Final Report
\\
ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF AIR POLLUTANTS ON VEGETATION IN THE
UNITED STATES: 1969 and 1971
Prepared for:
COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CRC CONTRACT CAPA 2-68(1-71) CPA 70-16
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
EPA CONTRACT 68-02-0312
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Menlo Park, California 94025 • U.S.A.
-------
Final Report July 1973
ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF AIR POLLUTANTS ON VEGETATION IN THE
UNITED STATES: 1969 and 1971
By: HARRIS M. BENEDICT, CLARENCE J. MILLER, and JEAN S. SMITH
Prepared for:
COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CRC CONTRACT CAPA 2-68(1-71) CPA 70-16
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
EPA CONTRACT 68-02-0312
SRI Project LSU-1503
Approved by:
W. A. SKINNER, Executive Director
Life Sciences Division
MERLE O, EVERS, Executive Director
Economics Division
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iii
LIST OF TABLES iii
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 3
METHODS AND RESULTS 9
Pollutants 9
Pollutants Involved 10
Location of Polluted Areas and Intensity of Pollution . 11
Emissions ..... 14
Climatic Factors 19
Regional Distribution of Pollution 27
Value of Vegetation Occurring in Polluted Areas 33
Commercial (Agricultural) Crops 33
Forests and Ornamental Plants 36
Sensitivity of Various Species and Loss Factors Due to
the Specific Pollutants 58
Relative Sensitivity 58
Percentage Yield Loss Under Different Pollution
Intensities 59
Dollar Loss 66
DISCUSSION 78
Price Elasticity of Demand 81
Farm Valuation 85
Comparison with Other Studies 85
Projection into 1971 88
RECOMMENDATIONS 92
REFERENCES 93
11
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Counties and States Included in EPA Regions and
Counties Subject to PIant-Damaging Pollution 32
TABLES
1 Quantities of Fuels Consumed Yearly by Various Activities in
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 1963 and 1967 . . 12
2 Tons of Air Pollutants Emitted per Unit of Fuel Consumed in
Major Categories of Use 14
3 Oxide of Nitrogen Emitted to the Atmosphere as a Result of
Fuel Consumption in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
in 1963 and 1967 15
4 Hydrocarbons Emitted as a Result of Fuel Consumption in
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 1963 and 1967 . . 16
5 Sulfur Dioxide Emitted as a Result of Fuel Consumption in
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 1963 and 1967 . . 17
6 Percentage of Emissions Resulting from Combustion or Use
of Various Fuels and Solvents 18
7 Relative PIant-Damaging Pollution Potential of Oxidants
and Sulfur Dioxide Based on Emissions, Concentration Rate
Factors, and Percentage of Episode Days During the Growing
Season 21
8 SMSAs Arranged in Order of Plant-Damaging Pollution Po-
tential of Oxidants and Sulfur Dioxide 25
9 Number, Area, and Population of Counties Surveyed in Air
Pollution Study as Percentage of Total in States, 1969 ... 28
10 Area and Population of Various EPA Regions and Percentage
Exposed to Plant-Damaging Pollutants, 1969 30
11 U.S. Commercial Agricultural Crops Harvested, 1969 34
12 Estimated Forest, Public and Crops Lands by Region and
State, 1969 37
13 Estimated Sales of Saw Timber, Pulpwood and Other Timber
on Commercial Forest Land, by Region and State, 1969 .... 40
iii
-------
TABLES (Concluded)
14 Estimated Annual Value of Salable Trees in Commercial
and Noncommercial Forest Acreage 43
15 Principal Surfaced U.S. Highway Systems by State 44
16 Estimated Costs per Acre per Year for Landscaped Roads,
1969 45
17 City, County, State, and National Park Acreage and Costs,
1969 47
18 Federal Land in Rural Uses 55
19 Annual Value of Commercial Crops and Ornamental Vegetation
in the United States and in Polluted Areas by Region, 1969 . 57
20 Economic Effects Class in which Various Crops Fall when
Exposed to Oxidants, Sulfur Dioxide or Fluoride Pollution . 60
21 Loss Factors to be Applied to Crops in Different Economic
Effects Classes under Different Oxidant Pollution Po-
tentials 63
22 Loss Factors to be Applied to Crops and Ornamentals in
Different Economic Effects Classes under Different In-
tensities of Sulfur Dioxide and Fluoride Pollution 65
23 Estimates of Annual Value of Crops and Ornamentals Grown
in Geographic Regions of the United States and Estimated
Losses Due to Air Pollution . 67
24 States with Losses Due to Pollution of Over One Million
Dollars, 1969 74
25 Estimated Percentage of Crop and Ornamental Values Lost
in Pollution-Threatened Counties and in the Regions as
a Whole 75
26 Value of Vegetation in Polluted Areas and Estimated Losses
Due to Air Pollutants for the Entire United States in 1964
and 1969 76
27 Value of Crops in Polluted Areas Compared with National
Estimates, 1969 82
28 Value of Agricultural Crops by Groups in Polluted Areas,
1969 82
29 Changes in U.S. Production and Price for Selected Major
Crops, 1968-1970 83
30 Sample Price-Elasticity-Of-Demand Coefficients for Selected
Crops 85
31 Estimated Crop Losses for 1969-1971 90
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
Public concern, complaints of the agricultural industry, and the
continuing increase in the number of claimed losses have made it
important to determine the value of losses to crops and ornamentals
caused by air pollutants. This includes identifying the losses caused
by each major pollutant and the geographical areas in which the losses
are occurring.
Some gross estimates have been made of economic losses due to air
pollutants but, for the most part, these have been total estimates, and
no attempt has been made to distribute the aggregate loss among farm
crops, forests, ornamental plantings and home gardens, by pollutant or
by geographical region. Thus, the proportions of loss that can be
ascribed to emissions from manufacturing operations, smelting processes,
automobile exhausts, and other sources are not known.
The Coordinating Research Council, a nonprofit organization, en-
tered into a contract with Stanford Research Institute to develop gross
estimates of economic losses resulting from the effects of air pollutants
on plants. The program is being monitored by the Coordinating Research
Council's Air Pollution Research Advisory Committee (APRAC), a group of
technical experts from industry and government. Program funding was
made available by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (formerly
the Automotive Manufacturers Association), the American Petroleum In-
stitute, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This is the final
report of the project.
The objectives of the entire study were to develop a model for esti-
mating dollar losses to vegetation resulting from the effects of pol-
lutants, and to make such estimates. To date, two previous reports have
appeared. The first one, dated August 1970, was mainly devoted to de-
scription of the method or model that was developed and the background
information that led to its development. The technique, as developed,
consists of the following steps;
(l) Determine the location by county of potential
plant-damaging concentrations of ozone, PAN,
oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and hydro-
gen fluoride, as indicated by sources of hydro-
carbons, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide,
and hydrogen fluoride.
-------
(2) Estimate the relative concentration of plant-damaging
pollution potential of the above pollutants in these
counties, based on the amount of emissions of the
sources into the atmosphere and the capabilities of
meteorological conditions to concentrate them.
(3) Determine the dollar value of crops and ornamentals
in the pollution-threatened county.
(4) Based on their relative sensitivity, determine the
percentage loss to each crop and ornamental that is
likely to occur under different plant-damaging pol-
lution potentials calculated in No. 2.
(5) Multiply, in each county, the value of each crop by
the percentage of loss expected under the pollution
conditions in each county for each pollutant. Then
integrate individual crop losses into a total for
the county; then sum county values for state, region
and country.
The second report, dated November 1971 (although not issued until
June 1972), described improvements in the model and gave vegetation
loss estimates for 1964 crops as related to 1963 emission data.
This final report describes additional improvements in the model
and gives estimates of vegetation losses in 1969 based on 1967 emission
data. Losses to vegetation that occurred in 1971 were extrapolated from
trends in emissions between 1963 and 1967 and from crop values of 1971.
-------
SUMMARY
Following the method outlined in the Introduction, the procedures
and results are summarized below.
(l) Counties in the United States where the major air pollutants —
oxidants (ozone, PAN, and oxides of nitrogen), sulfur dioxide, and fluo-
rides—were likely to reach piant-damaging concentrations were selected.
The selections were made on the assumption that such concentrations of
oxidants and sulfur dioxide were likely to occur in the most populous
counties—i.e., those in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSAs), where fuel consumption was the greatest and, hence, the emis-
sions of these compounds or their precursors to the atmosphere would
also be the greatest—and in counties containing large single-source
emitters of sulfur dioxide (such as power plants and copper smelters)
or of fluorides (such as aluminum, phosphate and ceramic plants). Be-
cause sufficiently complete fuel consumption data for our needs were
only available for 1963 and 1967 Census of Business, these source inven-
tories are primarily confined to these two years.
(2) The relative potential severity of the pollution in each county
was then estimated. The severity of the oxidant pollution was derived
by first estimating, from fuel consumption data, the tons of hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen (the precursors of oxidants) emitted per square
kilometer per day. These emissions values were then multiplied by a
factor related to area of the county or SMSA and by a concentration rate
factor (designated x/q). The product of these multiplications yielded
a value indicative of the relative concentration of oxidant that might
be reached in a single pollution episode. These values were again multi-
plied by the number of days involved in pollution episodes, which yielded
a value indicative of the overall plant-damaging potential for oxidant
pollution in the various counties.
For 1964 crops loss estimates, the average x/q values for the entire
year were used, as was the number of days in which pollution concentra-
tion episodes occurred. For the 1969 crop loss estimates, since this
was a study dealing with plant damage, the average x/q values for the
growing season were calculated, as was the percentage of episode days in
the growing season for each SMSA, rather than using the yearly data which,
of course, included winter or nongrowing season values.
The same procedures were followed for estimating the plant-damaging
potential for sulfur dioxide, but the presence of large single-source
emitters in the counties was also taken into consideration, and they were
rated as to their type of emissions and capacity.
-------
For fluorides, the relative plant-damaging potential was based on
the number, type, and size of large single-source emitters present.
The counties were then arranged in order of the severity of the
piant-damaging pollution potential and then grouped into classes of
varying severity of potential. For oxidants, nine classes were de-
veloped, ranging from those where pollution potential was greatest to
those where no potential seemed to exist. Those counties with sulfur
dioxide piant-damaging potential were split into six classes and those
with fluoride potential, into four classes.
(3) The dollar values of commercial crops, forests, and ornamental
plantings were then determined or calculated as follows:
a. Commercial crop values for 1964 were taken from
data in the Census of Agriculture; for 1969,
values were taken from the 1969 Census of Agri-
culture but were supplemented heavily by yearly
reports of the states or individual counties
involved. This was done because the 1969 census
was not as complete as the 1964 census.
b. Values of forests were calculated from federal
and state records. Both commercial and non-
commercial forests were included. Separate
estimates were made for oxidant-, sulfur
dioxide-, and fluoride-polluted counties.
c. For ornamental plantings, the values that were
considered were maintenance and replacement
costs. To complete these estimates, it was
necessary to determine the dollar values for
the states (in most instances, the only data
available) and then to prorate this value to
the polluted counties on the basis of their
proportionate area, population, or combination
of area and population of the state. Separate
estimates were made for oxidant-, sulfur di-
oxide-, and fluoride-polluted counties. These
valuations were made for the ornamentals found
on the grounds of educational institutions, in-
dustrial parks, golf courses, roadside land-
scaping, private residences, and city, county,
state and sectional parks, and in certain rural
areas.
(4) To arrive at the loss to each plant that might occur in each
class of piant-damaging pollution potential, the following procedure was
followed:
-------
a. Each crop of ornamentals was classified as to
whether it was sensitive (s), intermediate (l),
or resistant (R) to each pollutant. This was
based on literature reviews. Also, each crop
or ornamental was classified as to whether the
part of the plant directly affected by the pol-
lutant (i.e., leaves, roots, fruit) had high,
medium, or no economic use. This three-by-
three matrix provided five sensitivity-use
categories into which a plant might be classi-
fied.
b. The percentage loss occurring to the most sen-
sitive plants in the high-use category in the
most severely polluted counties was then ob-
tained .
c. From these two types of information, tables
were prepared showing the percentage economic
loss that would occur to plants in each
sensitivity-use category in each pollution
potential class for each pollutant as described
in Item 2 above. The loss factors developed
for 1969 estimates were in direct proportion to
the calculated pollution potential of the vari-
ous classes; such was not the case for the 1964
estimates, in which the loss factors tended to
be relatively higher at the lower pollution no-
tentials.
(5) These factors were then applied to value of the crops, forests,
and ornamentals grown in the polluted counties, and the dollar loss
value for each crop in each county was recorded. These values were added
to obtain the state, regional, and national values.
(6) The input data and the computer program designed to generate
the output data by crop, by county, and by major pollutant have been re-
corded on magnetic tape, and a copy has been provided to the offices of
the Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh, North Carolina. In ad-
dition, the Coordinating Research Committee office in New York City and
the EPA office in Raleigh have each received a set of printed tables
containing preliminary data for each county, including the value of each
crop and the value of the crop damage due to each nollutant. Summaries
were also included by state, EPA region, and the United States.
(7) The loss estimates derived were compared closely with loss
estimates made as a result of county-by-county surveys in California,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. In some cases SRI estimates
were higher and in some cases lower than the others.
-------
(8) Based on trends of emissions and pollution potential between
1963 and 1967, and the performance of certain pollution control measures
adopted since 1967 (i.e., auto exhaust controls, use of low sulfur fuels,
and installation of SO2 controls on large single sources, along with
changes in crop values between 1969 and 1971), extrapolations were made
of vegetation losses that might have occurred in 1971.
The various steps for estimating dollar loss value may be summarized
as follows:
Oxidants
Emissions^ X X Area$ X Episode DaysJ = Pollution Potential
Rate Factor , N
(9 classes]
Sulfur Dioxide
^ Concentration ^ . v „ . ^
Emissions X X Area X Episode Days
= Pollution Potential
Rate Factor v ,„ N
f (6 classes)
Emissions from various types and sizes of large
single sources
Fluorides
Emissions from various types and sizes of large = Pollution Potential
single sources (4 classes)
Oxidants, Sulfur Dioxide and Fluorides
Crop Value X Crop Sensitivity X pollution Potential = Dollar Loss
Ornamental Value X Ornamental Sensitivity X = Dollar Loss
Potential
•Si-
Tons of hydrocarbons or oxides of nitrogen emitted per square kilometer
per day.
t
A factor indicative of the tendency of climatic conditions to concentrate
pollutants during an air-stagnation period. See text for further expla-
nation .
Square of the radius of the SMSA, assuming the area is circular.
Percentage of days during the growing season occurring in stagnation
periods of two or more successive days.
-------
As a result of the various investigations described above for the
1969 estimates, 687 of the 3,078 counties in the United States (ex-
cluding Alaska) were selected as having potential piant-damaging exposure
to oxidants, sulfur dioxide, and fluorides. Of these, 493 would be ex-
posed to oxidants, 410 to sulfur dioxide, and 87 to fluorides. (Some
counties would be exposed to two or more.) On the basis of area and popu-
lation in these counties, it was estimated that about 14.6% of the area
and 68.9% of the population occurred in counties likely to have plant-
damaging oxidant pollution. The respective values were 16.2 and 53.0%
for sulfur dioxide, and 4.2 and 6.8% for fluorides. For the 1964 esti-
mates, these percentages were 11 and 62 for oxidants, 13 and 54 for sulfur
dioxide, and 4 and 9 for fluorides. During the five years, both the
area and population exposed to pollutants expanded markedly.
The calculations for 1969 estimates indicate that 40% of the dollar
value of agricultural crops, 36% of the value of forests, and over 50%
of ornamental value lies in polluted areas of the United States. The
comparable estimate in 1964 was 27% for crops.
The tables prepared for showing the percentage losses indicated that
as much as 40% of the crops in a county could be lost due to oxidants,
12% due to sulfur dioxide, and 12% due to fluorides.
The total annual value of vegetation growing in polluted counties
as calculated for the 1969 loss estimates was as follows: agricultural
crops, £8,864 million; forestry, $861 million; maintenance and replace-
ment costs for ornamental plantings along highways were £84 million;
parks, £153 million; around residences, £661 million; urban uses such as
golf courses, cemeteries, colleges, etc., £66 million; and for rural uses,
j$44 million. For the 1964 estimates, the value in the polluted areas,
where calculated, was: agricultural crops, £4,650 million; highways, £31
million; parks, £194 million; private residences, £604 million; urban
uses, £452 million; and forest land, £132 million. Improved methods of
estimating have resulted in some significant changes between the years.
When the loss factors for the various pollution intensities were ap-
plied to the crop and ornamental values, the total annual dollar loss to
crops in the United States was calculated to be about £87.5 million, of
which £77 million was due to oxidants, £4.97 million to sulfur dioxide,
and £5.25 million to fluorides. The loss to ornamentals was calculated to
be about £47 million, of which £43 million was ascribable to oxidants,
£2.6 million to sulfur dioxide, and £1.7 million to fluorides. These
values are not greatly different from those found for the 1964 estimates.
It should be pointed out that the above estimates are for a normal
year weatherwise and are not necessarily for the specific year 1969.
Based on the assumption that fuel consumption, and hence potential
emissions, would increase by the same percentage between 1967 and 1971
as they did between 1963 and 1967, and allowing for controls of hydro-
carbon emissions on automobiles and the use of low sulfur fuel and emission
-------
controls of sulfur dioxide by large industries, it was estimated that
the potential loss to vegetation for the United States caused by oxidants
in 1971 would be 90% of the value calculated for 1967 and applied to the
1969 crop, and 95fc for sulfur dioxide.
Applying these loss factors to the 1969 crop data and then adding
14$ (the increase in crop values between 1969 and 197l), losses to vege-
tation in 1971 are estimated to be $123.3 million due to oxidants and
$8.2 million due to sulfur dioxide. No attempt was made to calculate
losses due to fluorides in 1971.
Loss to crops as estimated in this report for California, New England,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania was compared with loss estimates made in
these areas by detailed surveys. In two of the four comparisons, SRI
estimates were higher than the others, but still within the general range.
For New England, however, SRI estimates were lower by about 32%. These
comparisons seem to indicate that the loss levels estimated in this re-
port are reasonable and give a fairly reliable, if rough, estimate of
losses to vegetation that may be attributable to air pollutants.
The dollar loss as estimated for the 1969 crop values represented
0.44% of the total crop value of the United States in that year. Losses
due to plant diseases have been placed at 10 to 12%; losses to weeds at
6 to 8%. Estimates of losses to ornamentals due to these pests are not
available.
On a regional basis, the greatest percentage of crop losses occurred
in the heavily populated and industrialized areas of southwestern and the
middle Atlantic and midwestern states. The lowest percentage loss oc-
curred in the plains and mountain states.
One of the objectives of this study was to estimate the amounts of
loss occurring to vegetation as a result of automobile exhaust. Since
there are practically no fluorides emitted, and sulfur from the exhaust
averages about 1$ of sulfur emissions on a national basis, auto exhaust
contributes only to the oxidant loss. Assuming that hydrocarbons are
twice as important as oxides of nitrogen in determining oxidant levels
that would be reached, then automobiles are responsible for about 60$ of
loss to vegetation caused by oxidants, or about $47 million to crops and
about $28 million to forests and ornamentals.
In extrapolating for crop loss values in 1971, because of the reduc-
tion in the percentage of hydrocarbons from auto exhausts from about 78%
to about 62$ with no change in percentage of oxides of nitrogen, the con-
tribution of auto exhaust to the estimated vegetation loss dropped to about
52$.
In conclusion, it must be pointed out that although the loss esti-
mates presented in this report seem valid, they are still only estimates
and, as such, are subject to revision when more reliable sources of infor-
mation become available.
-------
METHODS AND RESULTS
For decades, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and various other
state and federal agencies have been issuing yearly estimates of losses
to crops as a result of insects, plant diseases, and weed infestations.
At the very start of this study, agencies responsible for such estimates
were contacted so that we could profit by their previous experiences.
It was the general opinion of these agencies that accurate estimates of
such losses could only be obtained from observations of experts in the
field on a county-by-county or even smaller unit basis. It was also their
opinion that there were no reliable formulae by which such estimates could
be made on a nationwide basis. With recognition of these difficulties
and with full realization of the problems involved, the efforts described
herein were expended to develop a model for estimating such economic losses
to vegetation on a nationwide basis, using fuel consumption data as the
basis for determining pollution intensity and location, and crop value
and maintenance and replacement costs for the value of the vegetation.
On a countrywide basis, the smallest unit for which data on fuel con-
sumption and agricultural production are available is the county; there-
fore, the county was the unit selected for the various calculations and
estimates .
After these and other preliminary studies, a general procedure for
carrying out the project was developed. The methods used and results ob-
tained will be presented in the order given below.
Pollutants
Pollutants Involved
Location of Polluted Areas and Intensity of Pollution
Emissions
Climatic Factor
Regional Distribution of Pollution
Value of Vegetation Occurring in Polluted Areas
Commercial (Agricultural) Crops
Forests and Ornamental Plants
Forests
Highway Roadsides
Parks
-------
Private Residences
Urban Uses
Rural Uses
Sensitivity of Various Species and Loss Factors Due to the
Specific Pollutants
Relative Sensitivity
Percentage Yield Loss Under Different Pollution Intensities
Dollar Loss
Pollutants
Pollutants Involved
The compounds in the atmosphere that cause the greatest damage to
vegetation, either directly by reduced yield and growth or indirectly by
their effect on the quality of the crop, are:
Ozone
Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN)
Oxides of nitrogen
Sulfur dioxide
Fluorides
Since these pollutants produce well over 90$> of the losses to vege-
tation caused by air pollutants, this study has been confined to their
effects. However, two of the pollutants—ozone and PAN—are formed as a
result of photochemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of ni-
trogen and are not emitted directly into the atmosphere. Controlled ex-
periments have not given definitive answers as to whether oxidant con-
centrations developing as a result of the interaction are more readily
related to the hydrocarbons or to the oxides of nitrogen concentration.
Nevertheless, it has been possible to demonstrate a relationship between
the maximum oxidant level reached in any one day and the hydrocarbon con-
centration in the atmosphere between 6;00 and 9;00 a.m.1 Because both
are essential, the relative severity of oxidant pollution was estimated
by considering the hydrocarbon emissions to be twice as important as the
oxide of nitrogen emissions. Although this tends to reduce the values
derived in estimating relative pollution levels, it resulted in few changes
in the order of the relative ratings assigned to different locations.
10
-------
Location of Polluted Areas and Intensity of Pollution
In estimating the plant-damaging pollution potential of an area,
there are three important factors to consider; the emissions per unit
area, the potential for climatic conditions (i.e., low inversion heights
to concentrate the pollutants during stagnation periods in the growing
season), and the number of days during the growing season in such stag-
nation periods.
The principal sources of oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, sulfur
dioxide, and fluorides are: (l) the smelters for ores of copper, lead,
zinc, aluminum, steel, and phosphate; and (2) the consumption of fuels—
coal, fuel oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, and bottled gas.
Ore smelters are emitters principally of sulfur dioxide and fluorides.
For the most part, they are located at some distance from large urban
populations, and their emissions generally are the predominant ones in
their spheres of influence. Fuels are consumed primarily in three major
uses: (l) for manufacturing and industrial purposes, (2) for electric
power plants other than hydraulic and atomic, and (3) for commercial and
residential purposes.'
Because the burning of fuels is one of the major sources of pollut-
ant emission (especially that of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen),
because the areas where the greatest amounts of fuel are consumed are the
metropolitan areas, and because damage to vegetation by oxidants almost
always occurs in the vicinity of these metropolitan areas, the amount of
fuel consumed in metropolitan areas (Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas—SMSAs) was ascertained for the various purposes indicated above.
The emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen for each SMSA were
then calculated. For the 1964 estimates, information was obtained for
65 SMSAs; for the 1969 or most recent crop estimate, detailed information
was obtained for 87 SMSAs, based on 1967 Census of Business. The fuels
considered were coal and coke, fuel oil, natural gas, bottled gas, diesel
oil, and gasoline. For each of the SMSAs, tables were compiled similar
to Table 1. This table shows the estimated total fuel consumption in the
United States by various uses for 65 SMSAs in 1963 and 1967, the 1967 con-
sumption for the 22 SMSAs added between 1963 and 1967, and the total amount
consumed in 1967.
