo s i n g be t w ee n

prog r a m s.

T h e r e s pon se d i re c t i on s c o u l d b e

– “ C i r c le a ll t ha t ap p l y ”.

Q 1 5

– I s e e n o rea s o n f o r t h e p r e f i x “ A s i d e f r o m c o sts ”

. T h i s i s o n l y on e a t t r i bu t e

.

“ A n y l a k e s” o r j u st “La k e s i n t h e B a y w a t er s h e d” ?

I t h ink t h e r e s ho u ld b e a “ No n e o f t h e abo v e ” c a t egor y a f te r t h e w r i t e

- i n c a t egor y.

I a m a ss u m i n g th i s i s a n a t te m p t to i den t i fy n o nu se m o t i v a ti on s, b u t t h e c a t eg o r ies d o no t

s e e m t o fu ll y c ap t u r e e c o l og i c a l m o t i v a t i on s

.

Q 1 6

– W h y n o t j u st “ i f t h e e c o no m y w er e be t t er” ?

3 rd i t e m

– rep l a ce “ c on t r i bu t e ” w i th “ p a y ”

. D i d no t a sk f o r a c o n t r i bu t i o n an d po t en t i a

l l y

u n der m i ne s c on s e quen t i a l i ty.

4 t h i t e m

– M a ke s pe c i f i c tha t re f e rr i n g to B a y i m pro v e men t progra m s.

T o o w e i gh t e d t o rea s o n s t o v o t e fo r t h e st a t u s qu o an d nee d to b e b a l an c e d w i th

a f

f i r m a t i ve r ea s o n s fo r v o t i n g f o r a pro g ra m

.

Q 1 7

– Re m o ve th e “ s k i p ” s en t en c e be c au s e y o u ha ve a neu t r a

l c a t e g or y, a n d m a y w an t to ad d a

don ’t k n o w an s w e r c a t egor y.

O n l y on e “ no ” t ha t i s no t a p r o t e st, n ee d m or e ba l a n ce o f t h e an s w e r c a t e go r i e s her e t o

.

Q 1 8

– Re m o ve th e “ s k i p ” s en t en c e be c au s e y o u ha ve a neu t r a

l c a t e g or y, a n d m a y w an t to ad d a

don ’t k n o w an s w e r c a t egor y.

No n e o f c a t ego r i e s ar e i n v a l id y e s v o t e s, an d nee d m or e ba la n ce o f th e a n s w e r

c a t ego r i e s her e to

.

Q 1 9 o n

– M a ke t h e s a me a s c en s u s que s ti o n s w her e e v e r po s s i b l e

.

Q 2 4

– M i s s i n g te c h n i c a l s c ho o l /2

- y ea r deg r e e s be y on d h i g h sc ho o l

.Q 2 6

– W ha t abou t a n en v i ron m en t a l f i e l d r e la te d to t h e i m pro v e m en t s ?

### III . Response from Dr. John C. Whitehead Professor and Chairperson,

Department of Economics, Appalachian State University

R e view of “ S ta te d P re fe re n c e Est i m a tion of B e n e f its f r om t h e Chesap e a k e Bay TM D Ls”

1. E x tent to which the s u rv e y re sul t s a r e l i k e l y to provide w e l fa re e st i mat e s of improving w a ter

qu a l i t y in t he Ch e s a p ea k e B a y

. S p ec ifi c a l l y

,

a . the a bi l i t y of t h e surv e y to provide to t a l val u e s

The input surv e y will pr o vide total ec onom i c v a l u e s s i n c e both us e rs a nd n onus e rs a r e b e i n g

surv e y e d a nd a ll e ndpoi n ts a r e l i k e l y to be c onsid e r e d. I doubt i f the e ndpo i nt surv e y will ca pture

a ll use a nd nonuse v a l u e s s i n c e the e ndpoin t s des c rib e d in t he surv e y a re l i m i ted to two iconic

shellfish spe c ies. F o c us g r oup p a rticip a nts m e nt i o n e d g a me fish sp e c ies (e

. g ., r o c k f ish) a nd th i s

s ee ms l ike a n obvious om i ss i on that will ra ise qu e st i ons a nd/or l ea d r e spond e nts t o th i nk that

the r e will be no i m p ac ts. This i s esp ec ial l y tr u e si n c e g a me fish a re m e nt i on e d on p a g e 6 o f the

surv e y s and will be v a lu e d in t he input v e rsion s

.

M y e x p ec tation i s that the to t a l value f rom the in p ut surv e y will be gr e a t e r than the to t a l v a lue

f r om t he e ndpoint surv e y due to t h e se m i ss i ng ou t c omes of the su r v e y

. The re view do c u m e nt

stat e s that the e ndpoint v e rsions a re i n c luded f or methodolo g ic a l r ea sons a nd th e y wo n ’t

c ontribute to t he pol ic y a n a l y sis since e ndpoin t s c a n be model e d. M y s u gg e st i on is to drop the

e ndpoint v e rsion unless the r e is an e x pl i c it h y pot h e sis that ca n be test e d b e t w ee n inpu t s and

e ndpoin t s. I n c lud i ng bo t h just to see wh a t happ e n s do e s not se e m l ike a g o od e nou g h r e a son.

The d e l i n ea t i on of use a n d nonuse v a lues m a y be c ompromis e d sin c e on l y r e c r ea t i on e x p e ri e n c e

is m ea sur e d a nd not futu r e re c re a t i on. S ince w a ter qu a l i t y is e x p ec ted to i m p r ove ov e r t h e n e x t

13 y e a rs, r ec r ea t i on p a rt i c ipation i s also l i k e l y to i n c r e a s e . Qu e s t i on #2 sh o uld be f ol l ow e d b y a

stat e d pr e f e r e n c e r e c r e a t i on p a rticip a t i on qu e st i o n . This stat e d pr e fer e n c e q u e st i on c ould be us e d

to sep a r a te futu r e us e rs f r om future nonus e rs to e s t i m a te pu r e nonuse v a lues f rom the n o nuse r s.

The f uture u s e rs w i l l i n g n ess t o p a y will c ontain both use a nd nonuse v a lue.

b. a ppro p ri a te n e ss of the p r opos e d c hoi c e e x p e rime n t surv e y f or t h e e st i mation of m a r g inal

wil l in g n e ss t o p a y f or in d iv i du a l attribut e s

The c hoice e x p e rime n t w i l l e f f

e c t i v e l y e st i mate m a r g inal v a lues f o r t he in p uts, a l t hou g h I don ’ t

th i nk that will be use f ul for the poli c y p u rpos e s of the re sul t s. As d e s c ri b e d in t he re view

do c ument, the c hoi c e e x p e rime n t app r o ac h is cho s e n sin c e the w a ter q u a l i t y modeling is

un ce rt a in and v a rious c o mb i n a t i ons of the in p uts m a y b e used to dev e lo p e d dif fe r e nt me a sur e s o f

to t a l value f or pol i c y a n a l y si s . This is a le g i t i m a te r e a son.

W i t h the e ndpoin t s, I a m less ce rt a in t h a t mar g inal v a lues w i l l be v a l i d. M y g u e ss i s that

g a m e fish will be c onsid e r e d a lo n g with t he shel l f i sh spe c ies a nd the s e ma r g inal v a l u e s will be

e i t h e r ov e r v a lued or the t otal v a lue f rom the w i l l b e und e r e st i mat e d.

c

. a ppro p r i a ten e ss of a c h oice e x p e rime n t surv e y f o r mat f or the e l i c i t a t i on o f p re f e r e n ce s in t his

ca se ( i

. e

., c ompa r e d to a l te r n a t i v e s s u c h a s c ont i n g e nt v a luation).The re vi e w do c ument o v e rst a tes the li m i t a t i ons of c ont i n g e nt v a luation wi t h r e spe c t t o v a lu i n g

dif fe r e nt s ce n a rios sin c e mu l t i ple s ce n a rios ca n b e pr e s e nted to r e spond e nts a nd these c a n be

used to value dif f

e r e nt p r o g r a ms. Howe v e r, I a g ree that the c hoice e x p e rime n t app r o a c h is m o r e

fl e x ib l e in t his r e spe c t and like l y to c a ptu r e these dif fe r e nt m od e l i n g outc o mes.

Th e re a re no oth e r re v ea l e d or st a ted p r e fer e n c e a ppro a c h e s t h a t a r e a ppr o p r iate to the t a sk of

e st i mating use a nd nonu s e v a lues.

2. Ov e r a ll qu a l i t y a nd d e si g n of the p ropos e d sur v e y

.

The surv e y h a s t h e pote n t i a l t o be of e x ce pt i on a ll y hi g h qu a l i t y . Ho we v e r, i t n ee ds to be

c onsid e r a b l y t i g hten e d u p a ft e r s e v e r a l rounds of p r oof r e a din g

.

F or e x a mp l e ( V e rsion C ) :

On p a g e 5 ( “ w a t e r qu a l i t y in t he b a y ” ) the fi r st se nten c e mentions w a t e r q u a l i t y , wild l ife h a bi t a t

a nd r e c re a t i on a l opportunit i e s. Qu e st i on #3 a sks on l y a bout a w a r e n e ss of wild l ife h a bi t a ts. The

a w a r e n e ss question shou l d a sk a b out w a t e r qu a l i t y on l y or include w a t e r q u a l i t y a nd r e c r e a t i on a l

oppo r tun i t i e s along with wild l ife h a bi t a ts. L a n g u a g e should b e p a r a l l e l and re p ea t e d.

The surv e y mentions pol l ut i on r e du c t i on p r o g r a ms but i s va g ue on wh a t t h e se a r e

. I would

c h a n g e the h ea di n g on p a g e 6 to P ol l ut i on Redu c t i on P ro g r a ms. Also, the bo x e d info r mation

mentions w a ter qu a l i t y

, wild l ife h a bi t a t and r e c re a t i on oppo r tun i t i e s ( r e p e a t i ng p r e vious phr a s e s

whi c h I stro n g l y r e c om m e n d ) but the l a st he a di n g in t rodu c e s “e c o s y stem” f or the f i r st t i m e

.

P a g e 7 a nd thro u g hout: Is th e re a r ea son w h y t h e “ disag r e e ” a nd “ a g r e e ” a nsw e rs a r e not

includ e d, other than f o rm a t t in g ? I t s ee ms t h a t an s w e rs 2 a nd 4 should be e x pl i c i t l y d e fin e d.

P a g e 8 ( “ e nv i ronm e ntal qu a l i t y in t he b a y ” ) is c o n f usin g . T h e purp o se s ee ms t o be d e fining the

g o a ls of t h e pr o g r a ms but m ea sur e ments of t h e se go a ls a r e e mphasi z e d. On the n e x t pa g e , two of

the th re e inpu t s ha v e g o a ls m e nt i on e d subt l y while the g o a l for w a ter q u a l i t y is i g n o r e d. I t s e e ms

l i ke p a ge 8 would be a use f u l p l ac e to d e fine m e a s u re ment of the inputs a nd their g o a ls ( a nd

d e lete th i n g s that a re n e i t h e r). F or e x a mp l e :

Disso l v e d O x y g e n

K ee p the f i rst bul l e t po i nt (Se c ond bul l e t po i nt: w h y do dif f

e r e nt DO g o a ls f or

dif fe r e nt a re a s matt e r ? )

S ome pl a ns b e ing c onsi d e r e d would a c hieve 10 0 % of wa t e rs m ee t i n g DO g o a ls i n

2025

W a ter Cla r i t y

K ee p the f i rst two bul l e t po i nts (th i rd b u l l e t po i nt: w h y should a s u gg e st i on a bout

w a ter c l a ri t y pref e r e n ce s be includ e d h e r e ? )

D e s c ribe t h e w a t e r c l a rity go a lAqu a t i c G ra s s e s (d e l e te “ a mount of” a nd “ h a bi t a t ” )

K ee p the f i rst bul l e t po i nt

S c ientists r ec om m e nd e d g r a sses be r e stor e d to h i s toric lev e ls)

P a g e 8: T h e g o a ls s hould be a bout w a t e r qu a l i t y

, wild l ife h a bi t a t and r e c re a t i on oppo r tun i t i e s,

not “ e nvironme n tal qu a l it y a nd a q u a t i c l i f e

. ” A g a i n, n e w t e rms a re b e i n g i n trodu ce d a nd th i s

c onfus e s sur v e y re spon d e nts.

P a g e 9: R e p ea t t he g o a ls f r om p a g e 8 un d e r the s a me h ea di n g s. A do w n a r r ow should be

includ e d for DO a lo n g w i t h % dec re a se f o r c onsi s ten c y . Respond e nts ne e d a qu e st i o n a ft e r this

info r mation t o a l l ow th e m t o g a ther t h e ir tho u g hts.

P a g e 11: T h e table r e qui r e s so m e unn e c e ssa r y th o u g ht. P r e s e n t a t i on m a y b e ea si e r if lev e ls 2 and

3 a re p r e s e nted in r o ws a s on p a ge 10 with cu rr e nt a nd f u ture c ondi t ions i n a n a ddi t ional c o l umn.

R e spond e nts ne e d a q u e s t i on a ft e r this i n f o r mation t o a l l ow th e m t o g a th e r th e ir thou g hts.

P a g e 11: W h a t i s the g o a l for lak e s?

P a g e 12: T h e info r mati o n on th i s pa g e is v e r y c o n fusin g :

The h ea di n g is pol l ut i on r e du c t i on p r o g r a ms but prog ra ms a r e not d e s c rib e d.

Go a ls a r e m e nt i on e d in t he f irst sent e n c e but t h e s e h a ve not b e e n c l e a r l y s t a ted ( s e e

c om m e nt a bov e ).

Go a ls a r e m e nt i on e d for w a ter qu a l i t y a nd wild l i f e but t he inpu t s for whi c h g o a ls s hould

be made a re D O

, w a t e r c l a ri t y a nd a c r e s of b a y g rass.

The info r mation i n the b ox do e s not se e m t o h a ve a c le a r pu rpose.

P a g e 13: I und e rst a nd th a t i t m i g ht c a use p robl e ms if pollut i on r e du c t i on g o a ls a r e mentioned

since th i s in t rodu c e s alt r uism tow a rds those who b ea r th e s e c ost s , but i t se e ms ov e r l y v a g ue to

mention cost in c r e a s e s w i t hout des c ribing the “c h a ng e s r e qui r e d und e r pollution r e du c t i on

p r ogr a ms.” I wond e r if t h e industries th a t would be a f f

ec ted c ould be m e nt i on e d?

P a g e 13: “ ins i de a nd out s ide” se e ms t o flow b e t te r than “ outs i de a nd inside

. ”

P a g e 13: A q u e st i on is n ee d e d to allow re spon d e n t s to g a th e r th e ir tho u g hts. F or e x a mp l e , how

l i k e l y do y ou th i nk it is th a t po l lu t ion r e du c t i on p r o g r a ms would r e sult in h i g h e r c osts f or y o u r

hous e hold? ... v e r y l i k e l y

, som e w h a t l ike l y , som e wh a t not l i k e l y

, not l ikely a t a l l

.

P a g e 14: R e spon d e nts s hould either be “ c hoosing” a pr o g r a m or “ vot i n g f o r” i t

. I th i nk vot i ng

lan g u a g e would be b e st

- - a t t he bot t om of p a g e 1 5 r e spond e nts a r e a s k e d f or their vote a nd p a g e

16 a sks for a vote. I f this is pr e f e rr e d then the ins tr u c t i ons a t t he bot t om should s a y “ I f y ou w a nt

to vo t e f or P r o g r a m A (B), m a rk this bo x

.

P a g e 15: D O n ee ds a r r o ws (a nd % d ec r ea s e ) a s s ug g e sted a bov e

.P a g e 15: 4 0 % of the b a y a r e a s will me e t DO g o a ls ( strike “ wil l ” if this is t he c u r r e nt condit i on).

P a g e 16: W h y shouldn’t r e spond e nts t hink about other hous e holds’ we l f a

r e ? R ea l l ife votes

a l l ow c onsid e r a t i on of a l t ruism.

P a g e 21: t he 1

- 7 sc a l e n e e ds to be f o r matted so it i s cl ea r th a t t he num b e rs mat c h the t e x t (i.e

. , I

th i nk the numb e rs n ee d t o be ce nt e r e d in t he table so t h a t t h e y a re di r ec t l y und e rn e a th t he t e x t).

P a g e 22: F uture g e n e r a t i ons a re includ e d, so “ p r e s e rving t h e e nvironme n t for c u rr e nt

g e n e r a t i ons” should a lso be includ e d.

P a g e 23: W h y is not i t a l i c i z e d ? I s th i s ne c e ss a r y ?

P a g e 2 3

- 25: W h y is t he S D to S A on a 7 point sc a le h e re wh e r e it is on a 5 point sc a le e a rlier

(pa g e 7 ) ?

P a g e 26: W h y do e s it m a t t e r if the p a rtn e r is “ lo n g

- te r m”? Ma n y ma rr i a g e s a r e n ’ t l o n g te r m.

P a g e 27: T h e e du c a t i on c a t e g o r ies should be s e p a r a ted .... “ some c ol le ge cr e di t ” a nd “ c ol l e ge

d e g re e ” a re v e r y dif f

e r e n t l e v e ls and should be di f f

e r e nt a nsw e r s

, s a me f or “ some g ra d s c hool”

or “ g r a d u a te d e g ree

. ”

V e rsion A:

P a g e 9: D O n ee ds a “ no c h a n g e ” si m i l a r l y to w a ter c l a ri t y a nd a qu a t i c g r a sses.

V e rsion B :

P a g e 8: “e nvironme n tal go a ls for i m p r o ving t h e q u a l i t y of the Ch e s a p ea k e B a y ” is s l i g ht l y

dif fe r e nt f r om “ e nv i ronm e ntal g o a ls for w a ter q u a l i t y in t he Ch e s a p e a ke B a y

. ” W hi l e w a t e r

c la r i t y is u s e d in bo t h the inpu t s and e ndpoin t s ve r sion s , the bullet poin t s a r e dif fe r e nt. Th e y

should be identic a l.

P a g e 8: Q u e st i on #7 ra is e s qu e st i ons a bout t he spe c ies a f f

ec ted with t he last phr a se “ for a n y

...

spe c ies ? ”

P a g e 9

- 11: I t would be h e lpful to e x pl i c i t l y ment i on that c ondi t ions will re main c onst a nt wi t h

c u rr e nt pr o g ra ms.

I t s e e ms t h a t t he e ndpoi n t ve r s ions s hould i n c lude strip e d b a ss and r ec r ea t i o n a l fish and o y ste r s

a nd c r a bs c ould be bund l e d a s a “ s h e l l fish” e ndpo i nt.

3. Ad e qu a c y o f ba c k g ro u nd info r mation t o e n a ble the re spond e nts t o a ns w e r the c hoice

qu e st i ons. I s the in f o rm a t ion ne ce ssa r y

, suf f i c ient, a nd a c c u ra te?I n g e n e r a l t he b a c k g rou n d info r mation cov e rs the top i c w e l l

. The on l y g l a r i ng om i ss i on is full

c ov e rage of the g o a ls of t he pol ic y

.

4. Do e s the su r v e y p rovide a ppro p r i a te a nd su f fi c ient in t rodu c to r y a nd d e b ri e fi n g qu e st i ons to,

for e x a mp l e , identi f y p r o test r e sponses a nd s y mb o l i c re sponses, t e st r e t e nt i on a nd und e rst a ndi n g

of info r mation, elicit non

- use va lues, e t c .? A r e the r e a n y a ddi t ional in t rod u c to r y o r d e b r i e fi n g

qu e st i ons y ou f ee l m a y b e use f ul for t h e a n a l y si s ?

S e e sugg e st i ons a bove u nd e r #2.

I do n ’t c onsid e r id e nt i fi c a t i on of prot e sts a n i m port a nt con c e rn. R ea l

- l if e p rot e st vo t e s c a n ’ t b e

identifi e d a nd dis ca r d e d.

