§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
1
See
Chapter
A­
10
of
the
Proposed
Rule
Case
Study
Report
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ost/
316b)
or
"
Marine
Recreational
Fisheries
Statistics:
Data
user's
Manual,"
NMFS,
http://
www.
st.
nmfs.
gov.
recreational/
index.
html)
for
general
discussion
of
the
MRFSS.

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
1
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
INTRODUCTION
This
regional
case
study
estimates
the
effects
of
improved
fishing
opportunities
due
to
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
(
I&
E)
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region.
The
case
study
focuses
on
marine
fishing
sites
in
the
Atlantic
coastal
areas
of
Maine,
New
Hampshire,
Massachusetts,
Rhode
Island,
and
Connecticut.
This
study
utilizes
the
fishing
site
choice
model
developed
by
Robert
Hicks
from
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
(
Hicks,
Steinback,
Gautam,
Thunberg,
1999).

Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
(
CWISs)
withdrawing
water
from
the
Atlantic
Ocean
impinge
and
entrain
many
of
the
species
sought
by
recreational
anglers.
These
species
include
winter
flounder,
tautog,
Atlantic
cod,
striped
bass,
bluefish,
scup,
and
other
less
prominent
species.
Some
of
these
species
(
e.
g.,
weakfish,
flounder,
and
striped
bass)
inhabit
a
wide
range
of
coastal
waters
spanning
several
states
(
e.
g.,
striped
bass
can
be
caught
throughout
the
whole
North­
Atlantic
region).
The
main
assumption
of
this
analysis
is
that,
all
else
being
equal,
anglers
will
get
greater
satisfaction
and
thus
greater
economic
value
from
sites
with
a
higher
catch
rate.
This
benefit
may
occur
in
two
ways:

<
first,
an
angler
may
get
greater
enjoyment
from
a
given
fishing
trip
with
higher
catch
rates,
yielding
a
greater
value
per
trip;
<
second,
anglers
may
take
more
fishing
trips
when
catch
rates
are
higher,
resulting
in
greater
overall
value
for
fishing
in
the
region.

Section
B5­
2
describes
the
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
model
and
the
resulting
estimated
coefficients.
Section
B5­
3
focuses
on
the
method
of
estimating
welfare
and
the
results
stemming
from
changes
in
catch
rates
as
a
result
of
eliminating
I&
E.
The
following
section
describes
the
data
set
used
in
the
analysis
and
analytic
results.

B5­
1
DATA
SUMMARY
The
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
analysis
of
improvements
in
recreational
fishing
opportunities
in
the
New
England
and
Mid­
Atlantic
region
relies
on
a
subset
of
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service's
(
NMFS)
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey
(
MRFSS),
combined
with
the
1994
Add­
on
MRFSS
Economic
Survey
(
NMFS,
1999;
QuanTech,
1998).
1
The
model
of
recreational
fishing
behavior
developed
in
the
study
relies
on
a
subset
of
the
survey
respondents
which
includes
only
single­
day
trips
to
sites
located
along
the
Atlantic
coast.
This
section
provides
a
summary
of
anglers'
characteristics
who
took
one­
day
trips
to
fishing
sites
in
the
five
North­
Atlantic
states.
This
analysis
is
based
a
sample
of
9,314
respondents
to
the
MRFSS
survey.
CHAPTER
CONTENTS
B5­
1
Data
Summary..............................
B5­
1
B5­
1.1
Summary
of
Anglers'
Characteristics.......
B5­
2
B5­
1.2
Recreational
Fishing
Choice
Sets
..........
B5­
5
B5­
1.3
Site
Attributes.........................
B5­
5
B5­
1.4
Travel
Cost...........................
B5­
6
B5­
2
The
Nested
Random
Utility
Model
of
Recreational
Demand......................
B5­
7
B5­
3
Welfare
Estimates............................
B5­
8
B5­
3.1
Estimating
Changes
in
the
Quality
of
Fishing
Sites.............................
B5­
8
B5­
3.2
Estimating
Losses
from
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region.....................
B5­
9
B5­
4
Limitations
and
Uncertainty...................
B5­
12
B5­
4.1
Considering
Only
Recreational
Values.....
B5­
12
Glossary.......................................
B5­
13
Acronyms......................................
B5­
14
References.....................................
B5­
15
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
2
Note
that
bottom
species
targeted
by
offshore
anglers
and
charter
boat
anglers
are
different.
target
tautog,
black
sea
bass,
and
drums,
while
offshore
anglers
target
white
perch,
catfish,
and
dogfish
sharks.

3
Income
was
not
reported
by
most
survey
respondents.
Median
household
income
data
by
zip
code,
from
the
U.
S.
Census,
was
used
to
provide
income
information
for
respondents
not
reporting
income.

4
All
costs
are
in
1994$,
which
represent
the
MRFSS
survey
year.
All
costs/
benefits
will
be
updated
to
2002$
later
in
this
analysis
(
e.
g.,
for
welfare
estimation).

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
2
B5­
1.1
a.
Based
on
the
data
set
used
in
developing
the
NMFS
model,
a
majority
of
the
interviewed
anglers
(
62
percent)
fish
from
either
a
private
or
a
rental
boat
(
see
Table
B5­
1,
below).
ately
24
percent
fish
from
the
shore;
the
remaining
14
percent
fish
from
a
party
or
charter
boat.
ode
of
fishing,
the
MRFSS
contains
information
on
the
specific
species
targeted
on
the
surveyed
trip.
ost
popular
species
group,
targeted
by
56
percent
of
all
anglers,
is
small
game.
second
most
popular
species
group,
targeted
by
18
percent
of
all
anglers,
is
bottom
fish.
ately
12
percent
of
anglers
did
not
have
a
designated
target
species.
aining
anglers,
ten,
two,
and
one
percent
target
flatfish,
other
species
group,
and
big
game,
respectively.

