PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	Survey Objectives, Key Variables, and Other Preliminaries
1(a)	Survey Objectives

	The overall goal of this survey is to examine public values (including non-use values) for improvements in water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Water quality improvements are expected to follow nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment load reductions set forth in recent Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. EPA has designed the survey to provide data to support the following specific objectives:

   * To estimate the total values, including non-use values, which individuals place on improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters and upstream lakes.
   * To understand how individuals value improvements in tidal waters and lakes, including water clarity, populations of blue crab and oysters, and overall lake conditions.
   * To understand how individuals value improvements in the quality of aquatic habitat, such as dissolved oxygen, water clarity, aquatic grasses, and overall lake condition, that are considered inputs to directly-consumed products (like game and shell fish).
   * To understand how the above values depend on the future baseline level of water quality, habitat and recreation in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
   * To understand how values vary with respect to individuals' economic and demographic characteristics.

   Understanding total public values for a variety of water quality indicators is necessary to determine the full range of benefits associated with reductions in nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay.  While direct use values can be estimated using a variety of methods, non-use values can only be assessed via stated preference survey methods.  Because non-use values may be substantial, failure to recognize such values may lead to improper inferences regarding policy benefits (Freeman 2003).

1(b)	Key Variables

      The key questions in the survey ask respondents whether or not they would vote for policies that would result in improvements in water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in exchange for an increase in their cost of living. The choice experiment framework allows respondents to view pairs of multi-attribute policies associated with total maximum daily loads to the Chesapeake Bay. EPA developed two versions of the survey which differ in the set of environmental attributes presented in the choice questions.  Respondents are asked to choose the program that they would prefer, or to choose the status quo (i.e., reject both policy choices).  The survey design follows well-established choice experiment methodology and format (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Louviere et al. 2000; Bennett and Blamey 2001; Bateman et al. 2002).

      The first version of the survey focuses on ecological inputs that do not directly affect individual utility, but instead primarily serve to modify aquatic species, habitats and other endpoints that are more directly valued by respondents.  Specifically, the "input version" of the survey instrument specifies changes in: (a) dissolved oxygen (DO), (b) water clarity, (c) aquatic grasses, (d) lake condition, and (e) change in cost of living.   The second version of the survey, or "endpoint version," asks respondents about changes in attributes considered to be ecological endpoints that directly enter into household production and utility function. Specifically, the endpoint survey presents changes in: (a) water clarity, (b) blue crab abundance, (c) oyster abundance, and (d) lake condition as well as (e) cost of living.   As discussed by Boyd and Krupnick (2009), these endpoints are "things we experience, things we make choices about, and things that have tangible meaning" (p.9).

      Water clarity appears on both versions of the survey instrument as it can be categorized as both an input and an endpoint.  It is an important indicator of ecological health (and therefore an input), but it may also be an endpoint valued by individuals.  Similarly, lake condition can be both an input and an endpoint and is included on both versions of the instrument.  Also, both versions of the survey include treatments in which conditions without additional action are either declining (i.e., "declining baseline") or are unchanged from conditions today (i.e., "constant baseline.")  The versions of the survey, including declining and constant baselines, are included in this document as Attachments 1 through 4.

      The analysis of choice questions for both versions of the instrument will use data on how the respondent votes, the amount of the cost of living increase, the degree of improvement in the environmental attributes (inputs and endpoints) to estimate values for changes in those attributes.  Variables for socio-economic characteristics and attitudes will also be included in the analysis.

1(c)	Statistical Approach

      A statistical survey approach in which a randomly drawn sample is employed is appropriate for estimating the use and non-use values associated with the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.  A census approach is impractical because of the extraordinary cost of contacting all households who have use and non-use values for Chesapeake Bay.  The relevant population includes households not only residing near Chesapeake Bay, but more distant states on the east coast.  A statistical survey is the most reasonable approach to estimate the total value of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.  An alternative approach, where individuals self-select into the sample, is not sufficiently rigorous to provide a useful estimate of the total value of water quality and habitat improvements.

      Much of the work in developing the survey instrument was conducted in-house at the EPA, and EPA will also directly conduct much of the analysis of the survey results.  EPA has retained Abt Associates Inc. (55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138) as a contractor to assist in questionnaire design, sampling design, administration of the survey, and analysis of the survey results.

1(d)	Feasibility

      Following standard practice in the stated preference literature (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Batemen, et al, 2002; Bennett and Blamey 2001; Johnston et al. 1995; Louviere et al. 2000), EPA conducted a series of 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews (conducted under a different ICR with OMB control # 2090-0028).  Based on findings from these activities, EPA made various improvements to the survey instrument to reduce the potential for respondent bias, reduce respondent cognitive burden, and increase respondent comprehension of the survey materials. In addition, EPA has solicited peer review of the survey instruments by specialists in academia as well as input from other experts (see section 3c in Part A).

      Because of the steps taken during the survey development process, EPA does not anticipate that respondents will have difficulty interpreting or responding to any of the survey questions. Furthermore, since the survey will be administered as a mail survey, it will be easily accessible to respondents. EPA therefore believes that respondents will not face any obstacles in completing the survey, and that the survey will produce useful results. EPA has dedicated sufficient funding (under EPA contract No. EP-W-11-003) to design and implement the survey. Given the timetable outlined in Section A 5(d) of this document, the survey results should be available for timely use in the final benefits analysis for the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs.

2.	Survey Design
2(a)	Target Population and Coverage

To assess both use- and non-use values for improvements in Chesapeake Bay water quality, the target population is individuals who are 18 years of age or older and reside in the District of Columbia or one of 18 east coast U.S. states: Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. These  were chosen based on their immediate proximity to the Bay (Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia) and/or lakes, streams and rivers in its watershed (Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia).  Households in these areas are more likely to hold "use" values for improvements to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed than those farther away. The remaining states (i.e., Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, or in the case of Ohio, one of the Great Lakes and are more likely to be familiar with estuarine issues.  At the same time, the greater distance between these states and the Chesapeake Bay will improve the surveys ability to capture and isolate nonuse values.

2(b)	Sampling Design
(I)	Sampling Frame

	The sampling frame for this survey is the United States Postal Service Computerized Delivery Sequence File (DSF).  The universe of sample units is defined as the set of all individuals who are 18 years of age or older living at a residential address in the 18 target states and the District of Columbia. The DSF includes city-style addresses and P.O. boxes, and covers single-unit, multi-unit, and other types of housing structures with known business excluded.  In total the DSF covers 97% of residences in the U.S.

      For discussion of techniques that EPA will use to minimize non-response and other non-sampling errors in the survey sample, refer to Section 2(b)(II), below.

 (II)	Sample Sizes

      The target responding sample size for the survey is 2,304 completed household surveys.  This sample size was chosen to provide statistically robust regression modeling while minimizing the cost and burden of the survey.  Given this sample size, the level of precision (see section 2(c)) achieved by the analysis will be more than adequate to meet the analytic needs of the benefits analysis for the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs.  For further discussion of the level of precision required by this analysis, see Section 2(c)(I) below.

	The sample design features three geographic strata based upon proximity to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed: Bay States, Watershed States, and East Coast States.  Relative to the geographic distribution of households across the East Coast, EPA plans to over-sample households in states adjacent to Chesapeake Bay and within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  EPA believes this approach is appropriate because households in these areas will incur the costs of Chesapeake Bay water quality improvements, and are most likely to receive use-value benefits from the improvements. Within each survey region, the household sample will be allocated in proportion to the geographic distribution of households within states in the three regions.   The total number of households in each region is given below (Table B1).  For discussion of the required sample size by state, please refer to Attachment 15.

Table B1. Number of Households and Household Sample for Each Study Region
Sampling Stratum and State
Total Households
Expected household sample size
Bay States Stratum, total
5,479,176
                                      864
     District of Columbia
     266,707

     Maryland
     2,156,411

     Virginia
     3,056,058

Watershed States Stratum, total
13,442,787
                                      864
     Delaware
     342,297

     New York
     7,317,755

     Pennsylvania
     5,018,904

     West Virginia
     763,831

Other East Coast States Stratum, total
30,032,913
                                      576
     Connecticut
     1,371,087

     Florida
     7,420,802

     Georgia
     3,585,584

     Maine
     557,219

     Massachusetts
     2,547,075

     New Hampshire
     518,973

     New Jersey
     3,214,360

     North Carolina
     3,745,155

     Ohio
     4,603,435

     Rhode Island
     413,600

     South Carolina
     1,801,181

     Vermont
     256,442

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/.

(III)	Stratification Variables

	The population of households in the eastern United States is stratified by the geographic boundaries of three study regions in Table B1: states adjacent to Chesapeake Bay ("Bay States"), states which contain the Chesapeake Bay watershed ("Watershed States"), and additional East Coast states ("East Coast States").  Bay States include MD, VA, and DC; Watershed States include DE, NY, PA, and WV; and East Coast States include VT, NH, NJ, MA, CT, RI, ME, OH, NC, SC, GA, and FL.
As discussed above, households in the Bay States stratum will be selected at a higher rate relative to households in the other two strata.  Specifically, the sample design calls for allocating the sample as 37.5% Bay State stratum, 37.5% Watershed State stratum, 25% Other East Coast stratum.  The expected number of completed interviews in each stratum is presented in Table B2. This allocation is designed to minimize the variance of the main effects and interactions under an experimental design model as introduced in Section 4(a) of Part A.  As a result of stratification, the analysis can produce estimates of the geographic distribution of values for the Chesapeake Bay water quality improvements with greater precision.