5. Do e s the su r v e y p l ac e suf f ici e nt and a p p rop r ia t e e mphasis on t he bu d g e t c onstr a int fac i n g

r e spond e nts, and on pot e nt i a l sub s t i tu t e uses of t h e ir budg e t?

Y e s, the su r v e y i n c ludes stand a rd l a n g u a ge a bout bud g e t c onstr a in t s and s u bst i tu t e s.

6. Conside r ing a ll f our v e rsions of the surv e y

, a r e the p r ogr a m op t ions und e r c onsid e r a t i on

a ppro p ri a te l y a nd suf f ic i e nt l y c h a ra c te r i z e d? F or e x a mp l e

, g iven the f o c us g roup sum ma r y

p r ovided, a r e the a ppro pr iate a t t ribut e s included in the c hoice e x p e rime n t ?

The pro b lem with t he e n dpoint v e rsion is that a la r ge number of a t t ribut e s should be includ e d.

Th a t t h e se a r e not i n c lu d e d so a s to k ee p the nu m b e r of a t t ribut e s e qu a l t o the input ve r sion i s not

a suf f ici e nt r ea son. This i s an a rtifi c ial c onst r a int i m posed b y e x p e rime n tal d e si g n. I h a ve s e rious

doubts a bout t he v a l i di t y of the e ndpoint v e rsion.

7. Re g a rdi n g the “ I npu t ” v e rsion of the su r v e y

, a r e the links b e tw ee n a t t rib u tes in the pro g r a m

opt i ons (su c h a s Dissolved O x y g e n) a nd a spe c ts of the B a y r e spond e nts ma y dir e c t l y c a re a bout

a ppro p ri a te l y d e s c rib e d? A r e the r e w a y s to i mpro v e the d e s c ription of those l i nk s ?

The d e s c riptions a r e a d e qu a te.

8. Do e s the su r v e y i n c o r por a te a p p rop r iate la n g u a g e to a melior a te s y mbo l ic re sponses a nd ' y e a

s a y i n g ' ?

S y mbo l ic r e sponses a re a pro b lem wh e n the g ood or se r vice is not a d e qu a t e l y d e s c rib e d. Th a t i s

not a p r oblem with t his s u r v e y . Y e a s a y i n g is t y p i ca l l y a pro b lem with i te r a t i ve bidd i ng

c ont i n g e nt v a luation. I w ould not be e spe c ial l y c o n ce rn e d a bout i t wi t h th i s surv e y

.

9. Do e s the su r v e y t a ke a ppro p ri a te st e ps to m i ni m i z e h y pot h e t i ca l and st r a t e g ic bi a s, includi n g

suf f ici e nt s t e ps to emph a si z e c onse q u e nt i a l i t y ?

The surv e y n e e ds to ask a c onse q u e nt i a l i t y qu e st i on such a s “h o w like l y d o y ou th i nk these

r e sul t s will be c onsid e r e d b y pol i c y ma k e rs ? ” v e r y l i k e l y

, e tc.Also, sensitiv i t y a n a l y sis c ould be c ondu c t e d ov e r h y potheti c a l b i a s b y a sk i ng r e spond e nts how

ce rt a in t h e y a re that th e y would vote f or the poli c y r e lative to the st a tus qu o

. F or e x a mp l e

, f or

those w ho voted f or P r o g ra m A or B a t l ea st o n ce

, “ W h e n y ou w e re vot i ng f or P rog ra m A or B

,

w e re y ou v e r y su r e , som e wh a t sur e

, o r n o t sure a t all t h a t y ou would a c tua l l y vote f o r the

p r ogr a m over t h e status qu o ? ” Those who a r e not ve r y sure c ould have vo t e s r ec o d e d to t he

status quo and the model r e

- e st i mat e d to prod u c e l ow e r v a lues ( a nd less l i k e l y to ha v e

h y potheti c a l b i a s).

10. I s the fo r mat of the c hoice qu e st i ons a ppro p r i a te a c c o r di n g to cu rr e nt s tand a rds in the stat e d

p re fer e n c e l i te ra tu r e (e

. g

. , a l l owing f o r a status q u o opt i on, e n c oura g i n g n e o c lassic a l t r a d e o f fs,

o r d e r a nd p r e s e n t a t i on of a t t ribut e s, et c .)

Y e s.

11. I s th e re e vi d e n c e o f f und a ment a l or c ritic a l fl a ws in the surv e y ? S u c h a s bi a s in t he surv e y or

p re s e nted in f o rm a t i on?

Th e re is no e vide n c e o f f la w s or bi a s in t he surv e y

.

12. A r e the p r opo s e d a t tr ibu t e lev e ls and use of a c onst a nt ve r sus d e c l i ning bas e l ine a ppro p ri a te

for e st i mating the b e n e fits of the TM D L ?

Y e s, the c onst a nt v e rsus d ec l i ning b a s e l i ne will p r ovide a sco p e test a nd a l l ow f le x ib i l i t y f or

und e rst a ndi n g the a c tual i m p ac ts und e r e x is t ing p r o g r a ms. The models sh o uld be e st i mat e d with

c onst a nt a nd b a s e l i ne v e r sions sep a r a te l y

.

13. I s the s a mp l ing plan a nd p r opos e d g e o g ra phic str a t i fi ca t i on a ppro p r i a te f or e st i mating the

to t a l b e n e fits of the TM D L , includi n g nonuse v a lues?

The sampling plan m a k e s g ood s e n s e a l t ho u g h I h a ve qu e st i ons a bout su r v e y mo d e

. I t se e ms l ike

the qu e st i onn a ire is des i gn e d for a m a il surv e y . T h is s ee ms odd g iven the v a st i mprov e ments in

in t e rn e t surv e y t e c hnolog y

. I would be v e r y c on c e r n e d a bout su r v e y r e spon s e ra te. A re mone t a r y

inc e nt i v e s bei n g g iven to re spond e nts?

### IV . Response from Dr. Robert J. Johnston Director, George Perkins Marsh

Institute and Professor, Department of Economics, Clark University

Peer Review

– Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Benefit esti m ation for the Chesapeake Bay T M DL is challenging. NCEE has m ade good

progress in a on a stated preference survey to esti m ate at lea s t a p o rtion of the s e benefits.

Nonetheless, so m e i m p r ove m ents are required if t h is survey is to provide valid and defensible

welfare esti m ates. Recognizing the controver s y surrounding the use of stated preference

m ethods for benefits esti m ation and the high p r ofile of the proposed Chesapeake Bay TMDL, it

is li k ely that this s u rvey and its results will un d e r go very ca ref ul scrutiny. The goal o f this peer

review is to help ensure that the survey and imple m entation m ethods are of sufficient validity,

quality and defensibility to withstand this scrutiny.

Stated p reference design requires a co m bination of creati v ity and scie n ce, and even experie n ced

practitioners so m et i m es disagree over the m ost effective design ele m ents. Hence, NCEE should

consider these com m en t s within the context of other input and review received on the survey.

The goal of these comments is to be help f ul r at h er t h an c ritical, and I h o pe th a t NCEE is a b le to

use this p eer review in its att e mpts to develop the best stated preference instru m ent possible.

General C o mments

Review of the stated prefere n ce surveys, supporting documentat i on and focus group / cognitive

interview results in the peer review package suggests that progress has been m ade towards a

workable stated preference instrument. Good e fforts have been made to link the stated

preference scenarios to m easura b le outco m es, and the surveys have been subject to focus group

testing. Many pages of the survey borrow design ele m ents from our prior choice experi m ent

questionnaire ( Rhode Island Rivers: Migratory F i shes and D ams ) that esti m ated willingness to

pay of Rhode Island residents for options to r e store fish passage (Johnston et al. 2011a,b; 2012a;

Schultz et al. 2012).

The proposed survey instru m ent and m ethods also face a nu m ber of challenges. The policy

change whose benefits are to be esti m ated, the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, prese n ts a challengi n g

context for welfare esti m ation. Among the aspects which complica t e welfare esti m ation are (1) a

very lar g e affected area, (2) m yriad co m plex bi o physical effects pote n tially lin k ed to utility and

willing n ess to pay ( W TP) in di ff erent ways, ( 3) het e rog e neous ecol o gical e ff ects across tidal

versus fresh waters, and (4) difficulty m odeling or predicting the ecological outco m es whi c h

influence utility.

W ithin this challenging conte x t, th e re v i ewed surveys re q uire so m e improve m en t s to ensure

valid wel f a r e m easurement. Most important l y, both econo m i c theory and e mpirical evi d ence

from focus groups reported in the peer review docu m ents indicate that the “Inputs and Dual”

version of the survey will not generate valid welfare m easures. If NCEE i nsists on using such an

approach (see detailed discuss i on below), it is incu m bent upon the Agency to provide a clear

structural utility fra m ework that demonstrates how it is p o ssible f or t h is approach to generate

valid welfare esti m ates in the absence of detailed and quanti t ative infor m ation on biophysical

production functions. In addition to this fundamental issue, there are other issues that should beaddressed before survey i mple m entation. For exa m ple, many key policy attributes re m a i n

a m biguous, as suggested both by an objective review of the survey instru m ent and by commentsof focus g r oup and cogniti v e interview respo n dents. Moreover, deci s i ons regarding which

attributes to include and exclude from the survey do not appear to be grounded in an appropriate

stru c t ur a l model th a t cl a ri f ies linka g es between ecological outco m es and utility.

Considering these and other ele m e nts desc r i b e d below, I belie v e that the curre n t endpoint

versions of the survey could be i mp r oved so as to allow valid wel f are esti m ation f or m any of the

pri m ary TMDL i m pacts. The surveys in the peer review package are good start. However, the

required changes to the s e surveys are not trivial. Greater s p ecificity sh o uld also be given to the

theoretical and conceptual m odels underlying the various survey versions.

Additional details, along with specific responses to the peer review questions, are provided

below.

Peer Review Responses

1. Extent to which the s urvey res u lts are likely to provide welfare e s timates o f imp r oving water

quality in t h e Chesapeake Bay. Speci f

i cally,

1a. the ability of the survey to pr o vide tot a l val u es

As noted a b ove, the r e a re m ultiple ways that t h e Chesape a ke TMDL m i ght in f l uence bene f its

realized by different user a nd nonuser groups throughout affected watersheds and beyond. So m e

of these may be realized through observable changes in consu m p t ive uses (e.g., fishing,

crabbing), others m ay be realized though changes in recreation or other behaviors, and still

others m ay be related to nonuse or other m otivations. Many, but not all of these will be captured

by the stated preference s urvey and sampl i ng frames as curre n tly str u ct u re d

.

The current survey instru m ents seek to esti m a t es the W T P of households for a s m all set of

ecological outco m es. M any likely w elfare

- relevant outco m es such as eff e cts on striped bass and

recreational fish were “dropped to keep the nu m ber of attributes on both versions the sa m e and to

reduce cog n iti v e bur d e n .” Effects o n bird popul a tions were dropped because on an inability to

model changes, even though “focus groups indicated that bird populations were i mportant.” In

so m e cases, the stated rationale for dropping varia b les has unclear justifi c ation. Variables seem

to have been dropped more for convenience than due to any fo r m al scientific rationale. For

exa m ple, NCEE provides no s t ated theoretical or e mpirical reason why it is nece ss ary to “keep

the nu m ber of attributes on both versions the s a m e,” although one might speculate that it is

related to a desire to m i ni m i ze the effort of experi m ental des i gn. There are nu m erous e mpirical

analyses and co m pariso n s of stated pre f erence re sults wit h in the publis he d lit e rat u re in which the

nu m ber of attrib u t es d i ffers across c o ntra s t ed survey versio ns

.

Regardless of whether these design choices are justi f ied, the re s ult is t h at wel f are gains

associated with such changes cannot be esti m ated by the survey. Past choice m odels

de m onstrate that changes to fish and birds in such situations are relevant to individuals’ use and

nonuse W T P, in addition to wel f are effects associated with other biophysical changes to

m easures such as water quality (e.g., Bate m an et al. 2006; H a nley et al. 2006a,b; Johnston et al.

2002, 2005; Johnston et al. 2011a,b; 2012a,b; Milon and Scrogin 2006; P a ttinson et al. 2011;a m ong many others). If changes to these speci e s are non

- zero, any resulting welfare gain will be

overlooked by the survey as currently designed. A choice modeling survey cannot provide valid

WTP esti m at es for attributes that are not includ e d in survey scenarios. By dropping potentially

i m portant attrib u t es s u ch as those q u antifying effects on b i rd species

— a likely source of benefits

from the TMDL

— the analysis will likely overlook a portion of benefits.

In addition, as currently structu r ed it is unclear how and whether the survey could provide valid

benefit esti m ates associated with changes in commercial harvests of crabs, oysters, etc. A

separate m o del using com m ercial fisheries data would be required to esti m ate these benefits.

Finally, due to the geographic sa mp ling scale, any benefits realized by C hesapeake Bay vi s itors

or those holding nonuse values f o r TMDL outco m es, yet residing outside of east c oast states,

will not b e e sti m ated by the survey. See additio n al com m ents on sa mpling below.

For these and other reasons detailed below, it is unlikely that the re vi ewed stated preference

surveys will provide comprehensive esti m ates of total v alu e s f rom the TMDL. It is possible t h at

the endpoint versions of the surveys, if revis e d appropriately, m i ght provide valid esti m ates of

total (average) household WTP for the particular set of ecological attributes included in the

survey, and the particular set of households sa mp led. Moreover, so m e welfare effects that would

currently be overlooked by the survey could be incorporated thr o ugh a so m ewhat m o r e

co mprehensive set of ch o i ce s c ena r i o s, inclu d ing s o m e key attributes th a t are c u rre n tly o m itted.

1b. appropriateness of the proposed choice experiment survey for the est i mation of marginal

willingness to pay for individual a tt r ibutes

The choice experi m ent surveys and proposed appr o aches included in the p e er review package are

a good foundation, but require revisions in order to ensure valid m arginal W TP esti m ates for

individual attributes. As these m e t hods are currently pre s ented

, the r esulting m a rgin a l W TP

esti m ates a r e unlikely to be valid. This is pa r ti c ularly true for the “Inputs and Dual” versions of

the survey. Three concerns are paramount. First, the r e is a potential co n cern with bench m arking

all attributes with regard to policy goals of unknown origin and reliability. Second, a nu m ber of

the survey attributes appear a m biguous, both objectively and from the perspective of pretest

respondents. Responses of focus groups and c o gniti v e i n terviews

— even those at t h e end of the

design process

— suggest continued difficulties with attribute interpretations, and confusion

a m ong a non

- trivial proportion of respondents. Third and most i m portantly, it is unclear how

respondents can provide welfare

- r e vealing responses to the “Inpu t s and Dual” versions of the

survey without unsupported speculations regarding final outco m es (or endpoints) that influence

utility. Each of these co n cerns is detailed below.

Using Policy Goals as a Reference Condition: The survey atte mpts to bench m ark attribute

changes to a m easurable reference condition, t h ereby giving respondents additional capacity to

co mprehend scope; this is a positi v e aspect of the design (Johnston et al. 2012a). H owever, the

use of rather a m biguou s ly characterized “policy goals” as an objective bench m ark for attributes

appears p r o ble m atic. W ithin such a survey, one could possibly alter esti m ated W TP solely

si mply by c hanging the stated goal of restoration. Given that policy goals are endogenous to the

policy process, heterogeneous across policy maker s , subj e ct to politi c al p r essu r e, etc., it is

unclear how they represent a clear and una m biguous bench m ark for scope in a stated preferencesurvey. Although focus group participants often “ l ike” being told what scientists recom m end

(and there is nothing wrong with doing so in general), this does not imply that doing so a l one

provides a sufficient objective basis for understanding policy scop e

. How does the

recom m endation of 185,000 acres of aquatic grasses co mp are to historical level s ? Is this a lot or

a little? Moreover, unless there is universal scientific consensus on these goals, NCEE risks

having ulti m ate welfa r e esti m ates challenged as a m ere artifact of the particular set of goals

stated in the survey. Whose policy goals are these? Much preferable would be a bench m ark

based on so m ething m o re objective a nd grounded; for example historical levels of an attribute or

ecological reference conditions as discussed in Johnston et al. (2012a) and S c hultz et al. (2012).

Although even ecological refere nc e conditio n s can be subject to so m e disagreement, they are

much m ore objective a n d stable than policy g o als, which can often change dra m atically due to

factors that have nothing to do with objective ecology.

More funda m entally, how does bench m arking an ecological i m prov e m e nt to so m eone’s policy

goal help respondents predict i m pacts on their future w e lfare? A clearly stated ecolo g i c a l

refere n ce c o ndition provides respondents with a m eans to compare policy changes to a “pristine”

or “best p o ssible” ecological sy s t em, as m ea s ured by the condition of co m parable nearby

syste m s with less o r no hu m an influence. Often, responde nt s will ha v e d i rectly ex p erienced s u ch

reference syste m s, providing them with a better capacity to understand t h e scope of ecological

changes described in the survey. This is t h e case in Johnston et al. (2011a,b; 2012a). These

advantages do not apply to a policy goal. It is unclear how a policy goal provides respondents

with any a dditio n al c a pacity to p redi c t poli c y e ff ects on their own welfare

. If anything,

co mparing effects to a policy goal m i ght encourage sy m bolic responses, in which the “policy

goal” is used by respondents to deter m ine whether we are “doing enough to protect the

environ m ent,” regardless of concrete effects on t h eir individual welfare.

Potenti a l Attribute Ambiguit y : A number of the attributes in the prese n ted surveys c o m e across

as a m biguous. For example, what is a “DO Goal” and what does it m ean? T h is relates both to

the m eaning of the attribute and to the inpu t /endpoint problem detail e d below. How do “DO

Goals” relate to actual or hist o rical ec o log i c al con d itio n ? Even as a r el a tiv el y in f or m ed

researcher, I a m not sure how an attribute such as % of the Bay m eeting DO goals would affect

my personal welfare. I wonder how a l a yperson can m ake this assess m ent.

Moreover and m ore concretely, when describing effects on Blue Crabs and Oysters, the sur ve y

never defi n es the nu m bers used ; we are not told whether the nu m bers presented in survey

scenarios are average populations, annual harvests or so m ething else. For exa mple, we are told

that there is a “goal” o f 415 m illi o n crabs and 35,000 to n s of oyster s

. Nowhere is it s t ated

whether this is a harvest goal, a population goal, or perhaps so m ething else. Is 415 m illion crabs

the goal f or annual crab harvest

, or for a steady state crab populatio n ? The sa m e a m biguity

applies to all related c h anges in choice scenarios

– are these changes in populations or harvests?

Nu m bers such as these are m ost often used to denote harvest (e.g., 35,000 tons), but discussion

early in the peer review docu m entation suggests that they may be population forecasts instead.

Either way, the m eaning of this attribute depen d s on such info r m ation, which is not provided in

the survey. These det a ils req u i r e clarification; as curre n t ly d e signed the definition of these

attributes is a m biguous. The fact that respond e nts appeared to have overlooked this a m biguity

during focus groups and interviews m akes we wonder whether the s u rvey is being read closelyduring pretests, and whether respondents are ser i ously considering the interpretation of choice

attributes.

For water clarity, NCEE m i ght consider a si mple illustration to ch a racterize what is m eant by a

certain nu m ber of feet of avera g e visibility. There are a variety of ways to acco m plish this,

ranging fr o m a s i mple illustr a tion o f a secchi disk at different depths to a m ore complex diagr a m

such as that in Bat e m an et al. (2011). Pretests we conducted for other surveys (Johnston et al.

2012b) su g gested that visual cues were often necessary for indi v i duals to tr u l y co mprehend

clarity m easures and avoid sy m bolic responses.