The
distribution
of
target
species
is
not
uniform
by
fishing
mode.
ple,
more
than
76
percent
of
the
anglers
fishing
from
private/
rental
boats
target
either
small
game
fish
(
59.33
percent)
or
bottom
fish
(
16.87
percent).
ajority
of
the
anglers
fishing
from
shore,
on
the
other
hand,
target
small
game
fish
(
59.12
percent)
or
do
not
have
a
targeted
species
(
16.64
percent).
all
game
and
bottom
fish
remain
the
most
popular
species
groups
among
anglers
fishing
from
a
charter/
party
boat
(
37.67
and
40.19
percent
respectively).
2
A
relatively
large
percentage
of
charter
boat
anglers
target
big
game
species
(
4.18
percent),
compared
to
a
small
percentage
of
anglers
targeting
big
game
species
from
either
private
or
rental
boats
(
0.95
percent)
or
shore
(
0.35
percent).

Table
B5­
1:
Species
Group
Choice
by
Mode
of
Fishing
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
Species
All
ModesPrivate/
Rental
BoatParty/
Charter
BoatShore
FrequencyPercentFrequencyPercent
by
ModeFrequencyPercent
by
ModeFrequencyPercent
by
Mode
Small
game5,24656.32%
3,42959.33%
47837.67%
1,33959.12%

Bottom
fish1,70518.31%
97516.87%
51040.19%
2209.71%

Flatfish9149.81%
73812.77%
100.79%
1667.33%

Big
game1161.25%
550.95%
534.18%
80.35%

No
target1,13612.20%
5419.36%
21817.18%
37716.64%

Other1972.12%
420.73%
00.00%
1556.84%

All
species9,314100.00%
5,78062.00%
1,26914.00%
2,265
24.00%

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis.

b.
This
section
presents
a
summary
of
angler
characteristics
for
the
North­
Atlantic
region
as
defined
above.
summarizes
characteristics
of
the
sample
anglers
fishing
the
NMFS
sites
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region.

The
average
income
of
the
respondent
anglers
was
$
47,994
(
1994$).
3,4
Ninety­
five
percent
of
the
anglers
are
white,
with
an
average
age
of
about
43
years.
ent
information
indicates
that
41
percent
of
the
anglers
had
received
a
high
school
diploma,
while
only
18
percent
had
graduated
from
college.

Charter
boat
anglers
usually
Summary
of
Anglers 
Characteristics
Fishing
modes
and
targeted
species
Approxim
In
addition
to
the
m
The
mThe
Approximall
Of
the
rem
For
exam
The
m
Sm
Anglers 
characteristics
Table
B5­
2
Educational
attainm
The
average
household
size
was
three
individuals.
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
Atlantic
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
Nearly
15
percent
of
the
anglers
are
retired,
while79
percent
are
employed.
Sixty­
nine
percent
of
the
anglers
indicated
that
they
had
flexible
time
when
setting
their
work
schedule.

Table
B5­
2
shows
that
on
average
anglers
spent
31
days
fishing
during
the
past
year.
The
average
duration
of
a
fishing
trip
was
about
4
hours
per
day.
Anglers
made
an
average
of
6.2
trips
to
the
current
site,
with
an
average
trip
cost
of
$
38.12
(
1994$).
5
Average
round
trip
travel
time
was
about
two
and
a
half
hour.
Fifty­
five
percent
of
the
North­
Atlantic
anglers
own
their
own
boat.
Finally,
the
average
number
of
years
of
fishing
experience
was
21.
This
analysis
does
not
include
anglers
under
the
age
of
16,
which
may
result
in
overestimation
of
the
average
age
of
recreational
anglers
and
years
of
experience.

5
All
costs
are
in
1994$,
which
represent
the
MRFSS
survey
year.
All
costs/
benefits
will
be
updated
to
2002$
later
in
this
analysis
(
e.
g.,
for
welfare
estimation).

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003
B5­
3
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
The
North­
Atlantic
RegionChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
4
Table
B5­
2:
ta
Summary
for
the
North­
Atlantic
Coast
Anglers
Variable
All
ModesPrivate/
Rental
BoatParty/
Charter
BoatShore
NMeanaStd
DevNMeanaStd
DevNMeanaStd
DevNMeanaStd
Dev
Trip
8,16538.1259.925,182$
33.36$
51.541,050$
72.34$
92.111,933$
32.30$
52.08
Travel
8,6892.553.135,5012.242.681,1294.644.322,0592.233.03
Visits1,4466.158.979346.388.721352.075.473777.0510.17
Own
a
boat1,8800.550.501,1040.750.432980.190.394780.290.45
High
School1,8580.410.491,0930.410.492930.370.484720.430.50
College
Degree1,8580.180.391,0930.200.402930.190.394720.150.36
Retired1,8730.150.351,1000.130.342960.140.344770.190.39
Employed1,8730.790.411,1000.820.382960.790.414770.710.45
Age1,85943.3113.951,09243.7412.9729441.3814.6047343.5015.56
Years
Fishing1,91420.7215.301,13121.1914.6230317.9815.9348021.3416.25
Household
Size1,8643.031.341,0973.011.312943.161.334732.981.40
Flexible
Time1,4560.690.468920.690.462300.700.463340.680.47
Male1,8800.940.251,1040.940.232980.900.304780.940.24
White1,8440.950.221,0830.960.202900.930.254710.930.26
Household
Income1,667$
47,994$
29,233990$
51,129$
29,229265$
51,047$
29,554412$
38,501$
26,967
Average
trip
length
in
hours
8,6763.952.125,4994.222.131,1284.651.962,0492.841.73
Annual
trips9,25431.4643.935,74131.6340.131,2639.5324.362,25043.3355.55
a
For
dummy
variables,
such
as
 
