0 84 months  Application of the Backward Euler solution algorithm to the system of differential equations ( B 6a B 6i in Table A 3).

Both cases above assume that trabecular bone to blood lead concentration ratio is equal to bone ( composite) to blood lead concentration ratio. µ g B

6b, 6h, 6.5b, 6.

5h, 8d, 9e multiply_ factor Ratio of indoor dust lead concentration to air lead concentration 100 0 84 E Analyses of the 1983 East Helena study in ( USEPA 1989, Appendix B 8)

suggest about 267 µ g/ g increment of lead in dust for each µ g / m ³ . lead in air. A much smaller factor of 100 µ g/ g PbD per µ g/ m ³ is assumed for non

smelter community exposure. µ g / g per µ g/ m3 E 11 OCCUP( t) Dust lead intake from secondary occupation E 12a 0 84 I Simple combination of amount of dust ingested, fraction of the total dust ingested as secondary occupational dust, and lead concentration in secondary occupational dust µ g/ day E 9d OccupConc Secondary occupational dust lead concentration 1200 0 84 E Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead. ( US EPA, 1986) µ g/ g E 12a NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 11 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED OccupFraction Fraction of total dust ingested as secondary occupation dust 0 0 84 E The default condition is that there is no adult in the residence who works at a lead related job. unitless E 9.5,12a PAINT( t) Dust lead intake from lead based home paint E 12e 0 84 I Simple combination of amount of dust ingested daily, fraction of the total dust ingested as lead based home paint, and lead concentration in lead

based home paint. µ g/ day E 9d PaintConc Leadconcentration in housedust containing lead based paint 1200 0 84 E Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead. ( US EPA, 1986) µ g/ g E 12e PAF Fraction of total absorption as passive absorption at low dose 0.20 0 84 E Based on in vitro everted rat intestine data ( Aungst and Fung, 1981),

reanalyses ( Marcus, 1994) of infant baboon data ( Mallon, 1983) and infant duplicate diet study ( Sherlock and Quinn, 1986) unitless U 1a thru U

1f PaintFraction Fraction of total dust ingested that results from lead based home paint 0 0 84 E The default is that there is no lead based paint in the home. unitless E 12e PBBLDMAT Maternal blood lead concentration 2.5 adult E Based in part on Midvale 1989 study. The default value of 2.5 g/ dL has little influence of the early post natal exposure of the child. µ g/ dL B 7a PBBLD0 Lead concen  tration in blood B 7a 0 I Based on 85% of maternal blood lead concentration ( US EPA 1989) µ g/ dL B 7b, 7c, 7e

7i PBBLOODEND( t) Lead concen  tration in blood B 10a 0 84 I Simple combination of the blood lead concentrations determined in each iteration in the solution algorithm between the previous month and that month. µ g/ dL B 10c RATBLPL Ratio of lead mass in blood to lead mass in plasma

ECF 100 0 84 I Based on the lower end of the 50 500 range for the red cell/ plasma lead concentration ratio recommended in Diamond and O'Flaherty ( 1992a). unitless B 2b

2d, 2g, 2i, 2k, 2 m NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 12 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED RATFECUR Ratio of endogenous fecal lead elimination rate to urinary lead elimination rate 0.75 0 84 I Assume child ratio is larger than the adult ratio; values derived from a reanalysis of data from Ziegler et al. ( 1978) and Rabinowitz and Wetherill ( 1973). unitless B 1f RATOUTFEC Ratio of elimination rate via soft tissues to endogenous fecal lead elimination rate 0.75 0 84 I Within the range of values derived from a reanalysis of data from Ziegler et al. ( 1978) and Rabinowitz and Wetherill ( 1973). unitless B 1g SATINTAKE( t) Half saturation absorbable lead intake U 3 0 84 I Assumed proportional to the weight of body . The coefficient of proportionality is assumed to depend on the estimate of the parameter for a 24 month old and the corresponding body weight. µ g/ day U 1a thru U

1e SATINTAKE24 Half saturation absorbable lead intake for a 24 month old 100 0 84 E Extrapolated from reanalysis of human infant data ( Sherlock and Quinn,

1986) and infant baboon data ( Mallon, 1983) µ g/ day U 3 SCHOOL( t) Dust lead intake from school E 12b 0 84 I Simple combination of amount of dust ingested daily, the fraction of total dust ingested daily as school dust, and lead concentration in dust at school µ g/ day E 9d SchoolConc Dust lead concentration at school 200 0 84 E By default, this dust lead concentration is set to the same as the residential dust lead concentration. µ g/ g E 12b SchoolFraction Fraction of total dust ingested daily as school dust 0 0 84 E Based on the default assumption that children are not in school. unitless E 9c, E

9.5,12b SECHOME( t) Dust lead intake at secondary home E 12d 0 84 I Simple combination of amount of dust ingested daily, fraction of dust ingested daily as secondary home dust, and lead concentration in dust at the secondary home. µ g/ day E 9d SecHomeConc Secondary home dust lead concentration 200 0 84 E Based on the assumption that dust lead concentration in a secondary home is the same as the default dust lead concentration in the primary home. µ g/ g E 12d NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 13 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED SecHomeFraction Fraction of total dust ingested daily as secondary home dust 0 0 84 E Based on the default assumption that the child does not spend a significant amount of time in a secondary home. unitless E 9b, 12d soil_ indoor( t) Indoor household dust lead concentration E 11 0 11 12 23 24 35 36 47 48 59 60 71 72 84 I Under alternate dust sources model, based on assumption that both soil and outdoor air contribute to indoor dust lead. µ g/ g E 9c soil_ ingested( t) Soil and dust ( combined) consumption 0.085 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.090 0.085 0 11 12 23 24 35 36 47 48 59 60 71 72 84 E Based on values reported in OAQPS report ( USEPA 1989, pp. A 16). The values reported were estimated for children, ages 12 48 mos, by several authors such as Binder et al. ( 1986) and Clausing et al. ( 1987). Sedman ( 1987) extrapolated these estimates to those for children, ages 0 84 mos. g/ day E 8 9a, 10 TBLBONE( t) Lead transfer time from blood to bone 1 and B 1e 24 and 0 84 I 24 months  Initialization is keyed to the two year old child, based in part on information from Heard and Chamberlain, ( 1982) for adults, and O'Flaherty ( 1992). Once the concentration ratios are fixed, the exact value of this parameter, within a wide range of possible values, has little effect on the blood lead value.

0 84 months  Assumed proportional body surface area. The coefficient of proportionality is assumed to depend on an estimate of the parameter for a 24 month old and the corresponding body surface area. Also, it is assumed that body surface area varies as 1/ 3 power of the weight of body based on Mordenti ( 1986). days B 1h, 2i, 2k TBLFEC( t) Lead transfer time from blood to feces B 1f 0 84 I Simple combination of an assumed ratio of urinary lead elimination rate to endogenous fecal lead elimination rate, and lead transfer time from blood to urine ( See RATFECUR).

The ratio of of elimination rates was estimated for adults using Chamberlain et al. ( 1978), and Chamberlain ( 1985) and is assumed to apply to ages 0 84 months. days B 1g, 2e, 2f NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 14 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED TBLKID( t) Lead transfer time from blood to kidney 10 and B 1d 24 and 0 84 I 24 months

on information from Heard and Chamberlain, ( 1982) for adults, and O'Flaherty ( 1992).

of this parameter, within a wide range of possible values, has little effect on the blood lead value.

0 84 months  Assumed proportional body surface area.

proportionality is assumed to depend on an estimate of the parameter for a 24 month old and the corresponding body surface area.

assumed that body surface area varies as 1/ 3 power of the weight of body based on ( Mordenti, 1986). days B 2g, 2h TBLLIV( t) Lead transfer time from blood to liver 10 and B 1b 24 and 0 84 I 24 months

information from Heard and Chamberlain, ( 1982) for adults, and O'Flaherty ( 1992). parameter, within a wide range of possible values, has little effect on the blood lead value.

0 84 months  Assumed proportional body surface area.

proportionality is assumed to depend on an estimate of the parameter for a 24 month old and the corresponding body surface area.

assumed that body surface area varies as 1/ 3 power of the weight of body based on ( Mordenti, 1986). days B 2d, 2e TBLOTH( t) Lead transfer time from blood to other soft tissue 10 and B 1c 24 and 0 84 I 24 months

on information from Heard and Chamberlain, ( 1982) for adults, and O'Flaherty ( 1992).

of this parameter, within a wide range of possible values, has little effect on the blood lead value.

0 84 months  Assumed proportional body surface area.

proportionality is assumed to depend on an estimate of the parameter for a 24 month old and the corresponding body surface area.

that body surface area varies as 1/ 3 power of the weight of body based on ( Mordenti, 1986). days B 2m, 2n TBLOUT( t) Lead transfer time from blood to elimination pool via soft tissue B 1g 0 84 I Simple combination of an assumed ratio of to endogenous fecal lead elimination rate, times the lead transfer time from blood to feces ( See RATOUTFEC). days B 2n, 2o Initialization is keyed to the two year old child, based in part Once the concentration ratios are fixed, the exact value The coefficient of Also, it is Initialization is keyed to the two year old child, based in part on Once the concentration ratios are fixed, the exact value of this The coefficient of Also, it is Initialization is keyed to the two year old child, based in part Once the concentration ratios are fixed, the exact value The coefficient of Also, it is assumed elimintion rate via soft tissues NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 15 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED TBLUR( t) Lead transfer time from blood to urine 20 and B 1a 24 and 0 84 I 24 months  Assumed proportional to body surface area. The coefficient of proportionality is assumed to depend on an adult estimate for the parameter and the corresponding body surface area. The adult estimate of 39 days was obtained using Araki et al ( 1986a, 1986b, 1987), Assenato et al ( 1986), Campbell et al ( 1981), Carton et al ( 1987), Chamberlain et al.

( 1978), Folashade et al ( 1991), Heard and Chamberlain ( 1981), He et al ( 1988), Kawaii et al ( 1983), Kehoe ( 1961), Koster et al ( 1989), Manton and Malloy ( 1983), Rabinowitz and Wetherill ( 1973), Rabinowitz et al ( 1976),

and Yokoyama et al ( 1985).

0 84 months  Assumed proportional body surface area. The coefficient of proportionality is assumed to depend on an estimate of the parameter for a 24 month old and the corresponding body surface area.

Both cases above assume that ( a) body surface area varies as 1/ 3 power of weight of body based on ( Mordenti, 1986) and ( b) respectively, 70 kg and 12.3 kg are standard adult and 2 year old body weights based on Spector ( 1956).

Since glomerular filtration rate ( GFR) is proportional to body surface area for ages 24 months based on ( Weil, 1955), surface area scaling is equivalent to scaling by GFR for ages 24 months. days B 1f, 2c TBONEBL( t) Lead transfer time from bone to blood B 1h 0 84 I Based on the assumption that masses of lead in bone and blood are in kinetic quasi equilibrium. days B 2j, 2l TCORTPL( t) Lead transfer time from cortical bone to plasma ECF B 2l 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the cortical and trabecular bone pools have similar lead kineticsfor children younger than 84 months. days B 6b, 6i, 6.5b,

6.5i, 8d, 9f time_ out( t) Time spent outdoors 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 0 11 12 23 24 35 36 47 48 59 60 71 72 84 E Values are reported in the OAQPS staff report ( USEPA 1989, pp. A 2) and the TSD ( USEPA 1990a). The values have been derived from a literature review ( Pope, 1985). hrs/ day E 2 NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 16 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED TimeStep Length of time

step in solution algorithm 1/ 6 0 84 E This user selectable parameter is available mainly for adjusting the model run time to the speed of the computer. Newer, faster computers can run the model at the shortest TimeStep ( 15 min) in less than one minute. The default value, 4 hours, is based on a tradeoff between numerical accuracy of results and computer run time. Except in the case of extreme exposure scenarios, there is no difference in the numerical accuracy at any user selectable value for TimeStep. day B 6.5a, 6.5d

6.5i, 7b, 7c,

8a, d, 9a

9f, 10a 10b TKIDPL( t) Lead transfer time from kidney to plasma ECF B 2h 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the lead transfer time from kidney to blood is equal to the lead transfer time from kidney to plasma ECF. days B

6b, 6f, 6.5b, 6.

5f, 8d, 9c TLIVFEC( t) Lead transfer time from liver to feces B 2f 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the masses of lead in liver and blood are in kinetic quasi equilibrium. days B 6e, 6.5e,

8c, d, 9b TLIVPL( t) Lead transfer time from liver to plasma ECF B 2e 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the lead transfer time from liver to blood is equal to the lead transfer time from liver to plasma ECF. days B

6b, 6e, 6.5b, 6.

5e, 8c, d,

9b TOTHOUT( t) Lead transfer time from soft tissues to elimination pool B 2o 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the masses of lead in soft tissues and blood are in kinetic quasi equilibrium. days B 6g, 6.5g,

8c, d, 9h TOTHPL( t) Lead transfer time from soft tissues to plasma ECF B 2n 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the lead transfer time from soft tissues to blood is equal to the lead transfer time from soft tissues to plasma ECF. days B

6c, 6g, 6.5c, 6.

5g, 8c, d,

9h TPLCORT( t) Lead transfer time from plasma ECF to cortical bone B 2k 0 84 I Based on the following assumptions:

The rate at which lead leaves the plasma ECF to reach the bone is proportional to the rate which lead leaves the blood to reach the same pool.

The cortical and trabecular bone pools have similar lead kinetics for children younger than 84 months.

The cortical bone is 80% of the weight of bone based on Leggett et al.

( 1982). days B 6c, 6i, 6.5c,

6.5i, 8b, c, 9f NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 17 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED TPLKID( t) Lead transfer time from plasma ECF to kidney B 2g 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the rate at which lead leaves the plasma

ECF to reach the kidney is proportional to the rate at which lead leaves the blood to reach the same pool. days B

6c, 6f, 6.5c, 6.

5f, 8b, c, 9c TPLLIV( t) Lead transfer time from plasma ECF to liver B 2d 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the rate at which lead leaves the plasma

ECF to reach the liver is proportional to the rate at which lead leaves the blood to reach the same pool. days B

6c, 6e, 6.5c, 6.