Data on fuel consumption for industrial uses for the early estimate
were obtained from Fuels and Electrical Energy Consumed in Manufacturing
Industries.2 In the 1967 census, such detailed information was not directly
#
Ceramic plants also emit fluorides in amounts that mark vegetation; how-
ever, the sphere of influence of such plants is generally small.
Vehicular use is generally ascribed to residential and commercial cate-
gories although, as will be seen later in the tables, consumption of
vehicular fuels (i.e., diesel and gasoline is also ascribed to industrial
users.
11
-------
Table 1
QUANTITIES OF FUELS CONSUMED YEARLY BY VARIOUS ACTIVITIES
IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
IN 1963 AND 1967
SMSAs and Activity
1963 - 65 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial*"
Total
1967 - Same SMSAs
as Above
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial*
Total
1967 - 22 Added SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial*
Total
1967 - Total 87 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial*'
Total
Coal
and Coke
(103 tons)
78,241
105,066
23,760
207,067
83,865
115,795
17,850
217,510
1,858
11,996
2,359
16,213
85,723
127,791
20,209
233,723
Fuel Oil
(10s gal)
4,865
4,093
12,459
21,417
5,892
6,522
20,743
33,157
459
1,112
935
2,506
6,351
7,634
21,678
35,663
Natural and
Bottled Gas
(109 cu ft)
1,719
1,117
2,931
5,767
2,883
1,304
4,061
8,248
357
324
419
1,100
3,240
1,628
4,480
9,348
Diesel
(106 gal)
327
-
735
1,062
420
-
956
1,376
45
-
138
183
465
-
1,094
1,559
Gasoline
(106 gal)
124
-
19^621
19,745
169
-
22,766
22,935
44
-
3,430
3,874
213
-
26,196
26,409
Consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels includes uses for transportation.
12
-------
available, so estimates had to be made from the 1967 Minerals Year Book3
and from the information in Retail Trade Area Statistics, 1967 Census of
Business ,4'ii' The SMSAs considered had a labor force of 40,000 individuals
according to the 1970 census.
Data on annual fuel consumption by power plants located in 65 and
87 SMSAs were obtained from Steam-Electric Plant Factors, issued annually
by the National Coal Association.5
Data on fuel consumption in commercial and residential areas were
obtained indirectly. Retail Trade Area Statistics4 provided information
on the number of dollars spent in each SMSA for coal, fuel oil, and
bottled gas in 1963 and 1967.
The price of fuel was obtained from Minerals Year Book, 1964 and
1968.3 It was assumed that these costs were wholesale, and the retail
price was taken to be 150$ of the wholesale cost. By dividing the total
amount paid by the cost per ton, a rough estimate of the amount consumed
was obtained. The amount of natural gas consumed in domestic and resi-
dential areas was obtained by using the total amount consumed for resi-
dential and commercial purposes, as given in the 1964 and 1968 Minerals
Year Book. It was then assumed that the amount used in each SMSA was
proportional to the population of the SMSA relative to the population of
the state. For the 1963 estimates, populations given by the 1960 census
were used; for 1967 data, populations given in the 1970 census were used.
Calculations showed that percentage of a state's population of an SMSA
varied, on the average, less than 1% between the two censuses.
The results (Table l) show an increase in total use of all fuels
between 1963 and 1967, even without the additional amounts added as a
result of increasing the number of SMSAs being considered. There was a
drop in use of coal by residential and commercial users, but this was
more than compensated for by the increased consumption by industry and
power plants. The consumption of coal increased by the smallest per-
centage between the two years—5% if the 65 original SMSAs are considered
and by 13$ if the 65 SMSAs considered in 1963 are compared with the 87
SMSAs in 1967. Consumption of fuel oil increased by 55 and 67$, respec-
tively, for the same comparisons. This represented the highest percent-
age increase and appears to be related to a change from use of coal to
fuel oil for space heating. Gasoline consumption increased 16$ in the
65 SMSAs between the two years and is a result of an increase in ve-
hicular use.
•JS-
The fuel consumption data for the various counties were available in
sufficient detail for the years 1963 and 1967; Censuses of Business,
U.S. Department of Commerce. These data were used for estimating pol-
lution potential at different locations and were applied to crop esti-
mates in these counties, which were available from Census of Agriculture
of 1964 and 1969. Thus, 1963 emissions were applied in 1964 crop values
and 1967 emissions to 1969 crop values.
13
-------
Emissions
Tons of pollutants produced by each unit of fuel consumed were avail-
able in Duprey's "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors."6 From
these data and with some revisions indicated by the Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Central District7 for hydrocarbons emitted as a result of
gasoline consumption, Table 2 was prepared showing tons of oxides of
nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and sulfur dioxide emitted per unit of various
fuels consumed. By multiplying fuels consumed as shown in Table 1 by
the factors shown in Table 2, emissions of oxides of nitrogen, hydro-
carbons, and sulfur dioxide for each of the SMSAs were obtained. The
totals for all SMSAs are shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
Table 2
TONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS EMITTED PER UNIT
OF FUEL CONSUMED IN MAJOR CATEGORIES OF USE
Tons Emitted by Use
Pollutant and Fuel Consumed
Oxides of Nitrogen
Coal and coke per 103 tons
Fuel oil per 106 gal
Gas per 109 cu ft
Diesel fuel per 10s gal
Gasoline per 10s gal
Hydrocarbons
Coal and coke per 103 tons
Fuel oil per 106 gal
Gas per 109 cu ft
Diesel fuel per 10s gal
Gasoline per 10s gal
Sulfur Dioxide
Coal and coke per 103 tons
Fuel oil per 106 gal
Gas per 109 cu ft
Diesel fuel per 106 gal
Gasoline per 106 gal
Manufacturing
and Industry
6.0
36.0
107.0
111.0
56.5
0.5
1.0
Neg.
90.0
134.0
47.5
145.0
0.2
20.0
4.5
Power Residential
Plants and Commercial
6.0 2.4
52.0 6.0
195.0 58.0
111.0 111.0
56.5 56.5
0.1 5.0
1.6 1.5
Neg. Neg.
90.0 90.0
134.0 228.0
47.5 47.5
145.0 145.0
0.2 0.2
20.0 20.0
4.5 4.5
14
-------
Table 3
OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMITTED TO THE ATMOSPHERE AS A RESULT OF FUEL
CONSUMPTION IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
IN 1963 AND 1967
(tons/km2/year)
Fuels
SMSAs and Activity
1963 - 65 SMSAs
Industry
Power Plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - Same SMSAs
as Above
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - 22 New SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - Total 87 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
Coal
469
630
57
1,156
503
695
43
1,241
11
72
6
89
514
767
49
1,330
Fuel Oil
175
213
75
463
212
339
124
675
17
58
6
81
229
397
130
756
Gas
184
218
170
572
308
254
236
798
38
63
24
125
346
317
260
923
Diesel
36
-
82
118
47
-
106
153
5
-
15
20
52
-
121
173
Gasoline
7
-
1,109
1,116
10
-
1,286
1,296
2
-
194
196
12
-
1^480
1,492
Total
871
1,061
1,493
3,425
1,080
1,288
1,795
4,163
73
193
245
511
1,153
1,481
2,040
4,674
15
-------
Table 4
HYDROCARBONS EMITTED AS A RESULT OF FUEL CONSUMPTION
IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
IN 1963 AND 1967
(tons/km2/year)
SMSAs and Activity
1963 - 65 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - Same SMSAs
as Above
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - 22 Added SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - Total 87 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
Coal
39
11
119
169
42
12
89
143
1
1
12
14
43
13
101
157
Fuel
Oil
5
7
19
31
6
10
31
47
1
2
1
4
7
12
32
51
Gas
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg .
Neg.
Neg.
Diesel
29
-
66
95
38
-
86
124
4
-
12
16
42
-
98
150
Gaso- #
line Misc.
17
-
4,474 981
4,491 981
23
-
5,191 1,134
5,214 1,134
6
-
782 132
788 132
29
-
5,973 1,266
6,002 1.266
Total
90
18
5,659
5,767
109
22
6,531
6,662
12
3
939
954
121
25
7,470
7,616
is-
Emissions as a result of solvent evaporation - 1,170 tons per year
per 100,000 population.
16
-------
Table 5
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMITTED AS A RESULT OF FUEL CONSUMPTION
IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
IN 1963 AND 1967
(tons/km2/year)
SMSAs and Activity
1963 - 65 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - Same SMSAs
as in 1963
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - 22 New SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
1967 - Total 87 SMSAs
Industry
Power plants
Residential and
commercial
Total
Coal
3,716
4,990
1,129
9,835
3,984
5,500
848
10,332
88
570
112
770
4,072
6,070
960
11,102
Fuel Natural and
Oil Bottled Gas
705
593
1,806
3,104
854
946
3,008
4,808
67
161
136
364
921
1,107
3,144
5,172
0.3
.2
.6
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.8
1.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Diesel
Fuel
7
15
22
8
19
27
0.9
2.8
3.7
9.0
22.0
31.0
Gaso-
line
0.6
88.3
88.9
0.8
102.0
102.8
0.2
15.4
15.6
1.0
118.0
119.0
Total
4,429
5,583
3,039
13,051
4,848
6,446
3,978
15,272
156
731
267
1,154
5,004
7,177
4,245
16,426
17
-------
In recent years, there have been reductions in the sulfur content
of coal and fuel oils as a means of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.
Attempts were made to determine what these reductions have been in vari-
ous narts of the country. However, it was learned that although such
information was being compiled, it was not yet available; consequently,
it was assumed that the sulfur content of coal averaged 2.5$ and fuel
oil 1.85$ uniformly across the country.
Calculations show that between the two years, emissions of oxides
of nitrogen increased by 36$, hydrocarbons by 32$, and sulfur dioxide by
26$. Table 6 shows the percentage of emissions of these pollutants that
resulted from combustion of various fuels. Thus, gasoline consumption
Table 6
PERCENTAGE OF EMISSIONS RESULTING FROM COMBUSTION
OR USE OF VARIOUS FUELS AND SOLVENTS
1963 1967
Oxides of Nitrogen
Coal 34 28
Fuel oil 14 16
Gas 17 20
Diesel fuel 3 4
Gasoline 33 32
Hydrocarbons
Coal 3 2
Fuel oil 1 1
Gas Neg. Neg.
Diesel fuel 2 2
Gasoline 78 79
Solvents 17 17
Sulfur Dioxide
Coal 75 68
Fuel oil 24 31
Gas Neg. Neg.
Diesel fuel Neg. Neg.
Gasoline 1 1
produces about one-third of the oxides of nitrogen and almost four-fifths
of the hydrocarbons in the areas where vegetation is likely to be affected
by oxidant pollution. On the basis that the hydrocarbons are twice as
important as oxides of nitrogen in determining the oxidant level reached,
this would indicate that the automobile is responsible for about 60$ of
18
-------
oxidant damage to vegetation. On the other hand, the automobile is re-
sponsible for only 1% of the sulfur dioxide emissions in these areas.
The only significant shifts in contribution between the two years were
a decrease in oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere
as the result of coal consumption and an increase of these pollutants
as a result of increased fuel oil and natural gas consumption.
Some recent studies have indicated that vegetation over the United
States emits about 36.5 tons of hydrocarbons per square mile per year.
If the 87 SMSAs were solidly covered with vegetation, about 6,200,000
tons of nonmethane hydrocarbons would be emitted by the plants in these
SMSAs. This is a little over 80% of the 7,616,000 tons emitted by man's
activities as shown in Table 4 .
Climatic Factors
While Table 7 shows the emissions per unit area before determining
the relative plant-damaging pollution potential in these areas, it is
essential to estimate the potential for climatic conditions to concen-
trate the pollutants during a fumigation episode and the relative numbers
of such episodes that occur during the growing season.
Dr. George Holzworth8 has recently developed concentration rate fac-
tors that indicate the potential for climatic conditions to concentrate
pollutants under varying conditions of inversion heights, wind velocities,
and size of urban areas. These rate factors, designated as x/q and ex-
pressed as seconds per meter, are a measure of the tendency of meteoro-
logical conditions to affect the concentration of pollutants emitted to
the atmosphere. Thus,
, time weight
~ emission =
height time X area
time v weight weight
-—:——- A —. = — = concentration
height time X area volume
These x/q values for the growing season of each of the above SMSAs and
the percentage of days in the growing season on which pollution episodes
occurred were calculated as follows:
(l) The area of each SMSA was determined from the counties
included and was converted to square kilometers. As-
suming a circular configuration, the diameter in kil-
ometers was calculated.
(2) Using the data in Figur£s_42, 43, 44, and 45 in Dr.
Holzworth's paper, the x/q values for each SMSA in
each season were calculated based on the diameters
determined in Step 1.
19
-------
(3) Tables were then prepared showing the number of days in
each season of the year that were included in two-day
stagnation periods as represented in Figure 58 of the
above paper. Dr. Holzworth was kind enough to provide
us with the seasonal breakdown of these episode days.
Actually, the data show the number of episode days in
each season over a five-year period.
An air-pollution episode is a period of two days or longer in which
the air is stagnant, i.e., in which there is little or no wind. The
number of episode days represents the total number of days occurring in
such two-day or longer episodes during a given period of time—in this
instance, the growing season.
(4) The growing season of each SMSA was determined from
Figures 192 and 199 in the Climatic Atlas of_ the
United States,9 which show the average date of the
last killing frost in the spring and the first
killing frost in the fall. The data are presented
in 15-day intervals, and the growing season was
considered to extend from 15 days prior to the
last killing frost in the spring to 15 days after
the first killing frost in the fall. This exten-
sion was made because many species of ornamental
and commercial crops are very frost-resistant and
begin growth before frosts are over and continue
growth after frosts occur in the fall. The grow-
ing season for each SMSA was established, then
broken down into the number of days in each season.
For example, the growing season for Houston was
determined to be from February 15 to December 15,
allowing the full 90 days each of spring, summer,
and fall. (For the purposes of these studies,
winter included the months of December, January,
February; spring, of March, April, and May; and
so on. Also, for convenience, each season .was
assumed to be 90 days, not 91.25.)
With this information, the average x/q values for the growing season
were calculated as follows, using the data for Cleveland as an example.
The growing season was established as extending from May 1 to October 15,
or 30 days of spring, 90 days of summer and 45 days of fall, or 2/6, 6/6
and 3/6 of the seasons, respectively- The x/q values for Cleveland were
estimated to be 115, 350, and 355 seconds per meter for the three seasons.
The average x/q value for the growing season was calculated as
(2 X 115 + 6 X 350 + 3 X 355)
11
or 308. This, then, is a weighted average of the different x/q values oc-
curring during the growing season.
20
-------
The episode-day factors were calculated as follows, again using
Cleveland as an example. For Cleveland, one episode day occurred in the
spring, five in the summer, and 20 in the fall. Half of the fall was
included in the growing season, all of the summer, and one-third of the
spring. Thus,, half of 20 = 10 plus all of 5 = 5 plus one-third of 1 = 1
(sic) totals 16 episode days during the growing season at Cleveland.
Cleveland's growing season lasts 165 days; during five years of this
growing season, plants had been exposed to pollution episodes 1.94% of
the time. However, Birmingham's growing season was found to last 240
days; during five years of this season, plants had been exposed to pol-
lution episodes on 31 days, or about twice as many as at Cleveland.
However, these 31 days represented 2.59% of the growing season. Thus,
to equalize differences in the growing season, the ratio of episode days
over a five-year period to the number of days in the growing season has
been used as a factor to represent the effect of episode days in calcu-
lating the plant-damaging pollution potential.
Table 7 shows the relative emissions per square kilometer per day,
the concentration rate factors, the percentage of stagnation days of the
growing season, and then the product of all these, giving relative plant-
damaging pollution potential of each SMSA for oxidants and sulfur dioxide.
Table 7
RELATIVE PLANT-DAMAGING POLLUTION POTENTIAL OF OXIDANTS AND SULFUR
DIOXIDE BASED ON EMISSIONS, CONCENTRATION RATE FACTORS, AND
PERCENTAGE OF EPISODE DAYS DURING THE GROWING SEASON
SMSAs
Emissions
2 HC:
1 NOX S02
(tons/km2/day)
Akron
Albany
Allentown
Ann Arbor
Atlanta
Anaheim
Baltimore
Binghamton
Birmingham
Boston
Bridgeport
Buffalo
Canton
Chattanooga
Chicago
.0551
.0183
.0328
.0174
.0398
.0957
.0643
.0068
.0444
.1105
.0726
.0452
.0393
.0173
.0984
.229
.096
.293
.010
.037
.005
.248
.017
.284
.406
.225
.200
.057
.026
.300
Concentration
Rate Factor
(sec/m)
192
603
371
196
346
232
507
606
361
196
96
170
186
386
551
Episode
Days
(*)
.0206
.0108
.0082
.0182
.0162
.1666
.0172
.0120
.0258
.0062
.0052
.0146
.0166
.0164
.0170
Relative
Pollution Rate
Oxidants
.218
.119
.100
.062
.223
3.699
.561 2.
.049
.414 2.
.134
.036
.112
.121
.109
.922 2.
S02
906
625
891
357
207
193
163
124
645
493
112
496
176
165
810
21
-------
Table 7 (Continued)
Emissions
SMSAs
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dallas
Dayton
Davenport
Denver
Detroit
Fall River
Flint
Fort Wayne
Fort Worth
Gary Hammond
Grand Rapids
Greensboro/Hi ghpoint
Greenville
Harrisburg
Hartford
Houston
Indianapolis
Jersey City11
Kansas City
Knoxville
Lancaster
Los Angeles
Louisville
Memphis
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis/St . Paul
Nashville
Newark'*5'
New Haven
New Orleans
New York*
Norfolk
Oklahoma City
Omaha
Pat er son/Pas s ai ci;"
Peoria
2 HC
1 NOX SO 2
(tons /km2 /day)
.0440 .194
.0817 .224
.0352 .046
.0285 .001
.0314 .080
.0137 .022
.0159 .029
.1284 .332
.0541 .195
.0201 .029
.0236 .036
.0251 .001
.0610 .399
.0228 .062
.0254 .032
.0134 .008
.0157 .041
.0554 .176
.0206 .002
.0254 .084
.1850 .584
.0226 .033
.0189 .083
.0177 .072
.1036 .032
.0615 .259
.0305 .058
.0318 .020
.0773 .331
.0459 .090
.0229 .097
.1850 .584
.0653 .275
.0241 .003
.1850 .584
.0543 .256
.0178 .001
.0191 .035
.1850 .584
.0138 .072
Concentration
Rate Factor
(sec/m)
408
308
325
117
290
358
258
390
115
318
221
87
298
278
244
250
584
190
213
334
200
285
437
379
521
235
442
113
271
579
498
200
96
173
200
148
123
316
200
339
Episode
Days
Relative
Pollution Rate
.0236
.0194
.0134
.0026
.0166
.0122
.0106
.0194
.0042
.0194
.0146
.0026
.0194
.0158
.0228
.0128
.0144
.0092
.0080
.0156
.0154
.0082
.0194
.0194
.1400
.0194
.0234
.0210
.0158
.0044
.0200
.0154
.0042
.0354
.0154
.0082
.0026
.0034
.0154
.0112
Oxidants
.424
.488
.153
.009
.151
.060
.043
.971
.026
.124
.076
.006
.353
.100
.141
.043
.132
.090
.035
.132
.570
.053
.160
.130
7.557
.280
.315
.075
.331
.117
.228
.570
.026
.148
.570
.066
.006
.021
.570
.052
S02
1.868
1.338
.200
<.001
.385
.096
.079
2.512
.094
.179
.116
<.001
2.307
.272
.178
.026
.345
.308
.003
.438
1.802
.077
.704
.529
2.334
1.181
.600
.047
1.413
.229
.966
1.802
.111
.018
1.802
.311
<.001
.038
1.802
.273
22
-------
Table 7 (Concluded)
Emissions
SMSAs
Phoenix
Philadelphia!
Pittsburgh
Portland
Providence
Reading
Richmond
Rochester
Rockford
Sacramento
St . Louis
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Bernardino/
Riverside
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Seattle/Everett
Springfield
Syracuse
Tampa/St . Petersburg
Toledo
Trentont
Tulsa
Utica/Rome
Washington, D.C.
Wichita
WilkesBar re/Hazel ton
Wilmingtont
Worcester
York
Youngstown
2 HC
1 NOX
Concentration Episode
SO2 Rate Factor Days
(tons/km2/day )
.0160
.0601
.0527
.0124
.0707
.0212
.0250
.0266
.0213
.0137
.0340
.0279
.0275
.0102
.0148
.0673
.0432
.0178
.0417
.0138
.0453
.0295
.0601
.0081
.0060
.0909
.0114
.0194
.0601
.0164
.0160
.0336
.001
.331
.341
.016
.341
.150
.135
.060
.028
.002
.128
.012
.007
.003
.004
.027
.001
.013
.181
.061
.162
.112
.331
.001
.015
.220
.001
.112
.331
.046
.142
.251
(sec/m)
200
492
725
673
94
311
259
205
246
572
415
144
122
600
702
425
353
300
191
253
128
225
492
193
252
467
270
272
492
235
459
270
Relative
Pollution Rate
(%) Oxidants S02
.0556
.0102
.0194
.0700
.0052
.0122
.0168
.0158
.0158
.1388
.0158
.0250
.0026
.1888
.3122
.1134
.1138
.0358
.0100
.0146
.0128
.0170
.0102
.0066
.0094
.0178
.0042
.0092
.0102
.0066
.0100
.0194
.178
.302
.741
.584
.035
.080
.109
.086
.083
1.088
.223
.100
.009
1.155
3.244
3.244
1.735
.191
.080
.051
.074
.113
.302
.010
.014
.756
.013
.049
.302
.025
.073
.176
.011
1.661
4.796
.754
.167
.569
.587
.194
.109
.159
.839
.043
.002
.340
.878
1.301
.040
.140
.346
.225
.012
.428
1.661
.001
.036
1.829
.001
.280
1.661
.071
.652
1.315
•M-
Newark, New York, Jersey City, and Paterson/Passaic are considered
as one large SMSA.
Philadelphia, Trenton, and Wilmington are considered as one large SMSA.
23
-------
The emissions rates for oxidants are calculated on the basis that
both hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen are important in the oxidant
formation. Thus, without oxides of nitrogen, oxidant formation would
not occur; on the other hand, the limited data available indicate that
the ultimate oxidant concentration is related to the hydrocarbon concen-
tration earlier in the day and not to the oxides of nitrogen. There-
fore, in calculating emissions for oxidants, a ratio of two tons of
hydrocarbons to one ton of oxides of nitrogen was used as the basis.
However, below are shown the emission factors developed for ten SMSAs
as shown in Table 7 and as they would have been if oxides of nitrogen
had been considered equally important as hydrocarbons in determining
oxidant concentrations.
Emissions
(tons/km2/day)
Akron
Albany
Allentown
Ann Arbor
Atlanta
Anaheim
Baltimore
Binghamton
Birmingham
Boston
.0551
.0183
.0328
.0174
.0398
.0957
.0643
.0068
.0444
.1105
.0544
.0177
.0352
.0151
.359
.0814
.0658
.0062
.0481
.1029
It can be seen that some changes in the actual estimates per unit area
did result, with some being higher and some lower. However, the relative
ranking, which is the main concern, was not changed.
In Table 8, the various SMSAs are arranged in the order of the rela-
tive plant-damaging pollution potential of oxidants and sulfur dioxide.
It can be seen that in regard to the former, the California areas occupy
the first seven places and Portland, Oregon, ranks 12th. These high
potentials result primarily from the high percentage of days when cli-
matic conditions are favorable for pollutant accumulation. Although for
most areas this condition exists only about 2% of the time, for the west
coast cities, it exists from about 7$ of the time in Portland to as high
as 30/0 of the time in San Diego. For Los Angeles, the percentage is 14.