Problems with Ecological Inputs as Attributes in a Choice Experiment: The p robl e m s with the

use of int er m ediate in p uts as attri b utes in s t ated preference surveys u sed to v al u e ecosy s t em

outco m es, in the absence of final outco m es, are well

- established (e.g., Boyd and Krupnick 2009;

Johnston et al. 2011a,b; 2012a,b,c; J ohnston and Russell 2011; Kontogianni et al. 2010; Li m burg

and Folke 1999; US EPA 2009). A pri m ary concern is that lack of underst a nding of the role of

int e r m ediate ser v ices will l e ad individuals to s t ate a W TP for these s ervices that does n o t

appropriately reflect the role these se rvices play in providing fin a l ecosy st em services.

The exclusion of final services ( o r endpoints) and inclusion of inter m ediate processes (or inputs)

within s t ated prefere n ce survey scenarios m ay bias welfare e s ti m ates for at lea s t two rea s ons

(Johnston et al. 2011a,b; 2012a,b,c). First, respondents asked to value changes in inputs m ay not

be aware of resulting impacts on welfare

- relevant endpoints, lea d ing to W T P esti m ates that do

not fully reflect welfare contrib u tions of the inter m ediate proc e sses. Second, even if respondents

recognize a relationship between the input and endpoint, they m ay have an incorrect

understandin g of the biophysical relationships that link the two. Survey responses and resulting

welfare esti m ates will be based at least in p a rt on these incorrect understandings. As noted by

Carson (1998, p. 23), stated preference “[r]espondents will tend to fill in whatever details are

m i ssing in the

... survey with default assu m ptions. These may differ considerably from what the

researcher perce i ves.” Th i s is par t icu l ar l y true f or ecological resources and processes for which

respondents have little baseline infor m ation and for which the problem of defining endpoints is

critical (Bate m an et al. 2011; Kontogianni et al. 2010).

Si m ply put, to answer stated p reference sur v ey qu e stions when in f or m ation on a f i n al s e rvi c e is

o m itted, re s pondents must speculate about the effects of r e lated i n ter m ediate outc o m es on their

welfare. Without specific and quantitati v e infor m ation on biophysical production functions,

respondents will b e unable to correctly p redict e ffects on welfare

- relevant final ser v ices (Boyd

and Krupnick 2009; Kontogianni et al. 2010). Awareness of this problem is not li m ited to

econo m ists; ecologi s t s and others have also ex p licitly n o ted the lack of validity of stated

preference welfare esti m a tes associated solely with inter m ediate inputs, when respondents lack

the capacity to link these to final welfar e

- relevant endpoints (e.g., Li m bu r g and Folke 1999).

The following si mple theoretical illustration, quoted from Johnston et al. (2012c), illustrates the

proble m :

“Suppose household has a utility fun c tion of the form

, , where

and , and and arem easurable ecological processes or conditions. Both and are direct

argu m ents in U h (· ) ; they do not require furth e r ecological production or

transfor m ation in order to influence hu m an benefits, and are hence cla s sified as

final ecosy st em services. In contrast, Z is an inter m ediate s e rvice. It r e quires a

further influence on Y through ecological production function Y(

· ) to in f l uence

U

h (

· )

. This si mple f ramework also illustrates that an ecolo gi cal o u tco m e X can in

principle affect u tility direc t ly (and hence be a final serv i ce) as well as indirectly

through its contribution to the production of another final service Y

.

The m arginal utility of a change in X is calculated as

reflecting both the direct and indirect e f fect of the

change. From a theoretical perspective, W TP esti m ated using stated p reference

m ethods provides a m oney m etric of this change. However, a survey respondent

without ecological expertise m i ght not be aware of the true relationship Y(X, Z)

through which changes in X influence Y

. If a stated prefere n ce sce n ario were to

o m it in f ormation on Y (a final ecosystem service) yet include infor m a tion on X

(the related inter m ediate service), respondents m i ght condition res p onses on

erroneous speculations regarding t h e true ecological production function Y(X, Z )

. That is, they m i ght speculate an i n corr e ct r e l a tionship between X and Y

. Surv e y

responses and resulting welfare esti m ates would reflect this incorrect

assu mption.”

This see m s to be exactly what is done in the “Inputs and Dual” versions of the survey that

describe policy outco m e s in ter m s of Dissolved Oxygen goals. It see m s quite unlikely that

dissolved oxygen itself is a direct argu m ent in utility for most r e spondents

– it is pri m arily an

input or inter m ediate outco m e contributing to other valued final outco m es. This notion is

expressed clearly by focus g r oup and interview respondents. Yet the survey provides no

quantitative biophysical infor m ation that would e n able respondents to translate diss o lved oxygen

into utility

- relevant endpoints (things they care about).

Confusion with the input version of the survey is evident in focus group and cognitive interview

results. Even as late as the f i nal cognitive inter v iew sessions, m ultiple subjects expressed

difficulties with the di s solved oxy g en attribute, in addition to one subject that “found the choice

questions diff i cult and con f using and ulti m ate l y did not m ake decisions based on att r ibute

level s.” The final focus group session si m ilarly indicated that “it was not clear to them how

inputs related to potential endpoi n t s they care about.” This is the type of reaction predicted by

econo m ic theory sum m a rized above, and m akes it unlikely that the “Inputs and Dual” versions of

the survey w ill p rovide v alid e sti m at e s of W T P.

Given these fund a m ental theoret i cal and e m pirical proble m s, NCEE ’ s plans to “rely pri m arily on

the input version for the benefit analysis” (p. 1

- 6 ) appear fu n da m entally flawed. This will lead t o

welfare esti m ates with unknown and potentially severe biases. The pri m ary m otivation for this

choice appears to b e t h e difficulty g enerating f o recasts of blue crab and oyster pop u lations. Th i s

difficulty is insufficient justification for a fla w ed choice m odeling approach that uses inputs

within a stated prefere n ce sce n ario, with an almost total lack of biophy s ic a l in fo r m ation f rom

which respondents m i ght predict welfare

- relevant outputs.There are ways around this problem using a more appropriate endpoint version of the survey.

Choice m o deling ena b les NCEE to specify a r a nge of reasonable outco m es for relevant

endpoints, and calculate benefits contingent upon different possible outco m es. If ecological

forecasts of sufficient certainty are not available for these endpoin t s, then a benefit sensitivi t y

analysis can be conducted, m uch as NCEE has planned for the constant vs. declining baseline

versions of the survey. This would be m uch p r eferable to the use of the “Input” version of the

survey which has been proposed, which will lead to welfare esti m ates of unclear validity and

de f ensibilit y

.

1c. appropriateness o f a choice ex p eriment survey f o rmat for the elicitation of preferences in

this case (i.e., compared to alterna t ives such as contingent valuation).

The choice experi m ent fo r m at is ge nerally ap pr opri a te f or e li c it a tion of pre f erenc e s in t h is case,

and is particularly appropriate here given uncert a inty reg a rding the f i nal ecological o utco m es o f

the TMDL. The choice experi m e nt for m at is expli c itly designed s u ch that the m odel can

incorporate a wide

- ran g e of potential outco m es, enabling WTP est i mates for a wide range of

possible outco m es of the TMDL. Unlike older f o r m s of stated preference a n al y sis in which

WTP is contingent upon a single specification of ecological effects (e.g., co n tingent valuation),

choice experi m ents solicit responses under a large nu m ber of possible attr i bute configurations.

This is well suited to a case such as t h is one, in which t h e f i nal ec o logical outco m es m ay be

di ff i cult to p redi c t ex a n te.

As an aside, one possible advanta g e of contingent valuation in this context is that it would avoid

the need to disaggre g ate policy o u tco m es into a s m all set of individual attributes. From the peer

review docu m ents, it appears that this has been a challenge. Contingent valuation, w hile lacking

the fle x ibility of conti n gent v a luation, would help m itigate this pro b le m

. Nonetheless, even

conside r ing this, I b e lie v e that t h e a d vantages of choice experi m ents outweigh the disadvantages

in this case.

2. Overall q uality o f the survey.

As i mplied by the comments above, the currently presented draft sur v eys provide a solid

foundation upon which to build. There has clearly b een a lot of work put into the design of these

surveys th u s far. However, based on a review of the draft s u rveys and the m ost recent rounds of

focus groups and interviews, it does not ap p ear that all d e sign shortco m ings have be e n

addressed. When addressing overall survey q u ality, the following section does not repeat the

issues raised in sections above. R ather, it focuses on concerns that have not yet been raised.

These issues are nu m bered below.

1. W ithin the final s et of cogniti v e interviews, one out of four respondents (25% of te st e d

subje c ts) w a s unable to m ake choices based on presented att r ibute levels. An additi o nal

two subjects (50% of the subjects) did not understand at least one of t h e choice attributes.

All subjects appeared to suggest substanti v e changes to the survey. W ithin the final

focus group, “respondents found water quality scores difficult to co m prehend and

evaluate,” and si m ilarly suggested a nu m ber of changes to the survey. All of the later

groups and inter v iews seem to have reques t ed a d ditio n al infor m ation on the policies andoutco m es to be evaluated. These results suggest that the surveys, while displaying m any

positi v e as p ects, ha v e n ot yet reach e d the poi n t where they a re r e ady to b e i m ple m ented.

2. Other pote n tial concer n s are revealed by a re vi ew of the peer re v i ew m aterials. In

general, the survey appears to be quite long at approxi m ately 28 pages (including the

cover). Many focus group and interview respo n dents comment on the excessive length of

the survey. In contra s t

, the choice e x peri m ent survey used by EPA/OW t o esti m ate W T P

for 316(b) policy i m pacts was approxi m ately 20 pages in length (again including the

cover). The s urveys reported in (Johnston et al. 2011a,b; 2012a,b) are si m ilarly no longer

than 20 pages. A survey developed by Paul Jakus to evaluate policies that would

si m ilarly re d uce nutrie n t loading in U t ah’s lak e s and rivers is only 8 pag e s. This re f l e cts

survey len g ths common in choice experi me nts; lengths between 12 and 20 pages are

common. I worry about response rates and respondent attention to such a long survey.

W hat is the length of ti m e requir e d to co m plete this inst r u m ent (pre s u m ably this was

observed during focus groups)? Is there e v idence that respondents outside of focus

groups are willing to c o mplete a 28 page surve y ? A s m all p ilot survey m i ght be justified

to address such questions before fielding a large scale final s urvey.

3. The survey also inclu d es long passages of text, often uninterrupted by graphics or other

more visually appealing ele m ents. Is there evidence that respondents are reading and

fully co mprehending this text? For exa m ple, the fact that respondents see m ingly m i ssed

the a m biguity regarding the definition of the b l ue crabs and oysters attribute (i.e., are they

harvest or population measures?) makes we wonder the extent to which they are carefully

considering all survey q uestions and understand i ng the definitions of all attributes. There

are also errors in choice sce n arios that were not noticed by respondents (see discussion in

subsection 6 below), that further suggest a lack of attention and co m prehension.

4. Although I assu m e that this will b e addressed before fielding the s u rvey, the s u rvey

graphics and design currently co m e across as bit unpolished. Graphical proble m s include

inconsi s te n t spacing between Likert Scale cate g ories (nu m bers) in m any questions that

beco m es evident when surveys are printed. There are also grap h i cal and t e xtual

inconsistencies across questions. For exa m ple, the for m atting of question 16 (page 23 in

most surve y s) includes a table of a ll one c o lo r

, with text cent e r justi f ied in t h e f i rst

colu m n. Questions 17 and 18 on the following pages are two differe n t c o l ors, w i t h t he

text le f t justi f ied in the f i rst colu m n. W hile each of these i s sues alone is m i nor, to g ether

they influence the overall polish of the survey.

The graphical ch o i ces of the sur v ey are also see m ingly inconsi s te n t with the s urvey

content and could lead to speculation and c onfusion. For example, the cover photo shows

an osprey nest. Yet as noted above the survey does not dis c uss or seek to value changes

to bird populations that would occur as a result of the TMDL. Why does the survey

cover ill u st r ate a l a rge p hoto of a re s ource that is not add r es s ed by the s u rvey (e ff ects on

birds have b een o m itted as described above)? T h is m i ght invite sy m bolic responses.

5. The experi m ental design described on page 1

- 6, while acceptable, m i ght not be the m o s t

e ff i cient f or the i n tend e d appli c ati o n. W hile not cl e arly s peci f i ed in the pe e r re v i ewdocu m ent, the design appears to be an orthogonal, fractional factorial m ain effects plan

designed for a linear m o del covariance m atrix. If this is an accurate interpretation, such a

design does not take advantage of recent m ethods that allow the crea t ion of designs that

are tailored to the covariance m atrix of a choice m odel, e.g., through a m i n i m i zation of

D

- error (e.g., Kuhfeld 2010; Rose and B liemer 2009, 2012), and are therefore more

efficient for choice ex p eri m ents. These des ig ns show that greater efficiency can be

obtained in choice m odel designs through the sac r ifice of strict or t hogonality. Also, for

relatively s m all designs such as this one, orthogonal blocking (of questions a m ong survey

versions) can often provide superior resul t s to a si mple “rando m ” blocking, which does

not necessarily m axi m i ze orthogo n ality bet w een attrib u t e levels and blocking. The

experi m ental design is fine, but could be i m proved.

A si m ilar issue was confronted in E P A/O W ’s 316(b) stated preference survey. A parallel

m ain e ffects design was applied for a variety of practical reasons (e.g., the ti m e allowed

to finalize the design, desire for a co mpact design, etc.). This allowed for relatively

efficient and unbiased esti m ation of m ain e ffe c t s. Yet in retrospect it m i ght have been

help f ul to h ave an exp e ri m ental de s i gn th a t a ll o wed f or the esti m ation o f inter a ctio n s

— particularly given that NCEE has requested various tests that can only be i m pl e m ented

through the use of experi m ental designs that allow for the esti m ation of interactions (see

related discussion in sub

- point 7 bel o w). NCEE could avoid such problems by

i mpl e m enting so m e what more co m p l ex designs from the start.

6. There appear to be errors in the choice questions. For ex a mple, on page 19 in the “Inputs

and Dual,” Constant Baseli n e version, Program B states that 80,000 acres of Aquatic

Grasses would result, and describes this as a 50% increase. Yet 80,000 acres is also the

status quo. So there is no increase. That is, if 80,000 acres is the status quo, then 80,000

acres cannot also represent a 50% increase from the status quo. This sa m e error carries

through to all of the “Inputs and Dual” versions of the survey. A s i m ilar error appears in

the water clarity attribute: 5 feet of visibility in Program B is described as “No Change”

from the status quo of 3 feet of visibility. Although these errors can be easily corrected,

the fact that focus group and interview participants did not notice them suggests that

respondents may not be carefully considering a t tribute levels in choice scenarios. T here

appears to be no evidence that focus group or interview respondents noticed these

seemingly important errors. What does t h is say about respondents’ comprehension of

attrib u t e le v els in the c h oice que s ti o ns?

7. Two recent stated preference s u rve y s have been develo p ed by US EPA for analysis of

bene f its r el a ted to p o licy changes a ff ecting aquatic ecosyste m s: (1) the survey developed

by EPA/OW for 316(b) regulatory analysis, and (2) the present survey developed by

NCEE for t he Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Over t h e past year NCEE has requested a large

nu m ber of validity tests and design procedures for the EPA/OW 316(b) survey. Although

I assu m e that NCEE plans to accom m oda t e si m ilar procedures for the p resent

Chesapeake Bay study, few of the required d e sign ele m ents app e ar to have been

incorporated thus far in the Chesapeake Bay study design. T o be consistent, the present

study sho u ld accom m odate the sa m e specificat i ons, procedures and vali d ity tests that

have been suggested for the EPA/OW 316(b) analysis. T h ese inclu d es accommodationfor a variety of tests of external scope, question ordering, adding

- up, and response

heuristics (for the m ost recent exa mple, see t h e me m orandum “2012 06 28 G a m e plan for

validity tests” sent to EPA/OW by NCEE). To be clear, I am not suggesting that all of

these tests are necessary or even ap p ropri a te, b u t only that N CEE should apply the same

tests and standards to b o th survey efforts.

3. Adequacy of background information to enable the respondents to answer the choice

questions. I s the info rm ation nece s s ary, sufficient, and accurate?

The background infor m ation provided by the survey provides a good perspective on TMDL

effects. I am concerned, however, by a see m i ng lack of consistency between the background

infor m ation provided by the survey and the later valuation tasks (choice questions) presented to

respondents.

For exa mple, m uch of the i n tro d uctory text in the s u r v ey e mphasizes effects on “wildlife

habitats” and “recreation opportun i ties” (for exa mple, see que s tion 3 and the box above it; also

see t h e top of page 6). This see m s to i mply t ha t the val u ation questions will addre s s e ff ects on

wildlife and recreation. Yet, the input version of the survey includes no attributes that convey

effects on wildlife or recreation. The endpoint choice questions, while communicating effects on

two aquatic wildlife species (oy s ters and blue crabs), include no m ention of recreation. There

see m s to be a bit of a disconnect b etween langu a ge earlier in the sur v ey and the co mposition of

choice questions later on. W hy e mphasize so m et h ing such as recreation, when it is not

addressed in the valuation scenarios (except perhaps indi r ectly through water clarity i m pacts).

Such inconsistencies are common throughout the survey. For exa m ple, page 6 characterizes a

large nu m ber of relatively i m precise effects s u ch as “ m ore enjoyable boating and swimming”, a

“clea n er and healt h ier a q uatic envir o n m ent”, etc. These i mpacts are not a ddressed w ithin choice

questions. When answering ch o i ce questions, does NCEE expect r e spo n dents to co n sider effec t s

such as “more enjoyable boating and swimm i ng” and a “cleaner and healthier aquatic

environ m ent”? If no, why are they emphasized in the introductory t e xt? If yes, why are they not

addressed in the choice question s ? The presence of these d es c riptions on page 6 implies that

these effects are i m portant to so m e people (i

. e., are welfare

- releva n t ); t h is belies t h eir absence in

choice questions. Should respon d ents consider these effects when answering choice questions?

If so, what outco m es should they assu m e? On what should they base these assu m ptions?

Currently, the survey provides no quantitati v e biophysical infor m ation that would enable

respondents to quantify effects such as these.

This inconsistency bet w een background infor m a t i on presented early in the survey and questions

asked later on is reflected dire c tly in the responses of focus group and interview respondents.

For exa m ple, within the final cognitive interview set, “ m ost respondents sugges t ed it would be

useful to have infor m ation early in the instru m ent to describe what was going to be asked later in

the survey.” This suggests that more work is needed to ensure that the introductory and

background infor m ation provides sufficient preparation for respondents to answer choice

questions.

As a final note, all of the introductory and background m aterial focuses respondents on the

i m portance of the Che s apeake Bay. There is n o discussion of other non

- environ m ental policypriorities t h at m i ght be considered substit u te uses of a respondents b udget. Hence, skeptics

m i ght challenge the survey on the grounds that it fails to m ention substit u te commodities o r

progra m s.

4. Does t h e survey provide appr o

priate and suff i cient introductory a nd debriefing questio n s

to, for example, identify pro t est responses and symbolic r e spo n ses, test retention and

understanding of i n formation, elicit non

- use values, etc.? Are there any additional

introductory or debriefi n g questions you feel m a y be useful for the analysis?

The survey includes a reasonable set of questions to identify protest and sy m bolic responses.

There are a few questions which m i ght be of l im ited usefulness, depending on the models which

are being c o nsidered. F or exa m ple, it is unclear how NCEE plans to u s e responses to question

two, which relates to the frequency of visiting lakes, rivers or tidal bays to engage in recreational

acti v ities.

There are other question types t h at are currently m i ssing from the survey that would provide

useful infor m ation if included. For exa m ple, it w ould be useful to include a certainty question of

the type di sc ussed by Ready et al. ( 2 010). In addition, certain types of “ w ar m

- up” questions that

are typically included in surveys of this type are m i ssing from t h e curre n t survey. These inclu d e

questions addressing the i m portance placed o n Chesapeake Bay condition relative to other

i m portant policy priorities to which the govern m ent m i ght allocate resources (see discussion of

introductory m aterials above).