5e, 8b, c,

9b TPLOTH( t) Lead transfer time from plasma ECF to soft tissues B 2m 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the rate at which lead leaves the plasma

ECF to reach the soft tissues is proportional to the rate which lead leaves the blood to reach the same pool. days B

6c, 6g, 6.5c, 6.

5g, 8b, c,

9d TPLRBC Lead transfer time from plasma

ECF to red blood cells 0.1 0 84 I Initialization value of 0.1 was assigned as plausible nominal value reflecting best professional judgement on appropriate time scale for composite process of transfer of lead through the red blood cell membrane to lead binding components. days B 2b, 2.5,7b,

7c TPLRBC2( t) Lead transfer time from plasma

ECF to red blood cells constrained by the maximum capacity of red blood cell lead concentration B 2.5 0 84 I Simple combination of the lead transfer time from plasma ECF to red blood cells, and the ratio of red blood cell lead concentration to the corresponding maximum concentration. Based on Marcus ( 1985a) and reanalysis of infant baboon data. days B

6a, 6d, 6.5a, 6.

5d, 8b, 9a TPLTRAB( t) Lead transfer time from plasma ECF to trabecular bone B 2i 0 84 I Based on the following assumptions:

The rate at which lead leaves the plasma ECF to reach the bone is proportional to the rate which lead leaves the blood to reach the same pool.

The cortical and trabecular bone pools have similar lead kinetics.

The trabecular bone is 20% of the weight of bone based on Leggett et al.

( 1982). days B

6c, 6h, 6.5c, 6.

5h, 8b, c,

9e TPLUR( t) Lead transfer time from plasma ECF to urine B 2c 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the rate at which lead leaves the plasma

extra cellular fluid to reach the urine pool is proportional to the rate at which lead leaves the blood to reach the same pool. days B 6c, 6.5c, 8a NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 18 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED TRBCPL Lead transfer time from red blood cells to plasma

ECF B 2b 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the transfer time out of RBC is similar at all ages, since mean red cell value is similar. days B

6b, 6d, 6.5b, 6.

5d, 7b, 7c,

8c, d, 9a TTRABPL( t) Lead transfer time from trabecular bone to plasma

extra cellular fluid B 2j 0 84 I Based on the assumption that the cortical and trabecular bone pools have similar lead kinetics for children younger than 84 months. days B

6b, 6h, 6.5b, 6.

5h, 8c, d,

9e TWA( t) Time weighted average air lead concentration E 2 0 84 I Simple combination of outdoor and indoor air lead concentrations and the number of hours spent outdoors. µ g/ m3 E 3 UPAIR( t) Air lead uptake U 4 0 84 I Simple combination of media specific lead intake and the corresponding net absorption coefficient. µ g/ day U 5 UPDIET( t) Diet lead uptake U 1a 0 84 I Simple combination of media specific lead intake and the corresponding net absorption coefficient. µ g/ day U 1f UPDUST( t) Dust lead uptake U 1c 0 84 I Simple combination of media specific lead intake and the corresponding net absorption coefficient. µ g/ day U 1f UPDUSTA( t) Dust lead uptake rate from alternate sources U 1.5c 0 84 I Simple combination of media specific lead intake and the corresponding net absorption coefficient. µ g/ day U 1f UPGUT( t) Total gut uptake U 1f 0 84 I Sum of all gastrointestinal uptake. µ g/ day U 5 UPOTHER( t) Uptake of other ingested lead U 1d 0 84 I Assumes no other gut lead intake µ g/ day U 1f UPSOIL( t) Soil lead uptake U 1e 0 84 I Simple combination of media specific lead intake and the corresponding net absorption coefficient. µ g/ day U 1f UPTAKE( t) Total lead uptake U 5 0 84 I Simple combination of the media specific daily lead uptake rates,

translated to a monthly rate. µ g/ mo B 6a, 6.5a, 8a UPWATER( t) Water lead uptake U 1b 0 84 I Simple combination of media specific lead intake and the corresponding net absorption coefficient. µ g/ day U 1f NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 19 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED UserFishConc Lead concentration in fish 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available fish are consumed. µ g/ g E 5h userFishFraction Fraction of total meat consumed as fish 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available fish are consumed. unitless E 5a, 5h UserFruitConc Lead concentration in home grown fruits 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available fruits are consumed. µ g/ g E 5f userFruitFraction Fraction of total fruits consumed as home grown fruits 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available fruits are consumed. unitless E 5d, 5e, 5f UserGameConc Lead concentration in game animal meat 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available meat is consumed. µ g/ g E 5i userGameFraction Fraction of total meat consumed as game animal meat excluding fish 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available meat is consumed. unitless E 5a, 5i UserVegConc Lead concentration in home grown vegetables 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available vegetables are consumed. µ g/ g E 5g userVegFraction Fraction of total vegetables consumed as home grown vegetables 0 0 84 E Based on the assumption that only commercially available vegetables are consumed. unitless E 5b, 5c, 5g NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 20 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED veg_ all( t) Daily amount of all vegetables consumed 56.84 106.50 155.75 157.34 158.93 172.50 199.65 0 11 12 23 24 35 36 47 48 59 60 71 72 84 I Pb concentration from data provided to EPA by FDA ( US EPA ( 1986).

Quantity consumed from Pennington ( 1983). g/ day E 5g vent_ rate( t) Ventilation rate 2 3 5 5 5 7 7 0 11 12 23 24 35 36 47 48 59 60 71 72 84 E Values are reported in the OAQPS report ( USEPA 1989, pp. A 3) and the TSD ( USEPA 1990a). These estimates are based on body size in combination with smoothed data from Phalen et al., ( 1985). m 3/ day E 3 VOLBLOOD( t) Volume of blood B 5a 0 84 I Statistical fitting of data from Silve et al ( 1987); also Spector ( 1956) and Altman and Ditmer ( 1973) µ g/ dL B

1h, 2e, 2f, 2h, 2 n, 2o, 5d,

5e, 5m, 10a VOLECF( t) Volume of extra

cellular fluid ( ECF) B 5d 0 84 I The volume of extracellular fluid that exchanges rapidly with plasma is estimated 73% of the blood volume based on Rabinowitz ( 1976). This additional volume of distribution is assumed to be the volume the extra

cellular fluid pool, which is the difference between the volume of the distribution and the blood volume. dL B 9g VOLPLASM( t) Volume of plasma B 5c 0 84 I Statistical fit to VOLBLOOD( t)  VOLRBC( t) dL B 7b, 7c, 9g VOLRBC( t) Volume of red blood cells B 5b 0 84 I Statistical fit to hematocrit × blood volume dL B 2.5 water_ consumption( t) Daily amount of water consumed 0.20 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.59 0 11 12 23 24 35 36 47 48 59 60 71 72 84 E Exposure Factors Handbook ( US EPA, 1989b) L/ day E 6a, 6b NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 21 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED weight_ soil Percentage of total soil and dust ingestion that is soil 45 0 84 E Guidance Manual, Section 2.3 ( US EPA, 1994) % E 8,10 WTBLOOD( t) Weight of blood B 5m 0 84 I Based on an blood density of 1.056 kg/ l ( Spector 1956). kg B 5l WTBODY( t) Weight of body B 5f 0 84 I Statistical fitting of data from Silve et al. ( 1987); also Spector ( 1956) and Altman and Ditmer ( 1973). Also, body weight of 24 month old is assumed to be 12.3 kg ( Spector 1956). kg B 1a

1e, 5f, 5g, 5l WTBONE( t) Weight of bone B 5g 0 84 I 12 84 months  Based on child skeletal ash data in Harley and Kneip ( 1984) and the following assumptions.

WTBONE = ( WTBONEADULT / WTSKEL_ ASHADULT) * WTSKEL_ ASH where WTBONEADULT = 10 kg WTSKEL_ ASHADULT = 2.91 kg 0 12 months  Assumed to be 11% of the weight of the body. The ratio of weight of bone to weight of body ( 11%) is based on the 12 month estimate for WTBONE from the above equation, and an estimate for WTBODY at the same age. kg B 5h, 5i WTCORT( t) Weight of cortical bone B 5i 0 84 I Assumed to be 80% of the weight of the bone based on Leggett et al.

( 1982). kg B 1h, 5l, 7e WTECF( t) Weight of extra

cellular fluid ( ECF) B 5e 0 84 I Based on an assumed ECF density approximately the same as water, of 1.0 kg/ L. kg B 5l WTKIDNEY( t) Weight of kidney B 5j 0 84 I Statistical fitting of data from Silve et al. ( 1987); also Spector ( 1956) and Altman and Ditmer ( 1973). Also, body weight of 24 month old is assumed to be 12.3 kg ( Spector 1956). kg B 5j, 5l, 7f WTLIVER( t) Weight of liver B 5k 0 84 I Statistical fitting of data from Silve et al. ( 1987); also Spector ( 1956) and Altman and Ditmer ( 1973). Also, body weight of 24 month old is assumed to be 12.3 kg ( Spector 1956). kg B 2e, 2f, 5l, 7g WTOTHER( t) Weight of soft tissues B 5l 0 84 I Simple combination of the weight of body and the weights of kidney, liver,

bone, blood and extra cellular fluid. kg B 2n, 2o, 7h NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 22 PARAMETER NAME DESCRIPTION DEFAUL T VALUE OR EQN.

NO. AGE RANGE ( mo) I or E BASIS FOR VALUES/ EQUATIONS UNITS EQUATION WHERE USED WTTRAB( t) Weight of trabecular bone B 5h 0 84 I Assumed to be 20% of the weight of the bone based on Leggett et al.

( 1982). kg B 1h, 5l, 7i NOTE: I = interior parameter, E = Exterior, user selectable parameter B 23 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix M: Sensitivity Analysis of Lead Related Benefits INTRODUCTION The methodology for estimating lead related benefits for the MP& M regulation is discussed in Chapter 14. In its main analysis, EPA uses a three percent discount rate to value benefits associated with reductions in exposure to lead. OMB, however, frequently recommends the use of a seven percent discount rate in benefit cost analyses for government regulations. This appendix therefore presents a sensitivity analysis of the results for lead related benefits estimated using a seven percent discount rate and compares them with estimated lead related benefits in the main ( three percent) analysis. Because EPA found that the final rule will not yield any lead related health benefits to either children or adults, the analysis in this appendix is limited only to the two Upgrade Options considered as alternatives to the final rule, and the Proposed/ NODA Option. Appendix M: Sensitivity Analysis of Lead Related Benefits APPENDIX CONTENTS M. 1 or Quantified Lead Related Health Effects ..... M 1 M. 2 Related Benefit Results ................. ..... M 2 M. 2.1 chool Age Children Lead Related Benefits ................. ................. . M 2 M. 2.2 dult Lead Related Benefits ................. M 3 Values f Lead

Pres A M. 1 VALUES FOR QUANTIFIED LEAD RELATED HEALTH EFFECTS Table M. 1 below compares per case values for lead related health effects estimated using a three percent discount rate and a seven percent discount rate. Values for some health effect categories do not change for the following two reasons:

  Discounting is not used in estimating a specific value. For example, the cost of treating hypertension used in this analysis is the estimate of annual medical costs and lost work time associated with this condition.

  The original study did not provide sufficient information for estimating the cost of illness value based on a seven percent discount rate. Taylor et al. ( 1996) used a five percent discount rate to estimate the expected lifetime cost of a stroke. The authors do not provide sufficient information to recalculate the value based on a different discount rate. Therefore, EPA did not revise this value in the main analysis to reflect discounting at a three percent rate.

M 1 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix M: Sensitivity Analysis of Lead Related Benefits Table M. 1: Comparison of Per Case Values for Lead Related Health Effects ( 2001 $)

Health Category Value/ Cost @ 3%

Discount Rate Value/ Cost @ 7%

Discount Rate Lead Related Health Effects for Children Value of an IQ point [ A( B+ C)] $ 9,419 $ 1,817 ( A) Wage loss per IQ point $ 10,675 $ 2,427 ( B) Cost of additional education per IQ point $ 511 $ 247 ( C) Opportunity cost of lost income while in school $ 746 $ 363 Additional education cost for children with IQ < 70 $ 58,012 $ 36,831 Additional education cost for children with PbB > 20 µ g/ dL $ 16,485 $ 12,169 Value of preventing neonatal mortalitya $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 Lead Related Health Effects for Adults Hypertension ( male & female) b $ 1,141 $ 1,141 CHD ( male & female) $ 76,347 $ 74,115 Stroke ( male) c $ 335,135 $ 335,135 Stroke ( female) c $ 251,351 $ 251,351 Mortality ( male & female) a $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 a Value of a Statistical Life ( VSL) is taken from U. S. EPA s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. The recommended value was not adjusted in the main analysis.

b Annual cost of treatment. No discounting is required.

C Values based on Taylor et al. ( 1996) which uses a five percent discount rate to estimate the expected lifetime cost of a stroke. EPA used this value in the main analysis presented in Chapter 14 of this report.

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

M. 2 LEAD RELATED BENEFIT RESULTS This section presents lead related benefits of the alternative regulatory options   the 433 Upgrade Options and the Proposed/ NODA Option   based on a seven percent discount rate.

M. 2.1 Preschool Age Children Lead Related Benefits Table M. 2 summarizes lead related benefits for children estimated for the 433 Upgrade Options based on a three percent and a seven percent discount rate. As shown in Table M. 2, using a seven percent discount rate results in a 19 percent reduction in the total monetary value of lead related benefits for preschool children compared to the value of benefits estimated based on a three percent discount rate. Changes in the monetary values associated with individual benefit categories range from zero percent ( neonatal mortality) to 81 percent ( avoided IQ loss).