(IV)	Sampling Method

	Using the stratification design discussed above, sample households will be randomly selected from the U.S. Postal Service DSF database.  Assuming 92% of the sampled addresses are eligible and 30% of eligible households will return a completed mail survey, 8,348 households will be sampled from the DSF.

	For obtaining population-based estimates of various parameters, each responding household will be assigned a sampling weight. The weights will be used to produce estimates that:
   *  are generalizable to the population from which the sample was selected;
   * account for differential probabilities of selection across the sampling strata;
   * match the population distributions of selected demographic variables within strata; and
   * allow for adjustments to reduce potential nonresponse bias.
These weights combine:
   * a base sampling weight which is the inverse of the probability of selection of the household;
   * a within-stratum adjustment for differential non-response across strata; and
   * a nonresponse weight.
If advisable, additional post-stratification adjustments may be made to match the sample to known population values (e.g., from Census data). That decision will be made after examining the characteristics of the surveyed sample.

	There are various models that can be used for nonresponse weighting. For example, nonresponse weights can be constructed based on estimated response propensities or on weighting class adjustments. Response propensities are designed to treat nonresponse as a stochastic process in which there are shared causes of the likelihood of nonresponse and the value of the survey variable. The weighting class approach assumes that within a weighting class (typically demographically-defined), non-respondents and respondents have the same or very similar distributions on the survey variables. If this model assumption holds, then applying weights to the respondents reduces bias in the estimator that is due to nonresponse.  Several factors, including the difference between the sample and population distributions of demographic characteristics, and the plan for how to use weights in the regression models will determine which approach is most efficient for both estimating population parameters and for the stated-preference modeling.

      To estimate total value for the quantified environmental benefits of the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs, data will be analyzed statistically using a standard random utility model framework.

 (V)	Multi-Stage Sampling

      Multi-stage sampling will not be necessary for this survey.

2(c)	Precision Requirements
(I)	Precision Targets

      Table B2 presents expected sample sizes for each geographic stratum.  The maximum acceptable sampling error for predicting response probabilities (i.e., the likelihood of choosing a given alternative) in the present case is +-10%, assuming a true response probability of 50% associated with a utility indifference point.  Given the survey population size, this level of precision requires a minimum sample size of approximately 96 observations.  The number of observations (i.e., completed surveys) required to obtain large sample properties for the choice experiment design provide more than sufficient observations to obtain this required precision for population parameters.  Across all regions, a sample of 2,304 households (completed surveys) will provide estimates of population percentages with a level of precision ranging from 1.3% at the 50% incidence level and 0.8% at the 10% incidence level (Table B2).

Table B2. Sample size and accuracy projections
Geographic division
                                Population size
                             Expected sample size
                              (completed surveys)
                               Expected weights
                         Standard error, 50% incidence
                         Standard error, 10% incidence
Bay States
                                   5,479,176
                                      864
                                     6341
                                     0.017
                                     0.010
Watershed
                                  13,442,787
                                      864
                                     15559
                                     0.017
                                     0.010
Other East Coast
                                  30,034,913
                                      576
                                     52143
                                     0.021
                                     0.012
Overall
                                  48,956,876
                                     2,304
                                     21248
                                     0.014
                                     0.008
Source for household population size: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/.

 (II)	Non-Sampling Errors

      Several non-sampling errors may be encountered in stated preference surveys. First, protest responses occur when individuals reject the survey format or question design, even though they may value the resources being considered (Mitchell and Carson 1989).  For example, some respondents may feel that any amount of water quality impairment is unacceptable, and choose not to respond to the survey.  To help identify protest responses EPA has included several survey debriefing questions, including an open-ended comments section.  The use of such methods to identify protest responses is well-established in the literature (Bateman et al. 2002).  Moreover, researchers (e.g., Bateman et al. 2002) suggest that a choice experiment format, such as that proposed here, may ameliorate such responses (as opposed to say, a contingent valuation format).

	A second potential type of non-sampling error is non-response bias.  This refers to households that choose not to participate in the survey (i.e., not return the mail survey, in this case) or do not answer all relevant questions on the survey instrument.  EPA has designed the survey instrument to maximize the response rate. EPA will also follow Dillman et al.'s (2008) mail survey approach (see subsection 4(b) for details). If necessary, EPA will use appropriate weighting or other statistical adjustments to correct for any bias due to non-response. It is typically the case that nonresponse differs by sample strata. One likely stage of sample weighting will be to correct the geographic distribution to match the totals of target population households by state.

      To determine whether there is any evidence of significant non-response bias in the completed sample, EPA will conduct a non-response follow-up study. This will enable EPA to identify potential differences in estimates associated with respondents to the mail survey and those who received a questionnaire but did not return it.

Non-response Follow-up Survey
      EPA has used a set of key attitudinal and socio-demographic variables that are thought to be associated with values for improvements in Chesapeake Bay water quality to develop a short questionnaire that will take respondents 5 minutes to complete. The short questionnaire will be implemented using telephone or priority mailing contact.  The entire sample of mail addresses will be matched against the directory listed landline telephone numbers. After the matching, the nonresponding mail addresses will be divided into two strata.  The first stratum will consist of those nonresponding addresses with matched telephone numbers.  The second stratum will consist of nonresponding mail addresses that do not have matched telephone numbers.  Within these strata, the samples for the non-response follow up will be allocated proportionately to the number of the original mailings in the geographic division (state).
   * The telephone sample of households will be selected from the first stratum with matched telephone numbers. This sample will be contacted by telephone only.  Once contact is achieved with a household by telephone for this subsample, one adult is selected in each household as the designated respondent.  If there is more than one eligible respondent per household, then a selection will be done for the individual with the most recent/next birthday.  Selected households will be sent a letter prior to calling which will include $2 in cash as an unconditional incentive for participation in the telephone interview to promote a high response rate.  The expected response rate in this stratum is 30%.
   * The priority mail sample of households will be selected in the second stratum and sent a questionnaire by priority mail.  The mailing will include $2 in cash as an unconditional incentive for completion of the short questionnaire to encourage response.   We expect 20% response rate in this stratum, as well as 92% eligibility rate of the addresses in the sample.

      A sample of 400 households will be selected for the nonresponse survey.  This will enable EPA to reject the hypothesis of no difference in population percentages between respondents and non-respondents with 80% power when there is a difference of 8.7% according to a two-sided statistical test at the base incidence of 50%, or a difference of 7.7% at the base incidence of 10%.  Table B3 illustrates the distribution of the priority mail and telephone subsamples across survey regions.

Table B3: Number of Non-responding Households in the Priority Mail and Telephone Subsamples
Region
                       Number in Priority Mail Subsample
                 Number Completed Follow-ups by Priority Mail
                         Number in Telephone Subsample
                  Number of Completed Follow-ups by Telephone
                            Total Number Completed
Bay
                                      340
                                      68
                                      341
                                      102
                                      170
Watershed
                                      230
                                      46
                                      232
                                      69
                                      115
Other East Coast
                                      225
                                      45
                                      239
                                      70
                                      115
Total
                                      812
                                      159
                                      795
                                      241
                                      400

2(d)	Questionnaire Design

      The information requested by the survey is discussed in Section 4(b)(I) of Part A of the supporting statement. The full text of the draft questionnaire of the "input" versions of the survey is provided in Attachment 1 and 3, and the full text of the draft questionnaire of the "endpoint" versions of the survey is provided in Attachment 2 and 4.

Several categories of questions are included in the survey. The reasons for including each of these categories are discussed below:
   * Recreational Experience. Responses to these questions elicit recreational experience data to test if certain respondent characteristics influence responses to the choice questions. These questions will also allow EPA to identify resource non-users for purposes of estimating non-user WTP, and therefore to gauge the relative importance of non-use values to overall benefits.  The questions will also identify frequency of use and whether the respondent's recreational experiences have included lakes and rivers in the watershed, tidal waters in the watershed, or both.
   * Familiarity with Nutrient and Sediment Issues.  Responses to these questions provide information about respondent awareness of issues related to nutrient and sediment loading and sources in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Respondents who are more familiar with these pollutants may have different values, although the direction of the effects is unknown.
   * Concern for Environmental Conditions. Responses to these questions provide information about respondents' perceptions of the condition of lakes and rivers in the Chesapeake watershed, as well as the Chesapeake Bay itself. These questions also provide insight regarding respondents' concerns of pollution levels in lakes and river, and the Chesapeake Bay.  Respondents with more concern for the environment are expected to have higher values for improvements in environmental conditions.
   * Knowledge of Chesapeake Bay Goals and Programs. Responses to these questions provide information about respondent knowledge of goals and programs for improving Chesapeake Bay environmental quality prior to taking the survey. They will be used to assess respondents' a priori knowledge and potentially test its effect on respondent answers to the program choice questions.
   * Voting for Regulations to Improve the Condition of Chesapeake Bay, tidal waters, and lakes. The questions in this section are the key part of the survey.  Respondents' choices among alternatives with specific environmental quality improvements and household cost increases are the main data that allow estimation of willingness-to-pay. The questions are presented in a choice experiment, where respondents choose their preferred option (program A, program B, or "No Further Action"). This elicitation format has been successfully used by a number of previous valuation studies (e.g., Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bateman et al. 2002; Bennett and Blamey 2001; Louviere et al. 2000; Johnston et al. 2002, 2005; Opaluch et al. 1993).
   * Importance of Attributes. These questions ask respondents to identify the factors that were most important when choosing between alternative programs or "No Further Action." This includes the importance of improvements in lakes versus the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters, the relative importance of changes in specific Bay attributes, and other factors not specifically listed in the choice questions (e.g., availability and/or price of seafood, value of property near the Bay, etc.).  Responses to these questions will allow EPA to assess the importance of geographic factors, environmental attributes, and other factors related to the environmental attributes.
   * Understanding and Reasons for Voting. Questions in this category are designed to identify respondents who incorrectly interpreted the choice questions or the uncertainty of outcomes, and to identify other factors that affect their perception of outcomes presented in the survey.
   * Reasons for Voting "No Further Action". This question provides information that will be used to identify protest responses.
   * Reasons for Voting for Program A or Program B. This question provides information that will be used to identify respondents' reasoning for choosing one program or "No Further Action" option over another, and therefore to assess the importance of use and non-use values to respondent choices, including existence and bequest values.
   * Demographics. Responses to these questions will be used to estimate the influence of demographic variables on respondents' voting choices, and ultimately, their values to improve environmental quality in the Chesapeake Bay tidal water and lakes.
3.	Pretests and Pilot Tests