Other areas have higher emission rates or higher concentration rate fac-
tors. Thus, the highest emission rate occurred in the New York-Newark area,
almost 80^ higher than in Los Angeles; the highest concentration rate
factor was that for Pittsburgh.
24
-------
Table 8
SMSAs ARRANGED IN ORDER OF PLANT-DAMAGING POLLUTION POTENTIAL
OF OXIDANTS AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
Oxidants
Sulfur Dioxide
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
San Bernardino/
Riverside
Sacramento
Detroit
Chicago
Washington, D .C .
Pittsburgh
Portland, Ore.
Jersey City
Newark
New York
Paterson/Passaic
Baltimore
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Birmingham
Gary /Hammond
Milwaukee
Memphis
Philadelphia
Trenton
Wilmington
Louisville
Nashville
Atlanta
St. Louis
Akron
Seatt le/Everett
Phoenix
Youngs town
Knoxville
7.557
3.699
3.244
3.244
1.735
1.155
1.085
.971
.922
.756
.741
.584
.570
.570
.570
.570
.561
.488
.424
.414
.353
.331
.315
.302
.302
.302
.280
.228
.223
.223
.218
.191
.178
.176
.160
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Birmingham
Detroit
Los Angeles
Gary /Hammond
Baltimore
Cincinnati
Washington, D.C.
Jersey City
Newark
New York
Paterson/Passaic
Philadelphia
Trenton
Wilmington
Milwaukee
Cleveland
Youngstown
San Francisco
Louisville
Nashville
Akron
Allentown
San Diego
St. Louis
Portland, Ore.
Knoxville
York
Albany
Memphis
Richmond
Reading
Lancaster
Buffalo
4.796
2.810
2.645
2.512
2.334
2.307
2.163
1.868
1.829
1.802
1.802
1.802
1.802
1.661
1.661
1.661
1.413
1.338
1.315
1.301
1.181
.966
.906
.891
.878
.839
.754
.704
.652
.625
.600
.587
.569
.529
.496
25
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
Oxidants
Sulfur Dioxide
Columbus
Dayton
New Orleans
Greensboro /High point
Boston
Harrisburg
Indianapolis
Lancaster
Flint
Canton
Albany
Minneapolis/St . Paul
Toledo
Buffalo
Chattanooga
Richmond
Allentown
Grand Rapids
Salt Lake City
Hartford
Rochester
Rockford
Reading
Springfield
Ft . Wayne
Miami
Tampa
York
Norfolk
Ann Arbor
Davenport
Kansas City
Peoria
Syracuse
Binghamton
WilkesBarre/Hazelton
Denver
Greenville
Bridgeport
Houston
.153
.151
.148
.141
.134
.132
.132
.130
.124
.120
.119
.117
.113
.112
.109
.109
.100
.100
.100
.090
.086
.083
.080
.080
.076
.075
.074
.073
.066
.062
.060
.053
.052
.051
.049
.049
.043
.043
.036
.035
Boston
Indianapolis
Toledo
Dayton
Ann Arbor
Springfield
Harrisburg
San Bernardino/
Riverside
Norfolk
Hartford
Wilkes -Barre/Hazelton
Peoria
Grand Rapids
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Syracuse
At 1 ant a
Columbus
Rochester
Anaheim
Flint
Greensboro /High point
Canton
Providence
Chattanooga
Sacramento
Seattle/Everett
Binghamton
Ft . Wayne
Bridgeport
New Haven
Rockford
Davenport
Fall River
Denver
Kansas City
Worcester
Miami
Salt Lake City
San Jose
Omaha
.494
.438
.428
.385
.357
.346
.345
.340
.311
.308
.280
.273
.272
.229
.225
.207
.200
.194
.193
.179
.178
.176
.167
.165
.150
.140
.124
.116
.112
.111
.109
.096
.094
.079
.077
.071
.047
.043
.040
.038
26
-------
Table 8 (Concluded)
Oxidants Sulfur Dioxide
Providence .035 Utica/Rome .036
Fall River .026 Greenville .026
New Haven .026 New Orleans .018
Worcester .025 Tampa/St. Petersburg .012
Omaha .021 Phoenix .011
Utica/Rome .014 Houston .003
Wichita .013 San Antonio .002
Tulsa .010 Oklahoma City .001
Dallas .009 Tulsa .001
San Antonio .009 Wichita .001
Ft. Worth .006 Dallas <.001
Oklahoma City .006 Ft. Worth <.001
In regard to sulfur dioxide, the emission rates in the large eastern
cities were the factors that were of greatest importance, being 5 to 10
times higher than in Los Angeles, for example. This difference in emis-
sion rates was high enough to override the influence of the high percent-
age of pollution episode days that existed on the west coast.
As indicated earlier, the hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen react
to form ozone and PAN. Oxides of nitrogen themselves may produce some
injury. Since it is difficult to separate the effects of ozone, PAN, and
oxides of nitrogen, they have been lumped together under the term "oxi-
dants" as a causative agent. The SMSAs include most counties where in-
jury due to photochemical smog is likely to occur. However, there are
other sources of sulfur dioxide in isolated areas that emit plant-
damaging amounts; these sources, as well as sources of vegetation-
damaging fluorides, were not included in the SMSA data in Tables 7 and 8.
Damage to vegetation as a result of sulfur dioxide and fluoride pol-
lution almost always occurs as a result of large single sources of these
gases such as iron and steel mills; power plants; oil refineries; copper,
lead and zinc smelters; ceramic, phosphorous, phosphate and aluminum re-
duction plants. With this point in mind, an inventory was conducted to
determine the counties in which the above industrial operations could be
found and their number in each county. This inventory, as will be de-
scribed later, was used to establish the location and intensiy of sulfur
dioxide and fluoride pollution. To the list of the above counties with
these large single sources were added those in which oxidant pollution
was likely to occur. This resulted in a total of 683 counties in which
plant-damaging air pollution seemed possible.
Regional Distribution of Pollution
Table 9 shows by state and Table 10 shows by EPA regions the area in
square miles, the population in thousands, and the percentages of these
areas and populations that are likely to be exposed to plant-damaging air
pollution.
27
-------
Table 9
NUMBER, AREA, AND POPULATION OF COUNTIES SURVEYED IN AIR POLLUTION STUDY
AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL IN STATES
1969
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
1 1 lino is
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
No, of
Counties
in State
67
14
75
58
53
8
3
1
67
159
5
45
102
92
99
105
120
64
16
24
14
83
87
82
115
57
93
17
10
21
32
62
100
53
88
No. of
Counties
Surveyed
16
8
12
27
8
6
2
1
23
17
1
4
34
31
11
14
14
16
3
10
10
22
11
7
13
6
6
4
3
17
5
30
23
4
42
Area Surveyed
as Percent of
State Total
25.5
50.7
15.9
54.7
10.1
70.5
70.0
100.0
40.4
10.4
9.3
8.0
40.0
34.5
12.2
11.8
10.7
22.1
5.7
44.4
83.3
27.8
20.9
10.6
11.5
10.5
4.1
22.8
27.9
72.2
15.4
48.6
25.8
10.6
48.1
Population of
Area Surveyed
as Percent of
State Total
57.2
88.5
36.2
94.2
71.9
92.4
85.1
100.0
82.0
53.0
90.0
26.7
79.8
68.2
42.1
55.1
44.9
61.8
25.7
88.5
97.1
79.3
59.6
26.6
52.8
12.5
46.9
86.4
60.2
88.3
50.2
89.4
51.3
23.7
82.4
Combined Index
of Area and
Population
41.4
69.6
26.1
74.5
41.0
81.5
77.6
100.0
61.2
31.7
44.7
17.4
59.9
51.9
27.2
35.0
27.8
42.0
15.7
66.4
90.2
53.6
40.3
13.6
32.2
11.5
25.5
54.6
44.1
80.2
32.8
69.0
38.6
17.2
60.3
28
-------
Table 9 (Concluded)
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
No. of
Counties
in State
77
36
67
5
46
95
254
29
14
98
39
55
71
24
No. of
Counties
Surveyed
19
9
36
5
11
15
53
7
0
19
11
16
18
2
Area Surveyed
as Percent of
State Total
24.7
13.7
50.2
100.0
27.5
18.1
16.4
16.7
-
16.9
28.6
25.2
21.1
9.2
Population of
Area Surveyed
as Percent of
State Total
65.0
65.0
88.0
100.0
47.6
58.5
76.3
81.6
-
37.6
76.4
48.7
66.3
18.0
Combined Index
of Area and
Population
44.9
39.9
69.1
100.0
37.6
38.3
46.4
49.2
-
27.3
52.5
37.0
43.7
13.6
Total
3,078
683
29
-------
Table 10
AREA AND POPULATION OF VARIOUS EPA REGIONS AND PERCENTAGE
EXPOSED TO PLANT-DAMAGING POLLUTANTS
1969
Area
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
United States
Total Area
(sg mi)
66,498
57,412*
122,884
393,169
332,351
560,172
285,563
581,647
389,264
248,730*
3,037,690
Percentage Exposed
Oxidants
21.7
42.9
23.2
12.0
20.9
10.9
6.8
3.4
36.0
7.7
14.6
S02
18.1
34.1
24.4
12.3
21.3
13.8
5.5
8.3
41.2
4.2
16.2
Fluorides
0.0
8.6
1.0
3.3
3.2
2.3
.4
3.2
9.5
11.3
4.2
Population
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
United States
Total Population
(000)
11,845
25,405*
22,656
31,865
44,056
20,336
11,231
5,576
22,985
6,213*
202,168
84.0
87.7
69.4
48.8
71.7
62.0
46.3
46.9
88.0
57.8
68.9
73.9
77.3
54.7
38.2
60.2
33.0
31.6
48.0
55.0
31.1
53.0
0.0
2.9
2.0
8.5
7.1
2.4
1.5
16.4
8.6
52.9
8.00
Values for Puerto Rico omitted from Region II
and Alaska from Region X.
Table 10 also shows the values for the United States calculated
from the 1962-1963 Census of Business. The states included in the vari-
ous regions are as follows:
30
-------
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,"" Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
New York and New Jersey. Puerto Rico is also
included, but data for this area are not in-
cluded .
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
West Virginia, and District of Columbia.
Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Florida.
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota.
Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas,
and Texas.
Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas.
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming,
Colorado, and Utah.
Arizona, California, Nevada, and Hawaii.
Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.*
Figure 1 shows the regions and the counties included in those regions,
as well as the counties that are subject to plant-damaging pollution.
As would be expected, the highest percentages of land in counties
with oxidant or sulfur dioxide pollution sources are found in the heavily
populated and industrialized regions: the middle Atlantic, New England,
eastern north central, and southwestern states. The lowest percentage
of land involved in oxidant pollution is in the prairie and mountain
states. In general, the counties in which large industrial sources of
sulfur dioxide are located are many times larger than those in which
oxidant pollution occurs. Thus, Cochise County, Arizona, with one smelter
and an area of 6,256 square miles, is larger than the states of Connect-
icut and Rhode Island combined, which have a total of 13 counties. This
is why the area exposed to sulfur dioxide is indicated as larger than
that exposed to oxidants even though the number of counties involved is
less—410 versus 493.
The area exposed to sulfur dioxide fumigation is found in counties
whose area makes up 16.2% of the land area of the United States exclusive
of Alaska and Puerto Rico; the corresponding value for oxidants is 14.6^,
and for fluorides, 4.2%. When similar values were calculated for 1963,
they were found to be 10.9, 15.0 and 4.1%, respectively. Thus, the area
No polluted counties in Vermont and Alaska,
31
-------
5 o s
> CD
-------
exposed to all three pollutants increased between the two census years;
however, the greatest increase occurred in the areas exposed to oxidants.
This results from the increase in number of population centers where
oxidant pollution is likely to occur. Most of the fluoride-fumigated
area is in the states of Washington and Oregon because of the number of
aluminum plants.
Although the land area over which plant-damagingconcentrations of
oxidants might be found is only 14.6$ of the area of the United States,
68.9fo of the population resides in these counties. This means that al-
though crop production may be low, the value of ornamental plantings
around homes, parks, etc., will be correspondingly high. Similar popu-
lation values for sulfur dioxide and fluorides are 53.0 and 8.0$, re-
spectively. When corresponding values were calculated for 1963, it was
found that 61.7/0 of the population of the United States were exposed to
oxidants, 53.9$ to sulfur dioxide, and 9.1$ to fluorides. The percentage
exposed to oxidants thus has increased during the two years, but the
percentages exposed to sulfur dioxide and fluorides have decreased. This
does not mean that the number exposed was less, but reflects the tendency
for greater increase in urban, rather than in rural, population during
the same period.
In general, these data show that the air pollution of concern is
centered in the heavily populated areas. Fluoride is an exception in
that counties with fluoride sources seem to be in less densely populated
areas. This is true because more of the major fluoride-emitting sources
are constructed where electrical power is plentiful.
Value of Vegetation Occurring in Polluted Areas
Commercial (Agricultural) Crops
To estimate the dollar loss due to air pollutants, it is necessary
to combine the percentage loss that may be ascribed to the pollutant with
the dollar value of the vegetation on which the pollutant is acting.
Sixty-five "crops" listed in Table 11, grouped into six categories, in-
clude all the agricultural crops reported by the national and state censuses
for 1969 for the selected counties. Of course, the categories such as
"other crops," "other seed," "other tree fruit," and "other vegetables'
may contain many major, minor, or unidentified crops. The practice of
the U.S. Census of Agriculture for 1969 of reporting by county only a
limited number of products has, to some extent, made it necessary for SRI
to use the "other" categories in many cases for the major acreage of the
crop category .
Prices for the crops were obtained for each state from state re-
ports, when available, or from Agricultural Statistics10 as a secondary
•y-
The county census tables routinely reported only five vegetables:
tomatoes, sweet corn, cucumbers, watermelons, and snap beans.
33
-------
Table 11
U.S. COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL CROPS HARVESTED - 1969
Corn grain
Corn forage
Sorghum grain
Wheat
Soybeans
Hay
Cotton
Red clover seed
Alfalfa seed
Cottonseed
Legume seed
Lemons
Nectarines
Field Crops
Peanuts
Oats
Barley
Rye
Tobacco
Dry beans
Sugar beets
Seed Crops
Cereal seed
Vegetable seed
Potato seed
Citrus
Oranges
Tangerines
Fruits and Nuts
Pasture
Rice
Safflower
Sunflowers
Hops
Sugar cane
Other crops
Ladino seed
Grass seed
Other seed
Grapefruit
Other citrus
Strawberries
Apples
Peaches
Pears
Cherries
Irish potatoes
Tomatoes
Sweet corn
Nursery
Plums and prunes
Grapes
Bushberries
Apricots
Vegetables
Cucumbers
Watermelon
Snap beans
Nursery and Forest Products
Floral
Almonds
Walnuts
Avocados
Pineapple
Bananas
Other tree fruit
Cabbage
Lettuce
Other vegetables
Forest products
34
-------
source. When necessary, prices were estimated by SRI from those re-
ported in adjoining states. Each price was used statewide. Price per
ton, per bushel, per acre harvested, or other unit was used, depending
on the unit in which the crop was reported. For mixed crops in the
"other" categories, the appropriate blend of crops with accompanying
weighting of prices was estimated by SRI, based on information available.
Where sales were reported in dollar value rather than in physical quantity,
the value was tabulated directly.
For each county, the quantity of the crop harvest in 1969 (including
in some cases, dollar value or acres harvested) was copied from the cen-
sus source, if available. In some cases, the information available was
for all farms, just as in 1964.* In some cases, the information was
easily available only for farms of Economic Classes 1-5 (farms with sales
of over $2,500).t In the latter case, it is not believed that any sig-
nificant amount of crops was excluded from consideration because (l) if
these crops were produced commercially, this was usually done on the
larger farms; (2) nationwide, less than 2% of farm sales were accounted
for by farms selling less than g2,500; (3) SRI reconciled crop acreages
in each county, so that only a small fraction was unaccounted for; and
(4) in most cases, census data were supplemented by county data provided
by the state, which included details on these "minor" crops.$
The value of pasture was already provided for California counties.
For other counties, the price for hay was used and estimated grass pro-
duction was converted to its equivalent in tons of hay.S
•s:-
For the major U.S. crops such as corn, grain sorghums, wheat, soybeans,
hay, cotton, peanuts, and tobacco.
t
For minor small grains, potatoes, vegetables, tree fruits, grapes, nurs-
ery and green house products, red clover and alfalfa seed, and straw-
berries .
Crops that were not reported in the U.S. census included dry beans,
sugar beets, rice, safflower, sugar cane, citrus fruits, nuts, apricots,
avocados, pineapple, bananas, and various vegetable and seed crops.
Adjustments were made in pastured cropland, woodland pasture, and im-
proved and unimproved pasture, before adding them together to estimate
"hay" tonnage. Lower yields on improved and unimproved pastures were
assumed for counties in Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, Cali-
fornia and Wyoming.
35
-------
Forests and Ornamental Plants
This designation includes, with the major exception of commercial
forest land, primarily the urban and rural lands on which trees and
ornamental plants are grown for "noncommercial" purposes—in other
words, not for sale. This is in contrast with the primary purpose for
which "crops" are usually grown for sale. In the acreage estimates that
are made in the following tables, the attempt has been made to exclude
acreage devoted primarily to grasses. Estimates of the acreage of the
various "types" of ornamental vegetation are based primarily on national
or statewide data. Such data were often not available on a county-by-
county basis from the published sources used; hence the data had to be
allocated to states or counties on the basis of indexes. The derivation
of three such indexes is shown in Table 9; one is based on population,
one on geographic area, and the third on a combination of the other two,
in discussing the estimates made for each "type" of ornamental vegetation,
the index used will be indicated. Dollar values of the acreage are based
on several standards, which will also be indicated in the discussion.
Data and calculations for counties are grouped for states, then for EPA
regions as indicated in Figure 1.
Forests
Approximately 66$ of the reported forest land is in "commercial"
forest, which includes land on which timber will normally be harvested,
whether owned by government or privately owned (including farm woodlots).
Data for noncommercial and commercial forest acreage, as well as for
acreage in farm woodlots and in crops, are shown in Table 12. Acreage
in crop lands is about 57$ of acreage in total forests, while total land
in farms (excluding woodlots) is 126$. of forest acreage (Ref. 10, 1972).
Acreage in national forests is about 25$ of the federal land as listed.
Commercial forest land is defined by the Forest Service as that
"producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood and not with-
drawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulations."11
The annual value of such forest is assumed by SRI to be represented by
the annual sales of forest products (if it can be assumed that present
volume of timber harvest represents a stable situation over time, and
will not increase or decrease appreciably). It is estimated by SRI that
although sales value per acre of commercial forest and woodlot land
varies greatly from area to area, national annual average sales value was
approximately £3.39 per acre in 1969.
Noncommercial forest acreage varies greatly from state to state,
but averages about 22/r of total forest acreage nationwide (not including
Alaska). The valuation of noncommercial land is difficult. Over one-
third of this forest land is set aside by law into "wilderness areas,"
with no roads, logging, resorts or other commercial use except grazing
allowed. There are more than 500 resorts, mostly private, on national
forest land, as well as thousands of summer homes. Many thousands of
camp and picnic sites, most major ski areas (in whole or in part), and
36
-------
Table 12
ESTIMATED FOREST, PUBLIC AND CROP LANDS BY REGION AND STATE
1969
(Thousands of Acres)
Forest Land
Farmer ' s
Region and State Crop Land
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Subtotal
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Subtotal
Region III
Delaware
District of Col.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Subtotal
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Subtotal
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Subtotal
268
794
301
224
36
916
2,539
755
6,633
7,388
533
1,957
6,222
4,945
1,763
15,420
5,828
3,828
7,150
10,023
8,256
6,502
3,663
8,982
54,232
25,470
14,246
8,994
23,863
12,533
12,359
97,465
Farmer-
Commercial
304
1,122
442
642
43
2,196
4,749
195
3,583
3,778
142
728
3,188
6,701
2,071
12,830
7,628
2,915
12,110
5,882
6,204
8,602
4,995
5,333
53,669
2,107
2,605
3,429
3,236
2,616
4,723
18,716
Other
Commercial
1,865
15,772
3,049
4,378
386
2,168
27,618
2,159
10,906
13,065
248
2,154
14,290
9,158
10,021
35,871
14,114
13,316
12,992
5,944
10,687
11,590
7,415
7,486
83,544
1,573
1,235
15,371
13,639
3,806
9,813
45,437
Non-
Commercial
17
854
29
111
4
27
1,042
109
2,888
2,997
1
78
354
530
80
1,043
28
1,701
443
142
22
421
83
317
3,157
109
68
473
2,109
76
409
3,244
Total
2,186
17,748
3,520
5,131
433
4,391
33,409
2,463
17,377
19,840
391
2,960
17,832
16,389
12,172
49,744
21,770
17,932
25,545
11,968
16,913
20,613
12,493
13,136
140,370
3,789
3,908
19,273
18,984
6,498
14,945
67,397
All
Acreage
Owned by
Federal
Gov' t
9
130
76
706
8
262
1,191
116
235
351
39
11
194
609
2,210
1,014
4,077
1,101
3,410
2,086
1,177
1,573
1,942
1,131
1,721
14,141
542
431
3,347
3,505
273
1,793
9,891
37
-------
Table 12 (Concluded'
Forest Land
Region and State
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Subtotal
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Subtotal
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Subtotal
Region IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Subtotal
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
Total
Farmer ' s
Crop Land
10,105
5,932
2,410
15,653
39,945
74,045
28,459
32,890
21,414
23.774
106,537
11,497
16,376
29,819
20,993
1,996
2,894
83,575
1,685
11,245
375
749
14,054
18
6,204
5,291
8,485
19,998
475,253
Farmer-
Commercial
4,800
2,284
240
1,411
2,403
11,138
2,129
798
8,850
789
12,566
2,635
1,952
161
364
123
619
5,854
81
1,524
361
1
1,967
777
5,206
1,866
7,849
133,116
Other
Commercial
13,406
13,058
5,496
3,406
10,521
45,887
301
389
5,750
234
6,674
8,948
14,031
245
1,169
3,701
3,563
31,657
3,608
15,304
720
127
19,759
5,639
14,415
20,467
16,535
57,056
366,568
Non-
Commercial
71
38
12,577
4,523
11,167
28,376
25
157
319
22
523
10,951
6,794
15
200
11,464
5,903
35,327
14,894
25,580
893
7,532
48,899
113,412
6,399
4,731
4,697
129,239
253,847
Total
18,277
15,380
18,313
9,340
24,091
85,401
2,455
1,344
14,919
1,045
19,763
22,534
22,777
421
1,733
15,288
10,085
72,838
18,583
42,408
1,974
7,660
70,625
119,051
21,591
30,404
23,098
194,144
753,531
All
Acreage
Owned by
Federal
Gov't
3,163
1,041
26,347
1,436
3,041
35,028
217
674
1,927
718
3,536
24,196
27,625
2,137
3,412
34,838
30,175
122,383
32,646
44,889
397
60,885
138,817
354,717
33,827
32,184
12,571
433,299
762,714
Source: U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management.
38
-------
areas for water sports are also located on forest land.12 The cost to
the Forest Service of operation and maintenance for camp and picnic sites
is estimated by SRI to be around $10,000 per acre.13 A study by Dana for
the Forest Service discusses the various considerations and points of
view in attempting an evaluation of forest-based recreation. He states,
"So far as national forests are concerned, recreation has risen steadily
from a minor to a major use. This is particularly true of areas developed
for picnicking and camping and of lands withdrawn from commercial use such
as wild and wilderness areas."14
It might be possible to measure the increase in value of land
adjacent to a noncommercial forest area, such increase being attributed
to the presence of the forest, if the land were developed for commercial
or residential purposes. Another approach would be to assign dollar
values to the intangible benefits afforded society, such as soil and water
conservation and recreation. Recreation values in terms of tourist spend-
ing seem to depend, in part, on the amount of development achieved and
investment in facilities to attract tourists. For instance, tourist ex-
penditures in two large forested national parks in Washington were esti-
mated at gO.24 per acre in one case and $4.08 per acre in the other for a
limited number of services.""" For purposes of the present study, the an-
nual value of noncommercial forest land was arbitrarily set by SRI at the
same value as the sales from commercial forest land in the same state.