M 2 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix M: Sensitivity Analysis of Lead Related Benefits Table M. 2: Comparison of the Monetary Value of Lead Related Benefits to Children ( 2001$) Based on Alterantive Discount Rates   433 Upgrade Options Category Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Directs + All to 433 Upgrade Reduced Cases or IQ Points Mean Benefit Value ( 2001$) Reduced Cases or IQ Points Mean Benefit Value ( 2001$)

3% DR 7% DR %

Change 3% DR 7% DR %

Change Neonatal mortality 0.15 $ 995,630 $ 995,630 0% 0.17 $ 1,109,294 $ 1,109,294 0%

Avoided IQ Loss 31.99 $ 301,323 $ 58,128 81% 36.19 $ 340,845 $ 65,752 81%

Reduced IQ < 70 0.11 $ 6,637 $ 4,213 37% 0.13 $ 7,501 $ 4,762 37%

Reduced PbB > 20   g/ L 0.00 $ 0 $ 0 0% 0.00 $ 0 $ 0 0%

Total Benefits $ 1,305,590 $ 1,057,970 19% $ 1,457,640 $ 1,179,808 19%

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

Table M. 3 summarizes lead related benefits for children estimated for the Proposed/ NODA Option based on a three percent and a seven percent discount rate. As shown in Table M .3, using a seven percent discount rate results in a 40 percent reduction in the total monetary value of lead related benefits for preschool children compared to the value of benefits estimated based on a three percent discount rate. Changes in the monetary values associated with individual benefit categories range from zero percent ( neonatal mortality) to 81 percent ( avoided IQ loss).

Table M. 3: Comparison of the Monetary Value of Lead Related Benefits to Children ( 2001$) Based on Alterantive Discount Rates   Proposed/ NODA Option Category Reduced Cases or IQ Points Benefit Value ( 2001$)

Category 3% DR 7% DR % C hange Neonatal Mortality 1.60 $ 10,417,781 $ 10,417,781 0%

Avoided IQ Loss 1,078.38 $ 10,157,286 $ 1,959,421 81%

Reduced IQ < 70 3.72 $ 216,007 $ 137,140 37%

Reduced PbB > 20   g/ L 0.00 $ 0 $ 0 0%

Total Benefits $ 20,791,073 $ 12,514,342 40%

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

M. 2.2 Adult Lead Related Benefits Table M. 4 presents lead related benefits for adults for the 433 Upgrade Options based on a three percent and a seven percent discount rate. Under both 433 Upgrade Options the difference between the total monetary value of benefits to adults estimated based on a three percent and a seven percent discount rate is negligible ( less than 0.1 percent). The reduction in total benefits is marginal between the two discount rate scenarios because the monetary value of only one lead related benefit category for adults ( i. e., CHD) is affected by the discount rate.

M 3 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix M: Sensitivity Analysis of Lead Related Benefits Table M. 4: Alterantive Discount Rates   433 Upgrade Options Category Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Directs + All to 433 Upgrade Reduced Cases Mean Value of Benefits Reduced Cases Mean Value of Benefits 3% DR 7% DR 3% DR 7% DR Men Hypertension 53.47 $ 61,004 $ 61,004 59.58 $ 67,982 $ 67,982 CHD 0.05 $ 4,155 $ 4,033 0.06 $ 4,631 $ 4,495 CBA 0.02 $ 5,698 $ 5,698 0.02 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 BI 0.01 $ 3,226 $ 3,226 0.01 $ 3,596 $ 3,596 Mortality 0.07 $ 474,735 $ 474,735 0.08 $ 529,125 $ 529,125 Women CHD 0.02 $ 1,662 $ 1,614 0.02 $ 1,853 $ 1,799 CBA 0.01 $ 2,417 $ 2,417 0.01 $ 2,694 $ 2,694 BI 0.01 $ 1,487 $ 1,487 0.01 $ 1,658 $ 1,658 Mortality 0.02 $ 150,190 $ 150,190 0.03 $ 167,417 $ 167,417 Total Benefits $ 704,574 $ 704,404 $ 785,304 $ 785,115 Comparison of the Monetary Value of Lead Related Benefits to Adults ( 2001$) Based on Table M. 5 summarizes lead related benefits for adults for the Proposed/ NODA Option based on a three percent and a seven percent discount rate. For this option, the estimated total monetary values of benefits drop from $ 7,048,025 under the three percent discount rate to $ 7,046,328 under the seven percent discount rate ( i. e., a decrease of less than 0.1 percent). This marginal difference in the total value of benefits based the three percent and the seven percent discount rate is due to the fact that only one benefit category ( i. e., CHD) is affected by the discount rate. Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

Table M. 5: Comparison of the Monetary Value of Lead Related Benefits to Adults ( 2001$) Based on Alterantive Discount Rates   Proposed/ NODA Option Category Reduced Cases Mean Value of Benefits 3% DR 7% DR Men Hypertension 545.25 $ 622,126 $ 622,126 CHD 0.54 $ 41,564 $ 40,349 CBA 0.17 $ 56,907 $ 56,907 BI 0.10 $ 32,197 $ 32,197 Mortality 0.73 $ 4,750,132 $ 4,750,132 Women CHD 0.22 $ 16,472 $ 15,991 CBA 0.10 $ 23,928 $ 23,928 BI 0.06 $ 14,714 $ 14,714 Mortality 0.23 $ 1,489,984 $ 1,489,984 Total Benefits $ 7,048,025 $ 7,046,328 Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

M 4 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water Based Recreation Survey INTRODUCTION This appendix presents EPA s analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey ( NDS). The objective of this analysis is to determine the number of people who participate in water based recreation and their total number of recreation trips, characterize participation and number of trips taken by water body type, and provide more detailed information on specific recreation activities ( e. g., fish species targeted on fishing trips) and expenditures associated with various activities.

N. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water Based Recreation Survey APPENDIX CONTENTS N. 1 ground Information ................. ......... N 1 N. 2 Analysis ................. ................. N 2 N. 3 tion in Water Based Recreation by Activity Type N 2 N. 4 ation of Trips by Water Body Type ............ N 11 N. 5 el Distance ................. ...... N 16 N. 6 l Expenditures per Trip ................. . N 19 N. 7 bution of Direct Costs for Single day Trips ...... N 22 N. 8 of Boating Trips ................. ........ N 27 N. 9 of Fishing Trips ................. ........ N 30 Back Data Participa Alloc One Way Trav Individua Distri Profile Profile U. S. EPA cooperated with the National Forest Service and several other federal agencies and interested groups to collect data on the outdoor recreation activities of Americans. The 1993 NDS collected data on demographic characteristics and water

based recreation behavior using a nationwide stratified random sample of 13,059 individuals aged 16 and over. Respondents reported on water based recreation trips taken within the past 12 months, including the primary purpose of their trips ( i. e.,

fishing, boating, swimming, and viewing), and number of trips, trip length, distance to the recreation site( s), number of participants, their trip expenditures, and detailed trip allocation information on the last trip taken for each recreation type. For example, respondents reported:

  where fishing was the primary purpose of a trip, the number of fish caught and the species targeted ( i. e., coldwater,

warmwater, anadromous, or marine);

  the type of water body ( e. g., lake, river, ocean, wetland); and   where boating was the primary purpose of trip, the type of boating ( i. e., motorboating, sailing, canoeing, rowing,

rafting, and other floating).

EPA used NDS data to characterize water based recreation activities nationwide, including:

  percent of state population participating in water based recreation by recreation activity and trip length ( i. e., single

day vs. multiple day trips);

  average number of water based recreation trips per person by recreation activity and trip length;

  allocation of single or multiple day trips among different water body types by recreation type;

  mean one way distance traveled to the site visited on last trip;

  total expenditures per person for last single day or multiple day trip;

  distribution of total expenditures among various expenditure categories for single and multiple day trips ( e. g.,

lodging, boat rental, and entrance fee);

  allocation of fishing trips by target species; and   allocation of boating trips by boating type.

N 1 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water Based Recreation Survey N. 2 DATA ANALYSIS The NDS used a random digit dialed population based sample ( aged 16 and over) of the nation. For simple random sampling,

estimates of the sample mean and total are consistent estimates of the population mean and total. EPA therefore treats sample based estimates as being representative of the population based estimates. For example, the percent of survey respondents participating in a given water based recreation activity is theoretically consistent with the percent of the state population ( aged 16 and over) that participates in that activity. The estimated percentages can be applied to the state population ( aged 16 and over) to derive the number of participants in various water based recreation activities in each state.

The survey database cannot be used to characterize subsistence fishing because subsistence fishermen s behavior differs significantly from recreational fishermen s behavior. In addition, this population subgroup is likely to be under represented in the survey database due to various factors. First, subsistence fishermen constitute a relatively small portion of the total fisherman population. They also tend to have a lower education level. Some of them may lack long distance telephone services and/ or have language barriers. These factors are likely to result in inadequate representation of this subgroup in the survey data.

N. 3 PARTICIPATION IN WATER BASED RECREATION BY ACTIVITY TYPE This analysis estimates the percent and the number of state residents who participated in water based recreation by activity type and trip length ( i. e., single day vs. multiple day). Participants in each activity in a given state include state residents who took at least one single day and/ or multiple day trip for each respective activity during the previous 12 months. Because some participants took both single day and multiple day trips, the percent and the number of state residents participating in all trips does not equal the sum of the single day plus multiple day percentages or number of participants. The analysis also estimates the average number of recreation trips per person per year, by recreational activity, trip length ( single day vs.

multiple day trips), and state of residence. Tables N. 1, N. 2, N. 3, and N .4 characterize participation in boating, fishing,

swimming, and viewing, respectively.

1. Estimating the percent of state population participating in each of the four water based recreation activities. The total percent of state residents participating in each activity equals the total number of respondents who took at least one single day and/ or multiple day trip divided by the state s sample size. Similarly, the percent participating in single day or multiple day trips for each respective activity equals the respective number of sample respondents who took either single day or multiple day trips, respectively, divided by the state s sample size.

2. Estimating the number of state residents participating in each of the four water based recreation activities. EPA calculated the total number of participants in each state by multiplying the percent of sample respondents who took at least one single day and/ or multiple day trip by each state's actual population 16 years of age and older. Similarly,

the total number of participants in single day or multiple day trips for each respective activity equals the respective percent of sample respondents who took either single day or multiple day trips, respectively, times the state's population 16 years of age and older.

3. Estimating the average number of trips per person per year. EPA estimated the average number of recreation trips per person per year by dividing the total number of trips taken for each activity by state residents by the total number of participants in this activity. Similarly, dividing the number of single day trips or multiple day trips by the respective number of participants provided the average number of single day and multiple day trips per person,

respectively. Tables N. 1 N. 4 also show the mean trip length for the last multiple day trip.

For comparison purposes, Tables N. 2 and N. 4 also present estimates of the total percent and the number of state residents participating in recreational fishing and wildlife viewing based on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service s ( USFWS) 1996 National Survey of Fishing Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation. The table shows that the two surveys yield similar results. NDS estimates, however, are slightly higher than USFWS estimates for some states. NDS fishing and viewing participation estimates are higher for 47 and 30 states, respectively. This discrepancy may be due to the difference in the year when the respective surveys were conducted.

N 2 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 3 Table N. 1: Participation in Boating State State Pop.

16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in BoatingParticipation in Single Day TripsParticipation in Multiple Day Trips Percent Population # People Avg #

Trips per Person per Year Days per Year Percent Population Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Percent Population Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean Trip Length ( days)

AK457,7282915,78448% 219,7095.15.745% 205,9785.114% 64,0821.22.5 AL3,451,58621815,83318% 621,2857.910.616% 552,2547.16% 207,0955.52.3 AR2,072,62212816,19220% 414,5246.424.116% 331,6205.07% 145,0846.98.3 AZ3,907,52617821,95212% 468,9037.310.89% 351,6777.36% 234,4523.33.2 CA25,599,2751,31319,49720% 5,119,8555.311.314% 3,583,8985.111% 2,815,9203.34.2 CO3,322,45521215,67213% 431,91910.614.08% 265,79614.67% 232,5722.63.5 CT2,651,45215916,67620% 530,2908.718.318% 477,2617.97% 185,6025.26.2 DC468,5753513,38811% 51,5432.02.79% 42,1722.33% 14,0571.03.0 DE610,2695111,96620% 122,05410.613.318% 109,84810.88% 48,8222.24.0 FL12,741,82166219,24723% 2,930,61910.316.620% 2,548,3649.85% 637,0917.05.3 GA6,250,70837316,75818% 1,125,12710.919.015% 937,60610.49% 562,5645.24.0 HI949,1845517,25820% 189,8377.69.518% 170,8536.62% 18,98418.02.0 IA2,281,00217113,33919% 433,3906.613.317% 387,7704.75% 114,0508.34.1 ID969,1668311,67730% 290,7505.88.125% 242,2925.68% 77,5334.03.2 IL9,530,32746620,45118% 1,715,4598.315.913% 1,238,9439.08% 762,4264.94.3 IN4,682,39230015,60821% 983,3029.318.315% 702,3597.58% 374,5919.33.6 KS2,058,48913515,24813% 267,60413.927.19% 185,26414.29% 185,2646.63.8 KY3,161,28321914,43516% 505,8056.29.013% 410,9676.45% 158,0642.64.7 LA3,394,85418917,96220% 678,9714.26.218% 611,0744.15% 169,7432.05.0 MA5,008,00724920,11223% 1,151,84211.811.718% 901,4418.18% 400,6414.23.7 MD4,085,34225715,89619% 776,2159.118.217% 694,5088.96% 245,1214.17.9 ME1,010,2737214,03233% 333,3907.118.226% 262,6716.713% 131,3354.77.0 MI7,628,17057613,24324% 1,830,7619.317.419% 1,449,3529.011% 839,0995.04.5 MN3,782,81724515,44024% 907,8765.98.820% 756,5635.97% 264,7974.13.3 MO4,331,93727715,63922% 953,0266.011.416% 693,1105.312% 519,8323.53.9 MS2,160,16514015,43018% 388,83010.014.916% 345,6267.16% 129,61010.32.5 MT701,4235512,75322% 154,3135.87.915% 105,2137.87% 49,1001.84.7 NC6,291,18240715,45714% 880,7657.512.112% 754,9427.26% 377,4714.03.5 ND502,1764012,55428% 140,6094.213.818% 90,3923.913% 65,2833.86.4 NE1,314,9748415,65420% 262,9955.213.313% 170,9473.810% 131,4975.83.8 NH960,5936415,00923% 220,9363.78.422% 211,3303.25% 48,0303.37.3 NJ6,545,47134718,86318% 1,178,18510.112.217% 1,112,73010.53% 196,3642.75.1 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 1: Participation in Boating State State Pop.