      EPA conducted extensive pretests of the survey instrument during a set of 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews (OMB Control Number 2090-0028). Individuals in these focus groups participated in discussions about the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, completed draft survey questionnaires and provided comments and feedback about the survey format and content, their interpretations of the questions, and other issues relevant to stated preference estimation.  Individual cognitive interviews with survey respondents were conducted using think-aloud or verbal protocol analyses (see Schkade and Payne 1994 for a discussion).  The pretests were used to develop a survey that provides respondents with necessary information to complete the questionnaire, develop choice scenarios that are incentive compatible, and minimize the burden placed on respondents while collecting the necessary information.   Particular emphasis in these survey pretests was on testing for the presence of potential biases associated with poorly-designed stated preference surveys, including hypothetical bias, strategic bias, symbolic (warm glow) bias, framing effects, embedding biases, methodological misspecification, and protest responses (Mitchell and Carson 1989). Based on focus group and cognitive interview responses, EPA made various improvements to the questionnaire including making changes to ameliorate and minimize these biases in the final survey instrument.

EPA intends to implement this survey in two stages: a pilot study and a main study. First, EPA will administer the pilot survey to a sample of 400 households using a mail survey and the Dillman Total Design Method. Households in the pilot study will be selected from each of the three geographic strata. Responses and preliminary findings to this pilot study will be used to inform EPA regarding the response rates and the quality of survey data. EPA will evaluate pilot responses and determine whether any changes to the survey instrument or implementation approach are needed before proceeding with the administration of the main survey.

      EPA will use results from the pilot study to validate the survey responses.  Specifically, the pilot results will be used to:
         * Compare the actual and expected response rates. Based on typical mail survey response rates for surveys of this type, the expected response rate is approximately 30% (Helm 2012; Mansfield, et al. 2012; Johnston, et al. 2012). Assess whether demographic characteristics of the respondents are significantly different from the average demographic characteristics in the study region.
         * Examine the proportion of respondents choosing the status quo. If no one is choosing the status quo, it often indicates that the cost levels are too low. Pure random selection would result in 33% of survey respondents choosing status quo. If less than 15 - 20% of responses choose the status quo in the pilot study EPA would consider increasing the cost levels.
         * Identify unusual patterns, such as the vast majority of respondents always choosing Option A. (E.g., if 2/3 of respondents (66%) choose Option A it might indicate that there is a systematic bias).
         * Determine whether responses suggest that appropriate tradeoffs are being made and that people feel confident about responses (e.g., question 15).  If either the median or the mean answer is less than 4.0 for these questions (neutral) that this would indicate potential problems with the attribute levels.
         * Examine response rates for individual survey questions and evaluate whether adjustments to survey questions are required to promote a higher response rate.
If required, EPA will make the appropriate adjustments to the sampling frame or attribute levels (e. g., increase or reduce the number of surveys mailed to households, or increase costs to households in the choice questions).

4.	Collection Methods and Follow-up
4(a)	Collection Methods

      The survey will be administered as a mail survey. Respondents will be asked to mail the completed survey back to EPA.

4(b)	Survey Response and Follow-up

The estimated response rate for the mail survey is 30 % (Helm 2012; Mansfield, et al. 2012; Johnston, et al. 2012). That is, 30 % of the eligible households which are sent the mail survey are expected to return a completed survey. To improve the response rate, all of these households will receive a reminder postcard approximately one week after the initial questionnaire mailing. Then, approximately three weeks after the reminder postcard, all those who have not responded will receive a second copy of the questionnaire with a revised cover letter. The following week, a letter reminding them to complete the survey will be sent.

5.	Analyzing and Reporting Survey Results
5(a)	Data Preparation

      Since the survey will be administered as a mail survey, survey responses will be entered into an electronic database after they are returned.  Abt Associates will also clean the data to ensure that the data are entered in a consistent manner and any inconsistencies are addressed. Specifically, we will use the Double Entry data entry method for closed-ended responses. The Double Entry method consists of data being keyed twice and compared. Discrepancies are reconciled upon completion of the second entry.  After all responses have been entered, the database contents will be converted into a format suitable for use with a statistical analysis software package. The mail survey, database management, and data set conversion will be conducted by Abt Associates Inc.

5(b)	Analysis

      Once the survey data has been converted into a data file, it will be analyzed using statistical analysis techniques. The following section discusses the model that will be used to analyze the stated preference data from the survey.

Analysis of Stated Preference Data
	The model for analysis of stated preference data is grounded in the standard random utility model of Hanemann (1984) and McConnell (1990).  This model is applied extensively within stated preference research, and allows well-defined welfare measures (i.e., willingness to pay) to be derived from choice experiment models (Bennett and Blamey 2001; Louviere et al. 2000).  Within the standard random utility model applied to choice experiments, hypothetical program alternatives are described in terms of attributes that focus groups reveal as relevant to respondents' utility, or well-being (Johnston et al. 1995; Adamowicz et al. 1998; Opaluch et al. 1993). One of these attributes would include a mandatory monetary cost to the respondent's household.

      Applying this standard model to choices among programs to improve environmental quality in the Chesapeake Bay, a standard utility function Ui([.])  includes environmental attributes of pollution reduction programs and the net cost of the program to the respondent. Following standard random utility theory, utility is assumed known to the respondent, but stochastic from the perspective of the researcher, such that:

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

where:
Xi	=	a vector of variables describing attributes of pollution reduction program i and the baseline conditions if no further action is taken;
D	=	a vector characterizing demographic and other attributes of the respondent.
Y 	= 	disposable income of the respondent.
Fi	=	mandatory additional cost faced by the household under program i;
v([.])	=	a function representing the empirically estimable component of utility;
εi	=	stochastic or unobservable component of utility, modeled as an econometric error.

      Econometrically, a model of such a preference function is obtained by methods designed for limited dependent variables, because researchers only observe the respondent's choice among alternative programs, rather than observing values of Ui(.) directly (Maddala, 1983; Hanemann, 1984).  Standard random utility models are based on the probability that a respondent's utility from program i, Ui(.), exceeds the utility from alternative programs j, Uj(.), for all potential programs j!=i considered by the respondent.  In this case, the respondent's choice set of potential programs also includes maintaining the status quo.  The random utility model presumes that the respondent assesses the utility that would result from each pollution reduction program i (including the "No Further Action" or status quo option), and chooses the program that provides the highest utility.

      When faced with k distinct programs defined by their attributes, the respondent will choose program i if the anticipated utility from program i exceeds that of all other k-1 programs.  Drawing from (1), the respondent will choose program i if:

(2)			(v(Xi, D,Y-Fi) + εi) >= (v(Xj, D, Y-Fj) + εj)  j!=i.

	If the εi are assumed independently and identically drawn from a type I extreme value (Gumbel) distribution, the model may be estimated as a conditional logit model, as detailed by Maddala (1983), Greene (2003).  This model is most commonly used when the respondent considers more than two options in each choice set (e.g., Program A, Program B, No Further Action), and results in an econometric (empirical) estimate of the systematic component of utility v([.]), based on observed choices among different programs.  Based on this estimate, one may calculate welfare measures (willingness to pay) following the well-known methods of Hanemann (1984), as described by Freeman (2003).  Following standard choice experiment methods (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bennett and Blamey 2001), each respondent will consider questions including three potential choice options (i.e., Program A, Program B, No Further Action) -- choosing the program that provides the highest utility as noted above. Following clear guidance from the literature, a "no further action" or status quo option is always included in the visible choice set, to ensure that WTP measures are well-defined (Louviere et al. 2000).

      Three choice questions are included within the same survey to increase information obtained from each respondent.  This is standard practice within choice experiment and dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys (Poe et al. 1997; Layton 2000).  While respondents will be instructed to consider each choice question as independent of other choice questions, it is nonetheless standard practice within the literature to allow for the potential of correlation among questions answered within a single survey by a single respondent.  That is, responses provided by individual respondents may be correlated even though responses across different respondents are considered independent and identically distributed (Poe et al. 1997; Layton 2000; Train 1998).