Actual value could be either higher or lower than this assumed average
figure.
Volume of timber sales by state from commercial forest land is
given in Table 13.t Stumpage prices by EPA region are given in Table 14.
It is assumed that pulpwood price can also represent price for the "other
timber" category. Multiplication of sales volume by price in each state
gives the dollar value of sales, which can then be allocated to pollution-
threatened counties by proportion of area each county is in relation to
the state (Table 9). The per-acre value estimated for commercial timber
sales is also applied to the noncommercial acreage in the state. Finally,
the value of farm woodlot sales, already calculated under "crops," is
subtracted from the sales from commercial forest land in order to arrive
at a "net" valuation.
•5S-
Derived from data in William B. Beyers, "An Economic Impact Study of
Mt. Rainier and Olympic National Parks," 1970. The values given are
for Olympic and Mt. Rainier, respectively, for boat rentals, horse-
back rides, and guide and tour service.
Sales volume for each county was tabulated by the Forest Service in
a few southeastern states, but they were not extensive or consistent
enough to be used in the SRI county estimates.
39
-------
Table 13
ESTIMATED SALES OF SAW TIMBER, PULPWOOD AND OTHER TIMBER
ON COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND, BY REGION AND STATE - 1969
(All Species) (All Species)
Section, Region Pulpwood and Other Saw Timber
and State (OOP cu ft) (OOP bd ft)
New England:
Connecticut 8,553 28,293
Maine 408,700 1,299,000
Massachusetts 31,329 128,219
New Hampshire 60,490 219,676
Rhode Island 2,376 6,400
Vermont 50,995 162,972
Subtotal 562,443 1,844,560
Middle Atlantic;
Delaware 11,858 32,984
Maryland 75,572 320,585
New Jersey 12,301 37,059
New York 114,904 415,915
Pennsylvania 231,755 718,630
West Virginia 155,216 662,826
Subtotal 601,606 2,187,999
Lake States:
Michigan 213,078 867,017
Minnesota 155,198 485,168
North Dakota 3,136 6,785
South Dakota (East) 1,859 4,623
Wisconsin 308,983 795,824
Subtotal 682,254 2,159,417
Central:
Illinois 91,096 396,942
Indiana 65,692 350,851
Iowa 50,405 162,530
Kansas 7,616 35,691
Kentucky 141,254 728,089
Missouri 108,835 460,450
Nebraska 10,156 51,630
Ohio 113,120 571,829
Subtotal 588,174 2,758,012
Total North 2,434,477 8,949,988
40
-------
Table 13 (Continued)
(All Species) (All Species)
Section, Region Pulpwood and Other Saw Timber
and State (000 cu ft) (OOP bd ft)
South Atlantic:
North Carolina 690,716 2,028,851
South Carolina 448,977 1,513,088
Virginia 442,907 1,187,050
Subtotal 1,582,600 4,728,989
East Gulf;
Florida 347,900 1,153,700
Georgia 927,939 2,892,756
Subtotal 1,275,839 4,046,456
Central Gulf;
Alabama 807,183 2,900,450
Mississippi 745,962 2,756,830
Tennessee 216,400 819,600
Subtotal 1,769,545 6,476,880
West Gulf;
Arkansas 620,108 2,537,270
Louisiana 721,637 3,024,281
Oklahoma 52,076 188,834
Texas 461,162 1,837,433
Subtotal 1,854,983 7,587,818
Total South 6,482,967 22,840,143
Pacific Northwest:
Alaska-Coastal 157,090 1,079,585
Oregon
Western 1,204,000 7,678,000
Eastern 352,000 2,098,000
Summary 1,556,000 9,776,000
Washington
Western 1,300,000 7,707,000
Eastern 236,070 1,401,440
Summary 1,536,070 9,108,440
Subtotal 3,249,160 19,964,025
Pacific Southwest:
California 927,000 5,637,000
Hawaii 2,157 10,812
Subtotal 929,157 5,647,812
Total Pacific 4,178,317 25,611,837
41
-------
Table 13 (Concluded)
(All Species) (All Species)
Section, Region Pulpwood and Other Saw Timber
and State (OOP cu ft) (OOP bd ft)
Northern Rocky Mtn;
Idaho 357,256 2,105,695
Montana 324,411 1,814,856
South Dakota (West) 15,655 87,091
Wyoming 36,155 195,687
Subtotal 733,477 4,203,329
Southern Rocky Mtn;
Arizona 87,741 491,706
Colorado 58,993 341,219
Nevada 10 63
New Mexico 44,086 262,103
Utah 12,740 69,689
Subtotal 203,570 1,164,780
Total Rocky Mountain 937,047 5,368,109
Total All Regions 14,032,808 62,770,077
42
-------
Table 14
ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE* OF SALABLE TREES IN COMMERCIAL
AND NONCOMMERCIAL FOREST ACREAGE
Saw Timber Pulpwood
Region (g/1000 bd ft) (g/cord)
I 16 3.25
II 16 3.25
III 16 3.25
IV 35 3.45
V 11 5.25
VI 10 3.25
VII 11 5.25
VIII 6 5.25
IX 40 5.25
X 40 5.25
Derived from the following sources: Hair,
D. and Ulrich, A., "The Demand and Price Situ-
ation for Forest Products, 1971-72," U.S. Forest
Service, 1972; Holt, E., "Production, Prices,
Employment and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries,"
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Portland, Ore., 1972.
Highway Roadsides
The original data base for SRI estimates of roadside land-
scaping acreage is found in Table 15 . Further breakdown of data from
the same source provided information on highway accessibility and miles
of divided and four-lane highways. The general basis for SRI estimates
relating highway mileage to ornamental acreage and costs was derived
from a series of interviews conducted with landscape architects and high-
way horticulturists in 1970 and 1971. "Development" costs (i.e., costs
for new investment in landscaping) have been allocated over a ten-year
period, based on the argument that after ten years, the old investment
is obsolete, repaving or major road repair is due, and the normal life
of many of the ornamental plants is finished and the plants are due for
replacement. The costs used, based on some rough statewide averaging
(a convenience for calculating, though not always too accurate for some
regions of some states), are shown in Table 16. States that are part
"humid" and part "dry," or part mountain and part plains, were all assigned
to the "humid" category except for the six noted in Table 5.
43
-------
Table 15
PRINCIPAL SURFACED U.S. HIGHWAY SYSTEMS BY STATE
State Primary Highways
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Total
Rural
Surfaced
Mileage
8,511
2,104
5,142
12,831
12,289
8,259
328
435
9,959
15,193
462
4,623
13,145
10,148
8,940
9,785
4,136
3,853
3,472
1,870
798
7,972
10,126
9,731
7,083
5,943
9,232
2,039
1,246
966
10,131
12,816
11,661
6,489
15,886
10,821
4,408
13,161
285
8,601
Total
Municipal
Surfaced
Mileage
1,561
116
305
1,466
2,193
503
895
201
1,771
2,312
58
307
3,411
1,163
1,236
662
370
773
411
159
1,926
1,268
1,922
942
725
186
468
105
731
1,067
873
1,764
1,540
257
3,012
1,139
387
2,816
757
993
Total
Surfaced
Mileage
10,072
2,220
5,447
14,297
14,482
8,762
1,223
636
11,730
17,505
520
4,930
16,556
11,311
10,176
10,447
4,506
4,626
3,883
2,029
2,724
9,240
12,048
10,673
7,808
6,129
9,700
2,144
1,977
2,033
11,004
14,580
13,201
6,746
18,898
11,960
4,795
15,977
1,042
9,594
T Federal -Aid
Interstate Highway
6 Rural and Urban
System Secondary Highways
Rural
762
-
1,132
499
1,695
861
144
6
1,144
947
23
589
1,380
971
641
686
622
574
288
177
238
787
731
560
958
1,182
448
514
195
117
924
840
773
563
974
634
593
1,296
31
769
Urban
177
-
80
59
650
93
176
33
287
202
26
28
385
168
76
116
98
141
34
181
214
358
219
115
170
34
28
20
20
228
83
553
112
15
499
150
101
307
61
59
Total
939
-
1,212
508
2,345
954
320
39
1,431
1,149
49
617
1,765
1,139
717
802
720
715
322
358
452
1,145
950
675
1,128
1,216
476
534
215
345
1,007
1,393
885
578
1,473
784
694
1,603
92
828
Total
Surfaced
Mileage
15,078
799
3,666
14,079
13,862
4,239
1,232
1,470
11,666
18,765
429
5,537
14,694
17,549
33,173
24,124
14,864
8,760
2,498
7,656
2,288
26,318
30,625
16,229
23,207
5,146
16,615
3,402
1,711
2,218
5,348
14,270
28,731
13,138
21,093
13,567
8,280
13,592
552
19,216
44
-------
Table 15 (Concluded)
State
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Dist . of Col.
Total
State
Total
Rural
Surfaced
Mileage
8,197
7,803
60,274
4,533
2,284
8,028
6,222
4,750
10,198
5,683
-
402,852
Primary Highways
Total
Municioal
Surfaced
Mileage
254
1,596
6,198
641
210
1,325
640
510
1,705
155
-
55,985
Total
Surfaced
Mileage
8,451
9,399
66,472
5,174
2,494
9,353
6,862
5,260
11,903
5,838
-
458,837
. . r . Federal -Aid
Interstate Highway ,
Rural and Urban
Secondary Highways
Rural
697
848
2,457
813
310
924
542
548
494
919
-
34,770
Urban
19
208
739
82
27
145
226
64
70
21
28
7,985
Total
716
1,056
3,196
895
337
1,069
768
612
564
940
28
42,755
Total
Surfaced
Mileage
12,818
11,837
39,363
3,752
1,932
19,526
11,785
10,212
5,522
2,537
121
599,091
Source: Highway Statistics: 1969. Federal Highway Administration
Table 16
ESTIMATED COSTS* PER ACRE PER YEAR FOR LANDSCAPED ROADS
1969
Operation and
Maintenance
Total
Development Costs
Urban roads (including interchanges)
A States
B Statest
Rural rest stops and interchanges
A States
B States
Other rural road mileage
A States
B States
500
125
250
20
20
S 750
2,500
160
500
24
24
gl,000
3,000
285
750
44
44
Costs are based on acres of ornamental plants only, and do not
include acres of turf.
"B States" are in primarily dry areas where plants, if introduced,
must be protected with permanent irrigation. These states are
arbitrarily defined as Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico,
Texas, and Utah. "A States" are all the other states.
45
-------
It was assumed that "rest areas" exist only on rural roads and
are located 35 miles apart. Rest areas now exist on interstate highways
and to varying extents on other primary highways. Urban interchanges were
assumed to be located five miles apart and only on roads with access con-
trol. Rural interchanges were assumed to be ten miles apart on highways
with access control and on part of the other four-lane and divided high-
ways .
The landscaping on highway shoulders was assumed to vary from
100^ of the mileage down to nothing, depending on the type of highway
and its location within a state. For each mile, landscaped highways
were assumed to contain from one to five acres of trees and shrubs, high-
way interchanges were assumed to have from 2.5 to 12.5 acres of ornamental
plants, and rest areas were assumed to contain from 3 to 7.5 acres of
trees and shrubs. In addition to the references listed on p. 34 of the
November 1971 SRI report, the following studies were found useful as back-
ground reading:
Thiel, Floyd I., and Yasnowsky, John, Jr., "Benefits of Highway
Beautification" (in Public Roads, Vol. 35, No. 1, April 1968).
Yamanaka, Henry M., "Highway Cross Section Combines Esthetics
with Safety" (in Public Works, February 1970).
Dorman, Albert A., "Environmental Values and the Freeway Plan-
ning Process" (in Public Works, September 1969).
Hottenstein, Wesley L., "Erosion Control, Safety, and Esthetics
on the Roadside--Summary of Current Practices" (in Public Roads,
Vol. 36, No. 2, June 1970).
Harriss, Lynn M.F., "The Landscape Architect in Highway Trans-
portation Planning" (in Traffic Quarterly, January 1965).
"The Art and Science of Roadside Development," Highway Research
Board, Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, National
Academy of Sciences—National Research Council Special Report
No. 88, 1966.
The state acreage of highway ornamentals was allocated to coun-
ties according to the combined "area-population" percentages.
Parks
The acres in all public parks are given in Table 17. Total
acreage for the United States in city, county, state, and national parks
amounts to 65,364,200 acres. The problem of allocating national park
acreage to the counties of interest to our study was handled by use of a
map entitled "National Park System," published by the National Park Service.*
•js-
Their publication, "National Parks and Landmarks," published in 1970, was
also used.
46
-------
Table 17
CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND NATIONAL PARK ACREAGE AND COSTS
1969
State
Total U.S.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col,
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
National Parks
Acrest
24,167,199.8
6,195.8
7,005,972.8
1,591,015.8
5,546.9
4,160,195.3
527,138.7
-
-
7,640.6
1,373,472.4
15,525.9
218,318.0
85,268.1
-
611.4
1,499.5
681.4
62,152.1
111.0
32,293.0
23,837.8
21,748.9
540,365.7
590.9
29,872.4
36,138.4
1,156,513.3
5,196.1
254,358.5
83.0
6,694.2
240,747.7
5,271.9
333,752.3
69,130.1
88.9
912.0
160,895.1
8,180.9
-
State Parks*
Acres
(1,000)
39,701
410
336
121
178
921
113
160
24
-
2,891
773
1,302
593
1,008
230
160
102
152
1,807
241
198
340
4,199
3,701
1,262
318
634
131
319
76
291
346
3,638
282
84
358
491
951
3,033
31
Expenditures t
(£1,000)
121,433
483
411
224
634
16,953
920
1,616
453
-
3,254
2,595
341
414
3,568
1,733
868
637
8,717
923
666
1,507
1,445
4,664
1,554
415
1,497
273
1,124
182
1,387
3,216
512
29,040
846
230
2,684
1,492
2,978
6,381
1,126
Municipal and County*
Park and Recreation ... ±
. . Expenditures*
Areas Acreage
(1,000) (£1,000)
1,496.4
7.8
1 .4
132.9
2.1
188.8
19.3
17.9
2.3
40.8
30.4
8.7
4.2
3.1
98.8
19.6
29.5
13.0
10.8
7.7
1.3
23.9
30.4
48.4
43.6
2.6
28.9
13.3
6.8
7.0
4.2
30.9
15.3
92.8
14.9
3.7
205.3
21.5
21.5
33.3
2.2
696,720
4,880
223
7,550
490
126,628
4,106
10,914
1,536
17,224
25,764
6,268
5,408
1,202
67,350
13,917
5,335
4,064
2,989
4,747
1,467
16,767
13,172
33,196
10,456
1,788
13,890
974
3,060
1,876
1,334
19,663
1,753
100,058
7,297
1,254
30,535
3,438
7,779
30,573
1,940
47
-------
Table 17 (Concluded)
State
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
National Parks
State Parks* Municipal and County*
... 4. Park and Recreation ... +
. Expenditures? Expenditures*
Acres? Acres Areas Acreage
(1,000) (gl,000) (1,000) (gl,000)
3,984.7
135,368.3
253,206.6
840,139.4
563,250.3
267,383.3
1,805,588.8 4,
513.9
2,309,747.7
158
215
743 2,
388 1,
241
152
156
148 3,
262 1,
944 1,
88
556
830
662
864
220
607
620
147
759
374
60
2.1
2.5
16.0
63.4
2.0
2.2
22.5
19.1
6.7
41.8
27.0
1,816
1,161
8,549
24,120
1,407
571
9,452
10,887
2,765
22,493
617
•if-
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1970.
Public Land Statistics: 1970.
1967 State Park
Statistics (National
Conference
on State Parks) .
Operation and maintenance costs adjusted for inflation by the
factor 0.065.
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1970. Current
operating expenses adjusted for inflation by the factor 0.140.
48
-------
It was found in many cases that the major parks did not touch any of the
counties of interest; thus, much of the acreage included in "National
Parks" in Table 17 is excluded from counties. The remaining national
Park acreage, which it has been determined is located in or near the af-
fected counties, as well as the city, county and state park acreage, was
allocated to counties based on their proportional area.
It is difficult to estimate the value of parks to the U.S.
public in any meaningful quantitative terms. At the time most major
national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges were set aside, outdoor
recreation was of only minor significance. The extension and improvement
of the national system of highways and the universal family ownership of
automobiles have made even remote parks more accessible. Longer vaca-
tions, population growth and a rising standard of living have combined
to increase the use of national and state parks and forests. In the de-
velopment of new parks and the improvement of established parks, there
is always the need to weigh the costs of land, the question of having a
site of sufficient size and character to ensure successful operation, and
the acceptability of the area to the people for whose use it is intended .*
Several approaches to estimating the value of parks were con-
sidered . Many studies have been made of user fees for park and recre-
ation services.t One approach involved basing the value on such fees;
however, it was found that these fees did not necessarily have a relation-
ship to the costs of operating the parks or the services. Another ap-
proach was to consider the tourist expenditures as a measure of value of
a park. Using this approach, SRI estimated that such expenditures in
1969 amounted to $229 per acre on a gross outlay basis, or $172 per acre
of national park land on a personal income basis.$ The problem with this
approach is to separate all of the man-made tourist services, for which
the tourist is paying, from what he would pay to visit the park if all
the auxiliary services were not considered. Although local parks often
•ss-
See "Planning and Development of Recreation Areas including the Develop-
ment of the Natural Environment," Economic Commission for Europe, 1969.
Two volumes.
For instance, see "A Guide to New Approaches to Financing Parks and
Recreation," The National Park and Recreation Association, 1970; "Sta-
tistics on Outdoor Recreation," Marion Clawson, Resources for the Future,
Inc., 1958; "Selected Outdoor Recreation Statistics," Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, 1971.
Derived from "Travel and the National Parks; An Economic Study," by
Ernest W. Swanson, National Park Service, 1969. See also; "Economics
of Outdoor Recreation," Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Resources
for the Future, 1966.
49
-------
do not have some of the inherent beauty and unique characteristics that
draw people from far away to national parks, they do have the character-
istic of being easily available, often to large urban populations.
Given the above difficulties in evaluation, SRI made the de-
cision to fall back on the current operating and maintenance expenses as
a safe measure of the minimum value that the public places on parks.
Much of the annual cost of park maintenance can be attributed to upkeep
of its trees and shrubs, and much of this cost is the cost of personnel
for such work. It was also decided that any new plantings placed in
parks would usually be acquired outside the normal commercial channels,
so there is assumed to be little overlap with the sales of nursery and
forest products reported under "crops." The national park acreage shown
in Table 17 was valued at $2.86 per acre, derived from national expendi-
tures and U.S. land area administered by the National Park Service.
The park acreage devoted to trees and shrubs was estimated at
45 percent, and costs were reduced accordingly. These costs for each
state were allocated to each affected county according to that county's
proportional area.
Private Residences
In addition to a number of telephone interviews with various
city planning department officials, much information was obtained from
published sources .* In the pollution-threatened counties, the number of
residences was calculated based on number of families and population.
Residence location was designated as "rural," "urban," or "central city.'
Different proportions of single-family, 2- to 4-family, and multiple-
family residences were assumed in each of the three levels of urbaniza-
tion. In each case, 20^> of the open space around the residence was as-
sumed to be devoted to trees and ornamentals. Previous census studies
had shown, for typical types of urbanization, the distribution of dif-
ferent types of housing. In only one type of housing situation—the
multiple-family dwelling in the central city—was it assumed that there
For previous source listings, see: "Economic Impact of Air Pollutants
on Plants," Quarterly Report No. 3, June 1971 (pp. 18,20), and Final
Report, November 1971 (p. 38), both by SRI. See also; William Alonso,
"Location and Land Use," Harvard University Press, 1964; Urban Land
Institute Technical Bulletins 40 and 42, and the Urban Land Institute
monthly issues of Urban Land for June 1968, September 1968, October
1969, November 1969, September 1972 and October 1972.
This figure would be divided among a number of families, depending on
the number of residences assumed per acre.
50
-------
was virtually no landscaping. Estimated acreage planted to trees and
ornamentals was multiplied by an annual maintenance cost of $750 per
acre to obtain annual cost figures. It was decided by SRI that such a
minimum replacement cost should be allocated per acre, as this would be
the minimum worth that the homeowner would place on his ornamental
plants. The value in terms of increase in property values might be much
more than this amount, of course. Allocation of acreage and costs to
pollution-threatened counties was made on the basis of population distri-
bution.
The problem of overlap in reporting with "nursery" and "floral"
products,, previously accounted for under "crops," was dealt with by as-
suming that a part of such sales were to the private residences. Such
sales were subtracted from the estimated annual value of ornamental
plants for private residences in each county. The homeowner also obtains
a part of his replacements for ornamentals from a variety of commercial
and noncommercial sources, including neighbors and friends, materials he
grows for himself, and the products furnished free or at low cost by
state and federal entities.
Total maintenance and replacement costs for residential plant-
ings in various regions of the United States and in the polluted areas
of those regions are shown in Table 19.
Urban Uses
The ornamental plantings considered under this heading are
those found in cemeteries, industrial parks, colleges, primary and sec-
ondary schools, and golf courses. Although the land uses vary greatly,
it was possible to use similar methodologies in many cases to make the
necessary estimates.
Calculation of the value of each category of ornamental planting
in counties where potential damage to vegetation by air pollutants could
occur involved the following principal steps:
(l) Obtaining an estimate of the total acreage
involved for the United States or for in-
dividual states.
(2) Placing a dollar value on those acreages
that would represent the cost of main-
taining or replacing such plantings.
(3) Allocating the values to a county basis.
As mentioned previously, it is difficult to find acceptable
values for ornamentals in public and private areas that do not have a
market value based on an annual harvest. As a minimum estimate of the
values placed on such ornamentals, where no feasible alternative seems
available, SRI has placed the value of the annualized cost of establishing
and maintaining such plantings on a permanent basis, or alternatively, the
51
-------
cost of replacement of such ornamentals if they were eliminated due to
hostile conditions. It is argued that society (in the case of publicly
owned property) or the individual (in the case of privately owned prop-
erty) expends the price of establishing,maintaining or replacing the orna-
mental plants and thus values them by at least the amount spent. Such a
method of evaluation also has the merit that certain types of data are
available with which to make the estimate, and that researchers should
be able to agree on the methods used in each case.
Cemeteries. Published information on cemeteries is very frag-
mentary. Limited statistics from turf grass surveys were supplemented
by telephone interviews with selected cemetery associations, state and
local government officials, and cemetery directors. New cemetery acre-
age appears to increase at the rate of about 3,000 acres per year. The
SRI estimate is that there were 200,000 acres in cemeteries in the United
States in 1969, with an estimated 20% of this in trees and ornamentals.
Acreage was allocated to counties according to their population percent-
ages. An investment and maintenance cost of $1,000 per acre was assumed.
Industrial parks. Published information was supplemented by
an SRI survey."1' In 1969, there were 3,100 industrial parks averaging
200 acres in size, with a rate of increase in numbers of over 10% annually.
The SRI estimate of 6% of park acreage being in trees and shrubs makes
a total of 37,200 acres, nationwide, in ornamentals. Acreage was allo-
cated to counties according to their population percentages. An invest-
ment and maintenance cost of $1,000 per acre was assumed.
Golf courses. An SRI survey, which included information from
the National Golf Foundation, was utilized. There were estimated to be
5,340 nine-hole courses and 4,640 eighteen-hole courses in 1969, with an-
nual growth rate estimated at 3.1% for the former and 4.6% for the latter.
The watered turf system amounts to five acres per hole for each course,
and it is assumed that there is a similar area of nonturf, with one-half
of the latter composed of trees and shrubs. For an estimated 328,950
acres in ornamentals, SRI assumed investment and maintenance costs of
$285 per acre annually. Allocation to counties was according to their
population percentages.