There are few questions that truly and ob j ectively “test retention and understanding of

infor m ation.” If this is d esired, additional questions will be required.

5. Does the survey place sufficient a nd appropriate emphasis on the budget constr ai nt facing

respondents, and on potential sub s titute uses o f their bu dg e t?

E mphasis on the budget constraint and substit u te com m odities, while generally satisfactory,

could be improved. As noted abo v e, there is no discussion of other non

- environ m ental policy

priorities that m i ght be considered substitute uses of a respondents budget. The only clear

state m ent of these tradeoffs is found on survey page 16: “Paying the costs m eans you would

have less m oney to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards

resolving other environ m ental proble m s you care about.” While this is an appropriate state m ent,

it does not reflect potential t r adeoffs involving non

- environ m ental govern m ent progra m s for

things such as education.

Also, the consequentiality of survey choices could be better highli g hted, particularly with regard

to effects on households’ budgets. For exa mple, the state m e nt found on page 16, “We urge you

to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were

i m pl e m ented,” is weak and unconvincing. W hy not say so m ething stronger and m ore direct such

as “Costs for your household will really increase if progra m s such as these are i mple m ented, and

your answers to this survey will help deter m ine whether this happens.” Given that this survey is

being i m ple m ented by US EPA to inform regulatory p o lic y

, the s u rvey could incorporate m uch

stronger language to highl i ght consequentiality.6. Considering all four versions of t h e survey, a r e the progr a m options u nder consi d

eration

appropriately and sufficiently characterized? For example, given the foc u s group summary

provided, are the appropriate attrib u t es included in the choice experime n t ?

No, the program options under consideration are not appropriately and sufficiently characterized

in all four survey versions. Com m ents relative this question are provided in sections above.

Proble m s include funda m ental flaws with the “ I nputs and Dual” versions of the survey; these

flaws are highlighted by focus group and interview respo n ses as identified above. In addition,

m any choice attributes re m ain a m biguous, both from an objective biophysical standpoint (e.g.,

do crab and oyster nu m bers reflect harvests or populations?), and b a sed on the comments of

focus groups and cognitive inter v iews. Even as of the fin a l focus groups and interviews

respondents were expressing confusion with attr i butes such as dissolved oxygen, with one out of

four respondents in the final c ognitive interview unable to answer choice questions based on the

attribute le v els pro v ide d

, and an a d ditio n al two out of f our unable to u nderstand t h e diss o lved

oxygen attribute. Respondents throughout many focus groups showed evidence of the

speculation discussed by Johnst o n et al. (2011b, 2012a,b,c) when f a ced with inputs rather than

endpoints. For exa m ple, in c ognitive interview set 1, “One respondent had difficulty and wanted

to have infor m ation on endpoints rather than inputs. He answered t h e questions, but based

responses largely upon his general knowledge of wat e r quality in the area rather than specific

input attribute levels.” This is exactly the type of speculat i on suggested by theory, leading to

biased welfare esti m ates. Other p otential pr o ble m s, such as the use of “policy goals” to

bench m ark attribute levels, are d i scussed above. F i nally, the f act that respond e nts appear to

have m i ssed m ultiple errors in choice que s tions (as descri b ed above) further suggests that t h ey

m ay not ful l y understand the choice scenarios.

7. Regarding the “Input” version of the survey, a r e the links between attributes in the progr a m

options (s u ch as Dissolved Oxygen) and aspec t s of the Bay respondents may directly care

about appropriately described? Are there ways to improve the description of those links?

The ”Input” versions of the survey as curre n tly drafted include no specific, quantitative

biophysical infor m ation that would enable re s pondents to link attributes such as dissolved

oxygen to aspects of the Bay that respondents directly care about. Biophysical links are not

adequately described, and certai n ly not in a sufficient way for respondents to predict effects on

their welfare. As stated in the p eer review do cu m entation ( p. 1

- 6), it is the lack of in f or m ation

on these biophysical linkages which caused NCEE to propose the use of the “Inputs and Dual”

versions of the survey:

“Gen e rating forecasts of blue crab an d oyster p o pulations for the en dpo i nt v e rsion

of th e s u rvey req u ires all o f t h e m od eli n g of t h e i n p u t v e rsi o n wit h a n a dd itio n al

m od e li n g ste p u s i n g CBFEM. That and t h e f a ct t h at CBFEM is based on n e w

science t h at con t radicts t h e gen e ral result t h at m o re nu t rie n ts i n crease b i o lo g ical

p rod u cti v ity i n a water b o d y

, a n d th u s lead to m o re fis h

, h as led NCEE to rely

pri m arily on t h e input v e rsi o n for t h e ben e fit anal y sis and to ad m inister t h e

en d po i nt vers i o n m ai n ly f o r m etho d ol o g ical p u rp oses

. ”

W ithin the above passage, NCEE ad m its that it cannot characterize ad e quately the biophysical

linkages between “inputs” such as nutrients and dissolved oxygen and the outputs that are

rele v ant to households’ utility. Since NCEE itself is unable to quantify these biophysical

linkages, it is i mpossible for the s u r v ey to a d equ a tely char a ct e rize the m

. Si m ply put, if NCEE isunable to forecast utility

- releva n t endpoints b a sed on the inputs pr o vided in the “Inputs a n d

Dual” versions of the survey, how can we expect that uninfo r m ed respondents will be able to

forecast these endpoints? If they ca n not do so, ho w can they m eaningfully predict their welfare?

As described above, the use of a survey design that quantifies endpoints rather than inputs

eli m inates the need for respondents to speculate regarding biophysical p r oduction functions that

are not presented in the survey. NCEE appears to be using the “Inpu t s” versions of the survey in

an ill

- advi se d atte mpt to eli m inate the need to predict t h e welfare releva n t biophysical endpoints

of the TMDL. W hile this m i ght obscure the proble m

, it does not fix it. There is no way for

respondents to m eaningfully express W TP for a p o licy if they cannot predict how and why that

policy will influence outco m es that they value.

8. Does the survey incorporate a ppropriate language to ameliorate symbolic responses and

'yea saying'?

In general, the survey incorporates reasonable language to a m e liorate sy m bolic responses and

yea

- saying. There are so m e el e m ents of the surv e y, however, that could also encourage sy m bolic

responses. The m ost direct potenti a l cause of symbolic r e sponses in the present case is the use of

the “Inputs” versions of the sur v ey; as respondents will be unable to predict wel f are

- relevant

endpoints from these versions of t h e survey, they will be m ore lik e ly to give sy m bolic responses.

Another potential cause of sy m b o lic responses in the present surveys is the broad and generi c

discussion of TMDL benefits earlier in the survey (e.g., “ m ore enjoyable boating and

swimming”, a “cleaner and healt h ier aquatic environ m ent”) that are not then reflected in choi c e

scenario attributes. This m ay cause so m e respondents to answer sy m bolically, basing responses

on generic “good things for the environ m ent” t h at are highlighted earlier in the survey but

o m itted f r o m choice s c enarios. Si m ilar probl e m s m i ght be encou r aged by such de s i gn e l e m ents

as a cover photo showing a charis m atic bird species ( o spre y ), when choice sce n ari o s explicitly

o m it e ff ects on bird sp e cies. Henc e

, while the cover i mplies th a t e ff e c t s on b i rds are p rese n t,

respondents are asked to consider policies with no stated effects on birds; the result could be

responses driven either b y sy m bolic motivatio n s or spec u lations regardi n g the o m itted effects on

birds.

9. Does the survey take appropriate steps to minimize hypothetical and strategic b i as,

including s uffi c i ent s t e ps to emph a size conse q uentiality?

The survey takes reasonable ste p s to m i n i m i ze hypothetical and s t rategic bias, although language

concer n i ng the consequ e nti a lity of t h e survey co u l d be st r engthened as de s cribed abo v e. Gre a t e r

e mphasis that the surv e y is being imple m ented by the US EPA to help dire c tly i nf orm poli c y

could also help; right now the survey presents this infor m ation in only rather generic ter m s. As

noted above, it would also be useful to inclu d e a certainty question of the type discussed by

Ready et al. (2010), as a m eans to i mple m ent potential post hoc adjust m e nts.

10. Is the format of t h e choice questions appropriate according to current sta n dards in the

stated preference literature (e.g., allowing for a status quo option, e n couraging neoclassical

tradeoffs, order and presentation o f attrib u t es, et c.).

Aside from t he various issues noted above, the gen e ral for m at of the choice questions appears to

be appropriate. However, as noted above, there are a v a riety of issues that require attention,

including errors in the choice qu e stions that appear to have b een m i ssed during focus groups (see

response to peer review question number 2, sub

- s ection 6). Again, this suggests that focus groupand interview respondents were not carefully considering attribute levels, and m ay not have been

m aking appropriate neoclassical tra d eoffs.

11. Is there evidence o f fundament a l or critical flaws in the survey? Such as bias in the survey

or presented inform a ti o n.

The above sections highlight various flaws t h at should be addressed. Many of these are

fund a m ental to the esti m ation of valid and defen s ible welfare esti m ates. The m ost funda m ental

and critical of these is the use of the “Inputs” versions of the survey, b u t there are a variety of

other i mprove m ents that are required.

12. Are the proposed attribute levels and use of a constant versus declining baseline

appropriate for estimating the benefits of the T MDL?

Notwithstanding the proble m s with attribute de f i n i tions and err o rs in s o m e choice q uestions as

detailed ab o ve, the ge n eral attribute le v els ap p ear acce p table. The con s tant ver s us declining

baseline is also acceptable, a l though this requires that a full experi m ental design is conducted

(and a sufficient nu m ber of surve y s collected) for each survey ver s ion. Also, this will only

enable ben ef it e s ti m ates to b e c al c ulated f or a sin g le d eclining b aseline ( a s p r es e nted in the

survey)

– any other baseline will invalidate benefit esti m ates. A m ore flexible, though m ore

co mplex experi m ental design cou l d allow different respondents to view different baselines (with

the bas e line constant w ithin e ach s urvey ver s ion). This would enable esti m ation of benefits

under a range of different baseli n es. This, however, would require a greater sa mple size for any

desired level of precision, and w ould also require an experi m ental design that is much m ore

co mplex than the one suggested by NCEE.

13.Is the s a mpling plan and proposed geogra p h i c str a tification appr o

priate for e s tim a ting the

total b enefits of the T M DL, including nonuse values?

The proposed sa mpling and geographic stratific a tion should provide a m i ni m u m nu m ber of

surveys necessary to esti m ate choice m odels (

~ 500 to 600 completed surveys for each of the four

proposed versions) for the entire sample area, but m ay not allow m odels to be reliably esti m ated

at s m aller geographical scales ( e .g., statewide m odels). The proposed sa m pling plan will likely

captu r e a m ajority of tot a l be n e f its, b u t will not lik e l y allow esti m ation of total b ene f i ts,

including nonuse values. Given the iconic nature of the Che s apeake Bay, it is very possible that

so m e individuals residing outside of east coa s t states will have nonuse values for TMDL

outco m es. Also, so m e individ u als who do not reside in east coast states visit t h e Chesapeake

Bay area regularly for r ecreation. Values held by such individuals will not be captured by the

proposed plan.

References

Bate m an, I. J., M. A. Cole, S. Georgiou, and D. J. Hadley. 2006. Co m paring contingent valuation

and contingent ranking: A case s t udy considering the benefits of urban river water quality

i m prov e m ents. Journal of Environ m e ntal Manage m ent 79:221

- 231.

Bate m an, I.J., G.M. Mace, C. Fezzi, G. Atkins o n and K. Turner. 2011. Econo m ic Analysis for

Ecosystem Service Assess m ents. Environ m ental and Resource Econo m i cs 48(2): 177

- 218.Boyd, J. and A. Krupnick. 2009. The Definition and Choice of Environ m ental Commodities for

Non m arket Valuation. R FF DP 09

- 35. W as h ington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Carson, R.T., 1998. Valuation of Tropical Rainforests: Philosophical and Pra c tical Issues in the

Use of Contingent Valuation. Ecological Econo m ics 24(1): 15

- 29.

Hanley, N., S. Colo m bo, D. Tinch, A. Black, and A. Aftab. 2006a. Esti m ating the benefits of

water quality i mprov e ments under the W ater Fra m e w ork Directive: are benefits transferable?

Eur Rev Agric Econ 33:391

- 413.

Hanley, N., R. E. W r i ght, and B. Alvarez

- Farizo. 2006b. Esti m ating the econo m i c value of

i m prov e m ents in river ecology using choice experi m ents: an application to the water fr a m ework

directive. Journal of Envi r on m ental Manage m ent 78:183

- 193.

Johnston, R.J., G. Magnusson, M. Mazzotta a n d J.J. Opaluch. 2002. Co m bining Econo m ic and

Ec ologic a l Indic a tors to Prio r i tize Salt M ar s h Restoration Actions. A m erican Journal of

Agricultural Econo m ics 84(5): 1362

- 1370.

Johnston, R .J., J.J. Opaluch, M.J. Mazzotta, and G. Magnusson. 20 0 5. W ho Are Resource

Nonusers and W hat Can They Tell Us About N onuse Values? Deco m posing User and Nonuser

W illingness to Pay for Coastal W etland Restorat i on. W ater Resources Research 4 1 (7): W 07017.

Johnston, R.J., M. Ra m achandran, E.T. S c hultz, K. Segerson and E.Y. Besedin. 2012b.

Disent an g li n g Inter m edi a te and Final Outco m es of Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration: Implications

for Stated P reference Welfare E s ti m ation. Selec t ed Paper at the Association of Environ m ental

and Resource Econo m ists (AERE) Sum m er Conference, Asheville, NC, June 3

- 5.

Johnston, R.J. and M. R ussell. 2011. An Operational Structure for Clarity in Ecosystem Service

Values. Ecological Econo m ics 70(12): 2243

- 2249.

Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. R a m achandran. 2012a.

Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated P reference Valuation: The Structure and Function of

Ecological Indicators. L and Economics 88(1): 102

- 120.

Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. R a m achandran. 2012c. Stated

Pre f erences f or Inter m ediate v ersus Final Ecos y stem Servi c es: Dise n t a n gling W illi n gness to Pay

for O m itted Outco m es. Selected pa p er at t h e N o rthea s tern A g ric u ltural a n d Resource Econo m i c s

Association (NAREA) Workshop, Econo m ics of A g ricultural and Rural Ecosystem Services,

Lowell, MA, June 12

- 13.

Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson and E .Y. Besedin. 2011a. Bio i ndicator

- Based Stated

Preference Valuation for Aquatic H abitat and E cosystem Service Restoration, in Bennett, J. ed.

International Handbook on Non

- Marketed Environ m ental Valuation. Cheltenha m

, UK: Edward

Elgar, pp. 159

- 186.Johnston, R.J., K. Segerson, E.T. Schultz, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ra m achandran. 2011b. Indices

of Biotic I n teg r ity in St ated P re f er e nce Val u ation of Aquatic Ecosystem Services. Ecological

Econo m ics 70(11): 1946

- 1956.

Kontogianni, A., G.W. Luck and M. Skourtos. 2 0 10. Valuing Ecosystem Services on the Basis of

Service

- Providing Units: A Potential Approach to Address the ‘Endpoint Proble m ’ and I mprove

Stated Preference Methods. Ecological Eco no m ics 69(7): 1479

– 1487.

Kuhfeld, W.F. 2010. Marketing Research Methods in SA S: Experi m ental Design, Choice,

Conjoint, a n d Graphic a l Techniques. Cary, NC: SAS Instit u te.

Li m burg, K.E and C. Folke. 1999. The Ecology of Eco s ystem Services: Introduction to the

Special Issue. Ecological Econo m ics 29(2): 179

- 182.

Milon, J. W., and D. S c rogin. 2006. Latent Preferences and Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem

Restoration. Ecological Econo m ics 56:162

- 175.

Pattison, J., P. C. Boxall, and W

. L. Ad a m owicz. 2011. The Econ o m i c Benefits of W etland

Retention and Restoration in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Econo m ics

- Revue

Canadienne D Agroecono m i e 59:223

- 244.

Ready, R.C., P.A. Ch a m p and J.L. Lawton. 2010. Using Respondent Uncertai nt y to Mitigate

Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Cho i ce Experi m ent. Land Econo m ics 86(2): 363

- 381.

Rose, J.M. and Blie m e r, M.C.J. (2009) Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experi m ental

Designs, Transport Reviews, 29(5), 587

‐ 617.

Rose, J.M. and Blie m er M.C.J. (2012) Stated preference experi m ental design strategies, in A.

Hensher, D.A. (ed.), Transport Econo m ics: Critical Concepts in Econo m ics (Vol. 1), Routledge,

Oxford, Un i t ed Kingdom, 304

‐ 32.

Schultz, E.T., R.J. Johnston, K. Segerson and E.Y. Besedin. 2012. Integrating Ecology and

Econo m ics for Restoration: Using Ecological Ind i cators in Valuation of Ecosystem Services.

Restoration Ecology 20(3): 304

- 310.

U.S. Environ m ental Protection Agency (EP A ). 2009. Valuing the Pr otection of Ecological

Syste m s and Services: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. W ashington, DC.

## Peer Review Package for Stated Preference Estimation of

Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLsPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. C o n t e n t s ▌ p g

. i Table of Contents

1. Project Summary ...............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Background................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Survey Design............................................................................................................1-1

1.2.1 Attribute Selection........................................................................................1-1

1.2.2 Attribute Metrics and Presentation ................................................................1-3

1.2.3 Information Section ......................................................................................1-4

1.2.4 Payment Vehicle...........................................................................................1-4

1.2.5 Attribute Levels............................................................................................1-4

1.2.6 Question Format ...........................................................................................1-5

1.2.7 Baselines ......................................................................................................1-5

1.2.8 Provision Mechanism....................................................................................1-5

1.3 Experimental Design..................................................................................................1-6

1.3.1 Survey Treatments........................................................................................1-6

1.3.2 Sampling ......................................................................................................1-6

1.4 References .................................................................................................................1-7

1.5 Tables and Figures .....................................................................................................1-8

2. Charge Questions .............................................................................................................2-12

2.1 General Impression of Survey Instrument and Proposed Study .................................2-12

2.2 Survey Instrument....................................................................................................2-12

2.3 Study Design............................................................................................................2-13

List of Figures

Figure 1 Sampling Strata..............................................................................................................1-11

List of Tables

Table 1 Lake Condition Categories.................................................................................................1-8

Table 2 Survey Versions ................................................................................................................1-8Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. C o n t e n t s ▌ p g

. ii Table 3 Attribute Levels.................................................................................................................1-9

Table 4 Sampling Plan .................................................................................................................1-10

Table 5 Number of Households and Household Sample for Each Study Region............................1-10

Attachments

Attachment A Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are Inputs & Dual, Constant Baseline

Attachment B Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are Endpoints & Dual, Constant Baseline

Attachment C Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are Inputs & Dual, Declining Baseline

Attachment D Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are Endpoints & Dual, Declining Baseline

Attachment E Focus Group and Cognitive Interview SummaryPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-1 

### 1. Project Summary

1.1 Background

On May 12, 2009 the President signed Executive Order 13508 calling for the protection and

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In response to the Executive Order and other considerations the

Environmental Protection Agency established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of nitrogen,

phosphorus, and sediment for the Chesapeake Bay. These TMDLs called for reductions of 25, 24,

and 20%, respectively, of these pollutants (EPA 2011).