      There are a variety of approaches to such potential correlation.  Models to be assessed include random effects and random parameters (mixed) discrete choice models, common in the stated preference literature (Greene 2003; McFadden and Train 2000; Poe et al. 1997; Layton 2000). Within such models, selected elements of the coefficient vector are assumed normally distributed across respondents, often with free correlation allowed among parameters (Greene 2002).  If only the model intercept is assumed to include a random component, then a random effects model is estimated.  If both slope and intercept parameters may vary across respondents, then a random parameters model is estimated.  Such models will be estimated using standard maximum likelihood for mixed conditional logit techniques, as described by Train (1998), Greene (2002) and others.  Mixed logit model performance of alternative specifications will be assessed using standard statistical measures of model fit and convergence, as detailed by Greene (2002, 2003) and Train (1998).

Advantages of Choice Experiments
	Choice experiments following the random utility model outlined above are favored by many researchers over other variants of stated preference methodology (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Bennett and Blamey 2001), and may be viewed as a "natural generalization of a binary discrete choice CV [contingent valuation]" (Bateman et al. 2002, p. 271).  Advantages of choice experiments include a capacity to address choices over a wide array of potential policies, grounded in well-developed random utility theory, and the similarity of the discrete choice context to familiar referendum or voting formats (Bennett and Blamey 2001).  Compared to other types of stated preference valuation, choice experiments are better able to measure the marginal value of changes in the characteristics or attributes of environmental goods, and avoid response difficulties and biases (Bateman et al. 2002).  For example, choice experiments may reduce the potential for `yea-saying' and symbolic biases (Blamey et al. 1999; Mitchell and Carson 1989), as many pairs of multi-attribute policy choices (e.g., Program A, Program B, No Further Action) will offer no clearly superior choice for a respondent wishing to express solely symbolic environmental motivations.  For similar reasons choice experiments may ameliorate protest responses (Bateman et al. 2002).

      An additional advantage of such methods is that they permit straightforward assessments of the impact of resource scope and scale on respondents' choices.  This will enable EPA to easily conduct scope tests and other assessments of the validity of survey responses (Bateman et al. 2002, p. 296-342). Finally, such methods are well-established in the stated preference literature (Bennett and Blamey 2001).  Additional details of choice experiment methodology (also called choice modeling) are provided by Bennett and Blamey (2001), Adamowicz et al. (1998), and Louviere et al. (2000).

      An additional advantage of choice experiments in the present application is that they are commonly applied to assess values for ecological resource improvements of a type quite similar to those at issue in Chesapeake Bay TMDL.  Examples of the application of choice experiments to estimate values associated with changes in aquatic environmental quality and habitat include Hoehn et al. (2004), Johnston et al. (2002b), and Opaluch et al. (1999), among others.  EPA has drawn upon these and other examples of successful choice experiment design to provide a basis for survey design in the present case.

      A final key advantage of choice experiments in the present application is the ability to estimate respondents' values for a wide range of different potential outcomes of Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction programs, differentiated by their attributes. The proposed choice experiment survey versions will allow respondents to choose among a wide variety of hypothetical program options, some with larger and others with smaller changes in the presented attributes (including household cost). That is, because the survey is to be implemented as a choice experiment survey, levels of attributes in choice scenarios will vary across respondents (Louviere et al. 2000).

      The ability to estimate values for a wide range of different policy outcomes is a fundamental property of the choice experiment method (Bateman et al. 2002; Louviere et al. 2000; Adamowicz et al. 1998).  The experimental design (see below) will allow for survey versions showing a range of different baseline and resource improvement levels, where these levels are chosen to (almost certainly) bound the actual levels expected under pollution reduction programs. Given that there will almost certainly be some uncertainty regarding the specifics of the actual baselines and improvements, the resulting valuation estimates will allow flexibility in estimating values for a wide range of circumstances.

Comment on Survey Preparation and Pretesting
	Following standard practice in the stated preference literature (Johnston et al. 1995; Desvousges and Smith 1988; Desvousges et al. 1984; Mitchell and Carson 1989), all survey elements and methods were subjected to extensive development and pretesting in focus groups to ameliorate the potential for survey biases (cf. Mitchell and Carson 1989), and to ensure that respondents have a clear understanding of the policies and goods under consideration, such that informed choices may be made that reflect respondents' underlying preferences. Following the guidance of Arrow et al. (1993), Johnston et al. (1995), and Mitchell and Carson (1989), focus groups were used to ensure that respondents are aware of their budget constraints and the scope of the environmental quality improvements under consideration.

      As noted above, survey pretests included individual cognitive interviews conducted using think-aloud or verbal protocol analyses (Schkade and Payne 1994). Individuals in these pretests completed draft survey questionnaires and provided comments and feedback about the survey format and content, their interpretations of the questions, and other issues relevant to stated preference estimation. Based on their responses, EPA made various improvements to the survey questionnaire including how the attributes are described and labeled, including an example choice question before asking respondents to complete theirs, and the appearance of the choice questions. Results from focus groups and cognitive interviews provided evidence that respondents answer the stated preference survey in ways appropriate for stated preference WTP estimation, and that respondents were evaluating trade-offs between program attributes and the household cost. The number of focus groups and cognitive interviews used in survey design, 10 focus groups and 26 cognitive interviews, exceed the numbers used in typical applications of stated preference valuation. Moreover, EPA incorporated cognitive interviews as detailed by Kaplowicz et al. (2004).

Econometric Specification
	Based on prior focus groups, expert review, and attributes of the policies under consideration, EPA anticipates that four attributes will be incorporated in the vector of variables describing attributes of the pollution reduction programs (vector Xi), in addition to the attribute characterizing unavoidable household cost Fi.  The attributes will differ across the "input" and "endpoint" versions of the survey. For the "input version", these attributes will characterize improvements in dissolved oxygen (x1), water clarity (x2), aquatic grasses (x3), and lake condition (x4). For the "endpoint version", these attributes will characterize improvements in water clarity (x1), blue crab abundance (x2), oyster abundance (x3), and lake condition (x4). These variables will allow respondents' choices to reveal the potential impact of Chesapeake Bay environmental quality improvements on utility.

      Although the literature offers no firm guidance regarding the choice of specific functional forms for v([.]) within choice experiment estimation, in practice, linear forms are often used (Johnston et al. 2003b), with some researchers applying more flexible (e.g., quadratic) forms (Cummings et al. 1994). Standard linear forms are anticipated as the simplest form to be estimated by EPA, from which more flexible functional forms (e.g., quadratic) can be derived and compared. EPA anticipates estimating all models within the mixed logit framework outlined above. Model fit will be assessed following standard practice in the literature (e.g., Greene 2003; Maddala 1983). Functional forms discussed here, as they are common practice in the literature, are presented and discussed in many existing sources (e.g., Hoehn 1991, Cummings et al. 1994, Johnston et al. 1999, and Johnston et al. 2003b).

      For example, for each choice occasion, the respondent may choose Program A, Program B, or No Further Action. Assuming that the model is estimated using a standard approximation for the observable component of utility, an econometric specification of the desired model (within the overall multinomial logit model) for the "input version" it might appear as:

      v()  = 	0 + 1(change in dissolved oxygen) + 2(change in water clarity) + 3(change in aquatic grass coverage) + 4(change in lake condition) + 5(Cost)
For the "endpoint version" it might appear as:

      v()  = 	0 + 1(change in water clarity) + 2(change in blue crab abundance) + 3(change in oyster abundance) + 4(change in lake condition) + 5(Cost)

This sample specification allows one to estimate the relative "main effects" of program attributes on utility. Specifications such as this allow WTP to be estimated for a wide-range of potential program outcomes.

Experimental Design
	Experimental design for the choice experiment surveys will follow established practices. Fractional factorial design will be used to construct choice questions with an orthogonal array of attribute levels, with questions randomly divided among distinct survey versions (Louviere et al. 2000). Based on standard choice experiment experimental design procedures (Louviere et al. 2000), the number of questions and survey versions will be determined by, among other factors: a) the number of attributes in the final experimental design and complexity of questions, b)  pretests revealing the number of choice experiment questions that respondents are willing/able to answer in a single survey session, and c) the number of attributes that may be varied within each question while maintaining respondents' ability to make appropriate neoclassical tradeoffs.

      Based on the models proposed above and recommendations in the literature, EPA anticipates an experimental design that allows for an ability to estimate main effects of program attributes (Louviere et al. 2000). Choice sets (Bennett and Blamey 2001), including variable level selection, were designed by EPA based on the goal of illustrating realistic policy scenarios that "span the range over which we expect respondents to have preferences, and/or are practically achievable" (Bateman et al. 2002, p. 259), following guidance in the literature. This includes guidance with regard to the statistical implications of choice set design (Hanemann and Kanninen 1999) and the role of focus groups in developing appropriate choice sets (Bennett and Blamey 2001).