Own
a
Boat, 
that
take
the
value
of
0
or
1,
the
reported
value
represents
a
portion
of
the
survey
respondents
possessing
the
relevant
characteristic.

example,
55
percent
of
the
surveyed
anglers
own
a
boat.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis.
Da
Cost
Time
For
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
Atlantic
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
B5­
1.2
Recreational
Fishing
Choice
Sets
For
consistency
with
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999),
the
Agency
aggregated
NMFS
intercept
sites
to
the
county
level,
resulting
in
26
sites
from
Maine
through
Connecticut.
The
26
fishing
sites,
along
with
the
angler s
state
of
residence,
define
the
individual s
choice
set.
The
choice
set
is
defined
according
to
the
approach
developed
by
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999).
If
the
closest
site
is
within
30
miles
from
the
angler s
home,
then
all
sites
within
150
miles
are
assumed
to
be
in
their
choice
set;
otherwise,
all
sites
within
400
miles
are
assumed
to
be
in
their
choice
set.
Distances
in
the
original
study
were
estimated
using
PCMiler
software.
EPA
used
ArcView
3.2a
software
to
determine
the
distance
from
an
anglers
residence
to
each
NMFS
intercept
site.
Further
discussion
of
distance
estimation
is
presented
in
Section
B5­
1.4.
Based
on
this
method
of
site
choice
construction,
EPA
concluded
that
residents
of
the
five
states
have
4
to
26
fishing
sites
in
their
choice
sets.

B5­
1.3
Site
Attributes
This
analysis
assumes
that
the
angler
chooses
between
site
alternatives
by
comparing
his
indirect
utility
function
for
each
alternative
and
choosing
the
one
that
maximizes
his
utility.
Following
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999),
this
assumption
states
that
the
individual
first
chooses
fishing
mode
and
target
species
and
then,
conditional
on
his
choice,
chooses
the
recreational
site.

Catch
rate
is
the
most
important
attribute
of
a
fishing
site
from
the
angler s
perspective
(
McConnell
and
Strand,
1994;
Haab
et
al.,
2000).
This
attribute
is
also
a
policy
variable
of
concern
as
catch
rate
is
a
function
of
fish
abundance,
which
is
affected
by
fish
mortality
due
to
I&
E.
The
catch
rate
variable
in
the
model
provides
a
means
to
measure
baseline
losses
from
I&
E
and
changes
in
anglers 
welfare
attributed
to
changes
from
I&
E
due
to
the
316(
b)
rule.

To
specify
the
baseline
fishing
quality
of
the
case
study
sites
EPA
followed
the
approach
used
by
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999).
The
Agency
calculated
average
historic
catch
rates
based
on
the
NMFS
intercept
survey
data
from
1990
to
1994
for
recreationally
important
species,
such
as
striped
bass,
bluefish,
summer
flounder,
Atlantic
cod,
tautog,
and
winter
flounder
(
McConnell
and
Strand,
1994;
Hicks
et
al.,
1999).
6
EPA
aggregated
all
species
into
five
species
groups
 
big
game
fish,
bottom
fish,
flatfish,
small
game
fish,
and
no
target
 
and
calculated
the
average
group­
specific
historic
catch
rates.
Following
the
species
groups
definitions
in
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999),
the
following
species
are
included
in
the
four
specific
groups
listed
below.
The
 
No
target 
category
covers
all
species
caught
by
anglers
that
are
not
included
in
big
game,
bottom
fish,
small
fish,
or
flatfish.

<
Big
game:
Albacore,
Blue
Shark,
Bluefin
Tuna,
Shortfin
Mako
Shark,
Tuna,
Smooth
Hammerhead,
Thresher
Shark,
Billfish,
Cobia,
Great
Hammerhead,
Tiger
Shark,
Scalloped
Hammer,
Sailfish,
Wahoo,
Marlin,
Swordfish,
White
Shark,
Tarpon,
and
Dolphin.

<
Bottom
fish:
Atlantic
Cod,
Atlantic
Wolffish,
Black
Sea
Bass,
Blue
Angelfish,
Butterfish,
Codfishes,
Cunner,
Dwarf
Sand
Perch,
Gray
Triggerfish,
Haddock,
Perch
Family,
Pollock,
Porgies,
Reef
bass,
Scup,
Skate,
Snapper,
Snowy
Grouper,
Spiny
Dogfish
Shark,
Striped
Searobin,
Tautog,
White
Perch,
Sandbar
Shark,
Sand
Tiger
Shark,
Catfish,
Kingfish,
Black
Drum,
Dogfish
Shark,
Smooth
Dog
Shark,
Toadfish,
Hake,
Sawfish,
Mullett,
Nurse
Shark,
Sheepshead,
Cat
Shark,
Carp,
Grunt,
and
Pinfish.

<
Flatfish:
Atlantic
Halibut,
Killifishes,
Flounders,
Mummichog,
Windowpane,
and
Sole.

<
Small
game:
Atlantic
Bonito,
Mackerels,
Atlantic
Salmon,
Bluefish,
Brown
Trout,
Cero,
Hickory
Shad,
Little
Tunny,
Striped
Bass,
Weakfish,
Pompano,
Barracuda,
Snook,
Jack,
Bonefish,
and
Red
Drum.

The
species
listed
above
inhabit
waters
from
Maine
through
Virginia,
the
region
covered
in
the
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
study.
Not
all
of
the
listed
species
are
present
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region,
which
includes
only
Maine,
New
Hampshire,
Massachusetts,
Rhode
Island,
and
Connecticut.
The
catch
rates
represent
the
number
of
fish
caught
on
a
fishing
trip
per
angler
by
aggregated
species
group.
The
estimated
catch
rates
are
averaged
across
all
anglers
by
wave,
mode,
target
species
group,
and
site
over
the
five­
year
period
(
1990­
1994).
7
Catch
rates
for
earlier
years
were
not
included
in
the
analysis
due
to
significant
changes
in
species
populations
for
recreational
fisheries.