Colleges. It is estimated that in 1969 there were approximately
2,465 institutions of higher learning in existence.t An SRI survey es-
tablished that there is an average of 100 acres in the grounds of a col-
lege, and it is assumed that 10% of the grounds are composed of trees and
shrubs. The latter would amount to 24,650 acres nationally, and an esti-
mate of $500 per acre was made for the investment and maintenance costs
annually. Allocation to counties was according to their population per-
centages .
*
See the "Site Selection Issue" of Industrial Development and Management
Record, June 1969.
Derived from figures reported in the Statistical Abstract for 1968 and
1970. See also articles on campus planning in Urban Land for December
1966.
52
-------
Secondary Schools. An SRI survey was used to supplement pub-
lished data. SRI estimated 30,946 secondary schools in 1969, with 25
acres per school and lO/o of the grounds occupied by trees and shrubs.*
The latter would amount to 77,365 acres. An estimate of g500 per acre
was made for the annual investment and maintenance costs. Allocation to
counties was according to their population percentages.
Elementary Schools. Sources of published data on schools were
supplemented by telephone interviews with school architects. SRI esti-
mated six acres per school, with 83,514 schools in the fall of 1969.
If lO/o of the school acreage were occupied by trees and shrubs, this
would amount to 50,108 acres. An estimate of g>500 per acre was made for
annual costs of investment and maintenance. Allocation to counties was
according to their population percentages.
The problem of overlap in reporting with "nursery" and "floral"
products, previously accounted for under "crops," was dealt with by as-
suming that a part of such sales were for the combined urban uses. Thus,
such sales were subtracted from the estimated annual value of ornamental
plants for urban uses in each county. It is assumed that these urban
uses also obtain a part of the needed replacements from a variety of com-
mercial and noncommercial sources not usually reported under "nursery"
and "floral" sales.
Rural Uses
This category of lands has not been described or summarized in
previous reports. "Rural Uses" is hereby defined as major categories of
federally owned lands not otherwise accounted for in the SRI categories
of "ornamentals."t A number of categories have been ignored in the in-
terest of convenience, either because they represent a small acreage or
because their tree and shrub cover is not relevant given their assigned
duties.$
•Si-
Derived from figures reported in the Statistical Abstract for 1968 and
1970. See also "Digest of Educational Statistics: 1969" and "National
Inventory of School Facilities and Personnel; Spring 1962," by the
Office of Education.
t
The two major categories of federally owned lands that have been ac-
counted for elsewhere are "national forests" and "national parks and
landmarks."
Examples are lands owned by the Agricultural Research Service, the
Atomic Energy Commission, the General Services Administration, the Bu-
reau of Mines, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
International Boundary and Water Commission, Department of Transporta-
tion, and the Veterans Administration.
53
-------
The lands that were included, grouped according to the federal
agency responsible, are Department of Defense (including Corps of Civil
Engineers), Department of the Interior (only those entitled Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Reclamation), and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Their acre-
age by state is given in Table 18.* Allocation to counties was made by
area percentages within each state.
In general, it was assumed that 45fr of these lands were covered
with trees and shrubs .t Exceptions to this rule, for which 25^ coverage
was assumed,t were lands owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management lands in six south-
western states—Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah.
As with other ornamental groups, there was difficulty in evalu-
ating the tree cover on these lands.* Several types of lands are income-
producing. Bureau of Land Management grazing districts produce $0.03 to
$0.04 per acre from grazing leases. In 1969, Bureau of Land Management
receipts from public lands with mineral leases amounted to £2.28 per
acre, and Bureau receipts from commercial forests on public lands under
its control amounted to $4.03 per acre.I There was some confusion as
to the acreage represented in many cases because of the multiple use
possible for public lands. To provide uniformity in valuation and to
seek a median figure, the National Park Service maintenance and operative
costs figure of $2.86 per acre was selected to use for all rural use
lands.
The estimated total annual dollar value of the various types
of vegetation just considered (i.e., commercial crops; forests, highway
and roadside plantings; park plantings; residential plantings; urban
uses; and rural uses) for the various regions and for the United States
is shown in Table 19. Also shown in the table are the estimated values
in the polluted counties in each region and the percentage the polluted
values are of the whole.
None of this land has been included in the agricultural crop land (in-
cluding pasture) previously considered.
These percentages may be high in some areas; they are surely low in
others. A statement by one reviewer that "value would be higher if pol-
lution killed off brush infestations"would only apply if the land were
considered for grazing use, and need not be the case if recreation were
the primary consideration.
*
For thorough discussions of this and other problems on these lands, see;
Nathan, Harriet (Ed.) America's Public Lands, Institute of Governmental
Studies, University of California, Berkeley (1972).
SRI estimates derived from figures reported in Public Land Statistics:
1970.
54
-------
OT
w
OT
£>
CO
H
^
K
P
Ed
-p
C
ta
e
i-
CO
o.
HI
p
rt
E
n
i— i
o
OJ
cc;
en
p_i
•H
nj
2
<^
o
o
^
t,
0)
OT
-p
G
0)
tD
hD
CO
C
CO
3
in
r,
CM
1
1
Ol
T-H
t^
m
•>
CO
o
in
o
CM
00
m
0
01
01
i-H
CM
t-
rH
O
in
T-H
CO
r,
O
0
CO
CO
^
CO
CO
rH
[>
in
CO
00
m
T-H
CD
Ol
rH
^
CD
f~
CO
o
rH
CD
^
CO
1
^
•
iO
in
^
W
OJ
CM
CO
i-H
to
l>
CM
^
^
i
•*
t>
en
tD
CN
m
i-H
05
00
CM
CD
in
en
en
CM
rH
C3
C
O
N
•H
<
T-H
00
CM
en
r-
o
t-
in
f.
CO
CM
CM
X
in
i
i
i
to
CO
rH
^
CM
rH
O
t»
r>
CM
rH
CO
CO
CO
C
CO
pX
&H
TP
00
T-H
CM
CO
CO
to
o
CM
rH
01
^
CM
m
o
en
r-
CO
1
TP
•
o
X
CO
•^
cyi
o
•\
r-\
tO
rf
o>
r- |
t^
t^
r-
to
in
to
to
to
rH
f"
f^.
Ol
1C
in
rH
CO
•H
C
£_l
o
tp
• H
rH
CO
u
in
CM
en
X
CN
X
CM
of
O
[^
^p
O5
in
05
CM
1
CD
•
X
X
[^
^
IO
X
CO
o
m
•*
01
m
in
CO
en
CO
CM
T-H
ID
to
r,
X
O
•o
CO
!H
O
O
O
m
CO
i~
X
IS
rH
CO
X
1
1
|
X
in
!
3
0
•H
•p
O
CO
C
C
o
CJ
CM
05
CM
rH
05
CO
to
CN
to
to
^
iH
1
1
|
tD
CD
to
rH
CN
!
CD
H
CO
;£
CO
rH
01
p
o
in
05
X
I-H
O
m
Ol
X
T-H
1
1
1
!
r-H
O
o
9-4
O
•
.p
CO
p
rH
CM
CD
rH
CO
CD
X
CO
X
m
X
rH
CN
[-«
CO
r..'
01
l>
^p
1
1
in
Ol
CO
i-H
tD
CO
T-l
O
fj
CD
CO
CO
TJ
•H
H
O
rH
tn
O
m
CO
m
CO
in
CM
T-H
„
in
CM
in
in
m
X
m
tJ
t*.
^
en
i
i
rH
CM
CO
in
X
X
CO
!
CO
•H
be
^i
O
D
O
CO
CN
rH
O
[^
[•*
rH
01
•»
^
CM
in
rH
1
1
|
<*
,.,
to
T-H
t
•H
H
CO
•t
a
a
CM
05
tD
CO
f-
CM
i-H
tD
^,
CM
X
CO
to
rH
|
CO
m
CO
rH
^
CM
•*
OJ
CM
in
rH
in
X
o
o
CO
CM
^
CO
en
rH
CO
rH
rH
CM
rH
0
ji
a
•a
rH
CD ^
X CO
rH 1^
rH t^
05 r>
CM CM
CM -*P
f- X
05 in
OJ O5
r> co
CO t-
CM CM
1 1
1 1
1 1
^P O
^P CO
rH l>
CO CO
m
1 1
CO
•H CO
O C
C CO
•H -H
rH 'D
rH C
t~ CN
rH X
CD X
^P CM
rH tD
CN in
t- r-
O CM
r~ x
•* 05
X ^P
X 'J1
rH ^P
1 1
co in
• *
o is
t~ X
o
^p
en
X
o
CM
CO
1
r> CM
in CM
o m
CO CM
CM CM
0
•*'
in
05
i
CO
B
CO CO
» C
O CO
CO O5
X O
in x
rH CM
CO ^
in ^
CO CO
m -31
CO X
rH in
OJ 05
m o
•^ CM
CM
CM
01
CM
o
0
rH
1 1
1 1
X CD
CO X
in CM
rH 01
CM O
CO
CM
o
CO
CN
CM
CO
>> C
X CO
O -H
3 CO
-P H
C 3
O O
in
CD
m
CO
CO
rH
X
CM
rH
CM
1
1
1
CV
CD
X
CM
m
CM
O
C
•H
CO
rH
CD
X
-r
in
i-H
in
to
o
x
CO
CO
rH
1
1
1
to
t-
m
o
i-H
CM
|
"D
C
a
t*,
CO
E
CO
rH
CO
X
CM
in
CD
^
o
CN
1
1
1
^
CO
m
rH
O
rH
|
CO
-p
•p
D
CO
3
a
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
rH
CN
CM
t^
CO
rH
CO
t~
in
o
x
CM
i
i
in
CO
iH
O
rP
CM
X
01
m
^
o
rH
0
OJ
m
pj
CO
fao
•H
si
o
&
f
O5
CM
CO
o
CM
in
CD
CD
X
rH
in
in
i-H
1
rH
^
^P
05
(^
05
CO
x"
CM
X
[^
5
CM
05
CM
0
CO
IN
en
CO
co
-p
o
CO
0)
C
s
rH
X
t~
in
x
CO
05
X
t>
m
CO
rH
CO
X
CD
o-
T-H
of
1
CO
X
CM
CM
X
in
to
T-H
CD
O
f.
CO
rH
rH
•H
a.
p.
-H
CO
en
•H
tn
en
^
m
o
00
o
r-l
t-.
^
,-H
01
^
t*
X
CM
^p
1
1
1
^
rH
O
CM
CO
!
• H
i,
3
0
CO
CO
£
rH
05
rH
CO
05
01
O
O5
O5
rH
CM
CD
|
X
05
CO
rH
O
CO
CM
t*.
en
r,
to
CM
rH
X
OJ
§
rH
rH
m
rp
rH
[•*
in
CM
CD
T-H
X
CO
C
CO
•p
C
o
rH O t
O5 CD CO
CO X CM
co o o
[*• t^ CD
rH CO CM
CO t~
,nT
m
m r- o
X rH ^
X CO X
CM T-H O5
in i> in
01 TP CXI
rH
*,
CO
1 1 1
CO O5
en x
C5 CO
CO t^
.V *\ 1
rs o
to t~
rH
rH
r> x
01 o
CO rH
rH X
• 1
^
co m ^
t~ t^* Ol
en CM co
CM CN1
CD in
•tf X
I-H rH
CN
0 rH
^ f.
X t-
X rH
t> CD
CM
CM
X
0)
f_l
•H
en
ca o.
^ g
en ca ca
« T: W
rH 03
X3 > $
O 0 QJ
55
-------
•D
CD
•a
3
rH
o -
c
S rH
-—' O
re
x ^~-
CD
r— t
-P
o
H
-P 0)
C tO
CD G
g CD
^ Q)
re n
o.
CD
tfl rH H
•H -H CD
fe 3= CO
-P
l O
CD O
CO -H
rH X
CD CD
!-3 S
^ ^
CD CD
f*' h~ X
in rH CO
CO rH CO
CM in in
in rH rH
O5 t~ to
rH rf O5
x ^j< t-
to m co
O O 05
tO CM -^
^p x to
t~ co to
rH co m
CO
o
0!
1 -, 1
CM
TP
CD
r-
[^
i i
CO
CM
CO O5
X CO
CO CO
1 •*
CM t-» O)
tO rH 05
O rH O5
CM rH X
rH CM
0
m
CO
X
I I
^3*
^
CO
C
H CO
rH -p
O O
^j re co
rH 0 O
0
!* 43 J3
•P 4->
S ^ tn
CD O O
tO rH rH
C- CM O
rH tD X
CO X O5
TP rH t*-
CM CO CO
rH rH in
rH tO
rH
O5 CM CO
CO O5 rH
TJH rH t>
t~ O X
CO X CM
rH in tO
rH Ol rH
1 1 1
o to
CO rH
Tjl rH
rH O
1 .N -N
X 05
m CM
IM
CO O5
rH ^
X X
1 -X *\
X rH
CM
N CD CO
CO CO t-
t~ in F-
m to co
l> 05 f~
r~ in
^p
o o
in CM
CD ^P
m to
1 .N .,
r- t-
X
to
m
rH
CO
g
0 C
43 O
O CO faO
•H rH CD
4= A: rH
O 0 0
CM Ol
CM X
O CM
X CO
X t~
cr
x 01
o m
t- CM
O5 CO
CM l>
O)
1 1
1 1
1 1
•tf O
rH CO
CO
X
m
i i
re TJ
H C
c re
CO rH
> CO
rH rH
>>
CO CD
c -o
C 0
CD A
PH CCi
rH CO
CO ^
in x
t~ CM
*r co
CO O5
CO CM
rH
m to
X CO
c^ t^
x m
CD X
C5 X
rH t^
1 1
X
X
05
f^
U*i
^
t^
rH
CO
05
1 ^
O
rH
tO CM
.
X
rH
1
O
rH
CM
rH
in
rH
in
^
rH
rH
IN
CO
CM
CO
rH
05
X
05
in
m
CM
CM
m
CM
CM
SS
re
•P
s
rH C5 CM
CO X tD
TH in CM
O CM O
CO CM rH
CM O ^
•cr co^
rH
rH tO CD
x CM in
05 X CO
CM CD CM
X CO CO
rH X O5
CO
O
1 1 -,
to
CO
t-
•v
o
CM
rH
1 1
o to o
m o m
rH ^ CM
t^ O5 in
^p to x"
rH rH
rH
O
r~
CD
O
1 1 .,
CO
O5
CM
C
o
re -P
-P -H faC
G fl CH
0 -H -H
g fac <£
&H £H CO
CD -H re
> > s
O CD rH
t^ CD X
X X CM
rH to in
CM m x
r~ o x
co m
x
rH
CM t~ CD
CM O5 rH
t^ CD X
O5 CO CO
rH O5 to
t~ O5 CM
1 1 1
X
in
CM
CO
1 1
m
o
rH
CM CM
CM CO
rH O
1 ^ .N
05 rH
CO
X l> O
1< CO CM
rH rH CO
CM X O
to to
to co
rH
o m
rH CM
05 X
to
o
Tf
t-
rH
re
H
c
•H
faO C
&H H
•H co be
r-* fl £-
O 'H
•PUg
U3 CO O
££ £
o
X
^
CO
x~
in
CD
X
m
CO
CO
in
05
to
to
^
O
CO
rH
in
to
rH
•>
CM
X
m
x
o
O5
O5
CD
CD
•^
X
O5
^P
X
in
O5
CO
01
•tf"
t^
rH
CO
CO
o"
f-
x
CM
in
CD
^
^
rH
X
CD
m
•tf
rH
CO
-P
O
-p
C
CD
g
CD
fao
re
re
S
•o
c
CO
! "]
O
3
re
CD
3
CD
o"
05
rH
U]
CJ
H
•P
CO
• H
•p
re
-P
CO
'D
C
CO
r-5
CD
• H
rH
J3
g
CD
O
rH
3
O
CO
56
-------
^
Regions
x
X
£
>
w
O CO O O r- O ^
tD 01 T X X •'tf OCDO rH
CO CD X tO rH O t>
CD o m r» m in rH x CM o
o1 to co to to x 01
CD X CM
rH
TO
O CM mOl O CM _( CO
CO Ol t- rH r* CO CDCDCM in
x co r- co -rr CM CM
XCMO mmcM m f o m
I-H CM o c°
O ** CM CV CD tO ^J* X CO
t"- in ^ CM ci t> I-HOO o
to x to CM CD CM • r-
TfXrH O CM CM O ** O t-
X m rH
m m
CM
o co rH --H co m x
-3< x x o co r- oir^-g1 t>
CM CD tD *3* • in ^ * CD
IH m ^r comcD oio^r co
X CT CD CD rH CO CD
CD rH CD CM in CM rH
CM rH
I-HOO xcDco m oo ^ I-H
O ^ CM O CD l> in rH *? CO
CO CO -tf X O "-* l>
X m CM rH CM. rH X
X O
CO CM
o in x o r- to co
CDOCO O O •* O t- tO CD
CD CO CD -tf r-i in CO
CM CM rH rHCDin CO X t- CO
X O X rH X tO X
CO •Tf O CM rH CO
CO rH
o co r- co o CD 01
rHXco co m co cMinm m
CM X rH CD CO t- X
-CD -.-co --in
tD CD
o m CM o rH co o
CDCOCD COCMX CMOCD CO
CM CD ^f tD • ^ Is* O
•^ rH tD
TO
O •* t- t- CM CM ^t1
•xf l> l> OXO CMCMO1 CO
CM O rf CM rH CD • CO
--in --t* ., - 1-- -
rH CM f» in CD ^T tO
CM i-H
01 (f: 01
OJ CU OJ
01 ^ M t-t
o.
•H 01 -a "D T3
u o e -P C >, c -P c 03 d -*-> c c
cu JH o 3 cu t-oPty ^OP^ o
bC^Hti ai bC <— ' SH Sb£rH^H OlbD
XIEQJO^ OiqJOCU XCUOtU ^50
fflOPiP-iCX tipipHClH bCC^DH&H t-Qi
CO ti O * c3
U 'H [IH K O-
D Tf CD CD X TP ^f
.DrH rH^CM, CO CM 00 XXX
"- iO X CO CM CM X
•M mo c- m TT ri*
n rH tD CO CD rH ^
— 1 rH tD rH CM
•3* ''"rH in f» oo r^ t--
-M t^ in • CD X rH O
nt- CDCOO r-inrH totDrn
•M I-H m CM x ^j*
CM rH CO
*
"0 tD to O CM O CD
JOCD XCDCV co CD O OCDrH
-H t^ O r-i ^ O CO
—IIs- xcocc co in i> rHTptD
X CM CD m CM. CO t-
•0 O CO t^ CM
rH
3D CO rH tO M X CO
XJrH Ot^-tO CDOtD l>COtD
30 m -71 rH CD o m
-HO O^TCM omoi COCDCD
- rH • • CO • - CO - -
— 1 CM O ^P rH Ol CD
CO rH CD
I-H m co co t- o rH
"Mto CM xx ocoo xmcM
^1 O tO I-H in rH Ol
=^C XCDCD rHCMin OlrHO
— 1 CM ^ O CM rH
M CM rH
£> rH X ^ CD CD X
-oco r-CD^ ^^,-j, COCMX
•* O "tf X O CM CO
nx r-'rfin CD^TI> ooto
"O tO CD CD rH X CO
CO X rH rH rH
x in in m m x
•^ ••>---_ • \ ^ • Y--
•MI> m-^* com- C^CD-
- CO rH r}< O CO CM
O O OI>rH ^rHX
D * CO CD • OiO* Ot^*
'N'* CMOIO COrHrH tOCOO
3) X <3* CM. Ol CO rH
in o CM
CM rH
.0 I-H I-H ^r co r* m
nt^- CMON to rH o oirHin
£> O CM. rH rH X O
rHTj< rHOCO I^-CDCO 01COO
-in .-t-. '-^f co
-M OX OX
"N CD rH CM
in m TP CD to x CM
•OCM M rH CM OOCD CT CM CM
O X CO rH rH t> O '
-rf --CD --[-- m
o m CM r^ ro
i>cD cotDi— incom r-'O^
"«• mm- m to IH x
-co --CD --co ^r
I-H Tf O CD CM
fl a; cc 01
1) QJ QJ QJ
rj TO -D -a TJ
QJ-H H01QJ-M WQJ-r) CfiCU+J
J->C -PC-PC C-PC C-MC
DQJ CO3CP OPQJ C3QJ
-HfH -Dfafir-HiL, CMr-H^ rHhOrHSH J
OQJ HQJOQJ TOQjpQJ TOQJpaj <
Q,Q-i WKIO.QH ^KftO- tiKOnOn H
CU SH 3 O
x & & H
LO O
CM cr x
I> CM
r- co
CD t-
ro c
CM rH
co r^
0 rH •
tO CO rH
X O
co m
CM
X CD
c m •
CM 01 in
. - CO
Tf X
^r CM
0 01
01 ^ X
rH tO X
. - CM
CO r-t
CM X
CO CO
•93
X X
CM ^ t>
Ol X •
X CO rH
m CD
O X
Is- m
CM
CD t--
t- CM O
in cr •
in to in
CO CD
CM rH
TO
Tf CM
in I-H m
CD CO CO
- • m
CD m
•=3* t-
CM CM
rH t^ CM
rj< CD
O CO
to 01
^ CO
•03
X t-
O Is- 'd1
CD in
in x m
- - x
to m
CD CM
01 X
•wi
CM O
co m to
01 CD
- - 01
CO rH
rH CD
to m
TO
CM tD
^ m in
CO rH •
CD ^ O
- - to
CM t^
CO CM
03
TO
CD
-a
OJ -P
a QJ
C/} -H in
• O OJ
w
01
judgment be
to rounding
0 0)
-J
£ TJ
a a
•o c
QJ C
3 ra
of ornamentals ad
Columns or rows
-J H
-H H
57
-------
There are many interesting bits of information to be derived
from Table 19, and it deserves careful study. Thus, receipts from crops
grown in the United States in 1969 were estimated to total 2>19.5 billion;
45$ of this value was received for crops grown in counties where a plant-
damaging air pollution potential existed and that had about 20$ of the
U.S. land area. On the other hand, 59% of the total value of residential
ornamentals in the United States occurred in polluted counties. This
agrees with values showing that about 62$ of the population reside in
polluted counties. In Region II (New York and New Jersey), 96$ of the
value of residential plantings and 92% of the estimated value of all
vegetation occurred in pollution-threatened areas. In Regions VII and
VIII, only 20 to 30% of the total value of vegetation occurred in the
pollution-threatened areas.
Sensitivity of Various Species and Loss Factors Due to the Specific
Pollutants
Relative Sensitivity
Tables 3 and 4 showed that the emissions of hydrocarbons increased
about 15$ and oxides of nitrogen, about 21$ between the two years under
study. Based on the ratio of two emissions of hydrocarbon to one of
oxides of nitrogen, the loss rate factors for 1967 should be about 17$
higher than for 1963. This, of course, assumes that the amount of damage
is approximately proportional to the pollution potential. It is not per-
missible to compare pollution potential factors for the two years since
the x/q and episode-day factors were calculated differently. The 1967
calculations considered variations with season and were calculated for
_tlie growing season only. The 1963 potentials were based on yearly average
x/q and episode-day values. As indicated earlier, 1963 pollution poten-
tial indices were applied to 1964 crop values, and 1967 pollution indices
were applied to 1969 crop values.
In reviewing the bases for assigning loss rate factors in the No-
vember 1971 report, it was believed that sufficient attention was not
paid to the differences in sensitivities of the various crops in relation
to the use of the portion of the plant that was directly affected. To
take these factors into account, the following procedure was adopted.
The plants are considered to be in three classes: sensitive, intermediate
and resistant (S, I and R). The uses of the directly affected parts are
considered to be high, medium and none (H, M and N). In terms of eco-
nomic effects, this results in nine possible variants for a given inten-
sity of pollution.