      Based on these guiding principles, the following experimental design framework is proposed by EPA. The experimental design will be developed by Abt Associates Inc. A preliminary description of the statistical design is presented in Attachment 15. The experimental design will allow for estimation of main effects based on a choice experiment framework. Each treatment (survey question) includes two choice options (Program A and Program B) and a "No Further Action", each characterized by four attributes and a cost variable. Hence, there is a total of fifteen attributes for each treatment. Based on focus groups and pretests, and guided by realistic ranges of attribute outcomes, EPA allows for three different potential levels for environmental attributes and six different levels of annual household cost for Programs A and B. It also allows for two different potential levels for environmental attributes under "No Further Action," the first set reflecting a declining baseline, and the second reflecting a constant baseline. The "No Further Action" option included for each question will be characterized by a household cost of $0. The number of combinations for each attribute may be summarized for "input version" as follows, where A denotes Program A, B denotes Program B, and N denotes "No Further Action":
   * Dissolved OxygenN 								(2 levels)
   * Dissolved OxygenA, Dissolved OxygenB					(3 levels)
   * Water ClarityN 								(2 levels)
   * Water ClarityA, Water ClarityB						(3 levels)
   * Aquatic GrassesN 								(2 levels)
   * Aquatic GrassesA, Aquatic GrassesB						(3 levels)
   * Lake ConditionN 								(2 levels)
   * Lake ConditionA, Lake ConditionB						(3 levels)
   * CostA, CostB									(6 levels)

The "endpoint version" has the same number of attribute combinations and can be summarized as follows:
   * Water ClarityN 								(2 levels)
   * Water ClarityA, Water ClarityB						(3 levels)
   * Blue Crab AbundanceN 							(2 levels)
   * Blue Crab AbundanceA, Blue Crab AbundanceB				(3 levels)
   * Oyster AbundanceN 								(2 levels)
   * Oyster AbundanceA, Oyster AbundanceB					(3 levels)
   * Lake ConditionN 								(2 levels)
   * Lake ConditionA, Lake ConditionB						(3 levels)
   * CostA, CostB									(6 levels)

For a more detailed discussion of attribute levels assigned across survey versions, refer to Attachment 15.

      Following standard practice, EPA will constrain the design to remove dominant/dominated pairs, where one option dominates the other in all attributes. Respondents have been found to react negatively and often protest when offered such choices. Given that such choices provide negligible statistical information compared to choices involving non-dominant/dominated pairs, they are typically avoided in choice experiment statistical designs. For example, Hensher and Barnard (1990) recommend eliminating profiles including dominating or dominated profiles, because such profiles generally provide no useful information. Following this guidance, EPA will constrain the design to eliminate such dominant/dominating pairs.

5(c)	Reporting Results

      The results of the survey will be made public as part of the benefits analysis for the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs. Provided information will include summary statistics for the survey data, extensive documentation for the statistical analysis, and a detailed description of the final results. The survey data will be released only after it has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that all potentially identifying information has been removed.

REFERENCES

Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. (1998). Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1): 64-75.

Anderson, E. A. (1989). Economic benefits of habitat restoration: seagrass and the  Virginia hard-shell 	blue crab fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9(2), 140-149.

Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Ozdemiroglu, D.W. Pierce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Surveys: A Manual. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Bennett, J. and R. Blamey, eds. (2001). The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Bockstael, N. E., McConnell, K. E., & Strand, I. E. (1989). Measuring the benefits of improvements in 	water quality: the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics, 6, 1-18.

Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. (1988). Benefits from Improvements in 	Chesapeake Bay Water Quality, Volume III. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 	Protection Agency.

Boyd, R. and A. Krupnick. (2009). The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, RFF DP 09-35, September 2009.

Cropper, M., & Isaac, W. (2011). The benefits of achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total 	Maximum Daily Loads): a scoping study. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Desvousges, W.H., and V.K Smith. (1988). Focus Groups and Risk Communication: the Science of Listening to Data. Risk Analysis 8: 479-484.

Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith, D.H. Brown, and D.K. Pate. (1984). The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a Contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. Research Triangle Institute: Research Triangle Park, NC.

Dillman, D.A. (2008). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Freeman, A.M., III. (2003). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Greene, W.H. 2002. NLOGIT Version 3.0 Reference Guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.

Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hanemann, W.M. 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332-41.

Helm, E. (2012).  Stated Preference (SP) Survey  -  Suvey Methods and Model Results, Memorandum to the Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule Record. June 5, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/316bmemo.pdf

Hicks, R., Kirkley, J. E., McConnell, K. E., Ryan, W., Scott, T. L., & Strand, I. (2008). Assessing stakeholder preferences for Chesapeake Bay restoration options: a stated preference discrete choice-based assessment (pp. 1-56). Annapolis, MD: NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, National Marine Fisheries Service and Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ramachandran. 2012.  Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators. Land Economics 88(1): 102-120.

Johnston, R.J., J.J. Opaluch, M.J. Mazzotta, and G. Magnusson. (2005). Who Are Resource Non-users and What Can They Tell Us About Non-use Values? Decomposing User and Non-user Willingness to Pay for Coastal Wetland Restoration. Water Resources Research 41(7), doi:10.1029/2004WR003766.

Johnston, R.J., S.K. Swallow, T.J. Tyrrell, and D.M. Bauer. (2003b). Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 1000-1015.

Johnston, R.J., G. Magnusson, M. Mazzotta, and J.J.Opaluch. (2002a). Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 1362-1370.

Johnston, R.J., S.K. Swallow, C.W. Allen, and L.A. Smith. (2002b). Designing Multidimensional Environmental Programs: Assessing Tradeoffs and Substitution in Watershed Management Plans. Water Resources Research 38(7): IV1-13.

Johnston, R.J., T.F. Weaver, L.A. Smith, and S.K. Swallow. (1995). Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights From Ethnographic Interview Techniques. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(1): 56-69.

Just, R.E., D.L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz. (2004). The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA.

Kaplowicz, M.D., F. Lupi, and J.P. Hoehn. (2004). Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated-Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands. Chapter 24 in Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, eds. S. Presser, J.M. Rothget, M.P. Coupter, J.T. Lesser, E. Martin, J. Martin, and E. Singer. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kemp, W. M., Boynton, W. R., Adolf, J. E., Boesch, D. F., Boicourt, W. C., Brush, G., . . . Stevenson, J. C. (2005). Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 303, 1-20.

Kahn, J.R., and W.M. Kemp. (1985). Economic Losses Associated with the Degradation of an 	Ecosystem: The Case of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of 	Environmental Economics and Management 12: 246 - 263.

Krupnick, A. (1988).Reducing Bay Nutrients: An Economic Perspective. Maryland Law Review 	47:453 - 480.

Layton, D.F. 2000. "Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40(1): 21-36.

Leggett, C., & Bockstael, N. E. (2000). Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land 	Prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 121-144.

Lipton, D., & Hicks, R. (2003). The cost of stress: low dissolved oxygen and economic benefits 	of 	recreational striped bass (Morone saxatilis) fishing in the Patuxent River. Estuaries, 	26(2A), 310-315.

Lipton, D. (2004). The value of improved water quality to Chesapeake Bay boaters. Marine 	Resource Economics, 19, 265-270.

Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. (2000). Stated Preference Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Maddala, G.S. 1983. "Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics." Econometric Society Monographs No. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mansfield, C., G. Van Houtven, A. Hendershott, P. Chen, J. Porter, V. Nourani, and V. Kilambi. (2012). Klamath River Basin Restoration Nonuse Value Survey, Final Report.  Prepared for the US Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento, CA. http://klamathrestoration.gov/sites/klamathrestoration.gov/files/DDDDD.Printable.Klamath%20Nonuse%20Survey%20Final%20Report%202012%5B1%5D.pdf

Massey, D.M., S.C. Newbold, and B. Genter. (2006). Valuing Water Quality Changes Using a 	Bioeconomic Model of a Coastal Recreational Fishery. Journal of Environmental 	Economics 	and Management 52:482 - 500.

McConnell, K.E. 1990. "Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1): 19-34.

McFadden, D., and K. Train. 2000. "Mixed Multinomial Logit Models for Discrete Responses." Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5): 447-470.

Mistiaen, J.A., I.E. Strand, and D. Lipton. (2003). Effects of Environmental Stress on Blue Crab 	(Callinectessapidus) Harvests in Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Estuaries 26: 316 - 322.

Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

Opaluch, J.J., T.A. Grigalunas, M. Mazzotta, R.J. Johnston, and J. Diamantedes. (1999). Recreational and Resource Economic Values for the Peconic Estuary. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program. Peace Dale, RI: Economic Analysis Inc. 124 pp.

Opaluch, J.J., S.K. Swallow, T. Weaver, C. Wessells, and D. Wichelns. (1993). Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: Including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24(1): 41-59.

Poe, G.L., M.P. Welsh, and P.A. Champ. 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay when Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses are not Independent." Land Economics 73(2): 255-267.

Poor, P., Pessagno, K., & Paul, R. (2007). Exploring the hedonic value of ambient water quality: 	A local 	watershed-based study. Ecological Economics, 60, 797-806.

Schkade, D.A. and J.W. Payne. (1994). "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 88-109.

Train, K. 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People." Land Economics 74(2): 230-239.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Table 1: Civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group. May 2012. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf.

U.S. EPA. (2000). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. (EPA 240-R-00-003). U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC, September 2000.

Van Houtven, G. L. (2009). Changes in ecosystem services associated with alternative levels of 	ecological indicators. In: Risk and Exposure Assessment for Review of the Secondary 	National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur. 	Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

Von Haefen, R.H. (2003). Incorporating Observed Choice into the Construction of Welfare Measures 	from Random Utility Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 	45:145 - 165.
Attachment 1: Full Text of DRAFT Input-Based, Constant Baseline Stated Preference Survey Component

Cover
Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey
Input Version
Constant Baseline
May 22, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About this survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this survey we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about your experiences.  We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed.  We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether you would vote for different plans.  Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your answers will help inform policymakers.  All information and responses will be kept confidential.  Background information in this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC.