6
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
will
also
perform
a
sensitivity
analysis
based
on
more
recent
data
on
catch
rates
(
i.
e.,
1997­
2001).

7
 
Wave 
is
a
two
month
period
(
e.
g.,
May­
June).
Fishing
conditions
such
as
catch
rates
may
differ
significantly
across
six
waves.

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003
B5­
5
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
8
The
Federal
Travel
Regulations
set
the
reimbursement
rate
at
$
0.30
per
mile
in
1994.

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
6
The
catch
rate
variables
include
total
catch,
which
includes
both
fish
caught
and
kept
and
fish
released.
Several
NMFS
studies
use
only
the
catch­
and­
keep
measure
as
the
relevant
catch
rate.
Although
a
greater
error
may
be
associated
with
the
measured
number
of
fish
not
kept,
the
total
catch
measure
is
more
appropriate
because
a
large
number
of
anglers
catch
and
release
fish.
As
noted
above,
EPA
followed
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
in
estimating
the
total
catch
rate
variable.
The
total
catch
rate
variable
includes
only
targeted
fish
catch
and
not
incidental
catch.
r
example,
flatfish
catch
rates
include
flatfish
caught
only
by
anglers
targeting
flatfish
and
do
not
include
flatfish
caught
by
anglers
targeting
another
species
group
(
e.
g.
small
game.)
an
angler
targeted
a
species
group
and
caught
no
fish
or
caught
fish
of
an
other
species
group
their
catch
rate
was
set
to
zero.
Aggregated
sites
for
which
no
historic
catch
rate
was
available
were
assigned
an
average
historic
catch
rate
of
zero.

Anglers
who
target
particular
species
groups
generally
catch
more
fish
in
the
targeted
category
because
of
specialized
equipment
and
skills
than
anglers
who
don t
target
these
species.
Of
the
anglers
who
target
particular
species
groups,
bottom
fish
anglers
catch
the
largest
number
of
fish
per
hour
(
1.28),
followed
by
anglers
who
catch
small
game
(
0.65).
target
big
game
fish
catch
fewer
fish
than
anglers
targeting
any
other
species
group.
marizes
average
catch
rates
by
species
for
all
sites
in
the
study
area.

Table
B5­
4:
Average
Catch
Rate
by
Species
Group
for
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
Sites
a
Species
GroupAverage
Catch
Rate
(
fish
per
angler
per
trip)

Big
game0.07
Bottom
fish1.28
Flatfish0.24
Small
game0.65
No
target0.35
a
This
includes
aggregated
sites
(
counties)
in
Maine,
New
Hampshire,
Massachusetts,
Rhode
Island,
and
Connecticut.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis.

B5­
1.4
EPA
used
ArcView
3.2a
software
to
estimate
distances
from
the
household
zip
code
to
each
NMFS
fishing
site
in
the
individual
opportunity
sets.
locations
from
the
Master
Site
Register
supplied
by
the
NMFS.
The
Master
Site
Register
includes
both
a
unique
identifier
that
corresponds
to
the
visited
site
used
in
the
angler
survey,
and
latitude
and
longitude
coordinates.
e
sites
the
latitude
and
longitude
coordinates
were
missing
or
demonstrably
incorrect,
in
which
case
the
town
point,
as
identified
in
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
Geographic
Names
Information
System,
was
used
as
the
site
location
if
a
town
was
reported
in
the
site
address.
program
measured
the
distance
in
miles
of
the
shortest
route,
using
state
and
U.
S.
highways,
from
the
household
zip
code
to
each
fishing
site,
then
added
the
distances
from
the
zip
location
to
the
closest
highway
and
from
the
site
location
to
the
closest
highway.
distance
to
the
visited
site
is
58.6
miles.

Based
on
the
procedure
described
in
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999),
EPA
estimated
trip
 
price 
as
the
sum
of
travel
costs
plus
the
opportunity
cost
of
time.
ate
consumers 
travel
costs,
EPA
multiplied
round­
trip
distance
by
average
motor
vehicle
cost
per
mile
($
0.30,
1994$).
8
To
estimate
the
opportunity
cost
of
travel
time,
EPA
first
divided
round­
trip
distance
by
40
miles
per
hour
to
estimate
trip
time,
and
used
the
household s
wage
to
yield
the
opportunity
cost
of
time.
ated
household
wage
by
dividing
household
income
by
2,040
(
i.
e.,
the
number
of
full
time
hours
potentially
worked).
Fo
If
Anglers
who
Table
B5­
4
sum
Travel
Cost
The
Agency
obtained
fishing
site
For
som
The
Arc
View
The
average
one­
way
To
estim
EPA
estim
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
Atlantic
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
Only
those
respondents
who
reported
that
they
can
work
extra
hours
for
extra
pay
(
FLEXHR=
1)
are
assigned
a
time
cost
in
the
trip
cost
variable.
was
calculated
based
on
the
round
trip
distance
and
the
reimbursement
rate
of
$.
30
per
mile.

