This ICR is approved. Given the unique characteristics of Chesapeake Bay, the agency should exercise caution in applying the results to environmental goods outside the Chesapeake Bay and follow the applicable guidelines in the OMB Circular A-4 regarding benefit transfer.
table that charts list comparision
Inventory as of this Action
Requested
Previously Approved
09/30/2015
09/30/2015
09/30/2015
3,278
0
1,080
868
0
285
0
0
0
The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to coordinate Federal and State efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2009, Executive Order (E.O.) 13508 reemphasized this mandate, directing EPA to define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Bay and describe the changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions. In response, EPA is undertaking an assessment of the costs and benefits of meeting established pollution budgets, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed encompasses 64,000 square miles in parts of six states and the District of Columbia. While efforts have been underway to restore the Bay for more than 25 years, and significant progress has been made over that period, the TMDLs are necessary to continue progress toward the goal of a healthy Bay. The watershed states of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia, have developed Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) detailing the steps each will take to meet its obligations under the TMDLs.
EPA has begun a new study to estimate the costs of compliance with the TMDLs and the corresponding benefits. As an input to the TMDLs benefits study, EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is seeking approval to conduct a stated preference survey to collect data on households' use of Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, preferences for a variety of water quality improvements likely to follow from pollution reduction programs, and demographic information. If approved, the survey would be administered by mail, in two phases, to a total 9,140 residents living in the Chesapeake Bay states, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and other east coast states.
NCEE will use the survey responses to estimate willingness to pay for changes related to reductions in nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment loadings to the Bay and lakes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The analysis relies on state of the art theoretical and statistical tools for non-market welfare analysis. A non-response follow-up survey will also be administered to inform the interpretation and validation of survey responses.
Benefits from meeting the TMDLs for the Chesapeake Bay will accrue to those who live near the Bay or visit for recreation, those who live near or visit lakes in the watershed, and those who live further away and/or may never visit the Bay but have a general concern for the environment. While benefits from the first two categories can be measured using hedonic property value methods, recreational demand methods, and other revealed preference approaches, only stated preference methods can capture non-use benefits (i.e., benefits for those who do not use the resource.) There are limited stated preference studies specifically on the Chesapeake Bay, and no studies specifically addressing the environmental improvements predicted under the TMDLs. This study will provide policy makers with information on how much the public would benefit in return for the cost of the programs.
The findings from this study will be used by EPA to estimate the total value of benefits of the nutrient and sediment TMDLs designed to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13508. Specifically, this project will explore how public values for ecosystem goods and services are affected by nutrient and sediment loading to the Chesapeake Bay. Understanding total public values for ecosystem resources, including the more difficult to estimate non-use values, is necessary to determine the full range of benefits associated with reductions in nutrient and sediment loading. Because non-use values may be substantial, failure to estimate such values may lead to improper inferences regarding benefits and costs.
EO: EO 13508 Name/Subject of EO: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.
2456.02 Pretest Summary Slides 4.2.2014.pdf
2456.02 Justification Rev 4.10.14.docx
Survey Respondents