16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in Boating Participation in Single Day Trips Participation in Multiple Day Trips Percent Population # People Avg #

Trips per Person per Year Days per Year Percent Population Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Percent Population Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean Trip Length ( days)

NM 1,370,134 105 13,049 19% 260,325 3.8 8.9 10% 137,013 3.5 11% 150,715 3.4 3.6 NV 1,537,896 75 20,505 23% 353,716 10.1 18.4 21% 322,958 6.8 9% 138,411 8.9 3.5 NY 14,797,284 774 19,118 18% 2,663,511 6.5 9.2 13% 1,923,647 7.5 5% 739,864 3.0 4.5 OH 8,789,530 650 13,522 17% 1,494,220 7.0 10.6 13% 1,142,639 7.5 7% 615,267 3.3 3.6 OK 2,665,966 143 18,643 20% 533,193 4.5 8.3 13% 346,576 4.9 8% 213,277 3.2 3.9 OR 2,673,283 217 12,319 26% 695,054 8.4 12.2 22% 588,122 8.9 9% 240,595 2.7 4.9 PA 9,693,987 742 13,065 15% 1,454,098 9.2 16.1 12% 1,163,278 9.1 5% 484,699 5.6 4.7 RI 827,474 57 14,517 16% 132,396 8.0 N/ A 16% 132,396 6.9 2% 16,549 10.0 N/ A SC 3,115,130 181 17,211 19% 591,875 9.0 16.5 15% 467,270 8.9 7% 218,059 4.5 5.8 SD 577,391 42 13,747 26% 150,122 6.5 24.1 21% 121,252 4.8 10% 57,739 7.0 7.5 TN 4,445,987 296 15,020 23% 1,022,577 7.9 10.3 20% 889,197 7.7 6% 266,759 4.5 3.1 TX 15,618,097 657 23,772 18% 2,811,257 8.2 14.7 15% 2,342,715 7.4 7% 1,093,267 5.7 3.9 UT 1,598,531 111 14,401 20% 319,706 4.5 9.6 11% 175,838 5.6 13% 207,809 2.3 4.4 VA 5,529,436 389 14,214 19% 1,050,593 9.9 17.4 15% 829,415 8.6 6% 331,766 8.1 4.2 VT 479,265 34 14,096 24% 115,024 7.1 12.4 21% 100,646 7.1 9% 43,134 2.3 7.0 WA 4,552,631 324 14,051 35% 1,593,421 6.0 10.4 29% 1,320,263 5.7 14% 637,368 3.4 4.2 WI 4,156,609 299 13,902 22% 914,454 10.3 14.7 19% 789,756 10.0 7% 290,963 4.5 4.2 WV 1,455,370 126 11,551 13% 189,198 5.1 8.3 10% 145,537 6.6 2% 29,107 2.3 9.0 WY 381,882 31 12,319 26% 99,289 5.5 6.2 23% 87,833 5.7 6% 22,913 2.0 2.5 N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS.

N 4 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 5 Table N. 2: Participation in Recreational Fishing State Pop. 16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in FishingSingle Day TripsMultiple Day Trips Percent Pop.

( NDS based) Percent Pop.

( USFW S based) Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Days per Year % Pop.# People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year % Pop.# People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean trip length ( days)

AK457,7282915,78459% 41% 270,06013.818.355% 251,75012.824% 109,8554.33.7 AL3,451,58621815,83325% 21% 862,89616.819.521% 724,83318.56% 207,0955.03.2 AR2,072,62212816,19237% 26% 766,87011.916.231% 642,51312.512% 248,7154.14.3 AZ3,907,52617821,95220% 14% 781,5058.116.515% 586,1297.011% 429,8285.43.8 CA25,599,2751,31319,49722% 12% 5,631,8406.513.116% 4,095,8846.610% 2,559,9283.84.8 CO3,322,45521215,67238% 23% 1,262,53312.019.530% 996,73612.217% 564,8175.14.3 CT2,651,45215916,67618% 14% 477,2616.98.016% 424,2327.14% 106,0582.13.6 DC468,5753513,388N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A DE610,2695111,96620% 19% 122,05410.316.018% 109,84810.84% 24,4113.010.5 FL12,741,82166219,24725% 18% 3,185,45515.317.421% 2,675,78216.65% 637,0914.73.7 GA6,250,70837316,75823% 18% 1,437,6638.812.619% 1,187,6359.88% 500,0572.94.6 HI949,1845517,25820% 14% 189,8376.16.218% 170,8536.62% 18,9841.03.0 IA2,281,00217113,33924% 23% 547,44011.916.719% 433,39013.47% 159,6703.85.4 ID969,1668311,67740% 32% 387,66612.319.433% 319,82510.820% 193,8336.03.5 IL9,530,32746620,45120% 18% 1,906,06513.727.416% 1,524,85214.27% 667,1237.85.9 IN4,682,39230015,60826% 19% 1,217,42211.014.623% 1,076,95011.18% 374,5913.84.0 KS2,058,48913515,24828% 19% 576,37711.318.821% 432,28312.213% 267,6044.84.3 KY3,161,28321914,43530% 23% 948,3859.013.925% 790,3219.212% 379,3543.94.0 LA3,394,85418917,96234% 26% 1,154,25015.018.929% 984,50815.38% 271,5887.83.2 MA5,008,00724920,11222% 12% 1,101,76215.324.018% 901,44113.36% 300,48014.13.4 MD4,085,34225715,89621% 15% 857,92212.215.718% 735,36212.96% 245,1212.95.7 ME1,010,2737214,03231% 21% 313,1859.911.228% 282,87610.56% 60,6162.04.5 MI7,628,17057613,24327% 20% 2,059,60610.516.420% 1,525,63411.310% 762,8175.04.3 MN3,782,81724515,44034% 31% 1,286,15810.318.724% 907,87610.919% 718,7354.54.4 MO4,331,93727715,63926% 23% 1,126,3045.810.520% 866,3875.59% 389,8744.34.2 MS2,160,16514015,43027% 21% 583,24517.019.325% 540,04116.87% 151,2125.82.5 MT701,4235512,75342% 24% 294,59819.526.236% 252,51219.720% 140,2854.94.0 NC6,291,18240715,45725% 20% 1,572,79611.215.120% 1,258,23612.512% 754,9423.23.4 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 2: Participation in Recreational Fishing State Pop. 16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in Fishing Single Day Trips Multiple Day Trips Percent Pop.

( NDSbased Percent Pop.

( USFW S based) Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Days per Year % Pop. # People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year % Pop. # People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean trip length ( days)

ND 502,176 40 12,554 33% 24% 165,718 4.5 6.3 30% 150,653 3.9 10% 50,218 3.0 3.0 NE 1,314,974 84 15,654 20% 19% 262,995 11.9 24.8 14% 184,096 13.2 12% 157,797 4.3 6.0 NH 960,593 64 15,009 16% 18% 153,695 14.9 23.6 14% 134,483 13.2 8% 76,847 6.0 4.0 NJ 6,545,471 347 18,863 19% 13% 1,243,639 5.9 7.0 16% 1,047,275 6.1 4% 261,819 3.1 2.8 NM 1,370,134 105 13,049 22% 19% 301,429 8.7 12.3 16% 219,221 8.5 12% 164,416 4.2 2.7 NV 1,537,896 75 20,505 21% 17% 322,958 11.9 15.2 17% 261,442 13.5 5% 76,895 3.8 4.8 NY 14,797,284 774 19,118 15% 11% 2,219,593 8.8 16.2 12% 1,775,674 9.1 5% 739,864 4.4 6.0 OH 8,789,530 650 13,522 19% 13% 1,670,011 14.6 23.2 16% 1,406,325 14.0 7% 615,267 7.6 4.1 OK 2,665,966 143 18,643 32% 31% 853,109 13.0 12.9 28% 746,470 13.4 1% 26,660 4.1 9.0 OR 2,673,283 217 12,319 36% 21% 962,382 11.4 15.2 29% 775,252 11.8 13% 347,527 4.6 3.5 PA 9,693,987 742 13,065 21% 15% 2,035,737 10.8 16.1 17% 1,647,978 11.1 8% 775,519 5.0 3.7 RI 827,474 57 14,517 21% 14% 173,770 7.8 7.5 19% 157,220 8.3 2% 16,549 2.0 N/ A SC 3,115,130 181 17,211 29% 24% 903,388 16.1 20.4 27% 841,085 15.6 7% 218,059 6.8 3.6 SD 577,391 42 13,747 26% 31% 150,122 8.2 13.7 24% 138,574 7.7 12% 69,287 2.6 5.5 TN 4,445,987 296 15,020 26% 17% 1,155,957 15.1 19.0 24% 1,067,037 14.8 6% 266,759 5.2 4.4 TX 15,618,097 657 23,772 29% 18% 4,529,248 10.2 16.6 23% 3,592,162 10.1 13% 2,030,353 5.3 3.6 UT 1,598,531 111 14,401 23% 21% 367,662 5.6 17.9 15% 239,780 4.1 11% 175,838 5.9 5.4 VA 5,529,436 389 14,214 26% 18% 1,437,653 8.2 13.0 19% 1,050,593 8.7 10% 552,944 4.3 4.0 VT 479,265 34 14,096 9% 19% 43,134 12.0 8.7 9% 43,134 8.7 3% 14,378 10.0 N/ A WA 4,552,631 324 14,051 27% 22% 1,229,210 14.9 21.3 22% 1,001,579 16.1 12% 546,316 4.6 4.0 WI 4,156,609 299 13,902 29% 25% 1,205,417 10.4 18.4 22% 914,454 11.1 14% 581,925 4.5 4.6 WV 1,455,370 126 11,551 25% 18% 363,842 17.0 22.4 22% 320,181 16.3 8% 116,430 6.9 3.7 WY 381,882 31 12,319 58% 31% 221,492 12.9 46.0 52% 198,579 8.2 32% 122,202 10.0 7.0 N/ A  Not Available Source: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service s ( USFWS) 1996 National Survey of Fishing Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

N 6 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 7 Table N. 3: Participation in Recreational Swimming State State Pop.

16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in Swimming Participation in Single Day Trips Participation in Multiple Day Trips Percent Pop. Number of People Avg #

Trips per Person per Year Days per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean Trip length ( days)

AK457,7282915,7847% 32,0412.0N/ A7% 32,0412.03% 13,7321.0N/ A AL3,451,58621815,83323% 793,8657.711.517% 586,7709.37% 241,6113.34.6 AR2,072,62212816,19223% 476,7038.520.121% 435,2516.89% 186,5365.96.0 AZ3,907,52617821,95219% 742,4304.57.613% 507,9785.37% 273,5271.95.6 CA25,599,2751,31319,49729% 7,423,7909.513.022% 5,631,84011.09% 2,303,9353.14.9 CO3,322,45521215,67217% 564,8174.06.412% 398,6955.06% 199,3471.74.8 CT2,651,45215916,67641% 1,087,09511.019.833% 874,97911.318% 477,2614.45.5 DC468,5753513,38817% 79,6582.56.49% 42,1722.09% 42,1723.33.0 DE610,2695111,96622% 134,2595.38.514% 85,4386.96% 36,6162.75.8 FL12,741,82166219,24733% 4,204,80113.317.926% 3,312,87314.98% 1,019,3465.24.9 GA6,250,70837316,75829% 1,812,7055.311.015% 937,6066.613% 812,5923.64.8 HI949,1845517,25858% 550,52719.227.656% 531,54316.524% 227,8048.33.4 IA2,281,00217113,33918% 410,5802.44.013% 296,5302.74% 91,2401.36.8 ID969,1668311,67725% 242,2928.911.123% 222,9088.88% 77,5333.13.0 IL9,530,32746620,45121% 2,001,3694.08.012% 1,143,6395.48% 762,4262.25.9 IN4,682,39230015,60822% 1,030,1265.08.917% 796,0075.48% 374,5912.35.5 KS2,058,48913515,24819% 391,1135.59.314% 288,1886.07% 144,0943.04.4 KY3,161,28321914,43517% 537,41811.013.211% 347,74115.75% 158,0641.85.5 LA3,394,85418917,96224% 814,7654.39.316% 543,1774.711% 373,4342.84.9 MA5,008,00724920,11241% 2,053,2839.417.834% 1,702,7228.914% 701,1216.15.0 MD4,085,34225715,89627% 1,103,0425.611.414% 571,9487.812% 490,2413.25.1 ME1,010,2737214,03246% 464,72614.529.740% 404,10912.815% 151,5419.95.8 MI7,628,17057613,24330% 2,288,4518.516.324% 1,830,7618.610% 762,8174.76.0 MN3,782,81724515,44024% 907,8765.46.518% 680,9076.65% 189,1412.23.4 MO4,331,93727715,63922% 953,0266.410.916% 693,1107.79% 389,8742.55.1 MS2,160,16514015,43021% 453,63510.512.817% 367,22811.96% 129,6102.54.4 MT701,4235512,75340% 280,5696.910.133% 231,4707.616% 112,2282.04.8 NC6,291,18240715,45723% 1,446,9725.710.815% 943,6777.010% 629,1182.46.0 ND502,1764012,55425% 125,5448.0N/ A15% 75,32611.513% 65,2832.4N/ A NE1,314,9748415,65419% 249,8453.510.715% 197,2463.96% 78,8981.615.0 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 3: Participation in Recreational Swimming State State Pop.