(
B5­
1)

For
those
respondents
who
cannot
work
extra
hours
for
extra
pay,
the
time
cost
is
accounted
for
in
an
additional
variable
equal
to
the
amount
of
time
spent
on
travel.
timated
time
cost
as
the
round­
trip
distance
divided
by
40
mph:

(
B5­
2)

B5­
2
THE
NESTED
RANDOM
UTILITY
MODEL
OF
RECREATIONAL
DEMAND
For
the
purpose
of
this
analysis,
EPA
did
not
estimate
its
own
random
utility
model
(
RUM)
and
relied
on
the
study
completed
by
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
from
the
NMFS
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
(
Volume
II:
The
Economic
Value
of
New
England
and
Mid­
Atlantic
Sportfishing
in
1994).
e
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
approach,
each
angler
selects
fishing
mode
and
target
species
first
and,
given
this
choice,
selects
the
recreation
site.
model
in
detail.
odel
includes
10
variables:
travel
cost,
travel
time,
five
variables
for
catch
rates
(
one
for
each
species
group),
the
log
of
the
number
of
NMFS
intercept
sites
contained
in
an
aggregated
site,
private/
rental
dummy,
and
cold
­
private/
rental
dummy.
mmy
equals
1
if
the
angler
chose
the
private/
rental
fishing
mode
and
owns
their
own
boat
and
0
otherwise.
The
cold­
private/
rental
dummy
equals
1
if
the
private/
rental
dummy
equals
one
and
the
angler
took
his/
her
fishing
trip
in
November
and
December
(
i.
e.,
during
cold
months).
9
The
model
estimates
are
shown
in
Table
B5­
5.
Otherwise,
the
trip
cost
variable
EPA
calculated
visit
price
as:

EPA
therefore
es
Based
on
th
Chapter
3
of
the
NMFS
study
describes
the
The
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
m
The
private/
rental
du
9
Data
are
not
collected
for
January
and
February
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
due
to
cold
weather
and,
as
a
result,
very
low
participation
in
recreational
fishing.

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003
B5­
7
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
8
Table
B5­
5:
Estimated
Coefficients
for
the
Conditional
Site
Choice
VariableMean
of
the
VariableEstimated
Coefficient
(
t­
statistic)

Travel
Cost
($)
61.84­
0.036
(­
10.46)

Travel
Time
(
hours)
3.69­
1.141
(­
16.12)

Log
of
number
of
NMFS
interview
sites
in
aggregated
sites
3.111.247
(
33.99)

Big
Game
Fish
Catch0.0030.974
(
2.69)

Small
Game
Fish
Catch0.390.579
(
8.68)

Bottom
Fish
Catch0.190.572
(
100.68)

Flatfish
Catch0.260.665
(
58.23)

No
Target
Catch0.200.324
(
15.23)

Mode/
Species
Choice
Model
Inclusive
Value4.900.612
(
19.99)

Private/
Rental
Dummy0.152.490
(
42.02)

Cold
Private/
Rental
Dummy0.20­
0.553
(­
4.08)

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis.

Table
B5­
5
shows
that
the
coefficients
have
the
expected
signs.
e
have
a
negative
effect
on
the
probability
of
selecting
a
site,
indicating
that
anglers
prefer
to
visit
sites
closer
to
their
homes
(
other
things
being
equal).
positive
sign
on
the
private/
rental
dummy
indicates
that
anglers
who
own
a
boat
are
more
likely
to
go
fishing.
of
a
site
visit
increases
as
the
historic
catch
rate
for
fish
species
increases.
s
verify
this
assumption.
my
has
a
negative
sign
suggesting
that
cold
months
(
November
and
December)
negatively
affect
the
probability
of
site
selection
for
boat
anglers
(
i.
e.,
boat
anglers
are
less
likely
to
visit
a
site
during
cold
weather,
all
else
being
equal).
EPA
used
the
coefficients
presented
in
Table
B5­
5
to
calculate
welfare
gains
from
reduced
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region.
describes
the
welfare
estimation
method
and
the
results.

B5­
3
WELFARE
ESTIMATES
This
section
presents
estimates
of
welfare
losses
to
recreational
anglers
from
fish
mortality
due
to
I&
E,
and
potential
welfare
gains
as
a
result
of
the
316(
b)
rule.
lt
from
improvements
in
fishing
opportunities
due
to
reduced
fish
mortality.

B5­
3.1
To
estimate
changes
in
the
quality
of
fishing
sites
due
to
reduced
I&
E,
EPA
relied
on
the
recreational
fishery
landings
data
by
state
and
estimates
of
recreational
losses
from
I&
E
on
the
relevant
species.
Travel
cost
and
travel
tim
A
The
probability
The
positive
signs
on
the
catch
rate
variable
Cold
Private/
Rental
Dum
The
following
section
These
gains
would
resu
Estimating
Changes
in
the
Quality
of
Fishing
Sites
The
NMFS
provided
recreational
fishery
landings
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
10
Note
that
the
Agency
followed
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
and
used
1990­
1994
data
to
characterize
site­
specific
cath
rates.
cy
used
the
most
recent
data
on
total
recreational
landings
(
1997­
2001)
to
reflect
the
current
conditions
in
estimating
the
expected
change
in
total
catch
rate
from
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment.

11
State
waters
include
sounds,
inlets,
tidal
portions
of
rivers,
bays,
estuaries,
and
other
areas
of
salt
or
brackish
water;
and
ocean
waters
to
three
nautical
miles
offshore
(
NMFS,
2001a).

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
9
data
for
the
states
of
the
North­
Atlantic
region.
ated
the
losses
to
recreational
fisheries
using
the
physical
impacts
of
I&
E
on
the
relevant
fish
species
and
the
percentage
of
total
fishery
landings
attributed
to
recreational
fishery,
as
described
in
Chapter
B4
of
this
document.