Sensitivity Use of Affected Part
I
R
r H
1 i
2
4
M
3
5
7
N
6
8
9
58
-------
However, this can be reduced to five economic sensitivity classes for
each pollution potential, considering that equal losses would be repre-
sented by cells 2 and 3, by cells 4, 5, and 6, and by cells 7 and 8,
Thus, the five economic sensitivity classes would be A (cell l), B (cells
2 and 3), C (cells 4, 5, and 6), D (cells 7 and 8), and E (cell 9).
Following the above scheme, over 80 species or groups of vegetation
were placed in one of the five economic sensitivity classes for each of
the pollutants involved, as shown in Table 20.
Percentage Yield Loss Under Different Pollution Intensities
In the report dated November 1971, the areas subjected to oxidant
pollution were divided into seven classes of pollution intensity, and
the percentage losses to the various crops as reported from Los Angeles
County were applied to the vegetation in the most severely polluted areas.
Lesser percentages were applied to the lesser polluted areas, but not in
proportion to the indicated pollution intensity. Thus, pollution intensity
of Class 6 averaged about 20 percent of Class 7, yet the loss factor ap-
plied to Class 6 was 80 percent of that applied to Class 7.
In developing loss factors to be applied to the data for 1969 crop
production, the areas where oxidant pollution was likely to occur were
divided into nine classes as follows. (Refer to Table 8, which lists the
SMSAs in descending order of pollution intensity.)
Class 8 - Los Angeles County only, with a pollution intensity
of 7.557.
Class 7-7 counties found in SMSAs from Anaheim to San Fran-
cisco, inclusive, with an average intensity of 3.396.
Class 6-15 counties found in SMSAs from San Jose to Detroit,
inclusive, with an average intensity index of 1.044.
Class 5-53 counties found in SMSAs from Washington, B.C.
through Birmingham, with an average intensity of
0.570.
Class 4-39 counties found in SMSAs from Gary/Hammond
through Seattle/Everett, with an average pollution
index of 0.242.
Class 3-74 counties found in SMSAs from Phoenix through
Springfield, with an average pollution intensity
of 0.121.
Class 2-74 counties found in SMSAs from Ft. Wayne through
Omaha, with an average intensity of 0.050.
Class I - 230 counties found in SMSAs from Tulsa through
Oklahoma City plus those in other SMSAs not large
enough to have a 40,000-man labor force.
Class 0 - 2,585 counties not included in SMSAs.
59
-------
Table 20
ECONOMIC EFFECTS CLASS IN WHICH VARIOUS CROPS FALL
WHEN EXPOSED TO OXIDANTS, SULFUR DIOXIDE
OR FLUORIDE POLLUTION
Economic Class When Exposed to;
Crops
Field Crops
Alfalfa
Barley
Beans
Buckwheat
Clover
Corn
Cotton
Hay
Oats
Peanuts
Pasture
Potatoes (Irish)
Rye
Saff lower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Sugar beets
Sunflower
Tobacco
Wheat
Seed Crops
Alfalfa
Clover
Mustard
Citrus
Grapefruit
Kumquats
Lemons
Limes
Oranges
Tangelos
Fruits and Nuts
Almonds
Apples
Apricots
Avocados
Cherries
Ox id ants
A
C
C
-
A
E
E
E
C
C
E
C
C
-
E
D
C
C
A
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
E
D
E
D
C
S02
A
C
C
C
A
E
C
E
C
E
E
C
E
E
C
C
C
E
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
E
Fluorides
C*
D
E
C
C*
D
E
C
D
C
E
E
-
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
C
D
60
-------
Table 20 (Continued)
Economic Class When Exposed to;
Crops
Blackberries
Blueberries
Figs
Grapes
Peaches
Pears
Pecans
Plums
Prunes
Raspberries
Strawberries
Walnuts
Vegetables
Asparagus
Beans
Snap
Lima
Beets (table)
Broccoli
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Corn (sweet)
Cucumbers
Celery
Endive
Eggplant
Lettuce (head)
Lettuce (leaf)
Muskmelon
Okra
Onion
Parsley
Parsnip
Peas
Peppers
Potatoes
Pumpkin
Radish
Romaine
Spinach
Squash
Swiss chard
Oxidants
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
-
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
E
B
A
E
C
A
C
E
C
E
E
D
E
C
E
C
A
B
D
A
SOo
E
E
E
D
D
C
D
D
E
E
-
E
C
C
C
C
D
B
C
D
E
E
C
A
D
A
B
E
C
E
B
D
D
D
C
C
E
A
C
A
Fluorides
D
C
D
C
D
E
C
C
E
E
D
E
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
-
-
E
E
E
E
E
E
61
-------
Table 20 (Concluded)
Economic Class When Exposed to;
Crops Oxidants S02 Fluorides
Tomatoes C D E
Turnips D C
Floral crops BCD
Nursery crops C C D
Forest products C C D
Christmas trees BAB
Parks BCD
Highway planting BCD
Urban uses BCD
Residential
plantings B C C
•55-
Injurious when used for livestock feed.
It can be seen that the oxidant pollution index for each class is
about half that of the next higher pollution potential class.
Class Pollution Potential Index
8 7.557
7 3.396
6 1.044
5 .570
4 .242
3 .121
2 .050
1
0
After placement of the different species in different economic sen-
sitivity classes and division of the areas into piant-damaging oxidant
pollution classes, it was necessary to develop loss factors to apply to
each economic sensitivity class in each pollution potential class.
62
-------
A review of the information available on crop lossess in Los Angeles
County (the most severely polluted area) revealed that with crops such
as citrus and grapes, losses due to both visible and invisible injury
were between 30 and 50%. Furthermore, unpublished data on experiments
conducted by SRI in 1951 on leafy vegetables in the Dominguez area indi-
cated a 40$ reduction in growth in ambient versus filtered air. A 40%
loss factor was assigned to plants in an economic sensitivity class of
A in the heaviest oxidant-pollution area (Los Angeles County). The loss
factors assigned to the plants in the various economic sensitivity classes
in each pollution intensity class for oxidants are shown in Table 21.
In a single pollution intensity, the loss to a plant in a particular
economic-sensitive class is approximately 80% of that of a plant in the
next higher sensitivity class; thus, B is approximately 80% of A, C is
80% of B, etc. Further, the loss in a given sensitivity of a pollution
potential class is about 50% of that in the pollution potential class
above it and double that below it. Thus, the loss in Class 7 is about
half that of Class 8 and double that of Class 6. This is in agreement
with the values of the pollution potential indices of the various classes.
With these loss factors for oxidants, consideration is given to the
economic use of the part of the plant affected and to the occurrence of
hidden injury. One of the criticisms of past work has been that hidden
injury was not being considered.
Table 21
LOSS FACTORS TO BE APPLIED TO CROPS
IN DIFFERENT ECONOMIC EFFECTS CLASSES
UNDER DIFFERENT OXIDANT POLLUTION POTENTIALS
Pollution Economic Effects Class
Potential Class
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Sulfur dioxide injury to vegetation is generally related to emissions
from large industrial operations from a single source rather than from
general emissions over a large area as is true of oxidants. Therefore,
63
A
.400
.200
.100
.050
.025
.013
.007
.004
.000
B
.320
.160
.080
.040
.020
.010
.005
.003
.000
C
.250
.125
.068
.032
.016
.008
.004
.002
.000
D
.200
.100
.050
.025
.013
.006
.003
.001
.000
E
.160
.080
.040
.020
.010
.005
.002
.000
.000
-------
the number and size of such emitters is of much greater importance than
climatic factors in determining where and to what extent plant-damaging
concentrations of sulfur dioxide will occur. Therefore, in determining
the location and intensity of sulfur dioxide pollution, it was necessary
to consider the relative sulfur dioxide emissions in the counties in the
87 SMSAs, as shown in Table 8, and the number of significant individual
stationary sources, such as iron and steel plants, oil refineries, power
plants, and copper, lead and zinc smelters.
On the basis of the above source inventory, six classes of sulfur
dioxide pollution intensity were developed, as follows:
Class 5-27 counties in which copper, lead or zinc smelters
are located or where equivalent emissions of sulfur
dioxide from complexes of power plants occur.
Class 4-9 counties in which seven or more industrial sources
are located.
Class 3-22 counties with four to six sources of sulfur
dioxide.
Class 2-86 counties with two to three sources of sulfur
dioxide.
Class 1 - 266 counties with one source of sulfur dioxide and
those counties included in the upper half of the
SMSAs rated as to sulfur dioxide.
Class 0 - 2,668 counties with no significant sources of sulfur
dioxide.
To assist in evaluating plant-damaging pollution potential of sulfur
dioxide emissions from power plants and other sources, consideration was
given to the type of fuel consumed. Thus, if coal and fuel oil were the
main fuels consumed, the plants were considered to be potential sources
of plant-damaging sulfur dioxide. If the plants burned natural gas, they
were not considered as a source of sulfur dioxide. This eliminated some
of the counties shown in the report dated November 1971 as having plant-
damaging sulfur dioxide pollution potential; in that report, the plants
were included regardless of the nature of the power. Thus, huge power
plant complexes in some areas of Texas and California were not considered
as potential plant-damaging sulfur dioxide sources.
As was done for oxidants, loss factors were estimated for vegetation
in various economic sensitivity classes and growing in areas subjected to
different intensities of plant-damaging sulfur dioxide pollution. The
percentage losses applied to the different categories are shown in Table 22,
As indicated earlier, the main sources of plant-damaging fluorides are
large ceramic plants, phosphorous and phosphate plants, aluminum reduction
plants, and steel plants in the western part of the United States. On
this basis, the counties were classified as follows for fluoride pollution:
64
-------
Table 22
LOSS FACTORS TO BE APPLIED TO CROPS AND ORNAMENTALS IN
DIFFERENT ECONOMIC EFFECTS CLASSES UNDER DIFFERENT
INTENSITIES OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND FLUORIDE POLLUTION
Pollution Economic Effects Class
Intensity Class A B C D_
Sulfur Dioxide
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fluorides
3 .100 .060 .030 .015* .000
2 .030 .020 .010 .005* .000
1 .010 .007 .003 .000 .000
0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.120
.040
.015
.005
.002
.000
.064
.022
.007
.002
.000
.000
.025
.008
.003
.000
.000
.000
.012
.004
.000
.000
.000
.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
•Si-
For forests, fluorides in Class D have been assigned
a loss factor of .0075 and .0025 in pollution intensity
Classes 2 and 3.
Class 3-29 counties with aluminum reduction plants or steel
plants, if west of the Rocky Mountains.
Class 2-13 counties with two phosphate or phosphorous plants.
Class 1-45 counties with a single phosphorous or phosphate
plant or a large ceramic plant.
Class 0 - 2,991 counties with no significant fluoride pollution
sources .
The loss rate factors to be applied to vegetation in different eco-
nomic sensitivity classes and growing under different plant-damaging fluo-
ride potentials are shown in the lower portion of Table 22.
65
-------
The loss rate factors developed in this report for oxidants, sulfur
dioxide and fluorides are somewhat different from those in the report
dated November 1971. In general, the change in effect on vegetation is
somewhat more in agreement with changes in plant-damaging pollution po-
tential of the different classes as calculated from hydrocarbon-oxides
of nitrogen emissions, or from large single source emitters. These
changes would tend to increase estimated oxidant losses in the heavier
polluted counties (California) and decrease them in the lesser polluted
ones. The change in sulfur dioxide and fluoride loss factors would be to
increase the estimated losses at the lower pollution levels without af-
fecting the estimates from the higher polluted counties.
In the report issued in 1971, hidden injury effects of oxidants were
not completely accounted for except for citrus and grapes. In the loss
factors used in this report, hidden injury is taken into account for Los
Angeles Basin crops, and it is assumed that reduction in hidden injury
follows that of visible injury in being reduced in proportion to the re-
duction in pollution intensity.
Dollar Loss
The estimates of losses in each county were assessed based on crop
values and estimates of pollution potential for the counties totaled into
state values. However, because in many instances only one significant
source was present in an area and to preserve some anonymity, the data
were integrated into crop types and the regions of the United States indi-
cated in Figure 1.
The value of the crops grown in the counties where plant-damaging
pollution was likely to occur and the estimated dollar losses to the main
types of crops ascribable to the different pollutants are shown in Table
23 for the different regions. The last section of the table sums the
values for the different regions into the values for the entire country,
as calculated from the 1969 and the 1964 agricultural production data.
The estimated losses to crops total about £87.5 million for the United
States, of which £77.3 million is due to oxidants, £5.0 million to sulfur
dioxide, and £5.2 million to fluorides. The losses estimated for field
crops are greater than for any other crops, accounting for about one-third
of the crop loss; nursery and forest (Christmas trees, woodlots, etc.)
is second, accounting for about 30^ of the total crop loss.
The estimated losses to ornamentals totaled about $47.1 million, of
which £42.8 million is due to oxidants, £2.7 million to sulfur dioxide,
and £1.7 million to fluorides. The loss to ornamentals includes losses
due to lumbering, paper, pulp and other forestry operations, but not
losses due to Christmas trees, which are included as crops.
For the country as a whole, losses due to oxidants account for about
sulfur dioxide 5.7^, and fluorides about 5.3% of the total.
66
-------
Table 23
ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL VALUE OF CROPS AND ORNAMENTALS GROWN IN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND ESTIMATED LOSSES DUE TO AIR POLLUTION
Region and Plants
REGION I
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
REGION II
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
Value in
Polluted
Areas
(#000)
# 56,966.9
1.7
20,283.5
22,297.8
43,257.5
142,807.4
5,728.7
4,392.2
11,276.3
40,959.5
2,163.9
87.6
64,608.2
201,415.6
#147,159.8
62.9
66,411.0
142
Losses (#000) Due to
.,,336.8
62,223.0
418,193.5
4,562."
,0
4,170.3
33,003.5
72,931.4
13,110.6
202.2
127,980.0
Oxidants
#
^
#
1,
1,
3,
1,
2,
413.3
.0
39.9
99.9
300.1
853.2
19.6
27.3
66.3
232.8
15.7
.5
362.2
215.4
600.3
.3
321.3
502.0
343.8
767.7
36.7
102.5
343.0
759.1
380.2
2.6
264.1
Sulfur
Dioxide
# 30.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.5
#120.4
0.0
0.0
7.8
14.7
142.9
.9
4.3
8.0
125.3
28.8
0.0
167.3
Fluorides
# 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
#544.1
0.0
0.0
.4
14.0
558.5
2.9
.9
30.5
9.2
1.3
.1
44.9
Total
# 443.8
.0
39.9
99.9
300.1
883.7
19.6
27.3
66.3
232.8
15.7
.5
362.2
1,245.9
#1,264.8
.3
321.3
1,510.2
1,372.5
4,469.1
40.5
107.7
381.5
1,893.6
410.3
2.7
2,836.3
546,173.5 6,391.8 310.2
603.4
7,305.4
67
-------
Table 23 (Continued)
Region and Plants
REGION III
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
REGION IV
Citrus
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
Value in
Polluted
Areas
(gooo)
g 525,237.7
132.1
35,195.7
38,060.0
52,862.8
651,488.3
20,495.3
4,475.6
22,165.6
118,020.1
8,911.3
301.5
174,369.4
825,857.7
g 145,913.5
700,196.3
70.2
8,954.3
188,259.0
96,837.2
1,140,230.5
121,640.0
6,857.6
9,209.9
104,999.8
9,157.4
1,371.8
253,236.5
1,393,467.0
Losses (gOOO) Due to
Oxidants
£3,154.0
1.5
199.6
290.1
853.7
4,498.9
184.9
77.0
553.2
2,448.8
203.8
5.2
3,472.9
7,971.8
g 235.9
1,208.9
.4
18.6
410.9
322.9
2,197.6
510.1
55.7
36.8
746.0
76.5
6.9
1,432.0
3,629.6
Sulfur
Dioxide
g378. 9
.1
5.4
4.0
93.7
482.1
25.5
11.4
16.4
254.5
23.7
.2
331.7
813.8
& 0.0
51.0
0.0
.1
0.0
1.2
52.3
14.6
.7
1.7
16.0
1.0
.3
34.3
86.6
Fluorides
g 89.5
0.0
.2
.6
1.6
91.9
3.8
.2
.6
5.3
.3
0.0
10.2
102.1
g276.1
429.0
0.0
5.8
3.8
71.8
786.5
41.6
2.6
5.3
59.5
2.5
.9
112.4
898.9
Total
g3,622.4
1.6
205.2
294.7
949.0
5,072.9
214.2
88.6
570.2
2,708.6
227.8
5.4
3,814.8
8,887.7
g 512.0
1,688.9
.4
24.5
414.7
395.9
3,036.4
566.3
59.0
43.8
821.5
80.0
8.1
1,578.7
4,615.1
68
-------
Table 23 (Continued)
Region and Plants
REGION V
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Value in
Polluted
Areas
(£000)
£1,808,106.1
1,639.1
29,031.4
113,136.3
104,517.5
2,056,430.4
18,606.6
11,158.0
30,482.4
144,442.5
13,651.5
599.8
218,940.8
Losses (£000) Due to
Oxidants
£ 7,651.8
8.1
180.6
858.5
3,395.6
12,094.6
157.1
290.0
376.9
2,761.3
470.6
5.6
4,061.5
Sulfur
Dioxide
£ 509.3
0.0
1.9
9.4
125.3
645.9
9.6
17.7
16.6
142.8
37.8
.2
224.7
Fluorides
£176.8
0.0
.4
6.5
36.7
220.4
1.2
.9
5.0
10.4
.5
0.0
18.0
Total
£ 8,337.9
8.1
182.9
874.4
3,557.6
12,960.9
167.9
308.6
398.5
2,914.5
508.9
5.8
4,304.2
Total All Plants
REGION VI
Citrus
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
2,275,371.2 16,156.1
870.6
238.4
17,265.1
g 9.7
965,526.8
537.8
77,474.4
56,816.7
19,232.9
1,119,598.3
29,546.1
23,047.5
3,543.6
89,449.8
11,474.6
3,032.8
160,094.4
£ .0
793.2
.7
87.8
51.9
51.9
985.5
65.4
72.9
9.4
281.9
46 .4
2.9
478.9
0.0
786.8
1.4
7.9
4.8
9.0
809.9
26.2
41.5
7.1
137.9
18.9
7.0
238.6
£ 0.0
463.2
0.0
1.3
.2
4.7
469.4
15.6
9.4
1 .8
27.1
6.7
.6
61.2
£ .0
2,043.2
2.1
97.0
56.9
65.6
2,264.8
107.2
123.8
18.3
446.9
72.0
10.5
778.7
1,279,692.7
1,464.4 1,048.5 530.6
3,043.5
69
-------
Table 23 (Continued)
Regions and Plants
REGION VII
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Value in
Polluted
Areas
(gooo)
#537,, 000. 8
358.3
1,417.5
2,858.9
12,249.6
553,885.1
1,229.7
2,420.8
1,462.1
24,668.3
2,523.7
195.1
32,499.7
Losses (gOOO) Due to
Ox id ants
g 664.1
1.8
4.5
13.4
97.8
781.6
6.4
13.8
8.8
177.8
13.5
1.0
221.3
Sulfur
Dioxide
g 162.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
172.7
.2
.7
.1
4.2
0.0
0.0
5.2
Fluorides
g 36.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
38.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
g 863.3
1.8
4.5
13.4
109.9
992.9
6.6
14.5
8.9
182.0
13.5
1.0
226.5
Total All Plants
REGION VIII
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
586,384.8
1,002.9
177.9
38.6
1,219.4
£327,671.8
31.0
2,272.3
7,892.9
15,226.2
353,094.2
5,129.5
3,511.2
1,188.8
10,447.1
1,590.8
6,653.3
28,520.7
g 237.9
.0
3.4
19.0
73.9
334.2
4.0
17.8
1.0
35.1
7.6
9.4
74.9
g 913.6
0.0
1.0
1.3
28.4
944.3
45.1
33.5
2.4
53.8
16.8
22.9
174.5
g 396.9
0.0
4.7
3.9
12.1
417.6
9.8
7.5
10.4
19.3
4.1
9.9
61.0
gl,548.4
.0
9.1
24.2
114.4
1,696.1
58.9
58.8
13.8
108.2
28.5
42.2
310.4
381,614.9
409.1
1,118.8
478.6
2,006.5
70
-------
Table 23 (Continued)
Region and Plants
REGION IX
Citrus
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
REGION X
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and Forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
Value in
Polluted
Areas
(gooo)
g 162,650.3
722,905.1
45,610.7
460,158.1
633,731.0
155,077.2
2,180,132.4
419,062.2
22,349.6
38,118.3
39,309.6
2,549.2
27,436.6
548,825.5
2,728,957.9
g 113,354.6
1,291.2
57,133.4
45,918.3
30,541.7
248,239.2
234,567.9
1,426.2
2,526.4
15,356.5
589.8
4,607.7
259,074.5
Losses (gOOO) Due to
Oxidants
g 6,224.2
5,926.1
422.5
8,662.4
9,983.0
18,854.5
50,072.7
19,008.7
2,595.9
2,279.0
3,206.7
110.6
625.2
27,826.1
77,898.8
g 393.0
21.6
359.1
281.7
650.5
1,705.9
1,526.8
22.5
21.4
191.3
5.0
34.2
1,801.2
Sulfur
Dioxide
g .3
1,442.0
1.6
1.4
220 .0
.4
1,665.7
993.1
33.5
40.4
131.1
16.7
142.3
1,357.1
3,022.8
g 19.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
.8
20.4
73.0
.4
.6
1.3
1.9
12.5
89.7
Fluorides
g 0.0
181.8
0.0
301.4
2.1
50.7
536.0
536.0
gl,478.4
0.0
181.0
105.4
334.0
2,098.8
1,169.6
13.0
26.2
162.8
5.5
24.2
1,401.3
Total
g 6,224.5
7,549.9
424.1
8,965.2
10,205.1
18,905.6
52,274.4
20,001.8
2,629.4
2,319.4
3,337.8
127.3
767.5
81,457.6
g 1,891.0
21.6
540.1
387.1
985.3
3,825.1
2,769.4
35.9
48.2
355.4
12.4
70.9
3,292.2
507,313.7
3,507.1
110.1 3,500.1
7,117.3
71
-------
Table 23 (Concluded)
Region and Plants
U.S. TOTALS
Citrus
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Crop Total
Forestry
Highways
Parks
Residential
Urban uses
Rural uses
Ornamentals
Total All Plants
TOTAL U.S. 1964
Field crops
Seed crops
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest
Citrus
Crop Total
Ornamentals
Total All Plants g 6,063,000
Value in
Polluted
Areas
(gooo)
g 308,573.5
5,904,125.9
49,735.0
758,331.6
1,251,307.7
592,025.6
8,864,099.3
860,568.0
83,809.0
152,976.9
660,584.6
65,722.8
44,488.4
1,868,149.7
Losses (gOOO) Due to
Oxidants
g 6,460.1
21,042.6
456.9
9,877.2
13,510.4
25,944.7
77,291.9
21,519.7
3,275.4
3,695.8
11,840.8
1,329.9
693.5
42,355.1
Sulfur
Dioxide
g .3
4,414.8
3.1
17.7
247.3
283.5
4,966.7
1,188.2
143.7
93.3
866.9
145.6
185.4
2,623.1
Fluorides
g 276.1
3,796.2
0.0
494.8
122.9
527.7
5,217.7
1,244.5
34.5
79.8
293.6
20.9
35.7
1,709.0
Total
g 6,736.5
29,253.6
460.0
10,389.7
13,880.6
26,755.9
87,476.3
23,952.4
3,453.6
3,868.9
13,001.3
1,496.4
914.6
46,687.2
10,732,249.0 119,647.0
7,589.8
6,926.7
134,163.5
3,357,000
16,000
334,000
170,000
425,000
348,000
4,650,000
1,413,000
g 17,984
200
10,541
3,341
18,494
27,429
77,989
43,407
g3,044
10
17
5
134
5
3,215
2,979
g2,970
18
265
2
566
388
4,209
127
g 24,008
228
10,822
3,348
19,194
27,823
85,413
46,513
g!21,396
£6,194
g4,336
g!31,926
72
-------
The areas of greatest loss are in Region IX (California, Arizona,
Nevada, and Hawaii) and Region V (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota) . These two regions account for about 85% of
the crop loss and over 60% of the ornamental loss. This is related to
the fact that the pollution is more intense or more widespread in these
regions, coupled with the fact that the values of the crops grown in the
polluted areas are also among the highest. The values of the crops in
the polluted areas of Regions V and IX make up 50% of the approximately
glO billion value of crops grown in polluted counties in the United States.