16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in Swimming Participation in Single Day Trips Participation in Multiple Day Trips Percent Pop. Number of People Avg #

Trips per Person per Year Days per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean Trip length ( days)

NH 960,593 64 15,009 42% 403,449 15.8 56.5 38% 365,025 14.5 16% 153,695 7.2 15.8 NJ 6,545,471 347 18,863 39% 2,552,734 6.2 12.7 28% 1,832,732 6.9 16% 1,047,275 3.1 6.1 NM 1,370,134 105 13,049 15% 205,520 2.7 4.2 10% 137,013 3.8 5% 68,507 1.4 3.7 NV 1,537,896 75 20,505 19% 292,200 6.3 13.2 12% 184,548 6.3 9% 138,411 4.6 4.2 NY 14,797,284 774 19,118 33% 4,883,104 7.6 15.0 25% 3,699,321 8.1 11% 1,627,701 4.5 6.0 OH 8,789,530 650 13,522 23% 2,021,592 7.3 15.6 15% 1,318,430 8.7 6% 527,372 4.7 8.1 OK 2,665,966 143 18,643 28% 746,470 3.4 5.7 16% 426,555 4.1 8% 213,277 2.9 4.1 OR 2,673,283 217 12,319 34% 908,916 6.7 12.7 27% 721,786 7.1 12% 320,794 3.2 6.4 PA 9,693,987 742 13,065 28% 2,714,316 5.7 10.4 17% 1,647,978 7.5 12% 1,163,278 2.7 5.1 RI 827,474 57 14,517 40% 330,990 6.9 N/ A 37% 306,165 7.0 11% 91,022 2.5 N/ A SC 3,115,130 181 17,211 22% 685,329 6.0 9.4 17% 529,572 6.9 5% 155,756 3.0 6.0 SD 577,391 42 13,747 24% 138,574 7.3 9.2 24% 138,574 7.2 7% 40,417 1.0 7.0 TN 4,445,987 296 15,020 23% 1,022,577 5.8 9.7 17% 755,818 6.7 8% 355,679 2.5 5.4 TX 15,618,097 657 23,772 24% 3,748,343 5.1 7.7 16% 2,498,896 6.0 9% 1,405,629 2.3 4.3 UT 1,598,531 111 14,401 20% 319,706 5.9 10.4 15% 239,780 6.2 10% 159,853 2.5 4.5 VA 5,529,436 389 14,214 28% 1,548,242 4.9 11.1 17% 940,004 5.5 13% 718,827 3.2 5.2 VT 479,265 34 14,096 26% 124,609 12.3 19.6 24% 115,024 11.6 6% 28,756 8.5 4.5 WA 4,552,631 324 14,051 35% 1,593,421 5.4 10.7 28% 1,274,737 5.7 14% 637,368 2.4 6.3 WI 4,156,609 299 13,902 27% 1,122,284 5.5 8.9 22% 914,454 6.1 7% 290,963 2.1 7.0 WV 1,455,370 126 11,551 25% 363,842 6.5 12.7 18% 261,967 6.4 9% 130,983 5.1 4.4 WY 381,882 31 12,319 6% 22,913 8.0 N/ A 6% 22,913 8.0 3% 11,456 1.0 N/ A N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS.

N 8 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 9 Table N. 4: Participation in Wildlife Viewing ( Near Water Recreation)

State Pop. 16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in Near Water RecreationSingle Day TripsMultiple Day Trips Percent Pop.

( NDS based) Percent Pop.

( USFWS

based) Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Days per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean trip length AK457,7282915,78448% 50% 219,7097.28.441% 187,6687.17% 32,0418.02.0 AL3,451,58621815,83336% 30% 1,242,5714.48.212% 414,1909.224% 828,3811.94.0 AR2,072,62212816,19228% 34% 580,3346.415.013% 269,44110.216% 331,6203.35.5 AZ3,907,52617821,95225% 31% 976,8824.78.711% 429,8288.013% 507,9782.14.7 CA25,599,2751,31319,49751% 25% 13,055,63011.214.337% 9,471,73214.016% 4,095,8843.24.2 CO3,322,45521215,67225% 42% 830,6148.611.713% 431,91914.810% 332,2461.95.4 CT2,651,45215916,67660% 31% 1,590,8715.38.838% 1,007,5526.720% 530,2903.14.4 DC468,5753513,38851% N/ A238,9733.930.723% 107,7722.431% 145,2584.610.5 DE610,2695111,96657% 34% 347,8539.916.641% 250,21011.024% 146,4654.74.5 FL12,741,82166219,24744% 25% 5,606,40114.218.232% 4,077,38317.913% 1,656,4373.74.7 GA6,250,70837316,75836% 29% 2,250,2553.19.414% 875,0994.121% 1,312,6492.65.2 HI949,1845517,25864% 14% 607,47830.330.756% 531,54333.99% 85,4271.84.0 IA2,281,00217113,33932% 38% 729,9212.97.116% 364,9604.415% 342,1501.29.0 ID969,1668311,67743% 40% 416,7413.27.024% 232,6004.223% 222,9081.55.6 IL9,530,32746620,45131% 35% 2,954,4015.910.617% 1,620,1569.013% 1,238,9432.26.1 IN4,682,39230015,60831% 35% 1,451,5425.411.215% 702,3599.014% 655,5352.46.3 KS2,058,48913515,24833% 32% 679,3015.812.817% 349,9439.014% 288,1882.57.7 KY3,161,28321914,43528% 32% 885,1592.49.112% 379,3543.015% 474,1922.07.3 LA3,394,85418917,96234% 27% 1,154,2503.28.515% 509,2283.419% 645,0223.14.0 MA5,008,00724920,11250% 35% 2,504,0049.821.031% 1,552,48211.522% 1,101,7625.95.3 MD4,085,34225715,89646% 34% 1,879,2576.312.718% 735,36212.129% 1,184,7492.45.2 ME1,010,2737214,03254% 46% 545,5475.46.644% 444,5205.711% 111,1303.52.8 MI7,628,17057613,24344% 36% 3,356,3956.310.324% 1,830,7619.416% 1,220,5072.75.2 MN3,782,81724515,44033% 38% 1,248,33010.515.219% 718,73516.514% 529,5942.45.5 MO4,331,93727715,63932% 40% 1,386,2202.78.113% 563,1524.017% 736,4292.15.8 MS2,160,16514015,43029% 23% 626,44811.315.212% 259,22024.214% 302,4231.85.7 MT701,4235512,75333% 47% 231,47010.112.920% 140,28515.615% 105,2131.26.0 NC6,291,18240715,45745% 35% 2,831,0324.111.518% 1,132,4135.229% 1,824,4433.24.5 ND502,1764012,55425% 23% 125,5442.63.415% 75,3263.05% 25,1094.02.0 NE1,314,9748415,65425% 35% 328,7441.85.914% 184,0962.18% 105,1981.78.6 NH960,5936415,00942% 44% 403,44912.221.531% 297,78414.99% 86,4535.29.5 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 4: Participation in Wildlife Viewing ( Near Water Recreation)

State Pop. 16 and Up NDS Sample Size Sample Weight Total Participation in Near Water Recreation Single Day Trips Multiple Day Trips Percent Pop.

( NDSbased Percent Pop.

( USFWSbased Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Days per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Percent Pop. Number of People Avg # of Trips per Person per Year Mean trip length NJ 6,545,471 347 18,863 54% 26% 3,534,554 5.5 11.8 32% 2,094,551 6.3 23% 1,505,458 3.7 5.0 NM 1,370,134 105 13,049 29% 29% 397,339 2.6 7.8 9% 123,312 5.6 18% 246,624 1.4 6.9 NV 1,537,896 75 20,505 35% 21% 538,264 6.2 11.0 21% 322,958 7.2 23% 353,716 2.6 3.8 NY 14,797,284 774 19,118 45% 23% 6,658,778 4.3 9.9 25% 3,699,321 5.7 18% 2,663,511 2.2 7.5 OH 8,789,530 650 13,522 36% 33% 3,164,231 4.7 11.1 16% 1,406,325 8.2 19% 1,670,011 1.9 7.3 OK 2,665,966 143 18,643 34% 35% 906,428 1.9 5.3 12% 319,916 3.4 17% 453,214 1.5 5.4 OR 2,673,283 217 12,319 59% 42% 1,577,237 6.4 12.4 38% 1,015,848 7.2 33% 882,183 3.3 4.3 PA 9,693,987 742 13,065 39% 37% 3,780,655 3.9 9.4 14% 1,357,158 7.4 24% 2,326,557 1.9 5.7 RI 827,474 57 14,517 56% 32% 463,385 4.0 9.2 40% 330,990 4.6 9% 74,473 4.6 8.0 SC 3,115,130 181 17,211 45% 29% 1,401,808 5.3 10.9 20% 623,026 8.3 25% 778,782 2.8 4.7 SD 577,391 42 13,747 29% 30% 167,443 2.1 7.9 21% 121,252 1.8 5% 28,870 4.5 8.5 TN 4,445,987 296 15,020 41% 37% 1,822,855 2.1 6.1 13% 577,978 3.7 25% 1,111,497 1.4 5.7 TX 15,618,097 657 23,772 33% 25% 5,153,972 3.6 7.6 16% 2,498,896 5.0 16% 2,498,896 2.2 4.8 UT 1,598,531 111 14,401 31% 30% 495,545 2.4 4.6 17% 271,750 3.5 11% 175,838 1.2 5.9 VA 5,529,436 389 14,214 41% 37% 2,267,069 3.4 11.4 17% 940,004 4.2 25% 1,382,359 2.7 5.7 VT 479,265 34 14,096 47% 48% 225,255 5.6 9.6 18% 86,268 5.5 32% 153,365 2.5 4.3 WA 4,552,631 324 14,051 58% 39% 2,640,526 9.2 13.4 40% 1,821,052 11.6 29% 1,320,263 2.6 4.1 WI 4,156,609 299 13,902 38% 42% 1,579,511 4.6 8.8 22% 914,454 6.1 16% 665,057 2.3 5.4 WV 1,455,370 126 11,551 27% 31% 392,950 4.3 16.1 10% 145,537 4.6 17% 247,413 3.9 5.8 WY 381,882 31 12,319 29% 39% 110,746 3.1 4.5 16% 61,101 4.6 13% 49,645 1.2 3.5 N/ A  Not Available Source: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service s ( USFWS) 1996 National Survey of Fishing Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

N 10 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey N. 4 ALLOCATION OF TRIPS BY WATER BODY TYPE This analysis assesses the allocation of trips by water body type, recreation activity, and state of residence. EPA determined the number of trips taken to each water body type based on the water body type visited on the last single or multiple day trip for each recreation activity. Dividing the total number of trips taken in a state to a given water body type for a given activity by the total number of trips taken for that activity in the state provided estimates of the percent taken to the various water body types. The NDS distinguishes four general water body types:

  Lakes:

  lakes,

  ponds, and   reservoirs;

  Streams:

  rivers,

  streams, and   canals;

  Oceans:

  oceans,

  bays, and   sounds; and   Other:

  wetlands, and   unknown water body types.

Note that respondents in several states apparently provided inaccurate information. For example, Montana residents are unlikely to take single day trips to the ocean. The data indicate, however, that five, six, and eleven percent of participants reported that they took single day fishing, swimming, and viewing trips to the ocean, respectively. This inconsistency may arise due to the following two factors:

  respondents traveled to other states for multi purpose multiple day trips and participated in the given activity on only one day per trip; and   response errors ( e. g., some respondents identified water body types incorrectly).

Tables N. 5 and N. 6 show allocation of single and multiple day trips by water body type for boating, fishing, swimming, and viewing.

N 11 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 12 Table N. 5: Allocation of Single Day Trips by Water Body Type State Boating (%) Fishing (%) Swimming (%) Viewing (%) LakeStreamOceanaOtherbLakeStreamOceanOtherLakeStreamOceanOtherLakeStreamOceanOther AK30% 20% 50% 0% 9% 45% 45% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 18% 18% 64% 0%

AL50% 44% 6% 0% 56% 29% 16% 0% 57% 13% 30% 0% 25% 15% 55% 5%

AR78% 22% 0% 0% 78% 22% 0% 0% 78% 17% 0% 4% 38% 38% 23% 0%

AZ100% 0% 0% 0% 76% 19% 5% 0% 63% 32% 5% 0% 50% 11% 33% 6%

CA38% 8% 51% 2% 43% 16% 40% 1% 28% 9% 61% 2% 11% 2% 86% 1%

CO79% 21% 0% 0% 65% 33% 2% 0% 83% 4% 8% 4% 65% 15% 19% 0%

CT38% 27% 35% 0% 35% 22% 43% 0% 33% 5% 60% 2% 20% 9% 69% 2%

DC0% 33% 67% 0% N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0%

DE25% 0% 75% 0% 25% 38% 38% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 18% 6% 76% 0%

FL15% 27% 56% 1% 24% 24% 52% 1% 13% 9% 79% 0% 4% 5% 90% 1%

GA79% 12% 9% 0% 60% 21% 18% 2% 67% 7% 23% 2% 53% 2% 44% 0%

HI22% 0% 78% 0% 10% 0% 90% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 93% 7%

IA43% 52% 0% 4% 59% 38% 0% 3% 70% 17% 9% 4% 60% 28% 8% 4%

ID65% 35% 0% 0% 47% 53% 0% 0% 59% 35% 6% 0% 44% 44% 6% 6%

IL55% 40% 5% 0% 74% 22% 4% 0% 93% 7% 0% 0% 76% 11% 9% 4%

IN88% 12% 0% 0% 82% 13% 5% 0% 92% 4% 2% 2% 78% 15% 5% 2%

KS100% 0% 0% 0% 96% 4% 0% 0% 94% 6% 0% 0% 71% 10% 14% 5%

KY77% 23% 0% 0% 73% 24% 2% 0% 64% 18% 18% 0% 58% 25% 13% 4%

LA45% 45% 10% 0% 39% 43% 14% 4% 38% 27% 27% 8% 32% 16% 48% 4%

MA21% 36% 44% 0% 49% 21% 31% 0% 33% 4% 63% 0% 15% 8% 76% 2%

MD13% 34% 53% 0% 30% 32% 39% 0% 23% 19% 58% 0% 10% 18% 70% 3%

ME63% 19% 19% 0% 65% 15% 20% 0% 67% 4% 30% 0% 19% 6% 74% 0%

MI80% 14% 5% 0% 73% 20% 8% 0% 92% 3% 5% 0% 81% 8% 8% 3%

MN77% 23% 0% 0% 90% 10% 0% 0% 84% 7% 7% 2% 95% 5% 0% 0%

MO53% 42% 3% 3% 73% 21% 4% 2% 52% 36% 7% 5% 60% 30% 7% 3%

MS47% 42% 11% 0% 76% 15% 9% 0% 50% 36% 14% 0% 38% 13% 50% 0%

MT75% 25% 0% 0% 42% 53% 5% 0% 63% 31% 6% 0% 78% 11% 11% 0%

NC61% 19% 19% 0% 52% 24% 24% 0% 36% 15% 42% 7% 22% 14% 63% 2%

ND100% 0% 0% 0% 80% 20% 0% 0% 83% 17% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