The
Agency
measured
changes
in
the
quality
of
recreational
fishing
sites
in
terms
of
a
percentage
change
applied
to
the
historic
catch
rate.
ed
that
catch
rates
will
change
uniformly
across
all
marine
fishing
sites
along
the
North­
Atlantic
coast
because
species
considered
in
this
analysis
(
i.
e.,
striped
bass,
bluefish,
and
flounder)
inhabit
a
wide
range
of
states
(
e.
g.,
from
North
Carolina
to
Maine).
To
estimated
the
expected
change
in
catch
rates
EPA
used
the
most
recent
data
on
total
recreational
landings
in
the
North
Atlantic
region.
10
EPA
used
a
five­
year
average
of
recreational
landing
data
(
1997
through
2001)
for
sites
within
state
waters
to
calculate
an
average
number
of
landings
per
year.
11
EPA
then
divided
baseline
losses
to
the
recreational
fishery
from
I&
E
by
the
total
recreational
landings
to
derive
the
percentage
change
in
historic
catch
rates
from
completely
eliminating
I&
E
losses.
ates
the
complete
elimination
of
I&
E
losses
to
increase
small
game
catch
rates
by
0.01
percent,
bottom
fish
catch
rates
by
1.05
percent,
flatfish
catch
rates
by
12.5
percent,
and
no
target
catch
rates
by
1.45
percent.

EPA
also
estimated
percentage
changes
to
species
group
historic
catch
rates
resulting
from
reduced
I&
E
losses
resulting
from
the
proposed
rule.
Dividing
the
reduced
I&
E
losses
by
the
5­
year
average
recreational
landings
leads
to
increases
in
the
historic
catch
rates
of
,
3.64
percent
for
flatfish,
0.40
percent
for
no
target,
and
0.0007
percent
for
small
game.
loss
estimates,
and
percentage
changes
in
historic
catch
rates.

Table
B5­
6:
Estimated
Changes
in
Historic
Catch
Rates
from
Eliminating
and
Reducing
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
Species
Group
Total
Recreational
Landings
for
Five
States
Combined
(
fish
per
year)
a
Baseline
LossesReduced
Losses
under
Preferred
Option
Total
Recreational
Losses
from
I&
E
Percent
Increase
in
Recreational
Catch
from
Elimination
of
I&
E
Combined
I&
EPercent
Increase
in
Recreational
Catch
from
Elimination
of
I&
E
Small
game15,678,3521,0200.01%
1050.0007%

Bottom
fish8,869,06493,1111.05%
20,5350.23%

Flatfish2,525,530315,70312.50%
91,9953.64%

No
target
b28,280,214409,9601.45%
112,6520.40%

a
Source:
The
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey,
1997­
2001.
Total
recreational
landings
are
calculated
as
a
five­
year
average
(
1997­
2001)
for
state
waters.
b
No
target
includes
small
game,
bottom
fish,
and
flatfish
as
well
as
other
fish
not
included
in
those
groupings.
The
other
fish
represent
only
a
small
number
of
impinged
and
entrained
species
and
combined
I&
E
for
these
other
fish
are
126
fish
in
the
baseline
and
16
fish
under
the
proposed
rule.

B5­
3.2
The
recreational
behavior
model
described
in
the
preceding
sections
provides
a
means
for
estimating
the
economic
effects
of
changes
in
recreational
fishery
losses
from
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region.
ated
welfare
gain
to
recreational
anglers
from
eliminating
fishery
losses
due
to
I&
E.
This
estimate
represents
economic
damages
to
recreational
The
Agen
EPA
estim
EPA
assum
EPA
estim
0.23
percent
for
bottom
Table
B5­
6
presents
the
recreational
landings,
I&
E
Estimating
Losses
from
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
First,
EPA
estim
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
12
A
compensating
variation
equates
the
expected
value
of
realized
utility
under
the
baseline
and
post­
compliance
conditions.
or
more
detail
see
the
Proposed
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
Case
Study
Analysis..

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
10
anglers
from
I&
E
of
recreational
fish
species
under
the
baseline
scenario.
ate
per
trip
welfare
gain,
the
Agency
combined
the
Hick s
model
coefficients
with
the
estimated
percentage
changes
in
historic
catch
rates
from
eliminating
or
reducing
I&
E
losses
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
EPA
estimated
anglers 
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements
in
the
quality
of
recreational
fishing
due
to
changes
in
I&
E
by
calculating
an
average
per
trip
welfare
gain
based
on
the
expected
changes
in
catch
rates
from
eliminating
and
reducing
I&
E.
Table
B5­
7
presents
the
compensating
variation
per
trip
(
averaged
over
all
anglers
in
the
sample)
associated
with
reduced
fish
mortality
from
changes
in
12
The
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
resulting
from
eliminating
all
I&
E
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
is
$
0.34,
$
0.02,
and
$
0.02
for
flatfish,
bottom
fish,
and
no
target
respectively
(
in
2002$).
ated
per
trip
welfare
gain
from
reducing
I&
E
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
under
the
proposed
rule
is
$
0.10,
$
0.005,
and
$
0.004
for
flatfish,
bottom
fish,
and
no
target
respectively
(
in
2002$).
As
shown
in
Table
B5­
7,
EPA
expects
anglers
visiting
the
North
Atlantic
fishing
sites
to
experience
the
greatest
welfare
gain
from
changes
in
I&
E
losses
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North­
Atlantic.
On
the
other
hand,
the
estimated
welfare
gain
from
either
eliminating
or
reducing
recreational
fishery
losses
from
I&
E
for
small
game
was
negligible.

The
results
presented
in
Table
B5­
7
are
not
surprising.
ore
desirable
the
fish,
the
greater
the
per
trip
welfare
gain
as
evidenced
by
the
willingness
to
pay
for
catching
one
additional
fish
per
trip.
Of
the
species
groups
affected
by
I&
E
reductions,
anglers
value
flatfish
the
most
($
3.57
for
an
additional
fish),
followed
by
small
game
($
2.53).
Anglers
targeting
big
game,
not
surprisingly,
place
the
highest
value
on
catching
an
additional
fish
of
$
5.90.
ated
values
of
WTP
for
an
additional
fish
per
trip
ailable
from
previous
studies
(
see
Table
B4­
2
in
this
document).