The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses 64,000 square miles in parts of six states and

the District of Columbia. A 2004 report on implementation of the “tributary strategies” proposed

under an earlier plan for Bay restoration estimated their cost at $28 billion in capital costs plus an

additional $2.7 billion dollars per year in perpetuity for operating and maintenance costs (Blue

Ribbon Panel 2004). The watershed states of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia,

Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia, have developed Watershed

Implementation Plans (WIPs) detailing the steps each will take to meet its obligations under the

TMDL. EPA has begun a new study to estimate costs of compliance with the TMDL. It is important

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

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

analysis of improvements in Bay water quality under the TMDL, as well as of ancillary benefits that

might arise from measures taken to meet the required reductions in the Bay. As part of this analysis,

NCEE plans to conduct a broad-based inquiry into benefits using revealed and stated preference

methods. Benefits from meeting the TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay will accrue to those who live

near the Bay or visit for recreation, those who live near lakes and rivers in the watershed or visit them

for recreation, and those who live further away and may never visit the Bay or the surrounding lakes

and rivers but have a general concern for the environment. While benefits from the first two

categories can be captured by the hedonic property value and recreation demand analyses also being

conducted by NCEE, only stated preference methods can capture the nonuse benefits of the latter.

The vast scope of the TMDL impacts, both geographically and ecologically, makes this study

uniquely challenging. Ecological changes in the Bay include aesthetic attributes like water clarity,

color, and odor; increased fish and shellfish populations from higher dissolved oxygen levels; and

general ecological conditions like more aquatic grass habitat, oyster reef habitat, and smaller, less

frequent hypoxic events. The management practices that States will implement to meet the TMDL in

the Chesapeake Bay will also reduce nutrient and sediment loads in freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers

and streams in the watershed. A comprehensive benefits estimate will include the welfare impacts of

these ‘upstream’ changes as well.

1.2 Survey Design

1.2.1 Attribute Selection

Focus groups were conducted to develop the survey instrument. The early sessions focused on

narrowing the list of possible attributes to a set that people relate to and for which changes could bePeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-2 expressed with meaningful metrics. The final benefit estimates will rely on the results from a set of

water quality and ecological models that forecast conditions under various policy and baseline

scenarios. The choice of attributes to include on the survey is limited by the ability of these models to

forecast conditions under baseline and policy scenarios over the next two decades. It is the

intersection of those two sets – attributes people care about and those we are able to forecast – that

forms our choice set for attributes. The Focus Group and Interview Summary provides more details

on how each discussion informed the choice of attributes to include on the survey.

Focus groups were also used to compare two different versions of the survey. The “input”

version includes two attributes that are considered inputs into the ecological production function

(dissolved oxygen and aquatic grasses). It also includes two attributes that could be considered “dual

commodities” (Bay water clarity and lake conditions), meaning that they are ecological inputs but

people may also care about them directly. On the “endpoint” version of the survey the input

attributes are replaced by commodities that are more likely to enter individuals’ utility functions

directly (crab and oyster populations). Focus groups were used to gauge how participants related to

the attributes, made tradeoffs between them, and interpreted the changes between baseline and policy

scenarios. In the end, focus group discussions did not clearly favor one version of the survey over the

other, so the decision was made to employ both versions and compare results.

Attributes included on “input” version of the survey

Lake Conditions – Focus groups indicated that people value the improvements to freshwater lakes,

rivers, and streams. Impacts to rivers and streams would result largely from sediment reductions

since the movement of the water keeps it oxygenated even when nutrient levels are high. However,

the impacts of sediment on rivers – clarity and sedimentation of the bottom – cannot be projected with

available models. Changes in the eutrophication state of lakes, however, can be forecasted and linked

to water clarity, color and dominant fish types. Focus group respondents reacted well to the inclusion

of lake conditions in the choice scenario.

Dissolved Oxygen – One of the primary criteria used to develop the TMDL is dissolved oxygen

levels for the tidal sections of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. DO criteria are developed for

142 different segments of the bay based on the type of aquatic life that should be able to live in each

segment. The DO attribute is used to describe one aspect of ecological health for the Bay on the input

version of the survey.

Subaquatic Vegetation – SAV provides habitat for many adult and juvenile Bay species including

striped bass and blue crab. It is also considered a good indicator of overall Bay health.

Water Clarity – Admittedly a dual commodity that is correlated with SAV, clarity/visibility was the

most frequently mentioned water quality characteristic in focus groups. Put simply, people want to

see their feet when they wade into the water.

Attributes included on “endpoint” version of the survey in addition to Lake Conditions and

Water Clarity

Blue Crab – Early focus groups suggested putting “all shellfish” together as an attribute. In later

discussions Maryland residents in particular thought that blue crab was an iconic species and

important to include on its own.Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-3 Oysters – Identified as an important attribute because of their filtering function and for their very low

current populations. Percent changes in oyster populations are potentially large under the TMDL.

Attributes considered, but not included

Striped Bass and Recreational Fish - Bundled as an ‘endpoint’ attribute in early versions of the

survey. While this attribute was salient and can be modeled it was dropped to keep the number of

attributes on both versions the same and to reduce the cognitive burden on the endpoint survey.

Water Quality Index – A 100-point water quality index based on dissolved oxygen and clarity was

tested in early drafts of the survey. While an index could be modeled, focus group participants were

unable to interpret what specific levels and changes in the index meant.

Bird populations – While early focus groups indicated that bird populations were important, we are

not able to model changes resulting from TMDL.

Terrestrial wildlife – Not able to model changes resulting from TMDL and may not be substantially

affected by TMDL actions.

1.2.2 Attribute Metrics and Presentation

The Lake Condition attribute is defined by one of seven categories each referring to a different

range of trophic state index. The seven categories were created and linked to lake characteristics by

Carlson and Simpson (1996). A similar characterization of lake conditions was used by Phaneuf et

al. (2011) in a recent contingent valuation survey.

Dissolved Oxygen is defined by the percent of Bay area meeting the criteria developed by the

EPA to protect the aquatic life that should be present in each designated segment. Early versions

referred to the Bay segments but confused some participants.

The remaining measures are defined primarily as physical measures in absolute terms.

In focus groups respondents tended to view changes in a 100-point scale (e.g., percentage point

changes) as equal, equating a change of, for example, a 15% increase in water clarity with a 15%

increase in blue crab population. By emphasizing physical quantities such as feet of visibility, the

number of crabs, tons of oysters, and acres of SAV, respondents appeared to evaluate the changes

more carefully and not equate percentage point changes.

 Water clarity levels are expresses as “average of x feet of visibility.”

 Subaquatic Vegetation is defined using “acres of bay grass habitat.”

 Blue Crab is expressed as the number of adult crab in the Bay.

 Oyster levels are expressed in tons. When reporting current populations and setting goals for

oyster reef restoration, weight is the metric of choice for oysters.

Participants wanted the direction of the change to be clear, and the small arrows were developed

and tested in several focus groups. Additionally, some respondents wanted the percent change in the

attribute and this information is included in smaller type. Most respondents said that they found both

the absolute measure and the percentage change to be useful.Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-4 1.2.3 Information Section

Development of the information section began with the fourth focus group during which it became

clear that participants wanted the following types of information:

1. A description of the problem that the policy is meant to remedy;

2. A clear description of links between pollutants and attributes (i.e. the ecological production

function);

3. Specific information on the management practices that would reduce nutrient and sediment

loads; and

4. How policy outcomes would affect them directly (i.e. changes to “endpoint” attributes).

Subsequent focus groups were used to test those findings and develop an information section that

answered those questions.

1.2.4 Payment Vehicle

There were several criteria for choosing a payment vehicle that narrowed the set of choices

considerably. But most importantly, the payment vehicle has to be believable to respondents and

applicable to households outside the watershed. The costs of meeting the TMDL will be borne by the

states of the Chesapeake Bay watershed but the sample frame includes states outside of the

watershed. For those states an increase in their utility bills or a tax would not be believable. Or

worse, it could falsely imply water quality improvements local to those respondents.

To address these restrictions the survey describes a permanent cost of living increase that, for

households within the watershed, would result from, “Higher water bills or increased maintenance

costs for septic systems for households in the watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would

increase.” The survey also describes, “Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods

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

because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.”

Focus group and interview participants responded well to this payment vehicle. When

temporary taxes or fees were tested, most respondents did not believe that the cost would go to zero

when the stated duration expired. The use of taxes and fees as a payment vehicle also raised concerns

that the money would not actually be used to improve the condition of the Bay and that high

administration costs would blunt the effectiveness of the program.

1.2.5 Attribute Levels

Estimating WTP for changes in the attributes on the “input” version of the survey requires

projections of water clarity, compliance with DO criteria, acres of bay grass habitat, and the trophic

state of lakes in the watershed under the baseline and policy scenarios. The Chesapeake Bay Water

Quality Model 1 was developed to determine if the States’ implementation plans would be sufficient to

meet the load reductions required under the TMDL and can be used to project the first three

1 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/about/programs/modelingPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-5 attributes. Projections of trophic state (table 1) are generated by the Northeast Lakes Model 2 which

was developed by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to estimate ancillary benefits to

freshwater lakes from management practices designed to improve water quality in coastal estuaries.

In addition to the two “dual commodities,” water clarity and lake condition which appear on

both versions of the survey, estimating WTP for changes in the “endpoint” attributes requires

projections of changes to blue crab and oyster populations in the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Fisheries

Ecosystem Model (CBFEM) 3 is able to use projections of nutrient loadings from the Chesapeake Bay

Water Quality Model to forecast changes in relative biomass for a number of Chesapeake species,

including blue crab and oysters. Nutrient loadings under the baseline and policy scenarios produce

corresponding changes in relative biomass, which can be applied to current observed levels to

forecast changes in the attributes on the endpoint version of the survey.

1.2.6 Question Format

By varying the levels of attributes independently in the choice questions it is possible to estimate

a benefit function and shadow values for individual attributes. The contingent valuation method,

where attributes are bundled and a fixed policy scenario is compared to a fixed baseline scenario,

cannot be used to isolate the contribution of a single attribute to total WTP. The water quality and

fisheries models that produce the projections are new and are likely to be updated before a final report

is produced. To ensure we will be able to estimate benefits for a variety of policy outcomes, the

choice experiment approach was chosen over contingent valuation.

1.2.7 Baselines

The survey employs two baselines. In the “declining baseline” attribute levels worsen by 2025 in

the absence of further action; in the “constant baseline” attributes are the same in 2025 as they are

today. This is to support the TMDL benefits analysis which will employ multiple baselines,

reflecting alternative assumptions about controls already in place. We were particularly concerned

about the credibility of a constant baseline and the text was revised several times to provide adequate

support for the assertion. Key in this was to make it clear that there are controls currently in place

that would remain and to define the status quo as “No Further Action.” Additionally, early focus

groups indicated a particular concern about stalling a worsening baseline, although perceptions of

current trends varied.

1.2.8 Provision Mechanism

The survey language is intentionally non-specific about exactly which actions will be taken to

achieve improvements, but it does provide specific examples of what might be done. Specific actions

by states to meet TMDL requirements are still in development and include a wide array of

alternatives. A non-specific delivery mechanism allowed for a common treatment across the full

sample. By stating that different ways to meet the TMDL requirements produce different outcomes,

respondents were able to accept that attributes would improve at different rates, and that some

2 http://www.epa.gov/region1/neaeb2009/pdfs/20_4_Milstead_NEAEB_20090319.pdf

3 http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/ecosystem-modeling/chesapeake-bay-fisheries-ecosystem-modelPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-6 attributes may improve while others do not. The language in this section was revised several times to

respond to the need for some respondents to know more about the actual programs. The inclusion of

specific examples provided most respondents with enough specificity to answer choice questions.

1.3 Experimental Design

1.3.1 Survey Treatments

With the “input” and “endpoint” versions of the survey each presenting constant and declining

baselines, four distinct versions of the survey will be administered (table 2).

Fractional factorial design will be used to construct choice questions with an orthogonal array of

attribute levels (table 3), with questions randomly divided among distinct survey versions. Dominant

choices will be eliminated from the design since they tend to produce protest responses and provide

little useful information about preferences. The result is a 72-question experimental design when

only testing for main effects 4 . With 3 choice questions on each survey, 24 different treatments will be

administered for each version of the survey (A, B, C or D).

Generating forecasts of blue crab and oyster populations for the endpoint version of the

survey requires all of the modeling of the input version with an additional modeling step using

CBFEM. That and the fact that CBFEM is based on new science that contradicts the general result

that more nutrients increase biological productivity in a waterbody, and thus lead to more fish, has led

NCEE to rely primarily on the input version for the benefit analysis and to administer the endpoint

version mainly for methodological purposes. As a result, the input version of the survey will be more

widely administered than the endpoint version.

1.3.2 Sampling

NCEE will use three geographic strata to administer the survey:

1. Bay States and the District - MD, VA, DC

2. Watershed States - DE, NY, PA, and WV

3. Eastern States - VT, NH, MA, NJ, CT, RI, ME, OH, NC, SC, GA, and FL.

Figure 1 shows a map of the sampling strata and table 4 summarizes the stratification plan.

The Bay and Watershed states were chosen based on their immediate proximity to the Bay

and/or lakes, streams and rivers in its watershed (i.e.., Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia,

Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia); this sub-population of households is likely to

hold “use” values for Chesapeake Bay improvements. The remaining Eastern states (i.e., Vermont,

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) are directly adjacent to the states bordering the Bay

and its watershed and represent the sub-population of households likely to hold non-use values. EPA

decided to target households in these states given their location outside the Chesapeake Bay

4 A 90-question design would be necessary if we wished to test for interaction effects between attributes.Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-7 watershed, but within sufficient geographic distance that households may be familiar with

Chesapeake Bay.

The target responding sample size for the survey is 2,304 completed household surveys. This

sample size was chosen to provide statistically robust regression modeling while minimizing the cost

and burden of the survey. Given this sample size, the level of precision achieved by the analysis will

be more than adequate to meet the analytic needs of the benefits analysis for the Chesapeake Bay

TMDLs. Relative to the geographic distribution of households across the East Coast, we plan to oversample households in states adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay and within the Chesapeake Bay

watershed. We believe this approach is appropriate because households in these areas will incur the

costs of Chesapeake Bay water quality improvements, and are most likely to receive use-value

benefits from the improvements. Within each survey region, the household sample will be allocated

in proportion to the geographic distribution of households within states in the regions (Bay states,

Watershed States, East Coast states). The total number of households in each region is given below

(Table 5).

Appendices A, B, C, and D provide copies of the 4 versions of the survey instrument. Appendix E

provides a summary of the focus group results and cognitive interviews.

1.4 References

Bunch, D.S., and R.R. Batsell. 1989. “A Monte Carlo Comparison of Estimators for the Multinomial

Logit Model.” Journal of Marketing Research 26: 56-68.

Carlson, R.E. and J. Simpson. 1996. A Coordinator’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods

. North American Lake Management Society. 96 pp.

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

Application . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Phaneuf , D.J., von Haefen, R. H., Mansfield, C and Van Houtven, G. 201.1 Measuring Nutrient

Reduction Benefits for Policy Analysis Using Linked Non-Market Valuation and

Environmental Assessment Models: Final Report on Stated Preference Surveys.Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-8 1.5 Tables and Figures

Table 1 Lake Condition Categories

Lake

Condition Water Color Water Clarity Most Common

Types of fish

1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly rough fish

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

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

6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

Table 2 Survey Versions

Constant Baseline Declining Baseline

Attributes are

Inputs & Dual Version A Version C

Attributes are

Endpoints &

Dual Version B Version DPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-9 Table 3 Attribute Levels

Inputs Levels Percent Change

from current

levels

Compliance with DO criteria Declining Baseline 35%

-

Constant Baseline 43%

- Policy Scenarios 43%

-

85%

-

100%

-

Acres of Bat Grass Habitat Declining Baseline 38,000

- 53%

Constant Baseline 80,000 0%

Policy Scenarios 80,000 0%

130,000 63%

165,000 106%

Endpoints

Blue Crab (millions) Declining Baseline 235

- 6%

Constant Baseline 250 0%

Policy Scenarios 250 0%

280 12%

312 25%

Oysters (tons) Declining Baseline 2,800

- 15%

Constant Baseline 3,300 0%

Policy Scenarios 3,300 0%

4,300 30%

5,250 59%

Dual Commodities

Water Clarity (feet) Declining Baseline 1.5

- 50%

Constant Baseline 3 0%

Policy Scenarios 3 0%

4 33%

5 67%

Lake Condition Declining Baseline 2

-

Constant Baseline 3

- Policy Scenarios 3

-

4

-

5

-Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-10 Table 4 Sampling Plan

Geographic Divison Baseline Factor Attribute Type

Cell 1 Bay States Constant Input

Cell 2 Bay States Declining Input

Cell 3 Bay States Declining Endpoint

Cell 4 Watershed Constant Input

Cell 5 Watershed Declining Input

Cell 6 Other East Coast Constant Input

Cell 7 Other East Coast Declining Input

Cell 8 Watershed Constant Endpoint

Table 5 Number of Households and Household Sample for Each Study Region

Sampling Stratum and State Total Households Expected household

sample size

Bay States Stratum, total 5,479,176 864

District of Columbia 266,707

Maryland 2,156,411

Virginia 3,056,058

Watershed States Stratum, total 13,442,787 864

Delaware 342,297

New York 7,317,755

Pennsylvania 5,018,904

West Virginia 763,831

Other East Coast States Stratum, total 30,034,893 576

Connecticut 1,371,087

Florida 7,420,802

Georgia 3,585,584

Maine 557,219

Massachusetts 2,547,075

New Jersey 3,214,360

New Hampshire 518,973

North Carolina 3,745,155

Ohio 4,603,435

Rhode Island 413,600

South Carolina 1,801,181

Vermont 256,442

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from

http://factfinder2.census.gov/

.Peer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 1-11 Figure 1 Sampling StrataPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 2-12 

### 2. Charge Questions

The reviewers are encouraged to refer to past studies/efforts when answering these charge questions.

2.1 General Impression of Survey Instrument and Proposed Study

Please provide comments on the following topics:

1. Extent to which the survey results are likely to provide welfare estimates of improving water

quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Specifically,

a. the ability of the survey to provide total values

b. appropriateness of the proposed choice experiment survey for the estimation of marginal

willingness to pay for individual attributes

c. appropriateness of a choice experiment survey format for the elicitation of preferences in this

case (i.e., compared to alternatives such as contingent valuation).

2. Overall quality and design of the proposed survey.

2.2 Survey Instrument

Please comment on the following:

3. Adequacy of background information to enable the respondents to answer the choice questions. Is

the information necessary, sufficient, and accurate?

4. Does the survey provide appropriate and sufficient introductory and debriefing questions to, for

example, identify protest responses and symbolic responses, test retention and understanding of

information, elicit non-use values, etc.? Are there any additional introductory or debriefing

questions you feel may be useful for the analysis?

5. Does the survey place sufficient and appropriate emphasis on the budget constraint facing

respondents, and on potential substitute uses of their budget?

6. Considering all four versions of the survey, are the program options under consideration

appropriately and sufficiently characterized? For example, given the focus group summary

provided, are the appropriate attributes included in the choice experiment?

7. Regarding the “Input” version of the survey, are the links between attributes in the program

options (such as Dissolved Oxygen ) and aspects of the Bay respondents may directly care about

appropriately described? Are there ways to improve the description of those links?

8. Does the survey incorporate appropriate language to ameliorate symbolic responses and 'yea

saying'?

9. Does the survey take appropriate steps to minimize hypothetical and strategic bias, including

sufficient steps to emphasize consequentiality?

10. Is the format of the choice questions appropriate according to current standards in the stated

preference literature (e.g., allowing for a status quo option, encouraging neoclassical tradeoffs,

order and presentation of attributes, etc.)

11.Is there evidence of fundamental or critical flaws in the survey? Such as bias in the survey orPeer Review Package for the Stated Preference Estimation of Benefits from the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs

Abt Associates Inc. pg. 2-13 presented information?

2.3 Study Design

12.Are the proposed attribute levels and use of a constant versus declining baseline appropriate for

estimating the benefits of the TMDL?

13.Is the sampling plan and proposed geographic stratification appropriate for estimating the total

benefits of the TMDL, including nonuse values?

### Attachment A. Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are Inputs

& Dual, Constant Baseline

# Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference

The Future of the Chesapeake Bay:

What’s Your Opinion?