NE89% 11% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 77% 23% 0% 0% 64% 27% 9% 0% MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 5: Allocation of Single Day Trips by Water Body Type State Boating (%) Fishing (%) Swimming (%) Viewing (%)

Lake Stream Oceana Otherb Lake Stream Ocean Other Lake Stream Ocean Other Lake Stream Ocean Other NH 58% 25% 17% 0% 44% 44% 11% 0% 55% 0% 41% 5% 25% 0% 75% 0%

NJ 24% 11% 65% 0% 31% 13% 55% 2% 20% 2% 77% 0% 9% 4% 86% 1%

NM 43% 43% 14% 0% 38% 62% 0% 0% 50% 30% 20% 0% 25% 38% 38% 0%

NV 92% 0% 8% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 85% 0% 8% 8%

NY 47% 18% 35% 0% 53% 21% 26% 0% 43% 7% 49% 1% 40% 9% 50% 1%

OH 83% 11% 5% 1% 84% 13% 2% 1% 86% 4% 7% 3% 71% 9% 18% 2%

OK 88% 13% 0% 0% 94% 3% 3% 0% 80% 15% 0% 5% 87% 7% 7% 0%

OR 41% 36% 23% 0% 31% 56% 13% 0% 50% 26% 22% 2% 11% 13% 77% 0%

PA 46% 32% 19% 3% 54% 27% 18% 2% 53% 19% 26% 2% 37% 10% 51% 2%

RI 11% 22% 67% 0% 36% 18% 45% 0% 29% 5% 67% 0% 4% 0% 96% 0%

SC 64% 20% 12% 4% 66% 13% 19% 2% 68% 4% 29% 0% 31% 7% 62% 0%

SD 100% 0% 0% 0% 57% 43% 0% 0% 89% 11% 0% 0% 75% 13% 13% 0%

TN 75% 17% 8% 0% 63% 34% 3% 0% 72% 23% 5% 0% 48% 18% 33% 0%

TX 74% 8% 18% 0% 64% 13% 23% 0% 62% 16% 20% 2% 41% 10% 48% 1%

UT 78% 0% 22% 0% 87% 13% 0% 0% 64% 36% 0% 0% 89% 6% 6% 0%

VA 31% 35% 35% 0% 27% 38% 35% 0% 23% 17% 58% 2% 16% 13% 70% 2%

VT 100% 0% 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 71% 14% 14% 0% 80% 0% 20% 0%

WA 38% 27% 33% 1% 36% 30% 34% 0% 63% 25% 12% 0% 21% 11% 67% 1%

WI 66% 30% 4% 0% 78% 20% 2% 0% 80% 10% 5% 5% 73% 13% 7% 7%

WV 83% 8% 8% 0% 43% 57% 0% 0% 55% 35% 10% 0% 55% 18% 27% 0%

WY 83% 0% 17% 0% 73% 27% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

a Note that respondents in several states apparently provided inaccurate information because some states at great distances from the ocean report individuals taking single

day trips to the ocean.

b Other includes wetlands and unknown water body types.

N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS. N 13 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 14 Table N. 6: Allocation of Multiple Day Trips by Water Body Type State Boating (%) Fishing (%) Swimming (%) Viewing (%) LakeStreamOceanOtheraLakeStreamOceanOtherLakeStreamOceanOtherLakeStreamOceanOther AK75% 0% 25% 0% 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33%

AL43% 0% 43% 14% 40% 0% 40% 20% 19% 0% 62% 19% 7% 0% 72% 21%

AR71% 14% 0% 14% 45% 36% 0% 18% 0% 17% 67% 17% 30% 0% 43% 26%

AZ63% 13% 25% 0% 73% 13% 7% 7% 7% 7% 50% 36% 7% 11% 52% 30%

CA49% 23% 25% 3% 58% 17% 11% 13% 19% 12% 41% 29% 13% 6% 52% 29%

CO85% 8% 0% 8% 48% 36% 12% 4% 33% 0% 25% 42% 30% 4% 41% 26%

CT33% 33% 33% 0% 60% 0% 40% 0% 14% 5% 73% 9% 10% 0% 60% 30%

DC0% 0% 100% 0% N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A0% 0% 67% 33% 8% 0% 75% 17%

DE100% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 8% 83% 8%

FL11% 25% 43% 21% 21% 11% 36% 32% 9% 2% 52% 38% 7% 3% 53% 36%

GA46% 19% 27% 8% 24% 12% 40% 24% 15% 5% 62% 18% 8% 2% 70% 20%

HI0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 83% 17% 0% 0% 40% 60%

IA78% 0% 11% 11% 78% 22% 0% 0% 14% 0% 57% 29% 21% 7% 52% 21%

ID80% 20% 0% 0% 56% 38% 0% 6% 75% 25% 0% 0% 50% 11% 28% 11%

IL58% 23% 10% 10% 70% 7% 11% 11% 33% 8% 25% 35% 23% 7% 36% 34%

IN68% 16% 5% 11% 69% 6% 13% 13% 35% 0% 24% 41% 17% 4% 57% 23%

KS100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 63% 0% 25% 13% 30% 9% 39% 22%

KY78% 22% 0% 0% 71% 18% 0% 12% 25% 19% 38% 19% 5% 0% 78% 16%

LA57% 0% 14% 29% 31% 15% 31% 23% 11% 0% 79% 11% 8% 5% 67% 21%

MA42% 11% 32% 16% 53% 0% 20% 27% 7% 0% 63% 30% 16% 3% 52% 29%

MD18% 9% 55% 18% 44% 33% 11% 11% 15% 5% 69% 10% 9% 5% 71% 15%

ME63% 13% 13% 13% 50% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 17% 33% 25% 0% 25% 50%

MI76% 10% 10% 4% 65% 8% 6% 20% 50% 6% 22% 22% 40% 2% 22% 36%

MN63% 6% 6% 25% 83% 9% 0% 9% 50% 0% 6% 44% 44% 2% 30% 23%

MO75% 17% 4% 4% 52% 29% 5% 14% 30% 10% 25% 35% 20% 5% 42% 32%

MS50% 33% 17% 0% 60% 0% 20% 20% 14% 0% 57% 29% 8% 4% 67% 21%

MT25% 25% 25% 25% 50% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 17% 33% 33% 11% 33% 22%

NC52% 19% 19% 10% 11% 8% 72% 8% 3% 3% 79% 16% 2% 2% 82% 13% MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 6: Allocation of Multiple Day Trips by Water Body Type State Boating (%) Fishing (%) Swimming (%) Viewing (%)

Lake Stream Ocean Othera Lake Stream Ocean Other Lake Stream Ocean Other Lake Stream Ocean Other ND 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 75% 25% 0% 0% 75%

NE 75% 25% 0% 0% 75% 13% 13% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 40% 10% 30% 20%

NH 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 40% 0% 60% 0% 14% 0% 71% 14%

NJ 0% 0% 67% 33% 18% 18% 18% 45% 4% 0% 83% 13% 9% 3% 58% 30%

NM 85% 8% 0% 8% 70% 20% 10% 0% 33% 17% 0% 50% 27% 0% 50% 23%

NV 75% 0% 25% 0% 33% 17% 17% 33% 20% 20% 40% 20% 31% 0% 62% 8%

NY 41% 17% 22% 20% 50% 17% 20% 13% 22% 0% 62% 16% 12% 5% 55% 28%

OH 68% 18% 9% 6% 70% 13% 7% 10% 14% 5% 59% 21% 20% 2% 59% 19%

OK 62% 8% 8% 23% 50% 10% 10% 30% 30% 10% 25% 35% 21% 6% 38% 35%

OR 38% 31% 15% 15% 42% 33% 8% 17% 9% 17% 30% 43% 8% 5% 72% 16%

PA 42% 9% 36% 12% 53% 16% 22% 9% 17% 3% 64% 16% 12% 4% 65% 20%

RI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 11% 11% 33% 44%

SC 56% 0% 33% 11% 17% 17% 50% 17% 0% 8% 67% 25% 2% 2% 81% 15%

SD 75% 0% 0% 25% 25% 75% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 25% 50%

TN 50% 14% 21% 14% 33% 33% 11% 22% 15% 4% 65% 15% 11% 1% 71% 16%

TX 53% 6% 26% 15% 53% 10% 25% 12% 16% 16% 42% 26% 17% 2% 57% 24%

UT 85% 0% 0% 15% 70% 10% 0% 20% 50% 25% 0% 25% 25% 0% 38% 38%

VA 35% 15% 45% 5% 24% 19% 43% 14% 12% 2% 71% 16% 4% 3% 78% 15%

VT 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 55% 0% 45% 0%

WA 27% 27% 36% 9% 29% 32% 25% 14% 29% 19% 39% 13% 12% 9% 68% 11%

WI 78% 11% 11% 0% 73% 15% 3% 9% 43% 9% 30% 17% 34% 4% 38% 25%

WV 20% 20% 0% 60% 25% 50% 0% 25% 9% 9% 55% 27% 9% 9% 70% 13%

WY 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50%

a Other includes wetlands and unknown water body types.

N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS. N 15 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey N. 5 ONE WAY TRAVEL DISTANCE This analysis estimates the average one way distance to sites by trip duration ( i. e., single day versus multi day trips), trip length, recreation activity, and state of residence. EPA estimated the mean one way distance traveled based on the distance reported for the last single or multiple day trip for each activity. As shown in Table N. 7, some respondents indicated traveling to the ocean across long distances on single day trips. These values are likely to be due to the following two factors:

  respondents traveled long distances for multi purpose multiple day trips and participated in the given activity on only one day on the trip; and   response errors.

EPA estimated the average travel distance traveled after dropping outliers because these outliers may provide undue influence on sample means.

N 16 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 7: Average One Way Distance State Miles to Single Day Site Miles to Multiple Day Site Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing AK 41 47 32 39 76 193 N/ A 43 AL 31 29 35 53 93 218 230 214 AR 52 38 19 222 215 246 282 394 AZ 54 45 44 117 205 323 413 383 CA 32 40 26 31 233 316 272 226 CO 41 56 15 69 372 260 548 894 CT 30 41 36 49 168 161 194 330 DC 46 N/ A 417 85 1000a N/ A 165 688 DE 36 32 50 189 1,625 1,700 85 248 FL 21 23 20 24 317 381 154 237 GA 34 52 42 46 199 283 261 336 HI 37 13 14 13 3 80 32 45 IA 60 25 26 49 314 321 228 1,354 ID 35 48 101 54 228 146 100 507 IL 52 34 30 29 255 368 213 707 IN 47 29 50 64 295 378 368 813 KS 42 22 52 68 151 177 272 861 KY 55 32 46 106 151 143 391 697 LA 30 27 39 53 132 76 244 245 MA 22 25 30 29 136 154 144 398 MD 36 40 56 38 581 199 200 263 ME 44 24 30 23 436 148 152 31 MI 31 33 25 32 192 249 234 387 MN 45 55 16 16 354 185 132 552 MO 42 40 39 71 195 265 200 628 MS 11 27 36 39 72 122 203 483 MT 43 172 31 102 588 154 352 500 NC 42 49 45 67 153 182 264 262 ND 69 55 35 75 154 130 45 120 NE 70 29 71 56 125 603 400 152 NH 27 24 28 34 186 248 108 712 NJ 49 31 41 41 483 179 227 476 NM 76 50 71 252 161 191 207 1,315 NV 108 46 43 53 48 401 254 565 N 17 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 7: Average One Way Distance State Miles to Single Day Site Miles to Multiple Day Site Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing NY 32 26 25 37 202 195 194 692 OH 63 38 30 45 265 262 498 778 OK 62 50 46 47 189 244 232 542 OR 31 36 33 51 398 200 97 143 PA 40 38 36 57 296 228 210 391 RI 10 26 18 26 433 SC 15 33 40 60 713 132 200 250 SD 43 35 19 46 352 143 400 740 TN 29 27 24 84 61 888 493 481 TX 40 38 38 65 190 187 261 442 UT 43 66 44 68 235 122 207 598 VA 37 30 39 69 407 159 256 303 VT 41 20 33 50 70 78 334 WA 23 28 20 41 154 198 205 277 WI 34 30 30 33 289 303 104 545 WV 86 30 95 158 338 278 328 429 WY 69 46 32 47 73 56 230 a Based on one observation only.

N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS.

N 18 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey N. 6 INDIVIDUAL EXPENDITURES PER TRIP This analysis estimates the mean total expenditures per person by trip length, recreation activity, and state of residence. Total expenditures for single day boating, fishing, and viewing trips consist of transportation, entrance fee, and boat rental. Total expenditures for multiple day boating, fishing, and viewing trips include expenses for transportation, entrance fees, boat rental, and lodging. Transportation includes expenses for plane, train, bus, or ship only, and do not reflect costs associated with operating a car. Expenditures on single day and multiple day swimming trips do not include boat rental. Expenditures on single day and multiple day trips for all activities do not include bait, tackle, recreational clothing and equipment ( e. g.,

photographic supply and binoculars), boat ownership, or food. Results of the analysis are presented below in Table N. 8.