Table
B5­
7:
Per
Trip
Welfare
Gain
from
Eliminating
and
Reducing
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
(
2002$)

Targeted
SpeciesBaseline
Per
Trip
Welfare
Gain
Reduced
Losses
Under
the
Proposed
Rule
Per
Trip
Welfare
Gain
WTP
for
an
Additional
Fish
per
Trip
Small
game$
0.0003$
0.00003$
2.53
Bottom
fish$
0.02$
0.005$
1.06
Flatfish$
0.34$
0.10$
3.57
Big
gameaN/
AN/
A$
5.90
No
target$
0.02$
0.004$
1.66
a.
Not
estimated
due
to
limitations
of
I&
E
data.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis.

EPA
calculated
the
total
economic
value
of
eliminating
and
reducing
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region
by
combining
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
with
the
total
number
of
fishing
days
at
coastal
sites
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region.
provided
information
on
the
total
number
of
fishing
trips
by
state
and
by
fishing
mode;
this
total
number
of
fishing
days
includes
both
single­
and
multiple­
day
trips.
esents
the
NMFS
number
of
fishing
days
by
state
and
fishing
mode.

F
To
estim
I&
E
for
each
fish
species
of
concern.

The
estim
The
m
estimThese
are
consistent
with
those
av
NMFS
Table
B5­
8
pr
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
11
Table
B5­
8:
Recreational
Fishing
Participation
by
Fishing
Mode,
Species
Group,
and
State
State
Private/
Rental
Boat
Big
gameBottom
fishFlatfishSmall
gameOther
No
targetTotal
CT15,894143,246252,741494,5914,90669,759981,137
ME6,88662,061109,500214,2822,12530,223425,078
MA32,168289,906511,5051,000,9709,928141,1801,985,657
NH1,88116,95429,91358,5375818,256116,122
RI9,59986,507152,631298,6852,96342,128592,512
Subtotal66,428598,6741,056,2902,067,06520,503291,5464,100,506
Party/
Charter
Boat
CT1,99915,4988,79915,118N/
A4,84846,262
ME85657373641N/
A2061,961
MA1,68513,0637,41712,743N/
A4,08738,994
NH6675,1732,9375,046N/
A1,61815,441
RI2922,2631,2852,207N/
A7086,754
Subtotal4,72836,65420,81135,755N/
A11,467109,412
Shore
CT1,53056,189148,121362,44642,69884,422695,406
ME1,03237,89499,893244,43228,79556,934468,980
MA4,007147,173387,967949,336111,837221,1231,821,442
NH2198,06121,25152,0006,12612,11299,770
RI1,73563,731168,003411,09448,42995,754788,745
Subtotal8,523313,048825,2352,019,308237,885470,3453,874,343
Total79,679948,3761,902,3364,122,128258,388773,3588,084,261
Source:
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey,
1997­
2001.

The
Agency
assumed
that
the
welfare
gain
per
day
of
fishing
is
independent
of
the
fishing
mode
and
the
number
of
days
fished
per
trip
and
therefore
equivalent
for
all
modes
(
i.
e.,
private
or
rental
boat,
shore,
and
charter
boat)
for
both
single­
and
multiple­
day
trips.
The
model
developed
by
Hicks
et
al.
(
1999)
includes
the
fishing
mode
choice
as
well
as
the
targeted
species
group
choice.
Thus,
for
every
angler,
regardless
of
mode
or
species
choice,
changes
in
historic
catch
rates
for
a
particular
species
group
offer
a
gain
in
welfare.
Every
fishing
trip
taken
is
the
result
of
a
choice
decision
affected
by
the
changes
in
I&
E.
Therefore,
all
fishing
trips
taken
should
be
included
in
estimating
total
losses
from
I&
E.

EPA
calculated
total
recreational
losses
to
the
North­
Atlantic
anglers
by
multiplying
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
from
eliminating
I&
E
for
a
given
species
group
by
the
total
number
of
recreational
fishing
trips
in
2001.
ber
of
trips
in
the
North­
Atlantic
region
in
2001
reported
by
NMFS
is
8,084,261.
marizes
calculation
results.
value
of
recreational
losses
for
all
species
impinged
and
entrained
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North­
Atlantic
is
$
3,074,444
per
year
(
2002$),
for
all
anglers
not
discounted.
The
discounted
recreational
losses
are
$
2,638,614
and
$
2,252,016
(
2002$)
per
year,
discounted
at
three
and
seven
percent,
respectively.
discount
factors
used
to
discount
I&
E
losses
by
the
discount
rates
three
and
seven
percent.
discount
factors
for
species
groups
based
on
the
species­
specific
discount
factors
and
the
proportion
of
each
species
in
the
The
total
num
Table
B5­
9
sumThe
total
EPA
obtained
the
data
on
species­
specific
The
Agency
calculated
weighted
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
AtlanticChapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003B5­
12
group.
actors
into
account
when
calculating
welfare
losses
to
recreational
anglers.

Total
recreational
losses
based
on
reduced
I&
E
from
cooling
water
intake
structures
were
also
estimated.
Multiplying
the
per
trip
welfare
changes
from
reduced
I&
E
under
the
proposed
rule
by
the
total
number
of
fishing
trips
in
2001
yielded
an
undiscounted
value
of
$
881,427.
Discounting
the
welfare
gain
by
three
and
seven
percent
results
in
total
welfare
gains
of
$
758,811
and
$
646,991,
respectively.