The lowest losses to vegetation occur in New England the the northern
Great Plains states.
Table 24 shows the estimated losses to ornamentals and crops in states
where such losses exceeded a million dollars, the estimated value of the
ornamentals and crops in those states, and the percentage of this value
estimated to be lost as a result of the pollutants.
This table emphasizes that losses due to pollutants in California
account for almost 60% of the estimated losses in the United States. This
is almost nine times the amount estimated for the next highest state. Of
these losses in California, about two-thirds of them occur in the counties
comprising the Los Angeles Basin. In essence, then, about one-third of the
losses in vegetation due to major air pollutants in the United States are
ascribed to four counties in California.
Another approach to evaluation of the data is to consider the esti-
mated losses as a percentage of the value of the crops and ornamentals.
This can be done in two ways: (l) as a percentage of the value in the
polluted counties, and (2) as a percentage of the value in both polluted
and unpolluted areas. Such percentages for total crops and total orna-
mentals are given in Table 25 for the various regions. The percentages
were obtained by simply dividing the loss estimate by the crop value in
the respective areas. In reviewing the table, it is immediately apparent
that estimated losses to ornamentals represent a higher proportion of the
total value than do the estimated losses to crops. This, of course, is
because most of the ornamental plantings are in heavily populated counties
close to sources of pollution, whereas crops are generally grown away from
such sources. Furthermore, the percentage losses for ornamentals are not
much higher in polluted areas than in the entire region, i.e., polluted
plus nonpolluted areas. Again, this indicates that most of the ornamental
plantings are in the polluted counties.
It is of interest to compare results of the estimates based on the
1964 agricultural statistics, as given in the report dated November 1971,
with the results on the agricultural statistics of 1969. There are two
items of interest; the value of the vegetation in the polluted areas and
the estimated losses. For convenience of comparison, these data have been
consolidated in Table 26.
73
-------
Table 24
STATES WITH LOSSES DUE TO POLLUTION
OF OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS
1969
California
Washington
Illinois
New York
Oregon
Ohio
Arizona
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Michigan
New Jersey
Florida
Texas
Idaho
Indiana
Alabama
Tennessee
Total 17
States
Loss from
Pollution
(gooo)
g 77,441.8
8,894.1
7,531.1
5,133.3
3,483.1
3,278.0
3,219.5
2,937.9
2,796.8
2,678.2
2,150.0
1,886.5
1,712.5
1,396.5
1,254.8
1,216.6
1,147.0
g 128.157.7
Value of All
Vegetation
(gOOO)
g 693,025.7
489,952.2
83,745.9
146,558.9
495,402.7
51,280.6
139,195.9
108,670.9
39,785.6
76,808.7
26,249.1
59,724.6
156,748.4
146,562.3
64,231.0
128,052.2
79,350.4
g 2.985,345.1
Loss as Percent
of Total Value
(fo)
11.2
1.8
9.0
3.5
0.7
6.4
2.3
2.7
7.0
3.5
8.2
3.2
1.1
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.4
4.3
Total for
United States
g 138,674.1 g 23,931,398.5
0.6
Sources: USDA; SRI.
74
-------
Table 25
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CROP AND ORNAMENTAL VALUES
LOST IN POLLUTION-THREATSNED COUNTIES
AND IN THE REGIONS AS A WHOLE
Region and Percentage Value Lost
Vegetation Type Polluted Counties Entire Region
Region I
Crops 0.61 0.34
Ornamentals 0.56 0.44
Region II
Crops 1.08 1.02
Ornamentals 2.19 1.34
Region III
Crops 0.78 0.75
Ornamentals 2.19 1.32
Region IV
Crops 0.27 0.08
Ornamental 0.62 0.19
Region V
Crops 0.63 0.34
Ornamentals 1.91 1.18
Region VI
Crops 0.20 0.09
Ornamentals 0.50 0.22
Region VII
Crops 0.18 0.04
Ornamentals 0.69 0.19
Region VIII
Crops 0.48 0.15
Ornamentals 1.09 0.20
Region IX
Crops 2.38 1.61
Ornamentals 5.32 3.01
Region X
Crops 1.54 0.33
Ornamentals 1.27 0.29
U.S. 1969
Crops 0.99 0.44
Ornamentals 2.52 1.06
U.S. 1964
Crops 1.84 0.46
Ornamentals 3.29 2.37
75
-------
CD
CM
CD
r— 1
J2
-t
EH CO
CO W
W H
<
Z CO
^
Q
w w
< EH
W M
OS Z
<: P
Q fa
W OS
EH rH
J W
0
OH fa
ffi
1— 1
OS
Z O
O fa
1— 1
EH
EH
H
CJ
fa
O
pr"]
^
J
^3
^
0
-P
0
3
Q
x
tn
^
01
, — i
rH
O
•a
n
O
T-H
c
•rH
V ^
tn
0
en
en
O
O5 Tf
CD in
O5 CM
rH *N
rH ^1
01 (M
4-J
0
EH
•5F 00
CO O5
O5 O5
1-1 co"
CM
05 CD
CD O5
tn 01 i>
CD rH -N
•a co
•H
tl
O
3 ^ Q
rH CD t~-
fa O5 &
rH -^
CM
05 m
CD T-H
O5 ^P
CD rH -N
rH TJ ^P
3 -H
m ^
i— I O
2 -H ^ ^
CO Q CD ^
a> o
T— I "N
co
O5 CO
CD -g*
O5 O
tn T-H ^
C CM
CB
•a
•H
r^ ^JH ^
O CD 00
O5 O5
T-H •*»
rH
^_^
wo; ^
PH CD O
CQ 0^ C^
nH rH "^
I-H m
CD 0
3 -a
i-H
0! to
> a t~
rH *J< in
CD CO
C 05
•H rH CO
to
a
o
B H
0 0
•H
-P CD T3
C8 ft rH
-p >, en o>
CD EH ft -H
fcJD 0 fa
CD r<
> CJ
o
CD
Tf
00
CM
CM
o
00
TH
CO
o
rH
l>
in
CD
CM
CM
oo
f^
CM
CO
£•>»
05
oo
00
CO
o
m
o
CD
rfl
CO
O5
CM
rf
t>
CM
O5
o
CO
00
^1*
CO
tn
3
^
-p
•H
0
o
CO
o
T-H
CO
CM
oo
o
T-H
m
Oi
•*
LO
CO
CM
oo
rH
t>
T-H
t^
t>
00
O5
rH
^JH
m
o
rH
oo
m
1>
THH
CO
CO
tn
-p
3
c
TJ
fi
ca
tn
•P
•H
3
^H
fa
rH
00
00
CO
rH
00
^Jl
CO
CO
CO
CM
rH
CM
fN,
tHH
CM
m
o
rH
m
CO
rH
rH
^J1
CO
CO
rH
m
CM
rH
O
[>•
T-H
to
0
i— 1
o
ca
-P
0
b£)
0
$>
CO
m
i>
CD
CM
rJH
O5
rH
05
T-H
oo
CM
in
CD
CD
m
^
00
CM
^
CO
rH
in
Tf
05
in
CM
^
O5
•*
00
rH
CM
O5
m
m
CM
•P
tn
0
rH
o
•o
s
ca
^i
^i
0
to
!H
3
CD
[*.
•*
o
00
CO
iH
Tf
in
00
oo
rH
CM
m
O5
O
csi
^
Tj<
rj>.
co
^
^
m
rH
C3
CO
CM
O5
CM
O
t"~
05
oo
05
t>
^
^
CO
00
00
o
m
CO
•N
•*
CO
ft
0
O
rH
ca
-p
o
H
t>
oo
CO
CD
*3*
CO
rH
m
CD*"
*HH
O5
O
o
rH
[^
CM
rH
CO
CM
CD
*s
CM
O5
t>
O5
CM
m
m
CO
CM
•sf
[>•
O
co"
^
oo
CD
oo
rH
CO
rH
^
•N
rH
to
r-H
ca
-P
C
0
£
ca
c
J_(
O
^
CD
i-H
TjT
CO
rH
CO
CM
O5
rH
CO
rH
f^
CM
O5
co"
CO
CO
co
*\
^F
O
Ol
IO
•X
(S.
^
05
rH
CO
t>«
^
CD
O)
rH
rH
CO
05
CO
rH
CM
rH
CM
CO
t-
cT
rH
CO
CO
o
CD
t-H
ca
-p
o
EH
76
-------
In general, the various types of vegetation in the polluted areas
increased in value between 1964 and 1969 (citrus decreased about 10 per-
cent). Except for vegetables and forestry, however, the changes seemed
compatible with normal five-year differences. The value of vegetables
increased over 7-fold and of forestry over 6-fold between 1964 and 1969.
This increase in value of vegetables seems related to incomplete infor-
mation available in the 1964 Census of Agriculture. The difference in
forestry values is related to improved methods of estimation. The Census
of Agriculture does not include commercial forests and the products there-
from in its estimates. It does include products from woodlots and from
Christmas tree farms, and these are included under Nursery and Forest in
the Crop category in the various tables. The value of commercial and
government forests from lumber, plywood and pulp (included under the
heading Ornamentals) in polluted counties was estimated to be £132 million
in 1964, but this increased to £861 million in 1969. The estimates showed
a reduction in maintenance and replacement values of ornamentals for parks
and urban uses between the two years.
In spite of the increase in value of vegetation, the loss ascribed
to oxidants for crops and ornamentals totaled about the same in 1969 as
in 1964. This is related to the change in loss factors applied. In the
1964 calculations, the loss factor applied to citrus in the next to the
lowest polluted area was one-fifth of that applied in the most polluted
area, whereas for 1969, this loss factor was about l/64th of that ap-
plied in the heaviest polluted area. Thus, in the most severely polluted
areas, the loss estimates varied with economic value estimates, but in
the less polluted areas, the loss factors were reduced enough to about
equalize increased economic values. The greatest change in loss estimates
was for citrus—estimates in 1969 were only about one-fourth of what they
were in 1964. This probably reflects the reduction in citrus production
in the Los Angeles Basin and increase in production in much less polluted
counties as Kern and Fresno in California, as well as the lower loss fac-
tors applied to citrus grown in other areas.
The increase in estimated losses to crops by sulfur dioxide generally
reflects the change in value. The losses to ornamentals were estimated
to be lower in 1969 than in 1964. This is related to the change in esti-
mate of values of ornamentals in counties where large single sources of
pollutants existed, especially in urban uses and residences.
The increase in estimated losses due to fluorides between the two
years is related to the increase in dollar value of forests in areas
where fluoride pollution is heavy, i.e., Montana, Idaho, Washington and
Oregon. Practically all of the increase (from £127,000 to gl,709,000) in
loss to ornamentals is related to this increase in forestry values.
77
-------
DISCUSSION
The values for economic losses of plants due to air pollutants are
based on fuel consumption data for 1967 and agricultural crop value data
for 1969^ the most recent years for which the complete or detailed data
needed were available. However, a method of evaluating these data has
been developed and can be applied to new data on vegetation values and
losses due to pollutants on a county-by-county basis as they become avail-
able .
The method itself requires some additional discussion, although some
details have been considered in the section describing the methods. The
value estimates are for the counties in which the source is located. In
many instances, because of wind direction and topography, it is possible
for a source to be in one county and affect vegetation in the next county.
This possibility is, of course, recognized. It was believed that when
this occurred, the values calculated would be more or less equalized since
the source county would actually suffer no loss but a loss would be shown,
while no loss would be shown for the adjacent county. The agriculture and
types of plantings are not likely to change greatly across county lines.
There are some exceptions, of course, a few of which have been considered
here, but these exceptions may also tend to equalize each other. This
difficulty is greater with single large sources than with the general urban
sources since the SMSAs include several counties around large metropolitan
areas. The Chicago SMSA, for example, includes five counties whose total
area is about the same as that of Los Angeles County (some 4,000 square
miles), and there are areas in Los Angeles County relatively free of air
pollutants. Garrett County in Maryland is a possible example of such an
omission. In this instance, there was a court decision awarding substan-
tial damages to a Christmas tree grower who claimed damage as a result of
emissions from a single source in another county. Where such specific
examples are known, adjustments have been or can be made in the loss esti-
mates .
With establishment of the relative pollution level in various coun-
ties, it was then necessary to estimate the percentage of loss that would
occur to crops and ornamentals as a result of the various pollutants in
each county. The procedures followed in arriving at these loss factors were
briefly described under METHODS, but a more detailed discussion seems war-
ranted . There have been many publications dealing with effects of air
pollutants on vegetation, as indicated by various review articles:
Jacobson and Hill,15 Heggestad,16 Brandt and Heck,17 Thomas,18 Weinstein,19
Taylor.20 A relatively few of these have dealt with actual yield losses.
Most of them have been concerned with markings produced on leaves or with
effects on dry weights and other growth indicators during relatively long
or short growth periods. For this reason, rather heavy reliance has been
placed on the few published and, in some cases, private communications that
78
-------
give data on yields. A move is afoot among plant scientists to concen-
trate on studies which will demonstrate—in field experiments—reductions
in yield and quality that are occurring as the result of air pollutants.
Only in the last year or two has the technology been developed to the
point where such studies are possible without changing other growth con-
ditions of the plants.
In estimating yield losses under various conditions, each pollutant
has its own special considerations. Oxidants kill portions of the leaves;
where this occurs, quantitative estimates of reduction in photosynthetic
area may be extrapolated to indicate yield loss. Oxidants may also pro-
duce a general reduction in growth and yield that would not be apparent
unless comparisons with nearby unfumigated plants were possible. Further-
more, although reduction in growth may be a disadvantage or loss to a
commercial crop, it may be a gain in an ornamental planting because of
the lower maintenance requirement (i.e., less pruning or mowing).
Sulfur dioxide affects vegetation through killing of leaf tissue,
with a resultant reduction in photosynthetic area. The growth and yield
of vegetation does not appear to be affected by sulfur dioxide unless
leaf tissue is killed.18
Fluorides affect vegetation by marking the leaves. In some instances,
crop and ornamental losses have resulted from such markings. However, on
the whole, the greatest economic loss to vegetation as a result of fluo-
ride is the rendering of forage crops unfit for animal consumption.19
The loss factors ascribed to oxidants were based primarily on the
percentage loss estimates that were made for Los Angeles County during
1967, 1968, and 1970 by the California State Department of Agriculture.21"23
These were on-the-scene estimates by individuals trained in effects of
air pollutants. These percentages of loss estimates cover a wide range
of crops, including fruits and vegetables, field crops, cut flowers, and
nursery crops. They include more crops than for any other area. Since
Los Angeles Basin counties have the severest oxidant pollution potential,
loss factors in other areas were assigned based on their pollution class
relative to that in the Los Angeles area.
In recent years, studies such as those in California have also been
undertaken in other states: the studies of LaCasse24 in Pennsylvania,
Feliciano25 in New Jersey, and Naegele, Feder and Brandt26 in New England.
These studies, which were also considered, were important because they
related to different sections of the country with different climatic con-
ditions and different levels of pollutants. Other studies considered in-
cluded the following: Thompson and Taylor27 on citrus; Thompson28 on
grapes; Heggestad29 on potatoes in Maryland; Heck30 on soybeans in North
Carolina; Feder and Campbell31 on carnations in Massachusetts; Miller32
on forest trees in California; Dochinger et al.33 on forest trees in Ohio.
Class No. 1 represents the lowest pollution potential class for oxi-
dants. It is believed that at this pollution intensity, visible markings
79
-------
ascribable to oxidants probably would not develop but that some hidden
injury would still occur. Based on the results obtained by Taylor and
Eaton,34 it was believed that nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was important in
this connection. Recent studies, including those by Thompson et al.,35
indicate that no such effects are occurring in citrus in Los Angeles
County. Since Los Angeles County is one of the heaviest N02-polluted
counties, it is no longer tenable to ascribe such injury to N02 per se.
However., some growth reduction appears to be occurring at these levels,
so losses in such counties continued to be estimated.
The estimated loss factors due to sulfur dioxide were based pri-
marily on publications by Thomas,18 Brisley and co-workers,36'37 and
Guderian and Stratmann.38 They actually studied yields of crops under
various field fumigation conditions in the vicinity of smelters where
heaviest losses due to S02 occur, and developed formulae for calculating
yield reduction. The above work was carried out in the western United
States and Germany. Of equal importance is the work by Dreisinger39 and
Linzon40 in eastern Canada. The results reported by these investigators,
plus the data on relative sensitivity, have provided the basis for esti-
mating vegetation losses due to sulfur dioxide.
There have been very few studies on the effects of fluorides on
yield. The scarcity of such information is brought out by Weinstein.19
Some studies that were utilized in arriving at loss factors due to fluo-
rides are as follows: Brewer et al.41 and Thompson and Taylor27 on citrus;
Adams et al.42 on Ponderosa pine; Hitchcock et al.43'44 on sorghum and
gladiolus.
As indicated above, the greatest economic impact of fluorides on
vegetation is the rendering of forage crops unusable as a result of flu-
oride accumulation, even though the growth of the plant is not affected.
Loss factors due to this cause have been mostly derived from unpublished
reports of fluoride content of forage crops in the vicinity of aluminum,
steel, and phosphorus or phosphate plants, to which we had access.
As shown in Table 11 of the November 1971 report, little is known of
the resistance of some plants to various pollutants. Future experiments
may show that some of these crops are sensitive to one or more of the pol-
lutants although no loss is indicated in this report. However, most of
the major crops have been investigated or at least closely observed, and
it does not seem likely that large increases in dollar loss will later
be assessed because of sensitivities not now known. Also, it is possible
that some of the indicated dollar losses may be too large. In this re-
port, factors for loss to grapes and citrus ascribable to oxidants have
been based on experiments in which plants were grown essentially under
greenhouse conditions (the only method presently available), and these
growth conditions may have increased their sensitivity; thus, the losses
may not be as high under actual field conditions.
80
-------
Price Elasticity of Demand
In previous SRI reports on this project,45;46 no adjustment was
made in values of crops on any assumed basis of a shift in the effective
supply curve due to fewer supplies being available to the market as a
result of the pollution loss. The reduction in crop yield due to air
pollution would undoubtedly result in losses to the growers whose crops
are directly affected. On the other hand, the net effect to other growers
whose crops were not directly affected might be an increased income, de-
pending on the price elasticity of demand for the crops.
Price elasticity of demand is defined as the percentage change in
quantity demanded divided by the corresponding percentage change in price.
Because of the approximate nature of the data available and the studies
that have been done, we will be concerned only with the average elasticity
of demand over a range of quantities and prices. Demand is said to be
elastic when the above coefficient is greater than 1.00, and inelastic
when it is less than 1.00; the usual negative sign of the coefficient
merely indicates the inverse relationship between price and quantity de-
manded. At the farm level of prices, the coefficients are often inelastic,
which explains why consumers may bid up the price relatively more when
output is reduced, resulting in a larger gross income for a smaller crop
than for a larger crop.
The possibility of the above phenomenon is the reason for a closer
look at the major crops considered in this report. We may assume that
the crops considered in the counties selected for this report represent
a good cross-section of all crops in the nation. In Table 27, the crop
losses due to pollution can be compared with the estimated values of major
crops for the United States, while in Table 28, the relative value of each
crop group in the polluted areas can be compared. The crop groups in
Table 27 with lowest percentage of loss due to pollution (i.e., field crops,
vegetables and seed crops) might be eliminated from further consideration
because of their insignificance compared with their respective U.S. values.
In the same way, in Table 28, seed crops, citrus, nursery and forest prod-
ucts, and fruits and nuts might be eliminated because of their relatively
small contribution to the value of the total crops being considered. Thus,
through observation of the low relative importance of these crop groups
considered in various ways, we have eliminated the need to consider the
matter of price elasticity of demand in this context.
Furthermore, there are other reasons why the concept does not need
to heavily concern us in terms of this report. In Table 29, values of
individual crops are compared with values of crop groups, and 1969 pro-
duction and prices for crops are compared with values for the two adjacent
years. According to demand theory, and if demand remained fairly stable
for the commodity, then a shift in one direction in production should be
accompanied by a shift in the other direction in price. We are aware that
many exogenous factors can cause alterations in such a simple schema. In
16 out of 35 cases, the appropriate shift did not take place, so no con-
sideration of price elasticities would be useful in considering revaluation
of crop pollution losses.
81
-------
Table 27
VALUE OF CROPS IN POLLUTED AREAS COMPARED WITH NATIONAL ESTIMATES
1969
Values in Polluted Areas
(as jo of national values)
Crops
Major field crops
Major seed crops
Citrus
Major fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Estimated U.S. Value"
(^millions)
18,000
1,241
657
1,281
2,400
Total
Crop Values
33
4
47
59
52
Crop Losses Due
to Pollution
0.2
0.04
1.0
0.8
0.6
Major nursery and
forest products
Over 500
100
5.0
Derived from data in Agricultural Statistics. 1971.
Table 28
VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS BY GROUPS IN POLLUTED AREAS
1969
Crops
Field crops
Seed crops
Citrus
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Nursery and forest Products
Total
Value
(^billions)
5.9
0.05
0.3
0.8
1.3
0.6
8.9
% of Total
67
0.6
3
9
14
7
100
82
-------
Table 29
CHANGES IN U.S. PRODUCTION AND PRICE FOR SELECTED MAJOR CROPS
1968-1970
1969 U.S. Farm Value* Percentage Shift in 1969t
Field Crops
Wheat
Rice
Corn
Oats
Grain sorghum
Barley
Cotton
Sugar beets
Tobacco
Peanuts
Soybeans
Hay
Vegetables
Fresh vegetables
Proc . vegetables
Irish potatoes
Fruits and Nuts
Apples
Peaches
Pears
Grapes
Cherries
Plums and prunes
Apricots
Olives
Avocados
Cranberries
Strawberries
Almonds
Walnuts
Nursery
Flowers
Foliage plants
Forest products
^millions
1,800
400
5,300
600
800
400
1,100
400
1,300
300
2,600
3,000
18,000
1,200
500
700
2,400
274
184
72
283
66
62
34
22
26
30
110
74
44
1,281
199
29
328
556
fo of Total
10
2
30
3
4
2
6
2
7
2
14
18
100
50
21
29
100
21
14
6
22
5
5
3
2
2
2
9
6
3
100
36
5
59
100
Production
- 1
- 3
+ 8
+ 3
+ 4
- 9
- 6
+ 8
0
- 8
+ 1
+ 1
0
-12
+ 1
+16
+11
+23
+17
+19
-60
+43
+ 1
-25
+ 4
- 3
+16 (est.)
+10 (est.)
+ 2
+ 2 (est.)
0
Farm Price
- 5
- 2
- 4
- 4
+ 3
- 5
- 6
-11
+ 1
0
-11
0
+ 6
- 1
+ 1
-23
- 8
-25
-10
-22
+10
- 1
+ 5
+66
+12
+ 6
+ 2
-35
+ 1
- 9
+21
(est.)
(est.)
(est.)
83
-------
-------
Table 29 (Concluded)
1969 U.S. Farm Value* Percentage Shift in 1969t
^millions% of Total Production Farm Price
Citrus
Oranges
Grapefruit
Lemons and limes
Tangerines and
nectarines
461
91
73
32
657
70
14
11
100
+38
+10
- 2
+ 3
- 3
-29
+ 2
- 4
•K-
Source: Agricultural Statistics, 1971.
Compared with average for 1968 and 1970.