The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes.  Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:
The freshwater lakes and rivers of the Watershed support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.
The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.  Bay waters are salty and support different types of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed.  People also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.

1. Over the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters
Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing
□
□
Fishing
□
□
Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking
□
□
Viewing nature, including bird watching
□
□
Biking or walking on trails along the water

□
□
Other _______________________
□
□

2. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities?  Please check one statement in each column that best describes your experience.

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters
I have never visited
□
□
I have not visited in the last 5 years
□
□
Once over the last 5 years
□
□
A few times over the last 5 years
□
□
About once a year
□
□
2 to 10 times a year
□
□
More than 10 times a year
□
□

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the water in lakes, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.  Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

   *    Nutrients.  Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems.  But too much can lead to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure, and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

   *    Sediment.   Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment.  Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals.  Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware of the negative effects that too much sediment or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?
       □	Yes
□	No

4. Have you previously heard of the sources of excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?
       □	Yes
       □	No

Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  As a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality
   * Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land
   * Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities
   * Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm water runoff
   * Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements
   * Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water
   * More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them
   * Smaller, less frequent algae blooms
   * More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements
   * Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment
   * More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen
   * More enjoyable  boating and swimming
   * More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality

5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in  -  -  - the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column)

Lakes and Rivers
Chesapeake Bay
Better than they were 10 years ago
□
□
About the same as they were 10 years ago
□
□
Worse than they were 10 years ago
□
□
Don't know
□
□

6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling a number.

Strongly
Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree
Don't Know
 I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers.
1
2
3
4
5
DK
 I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay.
1
2
3
4
5
DK
 Some decrease in environmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows.
1
2
3
4
5
DK

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.

State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

For the Chesapeake Bay, environmental goals are based on several measurements of environmental quality and aquatic life:

Dissolved Oxygen
   * Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen in the water, something needed by all aquatic life
   * Dissolved oxygen goals were set for different areas of the Chesapeake Bay based on the types of aquatic life that live there

Water Clarity
   * Water clarity is measured by how far one can see into the water
   * Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow
   * People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water

Aquatic Grasses
   * Aquatic grasses provide food and habitat for other aquatic life

7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any environmental goals for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, or aquatic grasses?
      □	Yes
      □	No

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay
State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but some additional actions are being considered.  Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future under different pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025 for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment.

Current Conditions
Conditions in 2025 with no further action*
 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
 Percent of waters meeting DO goals

 Some plans being considered would achieve 100% in 2025

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

 Water Clarity
 How many feet you can see down into the water.

Average of visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change
 Aquatic Grasses
 Acres of underwater grasses on the Bay floor.

 Scientists recommend 185,000 acres be restored based on historic levels

80,000 acres

80,000 acres
No Change
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.

Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:
   * Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.
   * Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish.

Lake Condition
Water Color
Water Clarity
Most Common
Types of fish
1
Green
Less than 1 foot
Mostly rough fish
2
Green
About 1 foot
Mostly rough fish
3
Brown/Green
About 3 feet
Bass and rough fish
4
Blue/Brown
About 5 feet
Mostly bass
5
Blue/Brown
About 8 feet
Mostly Bass and some walleye
6
Blue
About 15 feet
Bass, walleye, and trout
7
Blue
More than 20 feet
Bass, walleye, and trout

8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle one)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Don't Know

Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

   * Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.
   * Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.
   * Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows the current condition and conditions in 2025 that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed.  This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions
Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions*
Average Condition of <State> Lakes in the Watershed
3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish
3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.

Pollution Reduction Programs for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay.  Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program.
For example,
   # Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

   # Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity and dissolved oxygen than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?
         □	  Yes
         □	  No

                   Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs for your household.

Costs to Your Household
Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive. For example:

   * Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

   * Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live.  This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the cost of living for your household.

Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts.

You will be asked three questions.  In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

   * The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

   * The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.

An Example Question

Conditions in 2025
z
Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.2
Program B
 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters
Dissolved Oxygen
40% of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

50%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

70%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
4 feet

33% increase

Average visibility of
3 feet

67% increase

Aquatic Grasses
Coverage is
80,000 acres

80,000 acres
No Change

100,000 acres

25% increase

150,000 acres

 50% increase
Lakes
Lake Condition

Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly Bass

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$36 per year
or $3 per month

$50 per year
or $4.16 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B
If you want Program A, mark this box
If you do not want A or B, mark this box
If you want Program B, mark this box

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations.  We urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented.  Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision makers in state and federal governments.

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about.

 You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B.

10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options. Mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025
z
Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.2
Program B
 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters
Dissolved Oxygen
40% of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

85%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

100%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
5 feet

83% increase

Average visibility of
4 feet

50% increase

Aquatic Grasses
Current coverage is 80,000 acres

80,000 acres
No Change

130,000 acres

25% increase

165,000 acres

50% increase
Lakes
Lake Condition

Average of 3 in
<state>

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

5
Blue/Brown Water
8 feet of visibility
Bass and walleye

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$250 per year
or $20.83 per month

$180 per year
or $15 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

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

   * On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.

   * Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only ones available to choose from.

   * The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered.

   * Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.

11. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available.  Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025
z
Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.2
Program B
 Chesapeake Bay Tidal Waters
Dissolved Oxygen
40% of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

85%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

40%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
4 feet

33% increase

Average visibility of
5 feet

No Change

Aquatic Grasses
Coverage is
80,000 acres

80,000 acres
No Change

130,000 acres

25% increase

80,000 acres

50% increase
Lakes
Lake Condition

Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$40 per year
or $3.33 per month

$60 per year
or $5 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

12. Now suppose instead that a different set of options were available.  Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025
z
Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.2
Program B
 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters
Dissolved Oxygen
40% of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

100%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

85%
of the Bay areas
will meet DO goals

Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
5 feet

83% increase

Average visibility of
4 feet

33% increase

Aquatic Grasses
Current coverage is 80,000 acres

80,000 acres
No Change

130,000 acres

20% increase

165,000 acres

75% increase
Lakes
Lake Condition

Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

5
Blue/Brown Water
8 feet of visibility
Bass and walleye

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$370 per year
or $30.83 per month

$180 per year
or $15 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes

Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally

Considered Only the Bay Waters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

14. Using each of the numbers 1 through 5, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs.  (1 = Most Important, 5 = Least Important)

______ Dissolved oxygen
______ Water clarity
______ Aquatic grass coverage
______ Lake category
______ Cost of the program

15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.)

      oo Recreation on the Bay
      oo Recreation in Lakes
      oo Preserving the environment for future generations
      oo Availability and/or price of seafood
      oo Value of property near the Bay
      oo Value of property near Lakes
      oo The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future
      oo The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future
      oo Other __________________

16. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.  (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree
  My choices would have been different if the economy in my area were better.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, no matter how high the costs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I do not think I should have to contribute any amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I am concerned that the programs would hurt the economy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I believe the programs will improve the environment as described.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they would deliver.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  The changes offered by the programs happen too far into the future for me to really care about.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  The survey provided me with the information I needed to make a choice between the options shown.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

17. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements.  If not, skip to the next question. (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

                                                                 Strongly Agree
  Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I would not vote for any program even if there were no costs to my household.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION because I am against more government requirements and spending.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

18. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices you were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements.  If not, skip this question. (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

                                                                 Strongly Agree
  I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water quality closer to my home.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for a program more for future generations than for myself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few years.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay and Lakes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for myself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes.  The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual.  Your answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name or address.  You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.
19. Are you male or female?
Male
Female

9. What is your age?
_________ years old

10. What is your current marital status?
      Single, never married
      Married or living with a long-term partner
      Separated or divorced
      Widowed

9. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?
____________ children

10. What was your total pre-tax household income, including all earners in your household, in 2011?
      Under $25,000
      $25,000 - $34,999
      $35,000 - $49,999
      $50,000 - $74,999
      $75,000 - $99,999
      $100,000-$199,999
      $200,000 or more

9. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
      No high school diploma
      High school diploma or GED
      Some college credit or college degree
      Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree

9. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?
      Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan
      Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan
      Rented
      Other: ____________________________________________________

9. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply.)
      Agriculture
      Commercial fishing
      Tour guide for fishing
      No one in my family has worked in these industries

   Thank you very much for your help.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the materials to this address.

Attachment 2: Full Text of DRAFT Endpoint-Based, Constant Baseline Stated Preference Survey Component

Cover
Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey
Endpoint Version
Constant Baseline
May 22, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About this survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this survey we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about your experiences.  We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed.  We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether you would vote for different plans.  Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your answers will help inform policymakers.  All information and responses will be kept confidential.  Background information in this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC.

The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes.  Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:
The freshwater lakes and rivers of the Watershed support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.
The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.  Bay waters are salty and support different types of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed.  People also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.

1. Over the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters
Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing
□
□
Fishing
□
□
Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking
□
□
Viewing nature, including bird watching
□
□
Biking or walking on trails along the water

□
□
Other _______________________
□
□

2. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities?  Please check one statement in each column that best describes your experience.