# About this survey

We are conducting this survey about the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (that is

both the Bay and the lands around it). The survey’s purpose is to collect

information to help policymakers make decisions that affect water quality, wildlife

and recreation.



### In this survey, the first

questions are about:

 

### Your experiences with the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

 

### Your thoughts about the

Watershed’s current

conditions 

### Then the survey describes:

 

### Different plans that could

affect the Watershed

 

### What changes might result

from each plan

 

### How a plan might affect

households like yours

We want to know which of these plans you would vote for. Finally we ask a few

questions about your opinions on the survey’s topics, and some background

information about your household.

Your responses to this survey will help to inform policymakers how the public feels

about plans that would affect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and your household.

This is your opportunity to voice your opinions about these plans. Please

take the time to read the information in this survey and answer the questions

carefully.

All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in

this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

1

# The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is shown below in green.

The Watershed spreads over parts of six states and Washington DC. It contains 150

major rivers and thousands of lakes, small rivers and streams. Water draining

from these lands enters these waterways and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies, with different

characteristics and potential problems.

2 Tidal waters include the Bay

itself and parts of some rivers and streams

that flow into it. Tidal waters are salty and

support different types of wildlife than

freshwater, but are also used to swim,

boat, and fish.

Freshwater lakes and

rivers support wildlife and

are used for swimming,

boating, and fishing, among

other activities.3 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

Swimming, water skiing, or

jet skiing 

# □ □

Fishing 

# □ □

Boating, including sailing,

motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □

Viewing nature, including

bird watching 

# □ □

Biking or walking on trails

along the water 

# □ □

Other

_______________________ 

# □ □ 1. Over the last five years, which of these activities have you done

in any freshwater lakes or rivers, or in the Bay’s tidal waters?

### 2. In the last five years, about how often have you visited

watershed lakes or rivers, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters

to do any of these activities?

In each column please check the statement that best describes

your experience.

4 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

I have never visited 

# □ □

I have not visited in the last

5 years 

# □ □

Once over the last 5 years 

# □ □

A few times over the last 5

years 

# □ □

About once a year 

# □ □

2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □

More than 10 times a year 

# □ □5 

# Water Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware that too much

sediment or nutrients can harm wildlife habitats?

Yes

No

4. Have you previously heard of any sources of excess nutrients and

sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?

Yes

No Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the

water, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key

pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous occur naturally in the

watershed, and are essential for healthy ecosystems. But excess nutrients

(from fertilizers, livestock manure, and wastewater treatment plants) can lead

to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen.

 Sediment. Some loose soil naturally settles to the bottom of water bodies.

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

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices increase soil erosion,

causing too much sediment to enter rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.6 

# Reducing excess nutrients and sediment in

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As a result, wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality

 Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land

 Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities

 Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm

water runoff

 Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve

fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements

 Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water

 More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to

reach them

 Smaller, less frequent algae blooms

 More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements

 Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment

 More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen

 More enjoyable boating and swimming

 More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and

shellfish while also improving water quality

### 5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed

in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in the

Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column .)

7 Lakes and rivers Chesapeake Bay

Better than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

About the same as they were

10 years ago 

# □ □

Worse than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree Don’t

Know

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in the Chesapeake

Bay. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in environmental

quality is inevitable as our economy

grows. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

### 6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please circle the number that indicates how

much you agree or disagree with each statement.8 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

For the Chesapeake Bay , environmental goals are based on several

measurements of environmental quality and aquatic life:

Dissolved Oxygen

 Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen in the water, something all aquatic life

needs

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

based on the types of aquatic life that live there

Water Clarity

 Water clarity is measured by how far one can see into the water

 Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

 People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water

Amount of Aquatic Grass Habitat

 Aquatic grasses provide food and habitat for other aquatic life Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities.

State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop

environmental goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.



### 7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any of

these environmental goals for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, or

aquatic grasses?

Yes

No9 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

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

but some additional actions are being considered. Scientists studying the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed monitor its health and predict changes in water quality under different

pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025

for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients

and sediment.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no further action *

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Percent of waters meeting

DO goals

Some plans being

considered would achieve

100% in 2025 40 %

of the Bay areas

meet DO goals 40 %

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

How many feet you can see

down into the water. Average visibility of

3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change

Aquatic Grasses

Acres of underwater grasses

on the Bay floor.

Scientists recommend

185,000 acres be restored

based on historic levels 80,000 acres 80,000 acres

no change

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with

state and federal partners.10 

# Environmental Quality in the Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how

much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:

 Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.

 Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and

catfish.

Lake

Condition Water

Color Water

Clarity Most Common Types

of Fish

1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly rough fish

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly bass and some

walleye

6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and trout



### 8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your

home? (Please circle one .)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t

Know11 

# Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect

freshwater bodies of the watershed.

 Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly

moving.

 Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of

the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows current conditions and conditions in 2025 that scientists

predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are

taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is

an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no additional actions*

Average Condition

of <State> Lakes in

the Watershed 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by

the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.12 

# Pollution Reduction Programs for the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to

reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay?

Yes

No Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of

the program.

For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in

the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a

smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused

on reducing nutrients and sediment. Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been

set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased

in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.13 

# Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive.

For example:

 Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for

households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households

both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live

. This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the

cost of living for your household. The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs

for your household.14 

# Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction

programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that

provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household

different amounts.

You will be asked three questions. In each question you will need to choose the

program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions

or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they

reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will

look like.15 

# An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 40%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 50%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 70%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

3 feet

67% increase

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 80,000 acres

no change 100,000 acres

25% increase 150,000 acres

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly Bass 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $36 per year

or $3 per month

Program A $50 per year

or $4.16 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



### If you do not want A

or B , mark this box If you want Program A,

mark this box If you want Program B,

mark this box16

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

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

your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things

such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other

environmental problems you care about.

You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year

from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your

household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or

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

you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program

were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very

important for decision makers in state and federal governments. 

# Weighing Outcomes and Costs17 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 40%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 85%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 100%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

50% increase

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 80,000 acres

no change 130,000 acres

25% increase 165,000 acres

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $250 per year

or $20.83 per

month

Program A $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

### 10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options. Mark

the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.18 

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

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

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

areas.

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

available to choose from.

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

just answered.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.19 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 40%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 85%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 40%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

5 feet

no change

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 80,000 acres

no change 130,000 acres

25% increase 80,000 acres

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $40 per year

or $3.33 per month

Program A $60 per year

or $5 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

### 11. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available.

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.20 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 40%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 100%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 85%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 80,000 acres

no change 130,000 acres

20% increase 165,000 acres

75% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $370 per year

or $30.83 per

month

Program A $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

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

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.21



### 13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much

consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared

to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one .)

Considered

Only the

Lakes Considered

Lakes and

Bay

Waters

Equally Considered

Only the

Bay

Waters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



### 14. On a scale from 1 to 5, please rank the following based in order

of importance when you were choosing between programs.

Not

Important Somewhat

Important Very

Important Don’t

Know

Dissolved oxygen 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Water clarity 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Aquatic grass coverage 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Lake category 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Cost of the program 1 2 3 4 5 DK22



### 15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important

in making your decision about which program to vote for?

(Please choose one .)

Recreation on the Bay

Recreation in Lakes

Preserving the environment for future generations

Availability and/or price of seafood

Value of property near the Bay

Value of property near Lakes

The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future

The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future

Other __________________23



### 16. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate

how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

My choices would have been

different if the economy in my

area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is important to improve waters

in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high

the costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I do not think I should have to

contribute any amount to the

restoration of the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am concerned that the

programs would hurt the

economy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It was difficult to understand the

descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe the programs will

improve the environment as

described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Some of the programs cost too

much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The changes offered by the

programs happen too far into the

future for me to really care

about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The survey provided me with the

information I needed to make a

choice between the options

shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 724



### 17. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you

were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree

with each of the following statements. If not, skip to the next

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

Nothing can be done to

improve the quality of the Bay

and freshwater lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would not vote for any

program even if there were no

costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because the costs were

too high compared to the

improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because I am against

more government requirements

and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 725 Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

I voted for a program because I

thought it would also lead to

better water quality closer to

my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program more for

future generations than for

myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for the program

because I may visit the

Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the

watershed in the next few

years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program because I

believe it is our responsibility to

preserve wildlife and habitat in

the Bay and Lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program so others

could enjoy the Bay and lakes,

rather than for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### 18. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices

you were given, please let us know how much you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements. If not, skip this

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)26

19. Are you a male or female? 

# Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for

statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings

across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your

answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name

or address. You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.

Male

Female

20. What is your age?

______ years old

21. What is your current marital status?

Under $25,000

$25,000

- $34,999

$35,000

- $49,999

$50,000

- $74,999

$75,000

- $99,999

$100,000

- $199,999

$200,000 or more 22. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?

______ children

23. In 2011, what was your total pre

- tax household income, including

all earners in your household? Single, never married

Married or living with a long

- term partner

Separated or divorced

Widowed27

25. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?

Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan

Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan

Rented

Other: _____________________________________________ 24. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

No high school diploma

High school diploma or GED

Some college credit or college degree

Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate

or professional degree

26. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the

following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply .)

Agriculture

Commercial fishing

Tour guide for fishing

No one in my family has worked in these industries



## Thank you very much

for your help.The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated

to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for

minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques

to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control

number in any correspondence. Do not send the materials to this address

.

### Attachment B. Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are

Endpoints & Dual, Constant Baseline

# Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference

The Future of the Chesapeake Bay:

What’s Your Opinion?

# About this survey

We are conducting this survey about the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (that is

both the Bay and the lands around it). The survey’s purpose is to collect

information to help policymakers make decisions that affect water quality, wildlife

and recreation.



### In this survey, the first

questions are about:

 

### Your experiences with the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

 

### Your thoughts about the

Watershed’s current

conditions 

### Then the survey describes:

 

### Different plans that could

affect the Watershed

 

### What changes might result

from each plan

 

### How a plan might affect

households like yours

We want to know which of these plans you would vote for. Finally we ask a few

questions about your opinions on the survey’s topics, and some background

information about your household.

Your responses to this survey will help to inform policymakers how the public feels

about plans that would affect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and your household.

This is your opportunity to voice your opinions about these plans. Please

take the time to read the information in this survey and answer the questions

carefully.

All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in

this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

1

# The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is shown below in green.

The Watershed spreads over parts of six states and Washington DC. It contains 150

major rivers and thousands of lakes, small rivers and streams. Water draining

from these lands enters these waterways and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies, with different

characteristics and potential problems.

2 Tidal waters include the Bay

itself and parts of some rivers and streams

that flow into it. Tidal waters are salty and

support different types of wildlife than

freshwater, but are also used to swim,

boat, and fish.

Freshwater lakes and

rivers support wildlife and

are used for swimming,

boating, and fishing, among

other activities.3 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

Swimming, water skiing, or

jet skiing 

# □ □

Fishing 

# □ □

Boating, including sailing,

motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □

Viewing nature, including

bird watching 

# □ □

Biking or walking on trails

along the water 

# □ □

Other

_______________________ 

# □ □ 1. Over the last five years, which of these activities have you done

in any freshwater lakes or rivers, or in the Bay’s tidal waters?

### 2. In the last five years, about how often have you visited

watershed lakes or rivers, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters

to do any of these activities?

In each column please check the statement that best describes

your experience.

4 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

I have never visited 

# □ □

I have not visited in the last

5 years 

# □ □

Once over the last 5 years 

# □ □

A few times over the last 5

years 

# □ □

About once a year 

# □ □

2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □

More than 10 times a year 

# □ □5 

# Water Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware that too much

sediment or nutrients can harm wildlife habitats?

Yes

No

4. Have you previously heard of any sources of excess nutrients and

sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?

Yes

No Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the

water, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key

pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous occur naturally in the

watershed, and are essential for healthy ecosystems. But excess nutrients

(from fertilizers, livestock manure, and wastewater treatment plants) can lead

to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen.

 Sediment. Some loose soil naturally settles to the bottom of water bodies.

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

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices increase soil erosion,

causing too much sediment to enter rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.6 

# Reducing excess nutrients and sediment in

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As a result, wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality

 Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land

 Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities

 Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm

water runoff

 Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve

fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements

 Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water

 More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to

reach them

 Smaller, less frequent algae blooms

 More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements

 Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment

 More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen

 More enjoyable boating and swimming

 More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and

shellfish while also improving water quality

### 5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed

in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in the

Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column .)

7 Lakes and rivers Chesapeake Bay

Better than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

About the same as they were

10 years ago 

# □ □

Worse than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree Don’t

Know

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in the Chesapeake

Bay. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in environmental

quality is inevitable as our economy

grows. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

### 6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please circle the number that indicates how

much you agree or disagree with each statement.8 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

For the Chesapeake Bay , environmental goals are based on several

measurements of water quality and aquatic life:

Water Clarity

 Measured by how far one can see into the water

 People who go swimming or boating my prefer clearer water

 Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

Blue Crab

 A key ecological species and popular shellfish for recreational fishermen

Oysters

 Their shells form reefs that provide habitat for other aquatic life

 As “filter feeders” they clean the waters of the Bay Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities.

State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop

environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.



### 7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any of

these environmental goals for water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay

or for any Chesapeake Bay species?

Yes

No9 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

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

but some additional actions are being considered. Scientists studying the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed monitor its health and predict changes in water quality under different

pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025

for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients

and sediment.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no further action *

Water Clarity

How many feet you can see

down into the water Average visibility of

3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change

Blue Crabs

Goal is 415 million crabs 250

million crabs 250

million crabs

no change

Oysters

Goal is 35,000 tons 3,300

tons 3,300

tons

no change

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with

state and federal partners.10 

# Environmental Quality in the Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how

much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:

 Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.

 Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and

catfish.

Lake

Condition Water

Color Water

Clarity Most Common Types

of Fish

1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly rough fish

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly bass and some

walleye

6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and trout



### 8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your

home? (please circle one .)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t

Know11 

# Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect

freshwater bodies of the watershed.

 Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly

moving.

 Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of

the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows current conditions and conditions in 2025 that scientists

predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are

taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is

an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no additional actions*

Average Condition

of <State> Lakes in

the Watershed 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by

the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.12 

# Pollution Reduction Programs for the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to

reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay?

Yes

No Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of

the program.

For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in

the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a

smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused

on reducing nutrients and sediment. Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been

set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased

in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.13 

# Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive.

For example:

 Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for

households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households

both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live

. This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the

cost of living for your household. The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs

for your household.14 

# Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction

programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that

provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household

different amounts.

You will be asked three questions. In each question you will need to choose the

program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions

or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they

reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will

look like.15 

# An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

3 feet

67% increase

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 250

million crabs

no change 300

million crabs

20% increase 275

million crabs

10% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 3,300

tons

no change 3,960

tons

20% increase 4,950

tons

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $150 per year

or $12.50 per

month

Program A $200 per year

or $16.67 per

month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



### If you do not want A

or B , mark this box If you want Program A,

mark this box If you want Program B,

mark this box16

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

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

your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things

such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other

environmental problems you care about.

You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year

from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your

household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or

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

you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program

were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very

important for decision makers in state and federal governments. 

# Weighing Outcomes and Costs17 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

50% increase

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 250 million crabs

no change 280 million crabs

12% increase 312 million crabs

25% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 3,300 tons

no change 5,250 tons

50% increase 4,300 tons

23% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program A $250 per year

or $20.83 per

month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

### 10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options. Mark

the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.18 

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

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

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

areas.

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

available to choose from.

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

just answered.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.19 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



### 11. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available.

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.



### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

5 feet

no change

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 250 million crabs

no change 250 million crabs

no change 280 million crabs

12% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 3,300 tons

no change 4,300 tons

30% increase 5,250 tons

59% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly Bass 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $60 per year

or $5 per month

Program A $40 per year

or $20.83 per

month

Program B20 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



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

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.



### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

3 feet

no change Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 250 million crabs

no change 280 million crabs

12% increase 312 million crabs

25% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 3,300 tons

no change 5,250 tons

50% increase 3,300 tons

no change

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $60 per year

or $3.33 per month

Program A $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program B21



### 13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much

consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared

to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one .)

Considered

Only the

Lakes Considered

Lakes and

Bay

Waters

Equally Considered

Only the

Bay

Waters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



### 14. On a scale from 1 to 5, please rank the following based in order

of importance when you were choosing between programs.

Not

Important Somewhat

Important Very

Important Don’t

Know

Clarity 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Striped Bass 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Blue Crab 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Lake Category 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Cost of the program 1 2 3 4 5 DK22



### 15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important

in making your decision about which program to vote for?

(Please choose one .)

Recreation on the Bay

Recreation in Lakes

Preserving the environment for future generations

Availability and/or price of seafood

Value of property near the Bay

Value of property near Lakes

The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future

The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future

Other __________________23



### 16. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate

how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

My choices would have been

different if the economy in my

area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is important to improve waters

in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high

the costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I do not think I should have to

contribute any amount to the

restoration of the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am concerned that the

programs would hurt the

economy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It was difficult to understand the

descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe the programs will

improve the environment as

described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Some of the programs cost too

much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The changes offered by the

programs happen too far into the

future for me to really care

about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The survey provided me with the

information I needed to make a

choice between the options

shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 724



### 17. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you

were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree

with each of the following statements. If not, skip to the next

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

Nothing can be done to

improve the quality of the Bay

and freshwater lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would not vote for any

program even if there were no

costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because the costs were

too high compared to the

improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because I am against

more government requirements

and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 725 Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

I voted for a program because I

thought it would also lead to

better water quality closer to

my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program more for

future generations than for

myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for the program

because I may visit the

Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the

watershed in the next few

years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program because I

believe it is our responsibility to

preserve wildlife and habitat in

the Bay and Lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program so others

could enjoy the Bay and lakes,

rather than for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### 18. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices

you were given, please let us know how much you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements. If not, skip this

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)26

19. Are you a male or female? 

# Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for

statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings

across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your

answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name

or address. You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.

Male

Female

20. What is your age?

______ years old

21. What is your current marital status?

Under $25,000

$25,000

- $34,999

$35,000

- $49,999

$50,000

- $74,999

$75,000

- $99,999

$100,000

- $199,999

$200,000 or more 22. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?

______ children

23. In 2011, what was your total pre

- tax household income, including

all earners in your household? Single, never married

Married or living with a long

- term partner

Separated or divorced

Widowed27

25. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?

Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan

Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan

Rented

Other: _____________________________________________ 24. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

No high school diploma

High school diploma or GED

Some college credit or college degree

Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate

or professional degree

26. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the

following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply .)

Agriculture

Commercial fishing

Tour guide for fishing

No one in my family has worked in these industries



## Thank you very much

for your help.The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated

to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for

minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques

to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control

number in any correspondence. Do not send the materials to this address

.

### Attachment A. Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are Inputs

& Dual, Constant Baseline

### Attachment B. Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are

Endpoints & Dual, Constant Baseline

### Attachment C. Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are

Inputs, Declining Baseline

# Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference

The Future of the Chesapeake Bay:

What’s Your Opinion?

# About this survey

We are conducting this survey about the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (that is

both the Bay and the lands around it). The survey’s purpose is to collect

information to help policymakers make decisions that affect water quality, wildlife

and recreation.



### In this survey, the first

questions are about:

 

### Your experiences with the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

 

### Your thoughts about the

Watershed’s current

conditions 

### Then the survey describes:

 

### Different plans that could

affect the Watershed

 

### What changes might result

from each plan

 

### How a plan might affect

households like yours

We want to know which of these plans you would vote for. Finally we ask a few

questions about your opinions on the survey’s topics, and some background

information about your household.

Your responses to this survey will help to inform policymakers how the public feels

about plans that would affect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and your household.

This is your opportunity to voice your opinions about these plans. Please

take the time to read the information in this survey and answer the questions

carefully.