N 19 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 8: Individual Expenditures per Trip State Average Expenditures per Person on Single day Trips ( 1993$ per trip) Average Expenditures per Person on Multiple day Trips ( 1993$ per trip)

Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing AK $ 16 $ 10 $ 0 $ 12 $ 66 $ 98 $ 0 $ 70 AL $ 14 $ 15 $ 2 $ 5 $ 23 $ 421 $ 153 $ 261 AR $ 18 $ 24 $ 1 $ 1 $ 59 $ 48 $ 361 $ 399 AZ $ 16 $ 5 $ 7 $ 3 $ 41 $ 84 $ 184 $ 126 CA $ 53 $ 22 $ 5 $ 3 $ 454 $ 220 $ 455 $ 328 CO $ 49 $ 11 $ 3 $ 18 $ 320 $ 235 $ 248 $ 325 CT $ 19 $ 12 $ 35 $ 7 $ 387 $ 114 $ 330 $ 505 DCa $ 17 N/ A $ 2 $ 3 $ 2,000 N/ A $ 200 $ 354 DE $ 6 $ 18 $ 2 $ 2 $ 43 $ 63 $ 325 $ 120 FL $ 22 $ 22 $ 2 $ 4 $ 376 $ 852 $ 234 $ 375 GA $ 19 $ 17 $ 8 $ 28 $ 147 $ 275 $ 279 $ 249 HI $ 22 $ 7 $ 0 $ 0 $ 110 $ 0 $ 118 $ 75 IA $ 8 $ 2 $ 1 $ 2 $ 119 $ 662 $ 340 $ 488 ID $ 21 $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 $ 54 $ 29 $ 63 $ 118 IL $ 37 $ 9 $ 2 $ 1 $ 342 $ 333 $ 241 $ 495 IN $ 18 $ 10 $ 3 $ 14 $ 299 $ 321 $ 175 $ 661 KS $ 19 $ 3 $ 2 $ 2 $ 89 $ 175 $ 178 $ 518 KY $ 18 $ 2 $ 35 $ 18 $ 340 $ 180 $ 117 $ 298 LA $ 50 $ 14 $ 1 $ 1 $ 186 $ 58 $ 251 $ 245 MA $ 19 $ 13 $ 18 $ 3 $ 89 $ 197 $ 309 $ 274 MD $ 49 $ 51 $ 2 $ 36 $ 116 $ 178 $ 300 $ 288 ME $ 2 $ 2 $ 1 $ 2 $ 329 $ 44 $ 143 $ 22 MI $ 26 $ 7 $ 2 $ 4 $ 227 $ 125 $ 379 $ 255 MN $ 10 $ 6 $ 2 $ 1 $ 198 $ 160 $ 99 $ 261 MO $ 26 $ 11 $ 2 $ 9 $ 164 $ 122 $ 278 $ 352 MS $ 14 $ 26 $ 1 $ 1 $ 52 $ 169 $ 181 $ 329 N 20 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 8: Individual Expenditures per Trip State Average Expenditures per Person on Single day Trips ( 1993$ per trip) Average Expenditures per Person on Multiple day Trips ( 1993$ per trip)

Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing Boating Fishing Swimming Viewing MT $ 8 $ 23 $ 1 $ 0 $ 25 $ 95 $ 542 $ 86 NC $ 13 $ 26 $ 24 $ 3 $ 165 $ 132 $ 393 $ 227 ND $ 14 $ 2 $ 0 $ 0 $ 53 $ 3 $ 0 $ 0 NE $ 3 $ 4 $ 85 $ 2 $ 24 $ 310 $ 150 $ 237 NH $ 16 $ 7 $ 3 $ 0 $ 127 $ 0 $ 955 $ 342 NJ $ 32 $ 44 $ 13 $ 7 $ 360 $ 168 $ 631 $ 414 NM $ 15 $ 3 $ 22 $ 32 $ 73 $ 78 $ 41 $ 218 NV $ 25 $ 1 $ 1 $ 4 $ 104 $ 25 $ 554 $ 116 NY $ 25 $ 29 $ 5 $ 8 $ 242 $ 76 $ 298 $ 459 OH $ 26 $ 15 $ 8 $ 22 $ 403 $ 239 $ 560 $ 465 OK $ 11 $ 22 $ 2 $ 3 $ 173 $ 314 $ 137 $ 268 OR $ 15 $ 5 $ 22 $ 1 $ 429 $ 51 $ 543 $ 248 PA $ 23 $ 21 $ 19 $ 9 $ 275 $ 310 $ 275 $ 399 RI $ 23 $ 16 $ 3 $ 2 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 240 SC $ 27 $ 12 $ 2 $ 7 $ 576 $ 201 $ 731 $ 265 SD $ 5 $ 6 $ 0 $ 2 $ 248 $ 54 $ 10 $ 715 TN $ 26 $ 4 $ 0 $ 14 $ 458 $ 49 $ 329 $ 315 TX $ 152 $ 12 $ 2 $ 3 $ 151 $ 138 $ 324 $ 349 UT $ 25 $ 2 $ 4 $ 13 $ 164 $ 10 $ 117 $ 419 VA $ 10 $ 23 $ 1 $ 243 $ 175 $ 116 $ 317 $ 319 VT $ 6 $ 1 $ 6 $ 2 $ 100 $ 0 $ 22 $ 372 WA $ 11 $ 19 $ 13 $ 1 $ 266 $ 170 $ 217 $ 165 WI $ 10 $ 5 $ 3 $ 8 $ 425 $ 135 $ 468 $ 308 WV $ 46 $ 2 $ 14 $ 3 $ 250 $ 275 $ 209 $ 356 WY $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 22 $ 85 $ 17 $ 0 $ 114 a Average boating expenditures in Washington, D. C. are based on a single observation.

N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS. N 21 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey N. 7 DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECT COSTS FOR SINGLE DAY TRIPS This analysis estimates the percent of total expenditures for single day and multiple day trips spent on each component of total expenditures. Total expenditures for single day boating, fishing, and viewing trips consist of:

  transportation,

  entrance fee, and   boat rental.

Lodging is not included in single day expenditures. Swimming trip expenditures do not include boat rental. Transportation includes expenses for:

  plane,

  train,

  bus, or   ship only and do not include automobile travel costs.

EPA determined the percent of total expenditures for each category by dividing the total amount spent on each category by the total expenditures in a state for a given activity.

Tables N. 9 and N. 10 present results for single and multiple day trips, respectively.

N 22 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 9: Distribution of Direct Costs for Single Day Trips State Boating (% of total expenditures) Fishing (% of total expenditures) Swimminga (% of total expenditures) Viewing (% of total expenditures)

Transb Enter Fee Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Trans Enter Fee Boat Rental AK 0% 3% 97% 0% 5% 95% N/ A N/ A 0% 27% 73%

AL 0% 12% 88% 4% 28% 68% 0% 100% 0% 61% 39%

AR 0% 8% 92% 36% 41% 23% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

AZ 0% 6% 94% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100% 83% 17% 0%

CA 45% 13% 42% 15% 21% 65% 37% 63% 50% 34% 16%

CO 0% 9% 91% 57% 17% 25% 0% 100% 84% 16% 0%

CT 0% 9% 91% 0% 3% 97% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

DC 0% 35% 65% N/ A N/ A N/ A 0% 100% 0% 73% 27%

DE 0% 30% 70% 0% 52% 48% 0% 100% 0% 17% 83%

FL 0% 10% 90% 1% 12% 87% 0% 100% 0% 26% 74%

GA 0% 7% 93% 0% 29% 71% 66% 34% 83% 11% 5%

HI 62% 0% 38% 0% 18% 82% N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A IA 0% 3% 97% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 63% 37%

ID 0% 5% 95% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

IL 4% 13% 82% 0% 13% 87% 0% 100% 6% 80% 13%

IN 0% 2% 98% 0% 24% 76% 0% 100% 53% 41% 6%

KS 0% 24% 76% 0% 51% 49% 0% 100% 0% 55% 45%

KY 0% 2% 98% 0% 27% 73% 96% 4% 82% 9% 9%

LA 0% 68% 32% 0% 46% 54% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

MA 0% 43% 57% 4% 28% 68% 88% 12% 0% 78% 22%

MD 31% 17% 52% 0% 2% 98% 0% 100% 17% 82% 1%

ME 0% 23% 77% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 94% 6%

MI 0% 8% 92% 0% 10% 90% 0% 100% 0% 65% 35%

MN 0% 17% 83% 0% 65% 35% 0% 100% 0% 20% 80%

MO 0% 25% 75% 0% 20% 80% 0% 100% 1% 92% 7%

MS 0% 36% 64% 0% 44% 56% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

MT 0% 8% 92% 96% 4% 0% 0% 100% N/ A N/ A N/ A NC 0% 23% 77% 0% 12% 88% 0% 100% 40% 41% 19%

ND 0% 30% 70% 0% 32% 68% 0% 100% N/ A N/ A N/ A NE 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 5% 95%

NH 0% 48% 52% 0% 61% 39% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

NJ 15% 10% 74% 8% 48% 44% 26% 74% 35% 47% 18%

NM 0% 8% 92% 0% 49% 51% 91% 9% 98% 2% 0%

NV 0% 19% 81% 0% 67% 33% 0% 100% 0% 32% 68%

NY 23% 29% 48% 5% 36% 58% 44% 56% 5% 76% 19% N 23 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 9: Distribution of Direct Costs for Single Day Trips State Boating (% of total expenditures) Fishing (% of total expenditures) Swimminga (% of total expenditures) Viewing (% of total expenditures)

Transb Enter Fee Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Trans Enter Fee Boat Rental OH 28% 6% 66% 7% 14% 79% 0% 100% 43% 11% 46%

OK 0% 27% 73% 58% 9% 33% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

OR 0% 17% 83% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100% 0% 87% 13%

PA 0% 11% 89% 0% 22% 78% 94% 6% 49% 41% 10%

RI 0% 0% 100% 0% 1% 99% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

SC 0% 66% 34% 0% 10% 90% 0% 100% 95% 2% 3%

SD 0% 19% 81% 0% 39% 61% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

TN 26% 0% 73% 0% 22% 78% 0% 100% 98% 2% 0%

TX 0% 2% 98% 0% 20% 80% 0% 100% 0% 33% 67%

UT 0% 42% 59% 0% 60% 40% 0% 100% 0% 84% 16%

VA 9% 25% 66% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100% 20% 80% 0%

VT 0% 8% 92% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

WA 0% 18% 82% 45% 16% 39% 0% 100% 17% 56% 28%

WI 0% 19% 81% 1% 20% 79% 2% 98% 48% 36% 16%

WV 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% 100% 78% 22% 88% 6% 6%

WY 0% 47% 53% 0% 53% 48% N/ A N/ A 0% 16% 84%

a Swimming expenditures do not include boat rental.

b Transportation expenses include expenditures on plane, train, bus, or ship taken on the trip only and do not reflect travel costs.

N/ A  Not Available Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

N 24 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 25 Table N. 10: Distribution of Direct Costs for Multiple Day Trips State Boating (% of total expenditures) Fishing (% of total expenditures) Swimminga (% of total expenditures) Viewing (% of total expenditures)

TransbEnter Fee Lodg

ingc Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Lodging Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee LodgingTrans Enter Fee Lodging Boat Rental AK0% 2% 15% 84% 0% 3% 77% 20% N/ AN/ AN/ A0% 0% 71% 29%

AL0% 0% 20% 80% 0% 0% 37% 63% 4% 0% 96% 0% 0% 99% 1%

AR0% 1% 51% 48% 0% 7% 73% 20% 0% 0% 100% 8% 8% 84% 0%

AZ0% 5% 55% 40% 0% 10% 65% 24% 31% 0% 69% 29% 1% 69% 1%

CA28% 6% 53% 13% 12% 16% 58% 14% 23% 2% 76% 20% 11% 63% 5%

CO0% 7% 77% 16% 20% 0% 69% 10% 12% 2% 87% 23% 1% 72% 3%

CT22% 0% 16% 63% 0% 1% 95% 4% 17% 1% 83% 11% 0% 88% 0%

DC100% 0% 0% 0% N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A0% 0% 100% 22% 6% 42% 30%

DE0% 0% 77% 23% 0% 0% 100% 0% 8% 0% 92% 0% 1% 99% 0%

FL10% 1% 71% 18% 0% 2% 16% 81% 0% 2% 98% 7% 5% 88% 0%

GA14% 7% 51% 28% 8% 4% 69% 19% 0% 0% 99% 9% 9% 77% 5%

HI0% 0% 91% 9% N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%

IA0% 21% 63% 16% 0% 0% 64% 36% 18% 0% 82% 26% 1% 71% 1%

ID0% 1% 92% 7% 0% 8% 78% 15% 0% 3% 97% 20% 14% 65% 1%

IL18% 6% 41% 35% 14% 2% 79% 5% 33% 4% 63% 21% 1% 74% 3%

IN8% 3% 58% 31% 7% 5% 81% 7% 17% 57% 26% 20% 37% 42% 1%

KS0% 2% 30% 68% 0% 1% 74% 25% 24% 0% 76% 16% 0% 82% 1%

KY0% 3% 12% 85% 21% 3% 48% 27% 0% 0% 100% 14% 0% 86% 0%

LA0% 3% 81% 16% 0% 31% 62% 8% 9% 0% 91% 1% 3% 94% 2%

MA0% 1% 38% 61% 0% 14% 78% 9% 19% 0% 81% 21% 5% 73% 0%

MD0% 0% 56% 44% 0% 0% 98% 2% 12% 0% 88% 13% 2% 83% 2%

ME0% 72% 22% 6% 0% 15% 80% 6% 0% 4% 96% 0% 6% 94% 0%

MI9% 6% 58% 26% 5% 4% 83% 8% 17% 6% 77% 33% 3% 63% 2%

MN17% 0% 78% 5% 0% 0% 73% 27% 0% 1% 99% 44% 0% 54% 2%

MO0% 3% 74% 23% 0% 6% 64% 30% 30% 0% 70% 24% 8% 67% 1%

MS0% 1% 65% 34% 0% 0% 69% 31% 0% 0% 100% 0% 2% 97% 1%

MT0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 92% 8% 5% 0% 95% 0% 5% 95% 0%

NC12% 8% 55% 25% 18% 4% 69% 9% 8% 0% 92% 7% 0% 93% 0%

ND0% 0% 16% 84% 0% 0% 100% 0% N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A NE0% 6% 66% 28% 30% 6% 64% 0% 0% 0% 100% 60% 0% 40% 0%

NH0% 13% 0% 87% N/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A9% 0% 91% 0% 0% 100% 0%

NJ34% 0% 60% 6% 0% 37% 25% 39% 20% 0% 79% 21% 2% 76% 1%

NM0% 7% 52% 41% 0% 5% 83% 12% 0% 18% 82% 17% 1% 82% 1%

NV0% 3% 37% 60% 0% 0% 100% 0% 45% 2% 53% 7% 1% 92% 1% MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 10: Distribution of Direct Costs for Multiple Day Trips State Boating (% of total expenditures) Fishing (% of total expenditures) Swimminga (% of total expenditures) Viewing (% of total expenditures)

Transb Enter Fee Lodgingc Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Lodging Boat Rental Trans Enter Fee Lodging Trans Enter Fee Lodging Boat Rental NY 20% 13% 58% 8% 0% 5% 75% 20% 9% 1% 90% 16% 0% 82% 1%

OH 8% 2% 49% 41% 5% 1% 79% 15% 6% 24% 70% 17% 0% 79% 4%

OK 16% 0% 62% 22% 0% 81% 19% 0% 18% 4% 78% 30% 1% 68% 2%

OR 4% 1% 43% 52% 0% 2% 87% 11% 41% 0% 59% 5% 3% 91% 1%

PA 37% 4% 36% 23% 1% 1% 61% 37% 19% 1% 81% 9% 0% 89% 1%

RI N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 20% 0% 79% 0%

SC 10% 0% 24% 67% 0% 10% 87% 3% 0% 0% 100% 21% 1% 76% 1%

SD 0% 0% 96% 4% 0% 12% 69% 18% 0% 0% 100% 28% 0% 72% 0%

TN 0% 0% 53% 46% 0% 0% 38% 63% 12% 0% 88% 7% 0% 91% 2%

TX 6% 5% 56% 33% 6% 5% 70% 19% 21% 8% 72% 20% 1% 76% 3%

UT 0% 0% 66% 34% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0% 1% 99% 34% 0% 66% 0%

VA 54% 3% 30% 14% 0% 10% 60% 31% 2% 1% 97% 8% 2% 90% 1%

VT 0% 50% 50% 0% N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 0% 0% 100% 60% 0% 40% 0%

WA 10% 4% 46% 40% 57% 0% 18% 25% 23% 4% 73% 24% 1% 73% 1%

WI 9% 4% 35% 52% 26% 21% 48% 6% 13% 0% 87% 18% 1% 81% 0%

WV 0% 0% 80% 20% 0% 3% 97% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 13% 87% 0%

WY 0% 0% 71% 29% 0% 4% 96% 0% N/ A N/ A N/ A 0% 10% 90% 0%

a Swimming expenditures do not include boat rental.

b Transportation expenses include expenditures on plane, train, bus, or ship taken on the trip only and do not reflect travel costs.

c Total expenses for multiple day trips include lodging, while total expenditures for single day trips do not.