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters
I have never visited
□
□
I have not visited in the last 5 years
□
□
Once over the last 5 years
□
□
A few times over the last 5 years
□
□
About once a year
□
□
2 to 10 times a year
□
□
More than 10 times a year
□
□

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the water in lakes, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.  Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

   *    Nutrients.  Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems.  But too much can lead to algae that deprive fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure, and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

   *    Sediment.   Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment.  Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals.  Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware of the negative effects that too much sediment or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?
       □	Yes
□	No

4. Have you previously heard of the sources of excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?
       □	Yes
       □	No

Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  As a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality
   * Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land
   * Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities
   * Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm water runoff
   * Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements
   * Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water
   * More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them
   * Smaller, less frequent algae blooms
   * More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements
   * Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment
   * More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen
   * More enjoyable  boating and swimming
   * More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality

5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in  -  -  - the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column)

Lakes and Rivers
Chesapeake Bay
Better than they were 10 years ago
□
□
About the same as they were 10 years ago
□
□
Worse than they were 10 years ago
□
□
Don't know
□
□

6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling a number.

Strongly
Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree
Don't Know
 I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers.
1
2
3
4
5
DK
 I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay.
1
2
3
4
5
DK
 Some decrease in environmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows.
1
2
3
4
5
DK

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.  State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

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

Water Clarity
   * Measured by how far one can see into the water
   * People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water
   * Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow

Blue Crab
   * A key ecological species and popular shellfish for recreational fishermen

Oysters
   * Their shells form reefs that provide habitat for other aquatic life
   * As "filter feeders" they clean the waters of the Bay

7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any environmental goals for water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay or for any Chesapeake Bay species?
      □	Yes
      □	No

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay
State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but additional actions are being considered.  Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future under different pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025 for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment.

Current Conditions
Conditions in 2025 with no further action*

 Water Clarity
 How many feet you can see down into the water.

Average of visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change
Blue Crabs

Goal is 415 million crabs
 250
 million crabs

 250
 million crabs
 No Change
Oysters

Goal is 35,000 tons
 3,300
 tons
 3,300
 tons
 No Change
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.
Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:
   * Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.
   * Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish.

Lake Condition
Water Color
Water Clarity
Most Common
Types of fish
1
Green
Less than 1 foot
Mostly rough fish
2
Green
About 1 foot
Mostly rough fish
3
Brown/Green
About 3 feet
Bass and rough fish
4
Blue/Brown
About 5 feet
Mostly bass
5
Blue/Brown
About 8 feet
Mostly Bass and some walleye
6
Blue
About 15 feet
Bass, walleye, and trout
7
Blue
More than 20 feet
Bass, walleye, and trout

8. What condition do you think best describes the lakes closest to your home? (please circle one)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Don't Know

Lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Some important things to note:

   * Meeting the goals for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay would also affect freshwater bodies of the watershed.
   * Nutrients have a small effect on many rivers because the water is constantly moving.
   * Reducing the amount of nutrients entering lakes will improve the appearance of the water and change the ecological conditions.

The table below shows the current condition and conditions in 2025 that scientists predict for lakes in the part of the watershed in your state if no further actions are taken to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.

The table shows the average condition for <state> lakes within the Watershed.  This is an average, so individual lakes near you could be higher or lower.

Current Conditions
Conditions in 2025 with no additional actions*
Average Condition of <State> Lakes in the Watershed
3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish
3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on measures from the Northeast Lakes Model developed by the Office of Research and Development of the EPA.

Pollution Reduction Programs for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Federal and State Agencies are developing programs to meet the goals that have been set for water quality and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay.  Any program would be phased in over time but would be fully implemented by the year 2025.

Progress toward each water quality goal will depend on the design of the program.
For example,
   # Pollution reduction practices close to the Bay will improve water quality in the Bay, but not in freshwater lakes farther out in the watershed.

   # Planting aquatic grasses will improve aquatic life habitat but will have a smaller effect on water clarity than programs focused on reducing nutrients and sediment.

9. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard of programs to reduce excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?
         □	  Yes
         □	  No

                   Paying for Pollution Reduction Programs

The changes required under pollution reduction programs would result in higher costs for your household.

Costs to Your Household
Some of the basic things people spend money on would become more expensive. For example:

   * Higher water bills or increased maintenance costs for septic systems for households in the Watershed. For renters, rent or utility bills would increase.

   * Higher prices for some agricultural products and other goods for households both outside and inside the Watershed, including the area where you live.  This is because of higher costs for businesses inside the Watershed.

A pollution reduction program, if implemented, would permanently increase the cost of living for your household.

Deciding Future Actions

Imagine that you were given the opportunity to vote on future pollution reduction programs.

In the questions that follow, we will ask your opinion about different programs that provide different levels of environmental improvements, and cost your household different amounts.

You will be asked three questions.  In each question you will need to choose the program you like best from the following alternatives:

   * The NO FURTHER ACTION option would have no additional pollution reductions or costs to your household.

   * The two programs labeled PROGRAM A and PROGRAM B differ in how much they reduce pollution and how much they cost your household.

An Example Question is on the next page to show you what the questions will look like.

An Example Question

Conditions in 2025

Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.05
Program B
 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters
Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
4 feet

33% increase

Average visibility of
3 feet

67% increase

Blue Crab
250 million crabs

 250
 million crabs
 No Change

 300
 million crabs
 20% increase

 275
 million crabs
10 % increase

Oysters
3,300 tons

 3,300
 tons
 No Change

 3,960
 tons
 20 % increase

 4,950
 tons
 50% increase
 Lakes
Lake Condition
Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$150 per year
or $12.50 per month

$200 per year
or $16.67 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B
If you want Program B, mark this box
If you want Program A, mark this box
If you do not want A or B, mark this box

Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations.  We urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented.  Knowing how different people would vote on this program is very important for decision makers in state and federal governments.

Consider the Outcomes and the Costs

Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household. Ask yourself if the program outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are worth the additional cost to your household.

Paying the costs means you would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, going on trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about.

 You would be making a commitment to pay the additional amount every year from now on.

Only you know what is best for you and your household, so please only think of your household when deciding whether to vote for NO FURTHER ACTION, PROGRAM A, or PROGRAM B.

10. Suppose you could choose from the following three options.   Mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025

Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.05
Program B
 Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Waters
Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
5 feet

83% increase

Average visibility of
4 feet

50% increase

Blue Crab
250 million crabs

 250
 million crabs
 No Change

 280
 million crabs
 12% increase

 312
 million crabs
25 % increase

Oysters
3,300 tons

 3,300
 tons
 No Change

 5,250
 tons
 50% increase

 4,300
 tons
 23% increase
 Lakes
Lake Condition
Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly bass

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$180 per year
or $15 per month

$250 per year
or $20.83 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

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

   * On the following pages you will see questions that present new sets of program options. These options require a different mix of management practices in different areas.

   * Consider each question separately, imagining that the options are the only ones available to choose from.

   * The next two questions cannot be compared to each other, or to the question you just answered.

   * Do not add up effects or costs across different questions.

11. Now suppose a different set of options were available.  Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025

Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.05
Program B
 Bay Tidal Waters
Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
4 feet

33% increase

Average visibility of
5 feet

No Change

Blue Crab
250 million crabs

 250
 million crabs
 No Change

 250
 million crabs
 No Change

 280
 million crabs
12% increase

Oysters
3,300 tons

 3,300
 tons
 No Change

 4,300
 tons
 30% increase

 5,250
 tons
 59% increase
 Lakes
Lake Conditions
Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

4
Blue/Brown Water
5 feet of visibility
Mostly Bass

5
Blue/Brown Water
8 feet of visibility
Bass and walleye

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$60 per year
or $5 per month

$40 per year
or $20.83 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

12. Now suppose a different set of options were available, instead of those in the previous question.  Please mark the box at the bottom to indicate which plan you would vote for.

Conditions in 2025

Current
Conditions

No Further Action
.2
Program A
.05
Program B
 Bay Tidal Waters
Water Clarity
Average visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change

Average visibility of
5 feet

83% increase

Average visibility of
4 feet

33% increase

Blue Crab
250 million crabs

 250
 million crabs
 No Change

 280
 million crabs
 12% increase

 312
 million crabs
25% increase

Oysters
3,300 tons

 3,300
 tons
 No Change

 5,250
 tons
 50% increase

 3,300
 tons
 no change
 Lakes
Lake Condition
Average of 3 in
your state

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

5
Blue/Brown Water
8 feet of visibility
Bass and walleye

3
Brown/Green Water
3 feet of visibility
Bass and rough fish

Permanent Increase in the Cost of Living for your Household

$0 per year

$60 per year
or $3.33 per month

$180 per year
or $15 per month

Your Vote
Please mark one of the boxes to the right

No Further Action

Program A

Program B

13. For the choices you just made about programs, how much consideration did you give to improvements in lakes compared to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters? (Please circle one.)