A list of typical (i.e., not extreme in either direction) calculated
price elasticities derived from various studies is given in Table 30.$
The values vary from moderately elastic to moderately inelastic, with
vegetables and fruits and nuts being more elastic, citrus intermediate,
and field crops more inelastic in general. With such a spread of elas-
ticities, it is obvious that the net result, if reliable elasticities had
been available for all crops considered, would probably not have been
markedly different for total crop values from those now used in the final
tables. There might have been some shift among the crop groups, however,
with csuch groups as vegetables showing a lower total value than now and
field crops showing a somewhat higher value than now. The decision was
made, however, that—given the limitations in price elasticity coefficients
available and the lack of agreement between researchers, as well as the
fact that much additional work would be involved—the theoretical values
for pollution impact would not be calculated. Furthermore, there can be
no doubt that more resources were used by individuals, companies, and
governments to produce and maintain vegetation than would have been used
if air pollution had been less.
Many other values are available from the same source for-some of
the crops, and it is difficult to select values that are "typical"
for the present study.
84
-------
Table 30
SAMPLE PRICE-ELASTICITY-OF-DEMAND COEFFICIENTS FOR SELECTED CROPS
Wheat
Tobacco
Feeds
Potatoes
Lemons
Peaches
Plums and prunes
-
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-1
.52
.33
.78
.83
.00
.27
.23
Source:
Corn
Peanuts
Fresh
vegetables
Oranges
Flowers
Grapes
Strawberries
"A Handbook on the Elasticity of Demand for Agricultural
Products in the United States," Western Extension Marketing
Committee Publication No. 4, July 1967.
(Only price elasticity is included in the table above, with
prices at the farm level.)
• .50
• .80
•1.71
• .86
.32
• .87
1.59
Cotton
Soybeans
Processed
vegetables
Grapefruit
Apples
Cherries
Walnuts
- .30
- .77
-5.71
- .48
-1.09
-1.35
-1.80
Farm Valuation
All prices used in calculating values were equivalents of the prices
paid to farmers at the farm for products sold. In 1969 in the United
States, the "farm food market basket" of products purchased by each family
annually was valued at retail at #1,173.54; the farm value of the same
commodities was valued at #477.79 (Ref. 10, 197l). Consequently, the in-
crease in retail value over farm prices amounted to 145.6 percent. Al-
though the discussion of crop values and pollution loss values in this
report is based on farm prices, the reader should not forget that the
value of crops at the consumer level could also have been used with equal
validity. For instance, if valued at the retail level, the total annual
value of vegetation in counties under threat of pollution would have been
#26.4 billion instead of #10.7 billion, and the total vegetation losses
due to pollution would have been #329.6 million instead of #134.2 million.
Comparison with Other Studies
It must be remembered that values given here for losses to vegetation
are estimates based on very broad generalizations and, as such, are subject
to error. It is expected that suggested changes and criticisms will be
received where disagreements do occur. However, the authors believe that
the values are realistic and not too far from the actual ones. There are
several reasons for believing this. Each year, the U.S. Department of
85
-------
Agriculture provides estimates of the losses to crops due to plant dis-
eases, insects, weeds, and other pests. At the start of this study, in-
dividuals responsible for such estimates were consulted in the hope that
we could obtain help in developing quick and accurate methods for esti-
mating crops losses due to air pollutants. Their experience has been that
reliable estimates can be obtained only by detailed on-the-spot observa-
tion on almost a field-by-field basis. It was found that such pollution
surveys had been conducted in New England and in the states of California,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It is interesting to compare those estimates
with the ones derived in this report. These values are for crops only.
Other Studies
Los Angeles County
1967 4,048,000
1968 2,536,000
1970 2,855,000
Entire State (California)
1969 44,500,000
1970 25,691,000
New Jersey
1971
Oxidants
Sulfur dioxide
Fluorides
Pennsylvania1
1970-1971
Oxidants
Sulfur dioxide
Fluorides
New England
1971-1972
Oxidants
Sulfur dioxide
Fluorides
Ethylene
1,464,000
23,700
23,700
437,200
41,000
0
1,045,000
76,500
0
14,000
SRI - 1969
9,995,000
49,278,000
1,436,100
900
15,500
1,372,600
109,100
0
763,200
0
0
Not estimated
Pennsylvania, in reporting losses, can report as loss only
the cost to the grower and not what the grower would receive
for them when sold. To allow for this, the loss values for
Pennsylvania cited above are twice those contained in the
original reports.
86
-------
SRI's estimates for oxidants are higher than individual surveys in two
out of the four state comparisons and higher for sulfur dioxide in one
out of three evaluations.
Comparisons are not available for ornamental losses. The New Eng-
land survey indicated little or no economic loss to ornamentals due to
pollutants; SRI's estimate was #362,300.
The comparisons that are available indicate that the model developed
in this study projects vegetation loss estimates that are in general
agreement with detailed surveys. Losses due to hidden injury are built
into the SRI model; and this may be the reason SRI 's estimates are some-
times significantly higher.
During the course of the study, areas all over the United States
subjected to the various types and intensities of pollution were visited
to obtain on-site information and to verify loss estimates. Generally,
the observations indicated no great differences between what was happening
and what was predicted. The one notable exception to this was the oc-
currence of what appeared to be air pollution damage to potatoes on the
eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia. It appeared to be related to
oxidant pollution, but could not be positively identified as due to ozone
or PAN. Pine trees and alfalfa in the same area showed no visible air
pollutant effects. Only certain varieties of potatoes were affected, but
as much as 75 percent crop loss was estimated for sensitive varieties in
1971. The loss in 1972 was not expected to be that high.
The general agreement between predicted and field survey-estimated
losses—the verification of predicted losses by random field observations
throughout the country—indicates that the economic loss estimates to
vegetation as reported here are probably not too far wrong.
It should be emphasized that the values estimated here are for years
in which there is an average number of pollution episodes of average in-
tensity. It is possible—even probable—that because of favorable or un-
favorable meteorological conditions, vegetation losses could be a great
deal less or a great deal more than estimated here on a year-to-year basis.
The loss estimated for Los Angeles County by the County Commissioner's
office in 1968 was only about 60
-------
However, there are certain factors that contribute in part to the
above difference. By the nature of man's activities, pollution-emitting
sources and crop production activities almost cannot occur in the same
location and both be economical—for reasons other than pollution.
Furthermore, pollution sources cannot fly around the country at their
whim as insects might, nor be carried as far by air currents and retain
their plant-damaging potential as spores and seeds can. But in the few
instances where crop production and heavy pollution do occur in the same
general vicinity, there can be very high crop losses. Thus, grape yields
are reduced by 40 to 50% in Los Angeles County, citrus by 30%, etc. In
areas close to a single sulfur dioxide source, one fumigation episode may
result in a loss of 50 to 60$ to one cutting of alfalfa.
Projections to 1971
When revision of the values was started, it was realized that values
would still apply to vegetation grown in 1969. However, since results on
1964 and 1969 crops and 1963 and 1967 emissions would have been evaluated
(i.e., two points on a curve), it was agreed to extrapolate and predict
vegetation losses for 1971. This was attempted, with some basic assump-
tions being used. The most important one was that loss to vegetation
varied with the change in emissions. Following this, emissions for 1971
in the various regions were estimated as follows. For hydrocarbons, the
emissions in the various SMSAs in each region between 1963 and 1967 were
compared. It was assumed that the same percentage increase would occur
between 1967 and 1971. It was known, however, that hydrocarbon emissions
from gasoline consumption by automobiles in 1971 were only about half what
they were in 1967 because of various controls installed in automobiles.
The method of calculating can best be explained by taking a specific ex-
ample. In 1963, the emissions of hydrocarbons from seven SMSAs in New
England were 367,500 tons per year; in 1967, the emissions from eight
SMSAs were 444,000 tons per year. Thus, in four years, there was an in-
crease of 21%. On this basis, the hydrocarbon emissions in 1971 would
be 536,000 tons (1.21 X 444,000) without emission controls. Calculations
indicated that 76% of the hydrocarbons emitted came from automobiles; this
means that 129,000 tons were from sources other than automobiles and 407,000
tons were from automobiles. However, as a result of controls on automo-
bile emissions by 1971, the hydrocarbon emissions from autos had been re-
duced by about 50%. Thus, 204,000 tons actually came from automobiles.
Adding 129,000 tons to the 204,000 tons would indicate total emissions of
333,000 tons of hydrocarbons per year in 1971 as contrasted with 444,000
tons in 1969—a reduction of 25%.
In regard to oxides of nitrogen, 194,000 tons were emitted by New
England SMSAs in 1963; in 1967, this was 216,000 tons, an increase of life.
This postulates NOX emissions (l.ll X 216,000) of 240,000 tons in 1971.
However, since no controls of NOX emissions are operating, this value is
unchanged. In calculating plant-damaging potential for oxidants, the
hydrocarbon emissions were given twice the weight of NOX emissions. This
means the relative oxidant potentials for 1969 and 1971 crops were
88
-------
/444 X 2 + 216\ „„ J /333 X 2 + 240N „„„
[ 1 367 and ( ) 302, respectively. Thus, the
"• O / » O /
plant-damaging potential of oxidants in New England in 1971 was 82% of
what it was in 1967, and these factors were applied to 1969 crop values.
Assuming that the crop values did not change between the two years (which,
of course, they did), it would mean that losses to vegetation in New Eng-
land in 1971 were only 82% of what they were in 1969.
A similar approach was used for calculating losses to vegetation due
to sulfur dioxide. It was assumed that the reduced sulfur content of
fuels and reduction in emissions from single sources as a result of con-
trol measures installed between 1967 and 1971 had reduced sulfur emissions
from fuel consumed by 33%. Thus, if fuel consumption between the two
years increased by 33%, the sulfur emissions would not have changed.
The value of cash receipts to farmers for crops, according to the
Statistical Abstract, increased from 19.5 billion dollars in 1969 to 21.8
billion dollars in 1971, a 12% increase. Thus, since the crop value
would increase by about 12%, the economic loss to crops would also increase
by that much. In Table 31, the change in plant-damaging potential for
oxidants and sulfur dioxide in the various regions between 1969 and 1971
is shown along with the estimated total vegetation loss in 1969 and what
it would be estimated to be in 1971 without and with the reduction in
emissions that have occurred in recent years for oxidants and sulfur di-
oxide. It is difficult to estimate changes that would occur in losses
caused by fluorides. This would require a plant-by-plant inventory to
predict changes over the years.
The estimates in Table 31 indicate that losses to vegetation as a re-
sult of oxidants and sulfur dioxide totaled about four million dollars
more in 1971 than in 1969. However, the data further show that if emis-
sions controls had not been put into effect during the last few years,
the estimate for 1971 would have been about 14 million dollars higher than
for 1969, indicating a saving of some 10 million dollars as a result of
the controls.
Systematic application of loss factors to crop and ornamental plant
values, based on pollution conditions, is a straightforward procedure for
estimating crop losses and eliminating hunches, etc. However, it does
prevent the consideration of interfering factors or special cases . The
weather fleck on tobacco in the Connecticut Valley is a case in point.
Higher losses occur there than would be expected based on pollution levels
and tobacco sensitivity, because of the special nature and requirement of
the cured crop. In this instance, since the authors were aware of this
and actually visited the area, special allowances were made. On the other
hand, climatic conditions before and after a severe pollution episode may
cause the plant damage to be much less or greater than would be expected.
Thus, the episode of heavy pollution that occurred in New Jersey, New
York and Pennsylvania at the end of July in 1970 had surprisingly little
effect on sensitive species.
89
-------
CD
rH
I
CD
CO
CD
cn
0
tn
tn
5
0
J
C
O
•H
-P
3
s
tn
•H
rH
t^
CD
rH
rH
l>
CD
rH
•— ^ CO CO CD
o co co co
O CO 00
o
CD
co
CD
rH
—^ m rH oo
O CO CD CM
O CO CD
o
*• — '
CD
CO
CD
rH
rH CD
00 !>
rH
CO
£^
CM
•V
rH
CD
£N.
CM
•s
rH
o
o
rH
CD
rH
rH
•x
rH
«
t>
CM
•\
CO
CD
rH CD
CD rH
. — ^
O
O
0
T»
0
^
C
0
-P CD [o
3 CO O
i-H CD |O
r-H rH "SI
O -—
tn CD
•H CO
CD
rH rH
t~
CD «H
rH O
CD |O
CD lo
CD O
rH [^
c
o
•H
bo
0
K
t^
co
rH
rs
rH
CO
oo
CO
^
rH
CM
oo
co
rH
CM
»s
rH
hH
CO CO r^ t^
O Tt< CM O
^ in t^- CM
•N »\ *s »\
l> 00 CO CD
rH
CO 00 M 00
CD 00 CO rH
t- O rH Tt*
•N r\ *\ »s
t^ CD ^ X
rH
m ^ o oo
CD CD CD 00
CD CM O CO
co t^ co in
00 CD CO rH
»\ »\ ^ »\
CD O CO CD
rH
1-4 M £> Z>
hH hH M
l_l
CD
CD
CD
»x
rH
CD
CD
CD
»s
rH
O
o
rH
*
co
^
*\
rH
hH
>
CO
^
rH
•s
rH
CO
^p
rH
r\
rH
O
o
rH
CO
o
0
•N
rH
hH
hH
J>
CO
CD
*y
CD
CO
^H
o
o
rH
CD
O
hH
hH
hH
J>
00
CO
O
oT
[•*.
o
oo
•N
00
00
CD
X
rH
O
CD
^
t>
^
X
hH
00
CD
CD
^
CO
oo
CD
CD
»\
CO
o
o
rH
^
O
m
»x
CO
X
oo
CM
CO
•>
CO
CM
rH
co
0
CD
r.
CO
co
rH
O
CD
CD
O
cT
CM
rH
t T
3
p^,
0
EH
90
-------
In evaluating ornamental plantings, no attempt has been made to
directly assign esthetic values. Instead, emphasis has been placed on
the cost of establishment and maintenance, which, therefore, assumes that
this is the minimum esthetic value placed on the ornamentals by the owner
or owners.
In some areas, the pollution has been severe enough to result in a
shift in cropping patterns. Thus, in the Los Angeles Basin, romaine
lettuce and endive are no longer grown because of the effects of smog.
These have been supplemented by red lettuce and other crops that were not
so sensitive.
At one time, the spinach crop was threatened, but varieties with suf-
ficient resistance were found that enabled spinach to be maintained as a
profitable crop. In the early 1950s, sugar beet acreage in Los Angeles
County was reduced to less than 50 acres because of smog, but now the
acreage is up to about 2,000 acres because of resistant varieties, changes
in cultural practices, and growing in less polluted areas of the country.
With annual crops, shifts in varieties can be made to adapt to the
smog conditions, but with perennial crops like citrus, such adaptations
cannot be made. This may explain why, over the years from 1950 through
1967, the yields of lemons in the Los Angeles Basin became less and less
than the yields from Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, whereas the
yields of sugar beets in the Los Angeles Basin increased at the same rate
from 1945 to 1969 as did the yields in non-air-polluted counties.
In some instances in years past, air pollutants have completely de-
nuded certain areas or rendered productive land nonproductive. In other
instances, air pollutants have made it impossible to grow certain crops
in a particular area. In some cases, air pollutants have reduced or even
eliminated the value of recreation areas through the killing of vegetation.
Such losses in land value have not been included.
Because of the various sources of error and other factors mentioned
above, it should be emphasized that the loss values presented in this re-
port are estimated and, as such, are subject to error and open to revision.
In fact, it is expected that suggested revisions will be forthcoming from
many sources.
91
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
During these studies, which were carried out over the past three
years, several deficiencies in information were encountered. Some data
that could greatly improve the accuracy of the methods described in this
report or provide a truer picture of how air pollution is affecting vege-
tation are discussed below.
Too much reliance on crop losses due to oxidants had to be placed
on California studies. It was felt that there is a very great need for
a nationwide network of studies in so-called open-top chambers. Such a
network is vital to learning what effects, especially nonvisible ones,
are actually occurring in all the principal agricultural areas of the
United States, with their widely differing climatic and edaphic factors,
rather than assuming, for instance, that if the pollution in Ohio is
of that in California or the Los Angeles Basin, the crop damage in Ohio
will be lOfo of that found in California.
When dealing with point sources, especially of sulfur dioxide, the
use of the entire county in which the point source is located as the basis
for damage to vegetation results in the development of low loss factors.
Thus, in Table 22, the highest loss factor applied to plants fumigated
with sulfur dioxide was 12$. Although this figure may be valid for the
county as a whole, in actual practice the loss to crops within a mile of
such point sources can be very large, 100<$ in some instances. A more
realistic picture might be obtained if the area affected could be more
closely delimited for these point sources, which would result in the loss
factors applied being correspondingly increased. The total dollar loss
estimate would not be altered, but the area under fumigation would be
smaller and a better idea of the local severity of the problem might be
obtained.
If surveys such as that contained in this report are planned in the
future, perhaps more visits to check on damage to vegetation should be
made in areas where a pollution episode has occurred. However, a single
visit to such an area is not sufficient. Plants have unusual powers of
recovery and also show unexpected sensitivities. Therefore, plans should
be made to follow up any visit made after a pollution episode. The best
time for such check visits, if only one can be made, would be when crops
were just about ready for harvesting.
With the conversion to low sulfur fuels, the erecting of tall stacks,
the installation of scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, and the
development of other means of removing pollutants, the pollution potentials
of point sources will be very difficult to estimate in a general fashion.
Individual inventories should be made of major sources of pollution that
are fixed in geographical location.
92
-------
REFERENCES
1. Schuck, E. A., A. P. Altshuller, D. S. Earth, and G. B. Morgan.
Relationship of hydrocarbons to oxidants in ambient atmospheres.
J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 20, 297-302 (1970).
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manu-
facturers . "Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed in Manufacturing
Industries," Publication MC63(l)-7, Washington, B.C., 1963.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, "Minerals Year
Book," Washington, D.C.
4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of
Business, "Retail Trade Area Statistics," Washington, D.C.
5. National Coal Association, "Steam-Electric Plant Factors," Wash-
inton, D.C.
6. Duprey, R. L. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,"
National Center for Air Pollution Control, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Durham, North Carolina, 1968.
7. Fuller, L. J. "Air Pollution in Los Angeles," Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District, January 1968.
8. Holzworth, G. C. "Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential for
Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States."
Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Publi-
cation AP-101, January 1972.
9. Visher, S. S. "Climatic Atlas of the United States." Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1954.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Agricultural Statistics," Wash-
ington, D.C.
11. U.S. Forest Service, "Forest Statistics for the United States, by
State and Region, 1970," Washington, D.C.
12. U.S. Forest Service, "National Forest Vacations," Washington, D.C.,
1960.
13. U.S. Forest Service, "Operation Outdoors, Part I, National Forest
Recreation," Washington, D.C., 1957.
93
-------
14. Dana, S. T. "Problem Analysis: Research in Forest Recreation."
U.S. Forest Service, Washington, B.C., 1957.
15. Jacobson, J. S. and A. C. Hill, Eds. Recognition of Air Pollution
Injury to Vegetation; A Pictorial Atlas. Information Report No. 1,
TR-7, Agricultural Committee, Air Pollution Control Association,
Pittsburgh, Pa., 1970.
16. Heggestad, H. E. Diseases of crops and ornamental plants incited
by air pollutants. Phytopathology 58, 1089-1097 (1968).
17. Brandt, C. S. and W. W. Heck. Effects of air pollutants on vege-
tation. In A. C. Stern, Ed., Air Pollution, Vol. I, Air Pollution
and Its EfTects. Academic Press, New York, 1968, pp 401-443.
18. Thomas, M. D. Effects of air pollutants on plants. In Air Pol-
lution, WHO Monograph Series No. 46, Geneva, 1961, 233^278.
19. Weinstein, L. H. Effects of fluorides on vegetation. In Biological
Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants, Fluorides. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1971, pp. 77-132.
20. Taylor, 0. C. Effects of oxidant air pollutants. J. Occupational
Med. 10, 53-60 (1968).
21. Heuer, H. H. Smog damage to crops and residential plantings, Los
Angeles County, 1967. Agricultural Services Division, County of
Los Angeles, August 1968.
22. Heuer, H. H. Smog damage to crops in Los Angeles County, 1968.
Agricultural Services Division, County of Los Angeles, June 1969.
23. Millican, A. A. A survey and assessment of air pollution damage
to California vegetation. California Department of Agriculture,
June 1971.
24. LaCasse, N. L. Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to Vegetation
in Pennsylvania, June 1969 to 1970 and June 1970 to 1971. Center
for Air Environment Studies, Pennsylvania State University, 1970
and 1971.
25. 1971 Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to Vegetation in
New Jersey. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural
and Environmental Science, Rutgers, The State University, 1972.
26. Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to Vegetation in New England -
July 1971-July 1972. University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
August 1972.
27. Thompson, C. R. and 0. C. Taylor. Effects of air pollutants on
growth, leaf drop and yield of citrus trees. Environ. Sci. Techno1.
3, 934-940 (1969).
94
-------
28. Thompson, C. R. Private communication.
29. Heggestad, H. E. Variation in responses of potato cultivars to
air pollutants. Phytopathology 60_, 1015 (1970).
30. Heck, W. W. Private communications.
31. Feder, W. A. and J. F. Campbell. Influence of low levels of ozone
on flowering of carnations. Phytopathology 58, 1038-1039 (1968).
32. Miller, P. R. Air pollution and the forests of California. Calif.
Air Environment !_, 1-3 (1969).
33. Dochinger, L. S., C. E. Seliskar, and F. Bender. Etiology of chlo-
rotic dwarf of eastern white pine. Phytopathology 55, 1055 (1965).
34. Taylor, 0. C. and F. M. Eaton. Suppression of plant growth by ni-
trogen dioxide. Plant Physiol. 41, 132-135 (1966).
35. Thompson, C. R., G. Kats, and E. H. Hensel. Effects of ambient
levels of NO2 on navel oranges. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5, 1017-1019
(1971). ~~
36. Brisley, H. R. and W. W. Jones. Sulfur dioxide fumigation of wheat
with special reference to its effect on yield. Plant Physiol. 25,
666-681 (1950).
37. Brisley, H. R., C. R. Davis, and J. A. Booth. Sulfur dioxide fumi-
gation of cotton with special reference to its effect on yield.
Agron. J. 51_, 77-80 (1959).
38. Guderian, R. and H. Stratmann. Field trials for the determination
of sulfur dioxide effects on vegetation. I. Review of experimental
techniques and experimental evaluation. Forschungsber. Landes
Nordrhein-Westfalen 118, 7-102 (1962).
39. Dreisinger, B. R. and P. C. McGovern. Monitoring atmospheric sulfur
dioxide and correlating its effects on crops and forests in the Sud-
bury area. In Proceedings of Conference on Impact of Air Pollution
on Vegetation, Toronto, Ontario, April 1970.
40. Linzon, S. N. Damage to eastern white pine by sulfur dioxide, semi-
mature tissue needle blight, and ozone. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc.
1£, 140-144 (1966).
41. Brewer, R. F., M. J. Garber, F. B. Guillemet, and F. H. Sutherland.
The effects of accumulated fluoride on yields and fruit quality of
Washington navel oranges. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 91, 150-156
(1967).
95
-------
42. Adams, D. F., D. J. Mayhew, R. M. Gnagy, E. P. Richey, R. K. Koppe,
and I. W. Allen. Atmospheric pollution in the ponderosa pine
blight area, Spokane County, Washington. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44, 1356-
1365 (1952).
43. Hitchcock, A. E., P. W. Zimmerman, and R. R. Coe. The effect of
fluorides on milo maize. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 22, 175-206
(1963).
44. Hitchcock, A. E., P. W. Zimmerman, and R. R. Coe. Results of ten
years (1951-1960) work on the effects of fluorides on gladiolus.
Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 21, 303-344 (1962).
45. Benedict, H. M., C. J. Miller, and R. E. Olson. "Economic Impact of
Air Pollutants on Plants in the United States," SRI Report, November
1971.
46. Miller, C. J. "Air Pollution and Vegetation Losses in the United
States," SRI Report, August 1972.
96
------- |