N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS; U. S. EPA analysis.

N 26 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey N. 8 PROFILE OF BOATING TRIPS This analysis provides a profile of sample boater characteristics by state of residence. Table N. 11 shows distribution of boaters by type of boating in which they participated on their last trip and the source of the boat used on their most recent boating trip.

Boating types include:

  motorboating;

  sailing;

  white water kayaking and canoeing;

  other kayaking or canoeing;

  rowing, rafting, tubing, or floating;

  wind surfing; and   other.

Boat sources include:

  boaters who used their own boat, including those who indicated using either their own boat or one belonging to someone in their immediate family on their last trip;

  boat renters, including those who either rented or chartered a boat on their last trip; and   other, including respondents who did not indicate either using their own boat or renting a boat.

Dividing the number of respondents who participated in each boating type on their last trip by the total sample of boaters provided an estimate of the percent participating in each type.

N 27 MP& M EEBA: AppendicesAppendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based RecreationSurvey N 28 Table N. 11: Profile of Boating Trips State Total Number of Boaters Source Boat Used on Last Tripa ( Percent of Boaters) Type of Boating on Last Tripb ( Percent of Boaters)

NDS Sample Sample Weighted OwnRentOtherMotorSail White Water Kayak Other Kayak RowRaftWind SurfOther AK14220,97236% 36% 29% 71% 0% 21% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0%

AL39617,48651% 21% 28% 79% 0% 8% 0% 0% 3% 0% 10%

AR25404,80948% 20% 32% 88% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 8%

AZ21461,00057% 14% 29% 67% 14% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0%

CA2695,244,63431% 23% 46% 66% 14% 2% 1% 1% 4% 0% 11%

CO27423,14344% 22% 33% 70% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 4% 4%

CT32533,62641% 34% 25% 50% 22% 6% 9% 0% 6% 0% 6%

DC453,5510% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

DE10119,66160% 10% 30% 80% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

FL1522,925,61431% 32% 37% 74% 8% 3% 5% 1% 1% 0% 7%

GA691,156,29730% 32% 38% 77% 9% 7% 0% 0% 3% 0% 4%

HI11189,8379% 36% 55% 36% 36% 9% 9% 0% 0% 0% 9%

IA32426,85425% 31% 44% 81% 3% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3%

ID25291,91756% 12% 32% 72% 4% 0% 4% 4% 16% 0% 0%

IL861,758,81634% 28% 38% 66% 5% 2% 6% 0% 6% 0% 15%

IN62967,69435% 26% 39% 84% 10% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

KS18274,46544% 22% 33% 83% 0% 0% 6% 11% 0% 0% 0%

KY35505,22854% 17% 29% 89% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 6%

LA38682,56347% 18% 34% 87% 3% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5%

MA581,166,52428% 45% 28% 53% 19% 9% 12% 0% 0% 0% 7%

MD49778,91720% 47% 33% 65% 10% 4% 0% 2% 8% 2% 8%

ME24336,75821% 46% 33% 63% 8% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 8%

MI1411,867,31230% 43% 26% 76% 9% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 6%

MN59910,96439% 29% 32% 83% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 10%

MO60938,32638% 28% 33% 75% 3% 5% 12% 0% 0% 0% 5%

MS25385,74436% 32% 32% 80% 12% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

MT12153,03867% 0% 33% 42% 0% 17% 17% 0% 8% 0% 17%

NC57881,07530% 30% 40% 70% 9% 7% 2% 2% 5% 0% 5%

ND11138,09855% 27% 18% 82% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9%

NE17266,12618% 12% 71% 88% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

NH15225,13913% 53% 33% 80% 7% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

NJ641,207,23417% 53% 30% 70% 13% 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% 11%

NM20260,97855% 10% 35% 65% 5% 0% 15% 0% 10% 0% 5%

NV17348,59041% 12% 47% 82% 0% 6% 0% 6% 0% 6% 0%

NY1372,619,15821% 50% 28% 64% 11% 1% 6% 4% 2% 0% 12% MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 11: Profile of Boating Trips State Total Number of Boaters Source Boat Used on Last Tripa ( Percent of Boaters) Type of Boating on Last Tripb ( Percent of Boaters)

NDS Sample Sample Weighted Own Rent Other Motor Sail White Water Kayak Other Kayak Row Raft Wind Surf Other OH 109 1,473,937 30% 37% 33% 75% 7% 6% 3% 0% 3% 0% 6%

OK 29 540,650 21% 34% 45% 66% 7% 7% 3% 0% 0% 3% 14%

OR 57 702,199 49% 21% 30% 70% 9% 0% 4% 2% 9% 0% 7%

PA 111 1,450,179 28% 40% 32% 72% 6% 1% 4% 2% 1% 1% 14%

RI 9 130,654 33% 56% 11% 33% 44% 0% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0%

SC 34 585,163 53% 21% 26% 71% 3% 6% 9% 0% 0% 0% 12%

SD 11 151,221 18% 36% 45% 82% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

TN 67 1,006,355 45% 25% 30% 84% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 9%

TX 118 2,805,077 41% 20% 39% 80% 5% 1% 3% 2% 2% 0% 8%

UT 22 316,826 59% 9% 32% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14%

VA 72 1,023,443 36% 43% 21% 57% 22% 1% 8% 0% 1% 0% 10%

VT 8 112,768 50% 50% 0% 50% 13% 13% 13% 0% 13% 0% 0%

WA 114 1,601,852 37% 26% 37% 70% 11% 0% 6% 3% 4% 0% 6%

WI 65 903,611 42% 38% 20% 68% 8% 5% 15% 2% 3% 0% 0%

WV 17 196,359 47% 6% 47% 59% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 29%

WY 8 98,550 38% 0% 63% 63% 0% 13% 13% 0% 13% 0% 0%

a Own includes those who used their own boat or one belonging to someone in their immediate family.

Rent includes those who rented or chartered a boat.

Other includes those who did not indicate either using own boat or renting a boat.

b Kayak includes kayak or canoe; raft includes rafting, tubing, or floating; other includes other or type not indicated.

N/ A  Not Available Source: U. S. EPA analysis; NDS. N 29 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey N. 9 PROFILE OF FISHING TRIPS This analysis provides a profile of fishing trips, including angling success rate, average catch, and type of fisheries targeted on the last trip by state of residence. The success rate equals the total number of fishermen who report catching at least one fish on their last trip divided by the total number of fishermen in each state. The average catch equals the total fish caught by all fishermen divided by the total number of fishermen in the state. Average catch therefore includes those who did not indicate catching any fish. Similarly, the percent of fishermen who fished from a boat equals the total number of fishermen who reported fishing from a boat on their last trip, divided by the total number of fishermen. Finally, the percent of fishermen who participated in each type of fishing equals the total number of fishermen who reported fishing in either cold, warm, salt,

anadromous, or other water divided by the total number of fishermen. Other includes both those who indicated other and missing values. Results of the analysis are presented below in Table N. 12.

N 30 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 12: Profile of Fishing Trips State Sample Weighted Number of Fishermen Fish Catch on Last Tripa Fished from a Boat on Last Trip (% of fishermen) Type of Water Fished on Last Tripb Average Number of Fish Caught Success Rate (% of fishermen ) Cold (% of fishermen) Warm (% of fishermen) Salt (% of fishermen) Anadromous (% of fishermen) Other (% of fishermen)

AK 268,323 9 65% 65% 41% 0% 53% 6% 0%

AL 870,813 7 67% 71% 22% 45% 20% 2% 11%

AR 761,041 7 85% 62% 36% 60% 0% 0% 4%

AZ 790,286 4 67% 39% 44% 47% 3% 3% 3%

CA 5,556,583 5 73% 47% 47% 14% 28% 5% 6%

CO 1,253,757 4 65% 16% 79% 13% 5% 0% 4%

CT 466,922 3 71% 50% 29% 21% 43% 7% 0%

DC N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A DE 119,661 6 70% 50% 20% 20% 60% 0% 0%

FL 3,156,584 5 70% 57% 14% 23% 50% 4% 9%

GA 1,457,940 6 74% 47% 32% 33% 24% 0% 10%

HI 189,837 21 91% 36% 0% 18% 82% 0% 0%

IA 546,907 7 76% 37% 51% 41% 0% 0% 7%

ID 385,331 3 73% 21% 85% 0% 0% 9% 6%

IL 1,942,878 5 74% 44% 38% 45% 4% 2% 11%

IN 1,201,814 6 74% 45% 39% 47% 4% 1% 9%

KS 579,427 6 74% 39% 21% 74% 0% 0% 5%

KY 952,715 5 76% 39% 26% 65% 2% 3% 5%

LA 1,149,580 8 80% 56% 19% 47% 25% 2% 8%

MA 1,086,074 4 72% 43% 39% 19% 30% 2% 11%

MD 842,502 5 77% 62% 38% 17% 38% 0% 8%

ME 308,695 3 68% 55% 64% 18% 18% 0% 0%

MI 2,052,719 6 75% 61% 54% 28% 3% 7% 9%

MN 1,281,526 5 70% 63% 53% 34% 0% 2% 11%

MO 1,141,630 4 74% 37% 51% 36% 3% 3% 8%

MS 586,331 8 82% 55% 24% 58% 13% 0% 5%

MT 293,322 3 78% 22% 87% 9% 4% 0% 0%

NC 1,592,117 10 77% 42% 27% 22% 42% 4% 5%

ND 163,207 4 69% 46% 54% 46% 0% 0% 0%

NE 266,126 9 88% 41% 41% 53% 0% 0% 6%

NH 150,093 2 40% 60% 50% 30% 10% 10% 0%

NJ 1,244,960 5 73% 45% 18% 21% 48% 2% 11%

NM 300,125 3 61% 22% 74% 17% 4% 0% 4% N 31 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix N: Analysis of the National Demand for Water based Recreation Survey Table N. 12: Profile of Fishing Trips State Sample Weighted Number of Fishermen Fish Catch on Last Tripa Fished from a Boat on Last Trip (% of fishermen) Type of Water Fished on Last Tripb Average Number of Fish Caught Success Rate (% of fishermen ) Cold (% of fishermen) Warm (% of fishermen) Salt (% of fishermen) Anadromous (% of fishermen) Other (% of fishermen)

NV 328,084 4 75% 13% 63% 19% 6% 0% 13%

NY 2,236,799 4 80% 49% 46% 19% 26% 2% 7%

OH 1,649,727 5 72% 48% 41% 45% 4% 3% 7%

OK 857,583 6 70% 33% 26% 57% 9% 0% 9%

OR 960,904 3 51% 40% 62% 8% 13% 12% 6%

PA 2,064,218 4 61% 44% 51% 25% 16% 3% 5%

RI 174,205 5 50% 50% 33% 17% 33% 0% 17%

SC 912,165 8 81% 60% 32% 34% 25% 6% 4%

SD 151,221 7 64% 45% 73% 27% 0% 0% 0%

TN 1,141,537 4 76% 46% 36% 51% 5% 3% 5%

TX 4,564,193 5 66% 55% 23% 45% 24% 1% 7%

UT 360,030 3 56% 16% 84% 8% 0% 0% 8%

VA 1,421,449 7 73% 46% 28% 21% 39% 3% 9%

VT 42,288 5 100% 33% 33% 67% 0% 0% 0%

WA 1,250,568 2 56% 60% 49% 8% 22% 15% 6%

WI 1,209,448 9 69% 59% 57% 34% 0% 1% 7%

WV 358,067 6 58% 16% 68% 26% 0% 0% 6%

WY 221,738 4 72% 28% 89% 6% 0% 0% 6%

a Missing values for fish catch were included as zero in both the mean and the median.

b Other includes both those that indicated other and missing values.

N/ A  Not Available Source: NDS; U. S. EPA analysis.

N 32


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72817]
[DOCID:fr07de05-66]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2984-042]

S.D. Warren Company; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

November 29, 2005.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects' staff has reviewed the application for new license
for the Eel Weir Project, located at the outlet of Sebago Lake, and has
prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. In the
final EA, Commission staff analyzed the potential environmental effects
of relicensing the project and concludes that issuing a new license for
the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659. You may also register online at http://www.fer.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings

and issuances related to this or any other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6940 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P