Considered Only the Lakes

Considered Lakes and Bay Waters Equally

Considered Only the Bay Waters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

14. Using each of the numbers 1 through 4, rank the following in order of importance when you were choosing between programs.  (1 = Most Important, 5 = Least Important)

______ Clarity
______ Striped Bass
______ Blue Crab
______ Lake Category
______ Cost of the program

15. Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about which program to vote for? (Please choose one.)

      oo Recreation on the Bay
      oo Recreation in Lakes
      oo Preserving the environment for future generations
      oo Availability and/or price of seafood
      oo Value of property near the Bay
      oo Value of property near Lakes
      oo The possibility of visiting the Bay in the future
      oo The possibility of visiting Lakes in the future
      oo Other __________________

16. Thinking about how you voted among programs, please rate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.  (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree
  My choices would have been different if the economy in my area were better.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  It is important to improve waters in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, no matter how high the costs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I do not think I should have to contribute any amount to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I am concerned that the programs would hurt the economy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  It was difficult to understand the descriptions of the programs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I believe the programs will improve the environment as described.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  Some of the programs cost too much compared to what they would deliver.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  The changes offered by the programs happen too far into the future for me to really care about.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  The survey provided me with the information I needed to make a choice between the options shown.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

17. If you voted for NO FURTHER ACTION in any of the choices you were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements.  If not, skip to the next question. (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

                                                                 Strongly Agree
  Nothing can be done to improve the quality of the Bay and freshwater lakes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I would not vote for any program even if there were no costs to my household.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION because the costs were too high compared to the environmental improvements.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for NO FURTHER ACTION because I am against  more government requirements and spending.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

18. If you voted for Program A or Program B in any of the choices you were given, please let us know how much you agree or disagree with the each of the following statements.  If not, skip this question. (Circle the number that matches your answer.)

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree
  I voted for a program because I thought it would also lead to better water quality closer to my home.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for a program more for future generations than for myself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for the program because I may visit the Chesapeake Bay or lakes in the watershed in the next few years.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for a program because I believe it is our responsibility to preserve wildlife and habitat in the Bay and Lakes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  I voted for a program so others could enjoy the Bay and lakes, rather than for myself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Questions about you and your household

Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes.  The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across all responses and will not associate responses with an individual.  Your answers will not be saved or stored in a way that can be associated with your name or address.  You will not be contacted about your responses or this survey.
19. Are you male or female?
Male
Female

10. What is your age?
_________ years old

11. What is your current marital status?
      Single, never married
      Married or living with a long-term partner
      Separated or divorced
      Widowed

10. How many children under age 18 are living at your home?
____________ children

11. What was your total pre-tax household income, including all earners in your household, in 2011?
      Under $25,000
      $25,000 - $34,999
      $35,000 - $49,999
      $50,000 - $74,999
      $75,000 - $99,999
      $100,000-$199,999
      $200,000 or more

10. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
      No high school diploma
      High school diploma or GED
      Some college credit or college degree
      Some graduate school or professional school credit or a graduate or professional degree

10. Which of the following best describes the home or apartment you live in?
      Owned by you or someone in your household with a mortgage or loan
      Owned by you or someone in your household without a mortgage or loan
      Rented
      Other: ____________________________________________________

10. Have you or any member of your family ever worked for any of the following industries or jobs? (Please fill in the box next to all that apply.)
      Agriculture
      Commercial fishing
      Tour guide for fishing
      No one in my family has worked in these industries

   Thank you very much for your help.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the materials to this address.
10.

Attachment 3: Full Text of DRAFT Input-Based Declining Baseline Stated Preference Survey Component

Cover
Chesapeake Bay Stated Preference Survey
Input Version
Declining Baseline
May 22, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About this survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this survey we will describe the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ask some questions about your experiences.  We will then describe possible plans for changing (or not changing) how the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is managed.  We will describe how these plans could affect the Watershed and your household and ask whether you would vote for different plans.  Finally we will ask some questions about your opinions on different topics covered in the survey and some information about your household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your answers will help inform policymakers.  All information and responses will be kept confidential.  Background information in this survey was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other state and federal offices.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed, shown in green, is home to 17 million people and covers parts of six states and Washington DC.

The Watershed includes over 100,000 small rivers and streams, 150 major rivers, and thousands of lakes.  Water that falls on the land within the watershed drains into these rivers, and eventually enters the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed includes two types of water bodies:
The freshwater lakes and rivers of the Watershed support wildlife and provide recreational opportunities like swimming, boating, and fishing.
The Chesapeake Bay tidal waters include the Bay itself and parts of some rivers and streams that flow into the Bay.  Bay waters are salty and support different types of wildlife than the rest of the Watershed.  People also swim, boat, and fish in the tidal sections of the watershed.

1. Over the last five years have you done any of the following activities in lakes and rivers in the watershed, or in the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters?

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters
Swimming, water skiing, or jet skiing
□
□
Fishing
□
□
Boating, including sailing, motor boating and kayaking
□
□
Viewing nature, including bird watching
□
□
Biking or walking on trails along the water

□
□
Other _______________________
□
□

2. About how many times have you visited lakes and rivers in the watershed, or the Chesapeake Bay Tidal waters to do any these activities?  Please check one statement in each column that best describes your experience.

Lakes and rivers in the Watershed
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters
I have never visited
□
□
I have not visited in the last 5 years
□
□
Once over the last 5 years
□
□
A few times over the last 5 years
□
□
About once a year
□
□
2 to 10 times a year
□
□
More than 10 times a year
□
□

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed degrade the quality of the water in lakes, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, and can affect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.  Two key pollutants are nutrients and sediments.

   *    Nutrients.  Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring substances that are essential for healthy ecosystems.  But too much can lead to algae that deprives fish and plants of oxygen. Excess nutrients come from fertilizers, livestock manure, and outflows from wastewater treatment plants.

   *    Sediment.   Loose soil that settles to the bottom of water bodies is also a natural part of the environment.  Too much sediment makes the water murky and harms aquatic plants and animals.  Paved surfaces and some farming practices have led to more soil erosion, causing more sediment to enter rivers and streams and flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

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

3. Before taking this survey, were you aware of the negative effects that too much sediment or nutrients can have on wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities?
       □	Yes
□	No

4. Have you previously heard of the sources of excess nutrients and sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?
       □	Yes
       □	No

Reducing nutrient and sediment pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Changing the way land, storm water, and waste water are managed can improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  As a result, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities will improve in lakes, rivers and the Bay.

Practices to Improve Water Quality
   * Changing the way farmers dispose of livestock manure and till their land
   * Installing better equipment at wastewater treatment facilities
   * Restoring streams and wetlands and paving fewer surfaces to slow storm water runoff
   * Restoring oyster reefs and bay grass beds to filter water and improve fish habitat

Water Quality Improvements
   * Clearer water because less nutrients and sediment enter the water
   * More aquatic grasses will grow because clearer water allows more sunlight to reach them
   * Smaller, less frequent algae blooms
   * More oxygen in the water because of reduced algae

Ecosystem and Recreation Improvements
   * Cleaner and healthier aquatic environment
   * More game fish and crabs for recreational fishermen
   * More enjoyable  boating and swimming
   * More oysters and bay grass beds will provide habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish while also improving water quality

5. How do you think environmental conditions have changed in lakes and rivers closest to your home and in  -  -  - the Chesapeake Bay? (Please check one box in each column)

Lakes and Rivers
Chesapeake Bay
Better than they were 10 years ago
□
□
About the same as they were 10 years ago
□
□
Worse than they were 10 years ago
□
□
Don't know
□
□

6. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling a number.

Strongly
Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree
Don't Know
 I am concerned about current pollution levels in lakes and rivers.
1
2
3
4
5
DK
 I am concerned about current pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay.
1
2
3
4
5
DK
 Some decrease in environmental quality is inevitable as our economy grows.
1
2
3
4
5
DK

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Different areas of the Chesapeake Bay provide different types of wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.

State governments and federal agencies have been working with scientists to develop environmental goals for improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

For the Chesapeake Bay, environmental goals are based on several measurements of environmental quality and aquatic life:

Dissolved Oxygen
   * Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen in the water, something needed by all aquatic life
   * Dissolved oxygen goals were set for different areas of the Chesapeake Bay based on the types of aquatic life that live there

Water Clarity
   * Water clarity is measured by how far one can see into the water
   * Clearer water means more sunlight for underwater plants to grow
   * People who go swimming or boating may prefer clearer water

Aquatic Grasses
   * Aquatic grasses provide food and habitat for other aquatic life

7. Before taking this survey, had you read or heard about any environmental goals for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, or aquatic grasses?
      □	Yes
      □	No

Environmental Quality in the Chesapeake Bay
State and local governments already have some pollution reduction programs in place but some additional actions are being considered.  Scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay Watershed monitor its health and use models to predict water conditions in the future under different pollution reduction programs.

The table here shows both current conditions and predicted conditions in 2025 for the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters if no further action is taken to reduce nutrients and sediment.

Current Conditions
Conditions in 2025 with no further action*
 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
 Percent of waters meeting DO goals

 Some plans being considered would achieve 100% in 2025

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

40 %
of the Bay areas
meet DO goals

 Water Clarity
 How many feet you can see down into the water.

Average of visibility of
3 feet

Average of visibility of
3 feet
No Change
 Aquatic Grasses
 Acres of underwater grasses on the Bay floor.

 Scientists recommend 185,000 acres be restored based on historic levels

80,000 acres

80,000 acres
No Change
All forecasts for the year 2025 are based on monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Estuary Models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the EPA in conjunction with state and federal partners.

Environmental Quality in Lakes

Scientists studying the effect of nutrient pollution on lakes categorize them by how much algae grows in the water.

High amounts of algae:
   * Changes the color of the water and reduces visibility.
   * Results in fewer game fish like bass and trout and more rough fish like carp and catfish.

Lake Condition
Water Color
Water Clarity
Most Common
Types of fish
1
Green
Less than 1 foot