Table
B5­
9:
Estimated
Total
Welfare
Gain
to
Recreational
Anglers
from
Eliminating
and
Reducing
I&
E
in
the
North­
Atlantic
Region
(
2002$)

Species
Group
Eliminating
Recreational
Fishery
Losses
from
I&
EReduced
Losses
under
the
Preferred
Option
Undiscounted3%
Discount
Factor
7%
Discount
Factor
Undiscounted3%
Discount
Factor
7%
Discount
Factor
Small
game$
2,425.28$
1,527.93$
1,358.16$
242.53$
184.32$
169.77
Bottom
fish$
161,685.22$
88,926.87$
77,608.91$
40,421.31$
21,019.08$
18,189.59
Flatfish$
2,748,648.74$
2,418,810.89$
2,061,486.56$
808,426.10$
711,414.97$
606,319.58
Big
gameN/
AN/
AN/
AN/
AN/
AN/
A
No
target$
161,685.22$
129,348.18$
111,562.80$
32,337.04$
26,193.01$
22,312.56
All
species$
3,074,444.46$
2,638,613.86$
2,252,016.42$
881,426.98$
758,811.37$
646,991.49
Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis.

B5­
4
LIMITATIONS
AND
UNCERTAINTY
B5­
4.1
This
study
understates
the
total
benefits
of
improvements
in
fishing
site
quality
because
estimates
are
limited
to
recreation
benefits.
s
of
benefits,
such
as
habitat
values
for
a
variety
of
species
(
in
addition
to
recreational
fish),
nonuse
values,
etc.,
are
also
likely
to
be
important.
EPA
took
group­
specific
discount
f
Considering
Only
Recreational
Values
Many
other
form
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
Atlantic
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
GLOSSARY
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
(
CWISs)
:
the
total
physical
structure
and
any
associated
constructed
waterways
used
to
withdraw
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
extends
from
the
point
at
which
water
is
withdrawn
from
the
surface
water
source
to
the
first
intake
pump
or
series
of
pumps.

Impingement
and
Entrainment
(
I&
E)
:
impingement
is
the
entrapment
of
aquatic
organisms
on
the
outer
part
of
an
intake
structure
or
against
a
screening
device
during
periods
of
intake
water
withdrawal;
entrainment
is
the
incorporation
of
fish,
eggs,
larvae,
and
other
plankton
with
intake
water
flow
entering
and
passing
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
into
a
cooling
water
system.

Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey
(
MRFSS)
:
a
long­
term
monitoring
program
that
provides
estimates
of
effort,
participation,
and
finfish
catch
by
recreational
anglers.
The
MRFSS
survey
consists
of
two
independent,
but
complementary,
surveys:
a
random
digit­
dial
telephone
survey
of
households
and
an
intercept
survey
of
anglers
at
fishing
access
sites.
Sampling
is
stratified
by
state,
fishing
mode
(
shore,
private/
rental
boat,
party/
charter
boat),
and
wave,
and
allocated
according
to
fishing
pressure.
Fishing
sites
are
randomly
selected
from
an
updated
list
of
access
sites.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
:
a
division
of
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA),
NMFS
is
the
primary
fisheries
service
in
the
U.
S.,
responsible
for
fisheries
management
and
marine
ecosystem
health.

Random
Utility
Model
(
RUM):
a
model
of
consumer
behavior.
The
model
contains
observable
determinants
of
consumer
behavior
and
a
random
element.

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003
B5­
13
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
Atlantic
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
ACRONYMS
CWISs:
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
I&
E:
impingement
and
entrainment
MRFSS:
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey
NMFS:
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
RUM:
random
utility
model
NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003
B5­
14
§
316(
b)
Regional
Case
Studies,
Part
B:
North­
Atlantic
Chapter
B5:
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
REFERENCES
ArcView
Spatial
Analyst
2.0.
2000.
Environmental
Systems
Research
Institute,
Inc,
Redlands,
CA.

Greene,
William
H.
1995.
Limdep
Version
7
User s
Manual.
Plainview,
NY:
Econometric
Software,
Inc.

Haab,
Timothy
C.;
John
C.
Whitehead;
and
Ted
McConnell.
2000.
The
Economic
Value
of
Marine
Recreational
Fishing
in
the
Southeast
United
States:
1997
Southeast
Economic
Data
Analysis.
Final
Report,
July.

Hicks,
Rob,
Scott
Steinback,
Amy
Gautam,
and
Eric
Thunberg.
1999.
Volume
II:
The
Economic
Value
of
New
England
and
Mid­
Atlantic
Sportfishing
in
1994.
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce,
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
F/
SPO­
38.

McConnell,
K.
and
I.
Strand.
1994.
The
Economic
Value
of
Mid
and
South
Atlantic
Sportfishing:
Volume
2.
Cooperative
Agreement
#
CR­
811043­
01­
0
between
the
University
of
Maryland
at
College
Park,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
and
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
Fisheries
Statistics
and
Economics
Division.
1999.
Marine
Recreational
Fisheries
Statistics:
Data
User s
Manual.
http://
www.
st.
nmfs.
gov/
st1/
recreational/
research/
procedures.
html,
July
12.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
Fisheries
and
Economics
Division.
2001a.
Marine
Recreational
Fisheries
Statistics
Survey
(
MRFSS),
Snapshot
Query.
http://
www.
st.
nmfs.
gov/
recreational/
queries/
catch/
snapshot.
html.
Accessed
in
November
2002.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
Fisheries
Statistics
and
Economics
Division.
2001b.
Marine
Recreational
Fisheries
Statistics
(
1996­
2001).
http://
www.
st.
nmfs.
gov/
st1/
recreational/
research
.
Accessed
in
November
2002.

QuanTech,
Survey
Research
Center.
1998.
1997
AMES
Telephone
Follow­
Up
Survey
Coding
Handbook.

NODA
Version
­
March
12,
2003
B5­
15