All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in

this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

1

# The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is shown below in green.

The Watershed spreads over parts of six states and Washington DC. It contains 150

major rivers and thousands of lakes, small rivers and streams. Water draining

from these lands enters these waterways and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies, with different

characteristics and potential problems.

2 Tidal waters include the Bay

itself and parts of some rivers and streams

that flow into it. Tidal waters are salty and

support different types of wildlife than

freshwater, but are also used to swim,

boat, and fish.

Freshwater lakes and

rivers support wildlife and

are used for swimming,

boating, and fishing, among

other activities.3 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

Swimming, water skiing, or

jet skiing 

# □ □

Fishing 

# □ □

Boating, including sailing,

motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □

Viewing nature, including

bird watching 

# □ □

Biking or walking on trails

along the water 

# □ □

Other

_______________________ 

# □ □ 1. Over the last five years, which of these activities have you done

in any freshwater lakes or rivers, or in the Bay’s tidal waters?

### 2. In the last five years, about how often have you visited

watershed lakes or rivers, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters

to do any of these activities?

In each column please check the statement that best describes

your experience.

4 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

I have never visited 

# □ □

I have not visited in the last

5 years 

# □ □

Once over the last 5 years 

# □ □

A few times over the last 5

years 

# □ □

About once a year 

# □ □

2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □

More than 10 times a year 

# □ □5 

# Water Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware that too much

sediment or nutrients can harm wildlife habitats?

Yes

No

4. Have you previously heard of any sources of excess nutrients and

sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?

Yes

No Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the

water, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key

pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous occur naturally in the

watershed, and are essential for healthy ecosystems. But excess nutrients

(from fertilizers, livestock manure, and wastewater treatment plants) can lead

to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen.

 Sediment. Some loose soil naturally settles to the bottom of water bodies.

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

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices increase soil erosion,

causing too much sediment to enter rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.6 

# Reducing excess nutrients and sediment in

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As a result, wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality

 Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land

 Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities

 Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm

water runoff

 Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve

fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements

 Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water

 More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to

reach them

 Smaller, less frequent algae blooms

 More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements

 Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment

 More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen

 More enjoyable boating and swimming

 More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and

shellfish while also improving water quality

### 5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed

in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in the

Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column .)

7 Lakes and Rivers Chesapeake Bay

Better than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

About the same as they were

10 years ago 

# □ □

Worse than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree Don’t

Know

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in the Chesapeake

Bay. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in environmental

quality is inevitable as our economy

grows. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

### 6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please circle the number that indicates how

much you agree or disagree with each statement.8 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

For the Chesapeake Bay , environmental goals are based on several

measurements of environmental quality and aquatic life:

Dissolved Oxygen

 Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen in the water, something all aquatic life

needs

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

based on the types of aquatic life that live there

Water Clarity

 Water clarity is measured by how far one can see into the water

 Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

 People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water

Amount of Aquatic Grass Habitat

 Aquatic grasses provide food and habitat for other aquatic life Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities.

State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop

environmental goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.



### 7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any of

these environmental goals for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, or

aquatic grasses?

Yes

No9 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

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

but some additional actions are being considered. Scientists studying the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed monitor its health and predict changes in water quality under different

pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025

for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients

and sediment.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no further action *

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Percent of waters meeting

DO goals

Some plans being

considered would achieve

100% in 2025 40 %

of the Bay areas

meet DO goals 33 %

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

How many feet you can see

down into the water. Average visibility of

3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease

Aquatic Grasses

Acres of underwater grasses

on the Bay floor.

Scientists recommend

185,000 acres be restored

based on historic levels 80,000 acres 56,000 acres

30% decrease

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with

state and federal partners.10 

# Environmental Quality in the Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how

much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:

 Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.

 Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and

catfish.

Lake

Condition Water

Color Water

Clarity Most Common Types

of Fish

1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly rough fish

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly bass and some

walleye

6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and trout



### 8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your

home? (Please circle one .)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t

Know11 

# Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect

freshwater bodies of the watershed.

 Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly

moving.

 Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of

the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows the current condition and conditions in 2025 that scientists

predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are

taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is

an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no additional actions*

Average Condition

of <State> Lakes in

the Watershed 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by

the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.12 

# Pollution Reduction Programs for the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to

reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay?

Yes

No Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of

the program.

For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in

the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a

smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused

on reducing nutrients and sediment. Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been

set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased

in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.13 

# Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive.

For example:

 Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for

households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households

both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live

. This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the

cost of living for your household. The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs

for your household.14 

# Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction

programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that

provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household

different amounts.

You will be asked three questions. In each question you will need to choose the

program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions

or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they

reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will

look like.15 

# An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 33%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 50%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 70%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

3 feet

67% increase

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 56,000 acres

30% decrease 100,000 acres

25% increase 150,000 acres

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly Bass 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $36 per year

or $3 per month

Program A $50 per year

or $4.16 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



### If you do not want A

or B , mark this box If you want Program A,

mark this box If you want Program B,

mark this box16

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

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

your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things

such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other

environmental problems you care about.

You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year

from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your

household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or

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

you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program

were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very

important for decision makers in state and federal governments. 

# Weighing Outcomes and Costs17 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 33%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 85%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 100%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

50% increase

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 56,000 acres

30% decrease 130,000 acres

25% increase 165,000 acres

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $250 per year

or $20.83 per

month

Program A $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

### 10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options. Mark

the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.18 

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

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

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

areas.

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

available to choose from.

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

just answered.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.19 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 33%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 85%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 40%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

5 feet

no change

Aquatic

Grasses

Coverage is

80,000 acres 56,000 acres

30% decrease 130,000 acres

25% increase 80,000 acres

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $40 per year

or $3.33 per month

Program A $60 per year

or $5 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

### 11. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available.

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.20 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Dissolved

Oxygen

40 % of the Bay

areas will meet DO goals 33%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 100%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals 85%

of the Bay areas

will meet DO goals

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase

Aquatic

Grasses

C overage is

80,000 acres 56,000 acres

30% decrease 130,000 acres

20% increase 165,000 acres

75% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $370 per year

or $30.83 per

month

Program A $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

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

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.21



### 13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much

consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared

to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one .)

Considered

Only the

Lakes Considered

Lakes and

Bay

Waters

Equally Considered

Only the

Bay

Waters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



### 14. On a scale from 1 to 5, please rank the following based in order

of importance when you were choosing between programs.

Not

Important Somewhat

Important Very

Important Don’t

Know

Dissolved oxygen 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Water clarity 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Aquatic grass coverage 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Lake category 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Cost of the program 1 2 3 4 5 DK22



### 15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important

in making your decision about which program to vote for?

(Please choose one .)

Recreation on the Bay

Recreation in Lakes

Preserving the environment for future generations

Availability and/or price of seafood

Value of property near the Bay

Value of property near Lakes

The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future

The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future

Other __________________23



### 16. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate

how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

My choices would have been

different if the economy in my

area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is important to improve waters

in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high

the costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I do not think I should have to

contribute any amount to the

restoration of the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am concerned that the

programs would hurt the

economy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It was difficult to understand the

descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe the programs will

improve the environment as

described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Some of the programs cost too

much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The changes offered by the

programs happen too far into the

future for me to really care

about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The survey provided me with the

information I needed to make a

choice between the options

shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 724



### 17. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you

were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree

with each of the following statements. If not, skip to the next

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

Nothing can be done to

improve the quality of the Bay

and freshwater lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would not vote for any

program even if there were no

costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because the costs were

too high compared to the

improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because I am against

more government requirements

and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 725 Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

I voted for a program because I

thought it would also lead to

better water quality closer to

my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program more for

future generations than for

myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for the program

because I may visit the

Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the

watershed in the next few

years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program because I

believe it is our responsibility to

preserve wildlife and habitat in

the Bay and Lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program so others

could enjoy the Bay and lakes,

rather than for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### 18. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices

you were given, please let us know how much you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements. If not, skip this

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)26

19. Are you male or female? 

# Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for

statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings

across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your

answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name

or address. You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.

Male

Female

20. What is your age?

______ years old

21. What is your current marital status?

Under $25,000

$25,000

- $34,999

$35,000

- $49,999

$50,000

- $74,999

$75,000

- $99,999

$100,000

- $199,999

$200,000 or more 22. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?

______ children

23. In 2011, what was your total pre

- tax household income, including

all earners in your household? Single, never married

Married or living with a long

- term partner

Separated or divorced

Widowed27

25. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?

Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan

Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan

Rented

Other: _____________________________________________ 24. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

No high school diploma

High school diploma or GED

Some college credit or college degree

Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate

or professional degree

26. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the

following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply .)

Agriculture

Commercial fishing

Tour guide for fishing

No one in my family has worked in these industries



## Thank you very much

for your help.The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated

to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for

minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques

to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control

number in any correspondence. Do not send the materials to this address

.

### Attachment D. Stated Preference Questionnaire, Attributes are

Endpoints & Dual, Declining Baseline

# Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference

The Future of the Chesapeake Bay:

What’s Your Opinion?

# About this survey

We are conducting this survey about the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (that is

both the Bay and the lands around it). The survey’s purpose is to collect

information to help policymakers make decisions that affect water quality, wildlife

and recreation.



### In this survey, the first

questions are about:

 

### Your experiences with the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

 

### Your thoughts about the

Watershed’s current

conditions 

### Then the survey describes:

 

### Different plans that could

affect the Watershed

 

### What changes might result

from each plan

 

### How a plan might affect

households like yours

We want to know which of these plans you would vote for. Finally we ask a few

questions about your opinions on the survey’s topics, and some background

information about your household.

Your responses to this survey will help to inform policymakers how the public feels

about plans that would affect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and your household.

This is your opportunity to voice your opinions about these plans. Please

take the time to read the information in this survey and answer the questions

carefully.

All information and responses will be kept confidential. Background information in

this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

1

# The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is shown below in green.

The Watershed spreads over parts of six states and Washington DC. It contains 150

major rivers and thousands of lakes, small rivers and streams. Water draining

from these lands enters these waterways and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies, with different

characteristics and potential problems.

2 Tidal waters include the Bay

itself and parts of some rivers and streams

that flow into it. Tidal waters are salty and

support different types of wildlife than

freshwater, but are also used to swim,

boat, and fish.

Freshwater lakes and

rivers support wildlife and

are used for swimming,

boating, and fishing, among

other activities.3 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

Swimming, water skiing, or

jet skiing 

# □ □

Fishing 

# □ □

Boating, including sailing,

motor boating and kayaking 

# □ □

Viewing nature, including

bird watching 

# □ □

Biking or walking on trails

along the water 

# □ □

Other

_______________________ 

# □ □ 1. Over the last five years, which of these activities have you done

in any freshwater lakes or rivers, or in the Bay’s tidal waters?

### 2. In the last five years, about how often have you visited

watershed lakes or rivers, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters

to do any of these activities?

In each column please check the statement that best describes

your experience.

4 Lakes and rivers

in the Watershed Chesapeake Bay

tidal waters

I have never visited 

# □ □

I have not visited in the last

5 years 

# □ □

Once over the last 5 years 

# □ □

A few times over the last 5

years 

# □ □

About once a year 

# □ □

2 to 10 times a year 

# □ □

More than 10 times a year 

# □ □5 

# Water Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware that too much

sediment or nutrients can harm wildlife habitats?

Yes

No

4. Have you previously heard of any sources of excess nutrients and

sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?

Yes

No Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the

water, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Two key

pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

 Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous occur naturally in the

watershed, and are essential for healthy ecosystems. But excess nutrients

(from fertilizers, livestock manure, and wastewater treatment plants) can lead

to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen.

 Sediment. Some loose soil naturally settles to the bottom of water bodies.

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

animals. Paved surfaces and some farming practices increase soil erosion,

causing too much sediment to enter rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.6 

# Reducing excess nutrients and sediment in

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As a result, wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality

 Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land

 Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities

 Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm

water runoff

 Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve

fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements

 Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water

 More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to

reach them

 Smaller, less frequent algae blooms

 More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements

 Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment

 More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen

 More enjoyable boating and swimming

 More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and

shellfish while also improving water quality

### 5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed

in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in the

Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column .)

7 Lakes and rivers Chesapeake Bay

Better than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

About the same as they were

10 years ago 

# □ □

Worse than they were 10 years

ago 

# □ □

Don’t know 

# □ □

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree Don’t

Know

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

I am concerned about current

pollution levels in the Chesapeake

Bay. 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Some decrease in environmental

quality is inevitable as our economy

grows. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

### 6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please circle the number that indicates how

much you agree or disagree with each statement.8 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

For the Chesapeake Bay , environmental goals are based on several

measurements of water quality and aquatic life:

Water Clarity

 Measured by how far one can see into the water

 People who go swimming or boating my prefer clearer water

 Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

Blue Crab

 A key ecological species and popular shellfish for recreational fishermen

Oysters

 Their shells form reefs that provide habitat for other aquatic life

 As “filter feeders” they clean the waters of the Bay Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and

recreation opportunities.

State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop

environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.



### 7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any of

these environmental goals for water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay

or for any Chesapeake Bay species?

Yes

No9 

# Environmental Quality in the

Chesapeake Bay

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

but some additional actions are being considered. Scientists studying the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed monitor its health and predict changes in water quality under different

pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025

for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients

and sediment.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no further action *

Water Clarity

How many feet you can see

down into the water Average visibility of

3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease

Blue Crabs

Goal is 415 million crabs 250

million crabs 235

million crabs

6% decrease

Oysters

Goal is 35,000 tons 3,300

tons 2,700

tons

18% decrease

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with

state and federal partners.10 

# Environmental Quality in the Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how

much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:

 Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.

 Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and

catfish.

Lake

Condition Water

Color Water

Clarity Most Common Types

of Fish

1 Green Less than 1 foot Mostly rough fish

2 Green About 1 foot Mostly rough fish

3 Brown/Green About 3 feet Bass and rough fish

4 Blue/Brown About 5 feet Mostly bass

5 Blue/Brown About 8 feet Mostly bass and some

walleye

6 Blue About 15 feet Bass, walleye, and trout

7 Blue More than 20 feet Bass, walleye, and trout



### 8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your

home? (Please circle one .)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t

Know11 

# Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

 Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect

freshwater bodies of the watershed.

 Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly

moving.

 Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of

the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows current conditions and conditions in 2025 that scientists

predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are

taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed. This is

an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions Conditions in 2025 with

no additional actions*

Average Condition

of <State> Lakes in

the Watershed 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish

*All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by

the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.12 

# Pollution Reduction Programs for the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to

reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay?

Yes

No Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of

the program.

For example,

 Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in

the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

 Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a

smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused

on reducing nutrients and sediment. Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been

set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay. Any program would be phased

in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.13 

# Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive.

For example:

 Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for

households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

 Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households

both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live

. This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the

cost of living for your household. The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs

for your household.14 

# Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction

programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that

provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household

different amounts.

You will be asked three questions. In each question you will need to choose the

program you like best from the following alternatives:

 The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions

or costs to your household.

 The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they

reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will

look like.15 

# An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

3 feet

67% increase

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 235

million crabs

6% decrease 300

million crabs

20% increase 275

million crabs

10% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 2,700

tons

18% decrease 3,960

tons

20% increase 4,950

tons

50% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $150 per year

or $12.50 per

month

Program A $200 per year

or $16.67 per

month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



### If you do not want A

or B , mark this box If you want Program A,

mark this box If you want Program B,

mark this box16

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

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

your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things

such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other

environmental problems you care about.

You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year

from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your

household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or

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

you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program

were implemented. Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very

important for decision makers in state and federal governments. 

# Weighing Outcomes and Costs17 

### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

50% increase

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 235 million crabs

6% decrease 280 million crabs

12% increase 312 million crabs

25% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 2,700 tons

18% decrease 5,250 tons

50% increase 4,300 tons

23% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly bass

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program A $250 per year

or $20.83 per

month

Program B Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes 

### 10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options. Mark

the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.18 

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

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

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

areas.

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

available to choose from.

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

just answered.

 Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.19 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



### 11. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available.

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.



### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase Average visibility of

5 feet

no change

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 235 million crabs

6% decrease 250 million crabs

no change 280 million crabs

12% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 2,700 tons

18% decrease 4,300 tons

30% increase 5,250 tons

59% increase

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 4

Blue/Brown Water

5 feet of visibility

Mostly Bass 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $60 per year

or $5 per month

Program A $40 per year

or $20.83 per

month

Program B20 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters

Lakes



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

Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you

would vote for.



### Conditions in 2025

Current

Conditions No Further

Action Program A Program B

Water Clarity

Average visibility

of 3 feet Average visibility of

1.5 feet

50% decrease Average visibility of

5 feet

83% increase Average visibility of

4 feet

33% increase

Blue Crab

250 million crabs 235 million crabs

6% decrease 280 million crabs

12% increase 312 million crabs

25% increase

Oysters

3,300 tons 2,700 tons

18% decrease 5,250 tons

50% increase 3,300 tons

no change

Lake Condition

Average of 3

in <state> 2

Green Water

1 foot of visibility

Mostly rough fish 5

Blue/Brown Water

8 feet of visibility

Bass and walleye 3

Brown/Green Water

3 feet of visibility

Bass and rough fish

Permanent

Increase in the

Cost of Living for

your Household

Your Vote

Please mark one of

the boxes to the

right $0 per year

No Further Action $60 per year

or $3.33 per month

Program A $180 per year

or $15 per month

Program B21



### 13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much

consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared

to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one .)

Considered

Only the

Lakes Considered

Lakes and

Bay

Waters

Equally Considered

Only the

Bay

Waters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



### 14. On a scale from 1 to 5, please rank the following based in order

of importance when you were choosing between programs.

Not

Important Somewhat

Important Very

Important Don’t

Know

Clarity 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Striped Bass 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Blue Crab 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Lake Category 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Cost of the program 1 2 3 4 5 DK22



### 15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important

in making your decision about which program to vote for?

(Please choose one .)

Recreation on the Bay

Recreation in Lakes

Preserving the environment for future generations

Availability and/or price of seafood

Value of property near the Bay

Value of property near Lakes

The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future

The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future

Other __________________23



### 16. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate

how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

My choices would have been

different if the economy in my

area were better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is important to improve waters

in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, no matter how high

the costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I do not think I should have to

contribute any amount to the

restoration of the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am concerned that the

programs would hurt the

economy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It was difficult to understand the

descriptions of the programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe the programs will

improve the environment as

described. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Some of the programs cost too

much compared to what they

would deliver. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The changes offered by the

programs happen too far into the

future for me to really care

about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The survey provided me with the

information I needed to make a

choice between the options

shown. 1 2 3 4 5 6 724



### 17. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you

were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree

with each of the following statements. If not, skip to the next

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)

Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

Nothing can be done to

improve the quality of the Bay

and freshwater lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would not vote for any

program even if there were no

costs to my household. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because the costs were

too high compared to the

improvements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for NO FURTHER

ACTION because I am against

more government requirements

and spending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 725 Strongly

Disagree Neutral Strongly

Agree

I voted for a program because I

thought it would also lead to

better water quality closer to

my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program more for

future generations than for

myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for the program

because I may visit the

Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the

watershed in the next few

years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program because I

believe it is our responsibility to

preserve wildlife and habitat in

the Bay and Lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I voted for a program so others

could enjoy the Bay and lakes,

rather than for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### 18. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices

you were given, please let us know how much you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements. If not, skip this

question. ( Circle the number that matches your answer .)26

19. Are you a male or female? 

# Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for

statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings

across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual. Your

answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name

or address. You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.

Male

Female

20. What is your age?

______ years old

21. What is your current marital status?

Under $25,000

$25,000

- $34,999

$35,000

- $49,999

$50,000

- $74,999

$75,000

- $99,999

$100,000

- $199,999

$200,000 or more 22. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?

______ children

23. In 2011, what was your total pre

- tax household income, including

all earners in your household? Single, never married

Married or living with a long

- term partner

Separated or divorced

Widowed27

25. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?

Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan

Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan

Rented

Other: _____________________________________________ 24. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

No high school diploma

High school diploma or GED

Some college credit or college degree

Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate

or professional degree

26. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the

following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply .)

Agriculture

Commercial fishing

Tour guide for fishing

No one in my family has worked in these industries



## Thank you very much

for your help.The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated

to average 2 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for

minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques

to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control

number in any correspondence. Do not send the materials to this address

.

### Attachment E. Focus Group and Cognitive Interview Summary

This report summarizes the main findings from the ten focus groups and three sets of cognitive interviews

conducted as part of the design and pre-testing of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed stated preference

survey.

The ten focus groups took place in the following locations on these dates:

1. Baltimore, MD 1/12/12

2. Baltimore, MD 1/23/12

3. Richmond, VA 2/01/12

4. Richmond, VA 2/02/12

5. Washington, DC 2/29/12

6. Washington, DC 3/01/12

7. Harrisburg, PA 3/26/12

8. Harrisburg, PA 3/27/12

9. Raleigh, NC 4/16/12

10. Raleigh, NC 4/17/12

Each focus group was composed of seven to ten individuals that were randomly selected by the focus

group facilities. Participants were eligible if they were eighteen years of age or older, if they were not

full-time students, and if they had not participated in a survey or focus group in the last six months. A

college degree was a requirement for some focus groups, but not for others. Each of the focus groups

included individuals with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, based on characteristics such as income,

marital status, age, race, education, occupation, and gender. Participants were compensated for their

participation in the focus groups. Each focus group session was approximately two hours long. All

sessions were video recorded.

Cognitive interviews took place in the following locations on these dates:

1. Washington, DC (10 interviews) 5/03/12

2. Richmond, VA (8 interviews) 5/08/12

3. Harrisburg, PA (8 interviews) 5/11/12

Interviews were conducted one-on-one primarily using a think aloud technique. Interview subjects were

randomly selected by the focus group facilities using the same eligibility rules applied to the focus

groups. All interviews were audio recorded.

Between each focus group and set of interviews the survey instruments were revised based on feedback

from respondents. Detailed summaries of each focus group and set of interviews are available as separate

reports.

Focus Groups Overview

Focus Groups 1 and 2 (Baltimore, MD)Focus Group 1 was conducted in Baltimore, MD and focused on four main objectives:

1. Identifying popular recreation areas near the Bay

2. Identifying aspects of the natural environment in or around the Bay itself that are important to the

participants

3. Discussing the best way to communicate levels of different aspects of the Chesapeake Bay to

respondents (e.g., fish populations)

4. Exploring payment vehicles.

For recreational purposes, respondents identified cleanliness of waters and presence of wildlife and

healthy vegetation as important elements of the natural Bay. Outside of recreational opportunities, aquatic

life (e.g., population, subaquatic vegetation) was also important. Respondents in this group did not

exhibit strong preferences for particular species, but thought in terms of broad categories such as fish and

shellfish, and preferred to think about these in terms of changes in absolute number of fish, percent

differences, and total stock size. Respondents also indicated that water quality was important to them as

an input for plants and animals, but also as something they care about directly. Respondents focused on

clarity as a measure of quality, and did not necessarily care about algae blooms, dead zones, and red tides,

in part because these terms were unfamiliar and too technical.

The discussion on potential payment vehicles revealed that people believed they were already paying for

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts through separate assessments or as additions to their water bills.

There was some indication of willingness to pay additional amounts for Bay improvements and

suggestions included taxes and recreational fees.

Focus Group 2, also in Baltimore, pursued the first three questions from Focus Group 1 in addition to

responses on some basic choice questions.

Participants were provided with a detailed listing of Bay environmental attributes and asked to select

those important to them or to add their own. “Suitable for aquatic life” was the most widely appreciated

attribute, but this was largely because the term was considered all-encompassing. Several species were

identified as important, including rockfish, blue fish, crab, oysters, and bird species. Clarity was

identified as an aspect of the environment that was important, but was not as prominent as a key indicator

as it was in Focus Group 1; some participants noted that they expect the water in the Bay to be murky

given the nature of the water body. There were no preferred metrics for providing information on

changes in the attributes.

When presented with some basic choice questions the group and participants were generally willing and

able to consider tradeoffs of money for changes in different attributes. They seemed particularly

concerned about stalling a worsening baseline (i.e., preventing further declines in environmental quality

in the future). More information on the timing of payments and improvements is needed to pursue these

tradeoffs in more detail.Focus Groups 3 and 4 (Richmond, VA)

Focus Group 3 was conducted in Richmond, VA. This focus group pursued the same goals as in the

Baltimore focus group 2, in part to assess regional variation in important endpoints or aspects of the

natural environment. Thus, the main goals of the focus group were to:

1. Identify popular recreation areas near the Bay

2. Identify aspects of the natural environment in or around the Bay itself that are important to the

participants

3. Determine the best way to communicate levels of different aspects of the Chesapeake Bay (i.e.,

endpoints)

4. Obtain reactions to simple choice questions.

Respondents here identified many of the same important attributes as those in the Baltimore focus groups,

with a particular emphasis on the water being safe for humans and wildlife, clarity, the ability to support

aquatic life, and the number of fish and shellfish (expressed as crabs, oysters, or both). Other aspects

raised by respondents included “clean beaches,” nice views, and that the Bay be “clean and natural.”

Most respondents acknowledged a preference for improvements to the rivers, in particular the James

River, due to the proximity to where they live and recreate. Many respondents noted a potential tradeoff

between benefits from industry and recreational uses along the Bay. Respondents also suggested that

improvements to the Bay would need to be the result of concerted effort across states because so many

rivers enter the Bay.

Focus Group 4 was also conducted in Richmond. The main goals of the focus group were to:

1. Assess the effectiveness and clarity of draft text with background information on the state of the

Bay

2. Assess reactions to simple choice questions

Participants were asked to read a description of the state of the Bay, and then were presented with a set of

structured choice questions with varying attributes, but no costs.

Reactions to the background text suggested that a simpler depiction of the ecological production function

of the Chesapeake Bay and related waters was necessary. Some terms were difficult for participants to

understand (e.g., “deep water refuge”) and many participants did not make key connections between

precursors affected by policy (e.g., sediment) and environmental consequences (e.g., clarity). Generally,

respondents wanted clearer information about sources of pollutants and their effects on the environment.

As presented, respondents generally had difficulty trading off among attributes. This could be in part

because a cost attribute was not included in these preliminary choice questions, or perhaps because the

focus group started with an overview of the entire Bay, rather than eliciting and identifying attributes

individuals care about. The need for a more solid ecological production function was apparent:

participants had a difficult time thinking of the fish as anything but food, and some found the inclusion of

clarity confusing as its importance to the ecosystem had not been established. However, there was some

indication that clarity was a good proxy for recreational endpoints. Finally, respondents expressed a

desire for an index to describe overall Bay health.Focus Groups 5 and 6 (Washington, DC)

Focus Group 5 was conducted in Washington, DC. The main goal of this focus group was to compare

two versions of a draft survey instrument that differed by whether the quality of the Bay was described in

terms of attributes that are ecological “inputs” (dissolved oxygen, sub-aquatic vegetation, clarity) or by

endpoints or ecological outputs or “endpoints” (water quality score, game fish, crabs, oysters). Several

alternative formats and representations of the choice questions were also presented to respondents.

Most participants preferred the endpoint attributes because they were more tangible and closer to things

they care about directly. Some respondents wanted input attributes along with these endpoints.

Generally, it wasn’t clear whether participants cared about these attributes independently or whether they

served together to define overall quality of the Bay. Many liked the use of a water quality score as an

overall measure, but wanted more information to make it more tangible.

There was some confusion about how input attributes were defined and what they were really capturing.

Some discussion suggested that attribute levels were not being considered independently, e.g., “dissolved

oxygen helps sub-aquatic vegetation therefore care about dissolved oxygen” (but both are independently

represented in choice questions). This suggested that if inputs were to be used in the survey, the

ecological production function (i.e., the link between the inputs and the endpoints) would need to be more

carefully described.

Other issues raised during the focus group included tourism and economic impacts; how payments would

be allocated among businesses, farms, individuals, and states; and potential “upstream benefits” beyond

the Chesapeake Bay itself.

Focus Group 6 was also conducted in Washington, DC. The primary goals were to continue testing

“input version” and an “endpoint version” of the survey, and to evaluate alternative presentations of

choice scenarios.

Most participants preferred the endpoint survey because they could relate to the attributes better and

because the information treatment for the inputs version was too technical. Some respondents wanted the

more technical information, however. This suggested that a unified information treatment, compromising

between the levels of background and detail in these two instruments, was desirable.

Other important findings from the focus group included a preference for arrows indicating the direction of

a change in attribute levels, rather than a graph showing changes over time; willingness to pay amounts

almost always exceeded the $135/year maximum in the choice questions; and people found it useful to

have both monthly and annual costs.

Focus Groups 7 and 8 (Harrisburg, PA)

Focus Group 7 was conducted in Harrisburg, PA largely to assess how respondents farther out in the

watershed would react to the survey. Other goals included testing a figure to depict the ecologicalproduction function, testing different presentations of water quality indicators, evaluating the inclusion of

an “upstream” attribute to reflect environmental improvements beyond the Bay tidal waters, and testing a

payment vehicle.

Participants were first given the “input version” of the survey and then were given the “endpoint version.”

In both versions, participants generally found the ecological production function figure redundant with

what was provided in other parts of the survey, and did not react well to specific graphics within it.

There was an approximately even split between preference for the inputs (dissolved oxygen, water clarity,

aquatic grasses) vs. the endpoints (water quality scores, striped bass, blue crab, oysters) versions of the

survey. Respondents also believed a third version of the survey that included only water quality indices

did not provide enough information for making choices.

Participants reacted well to inclusion of the freshwater attributes. Several focused first on that when

answering choice questions, although there was general agreement that doing something for the Bay was

important. Some participants were unable to separate upstream attributes from Bay attributes, suggesting

the survey needs to better specify how these may change independently.

All participants selected a program rather than the status quo at the costs in the survey drafts. It was still

difficult to conclude whether participants held values for the individual attributes and considered tradeoffs

among them, or were interested in improving water quality in general and seemed to just pick the program

that cost the least.

Participants accepted the payment vehicle as a permanent cost-of-living increase, and none admitted that

they thought they could escape the costs. Two respondents indicated that the permanent nature of the

payment figured prominently in their choices, but suggested that any time period of 10+ years might as

well be permanent.

Focus Group 8 was also held in Harrisbug, PA with the same goals as Focus Group 7. The order of the

survey versions was reversed.

Reactions to the survey versions were similar to Focus Group 7, with a split between input and endpoint

versions of the survey (five to three). Framing attributes in terms of the percent of water segments in

compliance with standards seemed to help respondents put the attribute levels in perspective. They also

liked that the input version included a diversified set of attribute metrics, and found that attributes

expressed as feet and acres were especially easy to relate to.

Participants seemed willing to pay money to improve the Bay. They did not question why they have to

pay for the cleanup, which weakly suggests an acceptance that they contribute to the degradation, or at

least bear some responsibility towards its improvement.

Respondents generally accepted the inclusion of a freshwater upstream attribute(s). It was unclear

whether they necessarily favored upstream water quality more than in the Bay. This was surprising given

Pennsylvania’s abundance of small streams and lakes, and the fact that the State is not adjacent to the

Bay. On the other hand, most respondents seemed to be nonusers of both the Bay and upstream waters.The independence of freshwater and bay water quality attributes needs to be further emphasized in the

text.

Respondents seemed to value individual attributes, but it was unclear whether they necessarily hold

shadow values for the individual attributes. In other words, in some cases respondents may simply have

been focusing on one attribute or another, but in fact valuing the same thing. For example, some people

valued oysters because they filter the water, so essentially the good they valued was water quality or

overall Bay health (which is redundant with other attributes, such as the water quality score). This

suggested that the independence of attributes must be further emphasized in the text, and any text

promoting perceptions of dependence among attributes should be reduced.

Lastly, we also experimented with a payment vehicle consisting of five years of payment going into a

fund to support the program indefinitely. This payment vehicle did not work well, and led to many open

questions. Participants also did not believe fees under this payment vehicle would actually end after 5

years.

Focus Groups 9 and 10 (Raleigh, NC)

Focus Group 9 was held in Raleigh, NC in part to test for the salience of TMDL-related improvements in

a state that is nearby, but is not part of the Chesapeake watershed. Other goals included testing a unified

information treatment, and evaluating whether a cost-of-living payment vehicle would work beyond

watershed states. Again, an “input version” and an “endpoint version” were tested.

The group was primarily non-users, but participants seemed to understand the map and scope of the

Chesapeake Bay and watershed. Responses were generally positive for the unified information treatment,

including the figure on the ecological production function.

Participants accepted the payment vehicle as realistic and feasible. There was some initial confusion from

a few participants as to whether they should be responding as themselves, or as someone who lives within

the watershed. After clarifying this, participants accepted the payment vehicle, although some thought

the presentation should be simplified and that it should be clearer on which costs occur to those inside

versus outside the watershed.

Participants were able to complete both versions of the survey, but all preferred the endpoint version

because it was more salient; it was not clear to them how inputs related to potential endpoints they care

about.

Part of the preference for the endpoint version also appeared to be presentational. Several participants

noted that the small graphics for that attributes (line drawings of a fish, crab, and oysters) made it more

appealing. Also, the use of indicator arrows for increases and decreases was preferred to the inputs

versions that did not contain these indicators. This suggested a need to make the versions visually

commensurate.Everyone chose one of the two improvement programs, although most would never or rarely see use

benefits. Few respondents chose the status quo at the costs presented. However, when program costs

exceeded $100 per year there was a shift away from that alternative even when it offers larger benefits,

suggesting price sensitivity at levels above this.

Focus Group 10 was held in Raleigh, NC with many of the same objectives as Focus Group 9. We also

wanted to test whether respondents would accept choice questions where environmental quality was held

constant in 2025 under the status quo or “No Further Action” option.

This group, for the most part, consisted of nonusers, some of which had not even heard of the Chesapeake

Bay. The distinction between the Bay (“tidal waters”) and upstream confused some, suggesting we

needed to emphasize this more clearly in the text.

Respondents seemed accepting of both versions of the survey, with a slight preference towards the

“endpoint” version. Respondents found water quality scores to be difficult to comprehend and evaluate,

although the numbers were easier to understand.

Participants stated they are willing to pay for improvements to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This

included nonusers whose WTP reflected bequest and existence values. Somewhat higher cost options for

the instruments in this focus group increased “no further action” responses.

Participants seemed to accept the general cost of living payment vehicle, but the information needed to be

presented more clearly and succinctly with a greater emphasis on what costs occur within versus outside

of the watershed. Similarly, respondents appeared to accept a constant baseline scenario (i.e., no

projected decline in environmental attributes in the absence of policy), but wanted a clear justification and

information to support this, such as examples of current programs that are already in place.

Cognitive Interviews Overview

Cognitive Interview Set 1 (Washington, DC)

This set of interviews tested input and endpoint versions of the survey, with constant and declining

baselines. For all sets of interviews respondents were only given one version of the survey. Due to new

information on upstream modeling limitations, the upstream attribute was now presented as a Lake

Condition attribute (replacing the upstream water quality index). This had the advantage of being more

concrete than the water quality index score, which prior focus groups had found difficult to understand.

The Lake Condition attribute refers to the trophic state of a lake and is described on the survey using

visibility, water color, and dominant types of fish. The attribute was received well by the subjects and

seemed to work fine in the choice questions.A potential problem that came up in multiple interviews was that on the distinction between the parts of

the watershed (tidal vs. upstream) was sometimes forgotten by the time respondents came to the choice

questions. This suggested a need to better clarify this distinction so that it “sticks” throughout the survey.

There were two different problems with the payment vehicle. One respondent did not understand why her

water bill would increase and another confused the “cost of living” increase with general inflation, and

assumed salaries would increase to offset it.

The endpoint version of the survey worked well with respondents, who were able to evaluate the attribute

levels, tradeoffs, and make an economic decision.

Most subjects responded well to the input version, accepting the attributes and evaluating program

options based on them. One respondent had difficulty and wanted to have information on endpoints

rather than inputs. He answered the questions, but based responses largely upon his general knowledge of

water quality in the area rather than specific input attribute levels.

Several respondents had suggestions for wording improvements and clarity, and some felt the survey was

long. At the same time, however, some wanted more information.

Aside from these issues, the interviews went relatively smoothly. Most subjects were able to follow the

information treatment, accepted the payment vehicle, evaluated attribute levels, and considered tradeoffs

between attributes when answering the choice questions. Several respondents indicated they would

choose the “No Action” status quo based on an evaluation of the cost and the described improvements.

Cognitive Interview Set 2 (Richmond, VA)

Four subjects were given the endpoint version of the survey with a worsening baseline. All subjects

accepted the scenarios and payment vehicle. Throughout the survey we relabeled the “Upstream

sections” of the bay as “Lakes and rivers,” which eliminated confusion regarding the two regions of the

watershed. Providing an example question prior to the choice scenarios helped to familiarize the subjects

with the question layout before they were asked to make a choice.

Four subjects were given the input version of the survey with a worsening baseline. All subjects accepted

the scenarios and payment vehicle, but one needed some additional statements that all else was the same

across these options. She was mainly concerned about equity in costs and had concerns about ancillary

benefits and costs pertaining to how the program would be implemented, and who would regulate it.

Overall, subjects were careful to analyze trade-offs among the attributes and costs across the different

alternatives.

Most commented on the length of the survey but acknowledged that all the material is necessary to

answer the choice experiment questions. Some suggested a strong cover letter is needed to emphasize

how important it is to complete the survey.Cognitive Interview Set 3 (Harrisbug, PA)

Four subjects were given the input version of the survey with a declining baseline. Most subjects

accepted the scenarios and payment vehicle, but one found the choice questions difficult and confusing

and ultimately did not make decisions based on attribute levels. Generally, respondents were able to

answer the program choice questions, although the description of the dissolved oxygen criterion was

difficult for two subjects. One subject didn’t fully understand the goals, while a second was concerned

that changes in dissolved oxygen involved a chemical process with ambiguous risks. This suggested a

need to clarify the description of the dissolved oxygen attribute.

Because the survey instrument had worked well in prior interviews, we probed deeper on some particular

issues on how respondents approached the choice questions. For the input version of the survey,

respondents seemed to first look at the cost of the programs to see if any were affordable and then tended

to support the lower cost option. Some respondents noted lake condition and clarity as key factors in their

decisions, but did not exhibit strong preferences across the other attributes. These two observations are

not so surprising given that most participants had never visited the Bay. Nonusers may have positive

WTP without strong preferences over attributes.

Similar results were obtained from four interviews using the endpoint version of the survey with a

declining baseline. All of the subjects accepted the scenarios and payment vehicle, but one had difficulty

understanding why conditions for the other Bay attributes (fish and shellfish) wouldn’t necessarily

increase if the Water Quality score (capturing improvements in clarity and DO) improved. (The Water

Quality score attribute was ultimately dropped in favor of clarity, which seemed more salient to most

respondents.)

Most subjects first looked at the cost of the programs to see what they could afford then proceeded to look

at the other attributes provided. Lake condition seemed to be the driver for those that selected programs

coupled with the desire to see some increase among the fish populations. Subjects did not have strong

preferences about which species they preferred, but choices were sensitive to large improvements in the

attributes. Water quality conditions in the Chesapeake Bay did not figure prominently in most subjects’

decision making, although one subject noted that this was the most important of them all.

Most respondents suggested that it would be useful to have information early in the instrument to describe

what was going to be asked later in the survey.

Additionally, some location information wasn’t fully clear, including where the Susquehanna and key

cities were located on the map and whether there were any nearby lakes. A more detailed map was

suggested.